It’s a well researched question, the solution is that an all loving god does not exist.
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2025
22 points (100.0% liked)
Showerthoughts
32901 readers
816 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The problem of hell is a version of the problem of evil.
It might be worth reading this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
If it's too technical, you might try the Wikipedia article, here are a few excerpts:
The logical argument from evil is as follows:
P1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
P2. There is evil in the world.
C1. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god does not exist.
...
If God lacks any one of these qualities – omniscience, omnipotence, or omnibenevolence – then the logical problem of evil can be resolved. Process theology and open theism are modern positions that limit God's omnipotence or omniscience (as defined in traditional theology) based on free will in others.
...
A version [of the evidential problem of evil] by William L. Rowe:
- There exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
- An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse.
- (Therefore) There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being.
Another by Paul Draper:
- Gratuitous evils exist.
- The hypothesis of indifference, i.e., that if there are supernatural beings they are indifferent to gratuitous evils, is a better explanation for (1) than theism.
- Therefore, evidence prefers that no god, as commonly understood by theists, exists.
It should also be mentioned that most lay people's concept of hell is radically different than the hell as described in various scriptures. I would be wary of any singular depiction of hell even within a religion, as scripture often has contradicting things to say about hell (with multiple plausible interpretations), and contemporary beliefs about hell are more informed by popular culture than scripture anyway.
Again, I direct to Wikipedia for the different depictions of hell: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell
Because, without an instrument to incite fear, religion would be useless for the upper class.
You're trying to put emotions into the afterlife and describe nature as a 'he'. Unless you know of someone going to the other side and reporting back, it's all just speculation.
I am an atheist and this is still pretty easy to answer:
Your parents probably love you unconditionally, too, that doesn't mean they didn't punish you when you misbehaved growing up.
I'm not quite sure where your interpretation of heaven and hell is coming from, but the Christian Bible doesn't describe them in any way that what you said makes sense.
No parent would ever punish a child for an eternity.
Some would if they could. But then, those are probably not good parents.
The idea of punishment is to prevent further misbehaviours, not to throw shit back at the kids. The goal is to teach the proper behaviour.
But hell is supposed to be eternal, and as such there is no evolving from it, making it not a punishment but a torture.
Now if you believe in torturing kids who misbehave just for the sake of making them suffer, that's something else.
Except the difference is that in this case your parents know literally everything and you are only capable of doing things according to their plan.
So if you misbehaved, your parents already know you would, and also exactly how, long before you were even born, and it'd all be part of their plan.
So... Why are you being punished again?
Thus far, I do not think I've seen the letter J anywhere in this post so far.
The letter J was invented in the year 1524.
Which means Jesus, Jews, Jerusalem, Jehovah, Justice, Justify, Julius, January, June, and July were all invented either in or after the year 1524.
Until someone tells me how to research those terms before the invention of the letter J, I choose to believe Jesus never existed and was made up in the year 1524.
Edit: While folks are busy downvoting (haha, carry on if you want), nobody has answered my question. How do I research names and words that start with a letter which didn't exist during the time?
Yehoshua.
Also, that doesn't quite answer how the other words I listed were actually spelled or pronounced prior to the year 1524.
It all seems a bit sus to me, as if someone in 1524 injected a letter into the alphabet just for the sake of altering the historical narrative and making it harder for future generations to learn the truth, however it was written.
You're making a dumb conspiracy out of nothing.
I was curious after reading your posts, so I looked up the most famous person I know out of history from the period of ancient history with a name starring with "J". Which is of course Julius.
And I found this, which goes a long way to explain a lot about the shape of letters and how they were used. This was answered on a stack-exchange for linguistic history:
"(https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/posts/27147/timeline)
As others stated, on monumental inscriptions, the name of Julius Caesar would look similar to
IVLIVS CAESAR
However, saying it was "spelled with an I instead of a J" may be misleading, because 'J' as a later innovation did not arise from thin air: while 'I' and 'J' were not distinguished in Roman times, they existed as graphically distinct variants of the same letter, which always looked more like 'I' in capitals, but could sometimes look more like a (dotless) 'ȷ' in everyday cursive script.
The distinction was originally just a matter of natural variation within people's handwriting, but in time, a habit tended to form where the first and/or last letters in a word may come to stand out more, resulting in 'ȷ' being used more often than 'ı' in those contexts, just like a better-defined 'v' would stand out more than a more fluidly-written 'u'. I think this pattern can be observed in a few of the Vindolanda tablets for example. I consider it somewhat natural for the first bit of handwriting to be written more carefully or incisively than what follows.
In the case of 'ȷ' (often called the equivalent of "long I" in several modern languages), the distinction may also have been influenced by the standardized classical Roman habit of writing a longer 'I' to indicate that it was a long vowel, something they routinely did in inscription too, and which was unique to 'I' as the same indication was given for other vowel letters by writing an apex above them, at least when useful to reduce ambiguity. This use, in any case, is distinct from the specific shape and use that 'J' later evolved into.
Another letter that often underwent shape/length changes depending on position in Roman cursive was 's', and this distinction also survived into modern times as the long ſ, this time used within words whereas 's' would be used at the extremities. Since this also appears in Caesar's name in both word positions, we can reconstruct the way his name would typically have been written in Roman cursive by approximating it, at least in concept, with the modern lowercase form
ȷulıus caeſar
Perhaps because words that begin with 'I' or 'V' in Latin are statistically more likely to use those as the semivowels /j/ and /w/, rather that the vowels /i/ and /u/ which are more common in the middle of words, eventually — but well after Roman times, and partly after the Middle Ages — 'J' and 'V' established themselves as semivocalic forms, while 'I' and 'U' remained for the vowels, and since the informal cursive distinction in "glyph length" became systematized as swashes in printing, this was no longer just restricted to handwriting."
This has got to be the absolute best response/answer to my question so far to date. 👍
I wish I could upvote this more than once actually.
Okay. Why don't people spell it right then?
So much supposed respect for a dude that died around 2000 years ago, you'd figure he would deserve the respect to at least spell his name right..
It’s not like the Bible was translated to English until centuries later when England became a thing. You’re complaining about a letter in an alphabet that wasn’t relevant yet.
Hebrew: יְהוֹשֻׁעַ יֵשׁוּעַ
Greek: Ἰησοῦς
Aramaic: Iēsous
Latin (maybe you’ll like this more?): IESVS
See how we get there?
Did the man ever sign a document, even so much as a clay tablet? So many translations, how would he have written his own name?
Because English and whatever language the Bible was originally written in aren't the same? C'mon man. You have to be going out of your way to be this ignorant.
No no, more like if people really believe in the old literature, shouldn't they actually study Hebrew, Latin, Greek, etc, and actually spell their mystical savior's name properly?
I'm not into believing in invisible people or people that are supposedly meant to rise from the dead.
Hell, I never even had an imaginary friend.
A lot of people today can barely learn one language. You're suggesting that an entire religion's followers learn Ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, all 3 in dialects that are 2000 years old at the latest. I'm pretty sure God will accept whatever language people happen to read the Bible in.
That said, you do get so much more depth out of the Bible when you look at the original language. From Eve being made from Adam's side, not just a rib, to King James hiding that God will protect you from the tyrant. I'd love to dive into the original language more, but I'm far from a linguist.
Where are you getting this interpretation of heaven and hell from? I’ve never heard anything like it.
I’m a Thelemite, and in our tradition, duality is an illusion. Good and evil, suffering and pleasure, life and death—we see these things as two sides of the same coin, and reaching an enlightened perspective through meditation can show you that they have never been opposites at all, rather a continuum.
What you’ve described is basically a formula of “Heaven is LSD, Hell is heroin” and that doesn’t match up with anything I have experienced, read, or heard before. Without explaining your position more, I don’t really know how to discuss it.
presumably OP is Muslim?
Muslim hell is about feelings?
No idea, tbh - I think you have a good question, I don't recognize OP's conception of hell either.
Here's another one: if evil didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to appreciate good. Does that mean the devil is required for us to truly appreciate god? Shouldn't we therefore be thankful to Satan?
For me he'll is a place of our own making. Like, heaven is a state of being we grow into. Like dieting and exercise changes us for the better, commandments are there just to help us grow into a better being that is heavenly (more and more like God). Hell is the state of missing out on that eternal progression. Which means is is always an option available to us, and it doesn't come from God but ourselves.
The answer is well rehearsed: god works in mysterious ways. If we understood how god thinks, we would be god, but alas, we are not.
I can't say for sure what religion you're talking about, so I don't know much of the religious context for this definition of heaven and hell. My issue with this definition is emotions are so much more complex than "happy is good, sad is bad". A lot of people who have dealt with depression (including myself) will tell you that it's far worse to feel nothing at all. I'd much rather feel the sorrow or hate, and have help from God to work through those feelings.
I find the Christian (specifically protestant Arminian, and yes that is my religion) answer to this question much better. Basically, hell is the other option to heaven. Heaven is where God is fully present, so there must be somewhere else for those who reject God to go. That place must be fully apart from God, otherwise he would not be honoring their decision, and so he would not be all loving.