The Problem of Hell v.2

[Timothew]

You said:

Well in the new testament Jesus talked about hell more than he did about heaven.

That's the statement that I said was inaccurate. I've investigated that statement, because I've heard it before. Jesus' statements are found in the gospels, a little in Acts, and a little in Rev.

No I didn't look for any of Jesus' statements in the OT.
There aren't any.

 

[Skavau]

Bump.

There's some new people here now. I'd like to see them read some of this thread and defend it, if at all possible.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Bump.

There's some new people here now. I'd like to see them read some of this thread and defend it, if at all possible.

Here's something I found: http://home.online.nl/spamfree/Lake/pruning.html


κόλᾰσις, εως, ἡ, checking the growth of trees esp. almond-trees, Thphr.CP3.18.2 (pl.).
2. chastisement, correction , Hp.Praec.5, Pl.Ap.26a, al., Th.1.41; opp. τιμωρία, Arist.Rh.1369b13; of divine retribution, Ev.Matt.25.46, al.: pl., Pl.Prt.323e, al., Phld.Ir.p.52 W.
Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, Henry Stuart Jones and Roderick McKenzie, A Greek-English Lexicon, "With a revised supplement, 1996.", Rev. and augm. throughout, 971 (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1996).
──────────────────




A further way of explaining Jesus’ statement about eternal punishment is by observing the derivation of kolasis. Bruce calls attention to the root of kolasis which is κολάζω (kolazō, “mutilate, prune&#8221 and concludes that the noun refers to a corrective type of punishment rather than a vindictive one. He notes the possibility of combining that notion with αἰώνιον (aiōnion) which etymologically means “agelong,” not “everlasting.” The idea of agelong pruning or discipline leaves open the hope of ultimate salvation. To his credit, however, he notes that the doctrine of future states must rest on more basic considerations than those of etymological derivation. In the present context, the contrast with eternal life establishes that eternal punishment is not a limited period
of discipline, but is without limits.
The incompatibility of love and fear is also evident from the fact that fear is associated with κόλασις. The original Greek understanding of this word is not so much related to “punishment” as to “discipline” or “physical training.” In Hellenism it takes on the meaning of “punishment” and later becomes a technical term for the “eternal punishment” that will be imposed at the final judgment..
Georg Strecker and Harold W. Attridge, The Johannine Letters : A Commentary on 1, 2, and 3 John, Hermeneia--a critical and historical commentary on the Bible, 167 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996).




The word by which our Lord describes punishment is the word kolasin, which is thus defined: "Chastisement, punishment." "The trimming of the luxuriant branches of a tree or vine to improve it and make it fruitful." "The act of clipping or pruning--restriction, restraint, reproof, check, chastisement." "The kind of punishment which tends to the improvement of the criminal is what the Greek philosopher called kolasis or chastisement." "Pruning, checking, punishment, chastisement, correction." "Do we want to know what was uppermost in the minds of those who formed the word for punishment? The Latin poena or punio, to punish, the root pu in Sanscrit, which means to cleanse, to purify, tells us that the Latin derivation was originally formed, not to express mere striking or torture, but cleansing. correcting, delivering from the stain of sin."






So hell is place of corrective pruning until the soul is removed of it's errant growth, not eternal vindictive punishment.

 

[Skavau]

The OP is addressed to those who believe it to be eternal.

You may not, and the author there may not, and that's fine, that's another discussion but this is about those who hold to a permanent torture or torment for those who go to hell.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

The OP is addressed to those who believe it to be eternal.

You may not, and the author there may not, and that's fine, that's another discussion but this is about those who hold to a permanent torture or torment for those who go to hell.

My post was also to those who believe it to be eternal. I suppose that is all I will post here.

 

[Received]

I think it's pretty morally prohibited NOT to murder every child we can so they get a free trip to Heaven.

Yeah, stupid. Therefore, Hell isn't eternal, the end.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

People who reject Jesus' offer of forgiveness, necessarily affirm that they do not want to be with Him. Jesus is Love, He is Light, He is goodness, He is kindness, He is just, He is Holy, He is marvelous and wondrous, He is magnificent, He is life, He is comfort, He is joy, He is all that our minds can conceive as being desirable.

Hell is the exact opposite of all I just said. It is separation from Him. It is what people want when they don't want Jesus. It is really quite simple.

Really, the only reason I reject the claims of your religion is because of the unreliable source they come from.

Everything you describe comes specifically from the bible. A book that is claimed to be the infallible, inerrant word of God. That claim comes from the very same book that was written by fallible, errant men.

I find it extremely hard to believe that the Creator of the Universe would have whispered such an important message into the ears of a few, ancient men and told them to write it down and pass it on.

Why put so much faith in people to deliver His personal message of the highest importance to the rest of us? Why should I believe that the ancients who were tasked with writing God's message would have done so without any kind of corruption?

Were the authors of the bible free from sin? If not, how do you know they didn't lie about anything?

That's my problem with Christianity. I don't believe your God communicated anything to us with the bible.

I mean.... He personally etched stone tablets for Moses, why couldn't He do the same with the rest of the bible? Why leave it up to humans?

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Really, the only reason I reject the claims of your religion is because of the unreliable source they come from.

Everything you describe comes specifically from the bible. A book that is claimed to be the infallible, inerrant word of God. That claim comes from the very same book that was written by fallible, errant men.

I find it extremely hard to believe that the Creator of the Universe would have whispered such an important message into the ears of a few, ancient men and told them to write it down and pass it on.

Why put so much faith in people to deliver His personal message of the highest importance to the rest of us? Why should I believe that the ancients who were tasked with writing God's message would have done so without any kind of corruption?

Were the authors of the bible free from sin? If not, how do you know they didn't lie about anything?

That's my problem with Christianity. I don't believe your God communicated anything to us with the bible.

I mean.... He personally etched stone tablets for Moses, why couldn't He do the same with the rest of the bible? Why leave it up to humans?

The bible was compiled by men therefore it is not the inspired word of God is an argument based on the premise that if men compiled the bible then it cannot be the inspired word of God.

Why think that is true bro?

You have any reason?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The bible was compiled by men therefore it is not the inspired word of God is an argument based on the premise that if men compiled the bible then it cannot be the inspired word of God.

Why think that is true bro?

You have any reason?

Yes I do. Men are corruptible. Adam and Eve were easily fooled and corrupted by Satan when they had direct communication with God. What makes you think the authors of the bible weren't also easily corrupted with the power in their hands?

Here you have the ability to write in whatever you want and it will be read with the authority of the Creator of the Universe. You don't think someone might try to abuse that power?

I refuse to believe that god would entrust such a flawed creature to deliver His divine message without seeking something in their own favor. Men are easily corrupted when they have power. I would hope your God had a little more foresight than that.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Yes I do. Men are corruptible. Adam and Eve were easily fooled and corrupted by Satan when they had direct communication with God. What makes you think the authors of the bible weren't also easily corrupted with the power in their hands?

Here you have the ability to write in whatever you want and it will be read with the authority of the Creator of the Universe. You don't think someone might try to abuse that power?

I refuse to believe that god would entrust such a flawed creature to deliver His divine message without seeking something in their own favor. Men are easily corrupted when they have power. I would hope your God had a little more foresight than that.

if they were God fearing men, God could entrust them with the task. Their reward would be knowing they had been chosen by God with an awesome and important task, not some power or prestige.

you seem to think that men like Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Jonah, Paul, Matthew, John, Peter, James and others became kings or rulers among their people. They became outcasts, despised and rejected bro. They were thrown in prisons. Many were killed.

So if they had wanted power and prestige, being a prophet of God was not gonna help them.

your argument is weak bro. just because you think men in their position would be greedy and power hungry and eager to abuse power does not mean they would.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

if they were God fearing men, God could entrust them with the task. Their reward would be knowing they had been chosen by God with an awesome and important task, not some power or prestige.

you seem to think that men like Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Jonah, Paul, Matthew, John, Peter, James and others became kings or rulers among their people. They became outcasts, despised and rejected bro. They were thrown in prisons. Many were killed.

So if they had wanted power and prestige, being a prophet of God was not gonna help them.

your argument is weak bro. just because you think men in their position would be greedy and power hungry and eager to abuse power does not mean they would.

I don't think God would be foolish enough to risk it. He tried trusting us before and we failed because of an inherent design flaw. Why would He make the same mistake again?

Also, you're ignoring the fact that God has directly communicated to us His commands. He Himself etched the stone tablets He gave to Moses. Why the sudden change in His method?

Of course, I'm of the mind that the stone tablets were also a fabrication of mankind along with the bible. But that's just me.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I don't think God would be foolish enough to risk it. He tried trusting us before and we failed because of an inherent design flaw. Why would He make the same mistake again?

Also, you're ignoring the fact that God has directly communicated to us His commands. He Himself etched the stone tablets He gave to Moses. Why the sudden change in His method?

Of course, I'm of the mind that the stone tablets were also a fabrication of mankind along with the bible. But that's just me.

The God I worship does not take risks bro.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The God I worship does not take risks bro.

Which is why he placed a tree of forbidden fruit directly within the reach of creatures that he created fallible. No risk there.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Which is why he placed a tree of forbidden fruit directly within the reach of creatures that he created fallible. No risk there.

Well, to be fair, if he is omniscient then there is no risk, everything is a guarantee.... he knew they'd eat from the tree and mankind would fall.

So, while that means he's not risking things, it does mean he's unethical.

 

[Timothew]

Well, to be fair, if he is omniscient then there is no risk, everything is a guarantee.... he knew they'd eat from the tree and mankind would fall.

So, while that means he's not risking things, it does mean he's unethical.

Maybe he had a good plan for them?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Maybe he had a good plan for them?

The bible seems to hint at a good plan gone awry.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Maybe he had a good plan for them?

How is taking a paradise and introducing torture, disease, famine, pain and natural disasters a good plan?

It's nonsense.