Sure I am fine with it. But Why must I praise God for it?

"If the uncreated God decided that eternal hell is the just punishment, why would you say it's unjust? Based on what?"
Why? What do you mean? If he decides so I can accept that there is not much to do about it. But that is or. Based on our language it would be subjective to call it just/unjust. Just=What I want. Unjust=What I dont want. That is often how banal we are. But if we were honest, we would probably say "It is neither just or unjust. It is what it is"
Based on the same reason why you wouldnt enjoy it if I came to your door and tortured you in various ways.

Now two questions:
1. On what bases do you value what is just and unjust? What is derrived from your own banality and what is derrived from the True living God?
2. Considering the first question and granted that you answer it honestly; what would you say if God tortured everyone because he found it to be fun and just? If he, because he is justice, creates mankind just in order to play with it, deceive it and torture it endlessly without saving anyone? Would you agree with calvinists that it is just? Just in what way then? You dont know the mind of God, so isnt it better to look at it from a human Perspective?

Why must I like the idea? What rational person who, if christianity were true, would go to hell according to their dogmas, would like the idea? If he hasnt felt that he is moved by Christ, he would probably find the Christian belief to be oppresive, surpressive, irrational, wicked, strange, superstitious etc.

I see! Do you like Steiner?

Those are what I criticize, and your God I dont know

and theology, Christians, the church are?

Btw you didnt answer the question

What?

"And why would you think that your idea of good and evil can be applied to judge God?"

Consider what you really are asking here. A democratic question? What is this God you speak of and that which I speak about?
Example:
"What makes you think that your idea lf good and evil can judge whether what Stalin did was evil or not?"
Is that the concept of God you talk about?

Once again you take an irrational leap. Let us keep the distinctions. You said it is one thing to criticize God and another to criticize theology. I of course criticize the conceptions and understandings of God. Not God himself. If I criticize God himself, I dont find myself being so aware of it since I doubt he even exists

"I, therefore, find it pretty impossible to justify my political positions to myself because they are probably expressions of self-interest"

Of course they are. And politic is a misfortunate thing in itself.

I have constantly claimed that God as proclaimed by traditional christianity appears to me as evil. That is; God of dogmas, God of traditional theology, God as he appears when men speak about him. So, the living God being evil? I have NO idea. How can I have?

"God is incomprehensible, BUT we do know that He is the standard of justice and truth"

But
1. God is beyond Good and evil
2. What is justice and truth?

No I didnt. I said that it is pointless to reason and discuss things when all you say is true and Beautiful because you pretend and claim to defend God, while all I say is basically blasphemous because it is against your conception. When I speak, God is impossible to question because he is transcendent, beyond Good and evil etc. But while you speak, everything is perfectly rational.

Of course I dont respect and love the concept of the God of which most "christians" speak. The living God? No idea, I dont know if he exists.

"Why would I do that? I respect, love and admire God."

What happened here? I was talking about me not you. If you misunderstand so gravely what I write then surely you have at least said one true thing: We can't have a discussion.

"It looks ugly to you, I don't see anything ugly in the unrighteous being punished by the Living God."

Me neither. If it wasn't an unending punishment that goes on for all eternity

"You are projecting once again."

Really? Here comes the psychologist again. Well then ... At least I have something in common with St Paul

"Of what use is this insult?"

It wasn't an insult, it was praise.

"No I'm not. To say God is beyond reason isn't to say God is IRRATIONAL. Hence it's not meaningless at all. Beyond reason isn't the same as irrational."

Omg what made you draw that conclusion from what I said?

Your thoughts are all over the place, and it's impossible to discuss like this. Please pick a specific subject/topic and let's discuss it."

actually they are not

"We don't understand what "eternal" means in "eternal hell". You seem to understand it so very well, the rest of us not so much."
Who are we? Historically you Christians seem to have understood it quite well. Do you then at least have any idea of what it means?

That is very selfish but so what? You invite me to it. And if you werent a typical Engineer in your dryness you would have understood that I am making thought experiences rather than actually seriously considering to make the world a hell for all.

The thing is that you claim, based on your tradition, that God actually does send people (according to Scripture the majority) to hell, while I claim God does not. But you then say I question God, while in reality, I question your hideous tradition based on lust for revenge dressed up as morality. Your conception of morality is my definition of cruelty. Why have the hindus and the buddhists Only reserved hell to the absolutely "cruelest"? And yet, their hell is never eternal. Why is this? What justification for the Christian concept? "It is based on history" you will proudly claim. So? I wasn't there. Why not as well believe it is a lie? Most of history is a lie. And the liars have more often than not been the Ones who has formad history. I have had a revelation that made me sure hinduism as proclaimed in the upanishads to be true. Why not Believe that then?
Also, you reason as if everything must be of the first rank in order to be causa sui. Origin out of something else is a questioning of "God", a blasphemy (yet you claim like a professional liar that I can't question christianity without revelation, But apparently I can blaspheme without revelation). The rational, the unchanging, the good, the true, the moral. These cannot have become and must therefore be causes, is that so? Why?

"Yes, but we do have access to revelation. You need grounds for questioning something, and such grounds are in this case missing."
I would claim the opposite.

So? That is because you dont understand that Truth can be ugly. You are too short-sighted. Yet according to me you are the one who proclaims ugly truth. But then you defend it by saying "No one can question God". But you are blind because you take it for granted that God is good (and yet beyond goodness). You are basically just saying meaningless things.

" we would never form that conception of God."

Are you saying we have invented a Conception of God where God is Beautiful truth for the righteous while the damned shall too consider their eternal torture as something wonderful and Beautiful because it is decided by the Beautiful God? So you say: "We would never form a disastrous conception of God, because God is Truth and Truth is just, lovely, beuatiful, Good" and at the same time "God can do what he wants. He can torture you without you having the right to question him because God is good." What the hell are you talking about? You know what, you reason in an unrespectable and unacceotable way not worth wasting time on. And you have convinced me that if I one day am "brave" enough to accept that your monster God will torture me forever, I am justified to go rape and kill everyone I see. Because God alone can judge, and I am probably damned because I refuse to accept what I believe to be a reprehensible understanding of the world. So hell for me! I take it! Now: Why not declare war against God and mankind in the meantime like Lucifer himself? You said before that Nietzsche believed truth to be ugly... I claim that is what you yourself believe. And now you try to tell me to be strong enough to accept that truth is ugly, while you meanwhile judge Nietzsche for believing such a thing! And now to the height of your lies and hypocrisy: "I believe in the True living God. Hence Truth is beuatiful"... No matter how that truth looks like right? The Only conclusion to Draw from your understanding and reasoning of God is "There is no point in neither reasoning with eachother nor trying to understand"

Christianity makes criminals worse than they already are and create enemies.

"You misunderstand. God is incomprehensible, BUT we do know that he is the standard of justice and truth, for there is nothing higher than God. Therefore you cannot judge God by the human idea of justice and eternal punishment, that is foolish, since you already know that God is the very standard of justice and truth."

Who knows? Surely only those who God has revealed this to would know it. Otherwise you base Everything on human ideas and might as well call anything justice. Dont you know how language evolves? Without revelation, why not say "God is the very standard of injustice and falsehood. He IS injustice and falsehood"

"Why? You are judged based on moral considerations"

Faith? Or Works? Or both?

"How can it be unjust when God is the very criteria by which justice is decided? :s So let's see, you're going to judge God for throwing anyone in hell based on HIS OWN CRITERIA - how does that make any sense? What you're doing here is that you're raising yourself above God - much like Lucifer - and casting down judgement upon his creation. Why? Because of your weakness - you cannot accept that it is so. It is pure ressentiment and nothing else. And you form a morality which is above and beyond God himself, which you then use to judge God. That's nonsense."

The fallacy behind this reasoning is so obvious I dont even need to explain it to you. To start with: You didnt answer my post that already answered to more than half of what you say here. But let me start: God's justice is beyond our comprehension of justice you claim over and over again. I dont know this God. Therefore I judge what I know, and Based on that, the human idea of eternal punishment being justice is more reprehensible than any crime ever committed.

"Yep. What's wrong with that? Have you not read what Jesus Christ Himself says?! Matthew 19:28"

The historical Jesus or?...

"If you believe your own words with regards to hell to be true, then you at least intend to attack whom you perceive the real God to be."

Very true! But that God might as well be... You know

It was not what the Church did, or mostly, it wasn't the reason they did what they did. It took then 400 years to admit Galilei was right for one thing. It wanted to dominate. They couldnt condemn what they didnt have any justification for claiming it was false. "Galilei isnt scientific, hence he is wrong", is that how they reasoned according to you? And is that even a good reason for condemning someone and threstening the person with death? Hence, they lied.

"Sure, but your biggest problem is dealing with your anxiety. You will conquer your anxiety by being strong - by being okay with the idea of you yourself going to hell. It's a possibility that all of us have to take into consideration. Any one of us may end up in hell. We work out our salvation with fear and trembling."

You dont understand my words. And you havent understood Paul, so talking about Scripture is obviously meaningless. Isnt he the predestined to glory? "And if I judge anything, it is a fantasy and not a True living God. That is obvious based on your understanding of God"... I hope you actually did understand what I meant here. I havent judged God according to you. I havent set myself up against God like Lucifer according to you, when you claim that it is just your own wish to dominate a discussion. Because you judge, and you claim God to be beyond language. You also claim that Nietzsche never attacked the True God. What makes you fantasize that I do?

"It was right for Galileo to be tried. He had absolutely no proof that the telescope, the new instrument which he used to make his measurements even measured accurately. He was using this instrument to measure the heavens, an instrument for which there was no empirical backing whatsoever. It's like me coming up with a new instrument, and then like a child insisting that I am right, and the whole scientific community is wrong in requesting further study of the instrument before the conclusions based on its measurements can be accepted.

And that's not the bad part. The bad part is that he published and insisted, even when asked to reconsider and verify, that he is right. He was absolutely wrong, and the Church was right. The Church applied the scientific method in judging Galileo. We were not yet ready to consider the telescope a valid instrument for making the measurements. Of course, Galileo did happen to be right, BUT he had no way of knowing he was right when he came up with it. It was Galileo who was the irrational child stomping his feet, and it was the Church who was rational and applying the scientific method. If you read Feyerabend's Against Method, you will see this particular instance discussed in more detail."

Be consequent here, and stop being stupid. If you say that the Church was right because it was scientific, then surely you must remain honest based on your convictions and admit it was wrong. It was wrong to start with to even pretend to have the authority to trial someone for a discovery, no matter how true it was.

"The existence of the power of evil in the human heart and in human history is an undeniable fact." said Ratzinger in 2008. Well the popes would know wouldnt they?

"I'm not quite sure Nietzsche is that great either. There's a lot of things he was blind to."

I know you Believe so. I am not surprised, you are even more biased than I am. At least I can admit that I love Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky and even esteem them higher than most if not all of the greatest writers and philosophers in history. And they both advocated christianity. But you seem unable to penetrate beyond the words and in to the spirit and psychology of what is written. Because if you did, you would see that if one admits that Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky is great but do not admit that Nietzsche is great, one either lies or does not understand... Also, even if Nietzcshe was "blind" to some things (who isnt? The "great" Apostles apparently thought Christ would come back during their lifetime), it doesnt mean he wasn't great.

You said before that Nietzsche believed truth to be ugly... I claim that is what you yourself believe. And now you try to tell me to be strong enough to accept that truth is ugly, while you meanwhile judge Nietzsche for believing such a thing! And now to the height of your lies and hypocrisy: "I believe in the True living God. Hence Truth is beuatiful"... No matter how that truth looks like right? The Only conclusion to Draw from your understanding and reasoning of God is "There is no point in neither reasoning with eachother nor trying to understand"

"And out of your own fear and repulsion and weakness you invent a morality which you use to judge God by, and condemn God, just because you lack the strength to accept the Truth"

Wow, what great psychology! I guess even you have to Thank Nietzsche then! A bit dishonest though, dont you think? And if I judge anything, it is a fantasy and not a True living God. That is obvious based on your understanding of God

"because you're not strong enough to accept the doctrine of hell, and that some, maybe even you, will be damned?"

Even the word "damned" stinks of lies and hatred. The word itself is criminal to use in the same breath as "love". Another curious thing: The blindness among those who do not see that it is he who wrongly considers himself to be saved that condemns others to hell and come up with dogmas to tell how one is damned and who is damned and not. This IS cruelty beyond all other cruelties. Done by what authority? They claim it is by God's! Who the "wisest " among them admit they no almosg nothing about! So dont talk about what is cruel and what is not.

"Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in
the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by
the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.... Not many wise
men after the flesh, not men mighty, not many noble are called: But
God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;
and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things
which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are
despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to
nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence."

Against those who seek knowledge? Against the spirit of an Aristotle and a Socrates? A Buddha and a Lao Tzu? Against an Einstein and a Newton? We are fortunate that MOST of us havent really understood the psychology behind these words of the wise Paul... It seems like nothing but projection here. He was "learned and wise", now finally he could do away with the suffering that brings and send his old self projected on all learned People around him to hell. Now this is different psychology than when Jesus rejoices that God Only reveals himself to he who is like a child. Because for Jesus, an Einstein and a Socrates was a child in his quest and hunger for knowledge and wisdom. Life as Jesus saw it was already HERE, it was finally a celebration of life. He abolished guilt and torments of conscience. Paul made these things worse, and it is rather his words that led to the trial of Galileo Galilei etc. Didnt the Church understand that in Christ's words, THEY were the "learned" and Galilei was the child?! Not so with Paul and the catholic church. "Not many noble are called"... So not all are called?

"Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world
shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?"

?!?!?! What? Shall the Saints, a John of Patmos etc. judge the world? Men who rejoice in seeing "noble" (in Paul's pathetic words) people in hell without even knowing what noble means? People who rejoice in seeing a "wise " man being judged by a "foolish" man? And yet, in reality the foolish have been like the "learned"(Aquinas, the whole Catholic Church) and the noble (an Einstein, a Galilei etc) have been like a child.

"Know ye not
that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this
life?"...

It gets worse. This seems like the height of immodesty. I can't even imagine seeing a Paul at some throne judging a Beethoven... That will not look good. And now angels too? This man must really have thought that he was the centre of the universe...

So these are examples that I react against. There is no sense of life in the present in a man like Paul.

"because you're not strong enough to accept the doctrine of hell, and that some, maybe even you, will be damned?"

... I would Love to hear you say that if you end up in the hell of John of Patmos, that bitter little cave man... The question is rather: How can one be so blind as to not see that not a single doctrine is more cruel than this one, that it is the opposite of "justice"? Rather anti-justice? Demand for justice as understood by a "saved" Christian is demand for a revenge that never ends. The hatred that has blossomed in the heart of someone who demands and longs for this must be so great that it has no end and no cure; that is, it must be as infinite as the hell they Believe in. It is obvious that Paul believed himself to be saved and going to heaven while others would go to hell. To Believe otherwise is to be a bad reader. Paul... Humble? I cant find the spirit of Francis of Assisi in Paul. No honest man can. It is not a question of whether this superstitious doctrine is true or not. If it were true, I wouldnt want heaven anyway. I dont have such a strong longing for "justice" that I would rejoice in seeing the enemies I "love"(as a Christian right?) burning in fire forever. I think Christians dont understand the word eternal, forever, everlasting. Eternal hell isnt a solution to anything. It is primitive and heartless and nothing besides. Even if something is true, it is obvious one often doesnt accept it. Can my intellect accept? Yes, even though vaguely. My heart? Hardly and never. I dont care about your proud fantasy that you believe that you have understood anything about God by not understanding him. One should either be honest and read Scripture like for example Spinoza did, or otherwise not even talk about justice or hell or faith in any way whatsoever if one anyway says "God's justice is beyond justice and his goodness beyond goodness". If so, then we shouldnt speak of him at all. We should leave him alone just as he appears to have left us alone.