How could we survive the horrors of heaven?

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
you admit that you have no answer.
I will answer to God. And I have offered my explanation which is my answer. And I consider it logical to do what I have offered > if ones in hell are going to stay there, it is logical to do all we can now to reach sinners and help them to change in their character so they can share with us and benefit from Heaven.

Satan's character so ruined him that he considered Heaven to be horrible . . . because Jesus so greatly good and kind and glorious is on the throne and not Satan; therefore, I find it to be logical, how ones of Satan's character can not benefit from being in Heaven. This is the logic which I have offered, rather than be decoyed where your logic would take me, with how you have dictated we are supposed to understand things.

I simply don't agree with you. And I am offering what is better, and worthy of our attention. I find your logic to be misleading, and I have been offering why.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
no, I haven't watched the video. I should explain something: I live in China. That means I can't see youtube.

But you can access CA??? :scratch: Listen, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

So your answer to the question is that if you were in heaven, and you thought of loved ones in hell, you would not feel bad in any way because they deserved it?

Absolutely, because we all deserve an eternity in literal Hell
. Guess emotional manipulation doesn't work on me. You have one chance to feel bad for them, and that's when they're alive. It's like they're walking across a busy street and they have no idea a huge truck is racing towards them. Yeah, that's when I feel the most urgency for them--to do anything I can to help them. To tell them of how to avoid the coming disaster that's upon them. <-- That's love.

Perhaps you'd like to explain his argument yourself?

Because there are these two things in theology called "total depravity" and "utter depravity."

Everyone born of Adam is born in total depravity and deserves Hell. “There is none righteous, no, not one;" - Romans 3:10 In fact, the list of verses supporting this doctrine is downright huge.

Therefore, no one merits Heaven (that's why I'm a Protestant). The doctrine of justification by grace (un-merited favor) through faith (dependent and objective trust) alone (and not works) is the only way one can be saved, and God does all of it. Even the Holy Spirit motivates you to strive for purity and to be like Jesus.

"Utter depravity" is one who really-really tries to sin to the greatest extent that he possibly can. These people wake up in the morning with the singular goal to deliberately provoke God's wrath 24/7.

Sproul's point is that, while Hitler and I are both totally depraved (and deserve Hell equally), Hitler was far more ambitious than I was, and really pushed the ball further on utter depravity than I did. But does that make me more righteous than Hitler? Not really, because when compared to Christ, I am closer to every-single-mass murderer who ever lived than I am to Christ.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: TedT
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
The slavery to sin is a metaphor. It does a good job of explaining how people can get their lives messed up, and find it hard to be or to do good. But to take it literally and say that sinners have no free will is just silly.

Sinners only have free will to sin. They have no free will to be righteous. That's Reformed theology.

I think you're overthinking this too much. None of what you say makes sense.
But that's the problem Christian apologists face. They're forced to defend an illogical claim, and so they have to use unreasonable arguments. All the atheist has to do is point out their flaws.

You could have simply said, "No Paulo, I don't believe there was a grand conspiracy to stitch together a ton of unverifiable accounts into a coherent 'Jesus narrative' to fool the masses."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: TedT
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
You're still faced with a dilemma, that you don't seem able to solve (that's two so far, including Euthyphro's).

Ignoring the law of identity doesn't make the solution magically go away. It just makes you a misologist.

What does a Christian do if s/he has to face the fact that loved ones are in hell?

What if some Christians (like myself) already faced the fact that loved ones are in Hell?

Either feel bad for them

Why?

- and how can heaven be heavenly if you feel bad when you're there? - or not care about them in the slightest (in which case, how can they claim to be a loving person?)

Implying we don't deserve eternal justice?

Christian doctrine teaches that God's love is manifest in two basic directions:

1. God loves everyone in the sense of (a.) Doctrine of Providence and (b.) the Doctrine of Common Grace.

"Grace" is always defined as "un-merited favor." That means every second God allows an unrepentant sinner to live, He is showing more Grace and Mercy.

Which won't last forever, of course. Because God eventually has to demonstrate His Justice.

^ So don't take it for granted. That's a warning.

2. God loves His Redeemed; those whom He bought back from sin and spiritual corruption by Grace (un-merited favor) alone. And He will continue to love them eternally.

Therefore, yes indeed, "God loves you."

Either way, heaven isn't heavenly.

The elect are changed into His glory. We will be "like" Him and be conformed to His sense of Holiness and justice. That's Heaven. Not your concept of Heaven. Don't even pretend we share the same abstract concept here.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: TedT
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
First, if anyone is in hell, they are not truly loving anyone, and never did. Their character has been about themselves, not about loving any and all people the way Jesus wants >

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

So, they do not and will not have the character which makes them able to benefit from being in Heaven. Because of their character >

"Destruction and misery are in their ways;
.And the way of peace they have not known."

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Romans 3:16-17)

Because of their character, they can not love and submit to God in His peace (Colossians 3:15), can not love as His family (Ephesians 4:31-32), and ones of this character became able to curse their own children with the shed blood of Christ > Matthew 27:25. So, they are merciless, by character, no matter how many humanitarian gestures they decorate themselves with. So, in case any are my "loved ones", they are not nice people, to say the least.

Plus, the character of sin makes a person deeply sick and weak so he or she can suffer the deep misery of sin, including how worry is so abusive and lies in very cruel ways about what will and will not and could and could not happen. I remember how I was; it was horrible. And in my selfish nature I was only or mainly concerned about myself.

So, I mean misery in which a person is mainly concerned about one's own self. And ones can tend to seek pleasures and excitements, in order to keep themselves from feeling the horribleness of their own selfish character. But as they keep desperately seeking nice feelings, they are exercising their deep weakness so they get "worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived" (in 2 Timothy 3:13).

And later in hell, that deep weakness will still be there > after there will be no more physical creation which they can use to try to feel pleasure. They will have nothing but their own selves, how they have become . . . weak so they can suffer torment.

So, we are doing what we can, now, to reach people so they join with Jesus and have His strength so we not only avoid the horribleness of Satanic cruel stuff in us, but also we share with God as His family.

Loved ones will not be in hell unless God knows they have Satan's character. Of course, then, they will not be evaluated by how charming they might have acted in this world, so we could fall in love with them and use them for pleasures; their real character is developing and will come out.

But if they refuse, they will get pickled in a permanent state. And if they were to be able to cry out from hell and beg us to save them . . . it will be coming from their character which had Satan considering Heaven to be horrible so he tried to destroy how Heaven is. Now is their time, then, to change and desire genuine salvation, not merely to use trickery to try to feel nicer while staying deeply weak.

So, how Satan would have Heaven would be horrible, and how they would relate with Heaven would be horrible; their horrible character is their dictator of how they can see and feel about things. And Jesus of Heaven has already come to minister for people to escape that, plus to share with God as His family, instead.
You must assume that people in hell are utterly evil, because if you don't, then the morality of Christians in heaven is called into question. The problem is, you're saying were never loving anyway, not even while they were alive. And this is obviously ridiculous. No Christians believe that non-Christians and other people in danger of hellfire are irredeemably evil while on this Earth; they realise that all humans are flawed, part good, part bad, but capable of loving. In fact, you've just given yourself a huge problem to deal with, because if you say that nobody who is in hell ever loved anyone, then you're saying that anyone who does love people will never go to hell. Which is good news for me.

In short, your apologetic doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and I'm afraid heaven is still a pretty horrible place, whether its populated by unfeeling, heartless monsters, or by good people torn by loss and guilt as they are faced with the impossibility of helping their tortured loved ones.
Either way, not very heavenly.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But you can access CA??? :scratch: Listen, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
What's CA?
Didn't you know you can't access youtube in China? Check it out, you'll see it's true.
Absolutely, because we all deserve an eternity in literal Hell. Guess emotional manipulation doesn't work on me. You have one chance to feel bad for them, and that's when they're alive. It's like they're walking across a busy street and they have no idea a huge truck is racing towards them. Yeah, that's when I feel the most urgency for them--to do anything I can to help them. To tell them of how to avoid the coming disaster that's upon them. <-- That's love.
Ah, bolding and underlining. That means you're shouting. Don't get frustrated, nobody can win arguments all the time.
It's not me using emotional manipulation on you. It's your love for the people who go to hell. I quite understand that contemplating this may cause frustration.
Because there are these two things in theology called "total depravity" and "utter depravity."
Everyone born of Adam is born in total depravity and deserves Hell. “There is none righteous, no, not one;" - Romans 3:10 In fact, the list of verses supporting this doctrine is downright huge.
Therefore, no one merits Heaven (that's why I'm a Protestant). The doctrine of justification by grace (un-merited favor) through faith (dependent and objective trust) alone (and not works) is the only way one can be saved, and God does all of it. Even the Holy Spirit motivates you to strive for purity and to be like Jesus.
"Utter depravity" is one who really-really tries to sin to the greatest extent that he possibly can. These people wake up in the morning with the singular goal to deliberately provoke God's wrath 24/7.
Sproul's point is that, while Hitler and I are both totally depraved (and deserve Hell equally), Hitler was far more ambitious than I was, and really pushed the ball further on utter depravity than I did. But does that make me more righteous than Hitler? Not really, because when compared to Christ, I am closer to every-single-mass murderer who ever lived than I am to Christ.
Why are you telling me this? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand.
Sinners only have free will to sin. They have no free will to be righteous. That's Reformed theology.
Free will means that you are able to make choices. Nothing more, nothing less. It really is as simple as that.
You could have simply said, "No Paulo, I don't believe there was a grand conspiracy to stitch together a ton of unverifiable accounts into a coherent 'Jesus narrative' to fool the masses."
Still no idea what you're talking about, but enjoying it.
Ignoring the law of identity doesn't make the solution magically go away. It just makes you a misologist.
You're still stuck on the horns of the dilemma, and I'm afraid you're doing a poor job of trying to talk yourself off it.
This is only to be expected, of course. Better apologists than you have tried before.
What if some Christians (like myself) already faced the fact that loved ones are in Hell?
The problem is, you don't get to get over it. Because if you do go to heaven and find there is a loved one in hell, they are going to be there forever.
At which point, you can either say you don't care, in which case you cannot call yourself a loving person, or that you do care. And if you do care, then (confronted by the thought of a loved one in terrible agony forever), you are going to be very unhappy, and heaven won't be so heavenly.
Why feel bad about them being in hell? Because you love them. Even if you believe that they are now an iredeemably sinful monster (a ridiculous supposition) that wouldn't stop a truly loving person for feeling bad for them.
Implying we don't deserve eternal justice?

Christian doctrine teaches that God's love is manifest in two basic directions:

1. God loves everyone in the sense of (a.) Doctrine of Providence and (b.) the Doctrine of Common Grace.

"Grace" is always defined as "un-merited favor." That means every second God allows an unrepentant sinner to live, He is showing more Grace and Mercy.

Which won't last forever, of course. Because God eventually has to demonstrate His Justice.

^ So don't take it for granted. That's a warning.

2. God loves His Redeemed; those whom He bought back from sin and spiritual corruption by Grace (un-merited favor) alone. And He will continue to love them eternally.
What you believe is your own affair. But if you tell us your beliefs, we are at liberty to point out the logical contradictions in them. Which is what this us all about.
The elect are changed into His glory. We will be "like" Him and be conformed to His sense of Holiness and justice. That's Heaven. Not your concept of Heaven. Don't even pretend we share the same abstract concept here.
Of course we share the same concept of heaven. You believe in it, and I don't, but it's not like I'm making up a story about heaven. What would be the point of that?
All I'm doing is listening to what Christians say about heaven, and then pointing out the consequences of their beliefs. If you don't like that, that's your problem, not mine.
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You must assume that people in hell are utterly evil, because if you don't, then the morality of Christians in heaven is called into question. The problem is, you're saying were never loving anyway, not even while they were alive. And this is obviously ridiculous. No Christians believe that non-Christians and other people in danger of hellfire are irredeemably evil while on this Earth; they realise that all humans are flawed, part good, part bad, but capable of loving. In fact, you've just given yourself a huge problem to deal with, because if you say that nobody who is in hell ever loved anyone, then you're saying that anyone who does love people will never go to hell. Which is good news for me.
Jesus does say,

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" in Matthew 5:46.

I have already offered explanation of this, as context to go with what I mean when I say ones in hell never loved anyone.

I mean they never have been all-loving in the way which Jesus expects.

There is real loving, there is selfish loving. Selfish loving comes from the character which qualifies a person to be in hell. This is what I mean. And I have given this already for context. And, of course, we labor with hope of how God is able to cure our character so we become like Jesus so we are ready to spend eternity with Him.

But . . . again . . . like I mean > there are people who can't stand Jesus, because they want their selfish ways, including how they tend to love the ones they can use, and they pick and choose who is worth loving and good enough for them to love. And yes we in Jesus still can need correction so we do not have love idols.

And a person's selfish nature makes him or her able to suffer torment in the presence of God. So, I see why God would give them a special place, in hell, away from the brilliance and goodness which they find to be tormenting. And if Jesus has us shining brighter than the sun, in the resurrection, I see how children of hell would not like being around us. So, indeed, then, it could be nicer for them if we are not shining at them but leaving them alone.

But now is the time when we can reach people, like I have offered. But we need to get our own character cured, after having been into such selfish favoritistic loving, ourselves. We are not wise to only be trying to "save" people; we ourselves need to be prepared in our character so we do well with Jesus . . . how God alone is able to correct us.

Your twenty or thirty words of isolated logic is not going to help us with this. But it does help to remind me to have compassion for wrong people, and care about them and reach to them. So I can benefit from this discussion :)
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
your apologetic
But your representation of "heaven" does not include Jesus. Jesus is so kind and compassionate, that He left Heaven itself in order to reach us and save us. And Jesus is all the good that there is of Heaven. Jesus is not horrible; so the Heaven that I am talking about can not possibly be horrible. You have not dealt with who and how Jesus is, in your representation of "heaven".

What you are talking about is how hell is, with monsters who have been so cruel that they make it seem like they are too good for Jesus and they don't need Jesus. And then their example helps others to decide they don't need Jesus so they end up in hell. That is what is horrible. Your definition of horrible does not deal with this. People might go around acting so charming, even affectionate, but their character is weak so they can suffer torment of worry and fear and boredom and loneliness and unforgiveness and ongoing misery because of bad circumstances. In Jesus Christ's character we can be encouraged and creative so we do what is good about bad things . . . like how Christ on the cross made good use of that horrible time. This is how Heaven's love with its character makes us able to relate and love. I do not think this is horrible.

But yes what your imagination and logic have produced is a horrible place. I agree with not going there.

Heaven's character is God's, with almighty immunity against cruel and anti-love stuff of abusive anger and worry and other deep suffering. And this character makes us strong so we can do well "without complaining and disputing" (Philippians 2:13-16) in our relating with ones close to us so we don't hurt and abuse each other with arguing and controlling and possessing each other. We have growing almighty safety in our character, if not in our circumstances >

"And who is he who will harm you if you become followers of what is good?" (1 Peter 3:13)

So, even now Heaven I am talking about is being good for people.
 
Upvote 0

TedT

Member since Job 38:7
Jan 11, 2021
1,850
334
Vancouver Island
✟85,846.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Free will means that you are able to make choices. Nothing more, nothing less. It really is as simple as that.
No sir. A free will makes uncoerced choices made in full knowledge of the various opinions about the outcomes of choosing any particular option and with no proof of which outcome is the truth. This creates a very personal choice based upon what that person hopes for the most.

From the Christian pov, humans are coerced by many things: their dna, their family and cultural upbringing, their addiction to sin and their being under the sway of GOD's predeterminism of this life though this pov causes enough cognitive dissonance many turn to doublethink to resolve their feelings, ie, believing that yes we are coerced by all these things but yes we have a free will.

Because our free will is an absolute necessity it is no great leap to think that we had our time of free will before the foundation of the world when we chose our FATES and some chose to be sinful in GOD's sight at that time so the earth was created as a prison for the reprobate and as a rehab centre for the sinful elect within predetermined LIVES without a free will for any sinner unless reborn.

Commitment to the doctrine of our being created here on earth within the concepts of creationism of the soul or traducianism is the cause of much of the theological mess.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
What's CA?
Didn't you know you can't access youtube in China? Check it out, you'll see it's true.

Apologies. Typo. What I mean is, "If YouTube is blocked in China, then how can you access ChristianForums?" :scratch: CF would be three times as forbidden as YouTube.

Ah, bolding and underlining. That means you're shouting.

No, Caps Lock typically means you're shouting. I do it to slow down skimming and/or cherry-picking.

It's not me using emotional manipulation on you. It's your love for the people who go to hell. I quite understand that contemplating this may cause frustration.

^ Clear admission of deliberate emotional manipulation on IA's part. One can still love people who are justly convicted for crimes, sentenced to the death penalty, and such.

This is like attending a lethal injection, taking a seat next to a close relative of the convict, and then whispering, "If you didn't object to the conviction, then you obviously didn't love him." That's a stone cold evil move there. But then again, I wouldn't expect anything less.

Why are you telling me this? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand.

Because you asked me to explain. The thread speaks for itself.

Free will means that you are able to make choices. Nothing more, nothing less. It really is as simple as that.

"Free will" is one of those deceptively facile buzzwords that everyone takes for granted until they're forced to actually think about it. It's been debated for hundreds of years. For example: I am free to choose whether I want to have ham or jam for breakfast, but it doesn't mean I'm free to control every possible circumstance that could prevent me from having ham or jam for breakfast (the ham went bad, the ham ninjas broke in and ate it first, the fridge broke down in the middle of the night, I fall down the stairs on the way to the fridge, etc. etc.), in which case, my perception of "free will" isn't really as free as I may assume it is.

Still no idea what you're talking about, but enjoying it.

Well then maybe you'll learn something. There are a lot of atheists out there who don't believe Jesus said what He said in the gospel account, and that it is a series of redactions by other authors. IOW, a religious conspiracy to create-a-Christ.

You're still stuck on the horns of the dilemma, and I'm afraid you're doing a poor job of trying to talk yourself off it.

The law of identity is not a dilemma. It's an absolute law of logic. No worries, really.

What you believe is your own affair. But if you tell us your beliefs, we are at liberty to point out the logical contradictions in them. Which is what this us all about.

In which case, the record shows that you pointed out zero contradictions in the Doctrine of Common Grace, as well as the Doctrine of Special Grace.

Of course we share the same concept of heaven.

No, I'm pretty sure we don't. Why don't you try to describe your concept of Heaven as you believe you heard it from professing Christians?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I have already offered explanation of this, as context to go with what I mean when I say ones in hell never loved anyone.
And I explained to you that your explanation doesn't make sense.
I mean they never have been all-loving in the way which Jesus expects. There is real loving, there is selfish loving. Selfish loving comes from the character which qualifies a person to be in hell. This is what I mean.
So I see you've now changed your definition of love, to fix the problem I pointed out. The problem is, this doesn't help you either.
In order to save your argument, you still have to prove that the people who go to hell never loved anyone at all. You're trying to say that this is true because only Christians are capable of "real, true" love. But this is obviously false. Christians themselves will tell you that they aren't perfect, that their virtue is still mixed with sin. And that means that the non-Christians' sin is still mixed with virtue.
You're still facing the fundament problem, and haven't yet resolved it. To say that people who go to hell never, ever loved anybody is obviously false. Even "selfish" love carries an element of love in it. They are not irredeemably evil while on earth, and so are still deserving of your love.
And you know what this means: you are not, sadly, able to completely discount them. You loved them while they were on earth, and your love meant something. So you can't just ignore it while in heaven. Indeed, it's a horrible thing for you to even try, and the harder you try to, the worse a person you will be.
Your twenty or thirty words of isolated logic is not going to help us with this.
"Isolated logic," eh? Logic is all we need here. What I've said makes sense, and you know it. You've lost. You can see now that heaven is not - cannot - be heavenly, if hell also exists. Deal with it.
But it does help to remind me to have compassion for wrong people, and care about them and reach to them. So I can benefit from this discussion :)
If you say so. But you've still lost the debate. Why not have the grace to admit it?
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟95,047.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Apologies. Typo. What I mean is, "If YouTube is blocked in China, then how can you access ChristianForums?" :scratch: CF would be three times as forbidden as YouTube.
Sure thing. Typos happen.
Anyway, strangely, it's not.
No, Caps Lock typically means you're shouting. I do it to slow down skimming and/or cherry-picking.
Be told that it looks like shouting and makes you look like you're getting frustrated.

^ Clear admission of deliberate emotional manipulation on IA's part. One can still love people who are justly convicted for crimes, sentenced to the death penalty, and such.
Of course one can. But if you actually love them, you feel bad for them, even if you agree with their punishment.
This is like attending a lethal injection, taking a seat next to a close relative of the convict, and then whispering, "If you didn't object to the conviction, then you obviously didn't love him." That's a stone cold evil move there. But then again, I wouldn't expect anything less.
First, this looks like it's getting difficult for you. Take a breath and relax. You're taking this too seriously.
Second: no, it's not like that. It's like seeing people at an execution, and they're laughing and smiling. You learn that they are close friends of the convicted, but they seem to not care in the slightest. The logical conclusion is that they don't actually love him.
Because you asked me to explain. The thread speaks for itself.
Your little explanation of depravity doesn't seem to help either you or me. You'll have to clarify.
"Free will" is one of those deceptively facile buzzwords that everyone takes for granted until they're forced to actually think about it. It's been debated for hundreds of years. For example: I am free to choose whether I want to have ham or jam for breakfast, but it doesn't mean I'm free to control every possible circumstance that could prevent me from having ham or jam for breakfast (the ham went bad, the ham ninjas broke in and ate it first, the fridge broke down in the middle of the night, I fall down the stairs on the way to the fridge, etc. etc.), in which case, my perception of "free will" isn't really as free as I may assume it is.
Nobody ever said that free will meant you controlled everything. Why would you think they think that? You're still free to choose ham or jam.
Well then maybe you'll learn something. There are a lot of atheists out there who don't believe Jesus said what He said in the gospel account, and that it is a series of redactions by other authors. IOW, a religious conspiracy to create-a-Christ.
Let's stick to the topic, shall we?
The law of identity is not a dilemma. It's an absolute law of logic. No worries, really.
The law of identity doesn't help you here in the slightest.
In which case, the record shows that you pointed out zero contradictions in the Doctrine of Common Grace, as well as the Doctrine of Special Grace.
Flaws? What are you talking about? There are no flaws in them. The only problem is, they don't help you in the slightest, which means you're still stuck on the dilemma.
No, I'm pretty sure we don't. Why don't you try to describe your concept of Heaven as you believe you heard it from professing Christians?
Sure. From Christians, I understand that people who go to heaven will be perfectly happy. The existence of hell that loved ones go to presents an insuperable obstacle to this, meaning that the people in hell either do not care about their loved ones (in which case, they're not loving) or aren't perfectly happy (in which case heaven isn't heavenly).
It's a simple problem that Christians have now spent thirteen pages trying to work around, with no success. And the doctrines of grace aren't going to make any difference at all, I'm afraid.
 
Upvote 0

Paulomycin

Well-Known Member
Feb 22, 2021
1,482
376
51
Beaumont/Port Arthur
✟20,988.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Be told that it looks like shouting and makes you look like you're getting frustrated.

Then admins should remove them.

First, this looks like it's getting difficult for you. Take a breath and relax. You're taking this too seriously.

Then why are you here?

I appear to be taking it too seriously because I'm not allowed to lol. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

Second: no, it's not like that. It's like seeing people at an execution, and they're laughing and smiling. You learn that they are close friends of the convicted, but they seem to not care in the slightest. The logical conclusion is that they don't actually love him.

- Pretty sure we'd take God's justice just as seriously as Luke 16:23-31. Pretty sure Abraham in the account isn't laughing and smiling.

- So you define love as. . .a feeling? :neutral:

- More Luke 16: “Then [the rich man in Hades] said, ‘I beg you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ 29 Abraham said to him, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ 30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’

Your little explanation of depravity doesn't seem to help either you or me. You'll have to clarify.

I clearly stated, "Sproul's point is that, while Hitler and I are both totally depraved (and deserve Hell equally), Hitler was far more ambitious than I was, and really pushed the ball further on utter depravity than I did. But does that make me more righteous than Hitler? Not really, because when compared to Christ, I am closer to every-single-mass murderer who ever lived than I am to Christ."

Nobody ever said that free will meant you controlled everything.

Or anything, really. . .

Let's stick to the topic, shall we?

You first.

The law of identity doesn't help you here in the slightest.

Sure it does.

God's nature = God's nature

nature

[ˈnāCHər]

NOUN

2. the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.

synonyms: essence

Flaws? What are you talking about? There are no flaws in them.

My quote in the thread clearly states the word "contradictions." Word search in thread shows you were the only one to use the word "flaws" before this post. Are you really going to make me get this tedious with you?

Sure. From Christians, I understand that people who go to heaven will be perfectly happy.

- So what I'm hearing is that you define heaven as a separate place, correct?

- Why are they happy?

The existence of hell that loved ones go to presents an insuperable obstacle to this, meaning that the people in hell either do not care about their loved ones (in which case, they're not loving) or aren't perfectly happy (in which case heaven isn't heavenly).

What do you think "Hell" is for, as you hear it from Christians?

It's a simple problem that Christians have now spent thirteen pages trying to work around, with no success. And the doctrines of grace aren't going to make any difference at all, I'm afraid.

- You haven't (yet) explained why one necessarily should feel bad for loved ones in Hell. Is it because you see it as unreasonable torture, or something?
 
Upvote 0

com7fy8

Well-Known Member
May 22, 2013
13,649
6,108
Massachusetts
✟583,430.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
In fact, you've just given yourself a huge problem to deal with, because if you say that nobody who is in hell ever loved anyone, then you're saying that anyone who does love people will never go to hell. Which is good news for me.

In short, your apologetic doesn't stand up to scrutiny,
But without Jesus you can't love in the way which is possible with God . . . with the character of Jesus.

Like I offer, among other things >

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

And loving people includes helping people see they need how Jesus died on the cross for us, so we can be reconciled with God and become ready with the right character so we can spend eternity with Him. Human loving does not do this.

Also, the character of God's love is almighty against the kind of fear which "has torment" >

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment." (in 1 John 4:18)

So, loving people includes helping them to know and discover how God is able to give them His own almighty immunity of love against cruel and disabling fear and worry. And the character of this love makes us ready to share eternity with Jesus.

Christians themselves will tell you that they aren't perfect, that their virtue is still mixed with sin. And that means that the non-Christians' sin is still mixed with virtue.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums