Thread: Purgatory: The Nature of Hell Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000793
Posted by Unitarian1986 (# 15908) on
:
I'm looking for some good discussion on what everyone thinks about what hell will be like. I know obviously no one knows but God but I am just interested in what you guys think.
[ 10. November 2014, 18:52: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
One can only speculate, but I imagine there is a lot of soft jazz involved.
On a more serious note, it's hard to beat CS Lewis's version of hell in the Great Divorce. You can have anything you want- it just doesn't mean anything and can't bring you happiness.
Zach
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
To me, hell is simply a metaphor for not being remembered positively or honourably after you die.
That's scary enough as it is. Religions don't need to win their apologetics arguments by trying to make out that there's some kind of hell that's even worse than that, that you would not have otherwise known about. If religions do do this, then it suggests that there's something wrong with their theology.
Having said that, there's definitely a place in literature for the Apocalypse of John, Voluspa (from Poetic Edda) and Dante's Inferno. I think the problem with Revelation and Voluspa is that people home in on the verses about large-scale death and destruction, but fail to see those verses in the context of the whole book, and as a result they miss the metaphorical meanings.
To be fair, though, Revelation and Voluspa both use lots of symbolism, and it can be hard for a person who isn't generally well-read in mythological literature to make sense of Revelation or Voluspa on their first reading.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
Why are wondering about the nature of hell?
Do you plan on going?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Hell is total separation from God, his love, his presence.
In hell there is is nothing that is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent or praiseworthy.
There is no love, joy or peace.
I do not believe in lakes of fire or burning sulphur. These things are symbols - but think what the reality would be that those symbols merely represent!
There is one more thing that characterises hell.
It is an endless, conscious experience.
Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on
:
The most disturbing image of hell that I have ever come across was one of complete, eternal, isolation - the ultimate in solitary confinement. The soul remains totally conscious at all times, not least of its isolation and of the passage of whatever it is that passes for time under those conditions. Whilst I value my solitude, one of the attractions of solitude is the knowledge that it will end. The notion of an eternity of total isolation; ugh!
Incidentally, the isolation included from light. No sensation, just darkness and the soul. Not good.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I don't believe in hell - a God of Love would never create such a place in my view.
All evil comes from humans, not some external place or force
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't believe in hell - a God of Love would never create such a place in my view.
All evil comes from humans, not some external place or force
So everyone, regardless of what they've done or believed will be let off and go to heaven?
No justice or consequences in your universe then!
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Unitarian1986:
I'm looking for some good discussion on what everyone thinks about what hell will be like. I know obviously no one knows but God but I am just interested in what you guys think.
Empty
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't believe in hell - a God of Love would never create such a place in my view.
All evil comes from humans, not some external place or force
So everyone, regardless of what they've done or believed will be let off and go to heaven?
No justice or consequences in your universe then!
We see the consequences of people's evil all around us.
Justice? Not much.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Unitarian1986:
I'm looking for some good discussion on what everyone thinks about what hell will be like. I know obviously no one knows but God but I am just interested in what you guys think.
Empty
That is indeed the essence of hell - it's an absence.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Unitarian1986:
I'm looking for some good discussion on what everyone thinks about what hell will be like. I know obviously no one knows but God but I am just interested in what you guys think.
Empty
Eventually. Getting rid of hell altogether does involve chucking scripture and tradition out the window (closely followed by reason and experience, given that the idea of an unrepentant Stalin or Hitler or indeed any murderer or abuser rocking up in heaven side by side with their innocent victims is a hard one to swallow). I think hell exists, but that God's love and offer of forgiveness are manifest even there. The gates of the new Jerusalem will always be open (Revelation 21.25).
[ 19. November 2010, 08:06: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So everyone, regardless of what they've done or believed will be let off and go to heaven?
You mean the way you think you will be let off because Christ died for you?
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
You mean the way you think you will be let off because Christ died for you?
Isn't some variation on that what most Christians think? Otherwise he could have saved himself the bother of getting crucified.
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't believe in hell - a God of Love would never create such a place in my view.
All evil comes from humans, not some external place or force
So everyone, regardless of what they've done or believed will be let off and go to heaven?
No justice or consequences in your universe then!
Eternal suffering for an imperfect, but finite life is not justice either. And I don't know of any theology where only people like Hitler go to hell either, apart from as often belied in by children. The idea there is eternal suffering in store for not having had the right beliefs is a big stumbling block for me with traditional Christianity
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Unitarian1986:
I'm looking for some good discussion on what everyone thinks about what hell will be like. I know obviously no one knows but God but I am just interested in what you guys think.
Empty
Eventually. Getting rid of hell altogether does involve chucking scripture and tradition out the window (closely followed by reason and experience, given that the idea of an unrepentant Stalin or Hitler or indeed any murderer or abuser rocking up in heaven side by side with their innocent victims is a hard one to swallow). I think hell exists, but that God's love and offer of forgiveness are manifest even there. The gates of the new Jerusalem will always be open (Revelation 21.25).
But by one common interpretation of Christianity, and by your last sentence, people like Hitler would wind up in Heaven as long as they beleive Jesus has taken away their sins...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
You mean the way you think you will be let off because Christ died for you?
Isn't some variation on that what most Christians think? Otherwise he could have saved himself the bother of getting crucified.
Myself, I believe Christ's death secures the salvation of all men. But Mudfrog apparently does not because that would mean that people are getting "let off". Apparently there's something wrong with people getting "let off". I'm guessing however that he doesn't think there's anything wrong with his getting "let off". It's just those other people who mustn't be "let off".
Or maybe not. Let's let him answer for himself.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
But by one common interpretation of Christianity, and by your last sentence, people like Hitler would wind up in Heaven as long as they beleive Jesus has taken away their sins...
To be fair to Mudfrog, this is a caricature. Hitler would have to repent and accept God's offer of forgiveness, which God's own incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection has secured. In doing so, Hitler would open himself up to the transforming work of God and would eventually become an unrecognisable new creation.
Or would you prefer a situation where some people are forever placed beyond the possibility of redemption?
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
quote:
In hell there is is nothing that is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent or praiseworthy.
Cold coffee and Jedward constantly performing.
Posted by Herrick (# 15226) on
:
Originally posted by Unitarian1986
[/B]____________________________________
I [B]'m looking for some good discussion on what everyone thinks about what hell will be like. I know obviously no one knows but God but I am just interested in what you guys think
__________________________________________________
I believe there will be many questions asked by denizens of hell. 'Why didn't I....?' will be one of the most asked I reckon.
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
quote:
But by one common interpretation of Christianity, and by your last sentence, people like Hitler would wind up in Heaven as long as they beleive Jesus has taken away their sins...
To be fair to Mudfrog, this is a caricature. Hitler would have to repent and accept God's offer of forgiveness, which God's own incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection has secured. In doing so, Hitler would open himself up to the transforming work of God and would eventually become an unrecognisable new creation.
Or would you prefer a situation where some people are forever placed beyond the possibility of redemption?
No, but Mudfrog was suggesting that according to his belief system, which is just, people like Hitler would not wind up in Heaven with their victims,but would go to hell; I'm just saying that 's not necessarily the case, who's to say he might not before he died have realised what he did was wrong and wanted forgiveness? If you think no one is placed forever beyond redemption, you must disagree with Mudfrog that it is an eternal condition, and think, like Yerevan that even there people will be free to repent and leave?
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
Eternal death. We are not immortal by nature and nobody is going to live forever without the gift of God, which is eternal life.
The prospect that God would give some people the gift of eternal life just to keep them alive and torture them forever is too horrible to contemplate, and certainly not a God I'd want to be spending eternity with.
It's interesting that Mudfrog uses the words "endless" and "conscious." One time when I was feeling particularly out of sorts with my own church I was attending a service at a nearby Salvation Army corps, a place I've always enjoyed visiting and thinking "I wonder if I could go here?" Reading through the statement of faith on their bulletin I came across "We believe in the eternal conscious punishment of the damned," and thought, well, I couldn't go belong to a church that has that in their statement of beliefs -- which would actually let out most other Christians. I don't know how anyone can even say the phrase "eternal conscious punishment" and still think God is in any way just, but people do seem to be able to do that.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
I don't know how anyone can even say the phrase "eternal conscious punishment" and still think God is in any way just, but people do seem to be able to do that.
Yes - and to say so and think that God is in any way merciful is putting cruelty with mercy, which just isn't possible.
I agree that those who don't choose eternal life would choose eternal death. But these would be few, imo, when the barriers to knowing and loving God are eventually removed (by death)
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
I think Trudy's right. I used to believe in an eternal conscious torture but after studying I just can't see that promised in the Bible. Passages talk of the 'second death' and 'eternal destruction' and the metaphors of fire portray a image of the complete annihalation and removal of all trace of a person - isn't that what fire does - destroy? If chaff is thrown into a fire how long does it last - certainly not eternally! Eternal life is a gift of God to his children, not the natural state of everyone.
I'm not entirely sure but I'm leaning towards the belief that when you die you die, but the hope of every follower of Christ is the sure and steadfast hope of resurection on the last day. The punishment for the unsaved is to receive only the natural punishment of humanity, to remain in ordinary, eternal death.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
I've never been able to buy eternal concious torment either, but then I'm not sure how many people who claim to believe in it really do. If I honestly thought that even a minority of the people around me were going to be tormented eternally I don't think I could cope. Yet most believers in eternal concious torment don't seem tres bothered by the idea on a day to day basis.
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on
:
I know there are quite a few clergy-types aboard The Ship.
Has anyone else ever had an office visit from someone who has undergone a near-death, hellish expeience?
These experiences appear to be less common than near-death heavenly experiences, or at least, less widely discussed.
But to several people with whom I have met, they are extremely vivid.
Stories of absolute darkness, intensifying, searing heat, and a sense of total isolation and hopelessness are part of what the experiences I have heard about have in common.
One other thing; a sense of being unable to speak, make any sound, or have any control, combined with an extreme desire to call out the name of Jesus Christ, followed by a sudden sense of relief, and a sense of another chance, with an overpowering yearning to seek salvation, followed by a returm to their bodies and a slow regaining of consciousnes.
Now, I suppose that it is possible that each of these people, whom, as far as I am aware, had never met one other, all came into my office to scam me with the same tall tale.
Personally, I don't buy that explanation.
Has anyone else listend to similar stories from visitors?
Has anyone ever had a hellish near-death experience?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Salvation Army doctrine, copied from Methodist New Connexion doctrines, says this:
We believe in the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the body, in the general judgment at the end of the world, in the eternal happiness of the righteous and the endless punishment of the wicked.
I do not believe in being 'let off'. What I believe is that in accordance with the Scripture, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
According to Salvation Army doctrine, all men are 'totally depraved and are justly exposed to the wrath of God', BUT that, 'the Lord Jesus Christ has, by his suffering and death, made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.'
The question of fairness doesn't really apply because it's a level playing field: all are sinners but equally, all may be saved. The only requisite is repentance and faith. Is it fair that Hitler could have gone to heaven had he repented and believed in Christ - well yes, if you demand that the same 'privilege' would have been accorded to you had you been in the same position.
No one is 'let off' because a penalty was paid. Jesus took the penalty for everyone's sin. Of course, Hitler was subject to earthly justice and rightly so. His death without the life of Christ means that he was never redeemed from his inherent sinfulness, in exactly the same way that all humanity is judged unworthy of heaven. Had he repented then God in mercy would have forgiven him. He would, however, have deserved every act of justice this earth could have meted out.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't believe in hell - a God of Love would never create such a place in my view.
All evil comes from humans, not some external place or force
Yes! But first question: Has God-Love granted the humans the right to reject love? Second question: What happens to them?
The Orthodox answer to that question is the explanation of hell that makes the most sense to me. In Clark Carlton's words,
quote:
Hell is that state in which men have rendered themselves incapable of receiving and responding to the love of God (or anyone else). To use the words of Dostoyevsky, hell is the suffering of being no longer able to love ... And yet it is impossible to take this spiritual torment from them, for this torment is not external but is within them.
Hell is, therefore, not so much an external condition of punishment as the inward suffering of self-isolation. When Christ returns in glory and God becomes all in all (1 Cor. 15:28), those who have sealed themselves off in the fortresses of their own egos-those for whom hell is other people-will be faced with the torment of His eternal presence. His very presence will be a judgment and a torment because He is life and love Himself, the ontological antithesis of self-contained individuality. In that Day, there will be no place to hide, no refuge from His burning presence, for our God is a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29). In the words of one of the desert Fathers, The fire of hell is the love of God.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
So everyone, regardless of what they've done or believed will be let off and go to heaven?
You mean the way you think you will be let off because Christ died for you?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--Tom Clune
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No one is 'let off' because a penalty was paid. Jesus took the penalty for everyone's sin. Of course, Hitler was subject to earthly justice and rightly so. His death without the life of Christ means that he was never redeemed from his inherent sinfulness, in exactly the same way that all humanity is judged unworthy of heaven. Had he repented then God in mercy would have forgiven him. He would, however, have deserved every act of justice this earth could have meted out.
So please explain what you meant by the phrase "let off"? You mean they were granted salvation without having said the Sinner's Prayer? (I mean in your description of the situation described in Boogie's post.)
[ 19. November 2010, 15:12: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I've thought for a while now that the denizens of hell wouldn't leave even if given the choice. "The gates of hell are locked on the inside" it's been put, it has.
Zach
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No one is 'let off' because a penalty was paid. Jesus took the penalty for everyone's sin. Of course, Hitler was subject to earthly justice and rightly so. His death without the life of Christ means that he was never redeemed from his inherent sinfulness, in exactly the same way that all humanity is judged unworthy of heaven. Had he repented then God in mercy would have forgiven him. He would, however, have deserved every act of justice this earth could have meted out.
So please explain what you meant by the phrase "let off"? You mean they were granted salvation without having said the Sinner's Prayer? (I mean in your description of the situation described in Boogie's post.)
Praying a sinner's prayer will not save you any more than having water splashed on your forehead.
When I used the phrase 'let off' it was in the context of people who had never repented or turned to Christ in faith and trust. Can someone who has never believed, never acknowledged Christ simply by-pass the means of grace and God's requirement that a man should repent, believe and be born again and have his sins unilaterally dismissed?
Should sin be overlooked arbitrarily by a holy God who, in love, provided the way of salvation for all: the aforementioned repentence and the experience of regeneration?
Can the death of Christ be so lightly regarded that those who in the end continue to reject it, despise and mock it should benefit from its work?
The Bible says that God wants all people to be saved - it does not say, however (though we might wish it to be so), that all will be saved.
To have a judgment where there is no judgment
is both illogical, unjust and an affront to the saving work of Christ.
We continue to believe however that grace abounds and it is much easier to be saved (see the story of the prodigal son) than some 'older brothers' might assume.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I (and many Orthodox) believe that the possibility of salvation is offered beyond the grave. This life is not a trick question pop quiz. This also goes some way toward solving the thorny question of how people who have never heard the gospel are able to be saved. Which would be the overwhelming majority of people ever born.
Unless you're a predestinarian in which case God doesn't give a fuck about the overwhelming majority of people ever born, just his special pets.
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on
:
My view of hell is based on Jesus' likening of it to Gehenna, the place of sacrifice to Molech that ultimately became the Jerusalem city dump. It represented the antithesis of all that was good and holy, and was, literally, a waste heap. Humans are quite capable of making waste heaps out of their lives, and God gives them the freedom to do so. Whether one gets a second chance on the other side of the gate is, of course, a centuries-old question. With Barth, I would like to think that God's mercy is available to all who repent even after death. There are possible hints of that in Scripture, but I'll concede it's hard to be dogmatic about it.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can the death of Christ be so lightly regarded that those who in the end continue to reject it, despise and mock it should benefit from its work?
Conversely, one could say that by limiting its effectiveness to a select few, it is you who is regarding the death of Christ lightly.
The key phrase here is 'continue to reject'. As mousethief says, there is very little in scripture to suggest that repentance is not possible post-death, and as a universalist, I believe that is the role of 'Hell' (a loaded word if there ever was one), to bring the final few to repentance (though not through coercion, although I appreciate it could sound like that).
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Oh, and
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible says that God wants all people to be saved - it does not say, however (though we might wish it to be so), that all will be saved.
"because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men" (1 Tim 4:10)
It does say it. You might have to juggle around some interpretation with that verse to back up your view (as I do with other verses to back up mine), but you're wrong, it does say it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Oh, and
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible says that God wants all people to be saved - it does not say, however (though we might wish it to be so), that all will be saved.
"because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men" (1 Tim 4:10)
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. 1 Jn 2:2
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Col 1:19-20
And so on.
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
[QB] I know there are quite a few clergy-types aboard The Ship.
Has anyone else ever had an office visit from someone who has undergone a near-death, hellish expeience?
These experiences appear to be less common than near-death heavenly experiences, or at least, less widely discussed.
But to several people with whom I have met, they are extremely vivid.
From what I have read there are some NDEs that seem to defy scientific explanation as they seem almost certain to have occurred when, to our current knowledge, there was no identifiable brain activity; however this doesn't apply to all of them. Are you convinced the accounts you heard were from people to whom this applied? If not, were they people who are especially afraid of hell, and therefore perhaps more likely to halluncinate about such things if their brains were lacking oxygen?
By the way, I have read some peoople occasinally report negative, frightening NDEs, but I've not heard of anything as explicitly "hell-like" as searing heat etc before.
[ 19. November 2010, 16:13: Message edited by: Orlando098 ]
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
Also, when it comes to NDEs, for that matter, I have never read that only people who have strong traditional Christian beliefs in salvation through Jesus are the only ones who have positive ones. I believe people of all kinds of religious belief and none may have them.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:
In hell there is is nothing that is true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent or praiseworthy.
Cold coffee and Jedward constantly performing.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Posted by RadicalWhig (# 13190) on
:
A heaven in which Hitler and Stalin are not present (sharing a harmonious breakfast with a concentration camp victim and a gulag victim respectively) isn't worth going to. Not that I believe in heaven and hell as after death states (that's a sort of near-eastern and/or Egyptian myth that somehow got incorporated into christianity in the early decades/centuries after Jesus's death), but, if I did, the essence of heaven would be reconciliation and fraternity, while the essence of hell would be vengeance and isolation. As it is, I think that to live in a heavenly way, promoting reconciliation and fraternity over vengeance and isolation, is good in and of itself.
Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on
:
Some of the greatest theologians of the church, ancient, medieval and modern, have held at least quasi-universalist views. The ancient churches have generally always left the door at least cracked to univeralist views.
Where universalism strays into heresy, historically speaking, is in the assertion that God's love of mankind mandates that all people be saved (that is, that God is powerless not to save. That is at least one of the places Origen (or more properly his later students) got into trouble; the problem is in making absolute statements that place constraints on the deity.
What we can say, however, is that all people may be saved (and that, indeed the probability exists that they will), and that we should all pray fervently that this should be the case. I'd suggest we're not very good Christians if we cannot pray unequivocally for that.
Personally, I prefer to remain rather agnostic about the fate of souls immediately after death; what I believe in strongly is the apocatastasis of Gregory Nanzianzen and Gregory of Nyssa; that belief is enough for me.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Oh, and
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible says that God wants all people to be saved - it does not say, however (though we might wish it to be so), that all will be saved.
"because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men" (1 Tim 4:10)
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. 1 Jn 2:2
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Col 1:19-20
And so on.
well indeed ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
- not being a Calvinist, I believe in unlimited atonement - Christ died for the whole world and not just the elect. it is true that Jesus is the saviour for the whole world but you have to balance the provision of salvational for all with the reception of that salvation.
Jesus said 'that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish'.
Peter said, 'repent and be baptised every one of you...'
If salvation was won for every soul and automatically applied, where is the free will, where is the possibility of love for Christ? The whole Gospel is preached with a view that men and women will repent and believe the gospel and it is that regeneration experience that saves, that takes the saving work of the cross and applies it reaaly and actually to the soul.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If salvation was won for every soul and automatically applied, where is the free will, where is the possibility of love for Christ?
A carefuller reader might have noticed I said that I believed in the possibility of repentance beyond the grave and didn't say anything about automatically applied salvation.
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
[QB] I know there are quite a few clergy-types aboard The Ship.
Has anyone else ever had an office visit from someone who has undergone a near-death, hellish expeience?
These experiences appear to be less common than near-death heavenly experiences, or at least, less widely discussed.
But to several people with whom I have met, they are extremely vivid.
From what I have read there are some NDEs that seem to defy scientific explanation as they seem almost certain to have occurred when, to our current knowledge, there was no identifiable brain activity; however this doesn't apply to all of them. Are you convinced the accounts you heard were from people to whom this applied? If not, were they people who are especially afraid of hell, and therefore perhaps more likely to halluncinate about such things if their brains were lacking oxygen?
By the way, I have read some peoople occasinally report negative, frightening NDEs, but I've not heard of anything as explicitly "hell-like" as searing heat etc before.
Of course I had no oportunity to review their medical charts; I lack the expertise, in any case, to interpret such charts had I seen them.
I am interested in finding out if others have met people who claimed experiences similar to these.
Whether these experiences can be considered "real" is something that I probably can not know in this lifetime; however, hearing of similar or even differing experiences from others would at least give me some sort of perspective.
[ 19. November 2010, 16:42: Message edited by: Silver Faux ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If salvation was won for every soul and automatically applied, where is the free will, where is the possibility of love for Christ?
A carefuller reader might have noticed I said that I believed in the possibility of repentance beyond the grave and didn't say anything about automatically applied salvation.
I think the teaching of Jesus precludes the possibility of repentance after death:
HERE
Posted by Silver Faux (# 8783) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Oh, and
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible says that God wants all people to be saved - it does not say, however (though we might wish it to be so), that all will be saved.
"because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men" (1 Tim 4:10)
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. 1 Jn 2:2
For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Col 1:19-20
And so on.
well indeed - not being a Calvinist, I believe in unlimited atonement - Christ died for the whole world and not just the elect. it is true that Jesus is the saviour for the whole world but you have to balance the provision of salvational for all with the reception of that salvation.
Jesus said 'that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish'.
Peter said, 'repent and be baptised every one of you...'
If salvation was won for every soul and automatically applied, where is the free will, where is the possibility of love for Christ? The whole Gospel is preached with a view that men and women will repent and believe the gospel and it is that regeneration experience that saves, that takes the saving work of the cross and applies it reaaly and actually to the soul.
Mudfrog, in the Calvinist "TULIP" definition of theology, the "U" stands for unlimited atonement.
Predestination is a bit of a caricature tacked onto Calvinism; it is not a defining theology.
If you wish, look up "TULIP" as a means of expounding Calvinist theology.
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
Mudfrog, if a person must conciously turn to Christ before death, what about the millions of people who have never heard the gospel or lack the intellectual or emotional* ability to respond to it in this life?
*I'm thinking here for example of people whose ability to love, trust and maintain relationships of has been horribly damaged by childhood trauma. IME such people can find the idea of trusting a loving, relational God very hard work.
{edited as X-posted with Mudfrog]
[ 19. November 2010, 16:49: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on
:
quote:
I think the teaching of Jesus precludes the possibility of repentance after death:
HERE
I once heard an interesting sermon on this passage from an Orthodox priest, who argued that it proved nothing about post-death repentance because the rich man still hadn't got the message and repented. Instead he continued to treat Lazarus as an inferior to be ordered about ("send Lazarus to my family...").
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
Mudfrog, in the Calvinist "TULIP" definition of theology, the "U" stands for unlimited atonement.
Predestination is a bit of a caricature tacked onto Calvinism; it is not a defining theology.
If you wish, look up "TULIP" as a means of expounding Calvinist theology.
'Fraid not:
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)
Unconditional Election
Limited Atonement (also known as Particular Atonement)
Irresistible Grace
Perseverance of the Saints (also known as Once Saved Always Saved)
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Mudfrog, if a person must conciously turn to Christ before death, what about the millions of people who have never heard the gospel or lack the intellectual or emotional* ability to respond to it in this life?
*I'm thinking here for example of people whose ability to love, trust and maintain relationships of has been horribly damaged by childhood trauma. IME such people can find the idea of trusting a loving, relational God very hard work.
{edited as X-posted with Mudfrog]
This is where grace and mercy are seen.
I'm with CS Lewis on this who said that worship that was given to other belief systems will be ascribed to Christ at the judgment if there was no opportunity to turn to Christ in this life.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Thats a rather odd reading of that parable to be honest. It's more likely that the parable is a swipe at the Jews who have rejected Christ (uncomfortable reading, but makes more sense in that context)
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
With Barth, I would like to think that God's mercy is available to all who repent even after death. There are possible hints of that in Scripture, but I'll concede it's hard to be dogmatic about it.
I'd be interested in reading some examples in scripture about this, know any references offhand?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Oblivion. Absolute zero. Stasis. Nothing.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Oh and there is certainly post-mortem evangelism and salvation for the worst of sinners who died unshriven, yes.
Jesus says so.
Twice.
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on
:
A different slant
"hell is other people" Satre?
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
A different slant
"hell is other people" Satre?
I've read Sartre, and my sense is that Hell is having to read Sartre...
--Tom Clune
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
A different slant
"hell is other people" Satre?
I've read Sartre, and my sense is that Hell is having to read Sartre...
--Tom Clune
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
I know there are quite a few clergy-types aboard The Ship.
Has anyone else ever had an office visit from someone who has undergone a near-death, hellish expeience?
These experiences appear to be less common than near-death heavenly experiences, or at least, less widely discussed.
But to several people with whom I have met, they are extremely vivid.
Stories of absolute darkness, intensifying, searing heat, and a sense of total isolation and hopelessness are part of what the experiences I have heard about have in common.
One other thing; a sense of being unable to speak, make any sound, or have any control, combined with an extreme desire to call out the name of Jesus Christ, followed by a sudden sense of relief, and a sense of another chance, with an overpowering yearning to seek salvation, followed by a returm to their bodies and a slow regaining of consciousnes.
Now, I suppose that it is possible that each of these people, whom, as far as I am aware, had never met one other, all came into my office to scam me with the same tall tale.
Personally, I don't buy that explanation.
Has anyone else listend to similar stories from visitors?
Has anyone ever had a hellish near-death experience?
I have read quite a lot about NDEs and it seems to me that they all go up the same tunnel to the same place but the ones who resist do so because they cannot cope with unconditional love.
To use a metaphor - imagine that heaven is a concert. If you are tone deaf it'll be hellish - just crashing noises.
To everyone else, it will be 'heavenly'.
As for their being no justice, that is why I believe in Purgatory - there will be punishment but not eternal punishment.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Oh and there is certainly post-mortem evangelism and salvation for the worst of sinners who died unshriven, yes.
Jesus says so.
Twice.
Where?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Thats a rather odd reading of that parable to be honest. It's more likely that the parable is a swipe at the Jews who have rejected Christ (uncomfortable reading, but makes more sense in that context)
I agree, and the key word here is parable. It's not a prophecy or theological statement on the afterlife, it's a story to make a point, like all the other parables.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If salvation was won for every soul and automatically applied, where is the free will, where is the possibility of love for Christ?
Let's say I sit ten kids at a table, and in front of them I place a plate. On each plate there are two foods. One is their very favourite food in the world, the other is their least favourite. All the kids choose their favourite food over their least favourite. Does that mean that they don't have free will?
In fact, your question is equally applicable to your theology, because I presume in your theology 'heaven' is where everyone who has chosen Christ will no longer sin and will be made perfect in some way. So we have the same situation, the same question. If they can't sin anymore, where's the free will?
Paul says that now we see dimly, but ultimately we'll see clearly; he says that one day every knee will bow...
Is it possible that for some strange reason one of the kids might pick the disgusting food over the delicious? Of course, but my money's on them making the sensible choice. I believe that God is so awesome, that all of us will one day see it and realise it, and the choice for each of us will be a no-brainer. However, I also believe that the road to that point is a hard one, filled with rebellion, pain, and self-sacrifice, and for some the road is harder than others.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Is it possible that for some strange reason one of the kids might pick the disgusting food over the delicious? Of course, but my money's on them making the sensible choice. I believe that God is so awesome, that all of us will one day see it and realise it, and the choice for each of us will be a no-brainer. However, I also believe that the road to that point is a hard one, filled with rebellion, pain, and self-sacrifice, and for some the road is harder than others.
For this (and indeed your whole post):
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I believe that God is so awesome, that all of us will one day see it and realise it, and the choice for each of us will be a no-brainer. However, I also believe that the road to that point is a hard one, filled with rebellion, pain, and self-sacrifice, and for some the road is harder than others.
Very well said.
And those who found it easy would do well to stop gloating imo.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
And those who found it easy would do well to stop gloating imo.
Quite so.
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
I read somewhere, and sadly I don't remember where so I can't provide a reference, that it is possible to interpret the references to the fires of Gehenna and burning in the fires etc. as being akin to a refiners fire... in other words, the dross and evil in a persons life is burnt away, and only the goodness left, however little or much there is. I rather like that idea.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I read somewhere, and sadly I don't remember where so I can't provide a reference, that it is possible to interpret the references to the fires of Gehenna and burning in the fires etc. as being akin to a refiners fire... in other words, the dross and evil in a persons life is burnt away, and only the goodness left, however little or much there is. I rather like that idea.
Except that Gehenna was a rubbish burning place and not a refinery.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I read somewhere, and sadly I don't remember where so I can't provide a reference, that it is possible to interpret the references to the fires of Gehenna and burning in the fires etc. as being akin to a refiners fire... in other words, the dross and evil in a persons life is burnt away, and only the goodness left, however little or much there is. I rather like that idea.
Except that Gehenna was a rubbish burning place and not a refinery.
It also wasn't a place where garbage existed forever in a permanent state of being burned: it was burned up, consumed, to exist no more (well, except as energy, I guess). The idea of "hell" as a place of perpetual torture has scanty Biblical foundation compared to the idea of death as the eternal end of those who are not saved.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I read somewhere, and sadly I don't remember where so I can't provide a reference, that it is possible to interpret the references to the fires of Gehenna and burning in the fires etc. as being akin to a refiners fire... in other words, the dross and evil in a persons life is burnt away, and only the goodness left, however little or much there is. I rather like that idea.
Except that Gehenna was a rubbish burning place and not a refinery.
It also wasn't a place where garbage existed forever in a permanent state of being burned: it was burned up, consumed, to exist no more (well, except as energy, I guess). The idea of "hell" as a place of perpetual torture has scanty Biblical foundation compared to the idea of death as the eternal end of those who are not saved.
The punishment of the wicked dead in hell is described throughout Scripture as “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41), “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12), “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2), a place where “the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44-49), a place of “torment” and “fire” (Luke 16:23-24), “everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9), a place where “the smoke of torment rises forever and ever” (Revelation 14:10-11), and a “lake of burning sulfur” where the wicked are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10).
The punishment of the wicked in hell is as never ending as the bliss of the righteous in heaven. Jesus Himself indicates that punishment in hell is just as everlasting as life in heaven (Matthew 25:46). The wicked are forever subject to the fury and the wrath of God. Those in hell will acknowledge the perfect justice of God (Psalm 76:10). Those who are in hell will know that their punishment is just and that they alone are to blame (Deuteronomy 32:3-5). Yes, hell is real. Yes, hell is a place of torment and punishment that lasts forever and ever, with no end. Praise God that, through Jesus, we can escape this eternal fate (John 3:16, 18, 36).
Gehenna was in a state of permanent flame. It never went out.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Unitarian1986:
I'm looking for some good discussion on what everyone thinks about what hell will be like. I know obviously no one knows but God but I am just interested in what you guys think.
I was told once that there were four big models people tend to follow.
Eternal Damnation (unending punishment)
Purgatory (punishment with the intention of purifying the person for heaven)
Same place, different attitude (a banquet with ridiculously long silverware; or the experience of God's love as wrath)
Annihilation (the damned simply cease to exist)
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
I read somewhere, and sadly I don't remember where so I can't provide a reference, that it is possible to interpret the references to the fires of Gehenna and burning in the fires etc. as being akin to a refiners fire... in other words, the dross and evil in a persons life is burnt away, and only the goodness left, however little or much there is. I rather like that idea.
Except that Gehenna was a rubbish burning place and not a refinery.
It also wasn't a place where garbage existed forever in a permanent state of being burned: it was burned up, consumed, to exist no more (well, except as energy, I guess). The idea of "hell" as a place of perpetual torture has scanty Biblical foundation compared to the idea of death as the eternal end of those who are not saved.
The punishment of the wicked dead in hell is described throughout Scripture as “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41), “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12), “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2), a place where “the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44-49), a place of “torment” and “fire” (Luke 16:23-24), “everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9), a place where “the smoke of torment rises forever and ever” (Revelation 14:10-11), and a “lake of burning sulfur” where the wicked are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10).
The punishment of the wicked in hell is as never ending as the bliss of the righteous in heaven. Jesus Himself indicates that punishment in hell is just as everlasting as life in heaven (Matthew 25:46). The wicked are forever subject to the fury and the wrath of God. Those in hell will acknowledge the perfect justice of God (Psalm 76:10). Those who are in hell will know that their punishment is just and that they alone are to blame (Deuteronomy 32:3-5). Yes, hell is real. Yes, hell is a place of torment and punishment that lasts forever and ever, with no end. Praise God that, through Jesus, we can escape this eternal fate (John 3:16, 18, 36).
Gehenna was in a state of permanent flame. It never went out.
The wicked, as a collective entity (and Koine loves to talk about collective entities) are continually punished, but the individuals could easily be burnt to a crisp.
The flaming rubbish pit that was the Valley of Hinnom (just to take the whole mumbo jumbo off the word Gehennom) may have burned for as long as there was garbage to burn, but the garbage itself was most likely incinerated to make way for more garbage.
The ones who are bound for the pit, or the ones who are tossed in, are viewed in contempt for as long as the pit remains and as long as they remain, but as individuals they're still bound for destruction, not punishment.
I really don't spend too much time trying to reach a solid conclusion on the exact nature of Hell, but I can see how annihilationism can be grounded in the text. It depends on how you understand the metaphor.
My Church History I professor (who happens to be Roman Catholic) once quipped that Dante and Milton were the Dan Browns of the middle ages.
[ 19. November 2010, 22:06: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Oh and there is certainly post-mortem evangelism and salvation for the worst of sinners who died unshriven, yes.
Jesus says so.
Twice.
I asssume that's another veiled reference to your favourite verses about the villages that rejected the preaching of the gospel and Jesus saying it will be worse for them than Sodom and Gomorrah....
You seem a bit obsessed with this theory of yours (that if things could be "worse" for those villages than S&G, then the sinners who were blasted off the face of the Eath at S&G may be able to hope for some kind of post-death forgiveness; assuming there are only two options, hell or heaven, as opposed to degrees of suffering in hell).
I think it was just an angry bit of rhetoric from Jesus, a way of expressing that he was, at that point, really pissed off with the behaviour of those villages. I don't think you have to read so much into it.
Anyway, why should those villages, uniquely, be treated worse than the rest of humanity?
Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
[QB] I know there are quite a few clergy-types aboard The Ship.
Has anyone else ever had an office visit from someone who has undergone a near-death, hellish expeience?
These experiences appear to be less common than near-death heavenly experiences, or at least, less widely discussed.
But to several people with whom I have met, they are extremely vivid.
From what I have read there are some NDEs that seem to defy scientific explanation as they seem almost certain to have occurred when, to our current knowledge, there was no identifiable brain activity; however this doesn't apply to all of them. Are you convinced the accounts you heard were from people to whom this applied? If not, were they people who are especially afraid of hell, and therefore perhaps more likely to halluncinate about such things if their brains were lacking oxygen?
By the way, I have read some peoople occasinally report negative, frightening NDEs, but I've not heard of anything as explicitly "hell-like" as searing heat etc before.
Of course I had no oportunity to review their medical charts; I lack the expertise, in any case, to interpret such charts had I seen them.
I am interested in finding out if others have met people who claimed experiences similar to these.
Whether these experiences can be considered "real" is something that I probably can not know in this lifetime; however, hearing of similar or even differing experiences from others would at least give me some sort of perspective.
Presumably you've read the Wikipedia entry on NDE.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
My Church History I professor (who happens to be Roman Catholic) once quipped that Dante and Milton were the Dan Browns of the middle ages.
Did he also think that Hume and Aquinas were the Agatha Christies of the Victorian age? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Lou Poulain (# 1587) on
:
I've been thinking recently about salvation, and it seems to me that:
This is a tragically broken world, filled with broken people.
The incarnation is about God entering this broken world in order to heal broken people.
God's love is gift, pure and simple. Unearned and unearnable. Nobody is "worthy."
That God loves everybody does not diminish the love that God has for me. My salvation is undiminished if all are saved. And I have no stake in the notion that some are punished. Salvation is not about "fair" or "just".
What might hell look like? It might look like a human life devoid of core relationships. OTOH, I have no idea what hell looks like.
Mudfrog, I think that a literal application of a parable to prove a point about what hell is like is a misapplication of parable.
Mousethief: Right on, bro.
Lou
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
My Church History I professor (who happens to be Roman Catholic) once quipped that Dante and Milton were the Dan Browns of the middle ages.
Did he also think that Hume and Aquinas were the Agatha Christies of the Victorian age?
I'd have to ask him, though I think he felt persuaded by First Cause.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Oh and there is certainly post-mortem evangelism and salvation for the worst of sinners who died unshriven, yes.
Jesus says so.
Twice.
Where?
Martin think Matthew 10:15 and 11:24 are relevant. No, I have no idea why either - he has explicitly pointed to those verses in the past, but without further comment.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The punishment of the wicked dead in hell is described throughout Scripture as “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41), “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12),a place where “the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44-49),
Referring to the fire itself, and not the people in it.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
“shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2),
Again, someone can be punished with shame and contempt by others after they're dead, they don't need to be conscious and alive for this. This could easily refer to a person's reputation, not their personal continuous experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
a place of “torment” and “fire” (Luke 16:23-24),
A parable, dangerous to take parables literally. They are stories to illustrate a spiritual point for the people whose culture Jesus was speaking into, not a literal physical description of things.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
“everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9),
This is my point, not yours. Their destruction is everlasting, they will never live again or experience anything, they will be utterly gone, with no hope of ressurection.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jesus Himself indicates that punishment in hell is just as everlasting as life in heaven (Matthew 25:46)
The punishment is an ultimate punishment, that will last for ever and never be overturned. That's eternal destuction. No conscious torment though.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
a “lake of burning sulfur” where the wicked are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10).
Misquote - in this passage it only refers to the specific beast and false prophet who will be tormented for eternity. Whoever these individual symbolic figures represent, they are certainly not the multitude of the unsaved. These are judged seperately in the next verses, 11-15 and the unsaved are thrown into the lake of fire to suffer the second death - not eternal conscious torment - simple, everlasting death.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Those in hell will acknowledge the perfect justice of God (Psalm 76:10)
Don't know what you're referring to here since 76:10 in the NIV doesn't talk about this.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Those who are in hell will know that their punishment is just and that they alone are to blame (Deuteronomy 32:3-5)
And neither does this. Nothing about the dead knowing anything here. What translation are you using?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
a place where “the smoke of torment rises forever and ever” (Revelation 14:10-11)
This is the only passage that may support your view somewhat. Can someone help with this? I have no idea what the passage is referring to, it seems to be referring chronologically to be before the judgement of the dead in Ch 20 (though I could be wrong - this is Revelation) and it only refers to those who choose to worship the beast - whoever they are - rather than all the unsaved - but it does refer to eternal torment in the presence of the angels and the lamb. I personally would be loathe to base any theology on such esoteric prophecy especially when it is so far opposed to other passages in scripture. But what on earth is this referring to though?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If salvation was won for every soul and automatically applied, where is the free will, where is the possibility of love for Christ?
A carefuller reader might have noticed I said that I believed in the possibility of repentance beyond the grave and didn't say anything about automatically applied salvation.
I think the teaching of Jesus precludes the possibility of repentance after death:
HERE
That's one interpretation, to be sure. Doesn't mean I said what you said I said, though.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
God won't rest until everyone and everything is Home, and safe, and well, and whole.
Posted by Gurdur (# 857) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't believe in hell - a God of Love would never create such a place in my view.
All evil comes from humans, not some external place or force
So everyone, regardless of what they've done or believed will be let off and go to heaven?
No justice or consequences in your universe then!
Funny. What you have in your little enclosed universe, Mudfrog, is only your unsubstantiated myths and assertions. You certainly don't have any justice in any meaningful way.
Mudfrog, get a grip. Justice and consequences are what we humans create and implement, if we do so at all. Creating a story is only creating a story, empty assertions are only that; it takes action from people to implement justice and consequences.
This is so old, I'm surprised it's not a Dead Horse.
Although, lemme think for a mo ... how do you KNOW you're not in Hell already? Both a serious question and of course just me prodding with a pitchfork.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gurdur:
Although, lemme think for a mo ... how do you KNOW you're not in Hell already? Both a serious question and of course just me prodding with a pitchfork.
Of course, I can't speak for Mudfrog, but:
caramel ribbon ice cream.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I don't have to comment IngoB - Jesus has, twice.
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
OK, I was going to get up this morning and engage in some proof-texting with Mudfrog, but I see that while I slept, Hawk has done much of the work for me by addressing the texts Mudfrog brought forward.
Most of them, as Hawk has correctly pointed out, refer to a punishment that is eternal -- which would be death -- rather than to a conscious state of eternally being punished. Those that appear to support the "eternal torment" view are quite few in number and often appear in a parable or another context (as in Revelation) where much of what's being discussed is expressed in highly metaphorical terms.
If we are to picture the saved in the New Jerusalem gazing out over the walls of the city to enjoy the sight of smoke curling up from the lake of fire where the wicked are being tormented (IMHO, a pretty grim picture for everyone), should we also assume that the martyred Christian dead are currently lying underneath an altar in heaven's throne room, calling out? (Rev. 6:9-11). Doesn't sound like much of a way to spend eternity or even a couple of hundred years. And that the saved in heaven will consist of 144,000 male virgins attending an endless choir practice of a song which no-one else is allowed to learn? (Rev. 14:1-4). Perhaps we should just accept that much of Revelation is metaphorical, and that texts such as Rev. 14:10-11 are intending to emphasize the justice and certainty of God's punishment of evil, which will someday be clear to all the universe -- remembering that Revelation is addressed to the suffering and persecuted church, whose members were no doubt yearning to know that the injustices against them would someday be vindicated.
Mudfrog, I have looked at both the Psalms and Deuteronomy texts you cited in several translations and share Hawk's confusion -- I can't see anything there that relates to the conscious suffering of the wicked after death in any way. Can you explicate a little?
It's interesting that you chose to end your survey of the subject with John 3:16, the verse that famously tells us that God so loved the world that those who believed in Him should not suffer eternal torment in hell, but enjoy everlasting peace and happiness in heaven.
Oh, wait. It doesn't say that, does it? Although to hear it quoted in many evangelical churches it would seem that's what preachers think Jesus meant to say, if only He'd chosen His words more carefully. In fact, of course, He says that if we believe we will not perish -- i.e. suffer eternal death, the universal fate of mankind without God's intervention -- but rather we will be given the gift of eternal life -- a gift only God can bestow.
The same view is supported in texts such as Romans 6:23 -- "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Death, not eternal torture, is what is due all of us, without God's gift.
Your first statement, Mudfrog, is where we part ways, because before either of us even starts to look at Bible texts you say that you believe in the immortality of the soul, which is the core doctrine supporting (and perhaps even necessitating) a belief in hell. I believe that, as 1 Timothy 6:15 states, "[God] alone is immortal." Eternal life is a gift God can choose to give to some, but it is not the natural state of humanity, thus God does not have to deal with the problem of a bunch of wicked immortal souls hanging around for all eternity, needing to be either punished or converted (a belief which necessitates either hell, or universalism).
"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten. Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun" (Ecclesiastes 9:5,6).
This view that the dead are not conscious is supported not only in the rather depressing little book of Ecclesiastes, but throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g. Job 7:1-10; Psalm 6:5; Isaiah 38:18, among others), as well as in the New Testament, where Jesus refers to death as a sleep and Paul describes the Resurrection as the event that will waken the dead from their sleep (John 11:11-13; Mark 5:39; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). Only then, at the Resurrection, will we mortals put on immortality (1 Corinthians 15:51-54).
Eternal life is not our natural state; it is a gift God gives to those who follow Him and believe. (Who, exactly, this group is made up of, is obviously a much larger and more difficult question). For the rest, eternal death is their fate, not eternal torture.
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Oh and there is certainly post-mortem evangelism and salvation for the worst of sinners who died unshriven, yes.
Jesus says so.
Twice.
Where?
Martin think Matthew 10:15 and 11:24 are relevant. No, I have no idea why either - he has explicitly pointed to those verses in the past, but without further comment.
I posted further up the thread as to what Martin's theory is about those verses - I noticed he makes a lot of cryptic references to them; he seems to place a lot of importance on them
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originaaly posted by Mudfrog:
The only requisite is repentance and faith. Is it fair that Hitler could have gone to heaven had he repented and believed in Christ
So Hitler could be in heaven, but his victims from the Holocaust couldn't because most of them, being Jews, didn't have the right belief system! Dream on!
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
According to Salvation Army doctrine, all men are 'totally depraved and are justly exposed to the wrath of God'
Same old Calvinist shite! No one is totally depraved, because we are all made in the image of God, who couldn't create total depravity. We are also all placed here in this sinful mileau by God, so we are in no way entitled to His wrath. His wrath is overrated anyway in your system. His lovingkindness, tempered by His justice, blends into mercy. This is the sacred heart of Jesus.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
all humanity is judged unworthy of heaven.
By who? The Lord said to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." (Ex 33.19). Do you know better than God who is worthy of heaven. Your religion never fails to nauseate me!
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
A carefuller reader might have noticed I said that I believed in the possibility of repentance beyond the grave and didn't say anything about automatically applied salvation.
This has to be right. While I've always tended to a universalist position, I can see its pitfalls. Yet "the harrowing of hell" (1 Peter 3.19) clearly indicates the possibility of repentance post death. In the end its God's call not ours who is saved. We can just hope in line with the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: "Lord, let me never be parted from you." If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God "desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him "all things are possible" (Mt 19:26).
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Unitarian1986:
I'm looking for some good discussion on what everyone thinks about what hell will be like. I know obviously no one knows but God but I am just interested in what you guys think.
Right here. Forever. With the added feature that you ALWAYS win and ALWAYS get your own way....
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Posted by Mudfrog
quote:
So everyone, regardless of what they've done or believed will be let off and go to heaven?
No justice or consequences in your universe then!
A lot depends on how you understand justice I guess. I tend to feel that a lot of the time we humans confuse and muddy the waters between justice and punishment, and even when we try and call punishment justice, we confuse matters further by acting in a way that can sometimes look like vengeance.
I think to face the love of God is actually much more difficult than facing a concept of the wrath of God that annihilates. To be annihilated is to be let off the hook in a sense, but to be faced with the irrepressible love of God requires us to change who we are, and that can be much more frightening and much more just. That draws in a concept of justice being a restorative thing. To be annihilated means not having to face the consequences of what you have done - to be alive and to work at change within yourself and to put your own pride to one side and admit wrongdoing is a much more difficult thing, but to my mind seems more just.
If we take the example of Hitler, I guess there are times when my sensibilities are offended. But the reason I find the notion of him being granted a pardon offensive is because in my more base nature I would probably quite like to see him suffer. I am a sort of modified universalist and I find the love of God much more terrifying than what others describe as God's wrath. But I do wonder sometimes if there is the possibility that some people do in fact opt out of God's saving grace through their own actions and choices, but then that might be me safeguarding my warped sense of justice, linked as it is with an all too human desire for punishment and vengeance. I'm quite happy to leave it in God's lap because I know if I were called upon to make a decision one way or another, I'd make the wrong one.
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Mudfrog
quote:
So everyone, regardless of what they've done or believed will be let off and go to heaven?
No justice or consequences in your universe then!
A lot depends on how you understand justice I guess. I tend to feel that a lot of the time we humans confuse and muddy the waters between justice and punishment, and even when we try and call punishment justice, we confuse matters further by acting in a way that can sometimes look like vengeance.
I think to face the love of God is actually much more difficult than facing a concept of the wrath of God that annihilates. To be annihilated is to be let off the hook in a sense, but to be faced with the irrepressible love of God requires us to change who we are, and that can be much more frightening and much more just. That draws in a concept of justice being a restorative thing. To be annihilated means not having to face the consequences of what you have done - to be alive and to work at change within yourself and to put your own pride to one side and admit wrongdoing is a much more difficult thing, but to my mind seems more just.
It sounds a bit of an exaggeration to me to say staying alive and having to be humble and work on your bad points is worse than being anihilated..
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Well, you're dead for a start. There is nothing that you have to do....or undo. You don't have to face the people you harmed or admit your wrongdoing even or face the pain of change. If you are dead and gone, you aren't going to know about it, your conciousness is dead.
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
Well true but I know which I'd prefer! And personally if I realise I've been wrong about something I said or did, it comes quite naturally to me to want to apoligise and make amends, as I don't think I'm perfect or omniscient and don't want to cause harm, though I suppose for someone very proud and opinionated or very self-centred, it might be harder. I guess trying to fundamentally change certain ingrained character traits and habits is harder, but then even my most negative ones don't include habits like committing genocide...
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
I can only conclude Orlando098, that something Jesus repeats is worth repeating.
That He places a lot of importance on it.
Way above the false dichotomy of damnationism and universalism from Augustine's pagan children here.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Eternal life is not our natural state; it is a gift God gives to those who follow Him and believe. (Who, exactly, this group is made up of, is obviously a much larger and more difficult question). For the rest, eternal death is their fate, not eternal torture.
This makes a lot of sense Trudy.
The question remains as to whether the eternal death begins at physical death - or after having been given the chance to follow God, minus all the things which got in the way in life.
A child who was unloved and cruelly treated (so couldn't find, know or follow God) would, surely, be given the chance to do so after death?
Is this not the meaning of mercy?
[ 21. November 2010, 09:54: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
That question is answered twice by Jesus Boogie.
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I can only conclude Orlando098, that something Jesus repeats is worth repeating.
That He places a lot of importance on it.
Way above the false dichotomy of damnationism and universalism from Augustine's pagan children here.
But do you conclude that the people from the villages he criticsed ARE damned without hope then? Or not even them?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
? I'm sorry ??? Why do you ask that ?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Way above the false dichotomy of damnationism and universalism from Augustine's pagan children here.
Do you really have to go down that path again Martin? Why not tell us what your opinion is and back it up with an argument? On this matter I think it's plainly obvious that I and most others here disagree with Augustine on this, so why bring him into it again?
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
I know there are quite a few clergy-types aboard The Ship.
Has anyone else ever had an office visit from someone who has undergone a near-death, hellish expeience?
These experiences appear to be less common than near-death heavenly experiences, or at least, less widely discussed.
I have never been clergy, however, I have worked as a care assistant in care homes for the elderly.
If that's not a near-death hellish experience, then I don't know what is. It's especially bad for the people who don't have any relatives to visit them, and even worse for people who lose their ability to speak and move about. Feeding tubes! Ugh!
It can be a traumatic experience for care assistants, not least of all because they know that the same thing is likely to happen to them when they get older.
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
Also, when it comes to NDEs, for that matter, I have never read that only people who have strong traditional Christian beliefs in salvation through Jesus are the only ones who have positive ones. I believe people of all kinds of religious belief and none may have them.
Call me a sceptic - but I'm inclined to think that anyone who thought they were imminently about to die - whether it be in a hospital or on a battle-field - and subsequently found that they aren't dead, is likely to be pretty damn pleased about it.
Some might call that a form of "Stockholm syndrome" though. But are we sure that we are not mistaking this sense of being grateful for being alive, for supposedly "positive" near-death experiences? I'm not sure that there's such a fine distinction between the two.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Perhaps we should just accept that much of Revelation is metaphorical
Much of Dante's Divine Comedy is also metaphorical - however, it does seem to me that it has been highly influential in forming a basis for popular notions of heaven and hell. I don't think that's necessarily bad thing; that is, taking the Divine Comedy literally is no worse than taking Revelation literally.
I think this idea that there's a distinction between "death" and "eternal torture" is something that has only come about fairly recently. I suspect that at the time that the book of Revelation was written, death and eternal torture were seen as being pretty much one and the same thing.
Having said that, it's significant that Death and Hades are personified, so as to be thrown into the lake of fire themselves. Can Death itself die? According to the book of Revelation, it seems that Death can die, and will die. Once Death has died, how can anyone else die?
I think the idea of Death dying also crops up in one of the tragedies of Euripides, I forget which one; point is, I'm fairly sure that the book of Revelation is not the earliest written instance of the concept in the ancient Greek languages.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The question remains as to whether the eternal death begins at physical death - or after having been given the chance to follow God, minus all the things which got in the way in life.
I think that to try to pin the start of the state of "eternal death" to a specific time is to miss the point. Even when a person's body is physically dead, their name can still be alive to the extent that other people are still talking about that person. For that reason, I think it could be argued that a person's "eternal death" does not start until their name drops off people's lips.
In the same way, we are perpetuating Hitler's afterlife by continuing to talk about him (and whoops, I've just mentioned him again!). So I think there are bloody good reasons why the Catholic church does keep a record of the names of saints, but does not keep a record of the names of sinners.
But what about infant mortality?
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A child who was unloved and cruelly treated (so couldn't find, know or follow God) would, surely, be given the chance to do so after death?
I admit that that's a difficult one - but then again, that's partly what the legend of the Holy Innocents is about. To me, the legend of the Holy Innocents represents all unloved and cruelly treated children; I don't think the legend suggests that they are barred from finding God (although admittedly I haven't read it for a little while).
The Holy Innocents are normally commemorated on December 28th.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Because, goperryrevs, despite your claim that most here are not predestinarian, not damnationist ... a significant number OBVIOUSLY are, even those who don't think they are but nonetheless have an imparsimonious definition of omniscience.
Glad you're not.
Delighted.
Praise God.
As long as there's a WHIFF of that brimstone stench emanating from Hell here, it needs ventilating.
Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on
:
Here's the best description of Hell I've heard. There are essentially three parts. In part one, people are being boiled in oil. Those are Jews who ate pork. In the second are people being mercilessly whipped by demons. The offense: Hindus who ate beef. In the deepest, darkest part of Hell are those who are being whipped while being boiled. Those are Anglicans who ate their salads with dinner forks.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I don't have to comment IngoB - Jesus has, twice.
I was unable to find these scripture passages on my own when you challenged me, because they do not support universalism. I was simply blind to them, because I was trying to find two sayings of Jesus that would support your case - and couldn't. Now that I know what verses you meant, I'm at a loss why you think they mean what you apparently think they mean. Heck, in one of these contexts, Jesus even explicitly damns Capernaum (Matt 11:23). Note the strict opposition to heaven: whatever one may say about the meaning of "hades", it clearly means at least "not heaven" here. For once, it does not really matter what one is committed to in one's exegesis. There simply is no reasonable way to derive universalism from these verses. You rather have to strain to maintain universalism against them. (And yes, I did read till Matt 11:25. You are not a babe either, Martin.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Do I know where Hell is?
Hell is in, "Hello"
Heaven is in, "Goodbye forever,
it's time for me to go."
--Lerner & Lowe
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Neither am I a universalist and never have been IngoB. How could I be ? Damnation is as real as it gets.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Neither am I a universalist and never have been IngoB. How could I be ? Damnation is as real as it gets.
OK, I must have gotten confused somewhere down the line. Sorry about that. So your point is merely "God does not determine/know who will end up in hell"? But you would agree that there is a non-zero likelihood that some sapient being may end in something that one could reasonably consider as a variant of "classical Christian" hell? (Not necessarily Dante's hell, but not just some form of purgatory or annihilation either.)
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As long as there's a WHIFF of that brimstone stench emanating from Hell here, it needs ventilating.
Thanks for clearing that up. What I was struggling with was that you don't always say who you're aiming your comments at, and the comment in question appeared to be a general one addressed to everyone on the thread.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
MOST gracious of you IngoB. The confusion sown will have been mine. Partially deliberately I must confess, as you know.
The apology is therefore mine.
And of COURSE as a [neo-]orthodox[arian], I HAVE to bow the knee to the dread possibility of reprobation which Satan shows NO signs of caring less about as he heads toward the Lake of Fire from the Abyss.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
And goperryrevs, damn your goggly eyes man for your graciousness too.
It shall not go unpunished.
You're absolutely right I do set about me with my scatter gun, it's all part of my charm offensive ... or is it offensive charm ? The target is ALWAYS damnationism, the Omen child of predestinarianism, the grandchild of the singular (i.e. meaninglessly imparsimonious) definition of omniscience as God HAVING to know everything from one end of eternity to the other.
Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on
:
I'm with those on here who believe that hell is the rubbish tip of oblivion.
I don't think we fully understand the criterion for separating the sheep from the goats at the last judgement. I think it's something to do with how we personally in our inner being at the deepest emotional and intellectual level relate to Jesus when we meet him.
I don't worry about people not having a chance if they don't hear the good news here on earth in these three or four dimensions. Jesus didn't appear to worry about it unduly so I'm not going to either.
But like CS Lewis I believe in something far better than the best we experience in this life, as Puddleglum said he did while visiting the underworld in the book 'The Silver Chair', when people there said they were mad to believe in anything better above them.
Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on
:
Apparently few people have been to hell and come back to talk about it. The Jesus story is the one that comes to mind: "descended into hell". But there are no observations of what it's like.
I've had some pretty trying experiences in my life. Some terrible ones actually, that caused a year or more of very poor sleep, constant worry, impacts on health. In hindsight, I though that perhaps this was a faint glimpse of the horror of what hell might be like. But I don't know. Just as I don't know that faintest but wondrous times when I've felt that I'm at one of those "thin places" where the boundary between earth and heaven is pierced and time has stood still etc, is but a dim glimpse of what heaven and eternity might be like. -- I take heaven and hell as states of being, not anything resembling anything physically of earth. The earlier poster about CS Lewis' 'The Great Divorce' has directed to something I'd recommend to everyone about this.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
no_prophet, would we wish the hell of this life on any one in the next ? Could we be happy knowing any one was in it, experiencing it ? The only theodicy for that would be if they were offered parole every now and again.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
Our vicar preached a sermon recently in which he said he believed in heaven but not in hell. It set off quite a discussion in the choir vestry afterwards. Is it possible to have one without the other?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Not orthodoxly, no. He is denying Christ.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Our vicar preached a sermon recently in which he said he believed in heaven but not in hell. It set off quite a discussion in the choir vestry afterwards. Is it possible to have one without the other?
Yes, sort of. When I was in elementary school we were threatened with the punishment of flunking the year and having to repeat it if we didn't do our homework.
Was flunking someone possible? YES! (They didn't do social promotions back then.) Did anyone flunk a whole year of sixth grade? NO! The whole system was geared to identify kids who were having problems and help them achieve the minimum needed to pass. (1950s, a somewhat affluent area, we had all been together since kindergarten.)
Hell (flunking a grade, losing all your friends because they'd move ahead without you) was a real possibility, but no one suffered it because the threat of hell scared us into doing the things that we ourselves would benefit from - learn some history and English and arithmetic, and avoid flunking the grade.
One hopes the kids learn to love learning so they have positive internal motivation to do more than the minimum needed to avoid flunking, but even just that minimum will benefit them long term in ways other than just not flunking a grade. (And if someone did have to repeat a grade, that would be to benefit them, not to punish them.)
Perhaps for some fear of hell serves as the basic motivation to live honestly? One hopes they'll become internally motivated to seek to know and enjoy God, but at least they are learning a lifestyle that is consistent with God's values? Was there a time when people in general took seriously that their hand was on as Bible when they swore to tell the truth, felt like they were lying to God and would suffer consequences if they didn't tell the truth?
Of course, for a threat of hell to result in people living according to God's values depends the church accurately teaching what lifestyle reflects God's values. That's been questionable in many ways over the centuries. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Our vicar preached a sermon recently in which he said he believed in heaven but not in hell. It set off quite a discussion in the choir vestry afterwards. Is it possible to have one without the other?
Depends what he means by both those words. I believe in both Heaven and Hell, but what I mean by them is probably radically different to their 'traditional' (read medieval) interpretations. So, in one sense, I don't believe in either of them.
It's like that classic old evangelism technique:
A: "I don't believe in God"
B: "What's the God like that you don't believe in?"
A: describes mean and nasty judgemental God who doesn't care about people
B: "I don't believe in that God either. Let me tell you about the God I do believe in (and then we can all pray the sinners' prayer together)."
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I believe in both Heaven and Hell, but what I mean by them is probably radically different to their 'traditional' (read medieval) interpretations. So, in one sense, I don't believe in either of them.
I like that. That's what I think.
The key question, in my mind, is about what happiness and unhappiness are. If happiness is possible after death, is unhappiness possible? Are there different degrees of happiness, or is all happiness the same? And if these things exist, what are their causes? Is happiness simplyt bestowed? Or must it be received?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are there different degrees of happiness, or is all happiness the same?
Is a child who gets to eat a McDonald's Happy Meal happy with that food? Is an adult served the finest chef-cooked meal happy with that meal? The adult's hunger could have been satisfied with a Happy Meal. (And the child probably prefers the Happy Meal to the lobster with secret sauce on a bed of specially grown greens and dried fruit bits - or whatever chefs serve.)
Interesting question whether the child is just as happy with his happy meal as the adult with what we call a "better meal" than hamburger and french fries.
Is the child's 100% happiness less than the adult's 100% percent happiness the way a 100% full pint jar is less than a 100% full quart jar? One thing God keeps trying to do with me is get me to see that there's more than I have yet imagined, that I tend to settle for too little, I may feel fully happy but if I would let God stretch me my fully happy state would be at a greater level of happiness.
Perhaps in heaven we are all fully happy, but those more in tune with God have larger fully happiness than those whose are fully happy with having pursued the minimum to get there. (If I may use place language to describe heaven.)
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Perhaps in heaven we are all fully happy, but those more in tune with God have larger fully happiness than those whose are fully happy with having pursued the minimum to get there.
I think that's a great analogy that expresses really well how I think about heaven too - thanks.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Thanks! Me too.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Every emotion, feeling we have before the resurrection is obvious or implicit therefore after.
From bliss to dread. Only the latter doesn't last.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
There is no worse act possible than torturing someone for eternity or having them tortured for eternity. Other than condemning two people... And if God is omnipotent then God both created hell and decides who gets condemned there. Which means that everyone suffering in Hell is due to an act of God. Thus making God not morally fit to lick shit of Adolf Hitler's boots.
If Hell is a place you can simply leave, that's another issue. But Hell as a place of eternal suffering makes God completely contemptable and the being worthy of suffering eternally in hell.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Isn't Judeao/Christian faith, at its very heart, all about relationship?
From the story of Adam and Eve right through to those lovely words in Revelation about 'the dwelling of God is with men, they shall be his people and he shall be their God', the whole of salvation story is about restoring the closeness of fellowship that was lost. The consequence of that loss of fellowship was spelled out in the garden - the knowledge (intimate aquaintance) of good and evil and the subsequent 'essential' experience of eternal death.
The penalty for disobedience was that mankind would 'become like us' - that means that we would take on that dreadful experience of death that is known by God as part of his nature. We were never designed to know eternal death but by our Fall, that death has become an indelible part of what it means to be human.
God knows what eternal death is because Jesus is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world and he lives 'though ever crucified'.
So, iuf a man or woman dies without the restoration of fellowship with God that is gained by grace through faith in Christ, then he/she dies in a state of continued eternal death. If however that fellowship is restored and the atonement is personalised, then eternal death loses its 'sting' and power and the Christian has passed from death to life.
That is what heaven and hell means.
Heaven is not some pagan place of happiness - it's to be 'with Christ, which is far better'.
Hell is the opposite. It's a place with no relationship, no fellowship, no awareness of God. In fact, as the story of Adam and Eve reveals, it's a place of hiding away, a place of shame, a place of recrimination and blame. It's a place where we don't even want God to come to. It's a place where the experience of death is eternal - the opposite to heaven where the experience of life is eternal.
All mankind will live forever - death and life in eternity is about quality and content. Those who die in their sins do not lose their consciousness, they live forever with an axperience of death.
Those who know Christ will continue to know him for ever. It is not a question of saying the sinner's prayer and believing the right things. Those won't get you into heaven. What allows you the 'place prepared for you' 'in my Father's house' is your intimate knowledge of Christ in this mortal life.
If you don't know him in this life, they why would you know him in the next?
Nore to the point, why would he know you?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
No one suffers endlessly.
Or Justinian would be right.
And Mudfrog.
That's that orthodox.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Heaven is not some pagan place of happiness - it's to be 'with Christ, which is far better'.
Hell is the opposite. It's a place with no relationship, no fellowship, no awareness of God. In fact, as the story of Adam and Eve reveals, it's a place of hiding away, a place of shame, a place of recrimination and blame. It's a place where we don't even want God to come to. It's a place where the experience of death is eternal - the opposite to heaven where the experience of life is eternal.
A & E were hiding from God while still in the Garden. Which just points to your theme, it's about relationship, not about place.
Which mean to the extent anyone wants to regard heaven as a place, all are welcome but for some it is heaven and for some hell. Just like two people at a party, one is having a great time, one is miserable, same party different personality. Everyone welcome, but will YOU (will *I*) enjoy it? Not if I'm letting myself pursue values inconsistent with God's values, developing a personality that won't enjoy God's party. That thought regularly sobers me.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Heaven is not some pagan place of happiness - it's to be 'with Christ, which is far better'.
Hell is the opposite. It's a place with no relationship, no fellowship, no awareness of God. In fact, as the story of Adam and Eve reveals, it's a place of hiding away, a place of shame, a place of recrimination and blame. It's a place where we don't even want God to come to. It's a place where the experience of death is eternal - the opposite to heaven where the experience of life is eternal.
A & E were hiding from God while still in the Garden. Which just points to your theme, it's about relationship, not about place.
Which mean to the extent anyone wants to regard heaven as a place, all are welcome but for some it is heaven and for some hell. Just like two people at a party, one is having a great time, one is miserable, same party different personality. Everyone welcome, but will YOU (will *I*) enjoy it? Not if I'm letting myself pursue values inconsistent with God's values, developing a personality that won't enjoy God's party. That thought regularly sobers me.
No, the point is that Adam and Eve were ejected from the Garden and shut out of the presence of God. They were not made to stay in the Garden and put up with God being around whether they enjoyed it or not.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Nore to the point, why would he know you?
Because he's the omniscient God who knows and loves ALL. He is perfect love and love " keeps no record of wrongs." (1 Cor 13.5)
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, the point is that Adam and Eve were ejected from the Garden and shut out of the presence of God. They were not made to stay in the Garden and put up with God being around whether they enjoyed it or not.
They were not enjoying it, so they were no worse off out of the garden than in it. Being out allowed them more of the separation from God they wanted - remember when God spoke to all Israel from the mountain and the people said "no, we don't want to hear God directly, let God talk to Moses not to us." A&E didn't want to encounter God, they hid from God, Moses people didn't want to encounter God, proving it wasn't unique to A&E but characteristic of fallen humankind.
Ultimately God gives us what we most want, even if that want is separation from God.
Being removed from the Garden was for A & E's own benefit, that blocked them from ability to eat of the tree of life and be stuck forever in that separated status.
Many a church has taught a punitive God who kicked A&E out of the Garden as punishment. Many a church has preached the wrong God. I don't honor a punitive God. In real life there is no such God.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Nore to the point, why would he know you?
Because he's the omniscient God who knows and loves ALL. He is perfect love and love " keeps no record of wrongs." (1 Cor 13.5)
Indeed - what a wonderful Gospel! That the love of Christ, applied to and experienced in the heart of the pentitent, cancels all wrongs.
Oh, but the agony of the heart of Jesus when his love is refused and rejected and he has to turn away those who never knew the Saviour's love. On that day he will say to those whose hearts were far from him, even though they knew his name, 'Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
It sums it up perfectly - and tragically - that heaven is a place of eternal relationship with Jesus. If there is no relationship here, then there will be no relationship there.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Nope.
The love of Christ cancels all wrongs period.
THAT'S orthodox. What you say isn't. As above. That's NOT orthodox.
[ 25. November 2010, 20:50: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Nope.
The love of Christ cancels all wrongs period.
THAT'S orthodox. What you say isn't. As above. That's NOT orthodox.
So what place belief, faith, repentance and love for God?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
What have they got to do with His complete atonement?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What have they got to do with His complete atonement?
The atonement has to be received. It's not automatic.
Jesus said "Whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Nope.
The love of Christ cancels all wrongs period.
THAT'S orthodox. What you say isn't. As above. That's NOT orthodox.
So what place belief, faith, repentance and love for God?
Belief, faith, repentance and love are all very important, but they're not connected to the cancelling of our sins. When Jesus did his stuff, he wiped out humanity's sins (1 John 2v2). That shit's already dealt with.
Of course, whether we accept that forgiveness offered to us is another matter, but God's part of the deal is done. The issue for those people that don't accept isn't that they're still 'sinners'. Jesus made the 'sinner' part irrelevant. It's that they don't want the reconciliation offered. It's their choice, which God honours. Now, you seem to believe that after death in this life, God's reconciliation offer is withdrawn. I find little in scripture to suggest that. I believe that offer will stand forever, and that ultimately all will recognise and accept it. The question for each of us is whether it'll be the easy way, or the hard way.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Given a choice between you and Mudfrog goperreyrevs, it's you.
Although orthodoxly, it ain't.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Where in scripture is the clear teaching that there is opportunity to repent after death?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Where in scripture is the clear teaching that there is opportunity to repent after death?
Where in scripture is there clear teaching that there isn't?
It's a fairly straightforward extraction from a number of things, God's character as revealed in scripture, the many teachings that ultimately all things will be reconciled, and that they aren't now. The most straightforward conclusion is that there will be some more reconciling to do in the age to come.
I could quote a like that one in Peter about Jesus preaching the gospel to those already dead, but I'm not sure prooftexting is always ideal. The thing that changed my mind on this was the whole thrust of scripture, and the fact that pre-Augustine it was a more than acceptable doctrine.
Scripture doesn't say much about how things will ultimately be in the new heavens and new earth, but it does say that every tear will be wiped away, and that the world is being reconciled to God through Christ. A future in which half my friends and family are being eternally tortured does not fit with that picture.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Where in scripture is the clear teaching that there is opportunity to repent after death?
Where in scripture is there clear teaching that there isn't?
You misunderstand the principle. In MY circumscribing the faith, all it takes is a lack of evidence to the contrary. In YOUR circumscribing the faith, it is required that you have positive evidence.
I think the chief argument against posthumous conversion is Hebrews 9:27:
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Indeed. And in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, there was no opportunity for the rich man to repent, he merely asked for someone to warn his kids to repent before they died.
You'd think this parable was a very poor choice by Jesus if he believed you could repent after death.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
There is absolutely no indication in the parable that the man wanted to repent. First thing we hear about him is he wants Abraham to boss the poor guy around. Certainly no signs of repentence. Hergo I don't see a way to deduct your conclusion.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Further lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. "Argument from silence" is nearly always fallacious logically-wise-speaking. It may be that Jesus didn't mention it because he took it as read that his hearers would know about it and take the rich man's words as proof that he had rejected the chance. Without any indication one way or the other, using this passage to draw definite conclusions is just eisegesis.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's not a parable.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's not a parable.
Doesn't change my argument.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
My point is that we're all arguing from silence. Scripture doesn't spell out exactly what will happen, and uses a lot of different imagery and metaphor to make its points. Yes, Jesus and the apostles speak of judgement, but why should it be that judgement ends the possibility for repentance? Surely judgement is likely to bring repentance? For a criminal, the judgment and sentence can be the first step in bringing him to a point of recognition of his wrongdoing and a desire for rehabilitation.
My own journey on this theology began with a view very similar to yours, Mudfrog. In the evangelical bubble which I was part of, as far as I could see, the only view I could possibly have was that God would send people who didn't believe in Jesus to Hell. Anything else just wasn't Christian. I didn't like believing this, and I remember so well a friend of mine asking me if I believed she would go to He'll when she died. I reluctantly told her, yes, if she didn't become a Christian, that was where she was going.
However, as my experience and horizons broadened, I started to look at what the Scriptures actually said, in particular the stuff about the second death in revelation. I could see that annihilationism made a lot more sense, not just ethically, but biblically too. I then, for the first time came across a well constructed apology for universalism. It surprised me because Universalism had always been a taboo and people who believed it denied the bible. But I could now see that the arguments were just as strong, if not stronger than the 'conventional' stuff I'd heard over the years. I started a thread here on the ship; the first thread I ever started, and listened to what people had to say.
Of the four views: Eternal Punishment, Annihilationism, the Orthodox view, and Universalism, I find the hope that all people will be reconciled to God to be the most convincing view, biblically, historically and morally. The view I find least convincing biblically, historically and morally is Eternal Punishment. It's not well supported in the Bible, it mainly begins with Augustine, and it's morally repulsive. The other two views have strong cases in my opinion too, and I can see why people come to those conclusions.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
mousethief, I'm confused. Are you arguing for or against repentance after death? I am arguing against it. Are we in opposition or agreement?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
For. What did I say that went the other way? I repent!
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Sorry for the double post, I promise I'll shut up in a minute!
Just on the subject of judgment, I think that scripture has some awkward points for you here as well, Mudfrog. The conventional view which you hold is that we are judged according to our faith in Jesus. However, when Scripture talks about judgement, it's usually about works. The sheep weren't judged righteous because they'd put their trust in Jesus. It was cause they'd done lots of good stuff. Almost all the reference to judgement in scripture are to do with our deeds. How do you square that with your view?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Indeed not mousethief. You picked up Mudfrog's usage. No problem. You're right of course. This allegory has NOTHING to do with the reality of life after death.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Indeed not mousethief. You picked up Mudfrog's usage. No problem. You're right of course. This allegory has NOTHING to do with the reality of life after death.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this story that Jesus told is definitive teaching on the state of the dead, but I am suggesting that had there been opportunity for repentence after death then Jesus would surely have alluded to it in his teaching.
You know: "You have heard it said that you must repent before death otherwise you'll be in Torment for ever, but verily I say unto you, there is always a way to turn to the Father even as you stand before the throne of the Son of Man." - or something similar.
I would love to believe that God will open wide the gates of heaven and say, "O just come in".
But how do people 'get in' if there is no repentance and faith, no relationship with Christ?
And what about those who still, when faced with the judgment seat of Christ, still do not want to repent?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And what about those who still, when faced with the judgment seat of Christ, still do not want to repent?
I don't like your language - but it's already been said further up the thread. Those who reject God's love, even when all barriers to it are down, would die, eternally.
This is my hope - otherwise I have been worshipping a cruel and sadistic God.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I would love to believe that God will open wide the gates of heaven and say, "O just come in".
But how do people 'get in' if there is no repentance and faith, no relationship with Christ?
And what about those who still, when faced with the judgment seat of Christ, still do not want to repent?
That's not how it works. People [i]only[i] get in if there is repentance and faith, and 'Hell' is the process that will bring some to repentance. Not through torture or punishment, but through discipline and revelation.
My view really isn't that different from the Orthodox view. For those that do not want to repent, they'll remain 'outside' the city, by choice. I just think that in the end they'll all swallow their pride, knock on the gates and be welcomed home.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And what about those who still, when faced with the judgment seat of Christ, still do not want to repent?
I don't like your language - but it's already been said further up the thread. Those who reject God's love, even when all barriers to it are down, would die, eternally.
This is my hope - otherwise I have been worshipping a cruel and sadistic God.
What do you mean, you don't like my language?
judgment seat?
Repent?
You can't make up your own version of the Scriptures using only words you like.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Your language seems to come straight out of the book of Revelation.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Your language seems to come straight out of the book of Revelation.
...or even the Lord Jesus Christ.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Aye Boogie, that's orthodox, 'between' or off at a tangent from the two polar heterodoxies of Mudfrog's psychotic eternal torture and goperryrev's penitentiary for as long as it takes.
It won't take long, Judgement Day. Less than a lifetime perhaps. A few decades at most. To heal and educate and compensate every one who has ever lived. It will be completely fair. No effort will be spared to dissolve all human hearts.
But like you perhaps Boogie I see an internal statute of limitations in the human heart. In any created heart as Lucifer demonstrates. His heart hasn't melted yet in at least eons, millions of years, although he hasn't seen the most sublime day in the history of creation yet: Judgement. Even he may be awed, moved in to acceptance, surrender then.
The allegorical narrative implies not. But there are still silences that may be filled beyond wonder with impossibly yet more wasteful, outrageous, insulting grace and mercy and opportunity.
But once a person has been given every opportunity to embrace in return for being embraced but will not, they won't ever is the dread possibility. It has to be. That's free will for the FIRST and LAST time.
Being in outer darkness, wailing and gnashing your teeth ... how long ? Not that that is mentioned in the context of eternity. But of the reaction to judgement. Which gives us one of those silences beyond which there may STILL be utterly unmerited grace.
In the Resurrection the vast majority will be perfectly human. Edenic. Young, beautiful, sane, smart. Approaching a trillion if the unborn are included. An ocean of at least mentally average five year olds. Closer to newborns counting the unborn.
Mortal.
And the process of healing, bring to the point of decision will begin.
If at the end of that a person doesn't want to be loved, doesn't want to love, where will they live? How? In reservations like the 'uncivilized' in Brave New World? Policed to protect them from each other and themselves? Forever? Theoretically redeemable? Given enough experience? Hmmmmm.
Demons in the flesh? And what of Satan and his demons? Back in the pit of misery forever?
The kindness of God may include euthanasia for all such, human and angelic.
It orthodoxly looks like that.
But I certainly would not be surprised if Grace makes provisions that we in our most liberal, soft hearted yearnings baulk at!
Not a drop will be wasted.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Psychotic eternal torture? I think not.
Will there be flames in hell, will people literally be gnashing their teeth? No.
But will God be there? No. And even if he was the people there will hide from him.
The Gospels (forget Revelation) are full of warnings about being shut out, being in outer darkness etc. Why the warnings to repent NOW if there is ample opportunity afterwards? Why the Judgment when people are separated if there is no need to separate anyone?
I think, without using proof texts, that the tonme of the Gospels is definately, 'Now is the day of salvation'.
This is traditional, orthodox, catholic teaching for the last 2000 years. It'll take a lot more than what's been written here about the woolly, liberal and unscriptural 'all will have prizes' to convince most people that there is indeed a hell to be saved from before we face the Judgment at death.
[ 27. November 2010, 10:42: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
With or without using proof texts, it isn't.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Actually, almost all of that resonates with me Martin, an excellent post.
Perhaps the only difference is that I believe that God will be able to woo and discipline us all. But if for whatever reason there are some that he can't, then i'd go along with pretty much everything you said.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
With:
Matthew 10:15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
Matthew 11:20 Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”
Without: Jesus saves.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
With:
Matthew 10:15 Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
Matthew 11:20 Then Jesus began to denounce the towns in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted to the heavens? No, you will go down to Hades. For if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you.”
Without: Jesus saves.
Are you actually trying to say that on the day of judgment it won't be so bad for Sodom and the people will be spared judgment?
Surely this is a figure of speech that simply means that whatever happens to these towns it will worse than Sodom and Gomorrah. Their judgment to hades wll seem like 'heaven' compared to what the towns that rejected Jesus - it'll be that bad!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Tha nature of Hell is our nature. Is what we bring to it. We need light.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Actually, almost all of that resonates with me Martin, an excellent post.
Perhaps the only difference is that I believe that God will be able to woo and discipline us all. But if for whatever reason there are some that he can't, then i'd go along with pretty much everything you said.
I imagine some total psychopaths may be incapable of responding to love - but I don't know.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Mudfrog, your mistake is identifying "judgement" with "condemnation".
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Tha nature of Hell is our nature. Is what we bring to it. We need light.
The key point, I think, is that unhappiness is inherent in self-centered desires and behavior.
So hell is our nature because if left to our own tendencies people can often be a tad self-centered. But we can learn to care about others, and that is a much more rewarding way to live.
Light is about understanding what is what so that we will be caring and not merely pleasure-seeking.
The biblical imagery surrounding hell and heaven is about this difference.
A world of self-centered pleasure-seekers is hell. Heaven, by contrast, is a world full of people who actually care about what is kind and right.
The thing that happens after death that makes it different than this life is that in the space and time-free environment of the afterlife these two groups automatically cluster according to affinity.
Individuals then pursue their interests within these affinity groups just as they did during their life on earth. All are free to do as they wish. But the results, whether heavenly or hellish, are determined by the joy, or lack of it, that is inherent in what they love and therefore in what they do.
You would think that over time everyone would realize that self-centered desires don't lead to happy results. I think that this is one of the main questions that people have about hell, if they believe in it at all.
But I would tend to agree that few are going to believe in hell if they think that the cruel and gruesome biblical imagery surrounding it is meant to be taken literally.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Mudfrog, your mistake is identifying "judgement" with "condemnation".
Condemnation is indeed part of the judgment of those who don't know Christ.
Paul reminds us that there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Jesus said that those who do not believe are condemned already - judgment day merely confirms that those whose names are not written in the lamb's book of life will not enter Christ's Kingdom of Heaven.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
In that case Jesus is Damner not Saviour by two orders of magnitude.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
In that case Jesus is Damner not Saviour by two orders of magnitude.
It is hard to get past the idea that if God is omnipotent how is He not the origin of both pleasure and pain? That makes Him both the damner and the savior.
But this makes no sense. Better that there be no God at all.
One way past it is to postulate that all suffering goes away. Of course this makes the Bible, and Christianity, false.
My opinion is that somehow the suffering is chosen and preferred. Is that so hard to imagine?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
I find it really hard to comprehend a Christian faith that can ignore so much clear teaching of Scripture in order to construct a god of its own making.
What do you do with John 3 V 16, 17 and 18?
quote:
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I find it really hard to comprehend a Christian faith that can ignore so much clear teaching of Scripture in order to construct a god of its own making.
That seems a little harsh. You've just declared all universalists, all those who take an open mind on the fate of those who don't explicitly believe in Christ in this life, and all those who hold out hope for those who never heard of Him to be worshippers of a false god and therefore non-Christians.
In the same spirit (no capital S) I'm tempted to ask when your heretick™ sect is going to start obeying our Lord's command to share holy communion often in remembrance of him, and to baptise disciples in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But I won't .
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
In the same spirit (no capital S) I'm tempted to ask when your heretick™ sect is going to start obeying our Lord's command to share holy communion often in remembrance of him, and to baptise disciples in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. But I won't .
You can ask if you like - I'm happy about it because we are part of the Church that does these things and all salvationists are perfectly entitles to receive communion from whichever church will not deny them access and to receive whichever baptism is right for them and/or their children. Our non-practice is not a rejection of either the practice or the doctrine of sacraments.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Psychotic eternal torture? I think not.
Will there be flames in hell, will people literally be gnashing their teeth? No.
But will God be there? No. And even if he was the people there will hide from him.
There will be flames in hell, Mudfrog, because God will be there. Remember Pentecost? The Spirit came down as tongues of flame. And in the OT, the people were led by the pillar of fire. Hell is fire: Our God is a consuming fire.
And he who emptied himself for our sake fills all, and there is no place where he is not. Check out Psalms -- even in Hell, God is there.
And for those who do not want to be in God's presence, there won't be any way to get away from him. There will be no place to hide. Adam and Eve thought they could hide, but God knew where they were. That might indeed be enough to cause someone to gnash his teeth, to wail, to cry.
quote:
The Gospels (forget Revelation) are full of warnings about being shut out, being in outer darkness etc. Why the warnings to repent NOW if there is ample opportunity afterwards?
Mudfrog, do you know anyone who has rescued an abused dog? The dog is brought from a terrible place to a good place, and the dog is still terrified, trembling, too fearful to eat, sleeping fitfully, snapping at the one who rescued it. The dog won't approach its rescuer if it can avoid it, so its mange is untreated, its injuries unhealed. And even so the dog would rather cower outside in the darkness than come in.
That's how we are, before we repent. And God doesn't want that. He wants to bring us in, to feed us, to heal us, to care for us. But he's not going to drag us in against our will. He's not going to add that terror to the terrors we've already gone through. He's going to wait for us, as long as it takes -- just as someone who is trying to care for and socialize an abused and abandoned dog will wait.
So why the warning to repent now? Why? Because God wants us inside, where he can care for us. He wants us in NOW, before our injuries and our illnesses become worse. He wants us to know that, if we come to him, we'll find comfort and food and healing and joy. If we stay way, we'll have none of that.
quote:
I think, without using proof texts, that the tonme of the Gospels is definately, 'Now is the day of salvation'.
Yes, of course.
quote:
This is traditional, orthodox, catholic teaching for the last 2000 years. It'll take a lot more than what's been written here about the woolly, liberal and unscriptural 'all will have prizes' to convince most people that there is indeed a hell to be saved from before we face the Judgment at death.
I think most people know the hell they need to be saved from. They carry it with them all the time. Like the Kingdom of Heaven, it is within us. I don't think we need to convince anyone of it.
What we need to convince them of is God's love.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I find it really hard to comprehend a Christian faith that can ignore so much clear teaching of Scripture in order to construct a god of its own making.
I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What do you do with John 3 V 16, 17 and 18?
It depends what Jesus was sent to do. I say that He was sent to bear witness to the truth, to bring light where there was darkness, to guide our feet into the way of peace. Everyone who is of the truth will hear His voice.
This means that all who love the truth, love God, and love their neighbor worldwide will be saved - whether they have ever heard of Jesus or not.
The reason is that "being saved" means to find happiness, and "being condemned" is about failing to find it - and the happiness of heaven in inherent in loving the truth, loving God, and loving the neighbor. Those who don't love these things simply won't have that happiness. And it is not "all-or-nothing" - some are happier, some less happy, according to the precise nature of their inner motivations.
"Believing in Jesus" is about hearing the truth and living by it so that it is in your heart.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
There is also the small matter of having ones sins forgiven through repenatnce and faith.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Mudfrog, many of us have answered that question a number of times. You may not agree with those answers, but don't act as if we're ignoring those points by continuing to raise them, unless you have an answer to what's been said.
As for John 3:16-18, it is entirely consistent with what I've been saying, and mousethief, Martin, Boogie et al. What do you do with the fact that Jesus says he came to save the WORLD, not just 5-10% of the world (or whatever percentage are professing Christians)?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Oh, and Josephine,
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Mudfrog, many of us have answered that question a number of times. You may not agree with those answers, but don't act as if we're ignoring those points by continuing to raise them, unless you have an answer to what's been said.
As for John 3:16-18, it is entirely consistent with what I've been saying, and mousethief, Martin, Boogie et al. What do you do with the fact that Jesus says he came to save the WORLD, not just 5-10% of the world (or whatever percentage are professing Christians)?
#
I agree entirely.
Our Salvation Army doctrine states very clearly that 'We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has, by his suffering and death, made an atonemen t for the whole world, so that whoseoever will may be saved.'
Jesus was given for the world so that 'whoever
believes may be saved.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
There is also the small matter of having ones sins forgiven through repenatnce and faith.
The forgiveness of sins is about changing your ways. You can't change your ways unless you believe in changing them, and you also can't do it without faith in God (although many would disagree), that is, faith in Jesus.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Ok, what about the bit that explicitly says that he didn't come to condemn the world? Because that's what you've told us he does.
I humbly suggest to you that people like me aren't ignoring the plain meaning of scripture, but that one's reading of scripture is very heavily influenced by one's prior worldview, much more than you might think. I fully understand why you believe what you believe, because I used to believe it myself. But since being persuaded that Eternal Punishment is not the only option for a Christian, I've been able to read scripture without that filter over everything. And, believe it or not, scripture still makes sense. Lots of bits actually make a lot more sense than they did before.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
You tell Jesus Mudfrog, tell Him He's wrong. Tell Him He can't POSSIBLY be gracious to the foulest culture in Western myth.
You prove my point: YOU are the Nature of Hell.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You tell Jesus Mudfrog, tell Him He's wrong. Tell Him He can't POSSIBLY be gracious to the foulest culture in Western myth.
You prove my point: YOU are the Nature of Hell.
What on earth are you talking about?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Josephine, that is a perfect illustration I will use it if I may.
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jesus was given for the world so that 'whoever
believes may be saved.
I personally am quite dubious that our eternal fate depends entirely on hearing a particular story and believing it; it seems a strange way for the creator of the universe to have organised things
[ 28. November 2010, 07:06: Message edited by: Orlando098 ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Mudfrog' assumption is that the text implies that whoever doesn't believe won't be saved. It doesn't say that. I'd suggest this is an example of reading one's worldview into the text.
If my doctor tells my that having an inoculation means that I won't get a disease, he's not saying I'll definitely get the disease if I don't have the inoculation. I'm just putting myself at more risk. (not the perfect analogy I know, but makes the point).
I think the loaded word is 'saved'. It now has a religious connotation that it wouldn't have had when Jesus used it.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Mudfrog' assumption is that the text implies that whoever doesn't believe won't be saved. It doesn't say that. I'd suggest this is an example of reading one's worldview into the text.
If my doctor tells my that having an inoculation means that I won't get a disease, he's not saying I'll definitely get the disease if I don't have the inoculation. I'm just putting myself at more risk. (not the perfect analogy I know, but makes the point).
I think the loaded word is 'saved'. It now has a religious connotation that it wouldn't have had when Jesus used it.
Ah, now this is the nub of the argument.
Jesus said that those who don't believe are condemned already.
It's not a question of choice from a neutral standpoint - choose Christ or don't choose Christ - the truth is we are born in sin, without a relationship with God. 'All have sinned and fall short lof the glory of God' and that is precisely why Jesus came and preac hed a Gospel of love, and repentance - it's why he 'came to seek and save that which was lost'.
We are condemned already - we have no choivce in the matter - it's original sin - and Jesus came to release us from this, to literally save us from that condemnation. But if we reject him, by choice we remain in that condemnation.
Freewill means that we have to choose to move from darkness to light - Freddy reminds us that we do it by grace. We call it prevenient grace, grace that leads us to the point of being able to choose - but also to reject him.
That's what grace is all about - it's freely given, liberally given (yes, it's Amazing!) and more people have received it than we would ever imagine, but it needs to be believed.
What shall we do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved.
It's the best news ever. But we need to believe or we remain in our sins.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jesus was given for the world so that 'whoever
believes may be saved.
I personally am quite dubious that our eternal fate depends entirely on hearing a particular story and believing it; it seems a strange way for the creator of the universe to have organised things
And how about the many millions who died long before the story was ever told?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
As soon as I posted that I was waiting for that reply, because yes, Jesus does say that those who don't believe in him stand condemned. The question is, will they remain condemned, and if they do, what are they condemned to? Does their sentence mean that they never have the opportunity for rehabilitation? The connection you've made is condemned=never to be saved. I don't make that connection.
That leaves aside the fact that the notion of believing in someone is a strange one, and what Jesus means by this in relation to salvation is worthy of a debate itself.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Mudfrog it is you who are condemned.
You are condemned to be outside the Kingdom.
Unsaved.
Condemned to justify the impotence of God. Condemned to condemn. And by asking what am I on about, condemned to be blind to your condemnation in condemnation.
Repent.
Turn.
While there is yet time.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
As soon as I posted that I was waiting for that reply, because yes, Jesus does say that those who don't believe in him stand condemned. The question is, will they remain condemned, and if they do, what are they condemned to? Does their sentence mean that they never have the opportunity for rehabilitation? The connection you've made is condemned=never to be saved. I don't make that connection.
That leaves aside the fact that the notion of believing in someone is a strange one, and what Jesus means by this in relation to salvation is worthy of a debate itself.
condemned = perish.
Now, it is orthodox belief that this perishing is an eternally conscious thing. It maybe, and I am prepared to think on this - that the perishing is eternal, as in one for all, but is not conscious.
I cannot see any teaching anywhere that says repentance can happen after death.
[ 28. November 2010, 11:02: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mudfrog it is you who are condemned.
You are condemned to be outside the Kingdom.
Unsaved.
Condemned to justify the impotence of God. Condemned to condemn. And by asking what am I on about, condemned to be blind to your condemnation in condemnation.
Repent.
Turn.
While there is yet time.
yeah, whatever.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Not yet I see.
Ah well, that's what Jesus' outrageous grace in the Resurrection is for: you and those of Sodom and Gomorrah and Tyre and Sidon: The Damnation Army.
[ 28. November 2010, 11:46: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Not yet I see.
Ah well, that's what Jesus' outrageous grace in the Resurrection is for: you and those of Sodom and Gomorrah and Tyre and Sidon: The Damnation Army.
I wish you'd tell us all what you're on about!
Posted by Sir Kevin (# 3492) on
:
Hell is the place you don't want to go when you die: it's all full of evil people who failed to repent of their sins in this life.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Martin, what are you talking about?
Do you mean to insult Mudfrog personally or just the Salvation Army?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
? neither.
By their theology the VAST majority of humanity MUST be the Damnation Army.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
The Salvation Army's theology is that of Wesleyan Methodism. It is no different to the historic creeds, all of which we subscribe to.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Jesus was given for the world so that 'whoever
believes may be saved.
I personally am quite dubious that our eternal fate depends entirely on hearing a particular story and believing it; it seems a strange way for the creator of the universe to have organised things
And how about the many millions who died long before the story was ever told?
All people will be judged according to the light they have received.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
Apologies for not having read this thread all the way through, and forgive me for wanting to share something before I do.
Since I last posted, I have read a comic book version of Dante's Inferno, which has prompted me to rethink my view of hell.
I had previously assumed that Dante's Divine Comedy was a fairly dry description of the three realms of afterlife. However, I now realise that in the inferno, hell serves as a backdrop for a monster-slaying hero quest, in which Dante the Quester (not to be confused with Dante the poet) is on a mission to save Beatrice.
Dante the Quester, and Beatrice, are both in hell because they had sex with each other outside of marriage. However, Dante the Quester had many more sins to his name besides this; therefore he believes that he deserves to be in hell, but Beatrice does not deserve to be in hell, because she would not be in hell if he had not made a promise to her which he subsequently broke. Therefore, he feels that if he is to do one thing right, it is to rescue Beatrice from hell. Dante the Quester therefore has to slay the monsters and demons of hell if he is to do that.
The complication is that his mission gets progressively more and more difficult as more and more of his shameful past is revealed. These revelations have the effect of galvanising Beatrice in hatred of Dante the Quester, and making her want to be the Queen of Hell.
The funny thing is, a lot of Christian apologetics is argued on the basis of the idea that we are cowards who want to avoid hell. More specifically, we are the "damsels in distress", who have put ourselves in peril as a result of our own sin - but that Jesus is the great hero who rescues us from that peril, and that we ought to be grateful for that.
However, once you start to regard hell as being a backdrop of a heroic quest, you begin to realise that you can't actually gain heroic glory unless you slay the monsters of hell - but you've got to actually go to hell in order to do that! Being scared of going to hell is a bit like Odysseus being scared of the sea; there's no glory in being scared of hell.
Hell in Dante's Inferno, and the sea in the Odyssey, seems to serve a similar function to the tribulation and great battle in the book of Revelation. However, that battle is not normally thought of as being "hell". We normally think of hell as being the lake of fire that Death and Hades get thrown into. There is therefore a distinction to be made between the "tribulation" and "hell".
Or is there? If so, then what's all the stuff in the Gospels about Jesus baptising people not with water, but with fire? If the pain of the tribulation is not on a par with the pain of hell, then how are we supposed to believe that God's got any power anyway?
The theology that sin has put you in peril, and you need to be saved from that peril, but that Jesus has already saved you from that peril, is a great religion for girls - but it's no good for men. I think men feel emasculated by that kind of teaching. Personally, I am much happier with the idea that I might be able to slay my own personal demons and monsters, and that we can all encourage each other to slay these demons, than with the idea that I don't have to slay the demons because Jesus has already done it for us. God's purpose is to help me with that - but the idea that God's going to do it all by himself without any input from me, seems to make nonsense of the idea that God tests us in any way.
As a result, hell hold no fear for me. No, wait, that's not true. Hell does hold fear for me - but the fear isn't really any greater than things I fear in this life - such as being stuck in an elderly care home, unable to move, unable to speak, and in lots of pain.
Is Christianity really that girly, though? Medieval warrior saint legends, and crusader legends, would appear to suggest not. So I think there are two kinds of Christianity; one for heroes (who will usually, but not always, be men), and the other for damsels in distress (who will usually, but not always, be women). In the women's version of Christianity, hell is something to be feared, and you have to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ in order that he will save you from hell. But in the men's version of Christianity, it's your job to save other people from hell, by slaying the monsters of sin. Anything you say about your "faith" therefore needs to be backed up by action, like it says in the book of James - and if you fear going to hell and confronting these monsters, then you are a coward, who does not deserve to be called a Christian.
Or something like that. Okay maybe not. But I for one am much happier being told that I can slay monsters, than I am being told that I don't have to slay monsters, because salvation is by faith not works, and monster-slaying counts as a "work". In my opinion, faith should be about encouragement to action - not excuses for inaction. But the bigger point is, I'm amazed to discover that even the concept of hell is not unaffected by that.
Thanks to all you good people for your posts, this is a fascinating thread.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Is Christianity really that girly, though? Medieval warrior saint legends, and crusader legends, would appear to suggest not. So I think there are two kinds of Christianity; one for heroes (who will usually, but not always, be men), and the other for damsels in distress (who will usually, but not always, be women). In the women's version of Christianity, hell is something to be feared, and you have to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ in order that he will save you from hell. But in the men's version of Christianity, it's your job to save other people from hell, by slaying the monsters of sin.
I suppose us Orthodox types are (usually, but not always) a third gender, then. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All people will be judged according to the light they have received.
Which raises then the gigantic question of when have you received enough 'light' to be condemned?
Is my mere existence in the West enough to condemn me if I am not a Christian? Gideon Bible in the hotel room? Is seeing Billy Graham on TV, and changing the station enough? Do I need to attend church, be an active seeker and then decide it isn't for me?
I was a believer for 19 years but think it's hogwash now....is that enough light to condemn, or obviously not enough light to convince, therefore I should be spared?
Why bother talking much about Hell if you have no answer for these questions (and there is none from the Bible, certainly).
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
All people will be judged according to the light they have received.
Which raises then the gigantic question of when have you received enough 'light' to be condemned?
Is my mere existence in the West enough to condemn me if I am not a Christian? Gideon Bible in the hotel room? Is seeing Billy Graham on TV, and changing the station enough? Do I need to attend church, be an active seeker and then decide it isn't for me?
I was a believer for 19 years but think it's hogwash now....is that enough light to condemn, or obviously not enough light to convince, therefore I should be spared?
Why bother talking much about Hell if you have no answer for these questions (and there is none from the Bible, certainly).
And therefore probably no point in anyone replying to your post.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Speak for yourself Mudfrog.
pj - we will ALL receive sufficient light in the Resurrection. I count ALL but myself as having received insufficient light to be judged apart from the judgement of the law - which condemns us all.
ALL have been atoned for in Christ, virtually none have that light, that good news. In Christianity.
But that gospel WILL be heard that the end may come.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
condemned = perish.
That's right. One of the consequences of eating the fruit was death, and death is what we must all undergo. Christ was the firstborn from the dead; we must all die if we are to be born again. Death is a necessary process for all of us to undergo in order to be redeemed. This is the symbol of baptism. For those in Christ, there is one type of death. For the rest there is another.
But who has all authority, even over death? And what will be that final enemy to be defeated?
When that enemy is finally defeated there will only be life, and creation will finally be made right.
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
What about people who are alive when Jesus comes back - would they necessarily have to die?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
What about people who are alive when Jesus comes back - would they necessarily have to die?
Here
and
Here
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
The idea of eternal conscious punishment of the damned, takes the problem of suffering inflicted by a loving God and makes it a million times more problematic.
It doesn't seem consistent with the nature of God as expressed by Jesus in the New Testament. Why would one worship a being so cruel ?
And also what is the point, if we are going to be massively literal about this:
Jesus was crucified for a day or so and dead for three days - this apparently (if you accept the PSA theological position) was lifting the punishment from all mankind who accepted his ministry. People suffer far worse things, for far longer, every year - and certainly eternal conscious punishment in a lake of fire would make crucifixion for a few days look like a minor inconvenience and it would be an action far more vicious than any human has ever managed to perpetrate. So how in any sense could it be just ?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Here's my understanding of hell, which fits with a number of the comments that have been made on this thread.
I believe that 'God is love' (i.e. 'love' describes the whole of God's character, not: 'love is only the nice side of the coin of God's character and holiness is the nasty side of the coin').
I also believe that God is hell.
In other words, the love of God itself is hell.
How can that be? And how does the Bible support such a view?
"God is a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29). "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Hebrews 10:31). Plus many other references to God as fire.
What is 'evil'? Is 'evil' simply to be defined as a falling short of a perfect moral law? If that is the case, then there is no difference between wilful evil and human weakness. If we imagine two people at an archery contest. One of them tries his darndest to hit the bullseye, but he misses the mark, despite his best efforts. He has fallen short as a result of his weakness, even though his will was directed to doing his best. The other archer couldn't care less about trying to hit the target, and deliberately turns his back on it and proceeds to fire the arrow in the opposite direction. His failure to hit the target was clearly not a result of human weakness, but a wilful refusal to even try.
I must admit that it angers me when certain Christians (particularly of the 'evangelical' variety, who are not really evangelicals according to the etymology of the word) cannot tell the difference between 'wilful evil' and 'human weakness'. Hence the appalling prospect of billions of people being damned simply for having committed the crime of being born into a world supposedly infected by original sin.
Evil is to do with the will. It is also of a spiritual nature (and I am not talking here about demons necessarily). If someone is actually 'of an evil nature', then we have to ask: why? What deep-seated attitude governs their thinking and actions? Presumably the desire to hurt people (especially innocent people, so perfectly described in Proverbs 1:11-12) comes from a wilful hatred of mercy. The love of God is an obnoxious and vile thing to the person who is genuinely evil. In other words, the very presence of God - the God of love - is utter hell to the one who is consumed with pride, self-justification and a total contempt for others (or certain others).
So instead of talking about God being cruel or a sadist, why not say that it is actually God's gentleness, his love, his compassion and his mercy that is actually the agent of torment. "Love is as strong as death, jealousy as cruel as the grave; its flames are flames of fire, a most vehement flame." (Song of Solomon 8:6). Love itself is sadistic to those who hate it.
One of the most horrific descriptions of hell is in Revelation 14:10-11 (as has already been pointed out on this thread). The damned are tormented "in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb". The Lamb is a clear reference to 'Christ crucified' (see Rev. 5:6). So the damned are in torment in the presence of, as it were, 'Christ crucified'. But Christ on the cross is no sadist torturing people! He is a victim - in fact, he is the eternal victim. What harm can Jesus on the cross do to anyone? Furthermore, what did God reveal through 'Christ crucified'? Well, one thing was this: "Forgive them Father, for they do not know what they are doing." This is a clear revelation that genuine ignorance can never damn any soul. Also 1 John 4:9-10 states: "In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins". So clearly the love of God is revealed through 'Christ crucified' in whose presence the damned are tormented. This is evidence that hell is full of the love of God, hence the reason for the torments of those who hate that love.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
How do they answer the question Mudfrog ?
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
What about people who are alive when Jesus comes back - would they necessarily have to die?
Here
and
Here
Yes, so they won't need to actually die as such, they will just be "changed"
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
What about people who are alive when Jesus comes back - would they necessarily have to die?
Here
and
Here
Yes, so they won't need to actually die as such, they will just be "changed"
we will all be changed from mortal to immortal, corruptible to incorruptible.
Beyond that, we bow to the mystery of it all.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
My idea of hell is to be alone forever in a totally dark, silent room with no doors or windows and no means of escape.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
All?
Every human who has ever lived?
[ 29. November 2010, 07:47: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
I think the judgement question is worthy of its own thread, so i done one.
here
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
we will all be changed from mortal to immortal, corruptible to incorruptible.
So we will be changed from beings capable of growth and change to those fixed and static and incapable of growth, and those capable of trying to balance complex situations to hardline fanatics incapable of understanding multiple sides of a situation.
quote:
Beyond that, we bow to the mystery of it all.
And shudder at the mystery of what others consider heaven to be.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
we will all be changed from mortal to immortal, corruptible to incorruptible.
So we will be changed from beings capable of growth and change to those fixed and static and incapable of growth, and those capable of trying to balance complex situations to hardline fanatics incapable of understanding multiple sides of a situation.
quote:
Beyond that, we bow to the mystery of it all.
And shudder at the mystery of what others consider heaven to be.
How do you get those negative qualities out of immortality and incorruptibility?
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
All?
Every human who has ever lived?
I guess this gives a traditional view of that - http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0066.htm
ie. yes, resurrected to spend eternity in paradise in God's Kingdom or in hell, which seems sadistic, frankly - to give people new bodies just to suffer in. That is also a mainstream catholic view of what will happen.
[ 29. November 2010, 16:32: Message edited by: Orlando098 ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Thanks Orlando, I realise that, but it's a typically narrow misinterpretation of course. Paul is obviously talking ONLY about Christians.
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on
:
Josephine, that's a brilliant analogy.
Pity, Mudfrog, that you haven't engaged yourself with it.
To give my view: Hell is something of our creation. Whether one means Auschwitz-Birkenau, or those addicted to (external or internal) violence, God can heal.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It's all in Handel, all in Handel. What do they teach them in these schools?
The trumpet shall sound
And the dead shall be raised
And the dead shall be raised incorruptible
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Thanks Orlando, I realise that, but it's a typically narrow misinterpretation of course. Paul is obviously talking ONLY about Christians.
Biblical scholar the late Marcus Barth (son of Karl) made the comment "hell is for Christians only"
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Thanks Orlando, I realise that, but it's a typically narrow misinterpretation of course. Paul is obviously talking ONLY about Christians.
Yes, that makes sense; as far as I can remember he didn't talk about hell much (at all?) and one could read into what he says that the dead who are not saved just stay dead, I guess.
There is a Catholic page about general resurrection here: general resurrection
And, in the entry on Eschatology it claims that hell has degrees of suffering, depending on how bad you were:
Hell, in Catholic teaching, designates the place or state of men (and angels) who, because of sin, are excluded forever from the Beatific Vision. In this wide sense it applies to the state of those who die with only original sin on their souls (Council of Florence, Denzinger, no. 588), although this is not a state of misery or of subjective punishment of any kind, but merely implies the objective privation of supernatural bliss, which is compatible with a condition of perfect natural happiness. But in the narrower sense in which the name is ordinarily used, hell is the state of those who are punished eternally for unrepented personal mortal sin. Beyond affirming the existence of such a state, with varying degrees of punishment corresponding to degrees of guilt and its eternal or unending duration , Catholic doctrine does not go.
I would say it may be true that Jesus and the first Christians focussed mainly on resurrection for the saved, and not much on hell as a destination for others; but perhaps that the idea of eternal punishment for them gained ground due to persecution and people hoping for some especially unpleasant end for their enemies.
[ 29. November 2010, 20:00: Message edited by: Orlando098 ]
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pjkirk:
[QUOTE]I was a believer for 19 years but think it's hogwash now....is that enough light to condemn, or obviously not enough light to convince, therefore I should be spared?
Why bother talking much about Hell if you have no answer for these questions (and there is none from the Bible, certainly).
What happened?
Hell is simply God's answer ultimately to the containment of evil, ie what cannot be destroyed because it is eternal, and what cannot be redeemed because redemption has been rejected. It was designed for the rebel angels, not for man.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Hell is simply God's answer ultimately to the containment of evil, ie what cannot be destroyed because it is eternal, and what cannot be redeemed because redemption has been rejected. It was designed for the rebel angels, not for man.
Evil is eternal? I've never heard that said by any Christian, theologian or otherwise. Only God is eternal.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
There's at least one Christian here like most Catholics, whether Roman or Protestant, saying EXACTLY that Mousethief.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
If evil is eternal then God is a failure.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It ain't me!
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Well speaking as an atheist I find the idea of hell, at least the popular “eternal torment” view of hell problematic. I mean I may be far from perfect but I would not allow someone to be tortured for eternity if there was something I could do to prevent it. So if hell does exist that would make me more moral than the creator of the universe. And that just wouldn't make sense would it.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
As an atheist then maybe you can appreciate that if there is a God and if there is an afterlife, then it's possible that the traditional idea of hell may simply be mistaken.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Bedazzled! You're no atheist, you just got bored!
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Yes.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Orlando098
I would say it may be true that Jesus and the first Christians focussed mainly on resurrection for the saved, and not much on hell as a destination for others; but perhaps that the idea of eternal punishment for them gained ground due to persecution and people hoping for some especially unpleasant end for their enemies.
The problem with this eminently plausible hypothesis is that the times of most vicious persecution were the times when the overwhelming view of the church was universalism. It was only after Constantine that the "damnationist" view really took hold. Even then, it was only during the reign of Justinian (early 6th century) that universalism was anathematised. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the "traditional" understanding of the afterlife owes more to Imperial expectations that the official church would keep the plebs in line, than to any new doctrinal understanding.
Posted by Orlando098 (# 14930) on
:
I was just throwing it out there are an idea. But there is enough in the NT to justify damnationist views if one wants to, also when I think of early writings I have read that have struck me as especially looking forward to unbelievers going to Hell, I think firstly of Tertullian, who was second/third Century.
[ 03. December 2010, 22:10: Message edited by: Orlando098 ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Only if one wants to ignore the fact of Jesus' name and words O.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
I would say it may be true that Jesus and the first Christians focussed mainly on resurrection for the saved, and not much on hell as a destination for others;
Virtually everything that we know about hell comes from Jesus' statements in the Gospels.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
I would say it may be true that Jesus and the first Christians focussed mainly on resurrection for the saved, and not much on hell as a destination for others;
Virtually everything that we know about hell comes from Jesus' statements in the Gospels.
Do shipomates not think that if Jesus wanted to tell people that all would be saved, whatever, that he would have said so? Would he not have said that there was no hell?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
I would say it may be true that Jesus and the first Christians focussed mainly on resurrection for the saved, and not much on hell as a destination for others;
Virtually everything that we know about hell comes from Jesus' statements in the Gospels.
Do shipomates not think that if Jesus wanted to tell people that all would be saved, whatever, that he would have said so? Would he not have said that there was no hell?
Not only did Jesus not say that there was no hell, He is the one who made all the statements about hell that Christianity has accepted over the milennia.
The hell of the Bible is Jesus' hell, not the invention of someone else.
Posted by molitva (# 7859) on
:
It seems that a majority of contributors so far fall into one of two categories:
1. Those who proceed primarily from the apparent plain meaning of Scripture on the subject to yield a hard and frightening, indeed frankly terrifying, view of hell
2. Those who find this view unpalatable and draw on other, mostly non-Scriptural, considerations to argue against the apparent plain meaning of the proof texts. Chief among these is what they think (or hope) a ‘loving God’ would do.
My question to the first group is:
By what intelligible concept of ‘love’ is the eternal suffering of large numbers of people made the will of a loving God? Does this meaning of ‘love’ bear any resemblance whatsoever to the meaning of that word when we use it in other circumstances (to describe the love of a friend, child, husband/wife etc)?
My question to the second group is:
How less likely is it that a loving God would cause infinite suffering after death than that he would tolerate the vast finite suffering that is easily observable in this world?
And one for everyone: why does there seem to be much more in the Bible about Hell than Heaven?
Oh, and are there any shipmates in Kazakhstan?
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by molitva:
My question to the first group is:
By what intelligible concept of ‘love’ is the eternal suffering of large numbers of people made the will of a loving God?
There is a loving God, and by this I mean a God who answers to the normal commonly understood meaning of the term.
The simple answer is that a loving God allows people to think, desire, and do what they wish. Forever. If the results don't yield what is objectively the "happiest" lifestyle, what business is it of yours? Happiness and unhappiness are subjectively experienced.
As I understand the system, God does not judge. God does not cast into hell. God does not punish. God does nothing more than try to guide all people in freedom to eternal happiness. If it were not possible to refuse this guidance then freedom wouldn't be real.
There is nothing unloving about a God who warns people that some lifestyle choices are less fruitful than others.
The unhappiness that is called "hell" is nothing other than the misery that is inherent in a self-centered existence. Biblical imagery is just a way of picturing this unhappiness in a tangible way.
You might argue that God created the system, so He is responsible for any suffering that happens. But apparently it isn't possible to have a system with genuine freedom where opposite choices, and opposite results, don't exist.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by molitva:
My question to the second group is:
How less likely is it that a loving God would cause infinite suffering after death than that he would tolerate the vast finite suffering that is easily observable in this world?
I'm not in the second group, but it raises a question that is hard to get around.
Is a loving God who allows enormous and apparently interminable suffering on earth any better than one who allows it after death?
The existence of any suffering at all would seem then to point to a bad God or no God.
But I think that it is just as easy to dispose with this question as it is to deal with Molitva's first question.
The answer is that the divine permission of suffering by a loving God is explained by a combination of two things:
- 1. The benefits of having a stable physical environment that is not directly governed by spiritual forces outweighs the problems that it causes.
- 2. The benefits of allowing people to do as they please, even if they end up hurting each other, outweighs the problems that freedom causes.
These two aspects of life are so beneficial that a loving God is right to allow them despite the suffering they cause.
Posted by Think˛ (# 1984) on
:
The problem with that argument is that an omnipotent, omniscient being ought - by definition - to be able to create the two beneficial outcomes without the suffering. The fact that humans lack the ability to conceptualize how that might happen, doesn't in itself negate God's ability to do it.
It would also suggest that in heaven we have perfect happiness but no freedom and/or an environment in total flux.
[ 06. December 2010, 17:03: Message edited by: Think˛ ]
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
The problem with that argument is that an omnipotent, omniscient being ought - by definition - to be able to create the two beneficial outcomes without the suffering. The fact that humans lack the ability to conceptualize how that might happen, doesn't in itself negate God's ability to do it.
Sure, but that argument starts down the road to whether or not God could create a stone so heavy He couldn't lift it.
Admittedly, all of these rules are God's own creation. If there is a God. So maybe He could have done it better.
But if we are willing to admit to the possibility of there being a God, then it isn't too big a leap to accept the idea that laws such as gravity and the law of opposites are the best possible way to arrange things.
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
It would also suggest that in heaven we have perfect happiness but no freedom and/or an environment in total flux.
You would think. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
But actually, as I understand it, the environment works differently in heaven. Whereas in this world we experience an unstable inner environment but a stable outer one, it is the reverse in heaven.
In the spiritual realm the external world is completely dependent on each person's inner nature, and changes accordingly. Fortunately, by the time that a person is in heaven their inner world is stable, and so their outer one follows suit.
This is why life after death is a paradise, but only for those who are themselves a paradise, or who are willing to receive the paradise that God gives them.
But they are just as free in heaven. The difference is that, following the principle of "the rich get richer", everything about the heavenly environment reinforces stability, so people in heaven do not make evil choices.
It would be nice if the physical world acted in the same way, but it is specifically set up as a physical constant within which spiritual things can vary freely.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by molitva:
And one for everyone: why does there seem to be much more in the Bible about Hell than Heaven?
Orlando had an answer for this:
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
I would say it may be true that Jesus and the first Christians focussed mainly on resurrection for the saved, and not much on hell as a destination for others; but perhaps that the idea of eternal punishment for them gained ground due to persecution and people hoping for some especially unpleasant end for their enemies.
But of course Jesus mentions heaven many more times in the Gospels than He mentions hell. He just doesn't say much about what it's like.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
God obviously cannot create any sentient being with a guarantee that they will respond positively to existing in Him no matter what He does.
And He hasn't even started yet.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
God obviously cannot create any sentient being with a guarantee that they will respond positively to existing in Him no matter what He does.
It is interesting that the God who invented everything, including all possibilities and even notions like "cannot", would have made it the way that He did.
It is interesting that "suffering" should have ever even been a possibility and that it should exist as the opposite of joy. Isn't there a way that joy could be possible without automatically meaning that a lack of joy is also possible?
I am content to accept that the existence of "opposites" is a good thing, and that it is a good thing for a lack of joy to be the theoretical opposite of happiness.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
The opposite of joy is joylessness. Not suffering. The opposite of suffering is not suffering. That's a 2 x 2 matrix.
Posted by Freddy (# 365) on
:
Excellent point, Martin.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0