|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Hell. Surprised it's not a DH? So am I.
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
My specific issue is:
Increasingly fewer people believe in the tradition hell-fire doctrine, although I suspect the number who do is larger than I would wish. What I mean by this is the teaching about the unredeemed which says:
a) Such people do exist, i.e. hell's not an empty threat
b) Their fate is a life of penal torment which could in no way be considered bearable.
c) The punishment is consciously endured for ever with no possibility of an end, via either annihilation or repentance.
A concise summary would be David Pawson's book on the subject. He argues the fire is literal. I don't think that matters.
Popular alternatives are:
a) Eternal hell which is no more than life without God, such that it's inhabitants would not wish to be annihilated, so it is bearable or better. This is the picture in C. S. Lewis's Great Divorce, and I have read it defended by E. L. Mascall and the Brethren writer Robert Anderson.
b) Like (a) with the further amelioration that the possibility of repentance is not withdrawn. Lewis believed this and it is rumoured that this is close to what Pope JP II believed.
c) Annihilation, as championed by John Stott, who is still rather a lone voice. This sometimes includes a bounded punishment. The sort of idea is that it is a purgatorial process, which removes the dross and leaves the gold, but if there is no gold, you end up with nothing.
I am not neutral in this because I believe that the traditional hell-fire doctrine is outrageous, and that the church should explicitly dissocate from it. I feel that the effect of the current situation is that hardly anybody talks about judgement to come, because they want to steer away from this hot potato. In many churches there is a vocal minorty of hell-fire believers who "we don't want to offend".
I'd like views on this. Specifically, what answer would you give, to the oft-repeated objection to christianity, that hell is an immoral concept? Are you sure your church would back you? If you preached about against hell-fire, would you get beaten up?
[ 02. January 2007, 19:36: Message edited by: RuthW ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Specifically, what answer would you give, to the oft-repeated objection to christianity, that hell is an immoral concept?
"I agree 100%. Is Hell the only immoral concept within Christianity?"
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Hi anteater!
I'm a card carrying universalist, so I do indeed explicitly reject the concept of hell.
I'm not sure what angle you want to discuss though? If it's just whether or not hell exists I imagine we'll be travelling on pretty well marked paths, conversation wise...
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Increasingly fewer people believe in the tradition hell-fire doctrine,
Anteater, are just talking about the UK? Worldwide I don't think that this is the case.
But it does seem natural that in a corner of the world where fewer and fewer people believe in God, that fewer and fewer would believe in hell.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
Well, in response to the OP title, I'm not surprised. DHs have a specific list of criteria to meet, and unfortunately, "having to read the same arguments from the same shipmates all of the time" is not one of them.
The biggest obstacle any universalist-like theology has to overcome is the idea that it is much easier and nicer to believe in such a God, and therefore, the theology lacks credibility. In other words, it takes faith to believe in a God who condemns to hell and saves, whereas universalism seems like an easy way out of a tough doctrine that has been accepted for years. So, anteater, let me get it started--what reasons do you give for throwing out a few thousand years of belief in a place where those who reject God go after they die?
Freddy, I'm not so sure. I doubt that belief in God and belief in hell are quite as correlated as you think. I would guess that now, maybe more than ever, the opposite is becoming more and more true, though I admit there is still a majority that believes in some modified concept of hell.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gauk
Shipmate
# 1125
|
Posted
It might be interesting to replace one emotive term with another and see what difference it makes. Supposing one were to write, "it takes faith to believe in a God who condemns to gas chambers and saves"?
--------------------
Now the Sirens have a still more fatal weapon than their song, namely their silence ... it is conceivable that someone might possibly have escaped from their singing; but from their silence certainly never.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
Freddy, I'm not so sure. I doubt that belief in God and belief in hell are quite as correlated as you think. I would guess that now, maybe more than ever, the opposite is becoming more and more true, though I admit there is still a majority that believes in some modified concept of hell.
Yes, Digory, I agree that the correlation wouldn't necessarily be great. I was just thinking about the correlation of both of these with religious belief in general.
But I am thinking of belief outside of the Christian world as well. Certainly the Islamic world retains its belief, as does the entire population of Africa and most people in Asia as well.
My point is that if belief in hell is a fading concept, it is fading only in populations where belief as a whole is fading.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
As much as I'm a universalist at heart, I have to believe Hell exists as a state as Christ mentioned it. And, with the free will belief within me, I have to allow for the possibility that some people will not want to be in presence of God: as odd as that sounds -- otherwise God is overriding their free will.
But I pray it is empty nevertheless.
[ 26. July 2006, 12:24: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
You think a loving God who condemns (perhaps predestines?) to Hell is more credible than universalism?
Papio, Digory is being ironic.
I think he is probably right. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
It might be interesting to replace one emotive term with another and see what difference it makes. Supposing one were to write, "it takes faith to believe in a God who condemns to gas chambers and saves"?
That might make sense in a way that the original statement does not. Gas Chambers only end this life, they have nothing to say about an afterlife. A God who defeats Nazism by The Final Victory is, to me, vastly more attractive than a God who condems to Hell.
In Hell, there is no hope of redemption and thereforem any argument to the effect that Hell is for the cleansing of the soul, the stripping away of sin, or as a warning against sin and so on actually renders Hell purposeless.
And purposeless, eternal pain is not at all compatable with the view of God as Love.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
Anteater, are just talking about the UK? Worldwide I don't think that this is the case
You're probably correct. I'm thinking of UK but limited to those who would claim a robust faith in biblical christianity. I.e. there is some process of post-mortem judgement.
quote:
what reasons do you give for throwing out a few thousand years of belief in a place where those who reject God go after they die?
First of all - am I? I've labelled the doctrine I reject as hell-fire to limit to a specific strict interpretation. If you hold that CSL's Great Divorce is within the tradition, then I don't.
If I do then given the three pillars of Scripture, Tradition and Reason, then Reason is figuring very strong. As I'm sure you're aware, there has been an age-old debate on whether we can say "God is good" based on our prior knowledge of what Good means, or "Good is whatever God does". I'm firmly on the first option, being convinced by the argument that "Good" is emptied of all meaning if we cannot trust at all to our knowledge of it.
I know this raises the problem that our idea of good is affected by sin, but when it comes to the morality of endless penal torture (for that is what the strict doctrine means in plain terms) we are nowhere near any borderline. It is significant that - uniquely I believe in the ancient world - the Israelites never used torture as a weapon. There's one case where David did and he is criticised. I think this adds to the case.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Earthling
Shipmate
# 4698
|
Posted
quote:
The biggest obstacle any universalist-like theology has to overcome is the idea that it is much easier and nicer to believe in such a God, and therefore, the theology lacks credibility. In other words, it takes faith to believe in a God who condemns to hell and saves
One might believe in such a God... but worship Him as Holy and Good and Righteous? Surely one would only be worshipping this being in order to save oneself? How on earth could you honestly praise Him for His merciful goodness if you truly believed He condemnded people to infinate punishment?
--------------------
Art thou in the Darkness? Mind it not, for if thou dost it will fill thee more, but stand still and act not, and wait in patience till Light arises out of Darkness to lead thee. James Nayler, 1659
Posts: 105 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
First of all - am I? I've labelled the doctrine I reject as hell-fire to limit to a specific strict interpretation. If you hold that CSL's Great Divorce is within the tradition, then I don't.
If you hold that CSL's Great Divorce is within the tradition, then I have not rejected the tradition, because I hold that as perfectly acceptable.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Is Hell the only immoral concept within Christianity?
Actually, this is a question worthy of discussion ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
A-a-a-a-gh. ![[Confused]](confused.gif) I'm having reall problems with getting these posts right. And I DO preview.
I hope you know what I mean now and apologise for the messy posts!
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
If you hold that CSL's Great Divorce is within the tradition, then I have not rejected the tradition, because I hold that as perfectly acceptable.
I wouldn't call CS Lewis's position in The Great Divorce universalist, to be honest.
What does 'the tradition' mean to you?
[Umm, replying to a post that's no longer there ]
[ 26. July 2006, 12:40: Message edited by: Demas ]
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gauk
Shipmate
# 1125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Gas Chambers only end this life, they have nothing to say about an afterlife.
Exactly. But if someone said, "It is right to have faith in someone who sends to the gas chambers anyone who offends against the law," one would have to think about how one feels about Nazi Germany. Then when you consider that traditional hellfire is substantially worse than anything at Auschwitz, it ought to raise some strong questions.
--------------------
Now the Sirens have a still more fatal weapon than their song, namely their silence ... it is conceivable that someone might possibly have escaped from their singing; but from their silence certainly never.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
I wouldn't call CS Lewis's position in The Great Divorce universalist, to be honest.
Neither would I, although I suspect that CSL would by hypothetically universalist, i.e. the doors never shut but people have to choose to walk in and may not. I'm not arguing for universalism, only against a specific strict interpretation of "hell-fire"
quote:
What does 'the tradition' mean to you?
By that I means all extra scriptural authorities which are recognised. So the eucumenical creeds if you're CofE, the Magisterium for RCs, with the usual caveats on what's infallible and what's provisional. Don't know about Orthodox.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
BarbaraG
Shipmate
# 399
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I feel that the effect of the current situation is that hardly anybody talks about judgement to come, because they want to steer away from this hot potato. In many churches there is a vocal minorty of hell-fire believers who "we don't want to offend".
I agree with your first statement, as a consequence of which I don't know whether to agree with your second or not, since no-one ever talks about it, so I am not aware of the views that most people in my church hold on this issue.
quote:
I'd like views on this. Specifically, what answer would you give, to the oft-repeated objection to christianity, that hell is an immoral concept? Are you sure your church would back you? If you preached about against hell-fire, would you get beaten up?
I agree that hell is an immoral concept - I ceased believing in it a long time ago. I disbelieve in hell (as conscious eternal torment) because it seems to me to be incompatible with a God of love and mercy whom I know through my own experience.
I'm not sure what the official teaching of my church is, although being a broad church we probably have room for a range of interpretations. I am confident that I would not be beaten up for preaching against hell fire. I have probably come close to doing so on occasions.
I prefer to preach the positive side - that if you turn to God in repentance and faith, you can be confident of a good outcome. I'm not at all sure that threatening people into the kingdom of God is an ethical strategy.
BarbaraG
--------------------
still trying to make sense of the world
Posts: 143 | From: Nottinghamshire | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
You think a loving God who condemns (perhaps predestines?) to Hell is more credible than universalism?
Wow.
Ideas that are difficult to believe are almost always seen as more credible than ideas that are easy to believe. Believing that a loving God could send anyone to Hell, based on x arguments, is often seen as more credible for this reason than throwing out x arguments in favor of "God, the Nice Guy".
For this reason, disbelief in hell requires a strong argument for why tradition is mistaken--much more than "How could anyone believe a loving God would do that?!? That's just ridiculous! I mean, duh!"*
*I'm not saying anybody here is making that argument here, by the way.
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
It might be interesting to replace one emotive term with another and see what difference it makes. Supposing one were to write, "it takes faith to believe in a God who condemns to gas chambers and saves"?
Oh, I would really, really rather not. Nothing good can come to an honest discussion from this line of reasoning, in my opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My point is that if belief in hell is a fading concept, it is fading only in populations where belief as a whole is fading.
I think I still disagree. For many, removing the concept of hell from the package is a great opening for belief to grow. (No, I'm not saying that we should remove hell so that people believe.)
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
I wouldn't call CS Lewis's position in The Great Divorce universalist, to be honest.
Neither would I, although I suspect that CSL would by hypothetically universalist, i.e. the doors never shut but people have to choose to walk in and may not. I'm not arguing for universalism, only against a specific strict interpretation of "hell-fire."
Lewis specifically rejects universalism in TGD, arguing against MacDonald's writings about it.
My own Swedenborgian tradition is exactly the same as Lewis' as expressed in TGD.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
The problem of hell can be set out exactly the same as the problem of evil.
1) God is all powerful
2) God is all loving
3) Evil/hell exists
So we answer it by saying that hell does not exist. But, we can't simply say that evil does not exist - the Holocaust has already being mentioned as an example of a Bad Thing™, so why can we get around the problem of hell in the same way? Its not intellectually honest just to simply dismiss hell because it upsets #1 and #2, just as its intellectually dishonest to claim that there is no evil*.
In short, I don't think hell can be dismissed as easily as we would like to.
*I am aware that Augustine has described evil as simply the 'absence of good' rather than existent in its own right, but 'the absence of good' is how some people describe hell - this answer does not work.
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
My specific issue is:
Increasingly fewer people believe in the tradition hell-fire doctrine ... What I mean by this is the teaching about the unredeemed which says ... b) Their fate is a life of penal torment which could in no way be considered bearable.
I disagree with the assertion that b) is part of the traditional doctrine of Hell. The idea that Hell is a punishment is not the earliest known Christian tradition, the early tradition (still taught by the Orthodox, among others- including some evangelical Protestants is that Hell is our choice, the natural result of a self-inflicted separation from God.
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
You think a loving God who condemns (perhaps predestines?) to Hell is more credible than universalism?
Wow.
Yes - I for one think (on balance) that a God who could send Hitler to hell is better than one who would send him to heaven.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
what reasons do you give for throwing out a few thousand years of belief in a place where those who reject God go after they die?
I, for one, don't exactly throw it out. Ian Climacus said it best:
quote:
I have to believe Hell exists as a state as Christ mentioned it. And, with the free will belief within me, I have to allow for the possibility that some people will not want to be in presence of God: as odd as that sounds -- otherwise God is overriding their free will.
But I pray it is empty nevertheless.
You imply that belief has been constant over a few thousand years. But Percy Dearmer's historical study The Legend of Hell demonstrates otherwise.
From this URL, one can download the entire text of this book as a PDF document. I'd recommend everyone's doing so-- get the text onto as many million hard drives as possible-- before the censors get a stranglehold on the Internet. Copies of the book itself are surprisingly scarce considering the fame and reputation of the author. One wonders why this is. To be sure, this history is a subject upon which certain parties would have a vested interest in light not being thrown.
This is not a static belief, but one that his developed. The question for a Catholic would be whether this process deserves to be called a development according to the legitimizing criteria of Newman in The Development of Christian Doctrine. IMHO it doesn't. Sola scriptura Protestants would presumably, in theory, reject the legitimacy of all such processes-- although in practice it looks as though many have made an exception for this case.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MattV
Shipmate
# 11314
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lurker McLurker™:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
My specific issue is:
Increasingly fewer people believe in the tradition hell-fire doctrine ... What I mean by this is the teaching about the unredeemed which says ... b) Their fate is a life of penal torment which could in no way be considered bearable.
I disagree with the assertion that b) is part of the traditional doctrine of Hell. The idea that Hell is a punishment is not the earliest known Christian tradition, the early tradition (still taught by the Orthodox, among others- including some evangelical Protestants is that Hell is our choice, the natural result of a self-inflicted separation from God.
Agreed. The lake of fire with pitchforked demons tormenting you is really a medieval idea, not the orginal doctrine of Hell.
Posts: 350 | From: New England | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lurker McLurker™
Ship's stowaway
# 1384
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
The problem of hell can be set out exactly the same as the problem of evil.
1) God is all powerful
2) God is all loving
3) Evil/hell exists
I'd answer it thus: If Hell exists, its either because a) God wants people to go there (not that i beleive Hell is a place, but it is easier to talk about Hell in this kind of language) or because b) God doesn't but is for some reason not able to prevent them.
I see b) as being more accurate as I don't actually agree with the idea that God is all-powerful. God cannot do something which is a contradiction in terms- such as make a creature with free will which can be guaranteed to never make a particular choice.
Since we have free will we can choose to be live against the will of God. Since everything good comes from God, this rejection will have negative consequences.
Of course, none of this disproves the ideas that those who go to Hell- cease to exist (indeed, as we are created by God perhaps destruction is a logical consequence of a complete rejection of him), exist in some form which cannot experience pain, are able to repent etc.
And I don't think anything said in the Bible is clear enough to completely dismiss those 3 options. I believe hell (as the inevitable consequence of a possible rejection of God) exists, but I'm not sure what form it will take.
--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?
Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
When Danishhhhhhhh mussionaries took the gospel to Iceland they found hell in pagan lore to be a very COLD place. It's all in the context.
I'm underscoring here the Orthodox and ancient Christian teaching that hell is how the damned experience the LOVE of God.
We should indeed work, hope and pray for hell to be empty, confident that the Divine Love is much up to that possibility than our feeble moral imaginations, which doesn't make us universalists by conviction but rather universalists by hope.
Dear Matt ... justice is a difficult one. We mustn't presume to know how that stacks up. God is not constrained by something outside of himself ... which is where the Anselmian development of satisfaction theory takes us I believe.
[ 26. July 2006, 14:30: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I agree with the concept of Hell (though not the medieval one) for two reasons:
1. As Custard implied, justice
2. Jesus Himself referred to its existence and, for me at least, to follow Jesus means believing what He said about this.
(It doesn't mean to say that I like it; quite the opposite (but, then again, Christianity was never meant to be about me and what I like))
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
The problem of hell can be set out exactly the same as the problem of evil.
The first obvious difference is that current Evil Events have happened, so we can't argue whether they are possible as we can with hell-fire. However, I take your point that if God allows great evil to exist, where do we place the boundary?
First: we believe there will be a time when the universe will come to be what God intends it to be. I think it is fair to say that this represents God's will in a clearer way that todays mixed world, where the "creation is groaning in travail until . . ". So there is a difference between God's allowance of temporal evil today and the idea of evil and good as co-eternal aspects of God's final kingdom. Nobody believes that the Jewish genocide represents the full will of God. But I think most people believe that the final establishment of God's rule does, so it says more about God if this includes evil and suffering . . for ever.
Second, there is simply a judgement call. As for evil today, I take the view that the granting of autonomy to man, can be justified. I would myself accept a policy of granting independence to a country, even in the sure knowledge that the freedom would be misused. Other people may not accept this and say the price is too much to pay. I just disagree. Similarly, if someone believes that endless torture is a fit punishment for certain crimes: that is their call, and I disagree.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
As has been said anteater ... there are many of us who conceive hell as a self-infliction and not a divine punishment. For us (the Orthodox) the question resolves to whether or not the Divine LOVE can soften the hardest human antagonistic will.
[ 26. July 2006, 14:34: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The first obvious difference is that current Evil Events have happened, so we can't argue whether they are possible as we can with hell-fire. However, I take your point that if God allows great evil to exist, where do we place the boundary?
Its not just that anteater, I can't see the difference between the problem of hell and the problem of evil. Hell IS evil - it is a part of the problem, the holocaust is evil, earthquakes are evil, but there are two different types of evil here, moral evil (holocaust) and natural evil (earthquakes.) I suppose the question for me is "what type of evil is hell?" Is it a moral evil and we are sent there as punishment out of the will of God, analogous to the holocaust, or is it a natural evil in that hell is supposed to happen and it is part of the design, analogous to an earthquake.
I believe that hell is a natural evil. It is meant to be there and people are not 'sent there' but choose to go there. Hell is standing in the presence of God while in a state of rejecting him. The way around the problem is simple - accept God! How long it takes to do so is down to the individual.
quote:
First: we believe there will be a time when the universe will come to be what God intends it to be. I think it is fair to say that this represents God's will in a clearer way that todays mixed world, where the "creation is groaning in travail until . . ". So there is a difference between God's allowance of temporal evil today and the idea of evil and good as co-eternal aspects of God's final kingdom.
Nobody believes that the Jewish genocide represents the full will of God. But I think most people believe that the final establishment of God's rule does, so it says more about God if this includes evil and suffering . . for ever.
I agree, but what of the idea that evil/hell is the absence of good/God? When God's intended universe comes into being, will there not be some who, through free will, put themselves on the outside of Gods kingdom? Can this not be described as hell?
quote:
Second, there is simply a judgement call. As for evil today, I take the view that the granting of autonomy to man, can be justified. I would myself accept a policy of granting independence to a country, even in the sure knowledge that the freedom would be misused. Other people may not accept this and say the price is too much to pay. I just disagree. Similarly, if someone believes that endless torture is a fit punishment for certain crimes: that is their call, and I disagree.
The doctrine of hell does not talk about punishment for a crime, that would be a moral evil on the part of God and I do not think God is, even in part, morally evil. What we are talking about is those who choose to put themselves beyond the love of God, or be in a state where the presence and love of God is a burning sensation rather than a good, heavenly one.
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gauk
Shipmate
# 1125
|
Posted
Hmm.
The difference between Hell and evil could be that Hell is arguably a designed feature and hurricanes, plagues, etc are not. This is open to dispute, if you believe that Hell is a naturally existing phenomenon that just happens to feature eternal torture. Or if you believe that God sends plagues and disasters.
What is certainly a difference is that traditional Hell is in the next world, and disasters are in this world. One can posit a theodicy in which God is unable or unwilling to intervene to stop evil in this world, but if the same applies in the next world ...
--------------------
Now the Sirens have a still more fatal weapon than their song, namely their silence ... it is conceivable that someone might possibly have escaped from their singing; but from their silence certainly never.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Would not such an intervention have to override individual free will; if it did, what real value would it have?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gauk:
Hmm.
The difference between Hell and evil could be that Hell is arguably a designed feature and hurricanes, plagues, etc are not. This is open to dispute, if you believe that Hell is a naturally existing phenomenon that just happens to feature eternal torture. Or if you believe that God sends plagues and disasters.
This is only a valid point if you think that hell is for the purpose of punishment - I have already said that this is not the case.
quote:
What is certainly a difference is that traditional Hell is in the next world, and disasters are in this world. One can posit a theodicy in which God is unable or unwilling to intervene to stop evil in this world, but if the same applies in the next world ...
So, you are OK with the idea that once in the next life God removes our free will?
All I'm saying is this:
Hell is not a place separate from heaven. Hell or heaven is our reaction to the presence of God. If we reject God, his presence is not a pleasurable, heavenly experience but a hellish tormenting one. It is entirely up to the person which they experience, heaven or hell and they can at any point, with free will, accept God and end the hellish experience and gain the heavenly one. Hell is not a place of torture but an experience some people go through. God does not send people to hell, it is no different than heaven in location and what happens, it is the experience of it that makes it heaven or hell.
This is a natural thing. If you deny the existence of Erin and then you are suddenly confronted with Erin, then your reaction is going to be different than for someone who already knows Erin to meet her. The same is true with God but on a much more massive scale. It is an entirely natural reaction that can be entirely and naturally overcome.
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gauk
Shipmate
# 1125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Would not such an intervention have to override individual free will; if it did, what real value would it have?
The same real value as found when a parent removes some dangerous obstacle that a toddler might fall over. It deprives the toddler of the free will to fall over it, but is all to the good for all that.
--------------------
Now the Sirens have a still more fatal weapon than their song, namely their silence ... it is conceivable that someone might possibly have escaped from their singing; but from their silence certainly never.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gauk
Shipmate
# 1125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
This is only a valid point if you think that hell is for the purpose of punishment - I have already said that this is not the case.
I'm glad you can be so authorative on this. I was aware of your opinion on this matter when I posted. However, some people believe that it is a place for punishment, and this belief is being debated in this thread by the OP. I did use the words "if you believe that ..." in the post you quote.
--------------------
Now the Sirens have a still more fatal weapon than their song, namely their silence ... it is conceivable that someone might possibly have escaped from their singing; but from their silence certainly never.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PhilA
shipocaster
# 8792
|
Posted
Fair point Gauk. Sorry, I got a bit carried away.
--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.
Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Oh dear, I'll have to trot out "The River of Fire" again,[/URL].
I dunno if I find the pro-God arguments in that terribly pursauive but, Father, I will admit that my view of God is almost precisely the view outlined in that article as the sinful view.
The only "god" I can see is not worthy to lick my boots, let alone recieve my worship.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
You think a loving God who condemns (perhaps predestines?) to Hell is more credible than universalism?
Wow.
Yes - I for one think (on balance) that a God who could send Hitler to hell is better than one who would send him to heaven.
What is Hitler is is Heaven, but Old Mrs Miggins from down the road, who devoted her entire life to charitable works but never once believe in God is in Hell?
For me, that possibility (and it really doesn't have to be any more than an abstract possibility) alone is sufficient to show that EITHER there is a loving God OR there is a Hell but that BOTH existing at the same time is an impossibility.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Ok different track Papio. How come Jesus seemed to take Hell for granted? More cultural relativism? A profoundly mistaken Messiah?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
There have been a few posts seemingly influenced by Orthodox ideas, to the effect that Hell is a self-inflicted state. I can't tell whether they believe that the experience of hell is what I have called hell-fire, i.e. excruciating, everlasting and unavoidable. Pls clarify.
The idea that it is God's love that's tormenting these people to distraction requires such a re-casting of the biblical material that IMO it would take less revision to get rid of hell totally. Which I would prefer.
Somewhere, the issue of the immortality of the soul is likely to come up. I don't believe in it. It's not Biblical, not even in any of the ecumenical creeds, and I see not the slightest reason to believe it. I suspect the RC church has canonised the teaching and maybe also the Orthodox. If you believe that each individual's existence must of necessity go on for ever, I can see that this would have an effect on your view.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Ok different track Papio. How come Jesus seemed to take Hell for granted? More cultural relativism? A profoundly mistaken Messiah?
A bloke who was in and of his time.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
You think a loving God who condemns (perhaps predestines?) to Hell is more credible than universalism?
Wow.
Yes - I for one think (on balance) that a God who could send Hitler to hell is better than one who would send him to heaven.
What is Hitler is is Heaven, but Old Mrs Miggins from down the road, who devoted her entire life to charitable works but never once believe in God is in Hell?
For me, that possibility (and it really doesn't have to be any more than an abstract possibility) alone is sufficient to show that EITHER there is a loving God OR there is a Hell but that BOTH existing at the same time is an impossibility.
Why would a loving God who is also just not solve the problem just as well?
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Somewhere, the issue of the immortality of the soul is likely to come up. I don't believe in it. It's not Biblical, not even in any of the ecumenical creeds,
Yes, we might object to the word "soul". But the Apostles' Creed ends "resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." What does that mean to you?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Surely the point about hell is that nobody needs to go there? Scripture tells us that it wasn't created for people at all, but rather for the devil and his angels, and God wishes so greatly to keep us out of it that he even lay down his own life to prevent it. How is that we can blame him, then, if some of us use our free will to go and remain there? What more do we expect of him?
If the answer is, "I expect him to destroy hell so no one can go there"--well, I don't think God can do that. I suspect that hell is an unavoidable corollary to free will, the nature of God, and the nature of existence. Sort of the way shadows are an unavoidable corollary to the existence of light and the nature of solid objects. Still, the fact that it exists does not mean that anybody is forced to go there.
On the question of those who have never heard of Christ (or have never had a real chance to understand, have heard wrongly, etc.) we are not told straight out, but there are hints to suggest that God takes such things into account. (I suspect we are NOT told precisely because human creatures being what we are--that is, lazy and self-centered pains in the a**--we would never bestir ourselves to tell anyone about Christ if we felt fully assured that their ultimate fate would be a good one, anyway. And that would be a great loss.)
On the issue of free will--surely, if it exists, then one can choose to reject God and keep on choosing that way, for all eternity. Such an attitude would equal hell. Even God could not override such a choice, without totally uprooting free will. It would be like my saying to my toddler, "You have free choice, as long as you choose what Mommy wants." God does us the great honor of treating us as adults.
In the words of the cliche, "The door of hell is locked on the inside." When we speak of God "sending" people to hell, this means that he recognizes the immovable, irrevocable nature of their own free choice, and bows to it. In effect, he is saying, "If you will have it that way, then your will be done."
[ 26. July 2006, 18:15: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
