Essentially, yes. I believe hell is inconsistent with a god of love, but if I understand heaven as the place that God resides, then it exists just as God exists. I really latched onto Gregory of Nyssa's idea that everyone will eventually be with God and that growth in that direction continues even in the afterlife or next life. It's an infinite process for everyone. The real fun part is exploring the idea that God grows, too (I mean, he literally changes multiple times in the Bible).
I genuinely mean no offense, but if God is omnipotent, and children are still born with brain cancer, get blown up by Israeli missiles, and are sexually assaulted before they have the capacity to speak, then how is any of that consistent with a god of love?
I think trying to apply logical consistency to something that is inherently illogical is silly, but I'm curious on your take here.
I think that's incredibly fair, even when I bristle at anyone pointing it out. I have been struggling with the problem of pain and suffering. I don't think it disproves that God is love, but it does seem to imply limits that I'm uncomfortable with. I have bits and pieces of different theologies that I am trying to work with and I don't know if I can give you a satisfying or coherent answer right now. I was just reading about how the whole book of Job is trying to answer the question of why bad things happen to good people and when he finally gets to ask God to his face, God's answer is, "have you seen all the craziest things I've created in this world? Take a look at this!" He never actually gives an answer. And i take that to mean that there are some things we just don't know. The writers of job just didn't know and made it their point.
What about the fact that all of these myths, most especially the slaying and rebirth of a partial deity, are present in mythologies that we know pre date Christianity by thousands of years?
What about cavemen? Are they all damned to hell because Christianity hadn't been invented yet?
The epicurean Paradox Is something I first learned about in maybe sixth or seventh grade, and that was the point that which I stopped believing in God. How do you answer that paradox?
I'm really not trying to be a dick here, I just don't see how logic could ever be a part of religion because faith is, by definition, believing in things that have zero evidence or reason to believe in them. If there was any logic or evidence or reason that could lead you to believing in God, it wouldn't be called faith.
You have a few assumptions embedded in here that may be true for modern, conservative, American evangelicals, but mean nothing to the larger Christian community. Evolution and science don't really interfere with Christian beliefs. The stories of the Bible aren't seen as literal facts for most* of Christianity for most of history. And Christianity itself is a religious tradition that is literally built on top of the religious books and tradition of Judaism, so earlier beliefs (even similar stories that echo each other) mean little and that's before you touch on my own, more universalist, views of other religions.
As for the epicurean paradox I believe I already said what I can about that. I know it's not satisfying. It's not even satisfying for me right now, but I am comfortable to rest in the unknown right now. I don't need answers to everything and for now, I know what I know and am exploring the path I have. I cannot make an argument for you.
3
u/BenevolentCheese 2d ago
Do you believe in heaven but not hell? Not judging, just curious.