Ship of Fools: Hell

Thread: Hell 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=027066

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

A disturbing meme

Eternal punishment, eternal torture, eternal fire has no purpose.

It has no redemptive quality,
it has no transformative power,
it has no Grace,
it has no love.

It has no opportunity for repentance.
It has no kin with the Good News.
It has no kin with the majority of the New Testament.
It's only Bad News.

It's only revenge.
And even then it's revenge not commensurate with crimes perpetrated because it is eternal and life on earth is not. So it's not even retributive justice. The scales are not balanced.

Eternal punishment is not justifiable if God is a God of love which the New Testament tells us is true.

So what in God's name were you Evangelists on about? Was it solely about scaring people?

Fear is a shallow, temporary motivator.

Or did you count on that because of our shallowness? Is Hell just a stopgap for the weak?

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

Had a bad Easter, dear? Too much choccie?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Sick in bed all day.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Part of the problem is the contrast.

Easter offers us eternal life and the knowledge of ultimate victory of good over evil

But it also offers eternal punishment. And that seems to be an increase in evil.

So it doesn't work.

Eternal punishment/torture/fire must be wrong.

[ 20. April 2014, 12:35: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Cute photo for a disturbing idea.

You are right to call the idea of Hell to Hell, where it belongs.

Of course Hell IS just an idea, not a place - there is plenty of Hell here on Earth without us having to invent an other-worldly Hell.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Cute photo for a disturbing idea.

That's probably what makes it most disturbing.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Cute photo for a disturbing idea.
That's probably what makes it most disturbing.

The little girl does look ever so slightly evil, of course ...

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Of course, loveless, faithless, selfish choices are just going to lead us to a fluffy bunny filled wonderland.

Yes, we are called to live Kingdom filled lives. Yes, focusing on fear and the negative will not get us there.

But let's not pretend. We have choices, there are consequences.

[ 20. April 2014, 13:41: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

Exactly.

Did God even "invent" Hell? Or did man invent it by turning away from God and finding themselves in a graceless place without love?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Good call. The great deception of hell, as detailed in the op and as lives in the human imagination, is worthy of hell. It's deception which belongs to the devil. Even though this is the Hell board, I won't take the bait and use the language that befits it.

Our self-imposed detachment of God means that we live in hell already, in a parched spiritual desert that we're drawn further into by ever more deception.

The good news of Christ is that God has paved the way for us to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Now, and for ever. That's the truth. Yes, God wants us to love him back, but God always loves us regardless of our wrong decisions, regardless of how much we hurt each other and him. Christ is risen, and so can we be. It's up to us to spread the word and counter the lies, isn't it?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Very cute call, Evensong. I have often puzzled over what hell means. I find the idea of 'eternal punishment' too opaque really to understand, unless 'eternal' means something like 'not in time'.

I suppose the idea of being without God is an interesting approach to hell, although I would think that many people who feel without God, do not think they are in hell at all! And being without God does not refer to being without love, clearly. The whole of my family were atheists, and they were not unloving people at all.

There is also the tantalizing idea that God also withdraws in some way, so that creation itself can occur - called 'tzimtzum' in Jewish mysticism.

Then there is the idea of the ego, which presents itself as a kind of mini-god, I suppose, and apparently has no need of God, but maybe this is fool's gold.

Hmm, well, that is all perplexing indeed!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I forgot to say that I have always taken great enjoyment in the Zen quote, 'hell isn't punishment, it's training', although of course this comes from a non-theistic source.

And I've found it to be true in a sort of relative way, in that the hellish times of my life, have paid off for me in various ways, including increased compassion for others, greater insight and patience, being able to love and be loved, and also rejecting a lot of the froth and nonsense in life. Well, that's not bad for a beginner!

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Someone told me years ago that Hell was a state of being rather than an actual place, and I'm in agreement with that.

Hell is that state of despair, restlessness, constant seeking for something and not finding it, with everything proving unsatisfying. Hell is self-loathing, the gritty grey circular paths of the underworld that feature in depression, strewn with sharp pointed stones, and no sunlight anywhere, because sunlight is a lie and there never was any sunlight. Hell is the relentless mocking of anything beautiful, true or useful, until it can be distorted, corrupted or defiled in the name of "reality" or "the real world", or "grown up" or "common sense" and dragged down into the baseline of other things that no longer give any joy or have any real value or meaning. Hell is the inability to rest or find contentment or peace of mind anywhere.

And last but not least Hell is separation, either self-chosen or unintentional, from the love of God and all that makes life worthwhile.

Hell feels like eternal punishment and sometimes an excruciating one, but is more like the fires of Purgatory in that there can be an end to it. I have never believed that God would condemn anyone to eternal torment.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

But why condemn to torment at all?

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

There is a church in south-east London which has had a series of large boards outside it, probably designed and produced in-house, for the thirty odd years I have been driving past. Initially there was just one, leaning against the church wall. One of the last of these befoe they put up two, facing up and down the road, was split in two halves. One the left "GOD LOVES YOU". On the right. "IF YOU DON'T LOVE HIM, YOU'LL GO TO HELL." Slightly smaller print to fit it in. They haven't done anything so unhelpful since. Hell hasn't had a look in.

I have a friend who has been dancing to and from Christianity all his life, and one of the things which most causes him to resist it is a) the doctrine of Hell, and b) the sort of people who smile sweetly about it, say that the blessed in heaven will forget about relations in the other placee, while cheerfully consigning their granny or whoever down there. Not an attractive doctrine, in any sense.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

Eternal punishment/torture/fire must be wrong.

Which would therefore mean a good percentage of the NT must be wrong , which could therefore mean the whole darn thing is wrong .

Hi Ho, back to the theological drawing board [Roll Eyes]

< Get well soon ES >

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

I don't think God does condemn anyone to torment at all. I think some of it can be people letting themselves in for things that they either knew/didn't care or didn't realize would have consequences, and the rest is stuff like bereavements, mental illness, natural disasters and the stupid egocentricities that can lead to war, famine, terrorism, etc.

Someone else also once said that if the Bible had been written in Europe instead of the Middle East, Hell would be depicted as a blisteringly cold, icy place instead of the other extreme of fire.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

A being which creates the game and the players is responsible for the losing as well as the winning.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
.... people who smile sweetly about it, say that the blessed in heaven will forget about relations in the other place, while cheerfully consigning their granny or whoever down there. Not an attractive doctrine, in any sense.

Certainly not attractive in the normal use of the word .

Yet people are still prepared to sign up to it . Proving that we , the enlightened Homo Sap, are not the all sweetness and light we may think . No matter how much we may wish it so.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But why condemn to torment at all?

There seems to be a sort of schizophrenia which goes on in relation to this. On the one hand, hell is separation from God, which is willed or created by me, the prison cell is locked on the inside and so on; on the other hand, I am condemned.

Well, no doubt it's a false dichotomy. It's also probably a question of personality, isn't it? I suppose some people actually enjoy the condemnation?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There seems to be a sort of schizophrenia which goes on in relation to this. On the one hand, hell is separation from God, which is willed or created by me, the prison cell is locked on the inside and so on; on the other hand, I am condemned.

Well, no doubt it's a false dichotomy. It's also probably a question of personality, isn't it? I suppose some people actually enjoy the condemnation?

There's got to be some mileage in that statement quetzalcoatl.

I may be wide of the mark here as I'm no expert , but having heard a radio interview with young person afflicted with anorexia nervosa I was struck by the lucid way in which they described it .
It was exactly as you say, 'a prison cell locked on the inside' . They described it as having a terrorist pointing a gun at their head 24/7.

ISTM that if we take away institutionalized condemnation , (IE the Biblical Hell), there's a chance we can subconsciously invent our own form of it.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There seems to be a sort of schizophrenia which goes on in relation to this. On the one hand, hell is separation from God, which is willed or created by me, the prison cell is locked on the inside and so on; on the other hand, I am condemned.

Well, no doubt it's a false dichotomy. It's also probably a question of personality, isn't it? I suppose some people actually enjoy the condemnation?
There's got to be some mileage in that statement quetzalcoatl.

I may be wide of the mark here as I'm no expert , but having heard a radio interview with young person afflicted with anorexia nervosa I was struck by the lucid way in which they described it .
It was exactly as you say, 'a prison cell locked on the inside' . They described it as having a terrorist pointing a gun at their head 24/7.

ISTM that if we take away institutionalized condemnation , (IE the Biblical Hell), there's a chance we can subconsciously invent our own form of it.

Yes, I'm sure that we do. One problem is that people often don't know where the key is, or even if there is a key.

But how does this relate to the Christian view of hell? Wasn't the 'cell locked on the inside' an attempt to get away from condemnation (C. S. Lewis in particular).

I think it's very insightful, but does it square with traditional views of hell?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The Eternal Play

God: Behold! I have created you in the land of pain and confusion, but fear not! You have the chance to join Me in the land of Eternal hugs and puppies! Rejoice!
Humanity: Right, we are coming right over! Directions?
God: You must cross the CHASM of fire and agony and torture and suffering. Ware the chasm, it is full of evil things, like taxes and marmite.
Humanity: Hmmm, sounds a bit nasty, perhaps we'll stay right here.
God: You MUST attempt the crossing! If you do not, you will be thrown in the CHASM!
Fear not! I have created a bridge so that you may cross safely!
Humanity: Joy! We are coming right over!
God: Ware the Wrong Path though.
Humanity: The Wrong Path?
God: There are two paths: one, the Right Path, leads to Me and the land of hugs and puppies! The other, the Wrong Path, leads to the Bottom of the CHASM!
Humanity: How shall we know?
God: The path on the right is the Right Path. Have care! It is exceedingly narrow and there are side paths branching off, leading to the CHASM!
Humanity: So the left path, the broad path lined with sex and candy and money and pleasure, that is the Wrong Path?
God: Yep!
Oh, don't worry, there is sex and candy and money and pleasure on the Right Path, just not too much of it. Or in the wrong way with the wrong people at the wrong time.
Humanity: Erm, joy?
God: Fret not! I've a Rule Book for you. I ran it past the lawyers first, so it is a bit long. And confusing. And seemingly contradictory. But follow it and you will be fine. And I shall inspire Leaders to help you! But make certain to follow the correct leader, or you shall end in the CHASM!
And remember, your choices are your free will so it you end up in the CHASM I made, it is your own fault.
It is all worth it to end up in the land of hugs and puppies! With Me!
Humanity: So why the CHASM?
God: Because, erm, I , um, love you?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Well, no doubt it's a false dichotomy. It's also probably a question of personality, isn't it? I suppose some people actually enjoy the condemnation?

I think they need it. And who can blame them? We have all been hurt one way or another by non-contrite people. To hope for some sort of punishment for them, eventually, is a very human thing imo.

But it's NOT Godly at all!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Well, no doubt it's a false dichotomy. It's also probably a question of personality, isn't it? I suppose some people actually enjoy the condemnation?
I think they need it. And who can blame them? We have all been hurt one way or another by non-contrite people. To hope for some sort of punishment for them, eventually, is a very human thing imo.

But it's NOT Godly at all!

That's a very good point, about needing it. I would say that some people do need the drama of crime and punishment, as it corresponds to some kind of internal imagery, that they possess.

But as you say, what does it have to do with God? Well, some people probably have God in that drama, as a kind of vindictive super-judge, who is propitiated.

As Simone Weil said, the false god changes suffering into violence.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Hell is separation from God. It is a state of being without your life-giving force. Not unlike being deprived of your daemon in the His Dark Materials series.

Not something imposed by God, something decided by us. A state of less-than-full being. That is my view of it, at least.

Rather like having to discuss with Evensong for very long.

The old concept of hell as a pit of flames, into which the sinful (i.e. those who do not agree with you) are cast by a loving God (i.e. yourself with power), deserves a place in hell - that is not what it is about. It is also something we experience aspects of here on earth primarily, not post-mortem only. If at all.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A being which creates the game and the players is responsible for the losing as well as the winning.

Not if the players are given free will and autonomy. That's the whole point.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Hell is separation from God. It is a state of being without your life-giving force. Not unlike being deprived of your daemon in the His Dark Materials series.

Not something imposed by God, something decided by us. A state of less-than-full being. That is my view of it, at least.

Rather like having to discuss with Evensong for very long.

The old concept of hell as a pit of flames, into which the sinful (i.e. those who do not agree with you) are cast by a loving God (i.e. yourself with power), deserves a place in hell - that is not what it is about. It is also something we experience aspects of here on earth primarily, not post-mortem only. If at all.

But this is a major shift in Christian thinking, isn't it? From condemnation to a self-locked cell - wow, that is a huge distance to cover, it seems to me. I suppose it takes the sting out of the charge of 'created sick', since now we are self-created sick!

Does it mean that Christians started to feel a bit wobbly about hellfire and brimstone? Or is it a major philosophical shift towards post-modernism?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A being which creates the game and the players is responsible for the losing as well as the winning.
Not if the players are given free will and autonomy. That's the whole point.

I am not trying to be rude, but Free Will changes nothing. Truly free will would be the choice not to play the game at all.

Posted by Dubious Thomas (# 10144) on :

He closed the yawning gates of hell,
the bars from heaven's high portals fell;
let hymns of praise his triumphs tell!
Alleluia! ("The Strife is O'er")

Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν,
θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας,
καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι,
ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!

Christ is risen from the dead,
trampling down death by death,
and on those in the tombs
bestowing life!

Christ is Risen!

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There seems to be a sort of schizophrenia which goes on in relation to this.

I know it may seen insignificant pedantry, but please don't use the term 'schizophrenia' in this way. Even if being used in a metaphorical way, it doesn't describe what you are saying.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A being which creates the game and the players is responsible for the losing as well as the winning.
Not if the players are given free will and autonomy. That's the whole point.
I am not trying to be rude, but Free Will changes nothing. Truly free will would be the choice not to play the game at all.

i) Every living thing on Earth other than Man does not get a chance to "play the game".

ii) Whaddya mean game? This is for real.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Games can be real, but it is merely a metaphor, call it what you want.

My point remains: An all-powerful being creates a situation in which it is possible for its creations to suffer.
Stating you do not understand the mechanism is fine.
Stating that there must be choice to justify the suffering kinda negates the whole All-Powerful bit. Kinda shorts the loving as well.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But this is a major shift in Christian thinking, isn't it? From condemnation to a self-locked cell - wow, that is a huge distance to cover, it seems to me. I suppose it takes the sting out of the charge of 'created sick', since now we are self-created sick!

Does it mean that Christians started to feel a bit wobbly about hellfire and brimstone? Or is it a major philosophical shift towards post-modernism?

I wonder how much of a shift. As I look at the story of Adam and Eve, istm that they were given every opportunity to carry on with their relationship with God in the garden, but by their own free will they decided to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Post-modernist?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But this is a major shift in Christian thinking, isn't it? From condemnation to a self-locked cell - wow, that is a huge distance to cover, it seems to me. I suppose it takes the sting out of the charge of 'created sick', since now we are self-created sick!

Does it mean that Christians started to feel a bit wobbly about hellfire and brimstone? Or is it a major philosophical shift towards post-modernism?
I wonder how much of a shift. As I look at the story of Adam and Eve, istm that they were given every opportunity to carry on with their relationship with God in the garden, but by their own free will they decided to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Post-modernist?

OK, fair point. But weren't Adam and Eve (which I take symbolically really), facing a stacked deck? How the hell could they compute the relationship between eating a fruit, and a ton of grief that would ensue? If I was offered that deal, I would call the manager and demand a fresh pack.

By post-modernism I mean that the 'self-locked cell' idea de-centres and deconstructs the whole ambit of crime and punishment. I'm not punished by God, who is also de-centred. This to me is part of the post-modernist move away from the grand narrative towards the fragile I, who is, basically, lost. Yes, that is also in the Bible, but with all the big rhetoric as well, isn't it?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's very insightful, but does it square with traditional views of hell?

Was on a bit of a wide sweep with my comparison . But wasn't our old traditional and simplistic view of Hell something like -- *a bad place you end up in if you do bad stuff*.
Admittedly this didn't work terribly well as society has always had it's proportion of individuals prepared to risk condemnation, both the down-to-earth sort and the divine.

Nevertheless some vague concept of Hell has been buried in our thinking for many Centuries . This is no longer the case in the sanitized and sensitized present day.
So these days we tend to hear the phrase --'in a bad place' when someone's feeling like shite . Self imposed condemnation , (or self criticism), may seem lighter and healthier than having a judgmental God breathing down our neck . There could though be a darker side to it.

I mean this stuff must connect somewhere at a deep level , why else would evangelical rants re. Hell and damnation find any favour at all in this day and age.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
OK, fair point. But weren't Adam and Eve (which I take symbolically really), facing a stacked deck? How the hell could they compute the relationship between eating a fruit, and a ton of grief that would ensue? If I was offered that deal, I would call the manager and demand a fresh pack.

It's pretty clear really (and I take it as symbolic too), 'Don't do that or you will die' sounds as if a ton of grief will ensue if you do it. They did it anyway, then hid from God, indicating that they were aware that the relationship had been damaged.

quote:

By post-modernism I mean that the 'self-locked cell' idea de-centres and deconstructs the whole ambit of crime and punishment. I'm not punished by God, who is also de-centred. This to me is part of the post-modernist move away from the grand narrative towards the fragile I, who is, basically, lost. Yes, that is also in the Bible, but with all the big rhetoric as well, isn't it?

As ever, more than one story must interconnect to make reality. We relate with God individually as well as corporately, God is both immanent and transcendent, there are endless possibilities and permutations and we try to work it out with our puny brains, reducing it to our worldly experience, while God nudges and prompts and guides us, knowing what we're like and loving us despite our failings.

God's grand narrative can't be translated into our projection of it, but that won't stop us from continuing to try.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Raptor Eye

Again, fair points, but I don't think we live in a philosophy seminar. Humans are savage and passionate animals, and asking them to judge questions of free will and its consequences is bizarre really.

Well, you could argue that the idea of hell therefore arises naturally as a savage and passionate place. Is this the price of freedom? I don't know, more like the price of desire or attachment.

Well, I am in a different place I guess, hell is a kind of training ground. Here! creep wretch, under a comfort serves in a whirlwind.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
And being without God does not refer to being without love, clearly. The whole of my family were atheists, and they were not unloving people at all.

Jesus did not distinguish between the sheep and the goats on the basis of what they professed about God, so I wouldn't expect him to distinguish between atheists and Christians on that basis, either.

quote:
I forgot to say that I have always taken great enjoyment in the Zen quote, 'hell isn't punishment, it's training', although of course this comes from a non-theistic source.

Nice quote - thanks!

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A being which creates the game and the players is responsible for the losing as well as the winning.
Not if the players are given free will and autonomy. That's the whole point.
I am not trying to be rude, but Free Will changes nothing. Truly free will would be the choice not to play the game at all.

Not all games involving losing. If God set up a cooperative game to get everyone working together to achieve a common goal just for the joy of it, "hell" could simply be the label given to the choice not to play at all.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

But let's not pretend. We have choices, there are consequences.

Of course there are consequences. But the consequence of eternal punishment is not commensurate with the crime or of God's nature as described in the OP.

A child rapist deserves hell. But it would be more in keeping with God's healing nature to reform that rapist rather than eternally punish them for no good purpose.

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

Eternal punishment/torture/fire must be wrong.
Which would therefore mean a good percentage of the NT must be wrong , which could therefore mean the whole darn thing is wrong .

Not so. That's the slippery slope logical fallacy.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A being which creates the game and the players is responsible for the losing as well as the winning.
Not if the players are given free will and autonomy. That's the whole point.
I am not trying to be rude, but Free Will changes nothing. Truly free will would be the choice not to play the game at all.

It's quite possible we choose to be born. *shrug*.

If you had the choice, would you choose not to be alive?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Hell really is separation from God and His grace, knowing the gap's there and being unable to bridge it. But then, Sartre says that hell is other people.

[ 21. April 2014, 00:40: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

I mean this stuff must connect somewhere at a deep level , why else would evangelical rants re. Hell and damnation find any favour at all in this day and age.

It appeals to a sense of justice. Significant evil doers should not be able to get away with doing terrible things to other people. It's not right.

Yet eternal punishment is not justice, its just overblown vengeance because there is no redemption. It is God's nature that all her children be called to life.

Annihilation would be more in keeping with God's justice than eternal punishment/torture IMO.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

Something like the 'self-locked door' presentation of hell is found in the NT, as well as in CS Lewis and I believe Milton; see John 3;19-20

quote:
`And this is the judgment, that the light hath come to the world, and men did love the darkness rather than the light, for their works were evil; 20 for every one who is doing wicked things hateth the light, and doth not come unto the light, that his works may not be detected;
John 3:19-20 (YLT)

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A being which creates the game and the players is responsible for the losing as well as the winning.
Not if the players are given free will and autonomy. That's the whole point.

a) The experimental evidence available to us very strongly suggests that we do not have what I suspect you mean by "free will" and

b) If your god knows the outcome of the game for each of its creations before it creates them then its not a very nice god is it? How would you describe someone who consciously breeds puppies/kittens that will inevitably suffer an early death after a life of constant agony? At least their pain will end.

Don't think about it too much - it's one of the several routes to atheism which are embedded in Christianity.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
A disturbing meme

Eternal punishment, eternal torture, eternal fire has no purpose.

It has no redemptive quality,
it has no transformative power,
it has no Grace,
it has no love.

It has no opportunity for repentance.
It has no kin with the Good News.
It has no kin with the majority of the New Testament.
It's only Bad News.

It's only revenge.
And even then it's revenge not commensurate with crimes perpetrated because it is eternal and life on earth is not. So it's not even retributive justice. The scales are not balanced.

Eternal punishment is not justifiable if God is a God of love which the New Testament tells us is true.

So what in God's name were you Evangelists on about? Was it solely about scaring people?

Fear is a shallow, temporary motivator.

Or did you count on that because of our shallowness? Is Hell just a stopgap for the weak?

Fiery, pitchfork-in-the-ass-for-all-eternity Hell is an exercise in wishful thinking for those who want retribution against others but are powerless to do anything themselves.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
Fiery, pitchfork-in-the-ass-for-all-eternity Hell is an exercise in wishful thinking for those who want retribution against others but are powerless to do anything themselves.

If that makes you feel better about it, I'm not going to stop you.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Truly free will would be the choice not to play the game at all.

That gets into the same territory as trying to sue doctors for 'wrongful birth'. Step one of the 'game' is being born. By the time you have awareness to object to step one, it's too late. Sorry.

As far as I'm aware, no religion or belief system gets around that one. None of them are about how to prevent being born. They're about how you handle the mess afterwards.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

All-Powerful, All-Knowing.

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

Essentially, you seem to be saying that it would have been better for God not to have created the world. Since as has been said previously, once something is created, then that enity is part of creation and has to work within that system.

The terms all powerful and all knowing need to be unpacked rather than merely stated as arguments. In classical theism, God's omniscience is usually taken to mean that he knows all that can be known, rather than simply he knows everything without any sort of qualification e.g. he knows what our future holds because he transcends time and sees our entire timeline as now, but wouldn't know anything about a person who hadn't been created, since there wouldn't be anything to know.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

As Sartre is reputed to have said:

quote:
Hell is other people!

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
As Sartre is reputed to have said:

quote:
Hell is other people!

Sartre got it wrong.

Far more common, Hell is how I treat other people, but then again that could be heaven.

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

If you think 'Hell is other people', that's a possible indication that you're carrying Hell inside of you in however small a way. As the Talmud says: “We see the world not as it is but as we are.”

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

To the extrovert (nods) Heaven is other people.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Raptor Eye

Again, fair points, but I don't think we live in a philosophy seminar. Humans are savage and passionate animals, and asking them to judge questions of free will and its consequences is bizarre really.

Well, you could argue that the idea of hell therefore arises naturally as a savage and passionate place. Is this the price of freedom? I don't know, more like the price of desire or attachment.

Well, I am in a different place I guess, hell is a kind of training ground. Here! creep wretch, under a comfort serves in a whirlwind.

I see the Adam and Eve story as the point at which human beings became aware of the knowledge of good and evil, ie where the savage and passionate animal became able to make judgements and assess consequences.

The price of freedom must be a lack of boundaries. What real choice is there between one safe place and another, and how would we know what is safe without danger?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I see the Adam and Eve story as the point at which human beings became aware of the knowledge of good and evil, ie where the savage and passionate animal became able to make judgements and assess consequences.

My interpretation of the story is more complex than that, but I'm curious: how do you reconcile God's anger in the story with your viewpoint that it was not A Fall but A Rise?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
a) The experimental evidence available to us very strongly suggests that we do not have what I suspect you mean by "free will" and

?

You don't believe human beings have free will? Or are you reducing the argument to a materialist viewpoint?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Raptor Eye

Again, fair points, but I don't think we live in a philosophy seminar. Humans are savage and passionate animals, and asking them to judge questions of free will and its consequences is bizarre really.

Well, you could argue that the idea of hell therefore arises naturally as a savage and passionate place. Is this the price of freedom? I don't know, more like the price of desire or attachment.

Well, I am in a different place I guess, hell is a kind of training ground. Here! creep wretch, under a comfort serves in a whirlwind.
I see the Adam and Eve story as the point at which human beings became aware of the knowledge of good and evil, ie where the savage and passionate animal became able to make judgements and assess consequences.

The price of freedom must be a lack of boundaries. What real choice is there between one safe place and another, and how would we know what is safe without danger?

Well, last night I was thinking about 'felix culpa', but there was something good on telly, so I delayed it. I think it's a brilliant idea - our happy fault - the idea that Adam and Eve's disobedience (code for our disobedience), is both inevitable and beneficial, since it leads to our separation from God, and each other, which in turn leads to an enhanced sense of self.

Of course, this turns into a hellish vista of greed and pride, but also the great beauty present in human culture.

This shifts me towards a more Eastern view that hell and heaven are the same really, from different points of view. Well, some of the great Christian mystics may have had the same idea. Also, that I have to be lost, to know that I am (hello, Descartes).

But then this stuff can seem very elitist sometimes; for example, for a single mum trying to raise 3 kids in a tower block, how does it help?

But then many religions have the wonderful idea that what counts is not that I am with God, but that I'm with you (the same thing of course). As the old saying goes, it's not being right that wins the prize, but being related.

Jung used to say that it was essential to have some bad relationships when you are young, which makes a similar point. We used to say in therapy that you need a mum who is good enough, but not too good, well, she should be bad enough also, and disappoint you sometimes (but not too much).

[ 21. April 2014, 14:00: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I dunno how hell is justified. I just take Jesus' word for it when he tells me it's a real concern if I don't repent.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
My interpretation of the story is more complex than that, but I'm curious: how do you reconcile God's anger in the story with your viewpoint that it was not A Fall but A Rise?

As a parent is angry when a teenager doesn't do as he's guided and the relationship becomes tense, and yet it's a necessary step in the development to adulthood, so I compare God's annoyance with Adam and Eve, and his spelling out of the consequences. And then he clothed them.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

Well, last night I was thinking about 'felix culpa', but there was something good on telly, so I delayed it. I think it's a brilliant idea - our happy fault - the idea that Adam and Eve's disobedience (code for our disobedience), is both inevitable and beneficial, since it leads to our separation from God, and each other, which in turn leads to an enhanced sense of self.

Of course, this turns into a hellish vista of greed and pride, but also the great beauty present in human culture.

This shifts me towards a more Eastern view that hell and heaven are the same really, from different points of view. Well, some of the great Christian mystics may have had the same idea. Also, that I have to be lost, to know that I am (hello, Descartes).

But then this stuff can seem very elitist sometimes; for example, for a single mum trying to raise 3 kids in a tower block, how does it help?

But then many religions have the wonderful idea that what counts is not that I am with God, but that I'm with you (the same thing of course). As the old saying goes, it's not being right that wins the prize, but being related.

Jung used to say that it was essential to have some bad relationships when you are young, which makes a similar point. We used to say in therapy that you need a mum who is good enough, but not too good, well, she should be bad enough also, and disappoint you sometimes (but not too much).

Thank you for your train of thought. Yes, it's relationships that count imv: between us and God, and between each other. It's far from elitist if we follow the call of Jesus, as we're drawn into relationships with the people on the margins of society, and God teaches us through them too.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I dunno how hell is justified. I just take Jesus' word for it when he tells me it's a real concern if I don't repent.

Well that's simplistic. Blind faith eh?

I thought you were a theologian.

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
My interpretation of the story is more complex than that, but I'm curious: how do you reconcile God's anger in the story with your viewpoint that it was not A Fall but A Rise?
As a parent is angry when a teenager doesn't do as he's guided and the relationship becomes tense, and yet it's a necessary step in the development to adulthood, so I compare God's annoyance with Adam and Eve, and his spelling out of the consequences. And then he clothed them.

Yes he does clothe them. He still loves them.

But we fear our teenagers will go off the rails for the worst. The analogy with God doesn't work. Because (according to your theory) growing up isn't the worst - it was a good thing, and God would have known that. So no reason for the anger.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes he does clothe them. He still loves them.

But we fear our teenagers will go off the rails for the worst. The analogy with God doesn't work. Because (according to your theory) growing up isn't the worst - it was a good thing, and God would have known that. So no reason for the anger.

Anger and reason surely don't mix. We all know that growing up is a good thing, but anger at a teenager's harmful actions is a natural response, especially when we know that the consequences will be dire - even though all shall be well in the end.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

But God is not an unreasonable human being that vents anger when concerned about outcomes....

Or is she? Arguable in the OT at least....

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Teenagers are an interesting analogy, as they both want to separate from us, and want to stay. And we want them to bugger off, and want them to come back.

Anyway, Adam and Eve's disobedience is a bit like this - they need to get away from God, in order to have some not-Godness. Who wouldn't?

I suppose then, after they realize it gets a bit lonely, they want to come back.

However, you could extend this image at will - for example, they see God in each other, hoopla! And, coming back on topic, they realize that they are hell to each other, and yet, being without each other, is hell.

I like the bodhisattvas who are reputed to say, if I do not go to hell to help those suffering there, who else will go? Which of course has a Christian parallel, the harrowing of hell. And there is a very fine woodcut of this:

http://tinyurl.com/lsyu9qf

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

And I just forgot the idea (already mentioned), that in some Jewish traditions, God leaves us, so that creation can occur. I have also found this idea in Simone Weil, who has a kind of double negation - God leaves, so that creation can be; and then, if I annihilate myself, God reappears. I suppose there is hell involved here somewhere? (But Simone Weil was Jewish of course).

This is an exciting idea, as it connects with many Eastern traditions, of self-annihilation, leading to the pleroma, anyway, going o/t, which is hell of a kind.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I just wondered why hell is so inspiring? See Milton.

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

Hey kids, it's just a STORY. From the late Lord Of The Flies period.

Why do we blame The Light for revealing OUR darkness?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
The terms all powerful and all knowing need to be unpacked rather than merely stated as arguments. In classical theism, God's omniscience is usually taken to mean that he knows all that can be known, rather than simply he knows everything without any sort of qualification e.g. he knows what our future holds because he transcends time and sees our entire timeline as now, but wouldn't know anything about a person who hadn't been created, since there wouldn't be anything to know.

This puts God as a part of creation, rather than as its creator. It abrogates the responsibility and control, neither of which is consistant with mainstream Christianity, IME.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I dunno how hell is justified. I just take Jesus' word for it when he tells me it's a real concern if I don't repent.
Well that's simplistic. Blind faith eh?

I thought you were a theologian.

Shut Up and Deal! The New Episcapal Tradition!
Tired of tying to learnify your Flock? Is the ejamacation system too trying for them? (And You [Biased]

)
Just tell 'em to Shut Up and Deal!
You'll enjoy the streamlined service and so will your Congregation! No need for a sermon, just read a passage and tell them to Shut Up and Deal!
They can enjoy More of their Sunday and You can get in an extra round of Golf. [Biased]

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:
The terms all powerful and all knowing need to be unpacked rather than merely stated as arguments. In classical theism, God's omniscience is usually taken to mean that he knows all that can be known, rather than simply he knows everything without any sort of qualification e.g. he knows what our future holds because he transcends time and sees our entire timeline as now, but wouldn't know anything about a person who hadn't been created, since there wouldn't be anything to know.
This puts God as a part of creation, rather than as its creator. It abrogates the responsibility and control, neither of which is consistant with mainstream Christianity, IME.

I don't see how that conclusion leads from my statement.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

C.S. Lewis pointed out that Milton's Hell seemed to be full of activity and energy, which is always attractive in a narrative. Dante's Hell is more futile and frustrating.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

Much as I love having Hell in Hell, I think the non sequiter of putting it in Purgatory would be more to my taste. Lots of flavor, no heat—it's like paprika, ya know? This is more datil or Trinadad scorpion territory, if you get my drift.

Begone with ye!

cracks hostly whip. *whip-POW!*

—ariston, hellhost

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
My interpretation of the story is more complex than that, but I'm curious: how do you reconcile God's anger in the story with your viewpoint that it was not A Fall but A Rise?
As a parent is angry when a teenager doesn't do as he's guided and the relationship becomes tense, and yet it's a necessary step in the development to adulthood, so I compare God's annoyance with Adam and Eve, and his spelling out of the consequences. And then he clothed them.
Yes he does clothe them. He still loves them.

But we fear our teenagers will go off the rails for the worst. The analogy with God doesn't work. Because (according to your theory) growing up isn't the worst - it was a good thing, and God would have known that. So no reason for the anger.

What anger? None is mentioned in the story. Perhaps God decided that since Adam and Eve made their decisions as they did, Eden was not the place for them anymore, especially since the Tree of Life would be a great temptation. They would have taken all their new spiritual problems into immortality- not good. They chose to live their own way and the world outside Eden was rough. The consequences which God described followed from their actions, not from his anger, IMO.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
a) The experimental evidence available to us very strongly suggests that we do not have what I suspect you mean by "free will" and

?

You don't believe human beings have free will? Or are you reducing the argument to a materialist viewpoint?

I don't believe that human beings have free will (in the sense that we make decisions by consciously weighing evidence etc.) I'd like to think we (I) do but there seems to be an overwhelming weight of experimental evidence (quantified results including fMRI data not abstract philosophy) which says that we make decisions in our unconscious, based on our genetic inheritance and our experience. Does, when I think about it, make sense of my own determination that many problems are best resolved by sleeping on them.

So no, regretfully, I don't so believe - it would, after all, be perverse of me to believe something which is contrary to evidence wouldn't it?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well that's simplistic. Blind faith eh?

I thought you were a theologian.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Shut Up and Deal! The New Episcapal Tradition!

My theology has yet to progress past the Jesus Christ I find in the Holy Scriptures.

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
My theology has yet to progress past the Jesus Christ I find in the Holy Scriptures.

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth."

I had thought the Episcopal tradition one of learning and discernment. My bad.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
My theology has yet to progress past the Jesus Christ I find in the Holy Scriptures.

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth."
I had thought the Episcopal tradition one of learning and discernment. My bad.

Learning and discernment of the Holy Scriptures, not making up a false god more comfortable to your sensibilities.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I don't believe in a punitive God, so I don't think Hell is a "place" God consigns unwilling people to. I think it's an option God invented to provide for those who hate whatever Heaven is.

If you thrive on deceiving others and heaven is a place where all is known, if you need to be the center of attention but in heaven God is central, if you hate [name a group] and in heaven they are honored - you'll hate heaven, right?

So either heaven is a hell for those who cannot accept its values; or a separate hell was lovingly invented to provide for those who seek to flee heaven, and the gates are always open in case any change their minds.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Learning and discernment of the Holy Scriptures, not making up a false god more comfortable to your sensibilities.

Ah, yes, the One True Scotsman school of theology.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Learning and discernment of the Holy Scriptures, not making up a false god more comfortable to your sensibilities.
Ah, yes, the One True Scotsman school of theology.

Do you have anything to offer besides rubbish comments about my lack of theological sophistication?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Your initial post contained simplistic comment to a nuanced question. Your follow up comments seemed more snark than anything else, why should my responses be anything else?
Lay forth an argument more discerning than "Jesus Said it, I Believe it and That Settles it."
I read your texts, and my own as well, as much as a whole and with as much context as I can. You might also, but your comments on this thread thus far do not reflect it.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Your initial post contained simplistic comment to a nuanced question.

It was a simple answer to a screed.

quote:
Your follow up comments seemed more snark than anything else, why should my responses be anything else?

I hate to take the argument to this level, but reread your rebuttal. You and your friend Evensong initiated the snark.

quote:
Lay forth an argument more discerning than "Jesus Said it, I Believe it and That Settles it."

What information do we have about God besides God's revelation of himself?

quote:
I read your texts, and my own as well, as much as a whole and with as much context as I can. You might also, but your comments on this thread thus far do not reflect it.

As yes, compared to your erudite and discerning comments about what an uneducated rube I am. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

IF you wish to discuss the merits of the theology thus far laid by your fellows on this thread, I am happy to follow. However, I've no interest in continuing the current form of discourse you employ.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

You picked the form of discussion, lilBuddha, not me, and it's quite graceless of you to blame it all on me.

If arguments from Christian scripture are out, I got nothing. Besides commenting that this is not and cannot be a discussion of the Christian faith, that is.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

[Confused]

You made a simple comment in Hell that given the level of discussion to that point, appeared to be a snarky, throwaway comment. It was in Hell so I responded with snark.
Again, if you wish to layout a true rebuttal to the commentary thus far, cool. Otherwise, whatevs.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

You made a simple comment in Hell that given the level of discussion to that point, appeared to be a snarky, throwaway comment. It was in Hell so I responded with snark.
Again, if you wish to layout a true rebuttal to the commentary thus far, cool. Otherwise, whatevs.

I am so gawddamn tired of people reading malice into every comment I make these days.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

That's the residual problem in transferring Hell threads to Purgatory, Zach82. The normal convention is "do not import Hellish comments into Purgatory".

In this special case, I suggest all of you ignore personal comments, or comments you perceive as personal, which occurred before the thread was transferred here. Don't continue discussion on those comments here. What was proper in Hell doesn't fly here.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I don't believe in a punitive God, so I don't think Hell is a "place" God consigns unwilling people to. I think it's an option God invented to provide for those who hate whatever Heaven is.

Surely annihilation is a far better option?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I don't believe in a punitive God, so I don't think Hell is a "place" God consigns unwilling people to. I think it's an option God invented to provide for those who hate whatever Heaven is.

If you thrive on deceiving others and heaven is a place where all is known, if you need to be the center of attention but in heaven God is central, if you hate [name a group] and in heaven they are honored - you'll hate heaven, right?

So either heaven is a hell for those who cannot accept its values; or a separate hell was lovingly invented to provide for those who seek to flee heaven, and the gates are always open in case any change their minds.

Thank you for offering a version of hell that moves beyond the cartoonish metaphor taken from the biblical references.

The key is only the distinction between happiness and unhappiness. One or the other is inherent in the way that we live and think. And we can live and think in whatever way we choose - forever.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I don't believe in a punitive God, so I don't think Hell is a "place" God consigns unwilling people to. I think it's an option God invented to provide for those who hate whatever Heaven is.

If you thrive on deceiving others and heaven is a place where all is known, if you need to be the center of attention but in heaven God is central, if you hate [name a group] and in heaven they are honored - you'll hate heaven, right?

So either heaven is a hell for those who cannot accept its values; or a separate hell was lovingly invented to provide for those who seek to flee heaven, and the gates are always open in case any change their minds.

Good call, Belle Ringer. I'd like to think that the gates will always be open, but there's the rub and the reason for the nightmare hell projections: the indications are according to the scriptures that there will be an 'end time', beyond which all will have been changed. I like to think that all people will have been reconciled to God by then, but only God knows the truth. As I trust in God and know God's loving nature, I'm convinced that all shall be well.

If eternity means for all time, it includes now: therefore we may already be living in heaven or hell in the spiritual dimension.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

The key is only the distinction between happiness and unhappiness. One or the other is inherent in the way that we live and think. And we can live and think in whatever way we choose - forever.

The way we live and think in this world changes a great deal over time, I hope we will be allowed to do the same in heaven.

If we can access forgiveness here - and be willing to change, then why not there too?

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Surely annihilation is a far better option?

Annihilation did seem to be the OT God's option of choice .
Yet come NT we have a God who seems to have morphed in something disturbingly more sadistic, (eternal torment/torture etc.).

I wonder what brought this about ?

Was it the brutal occupation of Judea by the Romans maybe ? The Roman appetite for sadism is well documented -- bless their little cotton socks .

[ 22. April 2014, 10:57: Message edited by: rolyn ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The way we live and think in this world changes a great deal over time, I hope we will be allowed to do the same in heaven.

If we can access forgiveness here - and be willing to change, then why not there too?

I think that people change forever. The question is whether people are willing to change in fundamental ways in the next life.

The premise of an eternal hell is that over time people become less willing to change rather than more willing to change.

That can only make sense, in terms of hell, if we move beyond the concept of hell as the torture chamber of fire that the biblical metaphor describes.

I think that hell is better understood as a normal life among people who are self-centered and materialistic, a life that doesn't seem so bad to people who share those values and interests. Yet at its core such a life is not only meaningless and empty, but deeply painful in a way that those experiencing it do not fully appreciate.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

I have a preacher friend who says sin is cast into hell, not people cast into hell. The only way a person lands in hellfire (if you want that image) is if s/he refuses to let go of the sin, when the sin is thrown a person clinging to it goes too. They could let go! Like those operas where one person is condemned and another chooses to die with them - the uncondemned experiences the pain of a condemned only because s/he will not let go of the condemned one. The flames burn sin, but if you cling to sin you feel the pain too.

Do we at some point become so fixed we cannot change, cannot let go of that which is death-causing (sin), cannot give it up to embrace life? I've known people (and buried some) who reach for multiple desserts even though they have been told diabetes is destroying them or even though they weigh 150 pounds too much. I'm not sure if they "refuse to change" or "can't change."

Why do we all do things that by our own value systems are wrong? What does it take to change?

You don't live to be old unless you are able to adapt and change, so it's not mere passage of years that makes some characteristics "permanent."

"God will not always strive" but "love never gives up". Conflicting verses? I think of parents who no longer expect their estranged child to come home, but avoid changing the locks or the phone number just in case. Love might stop striving and still not totally give up that last wisp of hope.

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

The Romans had nowt ter do wi' it. The evolution of hell goes right back to a common ancestor of Jewish and Roman mythology two thousand years before: Egyptian overlapping with Mesopotamian. It just took Jewish thought a millennium or two to catch up.

Jesus did His judo throws against His culture using that enormous momentum, which says NOTHING about the actual afterlife and judgement whatsoever.

Our disposition does all that.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
What anger? None is mentioned in the story

The curses in Genesis chapter 3?

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Well that's simplistic. Blind faith eh?

I thought you were a theologian.

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Shut Up and Deal! The New Episcapal Tradition!
My theology has yet to progress past the Jesus Christ I find in the Holy Scriptures.

The conflict I find in the concept of eternal punishment and the nature of God come directly from the scriptures as I have detailed in the OP. I am not creating a false God in my image, I am struggling with the ones presented in the scriptures.

I'm not interested in blind faith. I'm interested in faith seeking understanding.

I believe Augustine believed that if some parts of scripture contradicted the nature of God as revealed in other parts of scripture, he saw that the interpretation must move beyond the literal and into the allegorical or moral or eschatalogical.

I suspect something like that is the case with hell as presented in the NT.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
What anger? None is mentioned in the story
The curses in Genesis chapter 3?

And as I said in the rest of that post, the "curses" may have been more descriptive than wrathful.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I believe Augustine believed that if some parts of scripture contradicted the nature of God as revealed in other parts of scripture, he saw that the interpretation must move beyond the literal and into the allegorical or moral or eschatalogical.

This priciple is called sublation, and it applies most strongly here. Eternal hell is incompatible with a God of love and mercy. Even for those who emphasise His justice, because it serves no just purpose. It matters not whether God punishes people in hell or merely allows it to happen. An omniscient God would know from before the foundation of the world if a creature is going to fail the test and wind up in hell. So what is the purpose in creating such a being short of sadistic pleasure?

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If arguments from Christian scripture are out, I got nothing.

Quoting from Scripture is ok, except you quote only those parts which suit your argument and ignore, or gloss over other parts, as Luther did with the Epistle of James. We can all quote from Scripture, "it is also true that God "desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4), and that for Him "all things are possible" (Mt 19:26), an aswer he gave to the question "who then can be saved? This is why I don't buy the free will arguement. If all things are possible to a God who desires the salvation of all, the matter is settled!

If you want to quote Matthew 25 as an arguement for eternal damnation, you need to remember two important things. First Jesus doesn't here, or anywhere else, threaten people with hell for not believeing in Him, for belonging to the wrong church or for having the wrong theology. It's only to do with loving one's neighbour or not. Second, many Greek scholars dispute that the word "aionian" means eternal. It's from the noun aion which means age, eon, era etc. It's quite likely that those who die with unrepented sin must suffer the consequences of their wrongful behaviour towards others, but they may spend an age in the refining fire and emerge purified. None of this will fit in with Zack82's theology, but others are as entitled to their own view of what the Bible says.

To return to Evensong and Augustine's point of sublation. Paul wrote a lot of things concerning God's redemption of all creation in the atoning work of Christ. Christ Himself said He would draw all people to Himself.(John 12.33). At other times, he may or may not have said that punishment is eternal. I think we're entitled to make what we can of all of this, and none of it, to me, contradicts my view that a God of love doesn't torture a sentient being for eternity.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I believe Augustine believed that if some parts of scripture contradicted the nature of God as revealed in other parts of scripture, he saw that the interpretation must move beyond the literal and into the allegorical or moral or eschatalogical.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If arguments from Christian scripture are out, I got nothing.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
We can all quote from Scripture, "it is also true that God "desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4), and that for Him "all things are possible" (Mt 19:26), an aswer he gave to the question "who then can be saved? This is why I don't buy the free will arguement. If all things are possible to a God who desires the salvation of all, the matter is settled!

I don't agree that that settles the matter. Note that Jesus' answer was not to the question "who will be saved?" but to "who can be saved?" Taken literally, his answer means that there are no people for whom it is true that it is impossible for God to save them. I can see how you could legitimately interpret this to mean that all will [eventually] be saved, but it seems to me to leave plenty of room for the alternative that there will be some people who choose not to be saved. I.e. God desires that all be saved, but he also desires that everyone makes a free choice about it.

However, I fully agree that none of Scripture contradicts the idea that a God of love doesn't torture anyone (for any duration).

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I don't agree that that settles the matter. Note that Jesus' answer was not to the question "who will be saved?" but to "who can be saved?" Taken literally, his answer means that there are no people for whom it is true that it is impossible for God to save them. I can see how you could legitimately interpret this to mean that all will [eventually] be saved, but it seems to me to leave plenty of room for the alternative that there will be some people who choose not to be saved. I.e. God desires that all be saved, but he also desires that everyone makes a free choice about it.

Although I stick to my view that I don't accept eternal, conscious torment, my main point here is that anyone can creatively make their own arguement by quoting Scripture. So the point that eternal damnation appears in Scripture doesn't make it right, because it can be interpreted in other ways. Relying on Scripture to prove preconceived ideas is fraught with difficulties for all of us.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

That's a good point, and I completely agree with it, which is why I think it's important to distinguish between what the text itself actually says and how we interpret it.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
What anger? None is mentioned in the story
The curses in Genesis chapter 3?

And as I said in the rest of that post, the "curses" may have been more descriptive than wrathful.

What do you mean?

I don't see how gaining knowledge of good and evil should automatically make childbirth difficult and work a complete pain in the ass? How do the two follow unless it is God's action?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
a) The experimental evidence available to us very strongly suggests that we do not have what I suspect you mean by "free will" and

?

You don't believe human beings have free will? Or are you reducing the argument to a materialist viewpoint?
I don't believe that human beings have free will (in the sense that we make decisions by consciously weighing evidence etc.)

Isn't that supposed to be the whole premise of science? Weighing evidence?

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I'd like to think we (I) do but there seems to be an overwhelming weight of experimental evidence (quantified results including fMRI data not abstract philosophy) which says that we make decisions in our unconscious, based on our genetic inheritance and our experience. Does, when I think about it, make sense of my own determination that many problems are best resolved by sleeping on them.

So no, regretfully, I don't so believe - it would, after all, be perverse of me to believe something which is contrary to evidence wouldn't it?

Well no. But that entirely depends on what kind of evidence and what your presumptions about that evidence are now doesn't it?

If you do not believe we have conscious choice then I assume you believe we are some sort of per-programmed robot. But I think we've been through this before and you are essentially a materialist.

Personally I find that philosophical viewpoint too small and deeply flawed.

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

God's yearning is bigger than ours.

Of course there's no free will: We ALL want to be happy. And if there were, free will, it would be a lesser, human thing. It's meaningless in God.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And as I said in the rest of that post, the "curses" may have been more descriptive than wrathful.
What do you mean?

I don't see how gaining knowledge of good and evil should automatically make childbirth difficult and work a complete pain in the ass? How do the two follow unless it is God's action?

"Adam knew Eve." That kind of knowledge - experiential, not abstract intellectual.

Kids think it's fun to play cops and robbers, their parents might convey the intellectual information it's not a fun situation but the kids are happy in their play. If they are ever close to a real cops & robbers battle, they'll experience that it's not fun, it's scary.

God experiences good and evil - think of the pain of our rejecting him. The tree's fruit "opened their eyes" to the broader reality.

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

That makes me think that moral awareness goes with existential awareness and in that our carnal limitations are a pain to our barely transcendent perspective: animals don't experience angst in breeding, predating. We ARE spirits in a material world. Which is why we swear, as Clive Staples explained.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
Yet eternal punishment is not justice, its just overblown vengeance because there is no redemption. It is God's nature that all her children be called to life.

ISTM that there is a formula in the Bible, which rules out the idea that God has given up on the damned:

1. God desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4).

2. God / Christ does not change (Hebrews 13:8).

3. God loves His enemies (implied in Matthew 5:48).

Therefore, ISTM, it is illogical for God to give up on anyone, no matter how hostile that person is to the ways of God. This implies that hell can never be permanent from the point of view of God's volition, although, of course, it is logically possible (though barely conceivable) that a person may choose to rebel forever.

Because of this, I have a strong suspicion that what the Bible calls 'hell' is really a kind of purgatory, although there is no guarantee that every last person will ultimately escape this fate, because some may be eternally unrepentant.

quote:
Annihilation would be more in keeping with God's justice than eternal punishment/torture IMO.

The problem with annihilation is that it undermines the above redemptive purpose.

Certainly if hell is final in terms of divine decree, then annihilation seems the more morally justifiable position.

I take the view that God is hell, based on Hebrews 12:29. I have no problem with the idea that the God of everlasting love is 'hell' for those who are unrepentantly arrogant and evil. But God desires the ultimate salvation of these people, so how can He just annihilate them?

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
a) The experimental evidence available to us very strongly suggests that we do not have what I suspect you mean by "free will" and

If this is the case, then there is no such thing as 'free thinking', and no hope of persuading people to change their minds based on an appeal to reason. Yet we know that many people do change their position. In fact, in your post you imply this very thing...

quote:
Don't think about it too much - it's one of the several routes to atheism which are embedded in Christianity.

Why do you think some Christians become atheists, and others do not? Or why some atheists become Christians? Is it simply genetic or environmental? If that is the case, then atheism has no more claim to truth than any other position.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong
Yet eternal punishment is not justice, its just overblown vengeance because there is no redemption. It is God's nature that all her children be called to life.
ISTM that there is a formula in the Bible, which rules out the idea that God has given up on the damned:

1. God desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4).

2. God / Christ does not change (Hebrews 13:8).

3. God loves His enemies (implied in Matthew 5:48).

Therefore, ISTM, it is illogical for God to give up on anyone, no matter how hostile that person is to the ways of God.

Flame is a symbol of the Holy Spirit - Moses at the bush, tongues of flame at Pentecost. Why isn't "flames of hell eternal" an image of the holy spirit's presence at work - never giving up?

Posted by Karl Kroenen (# 16822) on :

Hell is a real place. The Russians drilled into it in the last days of the Soviet Union.

Russian 'Hell Well'

Seems plausible to me. [Disappointed]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

EtymologicalEvangelical I think we're on a similar wavelength.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Flame is a symbol of the Holy Spirit - Moses at the bush, tongues of flame at Pentecost. Why isn't "flames of hell eternal" an image of the holy spirit's presence at work - never giving up?

Because eternal punishment/torment is not redemptive and sanctifying. It is not restorative justice. Therefore not a mark of the Holy Spirit.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
EtymologicalEvangelical I think we're on a similar wavelength.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Flame is a symbol of the Holy Spirit - Moses at the bush, tongues of flame at Pentecost. Why isn't "flames of hell eternal" an image of the holy spirit's presence at work - never giving up?
Because eternal punishment/torment is not redemptive and sanctifying. It is not restorative justice. Therefore not a mark of the Holy Spirit.

That's how I see it as well.

Biblical symbols usually have opposite meanings. So "fire" has both a good and a bad sense - being the warmth of God's love, or the tormenting fire of hell.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

It is usually apposite, but perhaps more so on this thread.

From the Catechetical Sermon of Our Father Among the Saints, St. John Chrysostom on the Great and Holy Day of Pascha:

quote:
Let no one fear death, for the Savior's death has set us free.
He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it.
By descending into Hell, He made hell captive.

He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh.
And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry;
Hell, he said, was embittered,
when it encountered You in the lower regions.
It was embittered, for it was abolished.
It was embittered, for it was mocked.
It was embittered, for it was slain.
It was embittered, for it was overthrown.
It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains.

It took a body, and met God face to face.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.
O Death, where is your sting?
O Hell, where is your victory?
Christ is risen! And you are over thrown.
Christ is risen! And demons are fallen.
Christ is risen! And the angels rejoice.
Christ is risen! And life reigns.
Christ is risen! And not one dead remains in the grave.

For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first-fruits of those
who have fallen asleep.
To Him be glory and dominion unto ages of ages.

Amen.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
a) The experimental evidence available to us very strongly suggests that we do not have what I suspect you mean by "free will" and
If this is the case, then there is no such thing as 'free thinking', and no hope of persuading people to change their minds based on an appeal to reason. Yet we know that many people do change their position. In fact, in your post you imply this very thing...

quote:
Don't think about it too much - it's one of the several routes to atheism which are embedded in Christianity.
Why do you think some Christians become atheists, and others do not? Or why some atheists become Christians? Is it simply genetic or environmental? If that is the case, then atheism has no more claim to truth than any other position.

Perhaps I haven't made my understanding clear. That which we are born with is (pretty much) immutable - our experiences are on-going. Envisage a set of balances - there may be inherited factors in both pans, with one or the other the heavier. Experience may build up in the opposing pan and therefore opinions can change - this is recognised (overtly or implicitly) by all who want to control the experience of others, particularly in childhood education?

quote:
Evensong - Isn't that supposed to be the whole premise of science? Weighing evidence? It's part of the process - Yes - but science relies upon a way of gaining that evidence and testing its conclusions (the scientific method) that makes it difficult to accept as evidence that which is really wishful thinking.

If you do not believe we have conscious choice then I assume you believe we are some sort of per-programmed robot. But I think we've been through this before and you are essentially a materialist. Your assumption is wrong - see above

Personally I find that philosophical viewpoint too small and deeply flawed. Quelle surprise - Mind you, when I was twelve I would have agreed with you; I couldn't have given a rational argument to back it up but I'd have known how right I was.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
EtymologicalEvangelical I think we're on a similar wavelength.

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Flame is a symbol of the Holy Spirit - Moses at the bush, tongues of flame at Pentecost. Why isn't "flames of hell eternal" an image of the holy spirit's presence at work - never giving up?
Because eternal punishment/torment is not redemptive and sanctifying. It is not restorative justice. Therefore not a mark of the Holy Spirit.

I don't see never ceasing to love, never ceasing to hope for a child to come home, as punishment!

I suppose the child who has turned his back on his loving parents could see it that way. "Leave me alone!" Should the rejected parent slam the door, change the locks, "I've run out of patience, my kid is not welcome anymore?"

It's one of those "anything God does is wrong" situations. Give up - heartless, rejecting. Never give up - heartless, disrespectful. Destroy the kid - heartless, vengeful. What's a God to do?

My actual image of "the afterlife" is one "destination" that feels like paradise to those who share God's life-giving values and lonely not-fun to those who don't. The issue is not "will you go to heaven" but "are you developing the values to thrive happily there?"

I suppose God could invent an alternative "place" where those who need to dominate are paired with those who need to feel like victims?

I have trouble imagining any parent cheerfully offing their kids. And what do you tell the sibs? "Your best friend didn't want to come here so I destroyed him." That doesn't solve the problem of "how do you fully enjoy heaven when some people you dearly love aren't there?"

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

This is academic for me because as an atheist I don't believe an afterlife. Were the option available, I'm not sure which is better, eternal damnation or annihilation. I'd be curious how others feel about that choice. I can see arguments for choosing either.

I've heard "free will" used as an explanation of why hell exists. You get the privilege of choosing heaven or hell. It's not clear to me if what the "all will be saved" proponents are saying is that free will continues after death, when you are in hell. Does free will exist after death? Does it for those in heaven as well?

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

Palimpsest. As a creedal, therefore orthodox Christian, I'm not bothered about the afterlife and anybody else's projected nastiness narrative of it either.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0