The Doctrine of Eternal Torture in Hell

[Achilles6129]

In this thread I will suggest that the doctrine of eternal torture in hell is a real doctrine and is actually taught in the Bible. I will also suggest that it is totally just and that those that go away into eternal torture are actually getting what they deserve. I will suggest that opponents of this doctrine (such as universalists and annihilationists) trivialize the evil of those that disobey the commands of God and hence arrive at a picture of reality that is in fact false. Scripture portrays those that disobey God's commands in a heinously evil light; this has been overlooked by opponents of eternal torture.

I suggest the following:

1) Everyone who goes to hell is a child of Satan (Mt. 13:38)
2) Satan is a murderer (by God's standards, see Jn. 8:44)
3) Children share in the nature of their parents, hence the children of Satan are murderers (by God's standards)
4) God loves the victim with absolute or infinite love
5) The punishment is commensurate with the love that God bears toward the victim
6) The punishment is eternal (infinite, absolute) torture in hell

This is but one way to justify eternal torture; there is another way:

1) Everyone who goes to hell is a child of Satan (Mt. 13:38)
2) Satan is a murderer (by God's standards, see Jn. 8:44)
3) The children of Satan are guilty of the murder of God (Jn. 3:20, ref. with 1 Jn. 3:15)
4) God is a being of infinite goodness or infinite love
5) The murder of a being of infinite goodness or infinite love is a crime so evil and such an abomination that it deserves eternal torture in hell

Thus we see that there are really two ways to totally justify eternal torture: the murder of another human being, or the murder of God. I submit that the wicked are guilty of both of these crimes (as proven by Scripture), and that this is the reason why they go away into eternal torture. Ideas about being punished for vague "sins" and the like are really just distractions and trivializations from the main issue, which is murder.

Discuss.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

4) God loves the victim with absolute or infinite love

Does God not also love the perpetrator with "absolute" or "infinite" love? Or is God's love toward persons conditional upon them first being victims? I don't quite understand the logic in this point...

5) The punishment is commensurate with the love that God bears toward the victim

But if God is love, and God loves the perpetrator with an absolute, infinite, and immutable love, then God's punishment of the perpetrator is certainly not commensurate with the love that God bears toward the perpetrator.

Moreover, it is strange love indeed that finds its expression in violence. Such a relationship emasculates this "love", as it is difficult to understand the content and motivation of the love apart from the "commensurate" act of violence.

5) The murder of a being of infinite goodness or infinite love is a crime so evil and such an abomination that it deserves eternal torture in hell

If this is so, then why are not all condemned eternally? Theologically, we understand all (by virtue of a common sinfulness) as being responsible for the murder of Christ. Therefore, if such deserves eternal torture in hell, it would be fitting for all to be condemned. And if all are not condemned, we must ask why any would be.

Thus we see that there are really two ways to totally justify eternal torture: the murder of another human being, or the murder of God. I submit that the wicked are guilty of both of these crimes (as proven by Scripture), and that this is the reason why they go away into eternal torture. Ideas about being punished for vague "sins" and the like are really just distractions and trivializations from the main issue, which is murder.

There's a third (and more relevant) way to justify it: divine prerogative. That is, as the self-existent creator of all things, God need not "justify" anything that God does. If God desires to torture eternally that which God has created, God is perfectly justified in doing so, even if such an outcome is based entirely upon a whim. Alternatively, God is equally justified in doing nothing in regard to human sinfulness; neither divine action nor inaction need to be justified or explained--God is free to do as God pleases. Importantly, however, there is no sense in which God is *obligated* to do anything in regard to human sinfulness.

So while we use the language of "deserving" when it comes to talking about hell, it is technically inaccurate. If there are any that are tortured by God eternally, it is solely because God desires the same, not because of some causal relationship between their actions and their ultimate fate.

 

[Hieronymus]

I will suggest that opponents of this doctrine (such as universalists and annihilationists) trivialize the evil of those that disobey the commands of God and hence arrive at a picture of reality that is in fact false.

No, it's ECT proponents that trivialize the E in ECT.
Eternity (for ever and ever) is by definition utterly disproportionate to any timespan, like the timespan of a human life on earth.
Also, in ECT justice will never be done / completed.

Scripture portrays those that disobey God's commands in a heinously evil light; this has been overlooked by opponents of eternal torture.

No, not at all.
But the wages of sin is death, not eternal life in torment.

 

[Inkfingers]

I will suggest that opponents of this doctrine (such as universalists and annihilationists) trivialize the evil of those that disobey the commands of God and hence arrive at a picture of reality that is in fact false.

Or perhaps they realise that:
* to suffer eternally needs eternal life
* you only get eternal life in Christ
* those in Christ do not go to into the fire
* therefore the suffering in "Hell" is not eternal.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

4) God loves the victim with absolute or infinite love
5) The punishment is commensurate with the love that God bears toward the victim

Another logical problem: what if the victim (e.g., the object of God's absolute, infinite love) is herself a murderer? According to your logic, both the victim (the murdered murderer) and the murderer (the murdering murderer) will be punished "commensurate to the love of God for the victim". Does this not result in a double punishment, as both the victim (the murdered murderer) and the perpetrator (the murdering murderer) will be tortured in hell? Or is the victimhood of the murdered murderer enough to offset the eternal punishment of their original murder?

 

[Achilles6129]

Does God not also love the perpetrator with "absolute" or "infinite" love? Or is God's love toward persons conditional upon them first being victims? I don't quite understand the logic in this point...

God's love toward everyone is infinite, but it wouldn't matter. If a crime has been committed, it's been committed.

But if God is love, and God loves the perpetrator with an absolute, infinite, and immutable love, then God's punishment of the perpetrator is certainly not commensurate with the love that God bears toward the perpetrator.

Moreover, it is strange love indeed that finds its expression in violence. Such a relationship emasculates this "love", as it is difficult to understand the content and motivation of the love apart from the "commensurate" act of violence.

God's "love" is far different from what you understand to be "love." This can be shown throughout Scripture. You're suggesting that God's love somehow prevents him from punishing the wicked. I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion.

If this is so, then why are not all condemned eternally? Theologically, we understand all (by virtue of a common sinfulness) as being responsible for the murder of Christ. Therefore, if such deserves eternal torture in hell, it would be fitting for all to be condemned. And if all are not condemned, we must ask why any would be.

Actually I don't understand that theologically at all. The Bible clear says there are some who are righteous: Noah, Abraham, Job, David, Paul, Peter, John, etc., are great examples. I don't think it follows at all that "we're all guilty of the murder of Christ." I think that the idea that we're all uncontrollably wicked is very misguided theology.

There's a third (and more relevant) way to justify it: divine prerogative. That is, as the self-existent creator of all things, God need not "justify" anything that God does. If God desires to torture eternally that which God has created, God is perfectly justified in doing so, even if such an outcome is based entirely upon a whim. Alternatively, God is equally justified in doing nothing in regard to human sinfulness; neither divine action nor inaction need to be justified or explained--God is free to do as God pleases. Importantly, however, there is no sense in which God is *obligated* to do anything in regard to human sinfulness.

This is some of the worst theology that I have ever heard. Of course God has to justify what he does! "Divine prerogative" can be an excuse to commit even the worst of crimes. There's a saying that "might doesn't equal right," and I think that it applies here.

So while we use the language of "deserving" when it comes to talking about hell, it is technically inaccurate. If there are any that are tortured by God eternally, it is solely because God desires the same, not because of some causal relationship between their actions and their ultimate fate.

Shocking theology.

Another logical problem: what if the victim (e.g., the object of God's absolute, infinite love) is herself a murderer? According to your logic, both the victim (the murdered murderer) and the murderer (the murdering murderer) will be punished "commensurate to the love of God for the victim". Does this not result in a double punishment, as both the victim (the murdered murderer) and the perpetrator (the murdering murderer) will be tortured in hell? Or is the victimhood of the murdered murderer enough to offset the eternal punishment of their original murder?

Not really a logical problem at all. I don't see why there's any "double punishment" for something that's already an infinite (God's love).

If there could be something urged against my ideas in my OP, it would be statements of Christ that there are varying levels of punishment in hell:

"15 Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." Mt. 10:15 (NASB)

Etc. However, my line of reasoning in the OP indicates that all are equally guilty. I would suggest, then, that all are equally guilty of the basic crimes outlined in the OP, and then that they add to those basic crimes (murder of man and murder of God) other crimes, some which merit more punishment than others.

 

[Achilles6129]

No, it's ECT proponents that trivialize the E in ECT.

I don't think so at all.

Eternity (for ever and ever) is by definition utterly disproportionate to any timespan, like the timespan of a human life on earth.
Also, in ECT justice will never be done / completed.No, not at all.

Punishment for a crime is related to its seriousness, not to the timespan in which it was committed. The point of the OP was to attempt to show that the seriousness of the offense does indeed merit eternal torture.

 

[Hieronymus]

I don't think so at all.

But you prove it yourself:

Punishment for a crime is related to its seriousness, not to the timespan in which it was committed. The point of the OP was to attempt to show that the seriousness of the offense does indeed merit eternal torture.

You see, you trivialize the eternity of ECT.
Perhaps you don't understand that eternity is by definition totally disproportionate to a timespan like a human life on earth, even if they are passionate full-time evil doers.
Perhaps you're blinded by vengeful thoughts.
I don't know.

 

[Ken Behrens]

Why do we assume that it is God who causes the punishment to happen? If we live a life not moving closer to God in love, when we rise from the dead, we will not wish to approach Him either. But, in that reality, thought manifests as action immediately (and permanently). Our own choices isolate ourselves from God, but in heaven, there is nowhere to run. By default, we end up in the place created for Satan. In that place, our spirit realizes we have totally failed to respond to love. Eternal life plus eternal disappointment creates eternal sense of burning. God does not do this to us, reality does it to us. Understood this way, God has done everything possible to try to prevent it while we were alive, from warning Adam and Eve, to giving Torah, to sending Jesus. This view exonerates both His love, and His justice still operates by allowing reality to claim its victims.

 

[Achilles6129]

But you prove it yourself:You see, you trivialize the eternity of ECT.
Perhaps you don't understand that eternity is by definition totally disproportionate to a timespan like a human life on earth, even if they are passionate full-time evil doers.
Perhaps you're blinded by vengeful thoughts.
I don't know.

I fully understand how long eternity is, as I said above. And as I said again, punishment is related not to the time-span of the offense, but to the seriousness of the offense. That's what the OP shows - how serious the offense really is. Care to discuss?

 

[Hieronymus]

I fully understand how long eternity is, as I said above. And as I said again, punishment is related not to the time-span of the offense, but to the seriousness of the offense.

Then you still don't understand.
Limitless punishment is by definition utterly disproportionate to limited sinning.

 

[Hieronymus]

Why do we assume that it is God who causes the punishment to happen?

Because He is GOD and Judge.

 

[Achilles6129]

Then you still don't understand.
Limitless punishment is by definition utterly disproportionate to limited sinning.

We're just not going to go around in circles here. If you're interested in interacting with the OP and the things expressed in this thread, then fine. If not then have a nice day.

 

[Hieronymus]

We're just not going to go around in circles here. If you're interested in interacting with the OP and the things expressed in this thread, then fine. If not then have a nice day.

You open a topic to discuss the justification of ECT, so let's.
I think your motivation is vengefulness, so you justify your hate towards the wicked by embracing ECT.
(not just you, i think it's human nature)

...but maybe i'm wrong...

 

[TalwinStark]

I don't think so at all.



Punishment for a crime is related to its seriousness, not to the timespan in which it was committed. The point of the OP was to attempt to show that the seriousness of the offense does indeed merit eternal torture.

However for sake of argument, doesn't the bible say that all sin is the same except the one sin that equals death?

 

[Der Alte]

Then you still don't understand.
Limitless punishment is by definition utterly disproportionate to limited sinning.

Only when finite, imperfect men try to impose their faulty, limited understanding onto the perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent God.

Isaiah 55:8-9
(8) For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
(9) For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.​

 

[Basil the Great]

I think that a lot of it depends upon the nature of the "torture" itself. If we are talking about extreme physical pain, like what a fire would cause upon someone, then I have a real problem with a loving God doing such to anyone for all eternity. However, if instead we are looking at God sending souls to a dark and lonely place, then I do not have nearly as much a problem with an eternity in Hell, as long as we are talking about souls that truly commit horrendous deeds, like murder or rape or child abuse or spousal abuse. As far as the contention that all sins are the same before God, I believe that such a thesis is very flawed. The Ten Commandments themselves and how the Early Church viewed the seriousness of certain sins should be enough to put to rest the claim that all sins are the same.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

God's love toward everyone is infinite, but it wouldn't matter. If a crime has been committed, it's been committed.

What does "if a crime has been committed, it's been committed" mean? Are you saying that there is a necessary and unavoidable consequence to human sin, that God is obligated to punish?

God's "love" is far different from what you understand to be "love." This can be shown throughout Scripture. You're suggesting that God's love somehow prevents him from punishing the wicked. I don't see how you can arrive at that conclusion.

I never suggested that God's love "somehow prevents God from punishing the wicked". My point--if you would read more carefully--is that if God punishes the wicked, it is only because God desires to do the same, not because God is obligated. God is free to do that which God desires to do, and is under no compulsion to act in any particular way, especially in relation to the contingent creation. So then, if God punishes, it is because God desires to punish; anything other rationale would result in an obligation being placed upon God by an external force, a conclusion which negates the freedom of God's own eternal self-existence.

Actually I don't understand that theologically at all. The Bible clear says there are some who are righteous: Noah, Abraham, Job, David, Paul, Peter, John, etc., are great examples. I don't think it follows at all that "we're all guilty of the murder of Christ." I think that the idea that we're all uncontrollably wicked is very misguided theology.

I never said we're all "uncontrollably wicked". However, from a theological perspective, there is certainly a notion woven throughout Scripture that all have sinned. If any sin is "deserving of punishment", then I see no reason, philosophically, why one would not expand that conclusion to all sin. However, if only certain sins (e.g., murder) are guilty of punishment, then once again we return to the caprice of God in determining who is punished, and for what they are punished. It must be based on caprice, for otherwise we would have to say that God is operating under the influence of a standard external to God that is capable of extracting such a regimented response to human sin. However, if God is not beholden to such strictures, than any punishment that God exacts upon human persons must be the result of God's uninfluenced desire to do so.

This is some of the worst theology that I have ever heard. Of course God has to justify what he does!

No, God need not justify anything that God does. God, as eternally self-existent, is not obligated to act in any particular way, as if there is a standard external to (and therefore concomitant with) the eternal self-freedom of the divine that is sufficient to extract particular behaviors from God. No, the "good" and "just" things that God does are not "good" and "just" because they align with some notion of "goodness" and "justice" that transcend even the eternal self-existence of God; rather, they are "good" and "just" precisely because God does them, whatsoever God might do. Therefore, it is the very act of do-ing wherein God is justified; however, this "justification" is not an appellation applied after subsequent analysis of God's actions; rather, it is indelibly linked with the act itself.

"Divine prerogative" can be an excuse to commit even the worst of crimes. There's a saying that "might doesn't equal right," and I think that it applies here.

As God is not beholden to any external standard of morality, your objection is rather meaningless. That which God does is necessarily "good" and "just" by virtue of the identity of the do-er. So even if God's acts do not align with human notions of morality, our conclusions and analysis are ultimately irrelevant. If God--as God--is necessarily good and just, we must conclude that God is good and just, no matter how we might interpret the "morality" of God's actions against our own conceptions of the same.

Shocking theology.

If by "shocking", you mean, "the necessary and logical conclusion", then I agree. You might not like the consequences of actually following through on the logic of your own theological principles, but they remain nonetheless. Sometimes it takes others to do the hard work for you in order to get at the real principles underlying the rhetoric.

 

[Catherineanne]

In this thread I will suggest that the doctrine of eternal torture in hell is a real doctrine and is actually taught in the Bible. ...

Discuss.

No thanks.

Been there, done that. Waste of time.

If you would not think of throwing your own child into a fire, why do you think God would?

End of story.

 

[Catherineanne]

What does "if a crime has been committed, it's been committed" mean? Are you saying that there is a necessary and unavoidable consequence to human sin, that God is obligated to punish?



I never suggested that God's love "somehow prevents God from punishing the wicked". My point--if you would read more carefully--is that if God punishes the wicked, it is only because God desires to do the same, not because God is obligated. God is free to do that which God desires to do, and is under no compulsion to act in any particular way, especially in relation to the contingent creation. So then, if God punishes, it is because God desires to punish; anything other rationale would result in an obligation being placed upon God by an external force, a conclusion which negates the freedom of God's own eternal self-existence.



I never said we're all "uncontrollably wicked". However, from a theological perspective, there is certainly a notion woven throughout Scripture that all have sinned. If any sin is "deserving of punishment", then I see no reason, philosophically, why one would not expand that conclusion to all sin. However, if only certain sins (e.g., murder) are guilty of punishment, then once again we return to the caprice of God in determining who is punished, and for what they are punished. It must be based on caprice, for otherwise we would have to say that God is operating under the influence of a standard external to God that is capable of extracting such a regimented response to human sin. However, if God is not beholden to such strictures, than any punishment that God exacts upon human persons must be the result of God's uninfluenced desire to do so.



No, God need not justify anything that God does. God, as eternally self-existent, is not obligated to act in any particular way, as if there is a standard external to (and therefore concomitant with) the eternal self-freedom of the divine that is sufficient to extract particular behaviors from God. No, the "good" and "just" things that God does are not "good" and "just" because they align with some notion of "goodness" and "justice" that transcend even the eternal self-existence of God; rather, they are "good" and "just" precisely because God does them, whatsoever God might do. Therefore, it is the very act of do-ing wherein God is justified; however, this "justification" is not an appellation applied after subsequent analysis of God's actions; rather, it is indelibly linked with the act itself.



As God is not beholden to any external standard of morality, your objection is rather meaningless. That which God does is necessarily "good" and "just" by virtue of the identity of the do-er. So even if God's acts do not align with human notions of morality, our conclusions and analysis are ultimately irrelevant. If God--as God--is necessarily good and just, we must conclude that God is good and just, no matter how we might interpret the "morality" of God's actions against our own conceptions of the same.



If by "shocking", you mean, "the necessary and logical conclusion", then I agree. You might not like the consequences of actually following through on the logic of your own theological principles, but they remain nonetheless. Sometimes it takes others to do the hard work for you in order to get at the real principles underlying the rhetoric.

What a load of old tosh.