This assumes that injustice against God needs to be punished. Right? Why does injustice against God need to be punished?

Often, underneath that assumption is the belief that an unjust, unfair world would be intolerable. We can test that belief. The next time someone does something unjust toward you, run the experiment of forgiving them without counter balancing that with the thought that they need to also be punished. See if you can still function in the world. If you can, then God can also.

If both realities are possible, then it’s a matter of choosing which is preferable. And we can't determine which is better without spending time in each. Whichever reality yields better long term results is better not only for us, but for God as well.

So I could go around raping and pillaging , stealing, lying, hating god, punching puppies and cursing christians, and as long as I repent right before dying ( or even at the pearly gates, which is what you seem to be suggesting) then its all good, and I can get in?

And you are calling this system just?

Would there be a point to life if everyone who lived had the same outcome after death?

In my mind there wouldn't be a reason to be virtuous or a good person as there is no incentive.

To be forgiven one has to be sincerely sorry for what they have done so one is not able to merely go through the motions. But yes, you can be forgiven for all of those things you mention if it is genuine.

Also, if a person repents it's not because that person in themselves chose to do so. It's only by God's grace that a person is called to repent and that person has to choose to cooperate with that grace.

You can test that also. Accept that life after death isn’t fair and accept that life has no point. Then, see if being virtuous is preferable to not.

lol ok, so the people who get punished eternally, dont even choose it, as you claimed they did earlier.

You realise you are making no rational sense, right? They choose it, except they dont.

To add, I’m not making these suggestions as a replacement to your current practice, but rather as a continuation of the testing you talked about in your OP, which is a great way to grow as an individual.

I’m thinking of it similarly to how a method actor embodies different perspectives. Even if we feel in step with the truth, it’s still useful to detach and try different perspectives in an attempt to undermine our own positions. We can only benefit from this process since anything that is true is never lost.

How is there no rational sense in what he has said?

An individual is given the gift of grace and it’s up to them to accept it or not as with any other gift. That’s free will? It’s very simple.

FYI we humans only know what has been revealed to us through scripture and reason. Much of how judgement, heaven/hell, purgatory etc. works Is a mystery and will remain so until death.

He said
and then he said

One the one hand he is saying that people are in hell because they freely chose it. And then he said you cant freely choose it, you need gods grace first.

If god doesnt choose to offer his grace to you, then no amount of choosing on your part will get you out of hell

God makes the rules. No one chooses to go to hell, he chooses to send them. We might choose to do things against his word, but he makes the rules that you go to hell for that. He could have, for instance, said, "I love you even when you do wrong, no draconian punishment." Like you might do for your children. But this god of love likes torture and blood.

In the religion, that is. Which is to say in an ancient story book, which some just refuse to extricate their thinking from.

then your opinion is worthless

Where did you get this idea (I've heard it before in apologetics)? If the circumstances are the same, I don't think the sentencing options for battery change based on victim 'importance'. Sometimes there are different crimes that can apply (e.g. I think assaulting law enforcement could be a different and additional crime to assaulting a member of the public).


This is a somewhat common enough claim from certain Christians, a claim that frankly is hard to take seriously something that sounds like a kind of antisocial personality disorder. Turns out to not hold when people deconvert.

But, in very limited circumstances, I might encourage a Christian to maintain their beliefs even in the light of contradicting evidence.

e.g. https://youtu.be/DakEcY7Z5GU (David Wood, an actual Christian psychopath).


On top of the lack of free will you ended up describing...

Unless you're suggesting that God is harmed by any of these transgressions, God is not a victim. If repenting and forgiveness are important, shouldn't they be from the actual victim?

More broadly, it strikes me as odd that an all-powerful being hates sin if it doesn't cause them ANY harm and it is impossible for God to be a victim (there's also an apparent discrepancy if God cannot be in the presence of sin especially if they are also supposed to be omnipresent).

Contrast with, say, the reason Superman cannot be in the presence of Kryptonite: he is harmed by it.

Everyone receives enough "sufficient grace" to receive salvation.

Indeed!

Christ's death on the cross is SUFFICIENT for all, but only EFFICIENT for those who repent and believe.

No it isn't.

why would you sway a Christian away from their beliefs?


God is the victim. Look at the agony in the garden, scourging at the pillar, crowning of thorns, passion, and crucifixion of our Lord.

First, did you see me say that here?
Second, I can't sway anyone from their beliefs, they surely have to do that themselves. But sure, I can ask how they justify what they believe, same as anyone else, and whether they care about justification.


Interesting, does that mean you think god or God can be harmed?

sorry, misread what you said

yes, Jesus was fully god and fully man and was harmed. as lambs were slain in the Old Testament in reparation for sins, God sent Himself to be slain for the sins of everyone including yourself.

God is offended when we sin as it separates Him from us. As a mother yearns for their child to be near, God who is our creator yearns for us to be close to him.

To continue your metaphor, if we saw a mother who threw her child into a lake of fire for eternity because they did something she didnt like, we would call her a horrible evil mother.

has anyone seen the di vinci code? or angels and demons? this type of stuff makes me think about those movies lol

goodness is for its own sake, not for personal benefit or reward ... what happened to that tenet?

See he has to disappear here. It's his only winning move. It isn't love. It's brutally primitive religion of man.

I don't think there is any winning here.

assuming the child is young before the age of reason that would be cruel and Christianity does not teach this.

Catholic teaching is that sin occurs when we know better, have a choice, and go against Him.

Well I guess maybe in Christianity there is so much murdering going on, tens of millions murdered in the Bible, that a "near murder" is not considered traumatic either for the father or the child. You have a good point. Nice religion.

Christianity absolutely does teach this, its what happens to people who dont believe. You used a metaphor of a mother to try and imply that god cared like a mother, yearns to be near people like a mother does to their child, so I am pointing out that the mother ( god) punishing their child (us) ,at any age, by torturing them for eternity would be looked upon with horror.

Age of reason? Lol, in order to believe you have to suspend reason. In fact you are ASKED to just believe, have faith, without reason.