Hell

[Almost there]

Hmmm trying to explain the supernatural with the natural. No wonder we disagree.

I'm using the same tool Jesus used to explain the supernatural. You know, "the kingdom of heaven is like...".

 

[Almost there]

I don't think that you want to see anything in this parable. I think that you don't want to accept that we have immoral souls or that suffering due to what one does here could have consequences of suffering forever. You wish for an eternal cessation of consciousness as means of punishment rather than never-ending torment. You probably cannot fathom how a Loving God could suffer creatures that He loves to experience such a fate, without end. So, you reject the teaching first, and then work to see scripture through the filtered lens that results.

We have to become as God is, by living according to all of the commandments of Christ. Then, when we have the mind of Christ, we can be better judges of what His Word means. If we are to be simply annihilated -- unconscious for all eternity -- it is doubtful we will have nearly enough reason to do what it takes in this life to become as God is. My point is that it is spiritually damning to rule out eternal torment. Christ did not teach us to do this. He strongly emphasized that one ought to be terribly afraid of what is going to happen if you reject His gift of Eternal Life. Never-ending unconsciousness isn't scary at all, and our Lord did not teach it.

The message is pretty clear in Acts. We are not to be scared into Christ's arms. We are to come out of desire to be with Him. I don't throw out a doctrine because it's not "scary enough".

 

[truefiction1]

The message is pretty clear in Acts. We are not to be scared into Christ's arms. We are to come out of desire to be with Him. I don't throw out a doctrine because it's not "scary enough".

Yeah, I know. I don't either, and that is not what I would have you do. What I would have you do is to take up your cross, follow Christ, and become like God. Then, having a vision of God and the mind of Christ, it will become possible for you to know things as God knows them. This is necessary for all of us to do, because otherwise we see all things from a place of darkness, as with the eyes of the flesh and our fallen nature. Doctrines being fabricated from within the fallen rationale of such minds are of the darkness. "God is Light, and in Him is no darkness at all".

The Orthodox Christian Way, if one chooses to accept it, draws you into a Life of self-denial and renunciation of the world, where you will strive with all our might to pray, discern God's will, and obey it without ceasing. Following this narrow path, you acquire more and more of the Holy Spirit, or, as it is written "And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His image with intensifying glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.…" (2 Corinthians 3:18). It is only from within this place of Divine Light that we interpret Scripture.

This is the Way of sanctification, and illumination, and can even lead to spiritual perfection in Christ. None who have Lived in the blessed Way since Pentecost have ever taught that anyone should rule out the existence of everlasting punishment. We won't begin doing so now either. My humble advice is that you don't risk causing God's "little ones to stumble" by teaching anyone that they should rule out everlasting punishment, nor claim that Scripture proves it, because Scripture does not.

 

[truefiction1]

The message is pretty clear in Acts. We are not to be scared into Christ's arms. We are to come out of desire to be with Him. I don't throw out a doctrine because it's not "scary enough".

Another way you could look at it, Almost there, is that God's children are not all the same on the inside: we all start out at different places. What motivates one saint to seek out the glory of God may be different from that which motivates another. We have in our history some saints who had come to Love God with all of their being, that began their journey towards God out of fear of eternal torments. Other saints maybe not so much fearful of hell were motivated for other reasons. If billions of God's children were motivated by fear of hell, and would not otherwise have come to know God and inherit Eternal Life, would you want to be responsible for taking Eternal Life away from them by convincing them there is no everlasting punishment?

I could be wrong, Almost there, but for some reason you seem to me like a pretty sane guy. So I don't think you'd really be okay with doing something that could jeopardize other people.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm always so late for the good threads.

Lazarus and the rich man is not about hell. It's not the point of the parable.

What does it matter? They aren't going to lie about the great hints there on what hell is, and hell not being the point doesn't make hell, not hell. Are you saying it's inaccurate in it's mentions of hell because the point is not to describe hell even though it does touch on that?

Actually it is a lot about hell, what it is, what it's called and a warning from someone who is there. It leaves no doubt there is a hell, and that it ain't a good place.

 

[prodromos]

The message is pretty clear in Acts. We are not to be scared into Christ's arms. We are to come out of desire to be with Him. I don't throw out a doctrine because it's not "scary enough".

Fear is the beginning of wisdom (it's not the end of wisdom though)

 

[Postvieww]

Almost none of the accepted parables are stated to be parables. The lost sheep, the great banquet, etc. It is accepted that they are partly because it is clear that they are and partly because it says clearly in matthew that that is how he taught lessons to the crowds. If Jesus is in the act of teaching in his verbiage to a crowd, it is a parable. You can bank on it. It is what the bible says he did.

I find a lot of discrepancies in your above statement, I’ll list a few.


1. Jesus taught the multitudes about John without parables Matthew 11:7-19


2. Matthew 13:3 tells us Jesus spoke in parables.


3. Matthew 13:24 says Jesus put forth another parable, another in verse 31, another in verse 33


4. Now your proof text verse 34 in context refers to the entire multitude to which He spoke in chapter 13 not every time Jesus spoke to a group as you claim.


Matt.13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:


5. All of the designated parables are non-personal “a sower” “a man” “a certain king”.


6. Matthew 23:1- 39 Jesus spake to the multitudes plain teaching without parables.


The examples in Matthew 11 and 23 refute your claim “If Jesus is in the act of teaching in his verbiage to a crowd, it is a parable”.


7. John 6 a “multitude” verse2 followed Jesus to the other side verse 24, Jesus gave plain instruction on the resurrection without the aid of parables verses 35-40.


8. John 7 Jesus taught in the temple without parables Verse 14-24


9. John 8 taught “all the people” much from the Mount of Olives without the use of parables.


Yes Jesus taught the multitudes many times using parables but it is not accurate to say every time.


Luke 16 names Lazarus and Abraham; this is what removes this passage from being a parable. No other teaching by Jesus called a parable uses proper names. Abraham spoke to the rich man or he did not, if he did not Jesus’s story was untrue and that is not the case.


Luke 16 is not called a parable in the text nor is Jesus speaking to the multitudes. It is my claim Matt. 13:34 applies only to the context in which it was used. For your theory to work it must apply to multitudes, Pharisees or disciples and that clearly is not the case

Well, I try not to take Revelation too literally.

The seven churches are not lampstands, Jesus is not a lamb and the second death is not a lake of fire. But all three make the point they need to make. Everybody knows what happens when you throw a living thing into a lake of fire. Try it some time. Heck, just make a fire pit and find a dead raccoon on the road somewhere. Throw it in and see what happens.

Poor, examples, Revelation 1:20 tell us plainly the candlesticks represent the seven churches. Referring to Jesus as the Lamb of God is not the same thing as calling fictitious characters Abraham and Lazarus.

Scripture does not call the lake of fire the second death, being cast into the lake is called the second death.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Furthermore the passage tells us the beast and the false prophet “shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” not consumed as a bundle of sticks or a fleshly body. If the beast and false prophet will be tormented day and night forever there is no scriptural basis to claim anyone else cast into the lake of fire will not be as well.

You are free to believe as you will but unsubstantiated claims like all of Jesus’s teachings to groups are parables and the wicked dead will be consumed out of existence are not in scripture and will be challenged.

One of the ways I root out my own "questionable" beliefs is to see if I'm finding a need to do any interpretational gymnastics regarding scripture to keep from damaging any of my dogmas.

IMHO ignoring the plain text of scripture especially the words of Jesus is “interpretational gymnastics”.

In summary you claim Luke 16 is a parable because of Matt 13:34, I have given reasons from scripture that I believe refute that. You need to refute Revelation 20:10, Mark 9:43 and Luke 16:15-31. All of these passages teach a fire that does not consume as in a fire pit and a dead raccoon and they also teach eternity as the duration.

 

[Postvieww]

I'm using the same tool Jesus used to explain the supernatural. You know, "the kingdom of heaven is like...".

A fire kindled by sticks is not like a lake of fire created by God.

 

[FireDragon76]

Since none of us were there, we can only speculate. One of those speculations I've heard is that it was actually based on a popular story at the time. What is kind of interesting is that it is clearly not talking about eternity since it does not describe either the Jewish, nor the Christian version of eternity. And it doesn't describe the time between the death of the body and the GWTJ in Jewish nor Christian viewpoints.

And it seems to be about the 5 brothers and, key, the "not believing even if someone is raised from the dead". It appears to be Jesus talking to the descendants of Joseph and looking forward to their impending disbelief even after Jesus' resurrection.

And there is no information about the rich man to suggest that he did anything warranting eternal torture. In fact, there is a chart on the site I linked to that demonstrates that the actual actions of the two men do not warrant either of their conditions, unless one would argue that poverty is, at its core, a virtue of some sort, and being rich, at it's core, is a sin. I'm buying neither of those ideas.

The rich man's sin wasn't being rich but not caring about his neighbor.

I think it may well be a parable or popular story Jesus used to teach compassion and to warn of the consequences of being hard-hearted.

The reference to Jesus death and resurrection I think has to do with it being a scandal, even a judgment upon the world, that it will expose the righteous from the unrighteous, and the followers of Jesus, the righteous, will be the ones who do not act like the rich man, whereas the scoffers will follow in the rich man's path because they did not believe the Law and the Prophets (which teach the things the rich man ignored, but also taught of Jesus in a seminal form).

 

[Almost there]

I found out I'm not really allowed to talk about this in this particular thread, so I'm going to have to bow out...

 

[ArmyMatt]

I found out I'm not really allowed to talk about this in this particular thread, so I'm going to have to bow out...

no, you can here because it's in the debate forum

 

[Postvieww]

I found out I'm not really allowed to talk about this in this particular thread, so I'm going to have to bow out...

Did you come to that conclusion because you were challenged?

We are all free to express our beliefs but we are also free to challenge and be challenged. That is debate.

 

[FireDragon76]

Hell, as traditionally understood, is certainly a difficult doctrine but I don't see how annihilationism reconciles with human dignity. Annihilationism effectively means you cease to exist, that your life had no dignity, no meaning. You weren't even worth remembering to God. I don't think people always understand what an offensive thing that would be to have happen. It's like the Pharaohs that went around erasing the names of their enemies, only infinitely worse. Either way, we are talking about something horrible that hardly seems to fit with the "loving God" narrative either.

The French bishop and mystic, Francois Fenelon, said God is gracious even to those who must endure his justice, when speaking about Hell. Which is a shocking statement in itself, yet there must be truth in it. There is a mystery in Hell, how it could be merciful as we understand it, for sure, but I don't think we can just sweep that aside for convenience without doing serious damage to what we are saying about what it means to be human.

 

[ArmyMatt]

well, that is it. it isn't mercy as we know it. it's God's mercy poured out on the unmerciful, which exposes and condemns the sinner's lack of mercy.

 

[Almost there]

I'm no longer allowed to post in this thread. Sorry.

Have a nice day...

 

[FireDragon76]

well, that is it. it isn't mercy as we know it. it's God's mercy poured out on the unmerciful, which exposes and condemns the sinner's lack of mercy.

I think the problem is so many have a purely juridical view of salvation. We've come to view sin as a trivial thing, like breaking rules set down by a distant, capricious government (and many view salvation as equally trivial). But God's government is much more intimately involved in the world than any human government, it is not distant at all, and its laws are written on the human heart.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm no longer allowed to post in this thread. Sorry.

Have a nice day...

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I saw no personal flames, which would have nothing to do with the thread itself. You are allowed according to us. If you feel personally not ... edified ... by posting here, that is your right.

Though I should add that if the intent was to change Orthodox teaching, that really isn't possible. Our whole ethos is to hold as doctrine only what we have believed from the very beginning, from the Apostles themselves. It wouldn't be changed by an alternate view drawn from Scripture 2000 years later.

God be with you.

 

[Almost there]

I'm sorry you feel that way.

I saw no personal flames, which would have nothing to do with the thread itself. You are allowed according to us. If you feel personally not ... edified ... by posting here, that is your right.

Though I should add that if the intent was to change Orthodox teaching, that really isn't possible. Our whole ethos is to hold as doctrine only what we have believed from the very beginning, from the Apostles themselves. It wouldn't be changed by an alternate view drawn from Scripture 2000 years later.

God be with you.

It's not how I feel. It is what was communicated to me in private messages. I'm not allowed to continue . I'd like to stay a member.

I violated this rule:

Congregational Forum Restrictions
Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It's not how I feel. It is what was communicated to me in private messages. I'm not allowed to continue . I'd like to stay a member.

I violated this rule:

Congregational Forum Restrictions
Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum.

the main forum has no debate, but you should be able to debate here in St Justin's, since that is what it is here for.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It's not how I feel. It is what was communicated to me in private messages. I'm not allowed to continue . I'd like to stay a member.

I violated this rule:

Congregational Forum Restrictions
Members who do not truly share the core beliefs and teachings of a specific congregational forum may post in fellowship or ask questions, but they may not teach or debate within the forum.

the main forum has no debate, but you should be able to debate here in St Justin's, since that is what it is here for.

Right, that's why I created a thread for you here, so you could post and not get in trouble with the rules.

This forum is specifically for debate. If you were messaged about a post in St. Justin's, you should open a thread in the Service Center, because that's exactly what this area is for.

(It might be possible a mistake has been made, it happens). But since it's against rules to discuss actions (they don't want folks publicly rehashing issues) I won't encourage you to reply to me here. Just giving you the info.

If you have questions or need any help, please pm me.

But yes, you are absolutely allowed to debate any doctrine you wish here in St. Justin's (though not in the former thread in The Ancient Way - TAW proper - we do try to be lenient with visitors there, but anyone on CF could have reported).

Again, if you need to discuss any further or I can help, please pm me rather than replying regarding staff action here.

But you may certainly debate in THIS thread/subforum.

God be with you!