The Problem of Hell

[JGL53]

[/quote]...so? there are many strange things that are in or out of religion.
what's your point?[/quote]

My points would be that

1. The idea that Jesus and Satan were ever brothers is whack.
2. The idea of a supernatural torture chamber as the eternal repository for most people (their souls that is) is whack.
3. A combination of beliefs #1 and #2 is so whack that a believer in such has no room to wonder about the rational basis of Scientology, Gypsy fortune telling, or the animistic beliefs of Australian Aborigines, etc.

If no one speaks up and says “Now hold on just one cotton-picking minute there!” then moribund and macabre beliefs will pervade and debase society, to everyone's ultimate psychological, social, and political detriment.

IOW, a large part of promoting the good is to point out and fight the bad.

How's that for making some needed points?

 

[Blackmarch]

My points would be that

1. The idea that Jesus and Satan were ever brothers is whack.

quantum physics is pretty "whack".
Just because something is strange does not prove or disprove it.

2. The idea of a supernatural torture chamber as the eternal repository for most people (their souls that is) is whack.

so is the belief that everything happened by chance or that there is a god or that there is nothing after this life or there is no god... no matter which direction you wish to go it gets strange.

3. A combination of beliefs #1 and #2 is so whack ....

possibly so. however I do not use both numbers one and two, neither do most LDS.

that a believer in such has no room to wonder about the rational basis of Scientology, Gypsy fortune telling, or the animistic beliefs of Australian Aborigines, etc

I have not been in scientology circles so I wouldn't know about them, I do find quite interesting bits with old folklore from various peoples.
Unlike what you seem to think I have done quite a lot of wondering, both in and outside of religion, so that would disprove what you say there.

If no one speaks up and says “Now hold on just one cotton-picking minute there!” then moribund and macabre beliefs will pervade and debase society, to everyone's ultimate psychological, social, and political detriment.

only to be replaced moribund and macabre beliefs of the one who claims that the other is moribund and macabre. and no it won't debase everyone. I know many people withg strange religious beliefs and they tend to be the better people I have worked with and have known. On the other hand the few that on the other end of the spectrum also have strange religious beliefs as well (or used to before completely rejecting them)

IOW, a large part of promoting the good is to point out and fight the bad.

need to learn what is good and bad first.

How's that for making some needed points?

mmm they are points, but weak points.

 

[lifeknowingjesus]

People go to hell because they choose continued separation from God. God is the source of all good. For those who choose to stay separated from God, there is an existence. It's not an existence you want! Imagine removing all sources of good from your life. But God offers forgiveness to anyone willing to receive him. People choose continued separation from God. Others choose a relationship with Jesus and enjoy the love they were created for and eternity with Him in Heaven. He respects what they choose.

Also, there's the issue of God's holiness. God is holy. So holy he cannot allow sin into his presence. So, with *any* amount of sin (and "all" have sinned and have a sin nature), we cannot be with God. We have to be innocent before we can be with him. To quote Billy Graham:

"Every sin is serious in God's eyes. The reason is because God is absolutely pure and holy, and even one sin -- just one, no matter how minor it might seem to us -- would be enough to banish us from His presence forever. The Bible says of God, 'Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong' (Habakkuk 1:13). Every sin makes us guilty before God and subject to His judgment.

"But the Bible tells us something else about God: He loves us. And because He loves us, He wants us to be with Him in heaven forever. But how is that possible, if we are sinners and He is holy? It's possible for one reason: Jesus Christ came into the world to take away our sins. We deserve to die for our sins -- but He died in our place. Every sin you ever committed was placed on Him, and He took the judgment you deserve.

"No matter who we are or what we have done, God offers us forgiveness in Christ -- freely and fully. The Bible says, 'If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness' (1 John 1:9). Open your heart to Christ today."

 

[tcampen]

People go to hell because they choose continued separation from God. God is the source of all good. For those who choose to stay separated from God, there is an existence. It's not an existence you want! Imagine removing all sources of good from your life. But God offers forgiveness to anyone willing to receive him. People choose continued separation from God. Others choose a relationship with Jesus and enjoy the love they were created for and eternity with Him in Heaven. He respects what they choose.

Also, there's the issue of God's holiness. God is holy. So holy he cannot allow sin into his presence. So, with *any* amount of sin (and "all" have sinned and have a sin nature), we cannot be with God. We have to be innocent before we can be with him. To quote Billy Graham:

"Every sin is serious in God's eyes. The reason is because God is absolutely pure and holy, and even one sin -- just one, no matter how minor it might seem to us -- would be enough to banish us from His presence forever. The Bible says of God, 'Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong' (Habakkuk 1:13). Every sin makes us guilty before God and subject to His judgment.

"But the Bible tells us something else about God: He loves us. And because He loves us, He wants us to be with Him in heaven forever. But how is that possible, if we are sinners and He is holy? It's possible for one reason: Jesus Christ came into the world to take away our sins. We deserve to die for our sins -- but He died in our place. Every sin you ever committed was placed on Him, and He took the judgment you deserve.

"No matter who we are or what we have done, God offers us forgiveness in Christ -- freely and fully. The Bible says, 'If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness' (1 John 1:9). Open your heart to Christ today."

This is all very interesting according to your theology, but this area of CF is for philosophical discussion. Nothing you have said is based on reason, logical arguments or philisophical premises. If you'd like to make this assertions with actual, non-theological arguments, then lets here it!

 

[If Not For Grace]

Hell, yes, to be sure--but only for the purpose of reforming the individual before they are welcomed into heaven

Heaven? If one can believe there is a heaven, why not hell?

And as for as the "misery of loved ones" are we not told there is no "marriage" in heaven, Where does it come from that we are all to know and still be related in heaven or hell, I never did understand that idea of we will "seem em again someday" thing, can someone give me scripture references on that. Would it not be a part of "hell" if we find out we were wrong and separated from God. Of course we would find out that part of being wrong was having missed out on all the Good things God had for us but that we rejected. I do believe we will all go on to a different and/or higher plain at death, i also submit that heaven may not be the same experience for all, but I believe in the old adage of "we'll have a new body and have a new life" (meaning our existence will be all together different that what it is now).

 

[Vigilante]

I never did understand that idea of we will "seem em again someday" thing, can someone give me scripture references on that.

"Therefore just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. For just as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous." - Romans 5:18-19 (NRSV)

There you go.

 

[Kattylove]

Is infinite torture acceptable punishment for finite sin?

Hell is probably the most difficult thing I've had to grapple with in my faith. Personally, I define Hell literally as "separation from God". Hell was originally created so that the angels who turned against God had somewhere to exist where they wouldn't corrupt the holiness of Heaven. God wants each and every one of us by His side in Heaven, but Heaven is a place where there is no sin. Christianity (generally) holds that without accepting Jesus, we cannot be cleansed of our sin. Therefore, however much God would like us to spend eternity with Him, we just can't be in Heaven without salvation. Hell is the alternative; instead of eternity in God's presence, it's eternity without His presence.

 

[JGL53]

Hell is probably the most difficult thing I've had to grapple with in my faith. Personally, I define Hell literally as "separation from God". Hell was originally created so that the angels who turned against God had somewhere to exist where they wouldn't corrupt the holiness of Heaven. God wants each and every one of us by His side in Heaven, but Heaven is a place where there is no sin. Christianity (generally) holds that without accepting Jesus, we cannot be cleansed of our sin. Therefore, however much God would like us to spend eternity with Him, we just can't be in Heaven without salvation. Hell is the alternative; instead of eternity in God's presence, it's eternity without His presence.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Maybe pantheism is correct.

Prove that it is not.

 

[quatona]

Hell is probably the most difficult thing I've had to grapple with in my faith. Personally, I define Hell literally as "separation from God". Hell was originally created so that the angels who turned against God had somewhere to exist where they wouldn't corrupt the holiness of Heaven. God wants each and every one of us by His side in Heaven, but Heaven is a place where there is no sin. Christianity (generally) holds that without accepting Jesus, we cannot be cleansed of our sin. Therefore, however much God would like us to spend eternity with Him, we just can't be in Heaven without salvation. Hell is the alternative; instead of eternity in God's presence, it's eternity without His presence.

When you say "can´t", "cannot" etc. here - where and how did those rules/laws/impossibilities come into being? Who determined them?
Or, IOW, am I to believe that god wasn´t their author (i.e. something more powerful than god imposed them upon god) nor is capable of simply altering them?

 

[Vigilante]

Hell is probably the most difficult thing I've had to grapple with in my faith. Personally, I define Hell literally as "separation from God". Hell was originally created so that the angels who turned against God had somewhere to exist where they wouldn't corrupt the holiness of Heaven. God wants each and every one of us by His side in Heaven, but Heaven is a place where there is no sin. Christianity (generally) holds that without accepting Jesus, we cannot be cleansed of our sin. Therefore, however much God would like us to spend eternity with Him, we just can't be in Heaven without salvation. Hell is the alternative; instead of eternity in God's presence, it's eternity without His presence.

I have to say, being as young as you are I'm impressed that you're even considering these things. But I have one question and one statement for you.

Q: If someone in the lake of fire comes to terms with the misery of being there and wants to be saved, will Jesus save him/her (provided he/she repents and wants to live for Jesus), and thus extract them into heaven with the rest of the saved populace, or not? (Or do you suppose that this kind of regret & repentance is eternally precluded for the damned? If so, why?)

S: You said "[Hell is] eternity without [God's] presence." Strictly speaking, I doubt you believe this. Orthodoxy has always held--to the best of my knowledge--omnipresence as one of God's essential attributes. Maybe you mean "Hell is eternity without God's manifest presence" or "felt presence."

 

[Vigilante]

[double post]

Apologies.

 

[The Nihilist]

People go to hell because they choose continued separation from God.

No one chooses that. People would have to be stupid to have all the information and make the wrong decision. The fact is, there is no good reason to believe in the existence of any god, let alone the christian god. If there were, then it would be a choice. But if your god sends people to hell for not being gullible, well, I think I'd be better off spending eternity without it anyway.

 

[Vigilante]

No one chooses that. People would have to be stupid to have all the information and make the wrong decision.

Exactly.


To everyone else:

This is one of the major philosophical problems with the notion of eternal damnation. Christianity has historically maintained that what God, in his love, wants for the individual is exactly the same thing as what the individual wants for himself: supremely worthwhile happiness and the satisfaction of his deepest yearnings. If this is the case, a given individual has every motivation to accept a relationship with God and no motivation whatsoever to reject a relationship with God, the latter simply by virtue of the fact that to do so would entail a fundamental rejection of one's very self.

And yet not everyone has a relationship with God. Why not?

#1. Not everyone has even heard of the God of Christianity.
#2. Many are exposed to a caricature of the God of Christianity.

Would you want a relationship with that? Of course not! A relationship with what. There's nothing to have a relationship with in that picture. It's absurd. (Note that I do have a sense of humor and I'm not blasting the action figure per se. )

And so many people "reject" what I, if I were in the same position as them, would probably reject too. We are all in a very large sense the product of our histories. If my history includes (what I'll call) "the Jesus-caricature," then I'll concern myself with something else--something that more closely approximates what I see as authenticity.

If our illusions and ambiguities were stripped away, none of us would know any caricature, and none of us would reject Christ.

Nobody, nobody, nobody would reject Jesus qua Son of God if they felt convinced that he was absolutely real and alive as described in the New Testament. The only exception to this is if someone wanted to make a decision so fundamentally opposed to their own well-being as rejecting the source of their very own supreme happiness. This kind of chronic irrationality would be akin to the decisions that are sometimes made on huge amounts of drugs or alcohol, however, and a person in that frame of mind is in no position to be making that kind of decision in the first place.

 

[JGL53]

So - the upshot of all this is that Hell is not a problem, just an imagined problem?

In any case that's the only way I can see it.

If we're gonna have a god, let's have a good one - OK, guys?

 

[Vigilante]

So - the upshot of all this is that Hell is not a problem, just an imagined problem?

In any case that's the only way I can see it.

If we're gonna have a god, let's have a good one - OK, guys?

As far as the lake of fire (as I prefer to call it) being a real v. imagined problem, I think it depends on the context of the theology in which you question it.

In my readings, the lake of fire serves the purpose of "purifying" those who are not of adequate character, and in that sense serves a medicinal purpose (with attendant ontological transformation). So trying to reconcile a lake of fire with a benevolent God is not what you would call a "real problem" (you could actually argue that it makes a great deal of sense!) and can, on the contrary, be summarily dismissed. However, there nevertheless may reside a tension between the necessity of enduring this process of transformation and the desire to do willy-nilly as one pleases. If this kind of transformation is effected by ascetic practices such as a self-sacrificing, altruistic disposition, etc., then there certainly is a "real problem" with respect to the competing demands of what one needs to experience for ontological adequacy in the afterlife and what one wants to do on a Saturday night.

The process to which I'm referring is called theosis by the Eastern Orthodox Church (and a growing number of Protestants), and leads to deification--which is not to be confused with ontological equivalence to God.

 

[JGL53]

As far as the lake of fire (as I prefer to call it) being a real v. imagined problem, I think it depends on the context of the theology in which you question it.

In my readings, the lake of fire serves the purpose of "purifying" those who are not of adequate character, and in that sense serves a medicinal purpose (with attendant ontological transformation)....etc...

Or one could be a Pure Land Buddhist. Or a deist or a pantheist. There several rational options. But some people seem determined to stay stuck in a rut - duty to the tribe and all that.

 

[Vigilante]

Or one could be a Pure Land Buddhist. Or a deist or a pantheist. There several rational options. But some people seem determined to stay stuck in a rut - duty to the tribe and all that.

Those may get you part of the way there in my view, but the "adequacy of character" attribute is, while necessary, insufficient to achieve the end we're all pointing toward. Being "in Christ" in the sense of being justified and being identified as a part of God's family is also a necessary, though also insufficient, aspect of salvation.

On this view, the Buddhists, no matter how virtuous, only bake half a loaf of bread. On this view plus the view of universal salvation (both of which I hold, and both of which I believe are expressly taught in the Bible), all Buddhists (like all people in general) will eventually have a whole loaf of bread, but any time spent ignoring or atrophying either aspect of salvation only detracts from the Way (how's that for expansive ecumenism?) and is, thus, senseless where it can be avoided. With an eschatalogical orientation in mind, this kind of attitude also leads, pretty much by definition, to a lower quality of Life.

It should be no surprise that I'm not of the opinion that universal salvation "makes everything equally worthwhile."

thanks for hitting this ball back and forth with me, btw. =)

 

[sk8Joyful]

Is infinite torture acceptable punishment for finite sin?

Some opponents of the doctrine of hell claim that no transgression can warrant an infinite punishment on the grounds that there is no such thing as an "infinite transgression".

GOD gives every soul He created, choices... & in this case
the choice: either to follow satan for eternity, punishing oneself in eternal torture;
OR
to *Accept GOD's creation-&-salvation* with its Soulful, Mindful & Youthful attendant blessings... eternally.

GOD/Christ did counsel each of us, to "Choose ye (wisely) this day, whom ye will serve..."
Joshua 24:15 as for me & my household we will serve GOD.

 

[The Nihilist]

GOD gives every soul He created, choices... & in this case
the choice: either to follow satan for eternity, punishing oneself in eternal torture;
OR
to *Accept GOD's creation-&-salvation* with its Soulful, Mindful & Youthful attendant blessings... eternally.

GOD/Christ did counsel each of us, to "Choose ye (wisely) this day, whom ye will serve..."
Joshua 24:15 as for me & my household we will serve GOD.

WRONG. See post 112.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Nobody, nobody, nobody would reject Jesus qua Son of God if they felt convinced that he was absolutely real and alive as described in the New Testament. The only exception to this is if someone wanted to make a decision so fundamentally opposed to their own well-being as rejecting the source of their very own supreme happiness.

I don't quite buy that. You are assuming here that "supreme happiness" must be one's ultimate objective. However, what if it is not? After all, it could be seen as an emotional form of hedonism to select this particular goal and to ignore all others.


eudaimonia,

Mark