Ship of Fools: Forgiveness doctrine and sins you really should rot in hell for

Thread: Forgiveness doctrine and sins you really should rot in hell for Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023852

Posted by Reuben (# 11361) on :

See The 5th Mary's opening post in a current Hell debate for some context to this discussion.

The contention is that the individual responsible for the child abuse should be sodomized in hell for his action.

There seems to be tacit support from other posters that for such a sinful act it is indeed appropriate to consider said punishment.

I was also reading the Jim Wallace thread in Hell and reflecting in the fact that perhaps 40 years ago you would potentially have copped the 'rot in hell' comment for anyone caught fornicating in a homosexual manner. And perhaps (conjecture - not sure) 100 years ago fornication of the heterosexual variety was similarly condemned

My questions (glad you asked) are then:
1. how much should our 'rating' of various sins be viewed through our 'current cultural context' as opposed to 'God's perspective'
2. What is the list of 'rot in hell' sins (ie those that could fall outside God's act of grace in redeeming us to Him). Can we define such a list or does it simply not exist?
3. Is this list a moving feast that does simply respond to current culture and human wisdom or is there a deeper thought process here?

[ 08. September 2012, 12:09: Message edited by: Reuben ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I saw the 5th Mary's comment as hyperbole (and agreed with her)

But I don't believe in hell - so the line is, imo, a way of showing strong feelings.

What a quaint word 'fornication'! Do you use it in RL?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

(cross-posted with boogie)

To OP:

You draw a false equivalence between consensual and non-consensual sex acts, and imply that it's just a continual slide, and next week we will be okay with child molesters because we've gotten over wanting to eternally torment fornicators and gays.

That's kinda messed up, man.

[ 08. September 2012, 12:23: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Reuben:
1. how much should our 'rating' of various sins be viewed through our 'current cultural context' as opposed to 'God's perspective'

Dante put homosexuals and usurers in the same circle of Hell.

I wonder whether anyone in our contemporary culture would regard them as morally equivalent.

Posted by Reuben (# 11361) on :

quote:
What a quaint word 'fornication'! Do you use it in RL?

Boogie - nope. I guess I was reflecting the words that were possibly used by Christians of those times to describe such acts.

quote:
You draw a false equivalence between consensual and non-consensual sex acts, and imply that it's just a continual slide

Mousethief that is not at all my intention. I am not trying argue about a continual slide where the 'really bad' sins of today become normalised behaviours tomorrow and I certainly didn't intend to link consensual adult acts to non-consensual child abuse on some form of transitioning scale. I was abused as a child myself and have the utmost compassion for anyone who has endured anything similar.

My observation is more that the 'church' seems to pick on different sins as being badder (possibly in line with societal norms). If you go back 50 years, society probably by and large swept child abuse under the carpet. The church did likewise (and then some). Meanwhile back then and to this day, the 'church' has had a go at many sins such as divorce, fornication, drunkenness, and abortion over the years but remained quite silent on other sins as well. I am not sure how or who we rate which sins we decide to get on our soapbox about.

The deeper question here is about how we reconcile the foul deeds of those we consider most appalling to a God who at the time of their confession and reconciliation absolves them of all sin and guilt and welcomes them into his Kingdom.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Thank you for clearing that up. It really did look to me like you were making such an equivalence; I'm glad to learn you weren't.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

I have relatives, sad to say, that do believe some sins are worse than others and they put homosexuals at the top of the list for "rot in hell", though with still the option of repenting. In addition to disagreeing that homosexuality is a sin, I've never understood the concept that one sin is worse than the other in the eyes of God any sin is enough to bring judgment without the grace of God.

With respect to the thread referenced in the OP, the "may they rot in hell" is generally used to express anger at individuals for the harm they've caused someone else - especially if it's a child who is harmed.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

A very interesting question.

Yesterday I went to Alcatraz. As well as the usual tour which I found fascinating, at the end there was an exibition about this book: Nancy Mullane: Life After Murder profiling the stories of 5 convicted murderers who had been paroled - each after more than 2 decades behind bars.

It was interesting, to say the least. At the end there was a board inviting comments. A pile of Post-it notes and pens were provided. I didn't make a comment but I did read much of what was there.

They split roughly 50:50 along the lines of everyone deserves a second chance and let them rot in hell - with one comment literally saying that.

I have to say, I do feel challenged by it. I do believe in rehabilitation and a God who forgives, but when someone writes, "Where's the second chance for the victim?" I do find myself struggling...

On a more personal, spiritual note, that perhaps belongs on a different board, I've been reflecting a lot recently on the horrible state of our world - on the disgustingness of sin; the violence we commit to each other; the selfishness of so much of the West that will let the whole world go to hell as long as I'm comfortable... And a God who responds to that world with love and Grace.

quote:
Originally posted by Reuben:

quote:
You draw a false equivalence between consensual and non-consensual sex acts, and imply that it's just a continual slide
Mousethief that is not at all my intention. I am not trying argue about a continual slide where the 'really bad' sins of today become normalised behaviours tomorrow and I certainly didn't intend to link consensual adult acts to non-consensual child abuse on some form of transitioning scale. I was abused as a child myself and have the utmost compassion for anyone who has endured anything similar.

My observation is more that the 'church' seems to pick on different sins as being badder (possibly in line with societal norms). If you go back 50 years, society probably by and large swept child abuse under the carpet. The church did likewise (and then some). Meanwhile back then and to this day, the 'church' has had a go at many sins such as divorce, fornication, drunkenness, and abortion over the years but remained quite silent on other sins as well. I am not sure how or who we rate which sins we decide to get on our soapbox about.

The deeper question here is about how we reconcile the foul deeds of those we consider most appalling to a God who at the time of their confession and reconciliation absolves them of all sin and guilt and welcomes them into his Kingdom.

I'm glad you and Mousethief cleared that up or I think we would have been in danger of the distraction derrailing what I think will be an interesting thread.

One observation I would like to add though. You could actually argue things the other way round as well.

Child abuse comes in 4 general categories - and if we put aside the sexual for the moment. It is the case that the church has been guilty at times at tolerating (even encouraging?) physical abuse and neglect, not considering such things abuse at all. And, I am sure someone will correct me, if I'm wrong but was there not a time when the church would marry 13 year old girls to 25 year old men.

I know far too many victims of all forms of abuse and I see the scars that live on for years and years.

It is indeed true that what we consider sinful, never mind the greatest of sins has changed much over the years. In both directions.

Of course, the Unchanging One has the same view of sin throughout the ages; but for the grace of God it disqualifies us from His presence.

AFZ

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Reuben:
1. how much should our 'rating' of various sins be viewed through our 'current cultural context' as opposed to 'God's perspective'
2. What is the list of 'rot in hell' sins (ie those that could fall outside God's act of grace in redeeming us to Him). Can we define such a list or does it simply not exist?
3. Is this list a moving feast that does simply respond to current culture and human wisdom or is there a deeper thought process here?

My issue with this is that I think that it misunderstands the nature of sin and punishment. According to my understanding of what happens (which may be wrong) people don't "rot in hell" because they have committed certain "heinous" acts.

Rather, as I understand it, the interest in doing these things is self-destructive, however pleasurable they may appear to be. The so-called punishments of hell are completely organic. They are inherent in the desires themselves and in the actions that these desires lead to.

God in no way punishes people. Rather, He warns us against thoughts and actions that will have negative consequences for us, and those warnings often speak as if He were the one bringing about those consequences.

The consequences of evil do respond to current cultural contexts. If a culture teaches and believes that particular actions are good and reasonable, even if they are not, then people will often engage in them with good intentions and in sincerity of heart. This sincerity of heart goes a long way to mitigating the negative effects of destructive behaviors, enabling future change.

So people don't "rot in hell" for doing bad things. Rather, willing and doing bad things erodes a person's humanity, causing great harm and negatively impacting their future happiness. After death the life they choose for themselves will be less joyful and more filled with pain and disappointment. This is what hell is.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

Oh, and as for forgiveness, as I see it, it is really just about change.

When a person changes their actions and intentions the negative effects of those actions and intentions go away. This is called forgiveness.

It's like fixing your car. When you fix it the car works again, as if nothing had ever been wrong. It is forgiven.

Maybe a better example is healing from a sickness or a wound. When a cure is found, or the wound is treated, you gradually return to a normal state. Sometimes this lasts a long time, with lingering after-effects, and it depends on avoiding further trauma and infection. This is forgiveness.

The Bible speaks as if God is the one who grants forgiveness, and who holds the evil against you until forgiveness is granted. But the truth is that God is forgiveness itself and forgives all evils immediately. It's just that we can't receive the effects of His love until we stop re-opening the wound, as it were.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by Reuben:
1. how much should our 'rating' of various sins be viewed through our 'current cultural context' as opposed to 'God's perspective'

Dante put homosexuals and usurers in the same circle of Hell.

I wonder whether anyone in our contemporary culture would regard them as morally equivalent.

Possibly. Tonight I met a very drunk man who reckoned that homosexuals were even worse than Pakis. Beggars, students, paedophiles, and immigrants in general were almost as bad. Apparently there is no forgiveness for any of them and God will kill them all, very soon.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

And I felt really bad about it because the bloke seemed to be a completely incompetent drunk - he had just failed to go by train from Leyland to Rochdale and ended up in Manchester and got pissed because he said he couldn't work out how to get from Manchester to Rochdale and so went to a pub instead - and he burst out crying at various times for no obvious reason and there was nothing I could think of to say or do that would be any use.

And he hated people who don't work for a living, and his job is being a street sweeper and he is proud that he works and earns his own money but also thinks that that job is the "lowest of the low" and that people despise him for doing it. Which is unfortunately almost certainly true.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

And, triple posting, try listening to the song "Down there by the train" by Tom Waits. The Johnny Cash version is probably the most available one. Its relevant and, I hope, true.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And, triple posting, try listening to the song "Down there by the train" by Tom Waits. The Johnny Cash version is probably the most available one. Its relevant and, I hope, true.

Here it is. Relevant. Yes. True? I doubt it.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

If not true what hope for any of us?

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Reuben:
My questions (glad you asked) are then:
1. how much should our 'rating' of various sins be viewed through our 'current cultural context' as opposed to 'God's perspective'
2. What is the list of 'rot in hell' sins (ie those that could fall outside God's act of grace in redeeming us to Him). Can we define such a list or does it simply not exist?
3. Is this list a moving feast that does simply respond to current culture and human wisdom or is there a deeper thought process here?

1. It's almost all cultural. People who adhere to the idea of a list or rating system are really saying that they really wish that Christ hadn't died for other people, and second guessing God's judgment.

2. I don't think it exists. God doesn't say "I come to save sinners, except for pedophiles, Hitler, and telemarketers." He remained with some people who did some thoroughly rotten things, including David, who killed one of his soldiers in cold blood so he could bed the soldier's wife, and Paul, who before he found Christ was instrumental in the persecution and murder of Christians including Stephen.

3. See answer to 2. Any list seems to be a human creation used to pass eternal judgment upon others where it is not the place of humans to do so.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If not true what hope for any of us?

The hope is that if we improve then things will be better. If we get worse then things will be worse.

Doesn't everyone think this?

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
... I've never understood the concept that one sin is worse than the other in the eyes of God any sin is enough to bring judgment without the grace of God.

I'm really puzzled by this, so I assume that I'm misunderstanding you - care to elaborate?

It seems to me that this implies that God's judgment is always identical in every situation and is always an all-or-nothing proposition with no differentiation. Do two different sins such as taking pride in doing some good deed on the one hand and blaspheming the Holy Spirit on the other both warrant the very same judgment from God? And if God sees more than we do rather than less, then where we see a relatively "minor" sin such as pride, does God see it as being equivalent to a sin such as murderous hatred on the inside?

I'm not saying that I think you would necessarily agree, only that based on what you seem to be saying, such conclusions seem like they would be logical consequences (with the hope that you can help me see how I've misunderstood). I can understand the concept that any sin is enough to bring judgment without the grace of God, but I don't see how it follows that in God's eyes, one sin cannot be worse than another.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

I think that some sins are definitely worse (in a variety of different ways; some might be more or less harmful to others, some might be more or less willful, some might be mitigated or made worse by circumstances or knowledge of what one is doing, etc.) than others.

I also believe that God will forgive anyone who is willing to accept His grace, whether their sins are less bad or worse. (What little I can make sense of the famous "sin against the Holy Spirit" is that it must involve some sort of permanent rejection of that grace, rather than something really horrible but repentable.)

Posted by The5thMary (# 12953) on :

As in happens, I have had time to think and pray about many things these last couple of days. I don't believe that my s.o.'s stepfather should burn in Hell. I think he's already in Hell and what I've come to understand is that he needs prayer. He needs God's love and forgiveness. I now pray that he "gets it", that sometime soon he has a horrible epiphany about the abuse he committed against my wife and her female cousins (I just recently found out he raped other relatives and did a whole 30 days for his crimes. Gee, that was justice served, hunh?!) and he repents of all of it. If he just keeps on truckin' through life and never admits to the abuse, never tries to make amends for it, never seeks forgiveness of it... well, I just have this notion that he will face God's wrath and that it won't be pretty. My wife's mother needs to do the same thing instead of just breezing through her daughter's life and never talking about what happened. Our God IS most definitely an awesome God and He/She can heal all wounds but only if we confess to them in the first place. and that's all I have to say about that.

Posted by kankucho (# 14318) on :

I've scrolled rather more quickly down this thread than I did before posting much the same opinion in the concurrent 'Redemption' thread, so forgive me if I'm talking over anyone...

The opinions cited in the OP are none of our damn(!) business as statements of universal right and wrong. They are merely expressions of the subject's own anger - even of their own hellish condition of feeling powerless to effect what they consider to be appropriate secular justice.

My own Buddhist tradition holds, similarly to Christianity, than inner revolution is possible in all beings, at all times. The terrible acts we're discussing here are themselves expressions of a hell already being suffered by the offenders; a compulsion to act on ruinous base instincts, which is further locked in when those actions are carried out. But those acts and their consequences don't fully define the person - who is equally, inherently, capable of doing great good. Conversion experiences I've known (both Christian and Buddhist) have told of being totally locked in to ruinous behaviours of all kinds, and then 'seeing the light' in a moment of revelation. For that to happen in so many individuals who have been so thoroughly 'lost' is surely an indication of an innate potential for that to happen in everyone. The light is always there, waiting to be seen.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If not true what hope for any of us?
The hope is that if we improve then things will be better. If we get worse then things will be worse.

Doesn't everyone think this?

Its not the teaching of historical orthodox Christianity, which is that our hope is in the unmerited grace of God.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Thanks to a link from slacktivist, I offer a story about Archbishop Oscar Romero (scroll down through the blog entry)

Apparently even Romero was flummoxed by this conundrum.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If not true what hope for any of us?
The hope is that if we improve then things will be better. If we get worse then things will be worse.

Doesn't everyone think this?
Its not the teaching of historical orthodox Christianity, which is that our hope is in the unmerited grace of God.

Oh, OK.

Doesn't it make you wonder about the logic of this teaching?

I think that the Christian understanding of "unmerited grace" is completely wrong.

I do agree that all things are through the unmerited grace of God, since all things are according to His mercy. I also agree that there is nothing at all that truly belongs to us or is merited by us. We are merely receptacles of the life that comes from God. Claiming merit for "goodness" is wrong.

But to apply this true idea to the concept of forgiveness in such a way as to count sin as something that displeases God and punishment as something that He metes out, unless He forgives it, is not helpful. It completely discounts what sin even is, or even why it is called sin.

Much better to compare sin to something that keeps a car from running, or that makes a person unhealthy or sick. These things can't simply be excused, they need to be fixed. So this is what forgiveness is, and it happens when the problem, or the sin, is "fixed."

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Reuben:

1. how much should our 'rating' of various sins be viewed through our 'current cultural context' as opposed to 'God's perspective'

Sorry to be very simplistic (or provocative) but which answers so far have been from God's perspective?

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:

quote:
Originally posted by Reuben:

1. how much should our 'rating' of various sins be viewed through our 'current cultural context' as opposed to 'God's perspective'
Sorry to be very simplistic (or provocative) but which answers so far have been from God's perspective?

Well e.g. our current cultural context (to use the OP phrase) is to regard any sin against a child as inherently worse than such a sin against an adult. But if God really is eternal and ageless, is it really likely that - from his perspective - there is a great deal of difference between being violent to a child and being violent to an adult?

Or, looking at the bigger question, is it relevant or helpful to think of God as a judge with sentencing guidelines?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
But if God really is eternal and ageless, is it really likely that - from his perspective - there is a great deal of difference between being violent to a child and being violent to an adult?

Yes it is very likely. There is an infinite number of gradations between very small offenses and very large offenses. The nature of the vicitim is one of many factors. So being violent is not good. Being violent for a noble cause is better. Being violent against someone who is innocent is worse. The number of factors is huge.

But to rank all offenses as equal in God's eyes makes little sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Or, looking at the bigger question, is it relevant or helpful to think of God as a judge with sentencing guidelines?

It is not relevant or helpful. God loves everyone, wicked or saintly. He does not look at us like a judge. He does not sentence us.

Rather, our own behavior and its inherent consequences is what sentences us. Just as every behavior is different, so every consequence is different, and everything varies according to factors too numerous to count.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Our human 'rating' of various sins will always vary according to culture, but when set against God's perfect standard what we see as minor will be major imv.

Whatever we see as 'rot in hell' sins are barriers to our loving those who have committed them as ourselves. Love brings compassion for those who have harmed themselves spiritually by their physical actions, as well as for those they have have harmed. At some point, whether in this life or after it, I believe that we will all have to face God and become conscious of the agony of any sins we have not faced up to.

God's grace will be given where it's given. His forgiveness is not ours to mete out, but for us to request. Our own forgiveness of others and ourselves depends upon our acceptance of the inexcusable sin for the evil it is, and releasing ourselves from its power by handing it on to God.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

What difference does it make for a universalist to consign someone to something you don't or can't believe in?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Thanks Horseman Bree, with tears. St. Oscar.

... But [Smile]

NO-ONE goes to Hell without going through PERFECT Judgement. No-one. Without being deconstructed, de-adapted, healed. Loved. If they still want their autonomy, they can have it.

Blow Torch Bob D'Aubuisson will have to face the LOVE of God. It would be easier to face His wrath.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:

quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl:
... I've never understood the concept that one sin is worse than the other in the eyes of God any sin is enough to bring judgment without the grace of God.
I'm really puzzled by this, so I assume that I'm misunderstanding you - care to elaborate?

It seems to me that this implies that God's judgment is always identical in every situation and is always an all-or-nothing proposition with no differentiation. Do two different sins such as taking pride in doing some good deed on the one hand and blaspheming the Holy Spirit on the other both warrant the very same judgment from God? And if God sees more than we do rather than less, then where we see a relatively "minor" sin such as pride, does God see it as being equivalent to a sin such as murderous hatred on the inside?

I'm not saying that I think you would necessarily agree, only that based on what you seem to be saying, such conclusions seem like they would be logical consequences (with the hope that you can help me see how I've misunderstood). I can understand the concept that any sin is enough to bring judgment without the grace of God, but I don't see how it follows that in God's eyes, one sin cannot be worse than another.

Sorry for the late reply. What I mean is that any sin is enough to justify God's judgement - be it pride or murder. Sin is separation from God. That doesn't mean that God can't show mercy and judgement is his, but to think that whatever sin we're holding on to isn't as bad as someone else's is just self deception.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

Thanks for the reply. So when you say that "sin is separation from God" do you mean that there are no degrees distinguishing between a little bit of separation and a lot of separation? Just separated completely or not separated at all?

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

Since most of us will be "scarcely saved" ourselves, "plucked from the flames" as it were, I don't think we have any right to make judgements about which sins deserve hell.

Let God decide this, and be merciful, as he is merciful.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:

... But NO-ONE goes to Hell without going through PERFECT Judgement. No-one. Without being deconstructed, de-adapted, healed. Loved. If they still want their autonomy, they can have it.

This

And I see hell as non-existence, not some kind of torture chamber.

[ 11. September 2012, 07:28: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If they still want their autonomy, they can have it.

You make autonomy sound like a bad thing. Was that your intention?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
If they still want their autonomy, they can have it.
You make autonomy sound like a bad thing. Was that your intention?

In a sense people willingly surrender their autonomy when they become angels. The reason is that they not only know and believe that all good come from God but they sensibly perceive it.

The result, however, is that this also makes them feel all the more that their life is their own.

Posted by Stowaway (# 139) on :

When you come up with your list of unforgivable sins..

They are the ones that require forgiveness.

You can probably just excuse the others.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Aye Marvin the Martian, autonomy in creation is axiomatically evil to me. All evil flows from it.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Because I've trying (mostly in vain) to understand evil, I've returned to reading about the interrogations and interviews with Nazi leaders for the Nuremberg trails in the fall of 1945 and thereafter, and Eichmann in Jerusalem. What is quite clear is that people who have done very great evil seem quite similar to those who have done lesser evils, once the flagrantly crazy people are set aside of the discussion. The average Nazi war criminal makes up excuses, justifies their actions, reasons away responsibility, blames others (particularly dead guys), and deflects the focus on how they've harmed others by focussing instead on their personal situations as caught and with clichés about victor's justice.

Maybe sin and evil are products of excessive self-focus and self centredness? I'm having trouble reconciling the tremendous evils that have been done, both en masse to many, and in the specific terrible things done to individuals in isolation to the concept that forgiveness may be offered to all who ask. In theory this idea is appealing, as a matter of justice, it seems a little pale.

But then Eustace did have a lot of pain as Aslan clawfully removed layer after layer of his dragon skin until he became a boy again in CS Lewis' Dawn Treader. I like the idea of possibly forgiveness offered to all, but for some people/sins, they must be skinned first, several times, with much pain. I like the Eustace story much better than Edmund's in Lion, Witch & Wardrobe for that reason, Edmund really didn't get hammered severely enough in Lewis' narrative IMHO.

[ 11. September 2012, 21:49: Message edited by: no prophet ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Sin is double-edged - it hurts the person sinned against and it damages the person who commits the sin.

And although those are separate impacts, each significant in its own right and neither reducible to the other. Yet in a strange way, the person who sets out to repair the damage caused by their trespass, who recompenses and humbly seeks forgiveness from their victim, finds that in the act of so doing that their own wound is healed.

But I guess this thread is really about those who don't repent in that way and whether the punishment of eternal torment in hell is ever appropriate.

Seems to me that when a parent punishes a child, it is essentially an act of communication. It tries to say loudly clearly and memorably that such-and-such is something that you DO NOT DO.

To the extent that public opinion was in favour of Gulf War 1 , it was because the US-led action to liberate Kuwait sent a clear message that invading other countries is something you DO NOT DO - a punitive response.

Now of course there is a large element of political calculation when any nation decides to embark on a war of any sort. That's what politicians are paid for. What I'm getting at is the nature of the urge to punish.

If society's only concern in dealing with unrepentant criminals is protecting itself from their likely future actions, there are ways of doing this - execution, transport to Australia, locking them up and throwing away the key. But in those instances there's no need to communicate anything. It matters not in the slightest whether Australia is in fact a more pleasant country to live in than the one they're being transported from - it's not a punishment - it's simply an act of self-defence.

Justice involves recompense to the victim - the old Norse system of Wergild was a way of trying to rebalance the scales.

Thus eternal suffering for the sake of suffering is neither justice, nor self-defence, nor punishment in the true sense.

What is it then ? Just the extremest form of the urge to hurt those who have hurt or offended us. The animal instinct to meet violence with violence. The sin of wrath.

Don't go there.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Confrontation with love is always painful. For all concerned. That's all of us. Including God. You are echoing my reply on Irredeemable no prophet.

I'm happy to believe in rotting in Hell if that's how God has to love the hell out of us. If that doesn't work, even something as bad as that perpetrated by the GCU Grey Area on a genocidist (making him be every one of his victims) in Ian M. Banks' Excession, nothing will.

I think me old mate John Polkinghorne (I said good evening to him in a Northampton University car park) echoed Dante as the only solution to that is at absolute zero in Cocytus. Annihilation.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Tonight I met a very drunk man who reckoned that homosexuals were even worse than Pakis. Beggars, students, paedophiles, and immigrants in general were almost as bad. Apparently there is no forgiveness for any of them and God will kill them all, very soon.

You met St Paul?

Posted by Anna B (# 1439) on :

Thank you Adeodatus, that has inspired me to start a new thread in Heaven.

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Tonight I met a very drunk man who reckoned that homosexuals were even worse than Pakis. Beggars, students, paedophiles, and immigrants in general were almost as bad. Apparently there is no forgiveness for any of them and God will kill them all, very soon.
You met St Paul?

I'm sorry I simply don't understand your comment. I can see that you're trying to be funny but it's just a bit strange - Paul only mentions homosexuality once (and that reference in Romans is not anywhere near what fundamentalists say). Not to mention that Paul called himself the chief of sinners and a recipient of grace.

Sorry, just confused... [Confused]

AFZ

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
But then Eustace did have a lot of pain as Aslan clawfully removed layer after layer of his dragon skin until he became a boy again in CS Lewis' Dawn Treader. I like the idea of possibly forgiveness offered to all, but for some people/sins, they must be skinned first, several times, with much pain.

Yes, and this all seems to point to some sort of "purgatory", as does the first epistle of St. Peter.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I'm sorry I simply don't understand your comment.

I'm the first to admit I'm very biassed about St Paul. If it was up to me, not only would 80% of what he wrote not be in the NT, it would be loaded into a medieval catapult and twanged into the nearest tree. Birds could then make their nests out of it, which would be good. It's just that when I get to those bits of his where he delightfully enumerates those who won't inherit the kingdom, I imagine him going off on a sweaty-browed, vein-pulsing rant, his long-suffering scribe editing out the expletives and the repetitions of "And I'll tell you another thing...!!"

YMMV [Biased]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0