The moral and ethical dillema of enjoying heaven while innocent people suffer in hell.

[TedT]

Firstly, God doesn't send anyone to hell for being a non-believer.

How do you reconcile this with John 3:18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. ?

 

[TedT]

For example, if I arrived at the gates of heaven, and witnessed another that I felt compassion for and felt didn't deserve it fall to hell, then I assume I would not be comfortable in heaven. I would be disillusioned of it.

The state of heavenly bliss is the feeling of being totally in accord with the Character and Purposes of YHWH, nothing less. You only get thru the gates by being comfortable with all GOD's decisions and if you are disillusioned, you have not entered them.

Heaven is the (emotional and intellectual) state of being married to GOD. We will have a full unity with GOD in a full communion of emotion (love) and communication (telepathy, like the angels enjoy) within all of created reality with GOD and everyone else within the marriage, for eternity. Anyone who is not happy in such a marriage will be left out and banished. Period.

 

[HTacianas]

How do you reconcile this with John 3:18 Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. ?

The very next verse explains what the condemnation is:

Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

It is the doing of evil deeds that condemns a person. If we examine what it means to believe in him, it is to believe in his teachings and do them. That is a lesson found throughout the bible both old and new testaments. Those who do evil are condemned while those who do good are not. See here:

Mar 2:17 ...They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

 

[TedT]

If you get to Heaven , God will never allow you to experience pain or sadness ever again. It will be impossible to have thoughts about the damned (Revelation 21:4)

There is a small verse in Malachi that suggests our attitude towards sin and sinners who refuse to repent will not contain any sadness at all, so disgusted will we be by evil and the suffering evil people cause. The image of being gathered into our LORD's barn while the tares are gathered and burnt and the emotional experience of that event is filled out in this small verse from Malachi 4:2 But for you who revere My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings, and you will go out and frolic like calves from the stall, 3 [when] you will trample the wicked, for they will be as ashes under the soles of your feet on the day I am preparing, says the LORD of Hosts.… This image that makes the so called holy church cringe with embarrassment and horror, predicts we will not only be free of this world and its suffering but glad to be free of it finally. That is why there is no sorrow over those in hell: we know they chose to rebuke GOD for HIS justice against the warnings of GOD not to do so they got what they chose...so be it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have a hard time accepting that a loving or righteous God would choose to condemn people to eternal suffering without what I can understand to be sufficient reason (e.g. being a non-believer).

Considering the teachings of Jesus, which pertain to selflessness, unconditional love, and working towards protecting the well-fair of others, it doesn't make any sense that one would also be expected to settle happily in heaven and enjoy pure bliss while others suffer eternally in hell.

Personally, my I would instead choose hell, if only with the hopes of helping to rescue or ease the suffering of its inhabitants. How could one who believes in the teaching's of Jesus choose otherwise?

And if it turns out that our lives on Earth are some sort of test, wouldn't it seem more likely that accepting these supposed workings of God would be to fail?

I think these are valid arguments against the ECT (eternal conscious torment) view of hell. Which is only one opinion among Christians. Most Christians, arguably, do not and never have believed in that.

For examples of other views, I'd recommend looking at C.S. Lewis' work The Great Divorce, or the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian and how the Eastern Churches approach the subject of hell. There's also the short work by Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthsar Dare We Hope.

To be more explicit about my own views: I reject the idea that God condemns anyone to eternal suffering in hell. Which is not the same thing as Universalism; though I do pray and hope (as the Church always has) that in the end, hell is empty.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

Actually no. But I like the Catholic idea of "the sin of presumption". To presume that a person is going to hell is to sit in judgement of them. It is not our place to sit in judgement, that is reserved to God Himself. But it is also said that "the saints shall judge the world". That is not a responsibility that I want.

Condemnation is a responsibiity solely held by God.

"Saints will judge the world" refers to the office of "judge" as given in the Old Testament. It means "leader." Of course, a leader is also a practical arbiter among people to get a job done, but does not practice condemnation.

 

[angelsaroundme]

It is difficult to imagine a loving God or even a half decent God having someone suffer literally forever... Every debt is finite, it cannot be infinite. Someone can not owe an infinite amount of money or have committed an infinite amount of crimes.

I've heard the original meaning of forever, as Jews then understood it, was until the end of the world. Which makes much more sense than the later interpretation of never ending suffering.

 

[RDKirk]

This entire thread is based on a Western post-Locke humanistic concept of "loving God."

 

[BobRyan]

I have a hard time accepting that a loving or righteous God would choose to condemn people to eternal suffering without what I can understand to be sufficient reason (e.g. being a non-believer).

Considering the teachings of Jesus, which pertain to selflessness, unconditional love, and working towards protecting the well-fair of others, it doesn't make any sense that one would also be expected to settle happily in heaven and enjoy pure bliss while others suffer eternally in hell.

Personally, my I would instead choose hell, if only with the hopes of helping to rescue or ease the suffering of its inhabitants. How could one who believes in the teaching's of Jesus choose otherwise?

And if it turns out that our lives on Earth are some sort of test, wouldn't it seem more likely that accepting these supposed workings of God would be to fail?

True. Except there will be no "innocent" people in that lake of fire (Rev 20) - also called "fiery hell"..

Good thing the Bible does not teach that we will be "enjoying heaven while loved ones scream in eternal torture".

Matt 10:28 says that God destroys "both body and soul in fiery hell" instead of "keeps them from being destroyed so they can scream in agony"... or "destroys the body but not the soul which is kept alive in burning hell".

God is "able to keep you from stumbling" according the Bible and He is also able to "destroy BOTH body and soul in fiery hell" Matt 10:28.

Even Satan himself "the covering cherub" who is declared "perfect in the day you were created" in Ezek 29 - is 'turned to ashes' and "will cease to be forever" as we are informed in that same chapter.

Rev 20 says the wicked surround the Holy City with all the saints inside it -- and then fire comes down from heaven and consumes them.

Rev 14 does confirm that the wicked suffer 'in the PRESENCE of the Lamb and of His holy ones" but then at some point all the wicked are consumed.

Certainly that time of torment for the wicked will be painful to their loving family and friends in heaven - but then it ends.

 

[Clare73]

I have a hard time accepting that a loving or righteous God would choose to condemn people to eternal suffering without what I can understand to be sufficient reason (e.g. being a non-believer).

All are born condemned by being the progeny of Adam, i.e., enemies of God.
However, God saves some of his enemies.

 

[BobRyan]

1 John 4:14 "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD" -- not just an arbitrarily selected few.

The reason "the world" is not then saved is not because of some limit on God's part - but due to the consequence of free will in each person's life.

 

[zippy2006]

For examples of other views, I'd recommend looking at C.S. Lewis' work The Great Divorce, or the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian and how the Eastern Churches approach the subject of hell. There's also the short work by Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthsar Dare We Hope.

This is a significant misrepresentation, as neither Lewis nor Balthasar denied "ECT." Neither is Isaac the Syrian opposing the basic concept of Hell; he is just explaining it in the way that Orthodox tend to explain it (i.e. the divine light as a burning fire for those who do not love God).

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is a significant misrepresentation, as neither Lewis nor Balthasar denied "ECT." Neither is Isaac the Syrian opposing the basic concept of Hell; he is just explaining it in the way that Orthodox tend to explain it (i.e. the divine light as a burning fire for those who do not love God).

Eternal conscious torment, i.e. God actively causing the suffering of those in hell, does not seem to what Lewis, Balthasar, or St. Isaac believed. I'm not sure why you think I am misrepresenting them.

Lewis straightforwardly says that it's not a matter of God sending someone to hell, but rather what is within one will become hell unless it is nipped in the bud.

How is that a misrepresentation?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sketcher]

Lewis straightforwardly says that it's not a matter of God sending someone to hell, but rather what is within one will become hell unless it is nipped in the bud.

I for one do not believe that Lewis's view of people becoming more hellish if they do not repent and come to Christ is necessarily at odds with eternal conscious torment. His view of things was just his view of things. I believe there is some truth to it, but I'm not going to treat it like a prophetic revelation.

 

[zippy2006]

Eternal conscious torment, i.e. God actively causing the suffering of those in hell, does not seem to what Lewis, Balthasar, or St. Isaac believed. I'm not sure why you think I am misrepresenting them.

Lewis straightforwardly says that it's not a matter of God sending someone to hell, but rather what is within one will become hell unless it is nipped in the bud.

How is that a misrepresentation?

-CryptoLutheran

The OP is complaining about the existence of Hell as a place of suffering, and is primarily focused on the idea of some people enjoying Heaven while others are in Hell. You are the first one in the thread who brought up "ECT." If you want to start a thread on ECT then I will reply to you there.

Regarding this thread, Lewis, Balthasar, and St. Isaac all believed that the damned suffer greatly, and this is why your post is so misrepresentative.

You seem to think that, for example, because Lewis often stressed that the reprobate cause their own damnation, therefore God has nothing to do with it. But despite missing the general thrust of the OP's point, the obvious rejoinder to such a response is, "Well, why did God make reality that way? Or why does he allow such great suffering? Or why does he allow the divine light to burn the damned?"

God is a necessary cause of the suffering, whether directly or indirectly.

 

[Clare73]

1 John 4:14 "God sent His Son to be the Savior of the WORLD" -- not just an arbitrarily selected few.

The reason "the world" is not then saved is not because of some limit on God's part - but due to the consequence of free will in each person's life.

Unless, according to the rest of NT teaching, "world" means all without distinction (Jew and Gentile alike), and not all without exception.

 

[TedT]

It is difficult to imagine a loving God or even a half decent God having someone suffer literally forever... Every debt is finite, it cannot be infinite. Someone can not owe an infinite amount of money or have committed an infinite amount of crimes.

No sin is finite. All sin has an ultimate disvalue to GOD.

Most Christians understand that the disvalue of any/every sin is ultimate. There is no difference in the disvalue of a (so called) small sin and the (so called) worse sin. Yes, sins are not all treated the same but that it not because they have a different or lesser disvalue to GOD. The so called smallest sin by a reprobate puts him in hell forever; the so called smallest sin by an elect puts Christ on the cross!! This is because the simplest sin enslaves the soul, corrupting it from being in GOD's image, ie, able to fulfill HIS purpose of HIS glory to a disgusting corruption of of HIS image.

Some people in their innocence have asked HIM to redeem them from their sins if they should ever sin...others have repudiated HIM as any kind of Saviour because they repudiated HIS claim that sin exists and evil will ultimately be destroyed by HIM! It is the relationship with HIM of HIS legitimate children accepting HIM as their savior that makes the difference, NOT the lesser disvalue of their sins!

Rejection of HIM as saviour puts one in hell no matter how (supposedly) small their sin is.

 

[Hawkins]

I have a hard time accepting that a loving or righteous God would choose to condemn people to eternal suffering without what I can understand to be sufficient reason (e.g. being a non-believer).

Considering the teachings of Jesus, which pertain to selflessness, unconditional love, and working towards protecting the well-fair of others, it doesn't make any sense that one would also be expected to settle happily in heaven and enjoy pure bliss while others suffer eternally in hell.

Personally, my I would instead choose hell, if only with the hopes of helping to rescue or ease the suffering of its inhabitants. How could one who believes in the teaching's of Jesus choose otherwise?

And if it turns out that our lives on Earth are some sort of test, wouldn't it seem more likely that accepting these supposed workings of God would be to fail?

It is a Pharisaic concept adopted by most Jews back in Jesus' days. The Pharisees were in control of Judaism back then.

That said. Hell is the true nature, that is, without God's any maintenance. Any place without God's active maintenance is hell-like and is what true nature is. Lake of Fire could well be a pool of energy in true nature. Entities not with God are thus won't be able to benefit from God's maintenance, they thus will live in true nature. This universe is God made. There won't be any room for sin and the dead after the Final Judgment, but only the true nature with 0 maintenance from God.

This universe is God-made, it's not what nature is!

 

[Hawkins]

If someone offered me a future where I would be incapable of experiencing pain or sadness while those I loved suffered eternal pain and sadness, I would not be inclined to trust in this promise, or accept it. It would sound like a bribe to abandon your humanity and empathy.

So do you love your wife or your ex-girl friends.

Human affection is 'stored' in our spirit which will return to God upon our death. You won't have affection for anyone else but our brothers and sisters if you made it to Heaven, or or less like how you no longer have love about your ex-girl once you truly committed to your own wife.

 

[Enilorac]

Good thing the Bible does not teach that we will be "enjoying heaven while loved ones scream in eternal torture".

Matt 10:28 says that God destroys "both body and soul in fiery hell" instead of "keeps them from being destroyed so they can scream in agony"... or "destroys the body but not the soul which is kept alive in burning hell".

This doctrine right here is near the top of the list of what attracted me to SDA. After more study I was baptized into the SDA and won't be leaving.