Why do we Existance?

[KontanKarite]

Saya, I don't think s/he's going to answer our questions. Feather'd said that we exist to glorify God but has no answers as to why this is relevant to creation as a whole. Go figure.

[TheFeatheredÆtheling]

Thanks for your reply and for your civillity. I think that I can understand your opinion that mankind ~being inherently selfish~ created religion in order to feel special and to have a purpose. "Life is hard; I need a crutch" sort of thing. My perspective is different, but I at least see your logic.

If God does not exist, you're absolutely right that we cannot understand or glorify Him (because he's nothing more than a figment of our imagination). However, if He does exist, why might He not listen to us? If the Bible is true, He is interested in His creation. And actually, from a Biblical perspective, trying to live in a way that is pleasing to God is not selfish.

It seems from what you wrote about "...us just randomly being the best beings in existence as we know it because that's just what randomly happened" that you believe that mankind is of central importance in our world. I also understand why you would believe this. However, as you know, people are different. If the human race is the "highest power", who do you believe is truly right in our world?

To be honest, I don't really agree that it's a "much simpler and provable statement to say there is no god". This topic is multi-faceted. For instance, is it really simpler or more provable to say (essentially, and correct me if I'm wrong) that everything came from nothing than to say that a Creator set this physical world in motion? To explain the existence of the physical without the spiritual would not be simple (and I doubt it will ever be provable). I'm not trying to start an argument with you; as I said before, I cannot prove the existence of anything spiritual. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it seems presumptuous to completely discredit an idea that cannot be scientifically disproven in favour of another idea that cannot be (or at least has yet to be)scientifically proven. From an atheist's perspective, what I just said sounds like a cop-out, but actually, science is moving forward quickly. If what I believe is untrue, God will be disproven.

Also, if there is really no God ~ if we are not accountable to a "higher power", what is morality? This too is not a "simpler" issue. The question of morality is part of what I alluded to in my first post here, and I'm interested to hear your opinion. Do you believe in right and wrong? If so, who determines what is good and evil?

Thanks again for your civillity.

[TheFeatheredÆtheling]

'Sorry about the late post. I wanted to compose an adequate response to yours, Kontan. And by the way, I'm a man.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by TheFeatheredÆtheling

Also, if there is really no God ~ if we are not accountable to a "higher power", what is morality?

It certainly is not "obeying your superior for the sake of authority."
That's totalitarianism, not morality.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by TheFeatheredÆtheling

To be honest, I don't really agree that it's a "much simpler and provable statement to say there is no god". This topic is multi-faceted. For instance, is it really simpler or more provable to say (essentially, and correct me if I'm wrong) that everything came from nothing than to say that a Creator set this physical world in motion? To explain the existence of the physical without the spiritual would not be simple (and I doubt it will ever be provable). I'm not trying to start an argument with you; as I said before, I cannot prove the existence of anything spiritual. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it seems presumptuous to completely discredit an idea that cannot be scientifically disproven in favour of another idea that cannot be (or at least has yet to be)scientifically proven. From an atheist's perspective, what I just said sounds like a cop-out, but actually, science is moving forward quickly. If what I believe is untrue, God will be disproven.

Your position is illogical. As gothic.net's dedicated but swiftly shrinking bloc of reasonable members has explained countless times, logic correlates absence of evidence with evidence of absence. To paraphrase myself, over a year ago-- you can't prove that I don't have a pet afghani unicorn bigfoot that is invisible and incorporeal to all but me, but that doesn't mean you should judge the suggestion that I have said pet afghani unicorn bigfoot to be anything less than crazy.
You might find this interesting as well: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...609024244.html

Also, if there is really no God ~ if we are not accountable to a "higher power", what is morality? This too is not a "simpler" issue. The question of morality is part of what I alluded to in my first post here, and I'm interested to hear your opinion. Do you believe in right and wrong? If so, who determines what is good and evil?

Do you find the idea of murdering another human being distasteful only because you fear punishment? Another human being besides Glenn Beck, I mean.
Infant children perceive and react negatively to the suffering of others, long before they are able to comprehend spirituality. This is because humans possess a visceral empathy, and it's from that empathy that a roughly consensual morality emerges. Surely you don't think it impossible for an atheist to be moral.
As for good and evil, I think incorporating those concepts into one's worldview is a dangerous mistake.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Why does a god need glorifying?

What does God need with a starship?

[Saya]

Why didn't Spock think of it first?

But yeah, I was just going to quote mine again because I'd reaaally like to know why a god needs to be glorified.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by TheFeatheredÆtheling

Thanks for your reply and for your civillity. I think that I can understand your opinion that mankind ~being inherently selfish~ created religion in order to feel special and to have a purpose. "Life is hard; I need a crutch" sort of thing. My perspective is different, but I at least see your logic.

Okay, you're following me. Cool.

If God does not exist, you're absolutely right that we cannot understand or glorify Him (because he's nothing more than a figment of our imagination). However, if He does exist, why might He not listen to us? If the Bible is true, He is interested in His creation. And actually, from a Biblical perspective, trying to live in a way that is pleasing to God is not selfish.

You're still assuming that God is true. You've given me no reason to say that your evidence from a book written my superstitious men makes what you actually say, relevant. You're a Christian. This debate has become more focused. You've now made a positive claim that YOU are right and the other theologies are wrong. By your logic so far, Paganism is incorrect, Buddhism is incorrect, Islam is incorrect, and Judaism is incorrect. So far, spiritually, you're running the gambit with that guess that JESUS CHRIST is the one true god. HOW do you know that this claim is true and the others are false?

It seems from what you wrote about "...us just randomly being the best beings in existence as we know it because that's just what randomly happened" that you believe that mankind is of central importance in our world. I also understand why you would believe this. However, as you know, people are different. If the human race is the "highest power", who do you believe is truly right in our world?

I believe that Atheism is far more accurate in the answer than theism. Atheism claims a negative that no god is real. Time and time again, this can be proven by demonstrations of the actual power of prayer or any other test of faith. Theism claims a positive that at least some kind of god is real. How do you know that Jesus IS the one true god and all the others are worshipping idols or worse yet, demonic forces?

To be honest, I don't really agree that it's a "much simpler and provable statement to say there is no god". This topic is multi-faceted. For instance, is it really simpler or more provable to say (essentially, and correct me if I'm wrong) that everything came from nothing than to say that a Creator set this physical world in motion? To explain the existence of the physical without the spiritual would not be simple (and I doubt it will ever be provable). I'm not trying to start an argument with you; as I said before, I cannot prove the existence of anything spiritual. Nonetheless, in my opinion, it seems presumptuous to completely discredit an idea that cannot be scientifically disproven in favour of another idea that cannot be (or at least has yet to be)scientifically proven. From an atheist's perspective, what I just said sounds like a cop-out, but actually, science is moving forward quickly. If what I believe is untrue, God will be disproven.

Once again, if energy can not be created nor destroyed, then energy could essentially always be there in some form because it can be changed, then perhaps it has always been there as something or nothing. Nothing or perhaps dark matter or some form of negative matter COULD be a more likely cause as to the beginning of the universe. I don't really know. If that's more important to you, then I suggest you look up theories as to what scientists have come up with as to how the universe had come to be; they'd be far more qualified to answer that question. My main rebuttal, because I don't have the answer to that, is that if a creator was indeed involved in existence, how do we even know that this creator is intelligent or sentient at all? How are we so sure that it's any kind of god we ever thought up?

Also, if there is really no God ~ if we are not accountable to a "higher power", what is morality? This too is not a "simpler" issue. The question of morality is part of what I alluded to in my first post here, and I'm interested to hear your opinion. Do you believe in right and wrong? If so, who determines what is good and evil?

Thanks again for your civillity.

Now we get to the meat of the debate. Technically, it doesn't matter who god is, just so long as your code of morals are more important than other's?

Morality is also a part of the social contract, a hard wiring to show that to ensure the survival of our species, we socially construct rules and regs that everyone must abide by. This has nothing to do with a god. It has everything to do with morality being a human invention. Morality does not require a god or even the idea of Hell to have weight in our conscience. Morality is a taught code of ethics that ensures the survival of the individual and the community from which it is based. Failure to acquiesce to those codes result in imprisonment or death. We as humans just LIKE the idea of attaching it to a one true god because to do so implies that everyone else must abide by our social contracts. We're skirting the political side of theology now and I warn you, I will show no quarter. Like it or not, before we get into the political aspects of what you think is true, understand that your group is actually more in tune with fascism and progressive liberalism is ALWAYS better than the desires of one group lording their ideals over another.

If I'm not mistaken, you're the one claiming that an invisible man in the sky created this world with a magic tree meant to condemn humanity. That this creator imbued the psych of his creation with an inquisitive nature, put them right next to this magic tree and told them not to eat the fruit of it. Do you turn your stove on high, let it get red hot, leave it alone, and then demand to a child not to touch it and expect them to actually listen?

You DO realize that the Christian mythology is just as ridiculous as all other myths about creation, right?

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by Kontan

If I'm not mistaken, you're the one claiming that an invisible man in the sky created this world with a magic tree meant to condemn humanity. That this creator imbued the psych of his creation with an inquisitive nature, put them right next to this magic tree and told them not to eat the fruit of it. Do you turn your stove on high, let it get red hot, leave it alone, and then demand to a child not to touch it and expect them to actually listen?

Dude...

Kontan + +

[Alan]

ESPECIALLY because by the same myth, the fruit was the fruit of the tree of knowledge of god and evil.

How were they supposed to know that they were doing something wrong when God explicitly did not give them this knowledge of good and evil and it's through this same retrospective knowledge that this god condemns them?

Genesis is the ultimate Catch 22.

[TheFeatheredÆtheling]

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Your position is illogical. As gothic.net's dedicated but swiftly shrinking bloc of reasonable members has explained countless times, logic correlates absence of evidence with evidence of absence. To paraphrase myself, over a year ago-- you can't prove that I don't have a pet afghani unicorn bigfoot that is invisible and incorporeal to all but me, but that doesn't mean you should judge the suggestion that I have said pet afghani unicorn bigfoot to be anything less than crazy.

Fair enough, Gothicus. I figured that my line about evidence would receive criticism. Certainly, there are things which though unproven are more feasible than others. True science is based upon facts. Listen to me though: Facts must be verifiable and provable using the scientific method. IF there is a "spiritual world" (we'll call it such), it is by its very nature outside of the laws of our physical world ~ this is why it's called "spiritual". By definition, spiritual things cannot be tested. For the universe to spontaneously emerge from nothing is impossible. This would make no sense scientifically or otherwise. It's why I said that there must have been Someone outside of our physical laws to set these laws in motion in the first place.

By the way, I read the article you linked to. It's unfortunate that only one sentense in the third-to-last paragraph was related to the situation I just mentioned ~ the origin of the/a universe. I would be very interested to learn exactly what Mr. Hawking meant in this strangely vague line as it seemed to be by far the most important point in support of the article's title. Most of the text explained how the universe is mysteriously conducive to human life, which is undeniably true but seems to support a Creator more than any random chance. ...I know, it was explaining that our perspective is limited to the universe around us; we see it so this is what we know. (In other words, this is why our world seems so strangely condusive to our lives here.) However, this is a human-centered view that doesn't really explain the origin of the universe at all. But who am I to argue with Stephen Hawking? I'm no cosmologist. I'm just a lowly art major... There are many others who are far more qualified than I am to discuss science. Let's move on.

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

Do you find the idea of murdering another human being distasteful only because you fear punishment? Another human being besides Glenn Beck, I mean.
Infant children perceive and react negatively to the suffering of others, long before they are able to comprehend spirituality. This is because humans possess a visceral empathy, and it's from that empathy that a roughly consensual morality emerges. Surely you don't think it impossible for an atheist to be moral.

Alan and Gothicus, Personally, I don't try to live according to my beliefs merely because of the fear of punishment (though I do believe that we are accountable for our actions, if not on Earth than on the other side). I try to please God in a similar way that I try to please someone else who I respect such as my mother or father, etc. It might sound terribly clichéd, but I do see this situation as a kind of relationship rather than simply a form of empty servitude. Also, I realise that an atheist feels guilt, love, mercy, and the whole range of human emotions as anyone else. There's no question in my mind about it; I believe that such feeling come from the soul. You mentioned an infant's "visceral empathy" which grows into what we know as "morality". However, Gothicus, where do you believe that this empathy comes from? If it's merely an instict, do you believe that it's logical or illogical? Whatever you refer to it as, is "morality" completely relative in your opinion?

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

As for good and evil, I think incorporating those concepts into one's worldview is a dangerous mistake.

Interesting. Is there such a thing as honour to you? What about loyalty to parents, friends, etc? Ultimately, do you live for yourself or for society (because this is profitable to yourself or some greater reason)? I've told you I believe that my main purpose in life is to glorify God. I ask you respectfully, What is your purpose in life?

[Fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

Actually, since a recent scientific study debunked the notion that hundreds of people praying will help one who is ill, you have two choices.

You can believe that when you pray, nobody hears you.

Or, you can believe that someone does hear you but chooses to ignore you.

So, it's still a waste of time.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Maybe it's all like the episode of Dr Who when the master came back, and at a particular moment, everyone on Earth prayed to Dr Who and it regenerated.

I vote we all pray, David Tennant is hot!

There is no being out there, it's all inside us, that's why people pray and meditate.

[Saya]

I feel like I'm being ignored.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by TheFeatheredÆtheling

By definition, spiritual things cannot be tested. For the universe to spontaneously emerge from nothing is impossible. This would make no sense scientifically or otherwise.

I like how just a sentence ago you were dissing on science and now you're telling us something isn't possible by scientific standards (pro-tip: it IS, you just don't know what you're talking about)

It's why I said that there must have been Someone outside of our physical laws to set these laws in motion in the first place.

By that logic, something outside of god must have created the necessary conditions for the existence of god, but of course you're gonna have a double standard and say "no"

But who am I to argue with Stephen Hawking? I'm no cosmologist. I'm just a lowly art major... There are many others who are far more qualified than I am to discuss science.

Yeah, by the time you wrote this you should have been sensible enough to erase the above bullshit, you know?
You already admitted you were wrong, so why keep the "science is bullshit but you're unscientific" argument up there?

I try to please God in a similar way that I try to please someone else who I respect such as my mother or father, etc.

So you please god through the same morality that we godless atheists have?
So it was never about obeying a higher power, right?
There you go: morality has nothing to do with god, you just said it. You're placing your imaginary friend in the same level as your fellow human beings; no need for a higher power to be moral even in your own standards.

If it's merely an instict, do you believe that it's logical or illogical?

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logical



Also, don't ignore Saya

[Fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Saya

I feel like I'm being ignored.

Gods don't need to be glorified.

Isn't it the people who worship them, wrapped up in the rush of warm fuzzy endorphins that makes them stand on the street corner preaching the word of whatever god they believe.

[Saya]

Then its a very depressing and pointless point of life, isn't it? Just as good as saying there's no point because its not necessary.

Thanks Fruitbat. Good to know SOMEBODY cares <3

[TheFeatheredÆtheling]

Aha! I see I'm in for a ride this time. I'll have to get back to you all on this topic, but I wanted to clarify a few things at once. First, I am a Christian. However, this title MAY cause some of you to assume incorrect things about me. Let me say simply that I believe that the Bible is true (yes, with all of its mysterious mythological-esque refferences in Genesis et al). If something that anyone ~including any chuch organisation or member~ does seems to me (since I can only act according to my own judgement and understanding) to be against what the Bible teaches, I try to make sense of the situation and at least walk rightly myself. This is the most important issue in regards to my labeling as a Christian. Also, Im not really interested in the political side of theology. Actually, I'm not very interested in politics in general. Some of you might have notised that I haven't left a single comment on gnet's politics section boards. Partly, this aversion is an aspect of my personality.

Kontan, I'd like to respond to one of the lines in your post right now. This (my bringing this topic up for instance) is not about "my code of morals being higher than anyone else's". Don't accuse me of that yet; I haven't done anything to you to warrant that accusation. And for the record, I'm not a good person at all. I try to be, but I'm a sinner. This is another reason why I believe in Christ is because the memory of my sins is very real, and I need a saviour. This is honestly how I feel. I suppose that guilt is seen as incredible weakness to you?

[TheFeatheredÆtheling]

Miss Saya, I shall get to you. I've been trying to answer a lot of questions tonight...

[Alan]

You're not really listening to any of us. You remind me of all my teachers at christian high school.

[Ben Lahnger]

Originally Posted by TheFeatheredÆtheling

If you don't believe in God, fine. Why do you think that we exist?

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

What if there isn't a why?

Originally Posted by TheFeatheredÆtheling

I believe that there is a "why" so I don't know, but I wonder what the world would look like if there literally was no reason or purpose for life.

Who says we cannot give ourselves purpose?

I have.

Also, while self-empowerment of this nature could lead to the greatest amount of self-indulgence, lack of concern for others and depravity, I've found that my own natural sense of empathy for my fellow man leads me to want to do good to them. I believe I have the power to make the world a better place, and that benefits my fellow man AND myself. And I still get to enjoy the depravity!

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by TheFeatheredÆtheling

Kontan, I'd like to respond to one of the lines in your post right now. This (my bringing this topic up for instance) is not about "my code of morals being higher than anyone else's". Don't accuse me of that yet; I haven't done anything to you to warrant that accusation. And for the record, I'm not a good person at all. I try to be, but I'm a sinner. This is another reason why I believe in Christ is because the memory of my sins is very real, and I need a saviour. This is honestly how I feel. I suppose that guilt is seen as incredible weakness to you?

I didn't accuse you. I said the truth. You hold your moral code, based off of Christian fundamentals to be superior to others or there's no reason for you to cleave to that moral code. That's why they're your morals. You wouldn't have the heart to cleave to my codes of morals because mine are based on the absence of a god. My ethics aren't made from a fear of retribution from an angry god or even the submissive love of a god. My own sense of guilt and what I feel is logically right and wrong is good enough.

You find in some way, Christianity to be superior morally or there'd be no reason for you to follow it.

But you see, I have no problems with saying my morals are better than yours BECAUSE I have convictions that they are. They can't be equal either. Either your Christian morals are better than mine or mine are better than yours. Opposing ideas, in the end, can't be equal.

The very fact that one of the missions of Christianity is to testify and convert others is because they think they're better.

I'm still being civil. I hope you didn't think this was a friendly sharing of ideas where we both came to the conclusion that we're both a-okay morally and cosmically. Your very beliefs condemn me. Good fucking thing it's all an imaginary circle jerk.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by TheFeatheredÆtheling

Fair enough, Gothicus. I figured that my line about evidence would receive criticism. Certainly, there are things which though unproven are more feasible than others.

Explain why belief in your god is more legitimate than belief in my unicorn bigfoot.

True science is based upon facts. Listen to me though: Facts must be verifiable and provable using the scientific method. IF there is a "spiritual world" (we'll call it such), it is by its very nature outside of the laws of our physical world ~ this is why it's called "spiritual". By definition, spiritual things cannot be tested.

You must acknowledge, then, that your faith is wholly independent of logic, and based entirely on 'feelings' that cannot be defended on rational terms.

For the universe to spontaneously emerge from nothing is impossible. This would make no sense scientifically or otherwise.

Actually, an eminent physicist-- one of the greatest scientific minds of our time-- just said it is possible, that the scientific principles observable to all of us allow for the spontaneous generation the universe.
My intention in posting that article was to provide a 'snapshot' of science doing as science has always done, gradually reducing our dependency on the supernatural in understanding our world. Centuries ago, people said of rain and the sunset the same things that you're now saying of the universe's generation-- it can't be a function of a closed system, it must be performed by a force outside our scientific understanding.

It's why I said that there must have been Someone outside of our physical laws to set these laws in motion in the first place.

From where do you derive 'must have been'? Why is it more probable that a god exists and has always existed, independently of science, than that our provable scientific laws have always been operative? Doesn't it follow that this 'Someone' couldn't possibly have come from 'nothing' either, and that he too must have a creator, and that his creator must have a creator-- ad infinitum?

But who am I to argue with Stephen Hawking? I'm no cosmologist. I'm just a lowly art major... There are many others who are far more qualified than I am to discuss science. Let's move on.

Sure.

Also, I realise that an atheist feels guilt, love, mercy, and the whole range of human emotions as anyone else. There's no question in my mind about it; I believe that such feeling come from the soul. You mentioned an infant's "visceral empathy" which grows into what we know as "morality". However, Gothicus, where do you believe that this empathy comes from? If it's merely an instict, do you believe that it's logical or illogical? Whatever you refer to it as, is "morality" completely relative in your opinion?

Essentially, yes, it's an instinct towards empathy, a function of our brain chemistry, which, as Kontan noted, has an obvious evolutionary advantage-- our ability to understand and relate to one another as deeply as we can facilitates the development of civilization, the innovation that is accountable, above all others, for our unprecedented success as a species.
I prefer to think of morality as 'democratic' rather than 'relative'. Human beings, even across totally divergent cultures, generally have similar core moral views, based in our ability to imagine ourselves in the position of another. We pretty much uniformly agree, for instance, that killing is immoral unless absolutely necessary, though our standard of 'absolutely necessary' differs wildly-- one person might believe that homosexuals are simply too great a social poison to abide, while another might only consider killing to save his or her own life. Thus, an individual's moral understanding is-- again, as Kontan suggested-- the confluence of his 'visceral empathy' and his worldview, his ingrained aversion to suffering and his acquired opinion as to what constitutes a legitimate justification for inflicting suffering. The presence of the former in all people-- save for a 'disordered' or 'insane' minority-- ensures what I earlier called a 'roughly consensual' morality, arrived at 'democratically'.

Interesting. Is there such a thing as honour to you? What about loyalty to parents, friends, etc? Ultimately, do you live for yourself or for society (because this is profitable to yourself or some greater reason)? I've told you I believe that my main purpose in life is to glorify God. I ask you respectfully, What is your purpose in life?

I think you've misunderstood what I posted. My dismissal of good and evil was not a declaration that my morality holds all actions and individuals as equal, I merely meant to say that I think actions and individuals can rarely be understood in such stark, uncomplicated terms, and that attempting to force us and the things we do into such a cosmology, into a narrative of 'good vs evil', is never a good idea.
My purpose in life is to maximize my own happiness. That said, my own happiness is linked inextricably with the welfare of my family and of my friends, as well as with the feeling that I'm contributing in a positive way to the society in which I live.

[Despanan]

Originally Posted by TheFeatheredÆtheling

This is not about "my code of morals being higher than anyone else's". Don't accuse me of that yet; I haven't done anything to you to warrant that accusation.

Actually, you kinda did. Right here:

I believe that the Bible is true

If you believe in the literal truth of the bible, then you believe that your laws and codes are derived from the command of an omniscient, all-powerful, invisible Sky-Man. Therefore, with the power and authority of that divine command you are required to blindly submit* to his authority, forsaking all other beliefs codes and creeds**, and work towards eventual global political and cultural domination and Christian hegemony*** on pain of Hell****.

This is what YOUR book says, and if you believe in it than you MUST believe that your morality and culture trumps all others, because that's sure as hell is what Yahweh and Jesus are saying.

You can clean it up with that modern hippy-type "this is what I believe but you don't have to" but really you're just neutering yourself and doing a disservice to your God and your Faith...basically you're going to church and saying the words but you're certainly not behaving in a "Christian" manner...at least not biblically.

*Habakkuk 2:4 The just shall live by faith

**Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me

***Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

****John 14:6 I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

[Alan]

Nah, they CAN behave in a Christian manner and still have the pussified version of "this is what I believe but you don't have to"

You just have to realize that it comes with a passive aggressive fine print that invariably means "it's your deal if you want to suffer in hell or not, not mine"
Case in point: Tam.

[KontanKarite]

Originally Posted by Alan

Nah, they CAN behave in a Christian manner and still have the pussified version of "this is what I believe but you don't have to"

You just have to realize that it comes with a passive aggressive fine print that invariably means "it's your deal if you want to suffer in hell or not, not mine"
Case in point: Tam.

But that's the whole point. Without hell, there's no need for submission. The whole faith is based on the presumption that Hell is the terminal outcome and there's really no other option BUT to cleave to another kind of spiritual tyrant. Unless you accept going to Hell. There's nothing truly loving about the concept of that god. You love god because you fear the possibility of Hell or bad things happening to you.