Hell

[AV1611VET]

Or a Christian woman may deride the entire concept of matrimony as a sexist institution... Many did and joined monastic orders.

Either way, I'll bet you'd be praying for that "jejunity," wouldn't you?

No. But to be quite frank I can't help but extend the principle of charity your way... You're joking in the majority of your posts, right?

Wrong.

You don't actually believe what you're saying in most cases, aren't you?

Indeed I do.

I find it very difficult to believe that a rational person, a lover of the good and a believer in truth, would say the majority of the things you say.

That's your prerogative.

Do you believe everything Jesus said?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Either way, I'll bet you'd be praying for "jejunity," wouldn't you?

What does that mean?

Wrong. Indeed I do. That's your prerogative.

That's rather disturbing. You use reason and rationality for most other aspects of your life though?

Do you believe everything Jesus said?

I don't really know what this means either...

 

[AV1611VET]

What does that mean?

Just what it says.

What if Joe's girlfriend gets saved?

According to you, all she did was 'say a few magic words' and the rest is nothing more than 'jejune.'

But if you're wrong ... which you are ... then what happens if she wants to start living a life pleasing to God?

I'll bet Joe would rather she be 'jejune,' than Spirit-filled.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Seriously, you think mixed dancing, swimming qualifies as a sin? A transgression that deserves to be punished by eternal damnation? That godly perfection is a state of being that would never, ever include such "immorality"?
(And no, the Sermon of the Mount does not state this.)

Since so many Christians on this thread apparently thought that I'm unduly fixated on a very literal, very abhorrent conception of hell, here's what *I* think the "good news" is.

Most religions in the ancient world revolved around the concept of sacrifice, of killing livestock (or, in more extreme cases, even humans) in order to appease uncanny deities that were believed to exact gruesome revenge on any mortal who might deliberately or unknowingly cause offense. In a world that did not understand the naturalistic causes of plague, floods, earthquakes or lightning strikes, angry deities were the catch-all explanation for bad things happening, and moral transgressions (to be redeemed by sacrifice) were the reason behind (respectively the remedy for) such calamities.
Proto-Judaism had already taken some steps towards a more pragmatic approach, first outlawing human sacrifice by means of a tale that emphasized it was the attitude behind the act that mattered most (in Abraham's tale), and then substituting animals for those transgressions that people were not aware of committing.

But Christianity made an end to the logic of sacrifice its core doctrine: the "good news" at its heart is that its god loved people SO MUCH that he turned himself into a sacrifice, setting the captives free and urging his "Father" to forgive those who unknowingly committed such a grave transgression. God does not want your blood, or that of your relatives. He doesn't even want you to slaughter some animals for repentance, for you ARE forgiven. The truly good news is that God LOVES the world, instead of being an angry, unfathomable force bent on receiving protection money in the form of blood.

THAT is what set Christianity apart from other religions of late antiquity, that - more so than its apocalyptic promise of a World To Come - is at the core of its overwhelming success. The "Prince of Peace" set the captives free and urged us to love even our enemies.

Yes, there are verses that show Jesus condemning those who do not help the helpless, feed the hungry, or clothe the destitute in the harshest of terms, stating that such people have no place in the world to come, and belong on the burning rubbish heap in the valley of Hinnom. And he also states that those who cry "Lord, Lord", prophesying in his name and even performing miracles are not necessarily exalted if they fail to show love and compassion for the unfortunate.

But that is not the "good news" - it's an expression of a moral code that demands something more than saying the right words or waving the right membership card. Jesus was fairly radical (in a good way), and his ethos is almost diametrically opposed to the nationalist consumer-capitalism embraced by conservative Christianity today.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Just what it says.

What if Joe's girlfriend gets saved?

According to you, all she did was 'say a few magic words' and the rest is nothing more than 'jejune.'

But if you're wrong ... which you are ... then what happens if she wants to start living a life pleasing to God?

I'll bet Joe would rather she be 'jejune,' than Spirit-filled.

Oh, I have my own ideas about what it means to be a Christian. The ideas that you've suggested seem to me to be simplistic and strange...

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Seriously, you think mixed dancing, swimming qualifies as a sin? A transgression that deserves to be punished by eternal damnation? That godly perfection is a state of being that would never, ever include such "immorality"?
(And no, the Sermon of the Mount does not state this.)

Since so many Christians on this thread apparently thought that I'm unduly fixated on a very literal, very abhorrent conception of hell, here's what *I* think the "good news" is.

Most religions in the ancient world revolved around the concept of sacrifice, of killing livestock (or, in more extreme cases, even humans) in order to appease uncanny deities that were believed to exact gruesome revenge on any mortal who might deliberately or unknowingly cause offense. In a world that did not understand the naturalistic causes of plague, floods, earthquakes or lightning strikes, angry deities were the catch-all explanation for bad things happening, and moral transgressions (to be redeemed by sacrifice) were the reason behind (respectively the remedy for) such calamities.
Proto-Judaism had already taken some steps towards a more pragmatic approach, first outlawing human sacrifice by means of a tale that emphasized it was the attitude behind the act that mattered most (in Abraham's tale), and then substituting animals for those transgressions that people were not aware of committing.

But Christianity made an end to the logic of sacrifice its core doctrine: the "good news" at its heart is that its god loved people SO MUCH that he turned himself into a sacrifice, setting the captives free and urging his "Father" to forgive those who unknowingly committed such a grave transgression. God does not want your blood, or that of your relatives. He doesn't even want you to slaughter some animals for repentance, for you ARE forgiven. The truly good news is that God LOVES the world, instead of being an angry, unfathomable force bent on receiving protection money in the form of blood.

THAT is what set Christianity apart from other religions of late antiquity, that - more so than its apocalyptic promise of a World To Come - is at the core of its overwhelming success. The "Prince of Peace" set the captives free and urged us to love even our enemies.

Yes, there are verses that show Jesus condemning those who do not help the helpless, feed the hungry, or clothe the destitute in the harshest of terms, stating that such people have no place in the world to come, and belong on the burning rubbish heap in the valley of Hinnom. And he also states that those who cry "Lord, Lord", prophesying in his name and even performing miracles are not necessarily exalted if they fail to show love and compassion for the unfortunate.

But that is not the "good news" - it's an expression of a moral code that demands something more than saying the right words or waving the right membership card. Jesus was fairly radical (in a good way), and his ethos is almost diametrically opposed to the nationalist consumer-capitalism embraced by conservative Christianity today.

Much of your atonement theory sounds very much informed by the late Rene Girard. Have you read much of him?

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Much of your atonement theory sounds very much informed by the late Rene Girard. Have you read much of him?

I read exerpts from "Violence and the Sacred" as part of a course on ancient mythology in contemporary fiction, AGES ago (approximately 2003/4), and nothing else by him. But yes, now that you point it out, Girard's take on the matter *is* similar.

 

[AV1611VET]

Seriously, you think mixed dancing, swimming qualifies as a sin?

So much for jenunity, eh?

Maybe the next time someone is tempted to think that getting saved is nothing more than saying a few "magic words," they'll think twice?

A transgression that deserves to be punished by eternal damnation?

Nope.

Even if a person ... by the sheerest of coincidence ... lived his life without committing a single sin, he would die and go to Hell if he isn't born again.

I like what my pastor says:

We aren't sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Even if a person ... by the sheerest of coincidence ... lived his life without committing a single sin, he would die and go to Hell if he isn't born again.

I like what my pastor says:

We aren't sinners because we sin; we sin because we're sinners.

You like that? I find it's a genuinely abhorrent sentiment.

 

[AV1611VET]

You like that? I find it's a genuinely abhorrent sentiment.

That's why you're a pagan, isn't it?

I have a feeling you find a lot of sentiments [sic] 'abhorrent'.

You're no different that many of the Internet scientists who post here.

Does it bother you that you had/have an incorrect concept of soteriology?

You'll overlook that though, won't you?

But everything else is 'abhorrent,' isn't it?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Does it bother you that you had/have an incorrect concept of soteriology?

Rene Girard was actually a conservative Catholic. And he was an academic so forgive me if I take him more seriously than I take your opinions, or those of your misanthrope pastor.

I read exerpts from "Violence and the Sacred" as part of a course on ancient mythology in contemporary fiction, AGES ago (approximately 2003/4), and nothing else by him. But yes, now that you point it out, Girard's take on the matter *is* similar.

It rung in my ear but I haven't read Girard for quite a long time. I rather like how seriously he takes ancient mythologies in that he respects them enough to engage with them critically. I think that his belief about the Crucifixion which can be phrased the same way as yours "an end to the logic of sacrifice" is quite apt; Jesus was the scapegoat of scapegoats, his death deconstructed the very idea of their necessity.

 

[AlexDTX]

The conception of hell that I address here is a place of literal torment, where sapient beings are deliberately sent by God for failing to be as flawless as a deity, and where they'll spend eternity with no chance of redeption or mercy.

To me, such a conception of hell reflects *extremely* badly on the corresponding conception of deity, and no argument from authority ("who are YOU to question an all-powerful being?????") will resolve the matter.

So, if you believe that it is literally impossible for any of us to measure up to God's standard, and we are then punished for it - that's like torturing a dog with a branding iron for its failure to comprehend algebra. Or setting up an eight-meter pit (with poisoned spikes at the bottom) for people to jump over when you *know* they'll never get further than 6 m.

And I'm sorry, but basically extending a pardon to all who wave the right party membership card doesn't solve the moral dilemma here, either, because people are still being sent to Cosmic Auschwitz.

In short: how do you manage to reconcile this belief with anything remotely resembling justice?

Jane,
Your use of the term "sapient beings" I find confusing. Sapient means wise and sagacious. So I am not clear if you are referring to homo sapiens meaning mankind, or fallen angels who pose as spirit guides and are regarded by their followers as wise and sagacious beings.

If you are referring to people, God has made redemption possible for all mankind through the death of Jesus Christ. But Christ did not die for the fallen angels. So if you are referring to them I will try to give you my best understanding of the situation.

First, no angel goes to Hell, they go to the Lake of Fire. The Lake of Fire was created for Satan and his demonic hoard, not for people. People who reject the gift of life through Christ have made the choice to follow Satan, thus they follow him into the Lake of Fire.

Hell is a Nordic name for the goddess of the dead, Hella, just as Hades is the abode of the Greek god of the dead Hades, Hell is her abode. This is a strictly English translation. The Greek is Hades and the Hebrew is Sheol. In all cases they are not places of punishment but confinement. The Lake of Fire is Gehenna in the Greek which is a transliteration of the Hebrew Hinnom which is the southern valley where the garbage of Jerusalem was burned and the babies offered to Molech were sacrificed. Gehenna is a figure of the lake were the fire is never quenched and the worm never dies.

The question is, Why isn't salvation offered to the fallen angels? I don't have an answer from God, so I am only giving you my opinion. All angels are spirits. They are not material beings. They are created beings and God made them all perfect without flaw, but the essence of being alive is a free will. Without free will, no creature would be alive. All would be robots merely programmed to function certain ways. Even animals, in my opinion, have free wills. But since angels are only spirits, as far as I can tell from the Bible, they can not die.

When the angels chose to disobey God, their own disobedience caused them to be transformed into demons, just as when Adam and Eve chose to disobey God, their own disobedience caused them to be transformed into carnal beings instead of spiritual beings.

Mankind, on the other hand, are material beings with a body, soul and spirit. Our spirits can not die, either, but our bodies can. Redemption is possible because our bodies can die, thus, enabling God to transform our spirits with His own Holy Spirit so we can be resurrected with Christ. (How this works only God knows) Angels can not die and resurrect. People who reject the salvation of the Lord, still live in the spirit, but since they reject Jesus, they by default follow Satan, thus end up in the Lake of Fire.

Hell, in my opinion, as I alluded to earlier, is only jail. When a person goes to Hell, they are not in torment (except for their own regret when they realize their fate). No person will be thrown into the Lake of Fire until after the White Throne judgement. A murder may be in jail awaiting trial, but he will not be strapped into the electric chair until after the trial proves him guilty of murder. Likewise all who reject Christ will not be thrown into the Lake of Fire until they see for themselves that justly deserve the Lake of Fire.

Our understanding of God is grossly in error because of the hardness of our hearts. Even with the circumcision of heart that Christ gives with the new birth, we still misunderstand God. God is not about destruction but restoration where restoration can be made. He is life not death and seeks to give life to all will have it. The angels who remain holy do so because they apparently understand this and choose to keep their lives.

Good luck in your journey in understanding the mystery of life.

I don't know if my answer is what you are looking for, but it is what I think.

 

[zippy2006]

The answer I'm seeking is not so much about theology, but about understanding a certain kind of believer better. I'd like to believe that there's some kind of redeeming quality, some angle that'd reveal how I could respect them more.

Although I am not altogether convinced that such an intent is fitting for "Christian Apologetics," I will take a swing:

The conception of hell that I address here is a place of literal torment, where sapient beings are deliberately sent by God for failing to be as flawless as a deity, and where they'll spend eternity with no chance of redemption or mercy.

First, I think it is just a clear strawman to say "failing to be as flawless as a deity." The true representation would be that God sends some to hell because they sin. All Christians believe that not every imperfection is a sin, and most believe that not every sin merits eternal punishment. Perhaps the sort of statement you have in mind could be represented thus:

There are some who God will not save, and who will be damned for sins that were impossible for them to avoid.​

Theologically this is a kind of double predestination, and apparently arose in its explicit form with John Calvin during the Reformation. It is a combination of the Calvinist teaching of Total Depravity and Limited Atonement.

You asked why someone would hold this view, which clearly denies the principle of justice which says that if someone is to be held responsible for an act, then they must be capable of avoiding the act.

It seems to me that for Calvin the view arises from a particular understanding of man's freedom (or lack thereof). Calvin does not understand how man could be truly free (in the libertarian sense) and therefore denies the possibility of freedom in man. Add to this his conviction that salvation comes from God and not from man--who is not free to choose or not choose salvation--and Calvin must accept the consequence that not only salvation is wholly from God, but even damnation is wholly from God. In my understanding, Calvin's exceedingly high view of Scripture and exceedingly low view of human reason lead to the idea that the Bible trumps justice as Scripture trumps reason.

Those are my two cents!

Of course, this error of Calvin's is viewed by the Catholic Church as just another heresy in a long line of them.

God bless,
-Zippy

 

[rockytopva]

Before the beginning of the universe there were three groups of angels...

a. Michael - Strong Angels
b. Gabriel - Wise Angels
c. Lucifer - Worshiping angels

The name Lucifer means Light Bearer and his presence illuminated the very thrown of God. His third of the angels also were worshiping angels.

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:- Isaiah 14

So Lucifer basically had a falling out with God and took the choir with him creating a void. God takes rebellion very seriously and cannot have another.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: - Matthew 25:41

God simply cannot have another rebellion on his hands like he had with Lucifer, thus the place called hell. The devils know that we were created to replace their vacated positions and war with us over them. They also are curious to know who we are and what is inside of us.

 

[rockytopva]

And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. - Daniel 12:3

My advise here is to do whatever is in your power to rise to the statute of man or woman of God and win many over to righteousness.

A fine example of a man of God is in the old Presbyterian missionary John Geddie...

"When I came to this land there was no man of litcht here, but when I left this land there was no man of darkness in it." -Dr. John Geddie
“When he landed in 1848 there were no Christians here, and when He left in 1872 there were no heathen." - Tribute to Dr. John Geddie

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Before the beginning of the universe there were three groups of angels...

a. Michael - Strong Angels
b. Gabriel - Wise Angels
c. Lucifer - Worshiping angels

The name Lucifer means Light Bearer and his presence illuminated the very thrown of God. His third of the angels also were worshiping angels.

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God:- Isaiah 14

So Lucifer basically had a falling out with God and took the choir with him creating a void. God takes rebellion very seriously and cannot have another.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: - Matthew 25:41

God simply cannot have another rebellion on his hands like he had with Lucifer, thus the place called hell. The devils know that we were created to replace their vacated positions and war with us over them. They also are curious to know who we are and what is inside of us.

This is strange... Isaiah 14 begins by addressing the king of Babylon and then changed to talking about an angel named Lucifer...

 

[rockytopva]

This is strange... Isaiah 14 begins by addressing the king of Babylon and then changed to talking about an angel named Lucifer...

Well... Try this one on for size...

Revelation 12:3-5

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Well... Try this one on for size...

Revelation 12:3-5

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.

Ah Revelation... Isn't it widely agreed that everything in that book is symbolic except the parts which one's particular denomination believes will literally happen? Doesn't it also concern the Pope, et al.?

Most commentaries on the book of Revelation will generally see it as a critique of the Roman imperial religion, the Judeo-Christians participating in it and as something of a commentary in and of itself on the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. That seems to make sense to me. ^.^

 

[AV1611VET]

This is strange... Isaiah 14 begins by addressing the king of Babylon and then changed to talking about an angel named Lucifer...

What is that strange?

What God is doing here, is showing us that Satan was using the king of Babylon to orchestrate his plans.

Jesus did the same thing:

Matthew 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Notice here where He was talking to Peter, but actually addressing the devil?

Incidentally, I use this very verse to show that today's science is predominantly ran by the devil.

 

[AV1611VET]

Methinks the OP started this thread to let off a little bit of steam.

I could be wrong though.