Hell 2

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

(Picking up where we left off...)

So in the end is God responsible for people going to hell, judging by the fact that He created it specifically for that certain class of people?

Well, there is the rejection of God. He sends the message again and again and again, and if someone steadfastly refuses to acknowledge Him, that was their choice then. So ultimately they get what they wanted. Only, then they won't want it anymore. But it's not like they're going inot this thing ignorantly.

At the judgment, there's no blaming it on God. Might as well deal with it here, because that's the only place it can be dealt with, period.

 

[David Gould]

(Picking up where we left off...)



Well, there is the rejection of God. He sends the message again and again and again, and if someone steadfastly refuses to acknowledge Him, that was their choice then. So ultimately they get what they wanted. Only, then they won't want it anymore. But it's not like they're going inot this thing ignorantly.

At the judgment, there's no blaming it on God. Might as well deal with it here, because that's the only place it can be dealt with, period.

Why cannot God deal with it after we die?

If I find out that hell exists and is a bad place and that I will end up there if I continue to reject God and then I accept God, why should me being dead matter?

Why would God keep me in Hell if I reached this point?

It makes no sense to me.


In addition, if I do not hear or understand the message, how is it my fault? Surely it is up to the sender of the message to be loud and clear?

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Why cannot God deal with it after we die?

If I find out that hell exists and is a bad place and that I will end up there if I continue to reject God and then I accept God, why should me being dead matter?

Why would God keep me in Hell if I reached this point?

It makes no sense to me.


In addition, if I do not hear or understand the message, how is it my fault? Surely it is up to the sender of the message to be loud and clear?

He would keep you in hell under those circumstances because you chose to be there. This life is a preparation for eternity; a chance to repent of sin. God judges our worthiness through Christ.

Think of it this way. You choose the people you want to invite over to your house. Well, God does that, too. If you have someone you've invited over many times but they make it clear they want nothing to do with you unless you have something to give them, then how long will you continue to want them over? Well, the same is true with God. He doesn't dip your feet in Hell and ask you then. There's no relationship, no submission, no connection between you two. No love.

But you have heard the message, and understood it. If a person rejects God, then that person doesn't get Him, as per their own wish. Can't blame God for that.

 

[David Gould]

He would keep you in hell under those circumstances because you chose to be there. This life is a preparation for eternity; a chance to repent of sin. God judges our worthiness through Christ.

I chose to be there? Nonsense. For me to choose to be there I would have to know that it existed and understand what it was and understand precisely what I had to do to choose to be there.

I have none of these things.

As an example, can you choose to go to the Hell of Islam? Of course not: you do not think it exists. You cannot choose to go to places you think are imaginary.

Think of it this way. You choose the people you want to invite over to your house. Well, God does that, too. If you have someone you've invited over many times but they make it clear they want nothing to do with you unless you have something to give them, then how long will you continue to want them over? Well, the same is true with God. He doesn't dip your feet in Hell and ask you then. There's no relationship, no submission, no connection between you two. No love.

But I do not create the alternative to 'being at my house' as a place of eternal torment. And I am more patient than God in that if someone did become a better person I would be happy to welcome them to my house no matter how long it took.

Of course, I cannot welcome them to my house once they are dead. But God can. So why precisely is death the cut off? Can you explain this in terms of God's mercy or justice?

But you have heard the message, and understood it. If a person rejects God, then that person doesn't get Him, as per their own wish. Can't blame God for that.

I have heard the message. I most certainly do not understand it. It makes no sense.

As for rejecting God, have you rejected Allah lately? Of course not - you cannot reject something you do not believe exists.


Further to this, there is the question of choice. Do people choose their beliefs?

For example, could you choose right now to believe in Allah and Mohammed - choose to sincerely believe that Allah is the One True God and Mohammed his final prophet?

Or to take a less religious point, can you choose right now to honestly and sincerely believe that the moon is green cheese?

Think about it for a little while.

Belief is not a choice. You believe what you believe because the evidence you have seen and the arguments you have heard have convinced you that it is the truth.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

I chose to be there? Nonsense. For me to choose to be there I would have to know that it existed and understand what it was and understand precisely what I had to do to choose to be there.

I have none of these things.

The truth about hell is revealed in scripture.

As an example, can you choose to go to the Hell of Islam? Of course not: you do not think it exists. You cannot choose to go to places you think are imaginary.

God reveals the truth, but men harden their hearts against it. In our hearts we know murder is wrong, but it is a big part of Islamic nations. Most men in Afghanistan, for example, own several guns. There is little actual, enforced prohibition against using them to kill another person. Family honor, I understand, is the reason.

But what is more important? The inner truth written on our hearts that this is wrong, or the religion in which it is so deeply engrained?

But I do not create the alternative to 'being at my house' as a place of eternal torment. And I am more patient than God in that if someone did become a better person I would be happy to welcome them to my house no matter how long it took.

But that's if they changed and acted according to your standards. Someone who dies unrepentant and unsubmissive God is not someone who acts in according to God's standards. God's generosity cannot be outclassed.

Of course, I cannot welcome them to my house once they are dead. But God can. So why precisely is death the cut off? Can you explain this in terms of God's mercy or justice?

Because God gave them a lifetime to repent. But they instead chose to reject. God is eternal, and so are all His ways. I don't know if this is something that can be understood without the direction of the Holy Spirit, but we're not living in this world for its own sake. We are in this world to find our Lord, submit and be reconciled, and then to be cleansed of sinful tendencies. Then we gradualte to real life. This here is just temporal stuff. We graduate to the real thing with imperishable bodies.

We also testify here, with our behavior, to the coming world. Communion (aka the Lord's supper) testifies. The sabbath rest testifies to eternity. Marriage testifies to the coming union of God and His people. What we do down here testifies to what we believe. This isn't the real life down here. This is boot camp. Problem is, most people try to dodge the draft, only to become casualties.

I have heard the message. I most certainly do not understand it. It makes no sense.

Please feel free to ask as many questions as you like. I'm happy to help.

As for rejecting God, have you rejected Allah lately? Of course not - you cannot reject something you do not believe exists.

I reject what is false. Allah is false.

Further to this, there is the question of choice. Do people choose their beliefs?

Depends. There is a difference between truth an belief. People choose what they want to believe all the time. This is the case with every false religion. But people do not choose truth. Truth is absolute. But once they stumble upon it through the providence of God, they receive it for one reason: it is true. (Well, unelss they're dong it to get something they want. Either they will see the error in this and repent, or they will fall away.) They don't choose it as they would a new pair of shoes (which is how people choose false religions-according to what they like).

For example, could you choose right now to believe in Allah and Mohammed - choose to sincerely believe that Allah is the One True God and Mohammed his final prophet?

Or to take a less religious point, can you choose right now to honestly and sincerely believe that the moon is green cheese?

Think about it for a little while.

Of course people can choose Mohamed. People do it all the time. Cassius Clay did that. (AKA Mohammed Ali.) Anything that is not true is not chosen because it is true. If it is true, it isn't a choice, but a simple acknowledgement that it is true. Christianity is the most offensive religion on the face of the planet because it does not allow people to choose their own realities, and acknowldges the simple truth that we are sinners and need atonement with God for that. The God we know inherently is good and ready to forgive. But this would cause a person to lay his/her personal pride at the feet of a bleeding Savior and many people don't want to do this, or to admit that they sin.

Belief is not a choice. You believe what you believe because the evidence you have seen and the arguments you have heard have convinced you that it is the truth.

People absolutely choose according to what they want to believe. People often think something is true because they want it to be.

 

[David Gould]

Please feel free to ask as many questions as you like. I'm happy to help.

I will focus on one thing at a time, as otherwise we will range over a larger area.

What is Hell, in your view? (In other words, what will it be like).

 

[BInC]

I would say Hell is alot of things, the worst of which being eternity knowing you made the worst make possible, resulting in eternity seperated from the Lord.

 

[David Gould]

I would say Hell is alot of things, the worst of which being eternity knowing you made the worst make possible, resulting in eternity seperated from the Lord.

Why should a mistake made by a fallible human result in such a seperation? Humans make mistakes all the time, and the absolute worst consequence for any of them is death.

Hell makes no sense to me. For such an evil, terrible, horrible thing to be created by a good God is an impossibility.

 

[tcampen]

If "hell" in the Christian concept is eternal separation from their God, why can't the Buddhist still attain Nirvana? True, from the Christian perspective, Nirvana is not where they want to be, but to the Buddhist, Nirvana is there equivilent to the Christian's heaven. The same can be applied to a great many of the world's faiths. In other words, eternal separation from one's own preferred God would be, at least subjectively, hell.

I realize there will likely be a response such as, "There is no Nirvana, just the Christian idea of heaven and hell, etc.," but the same argument can be made about that idea as well. And until a bunch of people die for an appreciable amount of time and they can tell us what's beyond our natural lives, we're not going to have a verifiable answer to that question, and must rely on theology and faith.

 

[BInC]

If "hell" in the Christian concept is eternal separation from their God, why can't the Buddhist still attain Nirvana? True, from the Christian perspective, Nirvana is not where they want to be, but to the Buddhist, Nirvana is there equivilent to the Christian's heaven. The same can be applied to a great many of the world's faiths. In other words, eternal separation from one's own preferred God would be, at least subjectively, hell.

I realize there will likely be a response such as, "There is no Nirvana, just the Christian idea of heaven and hell, etc.," but the same argument can be made about that idea as well. And until a bunch of people die for an appreciable amount of time and they can tell us what's beyond our natural lives, we're not going to have a verifiable answer to that question, and must rely on theology and faith.

Why a bunch of people? Wouldn't a single one be able to do the job? And what do you consider "an appreciable amount of time?" Would about three days be long enough?

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

I will focus on one thing at a time, as otherwise we will range over a larger area.

What is Hell, in your view? (In other words, what will it be like).

Very good question. Hell is permanent separation from God, and permanent removal of all comforts He had previously given. It is separation from His love and mercy. It involves various degrees of torment depending on how evil the person is in God's sight.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Why should a mistake made by a fallible human result in such a seperation? Humans make mistakes all the time, and the absolute worst consequence for any of them is death.

Hell makes no sense to me. For such an evil, terrible, horrible thing to be created by a good God is an impossibility.

What we consider evil and what God considers evil are two differnt things. And He is the One who makes these decisions. Consider this, if you will: Who made whom? Why?

After these questions are answered, we are left with this: what do we know about our Creator?

What I'm getting at is this: God has revealed Himself. He wants us to trust Him because of His character, not because we see. He did not call us to see. In fact, He calls us not to see, and yet trust Him entirely on His own merit, because He is worthy of belief. And then we see.

Why should the One who created us have to prove Himself?

More pointedly: Can we call God into account?

Blessings,
Whitehorse

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

If "hell" in the Christian concept is eternal separation from their God, why can't the Buddhist still attain Nirvana? True, from the Christian perspective, Nirvana is not where they want to be, but to the Buddhist, Nirvana is there equivilent to the Christian's heaven. The same can be applied to a great many of the world's faiths. In other words, eternal separation from one's own preferred God would be, at least subjectively, hell.

I realize there will likely be a response such as, "There is no Nirvana, just the Christian idea of heaven and hell, etc.," but the same argument can be made about that idea as well. And until a bunch of people die for an appreciable amount of time and they can tell us what's beyond our natural lives, we're not going to have a verifiable answer to that question, and must rely on theology and faith.

The question isn't what people believe, but what is true. Not what people believe is true, but what is true.

Blessings,
Whitehorse

 

[David Gould]

What we consider evil and what God considers evil are two differnt things. And He is the One who makes these decisions.

There is a problem here. Does God simply arbitrarily decide what is 'good' and what is 'evil'? Or is there some external standard by which he judges things 'good' and 'evil'? Or is it simply in his nature to judge certain things 'good' and certain things 'evil'?

This is the authority problem. In other words, by what authority does God decide that X is good and Y is evil? Is it simply on the basis of might makes right, for example?

Consider this, if you will: Who made whom? Why?

After these questions are answered, we are left with this: what do we know about our Creator?

I do not think there is anything to know.

What I'm getting at is this: God has revealed Himself. He wants us to trust Him because of His character, not because we see. He did not call us to see. In fact, He calls us not to see, and yet trust Him entirely on His own merit, because He is worthy of belief. And then we see.

Why should the One who created us have to prove Himself?

Why shouldn't he have to prove himself? There is no logical reason for assuming that the creator simple because he is the creator is good, for example.

More pointedly: Can we call God into account?

Blessings,
Whitehorse

I do not know whether we can call God into account. If he exists, he is far to powerful to be compelled to justify his particular moral system. But there is no logical reason why we should not require him to do so before following it (other than fear of eternal suffering, for example, or the fear of missing out on eternal love).

As an example, if God came down to me and said to my face, 'I am trustworthy,' for what reason should I believe him?

Surely the only way a human can make a judgment is by testing the claim. That may involve giving God trust and seeing if he actually is trustworthy, which is fair enough. But testing the claim - testing God - is what we would actually be doing in that instance.


I have probably gotten us a little off track here. I will go back to the other post and address that - the one on what hell is.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

There is a problem here. Does God simply arbitrarily decide what is 'good' and what is 'evil'? Or is there some external standard by which he judges things 'good' and 'evil'? Or is it simply in his nature to judge certain things 'good' and certain things 'evil'?

Yes-He determines this in accordance with His character. He alone is eternal, and is thereyby a worthy law unto Himself. His position and right as creator. He reveals it in His word. Good question.

This is the authority problem. In other words, by what authority does God decide that X is good and Y is evil? Is it simply on the basis of might makes right, for example?

Well, we also have to good fortune of having a good God. True, He does have the right, but He is just and loving in all His ways. Now, to see this requires close communion with Him. There are lots of things ai don't understand. Just yesterday I was surprised when He answered a prayer in a way opposite of how I expected, much to mu spurprise, confusion, and I'll admit, dismay. So I asked Him to show me what I couldn't se about it. If we ask respectfully and lovingly, He does show us why it was fitting and right. He knows me better than I know myself, and He knows the implications I can't always see.

In over 30 years of experience, I've learned He is always right. It's just a matter of seeking out His thoughts and how He thinks. He expects us to trust Him on the basis of Who He is, but He's tender and merciful, too. He understands we don't understand. But if we walk very closely and take a keen interest in His mind and how He thinks, He is absolutely brilliant. An incredible teacher. He shows us.

I do not think there is anything to know.

He reveals it in His word and through His Holy Spirit. But there are malevolent underlings in the spirit world who try to counterfeit His presence, so Hos word is the anchor, and we are given a means for testing the spirits to see whether they are legit or not.

Why shouldn't he have to prove himself? There is no logical reason for assuming that the creator simple because he is the creator is good, for example.

Because of Who He is and because of His nature. We have no reason to doubt Him. Our suffering is by our own wrongdoing, but for those who love Him, all suffering is temporary-even death itself. He is infinitely generous. He truly is.

I do not know whether we can call God into account. If he exists, he is far to powerful to be compelled to justify his particular moral system.

Correct. This was revealed to you by the Holy Spirit. This is not common knowledge.

But there is no logical reason why we should not require him to do so before following it (other than fear of eternal suffering, for example, or the fear of missing out on eternal love).

Actually, there is. It is by virtue of who we are compared to Who He is. Our logic is bound to this world, but His is eternal. It steps far beyond what we can see. So we are limited by our capabilities, but He has no limits because He is eternal. His logic is a much higher kind. It is an eternal logic and intelligence. He's incredibly brilliant, a term which almost denigrates His perfection because there is no word that can describe what He is like. Just brilliant.

As an example, if God came down to me and said to my face, 'I am trustworthy,' for what reason should I believe him?

If we hold a five-cent piece of paper in front of or eyes, that's all it takes to limit our knowledge. He can not be limited in His knowledge by anything. He knows more than we do, so we should intuitively not trust what we think about Him-unless the knowledge came from Him. You ask refreshingly great questions.

Surely the only way a human can make a judgment is by testing the claim.

We don't have the means. We can't even see Him-with physical eyes. There is a spiritual seeing, however, much like wearing 3D glasses to watch a 3D movie, except that without these glasses we cannot see anything at all, because He is Spirit and we are flesh. And God is the one who provides the glasses. He designed us this way so we would be dependent on Him-an orderly and proper arrangement.

That may involve giving God trust and seeing if he actually is trustworthy, which is fair enough. But testing the claim - testing God - is what we would actually be doing in that instance.

Exactly. It isn't that God doesn't want to show us anything-He just wants to be given the honor due Him, which is trust based not on what we can see which is inherently flawed and faulty, but by who He is. There is great wisdom and truth in doing things this way, because the limitations are removed. A very good system.

God shows us. He is patient and loving with our smallness-He made us that way. It almost seems to endear Him to us. There are some scriptures that describe this that I love.

God isn't concerned with our wanting to know-in fact He loves it when we take a keen interest in these things. He loves it when we ask to be shown things. It's not what we ask usually, but how. The Bible says it is the glory of God to hide a matter, and the glory of kings to search them out. I lo-o-o-o-ve that verse.

I have probably gotten us a little off track here. I will go back to the other post and address that - the one on what hell is.

Please-ask me anything you wish.

 

[tcampen]

It's easy to just generally say "God is pure good," but difficult to narrow down which God you're talking about. And what objective, independent methodology to we use to test the accuracy of such a statement? How is it possible to analyse the claim without an independent meaning for what it means to be "good" and then see whether a particular concept of God meets that standard? And is "good" always the same, or does it depend on the being who is doing the act? (A.K.A. situational ethics.)

It is not at all unreasonable to find other's people's concept of God to be less than 100% good. Some of us do not find the killing of healthy newborn children to be an act of goodness under any circumstance, for example. And that is NOT an unreasonable position. If someone proposed their God committed such an act, I would be forced to conclude that God is less than 100% good - perhaps even substantially so.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

It's easy to just generally say "God is pure good," but difficult to narrow down which God you're talking about.

Okay. This is the thing of crucial importance: the answer must be the truth. The God we seek must be the true God. So if we look inside ourselves, we will not know this. If we look to our preferences, or our wishes, we will not find this, because we will bend the truth to fit the reality we seek to create. Which we cannot create reality-a basic fact. This is why postmodernism cannot work.

So, let's start with the idea that truth must be our number one priority, to which everything else falls short. Only then can we know the true God. As it is written:

I Corinthians 2:11-16

2:11For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

2:12Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

2:13Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

2:14But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2:15But he that is spiritual judgeth F6 all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

2:16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

And what objective, independent methodology to we use to test the accuracy of such a statement? How is it possible to analyse the claim without an independent meaning for what it means to be "good" and then see whether a particular concept of God meets that standard? And is "good" always the same, or does it depend on the being who is doing the act? (A.K.A. situational ethics.)

You cannot test this. How can you test the supernatural. You cannot test an infinite God with temporal means. Consider what God has done. Consider creation and your existence. An endless universe. You cannot test Him at all. The only way to know about Him is to understand the impossibility of this; to have an accurate view of our smallness. God is graciously inclined to reveal His thoughts to us as He indwells us.

It is not at all unreasonable to find other's people's concept of God to be less than 100% good. Some of us do not find the killing of healthy newborn children to be an act of goodness under any circumstance, for example. And that is NOT an unreasonable position. If someone proposed their God committed such an act, I would be forced to conclude that God is less than 100% good - perhaps even substantially so.

It is absolutely unreasonable, because this argument does not seek truth, but to be flattered. We're not that big, T. We just aren't. And until the absolute truth is the only priority, the priority becomes something less than truth. And that which is less than true is false.

The problem most people have with Jehovah isn't a intellectual problem, but rather an emotional one: they don't want to be ruled by Him. And so they suppress the truth and try to create their own realities. Clearly we cannot do this. Create anything ex nihilo (out of nothing), even a dead branch, and perhaps God will consider you a contender. And I'm not saying that to be sarcastic; I'm saying it so you can see that we cannot contend with God or create reality.

 

[Charles Darwin]

Very good question. Hell is permanent separation from God, and permanent removal of all comforts He had previously given. It is separation from His love and mercy. It involves various degrees of torment depending on how evil the person is in God's sight.

That puts me in a curious situation. I feel that seperation from God is perfectly fine and infact, have such a distaste for all thing religiously overbearing that i want to projectile vomit every time i meet a Bible Pusher. would this make my Hell and eternity close to god? or do i get to revel in the eternal seperation and wonderful sin that i have been enjoying? (not that I kill and steal mind you, i just could care less about god and feel completly detached from any diety who could willingly sacrifice his son so readily, which leads me to be unable to see eye to eye with him. <- this of course being generally considered blashphemy and sin by christians)

PS- that last part is just to give an understanding of where im coming from, not to change the thread topic

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Well, the misconception in this is that you will continue to call your own shots and that you will continue in a state of relative comfort. This is not the case. There is not a legitimate thing you enjoy without God's hand in it. In hell you won't even be able to get a glass of water.

I'm not saying this to frighten you, but because as a Christian I owe you the truth about these decisions you're making. The reward of sin is but for a moment, but the bitter consequences are forever.

The reason people don't believe is because they want to be in the driver's seat. This is a logical impossibility; it's over before it began. People don't want to be ruled by God. But it's a deception that God's rulership is burdensome. It's not. It's actually the only place where there is true liberty. I would encourage you to explore this concept for yourself.

Blessings,
Whitehorse

 

[Chilldogg77]

Charles, you're asking the wrong questions. God is infallible, and perfect. So if someone goes to hell, it is just. It was revealed to St. Faustina, I believe, that no mind, angel or human, will ever be able to comprehend God's mercy, and we will spend an eternity marveling at it. The right question is whether or not God exists. If not, there's no hell, forget the whole thing. If so, do the best you can to please him, and your life on earth and the next life will go a lot better. Leave the judging to him, he won't screw it up.