The Problem of Hell v.2

[dlamberth]

Regardless, if Jesus were to appear before me, I feel my natural inclination would be to ask questions rather than grovel.

Same here.

.

 

[JGG]

Same here.

.

Presumably, if God wanted us to grovel he would have installed a grovelling mechanism rather than a brain. The question is why do we assume that it is Jesus' wish for us to grovel?

 

[Skavau]

So you don't want anything to do with God but you would like some of his stuff?

I should qualify this.

If God allows for people who do not know him to be tormented for eternity due to their ignorance, apathy, or conviction against him then I would not want anything to do with him. Why? Because that God directly endorses eternal torment. I could not associate with a God that does that.

I asked anyway: What about someone who simply does not believe in a God(s)? They have no malice or contempt towards God they would be simply ignorant of his existence. Why should God deprive them of "his stuff" given it is so trivial for him to hand it out infinitely?

What about other theists as well? Muslims? Sikhs? Are they against God?

edit: I should also add that this is exactly what's happening to you right now. You are currently living on God's planet, breathing his oxygen, drinking his water, socializing with his people, and enjoying his creation. He is constantly extending his generosity toward you even though you have no interest in acknowledging him.

Yet this is no trouble for God. His pool of resources are infinite. Try to recall if you can just why I wouldn't acknowledge a God. It isn't that he gives people stuff it is what he does to people who don't appreciate him properly.

 

[dlamberth]

Presumably, if God wanted us to grovel he would have installed a grovelling mechanism rather than a brain. The question is why do we assume that it is Jesus' wish for us to grovel?

God installed a Heart in Human Beings. Which makes me think that the wish of Jesus Christ is that we use our Heart and learn Love, Compassion and Service to those in need.

.

 

[JGG]

God installed a Heart in Human Beings. Which makes me think that the wish of Jesus Christ is that we use our Heart and learn Love, Compassion and Service to those in need.

.

I don't understand. A heart pumps blood. Why does that mean that Jesus should want me to grovel before Him should ever He appear before me?

 

[dlamberth]

I don't understand. A heart pumps blood. Why does that mean that Jesus should want me to grovel before Him should ever He appear before me?

Jesus want's no one to groval. Love is the name of the game.

.

 

[brightlights]

I should qualify this.

If God allows for people who do not know him to be tormented for eternity due to their ignorance, apathy, or conviction against him then I would not want anything to do with him. Why? Because that God directly endorses eternal torment. I could not associate with a God that does that.

It seems to me that God goes to incredible lengths to save people from eternal torment. For example, coming as a man and dying on a cross. All this to say that the cross teaches that the God of the Bible fiercely desires all people to be saved.

I asked anyway: What about someone who simply does not believe in a God(s)? They have no malice or contempt towards God they would be simply ignorant of his existence. Why should God deprive them of "his stuff" given it is so trivial for him to hand it out infinitely?

A few points here.

The Bible would contend that such a person does not exist. The reason for unbelief is not primarily intellectual but emotional. People do not believe because they do not want God to exist. This, at least, is the biblical proposition.

But even if they did... why should God give us his stuff, especially if we do not wish to acknowledge him? Does he owe it to us in some way?

What about other theists as well? Muslims? Sikhs? Are they against God?

All people, Christians included, are created in God's image yet have fallen and turned against him.

Yet this is no trouble for God. His pool of resources are infinite. Try to recall if you can just why I wouldn't acknowledge a God. It isn't that he gives people stuff it is what he does to people who don't appreciate him properly.

God has incredible mercy on those who don't appreciate him. The problem is that these same people have no interest in receiving this mercy.

What do you expect a good God would do? What would you do with creatures who have no desire to be in relationship with you, yet depend on you for their existence?

 

[Skavau]

It seems to me that God goes to incredible lengths to save people from eternal torment. For example, coming as a man and dying on a cross. All this to say that the cross teaches that the God of the Bible fiercely desires all people to be saved.

That resolution makes no sense. What you mean to say is that God demands people recognise this suffering before he saves them from eternal torment. You forget of course that there exist billions of people that contest the sacrifice's historicity, relevance and morality. They do so based on their conviction. They are not bad people, not deserving of eternal torment and they include people who really do yearn and strive for what is good. I've actually responded to this in detail earlier in this thread. I'll repost:

This seems an incompetent solution. I'll bullet point your argument as best I can:

• There exists a problem amongst humanity of sin. This predisposition and propensity towards sin causes every human to some extent to wrong others.
• This predisposition being acted upon means that every single human being is deserving of eternal torment as a means of punishment.
• However, the solution and the way to avoid this fate is to accept a supernatural claim about a historical figure (debatable) and live a life of servitude and adulation towards that figure so that he can carry the weight of your 'sin' and cleanse you of it.

There are several issues here. I'll start on the problem of sin.

1. Born wretched and commanded to be perfect. That we are predisposed due to imperfection to sin is an indication that it is effectively or at least in part not our fault. We were designed or allowed to decay that way. The creator has to take some of the burden for creating a species that he knew would displease him and that he knew would engage in behaviour he would consider sinful.
2. What sin? Most people don't believe that there is any such thing as "sin". I am sure most people accept a level of responsibility to their friends, colleagues, family members and society at large. I am sure that most people also understand their limitations, imperfections and vices and appreciate how they ought to behaviour to others but this does not mean they accept the Biblical definition of 'sin' and thus they have no understanding that any such thing exists much less understand the means to detach themselves from it.

Now the solution otherwise known as vicarious redemption.

1. Supposing that there does exist a major problem of sin that taints us all and informs upon our behaviour - the idea that we should cast off our sins onto a blood sacrifice that took place in our name is the annulment of moral responsibility. That is it is the abandonment of personal responsibility in favour of some kind of 'cleansing' that attributes our sins onto other and considers them paid and dust. This does not actually remove sin but merely scapegoats it onto another. I am not sure at all that the solution is a solution at all but rather a very well veiled act of self-interest.
2. Like the #2 above: What solution? If you don't accept the idea that we are sinners to the point of requiring divine punishment then why would you accept the notion that a solution exists? The idea of being sinful and being saved are both ideas that require one to believe in them before they can take them seriously. This means that God has necessarily condemned billions to hellfire based on ignorance. There exist millions of atheists who do not accept the claims of Christianity and thus ignore it. Why should they be expected to do otherwise if not evidence exists in favour of them?
3. What about Muslims? Muslims believe they have their own salvation through accepting Mohammad as their messenger and Allah as God. Does God have anything to say to them?

The ultimate problem of all of this is that it advances a truth-based solution to a moral dilemma. The solution of sin is supposedly a recognition and an appreciation of a historical sacrifice so that he can take your sins off of you. This appears quite openly bizarre to me. What does your historical beliefs have to do with your moral behaviour?

The Bible would contend that such a person does not exist. The reason for unbelief is not primarily intellectual but emotional. People do not believe because they do not want God to exist. This, at least, is the biblical proposition.

Then your belief does not stand up to reality. It is simply wrong. To say otherwise would be taking at fact the words of a book over the words of billions telling you what they think.

But even if they did... why should God give us his stuff, especially if we do not wish to acknowledge him? Does he owe it to us in some way?

You can argue not - but then you can't argue him as benevolent, only neutral at best.

What gives him the right, other than power to torment us for rejecting/disbelieving in his offer?

All people, Christians included, are created in God's image yet have fallen and turned against him.

That's a dodge. What about when other theists die not accepting the sacrifice of Jesus? Have they rejected God?

God has incredible mercy on those who don't appreciate him. The problem is that these same people have no interest in receiving this mercy.

This is such an empty point that it means nothing. How can you say a God has incredible mercy on those he does not appreciate when you think he will torment them for eternity for not appreciating him?

This is 1984 stuff.

What do you expect a good God would do? What would you do with creatures who have no desire to be in relationship with you, yet depend on you for their existence?

Find out why they want nothing to do with you and at the very worst, annihilate them or find them an alternate realm. What purpose does eternal torment serve?

 

[brightlights]

That resolution makes no sense. What you mean to say is that God demands people recognise this suffering before he saves them from eternal torment. You forget of course that there exist billions of people that contest the sacrifice's historicity, relevance and morality. They do so based on their conviction. They are not bad people, not deserving of eternal torment and they include people who really do yearn and strive for what is good.

If you know what I mean to say then why bother having a conversation with me?

I'm not trying to make a point about the atonement. All I'm saying is that the God you're railing against is not the God of the Bible. The Bible does not present to us a God that's quick to condemn, but one that is quick to show mercy and desires that all people would repent and live in his love.

Then your belief does not stand up to reality. It is simply wrong. To say otherwise would be taking at fact the words of a book over the words of billions telling you what they think.

Yes. That is what I'm doing.

You can argue not - but then you can't argue him as benevolent, only neutral at best.

God doesn't owe anyone anything. If you think that because God is good that he owes you something then you will never understand the Christian faith. It's only when you see that everything that you have comes to you as a gift (not as a right) from him and you respond with thanksgiving that you can understand. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.

Find out why they want nothing to do with you and at the very worst, annihilate them or find them an alternate realm. What purpose does eternal torment serve?

Hell is not God subjecting helpless people to active torment to satisfy his anger. Hell is people tormenting themselves by continuing in unbelief for eternity and rejecting God's presence and goodness. Hell is an unfortunate reality that need not exist. Yet it is real because there are many who will never allow God to love them.

 

[Skavau]

If you know what I mean to say then why bother having a conversation with me?

I'm looking for decent arguments for why it is necessary for non-Christians to be tortured in hell for eternity. I am constantly underwhelmed. If it can't be done then perhaps, just perhaps it is unjustified?

I'm not trying to make a point about the atonement. All I'm saying is that the God you're railing against is not the God of the Bible. The Bible does not present to us a God that's quick to condemn, but one that is quick to show mercy and desires that all people would repent and live in his love.

I consider anyone who would torment people for eternity as one quick to condemn.

Yes. That is what I'm doing.

Then you are effectively no better than a conspiracy theorist. In fact, you're amongst the ranks of some of the worst. You literally believe that 70%+ of the planet are liars about what they believe.

God doesn't owe anyone anything. If you think that because God is good that he owes you something then you will never understand the Christian faith.

It isn't what he owes us but what the title of benevolent necessitates. At the bare minimum, if you are to call yourself benevolent then you would not institute torment to be passed out on what people think.

It's only when you see that everything that you have comes to you as a gift (not as a right) from him and you respond with thanksgiving that you can understand. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.

This is white noise. This is nothing but spiritual elitism.

Hell is not God subjecting helpless people to active torment to satisfy his anger. Hell is people tormenting themselves by continuing in unbelief for eternity and rejecting God's presence and goodness.

Exactly what is to say that anyone in hell, knowing that God then exists would do that? What if someone 'repents' after death?

Also, you keep ignoring this question: What about Muslims? They believe in a God. They would have never rejected God's presence.

And yet still why would God not just end their existence? Or find a place for them where they wouldn't be subject to such torment? What purpose does eternal torment serve?

Hell is an unfortunate reality that need not exist. Yet it is real because there are many who will never allow God to love them.

What does not allowing God to love them have to do with hell? Why is that the demand and not just being a good person?

 

[brightlights]

I'm looking for decent arguments for why it is necessary for non-Christians to be tortured in hell for eternity. I am constantly underwhelmed. If it can't be done then perhaps, just perhaps it is unjustified?

If it is then that's for you to decide. Why are you looking for these arguments? Why not just ignore and dismiss the claim?

I consider anyone who would torment people for eternity as one quick to condemn.

You're a smart person, so all due respect. But I'm not quite sure you're understanding what I'm saying.

Exactly what is to say that anyone in hell, knowing that God then exists would do that? What if someone 'repents' after death?

I am totally open to someone repenting after death. If this happened I believe that God would welcome them. Yet sadly I don't think it likely. If people reject God in life it seems to be that they will continue to reject him after life.

Also, you keep ignoring this question: What about Muslims? They believe in a God. They would have never rejected God's presence.

There's more than one way to reject God. Some people do it by being very bad and irreligious. Others do it by being very good and religious.

And yet still why would God not just end their existence? Or find a place for them where they wouldn't be subject to such torment? What purpose does eternal torment serve?


What does not allowing God to love them have to do with hell? Why is that the demand and not just being a good person?

I don't think it will help to continue to repeat myself. If you are truly interested in hearing a good explanation of our belief on this I suggest taking 30 minutes to listen to this lecture -- Hell: Isn't the God of Christianity an angry Judge? | Redeemer Sermons
It's the best treatment on the subject that I've heard. If you don't like it then I suggest you dismiss the issue. I don't think you'll find a better explanation than this one.

 

[Skavau]

If it is then that's for you to decide. Why are you looking for these arguments? Why not just ignore and dismiss the claim?

People who tend to argue for hell being eternal tend to claim to be the beneficiaries of "objective morality". They claim moral superiority over most people. That these same people can justify something that is to my understand the most evil thing ever conceived. There is nothing that has happened or has been written that can be described as more wicked or more destructive than the idea that some people are to be tormented or tortured for eternity for what they think. It is if real the full extension and actualisation of any dictatorial experiment. That people who live in first-world countries who enjoy free speech, who enjoy the right to think how they like and live how they like would defend this depravity is truly beyond me. I really believe that people who think this way deserve rebuke. They deserve to have what they're actually preaching to be thrown back at them in full force as it actually comes across.

You are, to me advocating the torture of most of humanity for what they think. You are effectively defending the idea of thought-crime and advocating as just the equivalent of torture.

Do you now have a slight understanding as to why I am indignant? The idea of hell does not simply exist in a vacuum. If you are able to sit here with a straight face and say what you say about hell and say it with such moral conviction and such sincerity then I fear what else you are capable of doing.

You're a smart person, so all due respect. But I'm not quite sure you're understanding what I'm saying.

Enlighten me. What am I not getting?

I am totally open to someone repenting after death. If this happened I believe that God would welcome them. Yet sadly I don't think it likely. If people reject God in life it seems to be that they will continue to reject him after life.

You simply have no way of knowing the part highlighted in bold.

There's more than one way to reject God. Some people do it by being very bad and irreligious. Others do it by being very good and religious.

How on earth can you be seriously arguing here that Muslims, who can be as pious as you are or might like to be concerning God reject him? They might not understand correctly but the idea of rejection is complete nonsense.

I don't think it will help to continue to repeat myself. If you are truly interested in hearing a good explanation of our belief on this I suggest taking 30 minutes to listen to this lecture -- Hell: Isn't the God of Christianity an angry Judge? | Redeemer Sermons
It's the best treatment on the subject that I've heard. If you don't like it then I suggest you dismiss the issue. I don't think you'll find a better explanation than this one.

I would rather a text-by-text explanation. I suspect (as I've heard many different attempts) that it is merely all of them condensed.

 

[brightlights]

I would rather a text-by-text explanation. I suspect (as I've heard many different attempts) that it is merely all of them condensed.

I also have heard many attempts. All of them have been unsatisfying. This one is different.

Let's both listen to it then discuss it.

 

[dlamberth]

I also have heard many attempts. All of them have been unsatisfying. This one is different.

Let's both listen to it then discuss it.

I listened. Where it falls apart for me is that the sermon is based on the image of God as being separate and apart from His own Creation.

For myself and how I experience God, our very soul is an activity of God. As such, when it comes to our soul because it is an activity of God, and not something separate and apart from God, what God does to our soul, He does to Himself. And one thing God cannot do is to separate pieces of Himself (like our Soul) from Himself. So there is no judgment or separation from God, otherwise God would be judging Himself.


.

 

[trientje]

I don't think it will help to continue to repeat myself. If you are truly interested in hearing a good explanation of our belief on this I suggest taking 30 minutes to listen to this lecture -- Hell: Isn't the God of Christianity an angry Judge? | Redeemer Sermons
It's the best treatment on the subject that I've heard. If you don't like it then I suggest you dismiss the issue. I don't think you'll find a better explanation than this one.

Anyone on this site who has listened to this and can't admit that you at least understand the concept of hell maybe needs to look in a different direction than the Christian concept of hell. The Jehovah Witness don't believe in hell. They say that a loving God wouldn't send anyone to hell. The Universalist believe in anything and everything. They invite people from all beliefs, the atheist included. This topic has been discussed over and over again but the same core arguments keep surfacing. Which means that the unbelievers either refuse to read and study the Christian text and just want to argue for the sake of argument or their belief system is such that the concept of hell will never be a part of their belief system. I can accept that. There are other beliefs and belief systems for you to search. In the meantime why can't you just accept that Christians do believe in hell and that maybe you do not agree but that is their belief system.

 

[Gadarene]

This topic has been discussed over and over again but the same core arguments keep surfacing. Which means that the unbelievers either refuse to read and study the Christian text and just want to argue for the sake of argument or their belief system is such that the concept of hell will never be a part of their belief system.

Or there's another alternative (one I and others have pointed out to you before) - that you're actually wrong and your arguments fail because of it.

What was that about listening, trientje?

 

[trientje]

Or there's another alternative (one I and others have pointed out to you before) - that you're actually wrong and your arguments fail because of it.

What was that about listening, trientje?

Wrong? Wrong about what? I'm wrong that the same old arguments surface again and again? I'm simply trying to tell all of you that if you haven't understood what is being explained then you maybe should seek out other belief systems that might fit with your views.

 

[Gadarene]

Wrong? Wrong about what? I'm wrong that the same old arguments surface again and again?

No, the arguments resurface because your explanations don't hold up to scrutiny - which could be because you are wrong.

But again, as ever, that alternative never crossed your mind.

I'm simply trying to tell all of you that if you haven't understood what is being explained then you maybe should seek out other belief systems that might fit with your views.

Again, we understand it just fine. It's just a mess of contradiction is the problem.

 

[trientje]

No, the arguments resurface because your explanations don't hold up to scrutiny - which could be because you are wrong.

But again, as ever, that alternative never crossed your mind.



Again, we understand it just fine. It's just a mess of contradiction is the problem.

OK, so my explanations don't hold up to your scrutiny. So go find another belief system that will hold up to your scrutiny. why are you insisting on hanging out on this site?

 

[Gadarene]

OK, so my explanations don't hold up to your scrutiny. So go find another belief system that will hold up to your scrutiny.

Well, there are no inconsistencies or contradictions in my current views as far as I am aware, so I currently have no need to seek out alternatives.

why are you insisting on hanging out on this site?

I would hate for a passing lurker to think you had a point.