|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Eternal, conscious torment. Why?
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Here's the formula:
1. God is love.
2. God loves his enemies, because, according to Jesus, this is a reflection of his perfection.
3. God does not change, and certainly if we believe that Jesus is himself God and reveals the true nature of God, then he is the same 'forever'.
4. God's mercy endures forever.
5. God desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
Now if we put all this together logically, what do we arrive at? We have a God who loves his enemies (which follows from his perfect nature), and who desires all people to be saved, and who does not change for all eternity. Therefore it follows that God must desire the salvation of every person damned to hell. Thus it must be possible for a damned soul to escape hell.
Now if such a soul cannot escape hell, then it must be for the following two reasons:
1. He does not want to.
2. The nature of hell prevents repentance, even if both the damned soul wants it and God wants it.
Reason #2 here undermines the authority of God, who reigns supreme for all eternity, and whose will cannot be thwarted (other than, presumably, by human free will, given that God's will involves a respect for human free will). Therefore this reason can be dismissed. leaving only reason #1.
But why would a God who "takes no pleasure in the death of him who dies" and who "does not afflict willingly" keep people in a state of conscious torment?
Either he is a liar and a sadist (in which case, he does not exist anyway, because how could we judge the Maker of our own rationality without undermining the validity of our own rationality and therefore the basis of our judgment of God?) or he permits consciousness to the damned for the one purpose he has for them, namely, their salvation. Free will obviously can only function within a conscious being, so if God denied a person his consciousness, then he would also deny him his free will, and thus also the possibility of escape from hell.
If the nature of hell destroys a person's free will - or locks it into an immutable state of rebellion - then there is no need for that person to possess consciousness. The only reason would be the vindictiveness of the judge who consigned the soul to that place (although I believe that a temporary punishment - especially for particularly heinous crimes - is a just punishment that may not necessarily reflect any vindictiveness on the part of the judge). If that is the case, then the Bible contains the mother of all contradictions concerning the nature of God. Or if consciousness is intrinsic to a person's being, such that God could never destroy it even if he wanted to, then how come he is able to create beings in which consciousness can be suspended - i.e. human beings in this world who can be subject to general anaesthesia? If anaesthesia is a possibility in this world, then it is a possibility in any future world, because God clearly has the power to create an environment in which consciousness can be switched off for an undefined period of time.
I don't think it's unreasonable for "hell believing" Christians to be under an obligation to give an explanation as to why it appears that the Bible asserts the reality of eternal consciousness in those subject to the most severe punishment. I offer here my explanation. It means that hell cannot be an eternal imposition, but is only eternal for those who choose it to be so (and I am of the view that they choose this as a result of a personal conceit which prevents them from worshipping a superior being). Those who wish to escape this fate, can do so, presumably after some period of purgatorial cleansing (otherwise they would never have gone to hell in the first place).
Others, I am sure, will take a different view...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
From the title, I was expecting a thread on posting styles in Purgatory...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Well, someone is soon to jump on here and tell you that eternal conscious torment is there "because the Bible tells me so". And you'll get the whole Calvinist and RC arguments about God's justice (a real crap god, if you ask me). However, I'd like to suggest another reason that the idea of eternal hell doesn't work to my mind. If the ultimate end of the Creation is for all things to be at peace, the notion of a segment of our (and perhaps other) species suffering eternally contradicts the idea of a Creation at perfect peace in God.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
computergeek
Apprentice
# 17826
|
Posted
Can someone help me on this?
I need an orthodox Protestant explanation based on the Bible for the concept of eternal conscious suffering in Hell.
I've been taught that its too late after physical death to repent and to accept Christ as Lord and Saviour. This has to be done in this life.
Please help a confused new believer.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Either he is a liar and a sadist (in which case, he does not exist anyway, because how could we judge the Maker of our own rationality without undermining the validity of our own rationality and therefore the basis of our judgment of God?) or he permits consciousness to the damned for the one purpose he has for them, namely, their salvation.
One way out of the conundrum is to use the rhetorical trick highlighted above. Simply redefine terms to fit pre-existing assumptions. If "God's mercy endures forever" and God can define mercy however He likes, then whatever action God takes, like the eternal conscious torment of whichever humans He's decided He dislikes, is merciful by definition.
On the other hand, if you truly believe that it is impossible to think rationally about God, what do you hope to accomplish with this thread?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
One way out of the conundrum is to use the rhetorical trick highlighted above. Simply redefine terms to fit pre-existing assumptions. If "God's mercy endures forever" and God can define mercy however He likes, then whatever action God takes, like the eternal conscious torment of whichever humans He's decided He dislikes, is merciful by definition.
The only problem with that comment, is that I did not use a rhetorical trick, but rather a logical argument. CS Lewis put it well:
quote:
If a Brute and Blackguard made the world, then he also made our minds. If he made our minds, he also made that very standard in them whereby we judge him to be a Brute and Blackguard. And how can we trust a standard which comes from such a brutal and blackguardly source? If we reject him, we ought also to reject all his works. But one of his works is this very moral standard by which we reject him. If we accept this standard then we are really implying that he is not a Brute and Blackguard. If we reject it, then we have thrown away the only instrument by which we can condemn him. Heroic anti-theism thus has a contradiction in its centre. You must trust the universe in one respect even in order to condemn it in every other.
Some impeccable logic from the essay De Futilitate from the book 'Christian Reflections'
As for redefining mercy however we like... errrm, nope... that is not what I am doing, but the very opposite.
quote:
On the other hand, if you truly believe that it is impossible to think rationally about God, what do you hope to accomplish with this thread?
Where have I said that it is impossible to think rationally about God?
Nothing could be further from my mind or intention. All I said is that it is irrational to conclude that God is a rogue, if you also believe that he made your mind. Because on what basis can you make such a judgment, if the very tools you use have come from such a corrupt source? If that is not a logical argument, then I don't know what is!
Perhaps if you really think that it is illogical, then you may like to explain why. I would be most intrigued to read your answer...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Well, someone is soon to jump on here and tell you that eternal conscious torment is there "because the Bible tells me so".
If the Word of God is to be immediately discarded as evidence in this argument, then I can't see that orthodox Christians can have much to say in it.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
Can someone help me on this?
I need an orthodox Protestant explanation based on the Bible for the concept of eternal conscious suffering in Hell.
You could try
Erasing Hell by Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle for such a view. Though I did rather savage it in my review.
For my part, I still hold tentatively to annihilationism, as it seems to make the most sense biblically.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
If the Word of God is to be immediately discarded as evidence in this argument, then I can't see that orthodox Christians can have much to say in it.
Well, all I can say is that the OP contains numerous references from the Bible - with links too!
So how about actually looking at the biblical evidence?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
One way out of the conundrum is to use the rhetorical trick highlighted above. Simply redefine terms to fit pre-existing assumptions. If "God's mercy endures forever" and God can define mercy however He likes, then whatever action God takes, like the eternal conscious torment of whichever humans He's decided He dislikes, is merciful by definition.
The only problem with that comment, is that I did not use a rhetorical trick, but rather a logical argument. CS Lewis put it well:
quote:
If a Brute and Blackguard made the world, then he also made our minds. If he made our minds, he also made that very standard in them whereby we judge him to be a Brute and Blackguard. And how can we trust a standard which comes from such a brutal and blackguardly source? If we reject him, we ought also to reject all his works. But one of his works is this very moral standard by which we reject him. If we accept this standard then we are really implying that he is not a Brute and Blackguard. If we reject it, then we have thrown away the only instrument by which we can condemn him. Heroic anti-theism thus has a contradiction in its centre. You must trust the universe in one respect even in order to condemn it in every other.
Some impeccable logic from the essay De Futilitate from the book 'Christian Reflections'
As for redefining mercy however we like... errrm, nope... that is not what I am doing, but the very opposite.
Thanks for re-iterating my point. If God is the author of morality, as you maintain, then under that argument any actions taken by God, such as the eternal, conscious torment of mortals He doesn't like, must therefore be moral and right. Any qualms we might feel about such actions, according to your argument, are invalid since they would call into question the means by which we make moral determinations. Problem solved!
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
On the other hand, if you truly believe that it is impossible to think rationally about God, what do you hope to accomplish with this thread?
Where have I said that it is impossible to think rationally about God?
Right here:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Either he is a liar and a sadist (in which case, he does not exist anyway, because how could we judge the Maker of our own rationality without undermining the validity of our own rationality and therefore the basis of our judgment of God?) or he permits consciousness to the damned for the one purpose he has for them, namely, their salvation.
This argument is essentially that making rational judgements about God is invalid.
I'm not sure how you missed this, since I put in in my original post.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
If you don't believe in God, why would you be worried about damnation? It's just a story, right?
If you believe in God, you needn't worry about damnation.
Hell is all the rejection of God leaves you. If you haven't rejected God, but simply have never been convinced of him, then again, why are you worried?
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Hell = self created.
Heaven = God created.
Yes, salvation is available to all. Torment will need to be specifically chosen to be experienced. Most probably even post-life the choice can still be made for 'my way' or 'God's way'. God has the power to provide salvation to anyone, anytime.
Now we could debate the nature of the salvation. I suspect it has more to do with life's immediate process of being lived than a process of die then get rewarded.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Hell = self created.
Heaven = God created.
Yes, salvation is available to all. Torment will need to be specifically chosen to be experienced. Most probably even post-life the choice can still be made for 'my way' or 'God's way'. God has the power to provide salvation to anyone, anytime.
Exactly. There was mention on here recently, wasn't there, of the 'empty Hell' idea?
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Well, someone is soon to jump on here and tell you that eternal conscious torment is there "because the Bible tells me so".
If the Word of God is to be immediately discarded as evidence in this argument, then I can't see that orthodox Christians can have much to say in it.
Tangent Alert: does Christian orthodoxy demand that we take the Scriptures as entirely literal, non-metaphorical in any case, non-mythological throughout, not culturally influenced, and even just plain wrong or immoral in the context of modern society (approval of the institution of slavery, social oppression of women, etc, etc)? It seems to me that orthodoxy requires that we engage with the forumularies of the historic Church(the historic Creeds, core doctrinal statements such as the Chalcedonian definition, etc)and with the biblical canon in order to discern their meaning for us in our own day, and in our own faith journey, calling upon reason, our lived experience, andthe totality of available knowledge about the world, amongst other considerations.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I quite like the Orthodox view (well, by some Orthodox), that the real torment is being loved. This has the virtue of being both tragic and comic.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Hell = self created.
Heaven = God created.
Yes, salvation is available to all. Torment will need to be specifically chosen to be experienced. Most probably even post-life the choice can still be made for 'my way' or 'God's way'. God has the power to provide salvation to anyone, anytime.
Who would purposely choose to be tormented?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Hell = self created.
Heaven = God created.
Yes, salvation is available to all. Torment will need to be specifically chosen to be experienced. Most probably even post-life the choice can still be made for 'my way' or 'God's way'. God has the power to provide salvation to anyone, anytime.
Who would purposely choose to be tormented?
Exactly.
Though there are people who do just that, aren't there?
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Thanks for re-iterating my point.
No need to thank me for something I didn't do.
quote:
If God is the author of morality, as you maintain, then under that argument any actions taken by God, such as the eternal, conscious torment of mortals He doesn't like, must therefore be moral and right. Any qualms we might feel about such actions, according to your argument, are invalid since they would call into question the means by which we make moral determinations. Problem solved!
You have misunderstood the argument, I'm afraid.
You are assuming that God actually does subject people he doesn't like to eternal conscious torment. But that is precisely the point which is being questioned. You certainly would have a point if we knew for certain that this is what God actually does, and we also believe him to be the Creator of our rationality (how could God, by definition, not be?). Then we would have no grounds for having qualms about such a practice. But like I said, your premise of asserting knowledge of something which is uncertain, is, of course, invalid.
Now if we do have qualms about this proposed practice, then what are our qualms based on? If based on reason, then, given that our minds have been created by God, we should come to the point of understanding this practice, such that we would no longer feel disturbed about it. In other words, our reason would have been corrected (not replaced) by God's reason. We would actually understand what it is all about.
If, on the other hand, our reason (which can only be legitimate reason if it is line with our Creator's reason, as logic clearly states) prevents us from accepting the morality of this practice, then obviously we would have to question whether, in fact, this practice is of God. In other words, we would question your hasty premise.
After having conducted our investigation, we conclude that there is no way that we can accept that it is morally right for God to force people to be eternally and consciously tormented, but yet for some reason, we are convinced that God still actually does this, then we have a problem. We are then in a situation where we are convinced that the creator of our minds is irrational. We could just consign this to the realm of mystery, I suppose (which I think is rather a cop-out, because anyone can resort to that argument about any claim whatsoever), or we could embrace atheism, on the grounds that we cannot co-exist with such a God, as I argued, since we cannot rationally judge the creator of our minds to be irrational. (Unfortunately atheism doesn't really help, because then our rationality has to be explained solely with reference to mindless nature, which, of course, throws up its own problems and absurdities). But how we could ever actually come to the position of being convinced that God does something which we have concluded is irrational, is rather bizarre anyway.
So your criticism of my point is based on a false premise. Good try, though...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
Why do people choose to make this life a "hell" for themselves? Over-spending on things they don't need and don't even particularly want a few days later, ignoring friends or even their kids until the relationships grow distant instead of nurturing, getting drunk and painfully hungover again and again, etc.
We make our own hell, here and "there." We can seek to change or we can not bother. If some people eternally make their own lives an unnecessary hell, is that God's fault?
I don't believe God locks anyone unwillingly in a cage called hell. But if some people perpetually refuse to accept that love matters far more than wealth, status, power over others, etc, they will hate being in an environment where wealth status etc are of no interest, making what is heaven for others a private hell for themselves.
Hell is not an imposed punishment but a natural effect of choosing a set of values that are inconsistent with enjoying heaven.
Anyone is welcome to change at anytime. Perhaps some never will, but that's not God's fault. If the Elder Brother refuses to attend the party even though he's welcome, who is imposing the "punishment?" - not the party giver!
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
Who would purposely choose to be tormented?
Those who are too proud to bow down to and worship a superior being, perhaps?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
If God is the author of morality, as you maintain, then under that argument any actions taken by God, such as the eternal, conscious torment of mortals He doesn't like, must therefore be moral and right. Any qualms we might feel about such actions, according to your argument, are invalid since they would call into question the means by which we make moral determinations. Problem solved!
You have misunderstood the argument, I'm afraid.
You are assuming that God actually does subject people he doesn't like to eternal conscious torment. But that is precisely the point which is being questioned. You certainly would have a point if we knew for certain that this is what God actually does, and we also believe him to be the Creator of our rationality (how could God, by definition, not be?). Then we would have no grounds for having qualms about such a practice.[QB] But like I said, your premise of asserting knowledge of something which is uncertain, is, of course, invalid.
I don't think we need certainty on this point. Your argument is that if God subjects people to eternal conscious torment, it is definitionally a moral act. If he doesn't do so, then there's nothing to argue about. Either way, there's no controversy.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If, on the other hand, our reason [QB](which can only be legitimate reason if it is line with our Creator's reason, as logic clearly states) prevents us from accepting the morality of this practice, then obviously we would have to question whether, in fact, this practice is of God.
I'm not sure that a process which can only confirm pre-existing conclusions qualifies as "reason".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
One way out of the conundrum is to use the rhetorical trick highlighted above. Simply redefine terms to fit pre-existing assumptions. If "God's mercy endures forever" and God can define mercy however He likes, then whatever action God takes, like the eternal conscious torment of whichever humans He's decided He dislikes, is merciful by definition.
The only problem with that comment, is that I did not use a rhetorical trick, but rather a logical argument. CS Lewis put it well:
C.S. Lewis is, as usual, using pretty words to disguise a lack of thought, understanding, or knowledge of the world. And I will admit he is superb as a third rate apologist, writing fine prose to disguise an empty message.
quote:
If a Brute and Blackguard made the world, then he also made our minds. If he made our minds, he also made that very standard in them whereby we judge him to be a Brute and Blackguard.
This would make sense if and only if we were incapable of learning. My mind is not the same one I had thirty years ago. It's not the same one I had twenty years ago. And it's not the same one I had ten years ago. However I am aware that my mind is faulty, I learn things, and I double check my assumptions, often throwing them out. I am capable of formal logic and of structuring out a lot of my thought processes so that they can be checked by both myself and others for this.
In short I learn. And were I to meet even the 18 year old version of myself we'd be in for long and potentially angry conversations. Lewis, however, is claiming that learning is impossible.
quote:
And how can we trust a standard which comes from such a brutal and blackguardly source? If we reject him, we ought also to reject all his works. But one of his works is this very moral standard by which we reject him.
[Citation needed]
My moral understanding does not come exclusively from my unconsidered reactions (although to be fair, Lewis' seemed to and he placed a massively high value on cosiness as evidenced especially by the Narnia books). My moral understanding has grown over time, from taking in the perspectives of others and from my own experiences. And it has moved on from the naive positions that are all that Lewis' arguments hold to.
quote:
If we accept this standard then we are really implying that he is not a Brute and Blackguard.
And this line too is bullshit. Even if we assume that humans are incapable of checking our assumptions, incapable of learning, of empathy, or of formal logic, there is absolutely nothing preventing a brute and a blackguard promoting noble ideals. It just makes such a being a hypocritical brute and blakguard.
quote:
If we reject it, then we have thrown away the only instrument by which we can condemn him. Heroic anti-theism thus has a contradiction in its centre. You must trust the universe in one respect even in order to condemn it in every other.
Every single one of his premises is something I have just shown to be faulty in at least my case if not his. The conclusion falls if even one single premise does. Therefore his conclusion is based on sand.
And I no more trust my observations of the universe than I trust the evidence of my own eyes. It gives me a place to start, that is all. And the equipment is faulty. So I need to cross check things. Lewis seems to find this approach beyond imagining.
And I don't think Lewis has even heard of emergent complexity.
[ 18. September 2013, 15:56: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I don't know that people choose to be tormented. I think they may create Hell on Earth for themselves because they see only a choice of hellish alternatives. Some of them can probably be helped.
A comment I heard once is that while one is required to believe in Hell, one is not required to believe that Hell actually has any occupants. Who can say?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
Can someone help me on this?
I need an orthodox Protestant explanation based on the Bible for the concept of eternal conscious suffering in Hell.
I've been taught that its too late after physical death to repent and to accept Christ as Lord and Saviour. This has to be done in this life.
Please help a confused new believer.
What a strange question. Not, 'what is the Biblical explanation of Hell'?, but, 'provide a Biblical justification for my own prior judgement on the issue'.
There are plenty of orthodox Protestant apologetics for the existence of conscious eternal torment, but I'm fascinated as to why you 'need' this specific interpretation rather than any other. Care to elaborate?
For myself, I'm a cautious annihilationist, as I think it makes the most sense biblically. But I respect the arguments for eternal conscious torment.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Your argument is that if God subjects people to eternal conscious torment, it is definitionally a moral act.
Is that my argument?
No, my argument is that we, as rational beings, have the capacity and the moral right to assess the morality and rationality of this proposed practice of subjecting people to eternal, conscious torment. If we believe in God (and if we don't, then the whole subject is irrelevant anyway), then we obviously believe that He created our rationality. Therefore, if we conclude that such a practice is, in our view, immoral and irrational, and we hold this in good faith, then we cannot simultaneously believe in a creator God who does implement this course of action. I think that is rather obvious.
But what you seem to be saying is that the mere fact that God has created our minds means that we have no grounds to question anything that is claimed of Him, because to disagree with God is to disagree with our own rationality. But the point is that we don't know that what is claimed of God actually is of God!
So while ultimately a believer has to agree with God, he is still on a journey of discovery as to what really is of God. This thread is, I hope, part of that journey. Therefore, in my view, it has a purpose.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Why do people choose to make this life a "hell" for themselves? Over-spending on things they don't need and don't even particularly want a few days later, ignoring friends or even their kids until the relationships grow distant instead of nurturing, getting drunk and painfully hungover again and again, etc.
We make our own hell, here and "there." We can seek to change or we can not bother. If some people eternally make their own lives an unnecessary hell, is that God's fault?
I don't believe God locks anyone unwillingly in a cage called hell. But if some people perpetually refuse to accept that love matters far more than wealth, status, power over others, etc, they will hate being in an environment where wealth status etc are of no interest, making what is heaven for others a private hell for themselves.
Hell is not an imposed punishment but a natural effect of choosing a set of values that are inconsistent with enjoying heaven.
Anyone is welcome to change at anytime. Perhaps some never will, but that's not God's fault. If the Elder Brother refuses to attend the party even though he's welcome, who is imposing the "punishment?" - not the party giver!
^ This!
As I see Lewis has been mentioned, I'll just add that I've often had cause to reflect that nine-tenths of 'why does God do this thing I don't really believe he does but want you to defend even though you don't either' quibbling would dissolve if the word 'prig' was brought back into general use as it was in his time. Perhaps the reason we no longer have the word is that we live in a priggish culture, and don't want to hear it called by its name.
[ 18. September 2013, 16:04: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I don't believe God locks anyone unwillingly in a cage called hell. But if some people perpetually refuse to accept that love matters far more than wealth, status, power over others, etc, they will hate being in an environment where wealth status etc are of no interest, making what is heaven for others a private hell for themselves
I think most of us would agree with this point, but what I find unacceptable is the idea that it has to be so for all eternity. We can all put ourselves in hell by our wrongful thoughts and deeds, but eternal punishment for them isn't justice, because all human sin, however grave, is finite, infinite punishment isn't. Christianity usually teaches that the door remains open only as long as we are alive in the flesh, and after that, our eternal state is fixed. This is what I can nevr accept.
Perhaps a lot of suffering is needed to burn the insolent pride out of some od us, but what of those who "come to their senses" on the other side of the grave? Will the God whose mercy is infinite close His ears to their anguished cries? Will the Blessed Virgin, the Communion of Saints and the loved ones of those departed be happy in heaven knowing that they can't do anything to amerliorate the sufferings of thse they love?
Some people may call this "Christian" but I don't. If Christ, the saints and the faithful seek to help others in this life, they will do the same in the next. That God's right hand of mercy is stronger than His left hand of justice is an old Jewish teaching. I always pray for the dead. It's one of my personal things, which is an integral part of Catholic theology. There would be no point in praying for someone we can't help. I accept the possibility that someone may eternally reject God's mercy and may be in hell. But I doubt it will happen, once death strips away our illusions, and then I believe that the love of others will eventually lighten the darkness of even the most depraved. That is my Christianity, not gloating over the miasfortunes of the damned.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Why do people choose to make this life a "hell" for themselves? Over-spending on things they don't need and don't even particularly want a few days later, ignoring friends or even their kids until the relationships grow distant instead of nurturing, getting drunk and painfully hungover again and again, etc.
We make our own hell, here and "there." We can seek to change or we can not bother. If some people eternally make their own lives an unnecessary hell, is that God's fault?
I don't believe God locks anyone unwillingly in a cage called hell. But if some people perpetually refuse to accept that love matters far more than wealth, status, power over others, etc, they will hate being in an environment where wealth status etc are of no interest, making what is heaven for others a private hell for themselves.
Hell is not an imposed punishment but a natural effect of choosing a set of values that are inconsistent with enjoying heaven.
Anyone is welcome to change at anytime. Perhaps some never will, but that's not God's fault. If the Elder Brother refuses to attend the party even though he's welcome, who is imposing the "punishment?" - not the party giver!
I like that analysis, which is really saying that hell is the rejection of love, or the inability to love.
However, I don't think it's easy to change. In fact, it's damn difficult. For some, it requires despair, not a logical choice, to break the log-jam.
I find this a difficult scenario though, as I know that some people cannot face the despair of giving up their old ways and ways of seeing, so it can seem glib talking about freedom of choice here. It's a bit like the addict, who technically can choose, but in reality ...
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
Lewis, however, is claiming that learning is impossible.
Where did he say that?
quote:
My mind is not the same one I had thirty years ago. It's not the same one I had twenty years ago. And it's not the same one I had ten years ago. However I am aware that my mind is faulty, I learn things, and I double check my assumptions, often throwing them out. I am capable of formal logic and of structuring out a lot of my thought processes so that they can be checked by both myself and others for this.
2 + 2 = 4 is true for a toddler learning to count on her fingers, and is not more or less true for a postgraduate mathematics student, or for a professor. Therefore the process of learning is completely irrelevant to the argument Lewis was making.
As for morality, we may learn a more refined application of values, but are they fundamentally any different from the less sophisticated values of earlier in our lives? If we believe that it is wrong to steal, how is this fundamental principle improved on by learning? Either it is right or it is wrong to steal. Either you accept a value or its antithesis. There may be refinement in the area of application in a complex world, but the moral principle stays the same.
Logic cannot be improved on. Learning does not somehow turn "a is not non-a" into "a is non-a".
quote:
Even if we assume that humans are incapable of checking our assumptions, incapable of learning, of empathy, or of formal logic, there is absolutely nothing preventing a brute and a blackguard promoting noble ideals.
And how would we know that he is a brute and a blackguard without some objectively valid moral code by which to judge him? And if we have such a code, then how is it justified and where did it come from?
quote:
Every single one of his premises is something I have just shown to be faulty in at least my case if not his. The conclusion falls if even one single premise does. Therefore his conclusion is based on sand.
All you have shown to be faulty are straw man versions of his premises, I'm afraid.
quote:
And I don't think Lewis has even heard of emergent complexity.
Well, I don't think he would have given much credence to a circular argument to prop up the epistemologically suspect philosophy of naturalism!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
Can someone help me on this?
I need an orthodox Protestant explanation based on the Bible for the concept of eternal conscious suffering in Hell.
I've been taught that its too late after physical death to repent and to accept Christ as Lord and Saviour. This has to be done in this life.
Please help a confused new believer.
I'd seriously advise you to find a different community in which to make your inquiries. A lot of the people here would like nothing better than to deliver you to despair and death. I am fortified by years in the faith, but you've just made the central human decision and need to be encouraged and welcomed as a sibling, not despised. I'm afraid I can't help you with alternatives but I'm sure some people here will be able to help, possibly via private message.
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour
A lot of the people here would like nothing better than to deliver you to despair and death.
That's a rather serious allegation, don't you think?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer
Why do people choose to make this life a "hell" for themselves? Over-spending on things they don't need and don't even particularly want a few days later, ignoring friends or even their kids until the relationships grow distant instead of nurturing, getting drunk and painfully hungover again and again, etc.
We make our own hell, here and "there." We can seek to change or we can not bother. If some people eternally make their own lives an unnecessary hell, is that God's fault?
I don't believe God locks anyone unwillingly in a cage called hell. But if some people perpetually refuse to accept that love matters far more than wealth, status, power over others, etc, they will hate being in an environment where wealth status etc are of no interest, making what is heaven for others a private hell for themselves.
Hell is not an imposed punishment but a natural effect of choosing a set of values that are inconsistent with enjoying heaven.
Anyone is welcome to change at anytime. Perhaps some never will, but that's not God's fault. If the Elder Brother refuses to attend the party even though he's welcome, who is imposing the "punishment?" - not the party giver!
Great post.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Plique-à-jour
Shipmate
# 17717
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour
A lot of the people here would like nothing better than to deliver you to despair and death.
That's a rather serious allegation, don't you think?
But it's true, isn't it? How else would you characterise posts about how volition doesn't really exist, or posts about how Jesus is just a nice story invented by clever old us? computergeek's a new believer, he doesn't need to be attacked, he doesn't need to be drawn off his path, and he's likely to get that if he stays here.
[ 18. September 2013, 17:08: Message edited by: Plique-à-jour ]
--------------------
-
-
Posts: 333 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think he might also get support.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
Lewis, however, is claiming that learning is impossible.
Where did he say that?
In that because we were given morality that must be the one we have.
quote:
2 + 2 = 4 is true for a toddler learning to count on her fingers, and is not more or less true for a postgraduate mathematics student, or for a professor. Therefore the process of learning is completely irrelevant to the argument Lewis was making.
Was the not meant to be in that first sentence? Whether or not it was, the second sentence is a complete non-sequiteur.
quote:
As for morality, we may learn a more refined application of values, but are they fundamentally any different from the less sophisticated values of earlier in our lives?
That depends what you were taught early on and whether what you learn now disagrees with it. I've certainly got values now that disagree with the ones my parents tried, and for a while succeded in teaching me.
quote:
If we believe that it is wrong to steal, how is this fundamental principle improved on by learning?
1: That stealing is a fundamental principle is not proven.
2: What is property ownership, who owns what?
quote:
Either it is right or it is wrong to steal.
This is, of course, complete balderdash. It is morally right to steal a loaf of bread to feed the starving. It is morally right to steal a victim away from their torturers or a slave from their owners.
quote:
Either you accept a value or its antithesis.
Or you accept that the so called value is a relativley common special case masquerading as a supposedly fundamental rule. The general rules are (I think - I can't get any more fundamental than this):
1: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
2: You must be the change you would see in the world - and to decide a moral principle imagine all acted as you did.
No stealing is a pretty obvious special case of this.
quote:
Logic cannot be improved on. Learning does not somehow turn "a is not non-a" into "a is non-a".
The history of mathematics and of computer science both disagree with you. Logic is always correct if the premises are true. But that doesn't mean you can't drill downwards to find more fundamental answers, build upwards for more useful tools, or otherwise improve on the logic we are using.
quote:
And how would we know that he is a brute and a blackguard without some objectively valid moral code by which to judge him? And if we have such a code, then how is it justified and where did it come from?
By their fruits shall ye know them. You don't need fundamentals for empiricism.
quote:
All you have shown to be faulty are straw man versions of his premises, I'm afraid.
Your rebuttal is nothing more than a collection of obvious non-sequiteurs and statements based on false premises.
quote:
quote:
And I don't think Lewis has even heard of emergent complexity.
Well, I don't think he would have given much credence to a circular argument to prop up the epistemologically suspect philosophy of naturalism!
Apparently you haven't heard of emergent complexity either or don't understand it. A frequently observed natural phenomenon that has been seen in the lab, on computers, and in the natural world.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
quote:
Originally posted by computergeek:
Can someone help me on this?
I need an orthodox Protestant explanation based on the Bible for the concept of eternal conscious suffering in Hell.
I've been taught that its too late after physical death to repent and to accept Christ as Lord and Saviour. This has to be done in this life.
Please help a confused new believer.
I'd seriously advise you to find a different community in which to make your inquiries...
Not necessarily. New Christians tend to be given simple answers to the difficult questions, as you would do with anyone who is just learning a new thing. New Christians later move on to a deeper understanding and to questioning the simple answers. That is where a community like this can be helpful.
In this case, if you want some less simple answers, you could try CS Lewis' The Great Divorce [even though some people on the Ship think Lewis a "third rate apologist"]. For example, in that book, he writes:
quote:
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.
If you want to get deeper into the many arguments and debates the Christian church has had over the centuries, I'm sure people here can recommend good books. However, I would advise you not to depend only on an online forum! See if you can find someone in your church who is open to awkward questions and the insecurity they bring. Many Christians have wrestled with these questions and have investigated the issues far deeper than the simplistic presentation you've had so far. See if you can find one of those precious people. Unfortunately, there are also many Christians find it difficult that there are questions to which we do not know the answer. I'd shy away from people whose response to any question is to make simplistic assertions and who get annoyed if you don't find their simple assertions convincing.
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno
...even though some people on the Ship think Lewis a "third rate apologist"...
Well, I can't imagine what a "first rate apologist" for the Christian faith would look like in the eyes of the person who made that comment. Perhaps one who just rolls over and affirms the New Antitheism (oops, I meant to say Atheism)??!
It's great to see Lewis still ruffling feathers through his writings, and you can't really go far wrong with him. I read a lot of Lewis as a "new believer", and I don't think I'm worse for wear because of it. In fact, many doubts were laid to rest through the irrefutable logic of his arguments. I certainly recommend The Great Divorce, even though it's some years since I've read that one.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
computergeek.
Then you have been mistaught.
How were you taught?
A couple more rhetorical questions if you like:
What would you LIKE to believe?
HOW do you believe?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Saint Clive made a valiant effort in the field of apologetics, but ultimately he was at his best when giving advice about everyday Christian living.
That's not even taking into account the fact that I think apologetics is an utter botch from the start. As Saint Barth reminds us, "Good dogmatics is always the best and basically the only possible apologetics."
[ 18. September 2013, 20:25: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
computergeek
Apprentice
# 17826
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
computergeek.
Then you have been mistaught.
How were you taught?
A couple more rhetorical questions if you like:
What would you LIKE to believe?
HOW do you believe?
Sorry, I dont understand what you're getting at. My fault, I'm sure. If I have asked a question which is silly, I'm sorry.
[ 18. September 2013, 20:49: Message edited by: computergeek ]
Posts: 16 | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
That's not even taking into account the fact that I think apologetics is an utter botch from the start. As Saint Barth reminds us, "Good dogmatics is always the best and basically the only possible apologetics."
Are you suggesting that a Christian who struggles with doubts concerning his faith should not consider reasoned arguments and evidence?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Saint Clive made a valiant effort in the field of apologetics, but ultimately he was at his best when giving advice about everyday Christian living.
That's not even taking into account the fact that I think apologetics is an utter botch from the start. As Saint Barth reminds us, "Good dogmatics is always the best and basically the only possible apologetics."
How do you feel about St Paul Tillich then? Not trying to bait you -- honestly wondering.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No, no, no, no computergeek. I'm the silly one. It's my questions that are silly. You're not silly at all. It takes years of dedication to become as silly as me and my silly questions.
How were you taught that now is the only day of salvation? That you must turn or burn? Do you have any notes? Or did someone just quote bits of the bible while talking at you?
What questions would you like me to ask?
Here's one I love to ask. What judgement awaits Sodom and Gomorrah and Tyre and Sidon and Bethsaida and Chorazin and Capernaum?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
computergeek
Apprentice
# 17826
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No, no, no, no computergeek. I'm the silly one. It's my questions that are silly. You're not silly at all. It takes years of dedication to become as silly as me and my silly questions.
How were you taught that now is the only day of salvation? That you must turn or burn? Do you have any notes? Or did someone just quote bits of the bible while talking at you?
What questions would you like me to ask?
Here's one I love to ask. What judgement awaits Sodom and Gomorrah and Tyre and Sidon and Bethsaida and Chorazin and Capernaum?
apologies again, I dont understand your point. It's clearly my failing.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No it's not, it's entirely mine. Did Sodom and Gomorrah turn, or did they burn? And do they therefore now burn in Hell? Or what? What were you taught?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
computergeek
Apprentice
# 17826
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
No it's not, it's entirely mine. Did Sodom and Gomorrah turn, or did they burn? And do they therefore now burn in Hell? Or what? What were you taught?
I haven't been taught anything about Sodom and Gomorrah.
Posts: 16 | Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
OK. What have you read in the Bible that leads you to believe that we must turn or burn before death?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Your argument is that if God subjects people to eternal conscious torment, it is definitionally a moral act. If he doesn't do so, then there's nothing to argue about. Either way, there's no controversy.
I think you're assuming EE is arguing that because lots of Christians do argue it. I don't think he is.
I read him as saying that God is either good, in a way that 'good' actually means something, or he is non-existent. (Or, possibly, that one or other of those things has to be true if our judgment is worth anything, because an evil, all-powerful, entity can just fuck with our minds and make our conclusions worthless). It is therefore a sensible question to ask about one of God's purported acts whether it is 'good'. If it isn't, that's a reason not to believe it true of God.
That is, EE is arguing that God is good by definition, and therefore does things which are good by some standard which we can in principle reason about, not that God's acts are good by definition, merely by virtue of being his, such that we can't question them. "Good" in EE's argument has the usual implications of benevolence, wisdom, kindness and so on. It's meant to be a real descriptive word - the point he's making is that if there's a God, we can be reasonably sure he's more like that than anything else we can think of.
The hypothesis EE is testing is "Does God hurt people forever?". The test he's applying is "Can we imagine any circumstance in which that would be right or necessary?". The reason he thinks that test is appropriate is that he thinks that "God is good" is both true and tells us something about the nature of God, such that we can (at least provisionally) identify some actions as being unworthy of him.
I think you have assumed him to be saying that no act is unworthy of God because the fact of God doing it would make it automatically right. That's almost the opposite to what I think he's arguing.
(I think he's right, FWIW, and that the goodness of God (such that 'good' tells us something about him) is a necessary assumption to being able to reason about him at all. But that's a secondary point. The more important one is that he isn't saying what you think he is saying).
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
I've never been clear whether the (possibly endless) pain of the lost is supposed to be:
The painful presence of God
The painful absence of God
Self inflicted pain
Torture inflicted by demonic powers
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
Indeed. There's far too much Hieronymus Bosch and Dante in certain views of hell which continue to be perpetuated. Watching Event Horizon would be about as useful. (*Don't* watch Event Horizon)
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
