Thoughts on hell

[seebs]

I've had a number of interesting discussions about Christian beliefs at hell. Many of them were over at Internet Infidels (IIDB), where I'm a moderator in the "General Religious Discussions" forum.

But it occurs to me that'd be interesting to discuss some of these topics here, with more Christians and fewer hostile atheists.

Although I'm posting this in LT, to keep the door open to other views, my own view has ended up being decidedly non-Liberal, in that it's very very close to the Orthodox view. I was first persuaded that mainstream American descriptions of Hell were problematic by C. S. Lewis's The Great Divorce, but the document that really did it for me is the famous Orthodox work River of Fire.

"For our God is a consuming fire", (Heb. 12:29). The very fire which purifies gold, also consumes wood. Precious metals shine in it like the sun, rubbish burns with black smoke. All are in the same fire of Love. Some shine and others become black and dark. In the same furnace steel shines like the sun, whereas clay turns dark and is hardened like stone. The difference is in man, not in God.​

Despite the use of fire metaphors and analogies, this is not a depiction of literal fire; I do not believe in a literal fiery hell.

But this raises the question; what other models are there? Some groups teach "separation from God"; I am not sure what to make of this, because it implies a conflict with omnipresence, but perhaps it speaks to a separation of nature, not locality?

 

[elman]

I've had a number of interesting discussions about Christian beliefs at hell. Many of them were over at Internet Infidels (IIDB), where I'm a moderator in the "General Religious Discussions" forum.

But it occurs to me that'd be interesting to discuss some of these topics here, with more Christians and fewer hostile atheists.

Although I'm posting this in LT, to keep the door open to other views, my own view has ended up being decidedly non-Liberal, in that it's very very close to the Orthodox view. I was first persuaded that mainstream American descriptions of Hell were problematic by C. S. Lewis's The Great Divorce, but the document that really did it for me is the famous Orthodox work River of Fire.

"For our God is a consuming fire", (Heb. 12:29). The very fire which purifies gold, also consumes wood. Precious metals shine in it like the sun, rubbish burns with black smoke. All are in the same fire of Love. Some shine and others become black and dark. In the same furnace steel shines like the sun, whereas clay turns dark and is hardened like stone. The difference is in man, not in God.​

Despite the use of fire metaphors and analogies, this is not a depiction of literal fire; I do not believe in a literal fiery hell.

But this raises the question; what other models are there? Some groups teach "separation from God"; I am not sure what to make of this, because it implies a conflict with omnipresence, but perhaps it speaks to a separation of nature, not locality?

My journey on this question has reached the point that I am a annilationist. I think there is no afterlife except for the children of God and all children of God are people who love each other.

 

[Abiel]

(I try not to have thoughts on hell. Everyone I have ever loved is probably there, traditionally speaking)

 

[Im_A]

my thoughts are along these lines:

i don't know what hell is. i don't know what heaven is. all i do i know is, i think we all see eternal damnation and eternal salvation in this life.

i know actions bring a reaction, ie causality...i'm a stubborn person on causality.

but i also know that God's Will is that all come to the saving knowledge of Christ.

so i have problems with modern depection of hell, an deven ancient depiction of hell. ancient depictions of hell, seem to paganistic. i'm not a pagan, and i mean no disrespect to our pagan friends, but since i am not a pagan, i cannot hold any credibility with paganistic views in my faith, thus i have to let loose of some old views in my Christian faith that i have held on to, which is hell specifically. the use of hades, and many other metaphorical useage of greek mythology means nothing to me, but metaphorical, poetic expressions of something else, especially written by people who were expierencing hell at the time they wrote what they wrote.

then the use of Gehenna, being a place where the paganistic religions would sacrifice their babies to their pagan gods, and be a trash dump with fire and brimestone, leads me to question the very usage of hell in the Bible.

then Sheol, well, i cannot see how that is defined by hell when both the righteous and the unrighteous go there and how it can be seen as a metaphorical usage in the old testament of the here and now as well.

so in regards to hell, i don't know. i question the ability for people to go against the Will of an All powerful God. sure in this life we see it, but in the afterlife? i just don't know if i can buy it. i don't know if i can agree that there are finite actions worthy of infinite punishment. i don't know if human's free-will is more powerful than God's Will to even create a hell.

if it is, then i believe it will be emptied totally, thus i really can't apply any literal or metaphorical ideas with hell. cause if i believe if something is going to be empty, any details are meaningless to me, and the will of reconciliation through the saving knowledge of Christ is all that even matters to me. how God does that tho, i don't know. i lbelieve the Orthodox view of heaven and hell being the same place and people experiencing different things is the truth, but i have to be a bit more optimistic than just hoping that hell will be empty and that God will brin gall back to Him. i believe God has the power of sending everyone or just a few people to hell, but a sovereign God, a God whom's will is forever, i place more trust than that, then me being able to understand details of hell, me understanding God's justice. God's will makes me leave these thing alone, and just say, hey i don't understand God, but God will do as He sees fit in accordance with His Will, so that leads to me being really optimistic and thus hell not even in my definition anymore and the only thing i can see hell meaning is in this life, which the reality of it, i think is rather obvious that we see hell all around us.

God Bless you Seebs! <><

 

[Keturah]

If I were to believe in hell, then the Orthodox view is probably what I'd believe. However, personally I don't believe there is such a place. Looking at the original words that have been translated into hell, I really can't see how any of those words could be translated as such. The lake of fire could also easily be a place of purification and there's plenty of verses saying God will save all.

 

[red77]

(I try not to have thoughts on hell. Everyone I have ever loved is probably there, traditionally speaking)

Love conquers all including traditionalism.........in fact maybe especially traditionalism...........

 

[red77]

If I were to believe in hell, then the Orthodox view is probably what I'd believe. However, personally I don't believe there is such a place. Looking at the original words that have been translated into hell, I really can't see how any of those words could be translated as such. The lake of fire could also easily be a place of purification and there's plenty of verses saying God will save all.

Absolutely.............its only literalists that are tied in with traditional doctrines that cant see through their own interpretations, the abundance of verses that speak of Gods plans to reconcile everyone and his multitude of mercies have to be doctored and twisted to fit the image of a God who would torture for infinity........and there's no clear cut verse in the bible that says hell is eternal or describes in a clear unequivocable fashion what the suffering is..............traditional hell really is a doctrine stemming from the dark ages in which the mainstream church seems to want to stay mores the pity...........

 

[seebs]

Well, Abiel, I think one of the issues I'm trying to get at is that I don't think modern naive exclusivism is "traditional" in any long view of the faith. I think it's essentially modernist.

 

[KCDAD]

But this raises the question; what other models are there? Some groups teach "separation from God"; I am not sure what to make of this, because it implies a conflict with omnipresence, but perhaps it speaks to a separation of nature, not locality?

Fire is the great purifier and water the great cleanser. That's why we have the repeating of water and fire metaphors all through scripture. I see the whole idea of judgement and afterlife, baptism and The holy Spirit being one of getting rid of what John Haggee (who I think is a total nutbag) calls "stinkin thinkin". Paul said we see in a mirror, dimly, but then... now I know only in parts, but then...
As far as hell goes, Jesus is using a metaphor from Jewish folklore about being in despair, being utterly alone and wallowing in our guilt and shame. ANY attempt to make this a real place of torment and retribution for "sin" is fantastic and anti-New Covenant. When John the revelator speaks of throwing hell and death into the Lake of Fire, what can he possibly mean other than sometime in the future both death and despair, lonliness and guilt will be cleansed from us?

 

[Abiel]

Well, Abiel, I think one of the issues I'm trying to get at is that I don't think modern naive exclusivism is "traditional" in any long view of the faith. I think it's essentially modernist.

Perhaps you would care to expand this point. (Perhaps not! As you choose!)

 

[seebs]

Many modern Christians preach "turn-or-burn", in which people are expected to either be Christian or go to Hell.

This is nonsensical. I mean, okay, you can make all the words have meaning, but it's ridiculous. You might as well claim that only people who accept the claim that Isaac Newton lived in England have their bodies attracted to other objects with a force proportional to their mass.

I think the problem comes in part from taking "believe in me" out of context.

If a man you have been travelling with for years says "believe in me, and you will be happy", he is not telling you to sit around affirming his existance; he is telling you to follow his teachings.

Until you're far enough from the Incarnation that it's possible to doubt it, there's simply no way anyone could ever have come up with the "believe that Jesus existed" view of this teaching.

The famous "the way, the truth, and the light" passage is better understood, idiomatically and in context, as stressing the importance of following this path.

Intellectual assent to claims about the existence of Jesus is frankly very close to totally irrelevant, so far as I can tell. There are only two values to such beliefs; one is that they are true, and truth is itself valuable, and one is that they may lead you to follow these teachings.

But the notion that only people who hold particular opinions are "saved" and God torments everyone else is just plain incoherent. It cannot be reconciled with any meaningful conception of justice. If we add the "ignorance" defense, things become even less coherent; suddenly, preaching to people becomes an attack on their salvation, because unless you convince them fully, you have condemned them to a hell they might otherwise have avoided.

The whole line of inquiry is simply confused and mistaken.

I believe, currently, that whatever is in us that is worth saving will most likely be saved. That which is corrupt is burned in the fire... But are people totally corrupt? I don't think so; even many Calvinists grant that "total depravity" refers only to the scope of our flaws (they are found in every aspect of our existence) rather than to whether or not there is anything to us that is good-but-flawed.

Paul says:

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Chapter 13, Verse 8
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.​

John says:

The First Epistle General of John, Chapter 4, Verses 7-21

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.​

Think on this.

Hear the good news!

The First Epistle General of John, Chapter 4, Verse 7

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.​

Everyone that loveth is born of God.

Not "everyone that loveth, whose theology is correct, is born of God."

No restrictions.

What comes between us and God?

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Chapter 8, Verses 38-39
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

Nothing.

There is a reason that, once upon a time, our faith was called "the good news".

 

[elman]

If I were to believe in hell, then the Orthodox view is probably what I'd believe. However, personally I don't believe there is such a place. Looking at the original words that have been translated into hell, I really can't see how any of those words could be translated as such. The lake of fire could also easily be a place of purification and there's plenty of verses saying God will save all.

The lake of fire is defined as the second death. I think that mean non existence, not life in pain.

 

[KCDAD]

Many modern Christians preach "turn-or-burn", in which people are expected to either be Christian or go to Hell.

This is nonsensical. I mean, okay, you can make all the words have meaning, but it's ridiculous. You might as well claim that only people who accept the claim that Isaac Newton lived in England have their bodies attracted to other objects with a force proportional to their mass.

I think the problem comes in part from taking "believe in me" out of context.

If a man you have been travelling with for years says "believe in me, and you will be happy", he is not telling you to sit around affirming his existance; he is telling you to follow his teachings.

Until you're far enough from the Incarnation that it's possible to doubt it, there's simply no way anyone could ever have come up with the "believe that Jesus existed" view of this teaching.

The famous "the way, the truth, and the light" passage is better understood, idiomatically and in context, as stressing the importance of following this path.

Intellectual assent to claims about the existence of Jesus is frankly very close to totally irrelevant, so far as I can tell. There are only two values to such beliefs; one is that they are true, and truth is itself valuable, and one is that they may lead you to follow these teachings.

But the notion that only people who hold particular opinions are "saved" and God torments everyone else is just plain incoherent. It cannot be reconciled with any meaningful conception of justice. If we add the "ignorance" defense, things become even less coherent; suddenly, preaching to people becomes an attack on their salvation, because unless you convince them fully, you have condemned them to a hell they might otherwise have avoided.

The whole line of inquiry is simply confused and mistaken.

I believe, currently, that whatever is in us that is worth saving will most likely be saved. That which is corrupt is burned in the fire... But are people totally corrupt? I don't think so; even many Calvinists grant that "total depravity" refers only to the scope of our flaws (they are found in every aspect of our existence) rather than to whether or not there is anything to us that is good-but-flawed.

Paul says:

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Chapter 13, Verse 8
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
​

John says:

The First Epistle General of John, Chapter 4, Verses 7-21

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
​

Think on this.

Hear the good news!

The First Epistle General of John, Chapter 4, Verse 7

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
​

Everyone that loveth is born of God.

Not "everyone that loveth, whose theology is correct, is born of God."

No restrictions.

What comes between us and God?

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Chapter 8, Verses 38-39
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
​

Nothing.

There is a reason that, once upon a time, our faith was called "the good news".

Save this, print this, post it on the billboards... this is The Gospel!

 

[elman]

Many modern Christians preach "turn-or-burn", in which people are expected to either be Christian or go to Hell.

This is nonsensical. I mean, okay, you can make all the words have meaning, but it's ridiculous. You might as well claim that only people who accept the claim that Isaac Newton lived in England have their bodies attracted to other objects with a force proportional to their mass.

I think the problem comes in part from taking "believe in me" out of context.

If a man you have been travelling with for years says "believe in me, and you will be happy", he is not telling you to sit around affirming his existance; he is telling you to follow his teachings.

Until you're far enough from the Incarnation that it's possible to doubt it, there's simply no way anyone could ever have come up with the "believe that Jesus existed" view of this teaching.

The famous "the way, the truth, and the light" passage is better understood, idiomatically and in context, as stressing the importance of following this path.

Intellectual assent to claims about the existence of Jesus is frankly very close to totally irrelevant, so far as I can tell. There are only two values to such beliefs; one is that they are true, and truth is itself valuable, and one is that they may lead you to follow these teachings.

But the notion that only people who hold particular opinions are "saved" and God torments everyone else is just plain incoherent. It cannot be reconciled with any meaningful conception of justice. If we add the "ignorance" defense, things become even less coherent; suddenly, preaching to people becomes an attack on their salvation, because unless you convince them fully, you have condemned them to a hell they might otherwise have avoided.

The whole line of inquiry is simply confused and mistaken.

I believe, currently, that whatever is in us that is worth saving will most likely be saved. That which is corrupt is burned in the fire... But are people totally corrupt? I don't think so; even many Calvinists grant that "total depravity" refers only to the scope of our flaws (they are found in every aspect of our existence) rather than to whether or not there is anything to us that is good-but-flawed.

Paul says:

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Chapter 13, Verse 8
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.​

John says:

The First Epistle General of John, Chapter 4, Verses 7-21

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.​

Think on this.

Hear the good news!

The First Epistle General of John, Chapter 4, Verse 7

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.​

Everyone that loveth is born of God.

Not "everyone that loveth, whose theology is correct, is born of God."

No restrictions.

What comes between us and God?

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Chapter 8, Verses 38-39
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.​

Nothing.

There is a reason that, once upon a time, our faith was called "the good news".

 

[Keturah]

The lake of fire is defined as the second death. I think that mean non existence, not life in pain.

Some folks I've bumped into on CF think lake of fire = hell, which is why I mentioned it.

 

[elman]

Some folks I've bumped into on CF think lake of fire = hell, which is why I mentioned it.

I think so also, but I think both mean death or non existence.

 

[Keturah]

Ah, now I get ya.

 

[TheGMan]

My carefully considered opinion of hell is thus: I in't got a scooby. If there's a hell, I'm sure He's got a very good reason for it. He's not such a bad chap despite what a lot of His worshippers seem to think about Him.

 

[stumpjumper]

But this raises the question; what other models are there? Some groups teach "separation from God"; I am not sure what to make of this, because it implies a conflict with omnipresence, but perhaps it speaks to a separation of nature, not locality?

I wrote this a while ago based upon Karl Rahner's Foundations... He viewed Jesus' descent into hell and the Son's descent into the utter depths of human seperation from God...

When it comes to hell, I'm really not sure what Jesus meant by Gehanna but this is close to Rahner's view:

Here's an interesting way to look at hell that never really occurred to me until I read the eschatology section of a book I just finished. Most of Jesus' statements that are now translated as hell really talk about actions in this life and reference gehanna as the consequence. Most of them reference actions, not beliefs, and the immediate result of those actions. The result, of course, is ending up at the human waste pile and is a metaphor for the consequences of our actions that we experience in this life and as a metaphor for the purification from our sins.

But then there are statements in Paul's epistles, Revelation, and some of the Gospels that talk about the restoration of all things in an eschatalogical sense. Revelation talks about God wiping every tear from our eyes and Paul talks many times about God becoming "all in all"...

Anyway, I don't think we have to view these statements as being in opposition of each other. If it is through death that we are transformed and purified then those statements about gehanna are metaphorical and certainly real. Those that describe an eternal loss or seperation can be viewed as a false history of the human race. One thing that Christians should take away from the incarnation is that God is with us no matter what...

That being the case passages like this make much more sense:
Colossians 1:19-20
For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Karl Rahner viewed this one eschatology as a collective eschatology and here is a short quote from his book: "In Christianity this open possibility is not neccesarily the doctrine of two parallel ways which lie before a person who stands at the crossroads. Rather the existence of the possibility that freedom will end in eternal loss stands alongside the doctrine that the world and the history of the world as a whole will in fact enter into eternal life with God."

Many people view heaven and hell as opposing eternal destinies or take the view that hell does not exist. In this sense, though, they are not opposing but exist alongside each other. One as a false possibility and the other as a collective goal.

I don't think there is one answer as we see through a glass darkly...

 

[Im_A]

Many modern Christians preach "turn-or-burn", in which people are expected to either be Christian or go to Hell.

This is nonsensical. I mean, okay, you can make all the words have meaning, but it's ridiculous. You might as well claim that only people who accept the claim that Isaac Newton lived in England have their bodies attracted to other objects with a force proportional to their mass.

I think the problem comes in part from taking "believe in me" out of context.

If a man you have been travelling with for years says "believe in me, and you will be happy", he is not telling you to sit around affirming his existance; he is telling you to follow his teachings.

Until you're far enough from the Incarnation that it's possible to doubt it, there's simply no way anyone could ever have come up with the "believe that Jesus existed" view of this teaching.

The famous "the way, the truth, and the light" passage is better understood, idiomatically and in context, as stressing the importance of following this path.

Intellectual assent to claims about the existence of Jesus is frankly very close to totally irrelevant, so far as I can tell. There are only two values to such beliefs; one is that they are true, and truth is itself valuable, and one is that they may lead you to follow these teachings.

But the notion that only people who hold particular opinions are "saved" and God torments everyone else is just plain incoherent. It cannot be reconciled with any meaningful conception of justice. If we add the "ignorance" defense, things become even less coherent; suddenly, preaching to people becomes an attack on their salvation, because unless you convince them fully, you have condemned them to a hell they might otherwise have avoided.

The whole line of inquiry is simply confused and mistaken.

I believe, currently, that whatever is in us that is worth saving will most likely be saved. That which is corrupt is burned in the fire... But are people totally corrupt? I don't think so; even many Calvinists grant that "total depravity" refers only to the scope of our flaws (they are found in every aspect of our existence) rather than to whether or not there is anything to us that is good-but-flawed.

Paul says:

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Chapter 13, Verse 8
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
​

John says:

The First Epistle General of John, Chapter 4, Verses 7-21

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
​

Think on this.

Hear the good news!

The First Epistle General of John, Chapter 4, Verse 7

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
​

Everyone that loveth is born of God.

Not "everyone that loveth, whose theology is correct, is born of God."

No restrictions.

What comes between us and God?

The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Chapter 8, Verses 38-39
For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
​

Nothing.

There is a reason that, once upon a time, our faith was called "the good news".

good post Seebs. since hope and faith is the only Christian constant trait(imho) you have explained the very heart of why i have become a heretic(ie Universal Reconciliation.)