The Problem of Hell v.2

[Archaeopteryx]

Poetry, allegory, hyperbole, metaphor, and numerous other literary devices were utilized by the men of God in writing the Holy Scriptures. And yes, metaphor is used several times in describing Hell.

Then perhaps the entire notion of Hell is poetic embellishment?

 

[Elioenai26]

Then perhaps the entire notion of Hell is poetic embellishment?

No, not entirely. One must take into account the various aspects of the passages in question. Context, thought-flow, presence or absence of the various forms of literary devices, etc. etc. You know, the usual stuff that hermeneutics is made of.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, not entirely. One must take into account the various aspects of the passages in question. Context, thought-flow, presence or absence of the various forms of literary devices, etc. etc. You know, the usual stuff that hermeneutics is made of.

In order words, you're going to pick-and-choose. When the Bible's authors describe a flat Earth, you are going to say that they were merely being poetic. When they describe Hell, you are going to say that they were literal.

 

[Elioenai26]

In order words, you're going to pick-and-choose. When the Bible's authors describe a flat Earth, you are going to say that they were merely being poetic. When they describe Hell, you are going to say that they were literal.

You are a student of Hermeneutics, you should know the principles for literary interpretation.

I am not going to argue with you.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You are a student of Hermeneutics, you should know the principles for literary interpretation.

I am not going to argue with you.

I know from the previous thread that you have a demonstrated bias in how you interpret descriptions of a flat Earth depending on who does the describing. It's not a stretch to imagine that this bias extends further.

 

[Elioenai26]

I know from the previous thread that you have a demonstrated bias in how you interpret descriptions of a flat Earth depending on who does the describing. It's not a stretch to imagine that this bias extends further.

Alright.

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

So where does your objective standard of morality come from? Why is it unjust for God to send people to a lake of fire as punishment? You don't believe in the God you are accusing but you also deny any objective right & wrong anyway. For you to claim eternal punishment as unjust in your eyes, you surely must have some kind of absolute morality. Relativists really shouldn't scoff at God just because they don't "feel" what He does is fair.

No one likes the idea of torment, suffering & punishment. But the 'Good News' of the Gospel requires saving from 'Bad News' or the point of any atonement would be null & silly. Salvation would bring no glory if there was nothing to be saved from. The Bible does not indicate innocent people will be sent to hell. Rather those who engage in evil in God's eyes. People deserving of punishment. There are many murderers, rapists, and other people who wreak havoc in the lives of others, who never experience judgment in this life. Perpetrators of evil throughout the ages would get away with everything slaughtering innocents, raping & stealing & then getting to spend an eternity in paradise with the same ones whose lives they ruined.

It is clear that God has infinitely higher moral standards than we do. Even Christ Himself said "Why do you call me good?" "No one is good but God". Most scholars would agree Jesus had particularly high ethics for someone who spent most of His days speaking with the unrighteous. God's ideas of punishment might seem extreme to some but honestly I don't think any atheist or anti-theists have any premise to state what is "right" & "wrong" in their eyes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So where does your objective standard of morality come from? Why is it unjust for God to send people to a lake of fire as punishment? You don't believe in the God you are accusing but you also deny any objective right & wrong anyway. For you to claim eternal punishment as unjust in your eyes, you surely must have some kind of absolute morality. Relativists really shouldn't scoff at God just because they don't "feel" what He does is fair.

No one likes the idea of torment, suffering & punishment. But the 'Good News' of the Gospel requires saving from 'Bad News' or the point of any atonement would be null & silly. Salvation would bring no glory if there was nothing to be saved from. The Bible does not indicate innocent people will be sent to hell. Rather those who engage in evil in God's eyes. People deserving of punishment. There are many murderers, rapists, and other people who wreak havoc in the lives of others, who never experience judgment in this life. Perpetrators of evil throughout the ages would get away with everything slaughtering innocents, raping & stealing & then getting to spend an eternity in paradise with the same ones whose lives they ruined.

It is clear that God has infinitely higher moral standards than we do. Even Christ Himself said "Why do you call me good?" "No one is good but God". Most scholars would agree Jesus had particularly high ethics for someone who spent most of His days speaking with the unrighteous. God's ideas of punishment might seem extreme to some but honestly I don't think any atheist or anti-theists have any premise to state what is "right" & "wrong" in their eyes.

Why do you think that atheists don't have any reason to view something as right or wrong?

 

[Skavau]

So where does your objective standard of morality come from?

This is a nonsense question. Morality derives from us. It is by us. I will need to know additionally what you mean by "objective" here. I don't actually go by the objective vs. subjective dichotomy when describing morality. I find both riddled with loaded claims, indefensible and sometime nonsensical.

Why is it unjust for God to send people to a lake of fire as punishment?

It is disproportionate to the offense and indeed, for many no offense has even been committed. The eternality and intensity of which also comes across as sadistic which is unbecoming of a supposedly omnibenevolent entity. It is cruel, pointless and vindictive.

You don't believe in the God you are accusing but you also deny any objective right & wrong anyway.

See my first response. I am arguing against a specific concept of God, of course and thus addressing those who believe it.

For you to claim eternal punishment as unjust in your eyes, you surely must have some kind of absolute morality.

Are you using absolute as a synonym for objective here? At any rate there's no reason to presume that me claiming eternal punishment as unjust means I must accept absolute morality.

Relativists really shouldn't scoff at God just because they don't "feel" what He does is fair.

Objective moralists shouldn't be so quick to claim moral superiority when it is discovered trivially that they defend torture. Torture is always wrong, oh except when God does it.

Convenient.

No one likes the idea of torment, suffering & punishment. But the 'Good News' of the Gospel requires saving from 'Bad News' or the point of any atonement would be null & silly.

Yes, I've heard and argued against this solution before. It is a smokescreen for the real issue. Recall that people do not believe in God because they are unconvinced of his existence. They are guilty of only ignorance. There's no malice integral to them that leads them to that non-conviction but only their understanding of the world. To punish people for coming to specific conclusions on reality is foul to say the least. Torturing them for it is deplorable.

Salvation would bring no glory if there was nothing to be saved from.

What a self-satisfying answer that is. It is entirely appropriate that 70%+ of the human race be burned for eternity because otherwise there would be no glory, no warm feeling from feeling saved.

I'm beginning to think this is all just a pious mask for hedonism.

The Bible does not indicate innocent people will be sent to hell. Rather those who engage in evil in God's eyes. People deserving of punishment. There are many murderers, rapists, and other people who wreak havoc in the lives of others, who never experience judgment in this life. Perpetrators of evil throughout the ages would get away with everything slaughtering innocents, raping & stealing & then getting to spend an eternity in paradise with the same ones whose lives they ruined.

So Non-Christians who do not engage in murder, rape and actual crimes towards others would not receive eternal torture?

It is clear that God has infinitely higher moral standards than we do. Even Christ Himself said "Why do you call me good?" "No one is good but God". Most scholars would agree Jesus had particularly high ethics for someone who spent most of His days speaking with the unrighteous. God's ideas of punishment might seem extreme to some but honestly I don't think any atheist or anti-theists have any premise to state what is "right" & "wrong" in their eyes.

The question is to you, not us.

Seeing as you have this "objective moral standard" then shouldn't the idea of God punishing people with torture for what they think be reprehensible? Shouldn't it bother you? Not even slightly?

You know as well as I do that if it was anyone else, if it was even a slightly different scenario with a dictator replacing God you would be right with me condemning it as evil.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The question is to you, not us.

Seeing as you have this "objective moral standard" then shouldn't the idea of God punishing people with torture for what they think be reprehensible? Shouldn't it bother you? Not even slightly?

You know as well as I do that if it was anyone else, if it was even a slightly different scenario with a dictator replacing God you would be right with me condemning it as evil.

I recommend thunderf00t's video response to William Lane Craig's attempt to justify murder and genocide in the Bible.

 

[quatona]

I will have to quote quatona here...

"Well, you don´t always get what you want."

Then again, I don´t recall anyone or myself claiming that I "love you enough to let you have your own way."

 

[Elioenai26]

Then again, I don´t recall anyone or myself claiming that I "love you enough to let you have your own way."

C.S. Lewis tackled these issues with his deep insight and humble prose in several of his books.

If you have not read his works, check em out.

 

[quatona]

C.S. Lewis tackled these issues with his deep insight and humble prose in several of his books.

If you have not read his works, check em out.

I´m positive that C.S.Lewis does a great job at preaching to the choir.
I have no idea, though, why so many Christians feel he is a great apologist.

 

[Elioenai26]

I´m positive that C.S.Lewis does a great job at preaching to the choir.
I have no idea, though, why so many Christians feel he is a great apologist.

He was a master at conveying his thoughts in such clear and articulate ways as well as providing insight into the most meaningful questions of human experience.

His writings, much of which were directly related to and influenced by his perspective of being a staunch atheist who surrendered to the God who won Him by love, is unmatched in all of literature.

 

[Skavau]

So anyone else here got any defense for why most of humanity deserves to be tormented/tortured forever?

 

[quatona]

He was a master at conveying his thoughts in such clear and articulate ways as well as providing insight into the most meaningful questions of human experience.

That may be the case, but unfortunately his thoughts (although he may have been a master in conveying them) were neither particularly deep nor convincing.

His writings, much of which were directly related to and influenced by his perspective of being a staunch atheist who surrendered to the God who won Him by love, is unmatched in all of literature.

From what I have read of him he was never an atheist - he was an anti-theist. He hated the god he believed in; and he describes how he managed to overcome his hate.

Btw. IIRC (correct me if I am wrong) "eternal torment in hell" wasn´t even part of C.S.Lewis´ theology. So I am not sure how his works could possibly contribute anything to the justification of this concept.

 

[Elioenai26]

That may be the case, but unfortunately his thoughts (although he may have been a master in conveying them) were neither particularly deep nor convincing.

From what I have read of him he was never an atheist - he was an anti-theist. He hated the god he believed in; and he describes how he managed to overcome his hate.

Btw. IIRC (correct me if I am wrong) "eternal torment in hell" wasn´t even part of C.S.Lewis´ theology. So I am not sure how his works could possibly contribute anything to the justification of this concept.

Yes you are wrong.

And yes he was an atheist. The below is taken from Wikipedia:

"Lewis was raised in a church-going family in the Church of Ireland. He became an atheist at 15, though he later described his young self as being paradoxically "very angry with God for not existing"

Now if you want to argue about whether or not he was an atheist, you most certainly can do so, but you can argue with yourself, because im not too concerned about it. I've read his work, and I know his views.

 

[quatona]

Yes you are wrong.

So he believed in eternal torment?

And yes he was an atheist. The below is taken from Wikipedia:

"Lewis was raised in a church-going family in the Church of Ireland. He became an atheist at 15, though he later described his young self as being paradoxically "very angry with God for not existing"


Now if you want to argue about whether or not he was an atheist, you most certainly can do so, but you can argue with yourself, because im not too concerned about it. I've read his work, and I know his views.

No, I don´t want to talk about C.S.Lewis. You brought him up instead of writing down your own thoughts.

 

[Elioenai26]

So he believed in eternal torment?

He believed in what God had testified of regarding the state of the unrepentant. That hell is eternal. Allow me to quote him:

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. ”
― C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

and...

Jonathan L. Kvanvig writes:

"[C.S.] Lewis believes that the doors of hell are locked from the inside rather than from the outside. Thus, according to Lewis, if escape from hell never happens, it is not because God is not willing that it should happen. Instead, residence in hell is eternal because that is just what persons in hell have chosen for themselves. ”


Similarly, Dave Hunt (1996) writes:

“ We may rest assured that no one will suffer in hell who could by any means have been won to Christ in this life. God leaves no stone unturned to rescue all who would respond to the convicting and wooing of the Holy Spirit."

No, I don´t want to talk about C.S.Lewis. You brought him up instead of writing down your own thoughts.

I share his thoughts on the matter, just like you no doubt share Rumi's thoughts on a field out beyond ideas of right and wrongdoing.

 

[quatona]

He believed in what God had testified of regarding the state of the unrepentant. That hell is eternal. Allow me to quote him:

"There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened. ”
― C.S. Lewis, The Great Divorce

and...

Jonathan L. Kvanvig writes:

"[C.S.] Lewis believes that the doors of hell are locked from the inside rather than from the outside. Thus, according to Lewis, if escape from hell never happens, it is not because God is not willing that it should happen. Instead, residence in hell is eternal because that is just what persons in hell have chosen for themselves. ”


Similarly, Dave Hunt (1996) writes:

“ We may rest assured that no one will suffer in hell who could by any means have been won to Christ in this life. God leaves no stone unturned to rescue all who would respond to the convicting and wooing of the Holy Spirit."

I can´t find anything about eternal torment in those quotes.

I share his thoughts on the matter, just like you no doubt share Rumi's thoughts on a field out beyond ideas of right and wrongdoing.

That´s why I quoted the sentence I agreed with, and on top it´s not meant to be a response in a current discussion.
You, however, simply referred to the works of C.S.Lewis instead of responding.