Thread: Eternal, conscious torment. Why? 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=026075
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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...
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
From the title, I was expecting a thread on posting styles in Purgatory...
--Tom Clune
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
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.
Posted by computergeek (# 17826) on
:
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.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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...
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
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.
Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on
:
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.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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?
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
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.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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?
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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...
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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!
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
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".
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
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 ]
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
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?
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
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.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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 ]
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
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.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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 ...
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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!
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
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 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I think he might also get support.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
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.
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on
:
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.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
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 ]
Posted by computergeek (# 17826) on
:
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 ]
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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?
Posted by computergeek (# 17826) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
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?
Posted by computergeek (# 17826) on
:
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.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
OK. What have you read in the Bible that leads you to believe that we must turn or burn before death?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
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).
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
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
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
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)
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on
:
The question in the title of the thread presupposes that God operates by same moral code he has given us mortals.Is there any evidence, biblical or otherwise, that he does?
The question also presupposes that there is some form of "life after death" for this eternal torment to take place in. If you think that is unlikely, then hell can only exist in this life. In theological terms, hell cannot be a situation you find yourself in through no fault of your own - for example, the people of Syria are living through hell in popular parlance, but I do not think that is hell in the sense we are discussing in this thread.
Hell is a state of mind you have brought on yourself. A state of mind can be changed - theologically by repentance - bringing the person out of hell - otherwise known as salvation.
None of this requires a supernatural process and talk in the bible about eternal torture should be read in the context of other ancient literature and mythologies as hyperbole of its time intended to make a point but not to be taken literally.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
The question in the title of the thread presupposes that God operates by same moral code he has given us mortals.Is there any evidence, biblical or otherwise, that he does?
Well, we are told to be holy as our Heavenly Father is holy. If his holiness is something completely alien to ours, that would be a very strange command.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
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?
The basis of all apologetics is the assumption that the victory of the Gospel depends on us, on our evidence and reason. It doesn't. It demands faith, "the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
How do you feel about St Paul Tillich then? Not trying to bait you -- honestly wondering.
I don't know a whole lot about him, but from what I do know, he fails to escape the errors of liberal Protestantism. God is a thing built with human hands, instead of the judge of all things human.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
The basis of all apologetics is the assumption that the victory of the Gospel depends on us, on our evidence and reason. It doesn't.
I'll respond with an analogy...
Recently Rafael Nadal won the US Open. He won a great victory. Now suppose that I did not see the match on television or read any reports about it, but I just heard a rumour from someone that Rafa had won. Consequently I wasn't entirely sure that this was true. So I asked the person who told me to present some evidence to back up his claim that Nadal had won that tournament. He said, "Sure, here's some evidence" and he handed me a newspaper with the relevant article.
Now, are you suggesting that the victory of Rafael Nadal depended on the act of this man giving me a copy of the newspaper reporting on the final of the US Open?
The victory of the Gospel no more depends on evidence and reason than the victory of Rafa Nadal at the US Open depends on a newspaper report about it. But it would be absurd to say that the newspaper report is irrelevant or pointless. Likewise it is absurd to say that the presentation of reason and evidence for the Gospel is irrelevant.
Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
I'd seriously advise you to find a different community in which to make your inquiries.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think he might also get support.
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Dog leg frying pan Cuthbert plume forty!
There we go.
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
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.
As an orthodox Protestant (either of the confessional or more independent fundamentalist variety), you definitely believe the unsaved (wicked, preterite, unbelievers etc...) will consciously suffer in Hell for all eternity. Most of the Protestant confessions state it directly, affirm the Athanasian Creed, or both. Jesus uses the phrase, "where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Sounds like conscious punishment don't it? Bible can't contradict itself. So...there you go.
Do you have any other questions about what you as an orthodox Protestant believe? True, I'm not an orthodox Protestant (and don't believe in eternal conscience torment for that matter) but I'm willing to help you follow the path you've chosen. Let's get started. What kind of orthodox Protestant do you want to be?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
The basis of all apologetics is the assumption that the victory of the Gospel depends on us, on our evidence and reason. It doesn't.
I'll respond with an analogy...
Recently Rafael Nadal won the US Open. He won a great victory. Now suppose that I did not see the match on television or read any reports about it, but I just heard a rumour from someone that Rafa had won. Consequently I wasn't entirely sure that this was true. So I asked the person who told me to present some evidence to back up his claim that Nadal had won that tournament. He said, "Sure, here's some evidence" and he handed me a newspaper with the relevant article.
Now, are you suggesting that the victory of Rafael Nadal depended on the act of this man giving me a copy of the newspaper reporting on the final of the US Open?
The victory of the Gospel no more depends on evidence and reason than the victory of Rafa Nadal at the US Open depends on a newspaper report about it. But it would be absurd to say that the newspaper report is irrelevant or pointless. Likewise it is absurd to say that the presentation of reason and evidence for the Gospel is irrelevant.
The analogy doesn't hold, because reasoned evidence is part of the world which God declares sinful. The only standing place for faith is the promises of God we do not know.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
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?
Because they have a funny definition of "happiness."
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
The analogy doesn't hold, because reasoned evidence is part of the world which God declares sinful.
Hypocrite! You have just sinned by using the word 'because', which indicates the use of a logical argument. What a sinner you are!!
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
[ 18. September 2013, 23:49: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82
The analogy doesn't hold, because reasoned evidence is part of the world which God declares sinful.
Hypocrite! You have just sinned by using the word 'because', which indicates the use of a logical argument. What a sinner you are!!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
The gospel is a much bigger, more exceptional, and more existential thing than a tennis victory. I'm with Zach82. The analogy fails because the events aren't equivalent.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
C.S. Lewis is, as usual, using pretty words... writing fine prose
The 'brute and blackguard' bit is actually a quote from Housman:
We for a certainty are not the first
Have sat in taverns while the tempest hurled
Their hopeful plans to emptiness, and cursed
Whatever brute and blackguard made the world.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog
The gospel is a much bigger, more exceptional, and more existential thing than a tennis victory. I'm with Zach82. The analogy fails because the events aren't equivalent.
Fine. *Shrug shoulders*
Nothing more I can do really. I certainly can't attempt to make sense of your comment, as that would involve sinful reason! (And I am sure you wouldn't want to encourage me to sin, now, would you?)
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog
The gospel is a much bigger, more exceptional, and more existential thing than a tennis victory. I'm with Zach82. The analogy fails because the events aren't equivalent.
Fine. *Shrug shoulders*
Nothing more I can do really. I certainly can't attempt to make sense of your comment, as that would involve sinful reason! (And I am sure you wouldn't want to encourage me to sin, now, would you?)
I fail to see how you have committed any such offense.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
Enough. Either get on-point or take it to Hell.
--Tom Clune, Purgatory Host
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The analogy doesn't hold, because reasoned evidence is part of the world which God declares sinful. The only standing place for faith is the promises of God we do not know.
I'm trying to understand what you mean here: to what extent is reasoned evidence sinful if it's part of a sinful world? How about reason itself - to what extent is it sinful? And does trying to know God interfere with faith?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The analogy doesn't hold, because reasoned evidence is part of the world which God declares sinful. The only standing place for faith is the promises of God we do not know.
I'm trying to understand what you mean here: to what extent is reasoned evidence sinful if it's part of a sinful world? How about reason itself - to what extent is it sinful? And does trying to know God interfere with faith?
God isn't knowable and he isn't part of this world, which is the problem of trying to use reasoned evidence to discern him. It's a non-starter.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
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?
The basis of all apologetics is the assumption that the victory of the Gospel depends on us, on our evidence and reason. It doesn't. It demands faith, "the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
How do you feel about St Paul Tillich then? Not trying to bait you -- honestly wondering.
I don't know a whole lot about him, but from what I do know, he fails to escape the errors of liberal Protestantism. God is a thing built with human hands, instead of the judge of all things human.
Zach, I'm rather astonished you haven't read at least the shorter works of Tillich, e.g. The Courage to Be; The Proestant Era, (as opposed to his longer Systematic Theology). Is he not read anymore, or is this perhaps because you have been studying at an RC institution? Shame in either case.
[ 19. September 2013, 02:15: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
I have a very basic idea of what he thought, but he hasn't really come up in the sorts of theology I've been up to.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The analogy doesn't hold, because reasoned evidence is part of the world which God declares sinful. The only standing place for faith is the promises of God we do not know.
I'm trying to understand what you mean here: to what extent is reasoned evidence sinful if it's part of a sinful world? How about reason itself - to what extent is it sinful? And does trying to know God interfere with faith?
God isn't knowable and he isn't part of this world, which is the problem of trying to use reasoned evidence to discern him. It's a non-starter.
When you say "God isn't knowable" are you perhaps referring to God the Father in particular, as compared to God the Son in Jesus Christ?
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
quote:
When you say "God isn't knowable" are you perhaps referring to God the Father in particular, as compared to God the Son in Jesus Christ?
Jesus is fully God and fully man. We can know Jesus the man, but the Eternal Son continues to be unknowable.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
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?
I don't believe in God. I do notice that people who do believe in God and that people are going to Hell do tend to treat other people they think are going to Hell and damnation rather badly in the here and now. It's worth asking them to examine the contradictions in their belief.
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on
:
Since I'm about to fall asleep, I might as well distract from the thread with a joke about Tillich and Barth I saw.
Barth, Tillich, and Bultmann all decide to go fishing. It was a hot day, so Barth steps out of the boat, walks across the water, and brings a round of beers back from the shop on the shore. Well, it being a hot day, they drink down that round pretty quickly, so Barth says "Your turn, Paul." So Tillich gets out of the boat, and walks across the water to get beers at the shop on the shore. Finally, Barth and Tillich say "Your turn to get a round, Rudy." So Bultmann looks really nervous, and the second he steps out of the boat he sinks like a stone. Looking humiliated, he swims to the shore.
While Bultmann stands on the shore sopping wet, Tillich looks sly and says to Barth, "Do you think we ought to have told him about the stepping stones?" Barth looks shocked and says "What stepping stones?"
[ 19. September 2013, 04:01: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
quote:
Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
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?
I don't believe in God. I do notice that people who do believe in God and that people are going to Hell do tend to treat other people they think are going to Hell and damnation rather badly in the here and now. It's worth asking them to examine the contradictions in their belief.
Yes, that is something that always intrigues me. I have dialogued with a number of such hell-raisers, and their attitude to non-Christians and in fact, other Christian varieties which they didn't approve of, was usually a mixture of scorn, derision and even glee. I think this owes less to Christian theology, than basic principles of inclusion/exclusion psychology, summed up in current vernacular as 'I've got mine, fuck you'.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
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.
I don't think that Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras was saying that we ought to discard the Word of God as evidence in this discussion, but rather that some people form their views on quotations from the Bible without understanding what they mean. Anybody can affirm almost anything based on "the Bible tells me so", if there is no need to process biblical words in the light of other biblical information.
I have presented some biblical evidence in the OP - what I refer to as the 'formula'. The conclusion I have drawn, namely, that hell can be temporary, is therefore as much "the Bible tells me so" as the claim that God forces people to suffer eternal, conscious torment without any hope of escape, based on an interpretation of certain other verses.
The much - and unjustly - maligned Rob Bell also quotes the Bible, and can therefore legitimately say "the Bible tells me so" when he writes:
quote:
...we read in these last chapters of Revelation that the gates of that city in that new world will "never shut". That's a small detail, and it's important we don't get too hung up on details and specific images because it's possible to treat something so literally that it becomes less true in the process. But gates, gates are for keeping people in and keeping people out. If the gates are never shut, then people are free to come and go.
Can God bring proper, lasting justice, banishing certain actions - and the people who do them - from the new creation while at the same time allowing and waiting and hoping for the possibility of the reconciliation of those very same people? Keeping the gates, in essence, open?
(From Love Wins, chapter 4)
Rob Bell is suggesting a possible meaning based on information from the Book of Revelation. Therefore "the Bible tells him so" as much as "the Bible tells" his detractors that he is a heretic.
So therefore we have to read the Bible with understanding, and this is what, I think, Lietuvos was probably driving at.
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Anybody can affirm almost anything based on "the Bible tells me so", if there is no need to process biblical words in the light of other biblical information.
Along those lines, Revelation [20:15] says that the lake of fire is the second death and [20:16] that those who do not have their names in the book of the living are thrown into the lake of fire.
Elsewhere in the Bible we are told that to be truly alive, one must be born again.
Is that tiny reference in Revelation an indication that to be truly dead one must die a second time. That would indicate oblivion (ceasing to exist) rather than eternal torment.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Anybody can affirm almost anything based on "the Bible tells me so",
It's just as easy to infer anihilationism from Scripture as it is eternal damnation. The standard Christian teaching is that we suffer eternal damnation if we don't accept Christ as saviour. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that appears anywhere in Scripture. In Matthew, Jesus speaks several times about eternal damnation, but it's always based on deeds or lack of them, as in Matt 25. John speaks of perishing, being condemned etc, for failing to be "born from above" or for not recognising Jesus as the one sent by the Father, but he doesn't say to what we are condemned. To me, perishing means death, not eternal torment.
Paul speaks in several places of being saved, of need to acknowledge Jesus in order to be saved, but again, it's far from clear that he means saved from damnation. In fact he never once mentions eternal damnation. The wages of sin is death, which taken at face value means anihiliation, through failing to be resurrected to be with the Lord. We can toss those theolgies into a blender and come up with the idea that God will eternally torment us for not accepting Him in the Incarnation, but the biblical evidence for that position is between weak and non-existent. Only the synoptic Jesus speaks of eternal damnation, and it's never based on any kind of lack of faith. It's also worth remembering that His remarks, in earthly time, were before He conquered death through His passion, resurrection and ascension.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
The analogy doesn't hold, because reasoned evidence is part of the world which God declares sinful. The only standing place for faith is the promises of God we do not know.
I'm trying to understand what you mean here: to what extent is reasoned evidence sinful if it's part of a sinful world? How about reason itself - to what extent is it sinful? And does trying to know God interfere with faith?
God isn't knowable and he isn't part of this world, which is the problem of trying to use reasoned evidence to discern him. It's a non-starter.
I agree that reason alone can't get us to God, and autonomous reason independent of God is sinful. But isn't one of the results of the Incarnation that God has made himself known (very partially, of course, but still truly) by becoming part of this world? And by revealing himself in this way, when we receive that revelation by faith, we also receive it rationally too?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*
It's just as easy to infer anihilationism from Scripture as it is eternal damnation.
The problem I have with annihilationism is that it assumes that people make their final decision about eternal matters in this short, difficult and confusing life on earth. Obviously those who die not having made the 'correct' decision are then snuffed out of existence. But what if God wanted to keep everyone's free will active for ever? What if God wants to keep the door of salvation open for ever? Obviously free will cannot function unless people are alive and conscious.
This view implies, however, that people can escape from hell through a decision to repent. This, of course, is heresy in the eyes of many Christians, but what is the alternative? A God who just keeps people alive and conscious for reasons of pure sadistic vindictiveness? I'm afraid that doesn't really make much sense to me, given the testimony of Scripture concerning God's nature.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The problem I have with annihilationism is that it assumes that people make their final decision about eternal matters in this short, difficult and confusing life on earth.
Does it though? If they make their decision "eternally", then this life on earth is merely a "conic section", or something, of that decision...?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The problem I have with annihilationism is that it assumes that people make their final decision about eternal matters in this short, difficult and confusing life on earth.
Does it though? If they make their decision "eternally", then this life on earth is merely a "conic section", or something, of that decision...?
That would appear to be trying WAY too hard to square a circle. I can't think of any scriptures that support such a position. Have you any?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This view implies, however, that people can escape from hell through a decision to repent. This, of course, is heresy in the eyes of many Christians,
Is it? It seems to me that's at the heart, or very near it, of the Gospel. It's a paraphrase of John 3:16 forgodsake.
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
I agree that reason alone can't get us to God, and autonomous reason independent of God is sinful. But isn't one of the results of the Incarnation that God has made himself known (very partially, of course, but still truly) by becoming part of this world? And by revealing himself in this way, when we receive that revelation by faith, we also receive it rationally too?
I should think so. If we can't know anything of God, what are we putting our faith IN? Paul says the Athenians pray to "an unknown God" but then goes and makes known to them what they did not know. The clear implication being that we do NOT worship an unknown God.
The Orthodox understand this by saying that we cannot know God's essence, but can know his energies. Which is to say the ways he works in this world, and the things he chooses to reveal to us.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The problem I have with annihilationism is that it assumes that people make their final decision about eternal matters in this short, difficult and confusing life on earth.
Does it though? If they make their decision "eternally", then this life on earth is merely a "conic section", or something, of that decision...?
That would appear to be trying WAY too hard to square a circle. I can't think of any scriptures that support such a position. Have you any?
In the current context: not bothered.
(Without prejudice ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
More seriously, there is possibly something to be argued about a category confusion in assuming that life eternal is simply a continuation of temporal life...
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This view implies, however, that people can escape from hell through a decision to repent. This, of course, is heresy in the eyes of many Christians, but what is the alternative? A God who just keeps people alive and conscious for reasons of pure sadistic vindictiveness? I'm afraid that doesn't really make much sense to me, given the testimony of Scripture concerning God's nature.
I completely agree with this, and it's the reason that I, too rject anihilationism. It's just that so many Christians seem to be concerned with God's justice, which can be met by anihilating an unrepentant sinner, but can never be met by eternal torture. The possibility of repentance after death has never been accepted in the mainstream, but has been favoured by some mystics, such as the anonymous author of the Theologia Germanica, so loved by Luther, and I believe it has some support in Scripture.
That God would want to keep alive, so to speak, and individual, so he/she never loses the possibility of repentance, followed by life abundant, is the closest to how I see things, but it only works for someone who believes in the possibility of further spiritual growth beyond death.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's got NOWT ter do wi' the afterlife. Even when it has, it hasn't. It's all about now. What lies beyond is transcendent icing, seen through a glass darkly, on the cake of eternal life NOW ... what a lousy metaphor.
What lies beyond our journey of losses, endless longing, lust, suffering including suffering for causing irreversible suffering, decrepitude, decay ? As I walked along one of the great diagonal avenues, with all of that, in Victoria Park at 14:15, under the sycamores, watching crows and sguirrels on the grass, at 59, all I could imagine was that agelessly going on forever, walking, learning, praying, whistling a love song forever, in every sense without limit.
That would do.
Who wouldn't it do for, as a start? A walk where everything done gets psychologically undone not by being rewound but by every idle word being perfectly talked through, walked through, with everyone who ever lived. Everyone walking inexhaustibly with God.
Everyone experiencing an internal, eternal increase of His government.
Who's excluded from that? How could anyone exclude themselves from that? I can't imagine. None of us can. The negative imaginings - including the psychosis in the OP - of the past 3000 years don't work any more. They never did and they never will, apart from as transient, individual and cultural developmental projections, valleys of death that have to be ... walked through, walked beyond.
Nobody could or will suffer eternal conscious torment. Put away childish things.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0