Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Funny thing is that impossible to know who is right. All we have is an opinion/faith, even if it's really popular one, still just an opinion/no solid evidence.I'm an annihilationist, so I say no. But what is interesting is that few people seem to consider the converse - should doing finite good on earth deserve an infinite reward? To be logically consistent you would have to say no, and yet so many people think it's unfair that you don't get to go to heaven just for doing good deeds in life.
But my answer would be that if our spirits are eternal and some chose to forever spew or manifest hatred towards others, then yes, they would probably only feel welcome and at home in an environment of eternal suffering.
As far as I know from conventional Christianity 'spirits' (souls?) are eternal. Are you suggesting that this may not the case? If 'spirits' have a finite duration what happens to them once this finite period ends?
... and some choose to forever spew or manifest hatred towards others,..
This introduces the concept that sinning (spewing hatred) can continue after death. Once again this is not a concept I've encountered in conventional Christian teaching. It also raises the question of what happens to those 'spirits' who don't continue to 'spew hatred'.
… then yes, they would probably only feel welcome and at home in an environment of eternal suffering.
I'm struggling with the idea that anything/body/spirit would feel at home in an environment of eternal suffering. If it/they felt 'at home' then this would appear to defeat the purpose of 'eternal suffering'.
I'm not suggesting that your view is wrong or right, only that it appears to be different to the conventional Christian view.
OB
In the late 1800s, either Wyoming or Montana passed a law that set a sentence of 5 years in jail for first degree murder. There was a huge public outcry against the sentence saying "Its just killing someone." They did not think the punishment fit the crime.If this is the case, then it would seem that the punishment significantly outweighs the crime.
In the late 1800s, either Wyoming or Montana passed a law that set a sentence of 5 years in jail for first degree murder. There was a huge public outcry against the sentence saying "Its just killing someone." They did not think the punishment fit the crime.
What they failed to comprehend was the gravity of the crime.
And we fail to understand the gravity of sin.
I have no idea what Scripture says but I think oioimoi asks a valid question.
I find that Christians are a bit all over the place when it comes to hell, but the impression I have from this Forum, is that Eternal Damnation is the agreed standard.
If this is the case, then it would seem that the punishment significantly outweighs the crime.
Yes, standard is probably the right word for it. And that is the historic belief of Christianity.
My reply was more narrowly focused, however. In response to what was written, I took the view that it is not a given that most Christians believe that God will personally torture people forever. That there is a hell at all is another matter.
If God does not torture but people go where they have made themselves to go, that may change the answer to the question about God being moral.
Is eternal torture a reasonable response to all sin?
Perhaps I was, but my policy is to answer what is written, not what I intuit that the poster might be thinking in addition.I think you're splitting hairs.
Whether God actually does the torturing or merely created the (hell) situation and allows it to happen He remains the one who is responsible.
IS that the question now? If so, it is quite different from what the question was when the thread was started. For one thing, it was not asked if torture is reasonable but if God is moral, given the traditional belief in hell.The question still remains: Is eternal torture a reasonable response to all sin?
OB
Nope
OB
Perhaps I was, but my policy is to answer what is written, not what I intuit that the poster might be thinking in addition.
IS that the question now? If so, it is quite different from what the question was when the thread was started. For one thing, it was not asked if torture is reasonable but if God is moral, given the traditional belief in hell.
Great - but we're talking about Christianity.It is a very similar concept; of endless suffering.
Great - but we're talking about Christianity.
OB
We are indeed. I am though explaining how endless suffering and death is the world that most people live in. It is the universe devoid of God...which doesn't exist really, but it does not stop people in their ignorance living there....
When such people look on the world they see billions of years of suffering.
Where does this strange, pessimistic idea about 'billions of years of suffering' come from?
Because...for one, you think that I had not answered the question of this thread when, in fact, I had done so--but it was answered more precisely than you cared to hear about. That's not my fault.
But if you want to ask your own question, all right.
I tend to think that God, being God with all that we attribute to the nature of God, is not immoral for allowing/creating an eternal hell of some sort.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?