Then I suggest that your understanding of the words "holy, good, love, righteous, merciful, and compassionate" is simply incorrect.
I thought that's what this thread was all about?
The Holy Spirit made quite sure we understood what God means when he says "
agape". Perhaps you should reread 1st Corinthians 13 and contemplate what it says. This thread is about trying to understand the passages describing hell how God intended us to understand them.
The only sure barrier to truth is the unwarranted certainty that we already know it. You appear to be just as certain your view is the correct one as the former Christian that got me thinking about this... who holds pretty much the same view of God as you do, by the way.
Scripture is pretty clear about hell, and I think we could even deduce there is a hell without Scripture at all. We could certainly deduce there is punishment after death for crimes committed in this life.
I agree.
Yes, and obviously the only way to do that would be to burn her alive. You should really check out some ancient Jewish literature because the Jews actually carried this command out and God meant them to do so for approx. 1500 years until the advent of Christ.
Interesting. Do you have a link to the relevant ancient Jewish literature?
That is not a Biblical understanding of this passage.
I apologize, I think I was wrong in what I said... the punishment is harsh, but it is still an infinite leap from temporal to eternal punishment, is it not?
Seems to me there's more going on here than refusal to obey God's commands. From what I read in Scripture "refusal to obey God's commands" actually indicates one is very really and truly evil. Perhaps you should make that connection.
Yes, I have. Every human who ever lived except for Jesus Christ is truly evil by God's standards, and deserving of God's wrath.
Then why call those who disobey his commands children of Satan? Is God a child of Satan? I think not. So then how can a child of Satan be made in God's image?
Because we have followed Satan's ways by rebelling against God despite God's image He has placed in us. Even though we have a moral conscience given to us by God, we have all disregarded it when it suited our selfish desire to please ourselves. Read Romans 2.
This comes from the tree of the knowledge of good/evil, which was knowledge forbidden to Adam/Eve in the garden of Eden, and hence, evil knowledge.
I think the Bible indicates that our moral nature was corrupted when Adam and Eve disobeyed God, not created. There are many commandments of God which make absolute sense to man's sense of morality even though we are corrupted. The problem is that we are not God centered, but self centered; therefore we will choose to disobey the dictates of our conscience and do what we desire to do even though in our hearts we know it is wrong. God will judge those who did not have the Law or the gospel by their conscience (again, see Romans 2).
The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Man does not know the true difference between right/wrong/good/evil, which should be evident from a cursory perusal of Scripture (or reality). The fact that they think the devil/beast/false prophet are good in the book of Revelation and think that the two witnesses are evil should raise a red flag.
Man does have a general sense of right and wrong that is in line with most of God's moral law, even though our sense of right and wrong is corrupted... it is not our lack of understanding of what it right, but our selfish refusal to do what is right that condemns us.
Well, let me ask you this. Have you read/studied Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28? Both describe very, very severe penalties to Israel for their disobedience to God. In essence, these penalties are torture for the disobedience of God's commands. After studying these chapters do you think your understanding of the nature of God might change? Let me quote you some passages:
Deut. 28:20-23; Deut. 28:26-32; Deut. 28:35-37; Deut. 28:47-48; Deut. 28:53 (NASB)
Let me ask you - is this not torture for disobedience to God's commands? Does this affect your understanding of the nature of God?
These things, remember, were/are common fates of all peoples. Disease was/is rampant, droughts happen/ed, wars happen/ed. God was telling them that if they obeyed His commands He would protect them from all of these things. Yet should they depart from Him by disobedience, His hedge of protection would likewise depart from them.
But all that being said, YES, God would deliberately bring upon them these things as a punishment for their breaking the covenant with Him. But again, there is an tremendous difference between temporal punishment and eternal punishment, is there not? The book of Deuteronomy clearly says that if in their affliction they come to their senses and repent, God will hear and heal their land.
These punishments serve a purpose of bringing about repentance and healing... yet in hell there is no repentance, there is no more healing... so active punishment no longer serves any purpose. All there is left for God to do is to cut them off from communion with Him, give them over to the sin they have chosen over Him, quarantine them for the protection of the redeemed, and test them constantly to prove the justice of His sentence.
It's a case of extreme hyperbole used to illustrate the seriousness of rebellion against God.
Yet you refuse to even contemplate the possibility that the lake of fire might be metaphorical hyperbole, creating in us the visceral reaction of horror to the idea of being burned alive yet not meaning that is literally what will be taking place. The Greek word
basanismos is ambiguous, deliberately so I believe, regarding the nature of hell. Is it torture like the Roman officials did to suspected criminals, or is it testing for purity like the metal working origin of the word? This ambiguity is lost in translation.
Christ is also using it to illustrate the terrible fate that awaits those that go to Gehenna.
No doubt being separated from communion with God and given over to, consumed by, and brought to ruin by our sinfulness for all eternity is a terrible fate that should be avoided at all costs.
Physical death is what Paul was referring to. He is not addressing Gehenna in this passage - however, he does so in other passages, such as in 2 Thess. 1:8-9.
No doubt Revelation 19 records Jesus dealing out retribution on those who follow the beast at His return, this is not speaking of
gehenna either. Even if it was speaking of
gehenna, the retribution He deals out in flaming fire does not have to indicate literal flames burning them for all eternity.
No, God chooses to reveal his wrath by simply hiding himself from them. God never causes someone to sin, they sin of their own choices and free will.
I did not say God causes them to sin, I am saying that God removes the restraining influence of His Spirit from them. They get even more of what they want of their own free will, to their own destruction.
Well, in the sense that they are away from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power, yes. But to say that that is all that hell consists of (eternal "separation" from God, as the modern Christian pastors like to put it) is false.
It is also incarceration, quarantine from the blessed eternal city, etc.
According to Scripture that is what hell is.
This is not a full Biblical depiction of hell.
What purpose does the literal flames and burning of the lost serve?
No argument there, I did say "over 1500 years". If not before, around the time that Christianity became the official state religion.
No, I think the way we traditionally understood hell (until the modern era) was simply based off of Scripture. If it were so easy to disprove the "traditional" view then it would have been done so by now. People have been resisting this doctrine since the very beginning.
The traditional view is oversimplified and too literal.
I think from the depictions of hell given in Scripture we can clearly see that it does mean torture. Here's a lexicon definition:
Greek Lexicon :: G929 (KJV)
And that definition references both meanings.
I would suggest, as I did above, that your definitions of "good, just, loving, merciful, and compassionate" are in fact incorrect. I would also suggest the same for the human race, and to prove it I would again submit that they think the beast/false prophet are good in the book of Revelation and they think that the two witnesses are evil.
We do have a distorted view of right and wrong, true... anything that is contrary to our desires is wrong/evil while anything that fulfills our desires is right/good to an extent. Yet we have a conscience that tells us that our desires are not always right/good, and doing certain things to fulfill our desires is wrong/evil... there are those whose consciences have been totally subverted/destroyed, which the Bible describes as having their conscience "seared as with a hot iron". I think we would call those people sociopaths.
Well, I was going off of the passage which you quoted, Hebrews 12:29. You will notice, of course, that God descended upon Mt. Sinai in fire. Also there are clear examples of God's presence being in literal fire in the Old Testament, such as above the ark of the covenant and so on. You will notice that Hebrews 12:29 does not refer to our God as a dove, lamb, door, or mother hen.
I listed the other references to show you that the words used to describe God are quite often symbolic of some aspect of His character or action, not literal. If there is the physical appearance of fire, it is only symbolically representative of how God was trying to express Himself. God is Spirit. He is not a literal physical fire any more than He is a literal lamb or lion or door. These words/manifestations are all symbolic of His character or action, not His literal "physical body" (for lack of a better way to put it). Does that make sense to you?