|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Will God allow anyone to go to hell?
|
muchafraid
Shipmate
# 10738
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
We're in the realms of Alice, where a word means what we want it to mean, niether more nor less. As a means of imparting knowledge, it becomes meaningless.
and if that is the case with a single word such a "love," don't we then need to examine the other parts of scripture we have defined? i mean, i think what you're saying is that we choose to give meaning to words, phrases, and ideas - and those meanings are derived from our own need. our need to be right, our need to feel justified, our need to have control...the list goes on. it just scares me that if we can take the idea of god's love and come up with who knows how many definitions to fit our own criteria, how many other factions of the scriptures do we do that with? where do we draw the line? dare i say it - who defines the truth?
god help us if we do...
--------------------
all the glory when he took our place
but he took my shoulders, and he shook my face,
and he takes and he takes and he takes...sufjan stevens
Posts: 256 | From: baltimore, md | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Don't claim someone is going to hell--how do you know?
Spot on.
Who knows a person's heart but God?
And if we judge, we judge imperfectly because we are imperfect. And it is silly to usurp God's right or pretend that we are God - as if we control other people's eternal destinies.
While we may not know a specific person's heart, that is not to deny that people do make choices and I believe that God respects them and loves them enough to allow them to make choices.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by muchafraid:
it just scares me that if we can take the idea of god's love and come up with who knows how many definitions to fit our own criteria, how many other factions of the scriptures do we do that with? where do we draw the line? dare i say it - who defines the truth?
god help us if we do...
We don't. I believe that Christians use Scripture to draw these lines. In theory the truth can be found by the intelligent, informed, contextual comparison of what is said on a topic throughout the Scriptures.
If that doesn't work, or if we don't have confidence in that method, then, yes, it gets pretty subjective. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
It is usually thought of as a place of conscious suffering, rather than some sort of passive suffering that comes from "never being fully satisfied" etc.
Digory, I'm just thinking of my own experience with people who are in agony.
It is hard to generalize about it, because it comes in so many forms. But it may be safe to say that real suffering and agony happens when a person's situation is profoundly different than what they desire and expect. The more profound the difference, the greater the suffering.
This would be true of extreme poverty, sickness, hunger, addictions, being victimized by crime, and other physical forms of hardship. It also includes the agonies of failed relationships, dysfunctional families, and unhappy employment situations.
These are the kinds of things that extreme unhappiness is about. Nobody really chooses them, but they do happen. People also know that there are ways to avoid, or at least reduce the chances of being victimized by, these kinds of hardships.
It makes sense to me that this is also what the "fires of hell" are about.
As I understand it, when someone dies and wakes up in the next life, they then proceed to make a life for themselves according to their own desires and expectations. If they love God and wish to serve other people, they seek out opportunities to do this, and find friendship with people who share their interests. On the other hand, if they do not love God and are looking only to serve themselves, they seek different kinds of opportunities and different kinds of friends.
Everything follows from a person's basic interests and beliefs. Self-centered interests, and willfully erroneous beliefs, lead to the same kind of misery that they do in this world. Hell is all about failed relationships, miserable work situations, abusive friendships, addictions, poverty, hunger and disease.
But what is called "hell" is a life just like life in this world. The only difference is that inner qualities are more visible and extreme, and social controls less effective.
I'm just trying to get at a more realistic, and less caricatured, idea of what suffering is. This is not about "never being fully satisfied". This is real agony - the same kind of agony that is not that unfamiliar to most of us.
[ 01. December 2005, 00:22: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
I just wanted to add that several different words in the bible for what we in English call "hell." I haven't studied much of those words but I'm sure they are significant (e.g. sheol, hades etc).
I also want to add, looking at scriptures and looking at where Jesus is talking about hell, none of the parables that he told ended up like: "Yesiree, Bob. Elwin did not accept me as Lord and Savior or have a personal relationship with me- so I tossed him in a lake of burning fire."
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I also want to add, looking at scriptures and looking at where Jesus is talking about hell, none of the parables that he told ended up like: "Yesiree, Bob. Elwin did not accept me as Lord and Savior or have a personal relationship with me- so I tossed him in a lake of burning fire."
True, but he did say, "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Everything follows from a person's basic interests and beliefs. Self-centered interests, and willfully erroneous beliefs, lead to the same kind of misery that they do in this world. Hell is all about failed relationships, miserable work situations, abusive friendships, addictions, poverty, hunger and disease.
I'm going with you here. Next question.
What about the fact that a lot of failed relationships, miserable work situations, abusive friendships, addictions, poverty, hunger and disease is brought on to people by no choice of their own? I know you admitted that, but I'm trying to work out how that affects your scenario. I would think that post-death, people would at least be free from those kind of negative effects that hold them down in this life. If you strip away all of the incidents of those above things that aren't the product of our bad choices, what'd be left?
I suppose there still might be some people who continue to make bad choices for themselves even free from their situations and circumstances. These are the people who will remain in a sort of personal hell and real suffering, as you see it?
And secondly, do you think those people will have any chance of realizing their erroneous ways/desires and seeking redemption even post-death? For all eternity? Will hell finally empty itself eventually, even if it takes eternal years?
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Freddy, you asked: quote:
I don't think that "condemning perhaps the bulk of humanity" is what love means. But what do you mean by "condemning"?
I was referring more to the traditional view (though we could argue, not the Traditional view) of Hell, rather than the more nuanced position that you take.
Also: quote:
My own premise is that people in the next life are pretty much like they are in this world. That is, they retain the same interests, preferences, beliefs, and personality. They are the same people. To change them radically would be to make them into a different person.
I may casually say that I would like God to take away all of my less desirable predilections, and fill me with love for all people. But the truth is that it would be pretty unpleasant to have my basic characteristics yanked out of me without my permission.
As I see it, a person's beliefs, opinions, likes and dislikes, and many similar things, are what make up the person. A person is essentially what they love.
How could a God of love take away a person's fundamental character?
Or do we think that people can be eternally happy irrespective of their basic character and interests?
Well, a complex and perceptive approach, and, to a degree, one with which I have sympathy. My position (and it is but provisional - I haven't got it fully sorted in my head, much less on virtual paper) is that you are correct in saying that God does not take away our fundamental character, and that this character is revealed or manifested at the end of this life.
However, I believe that this character, which will have its' individuality, if you like, intact, has never been fully manifested in this life because it has been, to a greater or lesser extent, marred by the "disease" of sin. When that disease is healed at the resurrection of the body, our character will be revealed as it would have been if we had never sinned! Of course, for some of us, who have begun our healing process in this life, the apparent change will be relatively small. For others, whose lives on this earth have been so disfigured that the image of God in them appears to us to be almost totally absent, the change will seem, to the onlooker, to make that person almost unrecognisable. But the person themselves will know it is still them, save only that they are released from the constraints which excluded them from being who they really were.
Don't know if I could totally back this up from scripture as yet, but it sort of makes sense for me.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But if we accept that God chooses to communicate with us, at whatever level, through a book, using the medium of words, then for that communication to be worth anything at all, the concepts conveyed by the words must be consistent, else there can be no meaningful communication at all, and we might as well pack up and go home. Now I have no problem whatsoever with the concept that my idea of love may be infinately inferior to God's idea of love. In fact, I rather assume and hope that it is the case! What I have the greatest difficulty in believing is that it can mean the polar opposite. To suggest that God's idea of love is to condemn perhaps the bulk of humanity to an eternity in hell seems, to me, to rob the word "love" of all its' meaning.
I think God's idea of love is best illustrated by the Incarnation and the Cross; nobody can legitimately accuse God of not "doing enough" to save humanity. I am simply not able to manage a universalist reading of scripture, which leaves me in a place where it looks like God does, lovingly, allow people to distance themselves from Him. As I've said before, I have *no problem* being wrong - if I get to heaven and Jesus says, "Lynn, whatever were you thinking?!" I'll be well-pleased.
As for the world of Alice, I think the twisting and torquing of language is very much something the enemy does and if he can connive to get a bunch of Christians to believe that God is mean because He is just, that's quite an accomplishment. I do not have complete confidence in our 21st century view of the word "love," having watched a number of good and powerful words undermined and denatured in my relatively short lifespan - consider "tolerance," which now means "approval," and "awesome," which now means "dude, that is sooo cool!"
And thanks for appreciating my "little gem" !!!
quote:
posted by Freddy
No, I think the descriptions of hell are perfectly accurate. It is a place of torment. But it isn't a place but rather the state of unhappiness that is inherent in wicked loves and desires.
As I read, I got this image of assorted people being totally miserable in the midst of a wonderful environment - and unfortunately, I've seen examples of that kind of behavior (or choice), so I know it's possible - eep! There's a tale about a soul who has died and at the pearly gates is given the opportunity to view both heaven and hell. Hell is an enormous banquet hall with FABULOUS food weighing down long tables and on either side of the tables people are sitting, weeping, groaning, because instead of hands they have very long eating utensils and, try though they may, they cannot manage to get the food into their mouths. Heaven is exactly the same setting and the people still have long eating utensils instead of hands - but they are laughing and talking and *feeding each other.*
quote:
The trouble is that it is difficult to convince people who have wicked loves and desires that these things are actually tormenting them. It becomes apparent only over the long run.
If any of you have seen the movie, "The Aviator" on DVD, there is a fascinating bonus feature, a discussion with one of UCLA's top psychiatrists who speaks about Hughes' obsessive-compulsive disorder and how, as an engineer, he would have been a very good patient and could have understood that his problem was like a badly wired switch, so the things which he felt compelled to do were actually making him more and more ill - which resonates so much with your statement, above.
quote:
Jolly Jape said:
However, I believe that this character, which will have its' individuality, if you like, intact, has never been fully manifested in this life because it has been, to a greater or lesser extent, marred by the "disease" of sin. When that disease is healed at the resurrection of the body, our character will be revealed as it would have been if we had never sinned! Of course, for some of us, who have begun our healing process in this life, the apparent change will be relatively small. For others, whose lives on this earth have been so disfigured that the image of God in them appears to us to be almost totally absent, the change will seem, to the onlooker, to make that person almost unrecognisable. But the person themselves will know it is still them, save only that they are released from the constraints which excluded them from being who they really were.
I think there's a lot of truth in that, and it addresses an aspect of Freddy's view which troubles me ("we're pretty much the same, there and here"). I work with some profoundly damaged individuals whose capacity to trust and love and live with any kind of freedom has been severely limited by truly the evil behavior perpetrated upon them. I do not believe these people will continue in that state of brokenness in heaven.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I think there's a lot of truth in that, and it addresses an aspect of Freddy's view which troubles me ("we're pretty much the same, there and here"). I work with some profoundly damaged individuals whose capacity to trust and love and live with any kind of freedom has been severely limited by truly the evil behavior perpetrated upon them. I do not believe these people will continue in that state of brokenness in heaven.
I agree with JJ also.
While I think that we are "pretty much the same" in the next life as here, I mean that in the sense that we are essentially the same person. I think that this means that we are the person that has been deep within us all along. But often, as you point out, that inner person is entrapped by problems that prevent its true expression in this world. Any state of brokenness due to circumstances, mental or physical illness, or similar things is removed in the next life.
The only thing that remains is what is freely chosen, and what the person would freely choose again and again stretching forward into eternity. If information or experience can change the choice then they will change it.
The point is that everyone gets the chance to be who they really and truly desire to be, and they have unlimited time to modify that desire, and to keep on modifying it forever.
This ought to mean that everyone ends up in a truly happy state. In heaven.
The rub, I think, is that it is possible to genuinely prefer serving oneself to serving God, and to prefer the delights of that love to heavenly delight. Even when fully informed and over the very long haul. While we may objectively see that this is agony and torture, everyone is entitled to their own point of view.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Gosh, Lynn, you must be an early riser! And to be able to think at that time, too! Seriously impressed!
quote:
I am simply not able to manage a universalist reading of scripture, which leaves me in a place where it looks like God does, lovingly, allow people to distance themselves from Him.
Fair enough, I have difficulty with the opposite implications, and, as I say, my views are provisional.
quote:
I think the twisting and torquing of language is very much something the enemy does and if he can connive to get a bunch of Christians to believe that God is mean because He is just, that's quite an accomplishment. I do not have complete confidence in our 21st century view of the word "love," having watched a number of good and powerful words undermined and denatured in my relatively short lifespan - consider "tolerance," which now means "approval," and "awesome," which now means "dude, that is sooo cool!"
This is an interesting area. Of course language changes over the years, not necessarily from wrong motives. When modern revisers of biblical translation replaced "charity" with "love" it was in an attempt to get clarity in expression, and I think we would both agree that this is a good thing. Words do change over time, you mentioned two which have done so, I could add "conversation" which was the 16th century equivalent of a word that did not exist then, "lifestyle".
Thus, we take with us, say, our current understanding of baptism, that is, containing the concept of initiation and try to make the biblical concept of baptism fit within it. Which may be fine if we are talking about either infant or believers baptism, but not so good if we talk about the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as if it were an initiative event, rather than an ongoing process. Of course the root is to waterlog, but we have lost that sense, and picked up a new meaning from its association.
But there is also a problem with the inadequacy of words in the English (or any other) language, which have developed from human situations, being used to represent transcendant matters.
I think that words such as justice, and judgement, have suffered in this way. We really don't have a word free of secular associations which can adequately convey the whole meaning of God's justice, so we are reduced largely to analogy. Judgement (the declaration of God's truth) is contaminated by penal associations to mean condemnation, and so on.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
JollyJape - excellent point on disease masking development. I'm convinced, despite the dread separation of sheep and goats, no other name under heaven etc that we're going to be gobsmacked by God's unbelievable liberality of grace in the blood of Christ. If His blood utterly redeems me in my pathetic sanctification, which it does, and there will be and IS full restitution for all things, then those who are currently damned to Hell legally and apparently, not just our nice heathen neighbours but scumbags, surely will NOT have a one-way ticket to outer darkness?
I'm DESPERATE to be a liberal see.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And if you're rationalistically and way post-apostolicallymodernly right, there there's no harm done. But if you're wrong, on Satan and his demons (performing def metal at a venue near you SOON) then (i) there is HARM done, now, in many subtile and not so subtile (that's ravening lions for you) ways and (ii) your reaction in the resurrection is going to be a picture.
Of course for Satanic literalists there is also the potential for harm, but orders of magnitude less impacting.
I assumed that a fundy would deny that there were two vreation accounts in Genesis. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
As for the existance of demons - I'll take the risk, thanks.
As for Death Metal - I like some of it. Do you really think demons would play death metal? Oh, come on. They would be much subtler than that. The lady I overheard on the bus the other who claimed that heavy metal was powered by Dark Spirits knows less about those Spirits then I do - and I don't even belive they exist.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
quote:
While we may not know a specific person's heart, that is not to deny that people do make choices and I believe that God respects them and loves them enough to allow them to make choices.
Again we come down to that interpretation of free will. I think I could walk the length and breadth of this island(Gt Britain) and never find anyone who wants to suffer eternal damnation. Even more so when they die and it stares them in the face. This idea which I have heard so many times that "no-one goes to hell unless they choose to" is as absurd as it is obscene. People lead heedless lives oblivious of the potential consequences of their hedonistic lifestyles, but that is a far cry from wanting to go to hell.
This is the greatest and most despicable evil of Christian doctrine. What the hellmongers invariably say is: believe what we believe or roast. Not everyone who has difficulties with certain aspects of Christian doctrine is rejecting Christ. Not everyone who doesn't get it right in their head is rejecting Christ. Not everyone who dies in their own wounded ego is rejecting Christ. No-one will reject Christ when the appalling misery of their sinful lives is brought home to them. Only He can reject them. That is impossible for a God of love.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
I think the people who say "cross every T and dot every I just as we do or you are damned" are not in the least worshipping Christ.
I think they were worshipping their own arrogance and will be in for a shock should judgement day ever come. "Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord"".
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
quote:
While we may not know a specific person's heart, that is not to deny that people do make choices and I believe that God respects them and loves them enough to allow them to make choices.
Again we come down to that interpretation of free will. I think I could walk the length and breadth of this island(Gt Britain) and never find anyone who wants to suffer eternal damnation.
I totally agree. I would extend that walk to breath of the earth (and beyond for those who believe in extraterrestrial lifeforms). Unless the person is clinincally insane and/or has no pain receptors (or no concept of pain or fear), no living creature would say, "Please, please let me exist in agony."
On the otherhand, I cannot imagine anyone else similarly asking to have heart attacks or obesity or die from cancer relating to smoking or wanting some sort of addiction such as those from alcohol or drugs. Or the broken-heartness of an affair...
Many people choose things that are not good for them. Nobody wants to suffer the negatives consequences of eating junk food excessively or possessing a destroyed liver from alcohol or having damaged lungs from smoking. And it happens anyways.
For example, the doctors told my grandfather that it would kill him if he didn't stop smoking. So he stopped for many years. He was able to break his addiction, thank God. No one around him smoked. His health greatly improved and his life was better. Later, he decided that the doctors were stupid and were just trying to scare him so he started smoking again. Sadly, he died very, very painfully throat cancer.
I have no doubt my grandfather did not want die in such a horrible way.
We cannot act in a way completely opposed to our better interests and expect that no negative consequences will happen.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Even more so when they die and it stares them in the face. This idea which I have heard so many times that "no-one goes to hell unless they choose to" is as absurd as it is obscene.
Again, many people (including myself) make choices that go against our better interests. I know I should exercise and eat less chocolate. I don't want to gain more weight. But unless I do anything about it, I will probably gain a whole stone this year! In a way, I am making a choice that I don't want the consequences of.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This is the greatest and most despicable evil of Christian doctrine. What the hellmongers invariably say is: believe what we believe or roast.
All I know is that Jesus is the gate. I have a feeling I might see atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims in heaven, though. I certainly hope so. Who knows how many people are actually following God without knowing it?
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Not everyone who has difficulties with certain aspects of Christian doctrine is rejecting Christ.
Spot on - that exactly what I feel too.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Not everyone who doesn't get it right in their head is rejecting Christ.
Spot on - ditto.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
No-one will reject Christ when the appalling misery of their sinful lives is brought home to them.
This is where we disagree.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This idea which I have heard so many times that "no-one goes to hell unless they choose to" is as absurd as it is obscene. People lead heedless lives oblivious of the potential consequences of their hedonistic lifestyles, but that is a far cry from wanting to go to hell.
Paul,
In agreement with Joyfulsoul, I think the question is whether people really will change or not.
I agree that it would seem that people would give up a hedonistic lifestyle if they realized that it was harming them. But it would also seem that people would eat less if they realized that what they were eating was harming their health. Statistics show otherwise.
As Woody Allen said in "Love and Death": "Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go, it's not bad."
People seek empty experiences all the time. Once they realize how empty they are many, or even most, people give them up. But not everyone.
There are things much worse, and more addictive, than empty experiences. People behave in ways that are self-centered and hurtful to others. Why do we think that everyone will be willing to give these up after death?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
To the extent that Jesus is usually understood as talking about hell it would appear to be in the nature of a punishment externally imposed - and very much against the will of the people being punished/chastised.
Paul talks about grace overcoming our inability to choose the Good - he talks about us being saved despite our desires.
Neither talk about us saving or damning ourselves - they talk about the actions of God on us.
The descriptions above of us damning ourselves to heaven or hell seem rather devoid of the actions of God. It is almost as if you are describing karma, or a simple law of nature (if you smoke, you may get lung cancer). It is as if God has nothing to do with us suffering eternally as a response to our own actions. This may make God seem less to blame, but I don't know if it is really justifiable.
I am also wary of extrapolating to Hell as Eternal Torment (which is the usual use of the word) from our experiences of evil and suffering on earth. Everything we experience here is, of necessity, limited. That God allows limited suffering on earth does not mean that he allows unlimited suffering elsewhere.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
To the extent that Jesus is usually understood as talking about hell it would appear to be in the nature of a punishment externally imposed - and very much against the will of the people being punished/chastised.
Yes, He does. I take His words as divine truth.
The descriptions are, to my mind, metaphoric. Worms that do not die? Unquenchable fire? How do you even visualize that?
I agree that the suffering appears to be externally imposed, and that no one would willingly submit to it.
My argument is that this is just the way that it appears. The suffering is actually self imposed, because it is inherent in evil intentions and actions.
Evil desires have delights connected with them, because they favor self-centered and worldly loves. Self-centered and worldly delights are good and legitimate when subordinated to love to God and the neighbor. It is only when they rule that evil comes into it, along with the unhappiness that evil inevitably brings. People choose the delights, not the suffering, but the two go together.
The reason that I say that this suffering is self imposed, and not imposed by God - despite the teaching of Scripture - is that this is consistent with how Scripture works.
The Bible usually attributes everything to God, both blessings and punishments, so that people will grasp the over-arching principle that God rules everything. But I think that a more complete understanding of Scripture shows that God only does good, and does not actually punish.
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Paul talks about grace overcoming our inability to choose the Good - he talks about us being saved despite our desires.
I agree. God saves us, not we ourselves. Our desires do tend towards evil because they tend towards natural and not spiritual things, and we are saved despite them. God changes them in us if we trust in Him and try to do as He teaches.
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
I am also wary of extrapolating to Hell as Eternal Torment (which is the usual use of the word) from our experiences of evil and suffering on earth.
Why not? Eternal fire is so unreal that it is almost impossible to believe in. The real suffering that people experience is a much closer parallel.
But I agree that things are somewhat different in the spiritual world, and so no earthly description will quite match the reality.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This idea which I have heard so many times that "no-one goes to hell unless they choose to" is as absurd as it is obscene. People lead heedless lives oblivious of the potential consequences of their hedonistic lifestyles, but that is a far cry from wanting to go to hell.
Paul,
In agreement with Joyfulsoul, I think the question is whether people really will change or not.
I agree that it would seem that people would give up a hedonistic lifestyle if they realized that it was harming them. But it would also seem that people would eat less if they realized that what they were eating was harming their health. Statistics show otherwise.
As Woody Allen said in "Love and Death": "Sex without love is an empty experience, but as empty experiences go, it's not bad."
People seek empty experiences all the time. Once they realize how empty they are many, or even most, people give them up. But not everyone.
There are things much worse, and more addictive, than empty experiences. People behave in ways that are self-centered and hurtful to others. Why do we think that everyone will be willing to give these up after death?
Freddy - I line up with those who have enormous problems with hell and don't think your efforts to euphemise them away are convincing.
As far as I can gather in trying to minimise the problem of hell, you end up with all humanity facing an eternity in which we are all just as screwed up as we are in this life. Put simply, you've made the whole concept of an after life (including heaven!) deeply unattractive.
How you fit in any concept of separation I don't know?
Also the idea that those of us who subordinate our worldly ideas to spiritual desires, will be fine, probably doesn't have legs. Many of my decisions that were most orthodox (small o) have been very self-centred. Indeed, if the reason that we should act in certain ways is to give us long term benefits rather than short term ones - as you are arguing we should - then this exemplifies my point.
Finally, you seem to think that metaphor can get us out of every difficult corner. (You did the same with the OT genocides). Whilst metaphor is important and useful in our discourse about God, I don't think it makes every problem so vague and ill-defined that it makes them disappear in a puff of smoke.
Luigi
[ 02. December 2005, 06:13: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
I want the taste of the chocolate and I want it now. The fact that I have to forego the chocolate on a consistent, longterm basis (and exercise more) to change the shape of my thighs is not very satisfying - and the chocolate is immediate. We can enjoy the activity and desperately not want the consequences attached to the activity, but the two are twined together.
Even in the context of the atonement, while we are forgiven the sin, we may still suffer some of the consequences of the sin (but not the ultimate consequence: eternal death and separation from God) - so I may go out to a very expensive meal and then discover I left my money at home. Jesus graciously steps in and pays my bill - but I still consumed the calories (and may suffer indigestion), even though I didn't have to pay for the meal neither did I get arrested for theft. There are many complex levels of action and consequence.
Yeah, nobody says, "hmmm, I think I choose eternal suffering!" but it follows the other life choices. It's a lot like me saying, "I choose not to be fat" while consuming 2,000 calories of chocolate a day - I might not want to be fat, but all my behaviors are going to lead to that end.
Amazingly, God does an end run around the ultimate consequence, substituting the perfect blood of Christ for my foul substance. But saying, "I reject the blood of Jesus and I want no part of God - I want to do as I damn well please," leads inevitably to separation from God as much as my lousy diet leads to my impressive girth.
MAYBE God imposes a change of heart on those who resist Him, although I don't see that as consistent with His character as He reveals it in scripture. But short of that imposition, I don't see how to get to "everybody is saved in the end." Perhaps there's a very long slow purgatory and, seeing themselves backed into the corner, people change their hearts - but that's not the image Jesus gives us with Lazarus (the beggar, not Mary & Martha's brother) and the rich man.
We have an amazing capacity to look at God, most wonderful and awesome, and still say, "how dare You ask me to worship You!"
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Lynn: quote:
Amazingly, God does an end run around the ultimate consequence, substituting the perfect blood of Christ for my foul substance. But saying, "I reject the blood of Jesus and I want no part of God - I want to do as I damn well please," leads inevitably to separation from God as much as my lousy diet leads to my impressive girth.
Going back to chocolate, you have accepted, in some sense, that if you were wiser/had more willpower, you would, in fact, determine that it is better for your thighs if you opt not to eat the chocolate. So, in some sense, in doing so, you are acting irrationally. Now I wouldn't like to pursue the analogy too far, but could that irrationality not have a parallel with sin. I certainly think that sin could be thought of in some ways as "irrationality writ large".
Now why do we behave irrationally? Here, I guess it's important to say that I'm not talking about, if you like, spontanaity, which is such an important part of what it means to be human. I'm not talking about acts which have no rational basis, like buying flowers for your mum - (this is where the chocolate analogy breaks down) rather I'm talking about destructive behaviour patterns. Have these things been done as a free and open choice, or have they been done because of an external constraint upon our lives.
If the former, then God would clearly have to override that free and open choice in order to break that destructive behaviour pattern. If the latter, then it would only be necessary for God to remove the external constraint, in order for us to make the choices which we would have made had the constraints not applied. Thus our free will is retained.
Now if you take the former view, the logical conclusion is, I agree, that it leaves one quote:
in a place where it looks like God does, lovingly, allow people to distance themselves from Him.
.
However, If we take the second approach, put simply, as Paul would have it, that we are slaves to sin, then no-one's free will is violated by the fact that God takes away (not forgives, that's a done deal) sin from us at the resurrection of the body. We simply become free to choose what we would always have chosen had we been free to so choose, that is, life over death.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
I thoroughly agree - I think that irrationality has a tremendous parallel with sin (it's why I brought it up) - I *wish* my life was more ruled by my rational self, instead of my impetuous self-indulgent self. And this is a place where that story of "which dog wins the fight?" is answered by "the one I feed the most" is quite apt - am I "feeding" my wise, rational, godly self or my self-indulgent overgrown 5-year old self?! eeep! Let's not go there! Ah, too late.
It makes me think of Pharaoh, in Exodus 8-14, roughly, and how frequently is says "Pharaoh hardened his heart" as well as "the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart" - it looks to me like the time comes when God establishes us in our ongoing willful choices (which is a different dynamic from the sin under which we suffer and struggle but don't yet have victory). Am I making any sense?!
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
although I must say, I really like quote:
However, If we take the second approach, put simply, as Paul would have it, that we are slaves to sin, then no-one's free will is violated by the fact that God takes away (not forgives, that's a done deal) sin from us at the resurrection of the body. We simply become free to choose what we would always have chosen had we been free to so choose, that is, life over death.
and I hope it's true.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You take all the risks you want, Papio, but don't expect a brother-in-Christ to say nothing about it. Especially when the risks you take are in public and contrary ... I'm sorry non-dialectiaclly and esoterically superior to to the Church, the apostles and the gospels.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I line up with those who have enormous problems with hell and don't think your efforts to euphemise them away are convincing.
Luigi,
Yes, maybe they are not convincing. At the same time, having "enormous problems with hell" puts us at variance with a fairly central teaching of Christianity. Do you think my efforts to explain away those problems are worse than the way these things are traditionally understood?
I understand it when you say that I am "euphemising" hell. I don't mean to. I just want a real afterlife, as opposed to the comic book view that we traditionally use.
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
As far as I can gather in trying to minimise the problem of hell, you end up with all humanity facing an eternity in which we are all just as screwed up as we are in this life. Put simply, you've made the whole concept of an after life (including heaven!) deeply unattractive.
OK. Sorry about that. I thought that I was only making people in hell screwed up.
To make the afterlife more attractive, let me add these elements.
- 1. Since there is no space in heaven, distance is replaced by similarity of spiritual state. Therefore you are nearest those you love and those with whom who you share common interests.
- 2. Therefore if you are a person who loves God and the neighbor you will be with people who are similar.
- 3. A life with people who are like this is exceedingly pleasant.
- 4. In the next life people's surroundings exactly match their inner states. So people who happily receive God's love are surrounded with astounding beauty.
- 5. And they themselves are beautiful in the exact measure of their inner beauty, or to the exact extent to which they are able to receive God's love.
These features, and others like them, make heaven an attractive place to me. It also seems to me that similar features could make earth into a similar paradise. That is, if humanity could learn to work together and serve God, the world would be a better place. This is what Christians pray for in the Lord's prayer, and I think that it is not an unreasonable hope.
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
How you fit in any concept of separation I don't know?
The separation is accounted for in point 1 above. Birds of a feather flock together.
In the spiritual world this is a strong tendency not only because there is no physical space, but also because of the nature of that world. Being spiritual, and not material, means that spiritual things are what people see. So the real quality of every person is visible, which makes distinctions easy in that world that are difficult or impossible in this world. As Jesus said:
quote:
Luke 12:2 For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known. 3 Therefore whatever you have spoken in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have spoken in the ear in inner rooms will be proclaimed on the housetops.
Jesus means a number of things here, but one of them is that our genuine character is revealed after death - and we find our spiritual home accordingly.
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Also the idea that those of us who subordinate our worldly ideas to spiritual desires, will be fine, probably doesn't have legs. Many of my decisions that were most orthodox (small o) have been very self-centred. Indeed, if the reason that we should act in certain ways is to give us long term benefits rather than short term ones - as you are arguing we should - then this exemplifies my point.
You are probably right. Could you give an example so I can understand what you mean?
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Finally, you seem to think that metaphor can get us out of every difficult corner. (You did the same with the OT genocides). Whilst metaphor is important and useful in our discourse about God, I don't think it makes every problem so vague and ill-defined that it makes them disappear in a puff of smoke.
Yes, I realize that I seem to bring biblical symbolism into every problem. I tend to think that Christians ignore its presence in Scripture, and get backed into ridiculous corners because of it.
Metaphor doesn't make problems vague and ill defined. Its purpose, I think, is to clarify them through the use of easily visualized comparisons. This is why it is such a common biblical theme, especially aimed at our inability to understand:
quote:
Psalm 78: 2 I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old, 3 Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us.
Matthew 13:13 Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
Matthew 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “ I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”
I guess that I don't think that these metaphors are all that opaque, and that it is important to realize how extensively they are used in Scripture.
I think that realizing that the "fires of hell" are a metaphor for the "fires of evil desires" makes the nature of hell more clear, not more obscure. Jesus condemns evil desires, and it is not hard to see how evil desires are a cause of enormous suffering.
This may or may not be a convincing picture of hell or of how things work in the spiritual realm. But I think that it is a more real version than simple punishment by fire, and I think that it is more consistent with the causes of joy and sorrow that I am familiar with.
I don't mean to euphemize hell. The biblical descriptions are accurate, I just think that they need to be seen the way that they were intended - as a visual picture of a reality that is challenging to grasp.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You take all the risks you want, Papio
Thanks for your kind permission, Martin.
If it make you feel any better, then maybe the birth of self-consciousness at whatever stage of evolution it appeared by concieavbly be a sort-of fall, in my view.
But a literal fall from a literal Eden with a literal devil temping a literal Adam and a literal Eve with the resulting eschatology? Not on your nelly, mate.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
But a literal fall from a literal Eden with a literal devil temping a literal Adam and a literal Eve with the resulting eschatology? Not on your nelly, mate.
Papio, I think this bold assertion must have killed this thread. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Papio, I think this bold assertion must have killed this thread.
There's just not much you can say in response - I mean, I can say, "actually I have no difficulty believing in creation, an actual Adam and Eve, and the fall scenario very like described in scripture" (in fact, I have a harder time believing in undirected evolution - but that's just me). But doesn't that devolve us to "did not!" "did too!" and sticking waggling fingers in ears? I don't expect to move Papio from his position and he won't be moving me, so...
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
"I reject the blood of Jesus and I want no part of God - I want to do as I damn well please
Never known anyone say that. "I don't believe that Christianity is true" is rather more common. It's hardly the same thing.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
"I reject the blood of Jesus and I want no part of God - I want to do as I damn well please
Never known anyone say that. "I don't believe that Christianity is true" is rather more common. It's hardly the same thing.
I've had more than one person tell me that if Christianity, as in the Christian story of who God is and what he's done, is true then the problem of pain still leads them to believe he's evil.
I'm not sure what to make of that.
I wonder (often) what the role of faith is in all of this. I interpret Dives and Lazarus's sting in the tail to be about the impossibility of making some people believe enough to choose life, as it were, no matter what evidence is presented, but it does sometimes seem as though a host of angels appearing in your living room at a moment of doubt would be bound to have some effect. Perhaps the point is that faith(trust) drives a salvific process, whereas incontrovertible evidence is decisive - you leap one way or the other once you actually know the truth.
</diversion>
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I've had more than one person tell me that if Christianity, as in the Christian story of who God is and what he's done, is true then the problem of pain still leads them to believe he's evil.
*for myself* the penny-dropping realization was that pain and suffering can be tools for God; He uses them to sculpt us. The pain & suffering may be of our own making - still "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose" - making them useful in God's hands. The purpose of this life is not to live in ease and comfort (as much as I would personally like that--) but to grow us and fit us for the NEXT one, the eternal one. So pain, suffering, even death, simply do not mean the same thing to God that they do to us. And, to the best of my ability to tell, it's our place to line up with Him and broaden our perspective on the issue, not rail at Him for His lack of consideration.
- * - * - * -
I have a question for the Universalists in this conversation - why do you think Jesus spent so much time and energy warning people about hell if it's not a real threat? Chances are there are a variety of answers and I'd really like to hear them - thanks!
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
I have a question for the Universalists in this conversation - why do you think Jesus spent so much time and energy warning people about hell if it's not a real threat? Chances are there are a variety of answers and I'd really like to hear them - thanks!
Here's a couple of answers from someone who's not a universalist.
1. Christ's warnings may be the means by which some of those who could have ended up in hell, avoid it as part of God's redemption of all.
2. Some of the apparent hell-warnings could in fact be purgatory-warnings. True, purgatory is an infinitely better place in which to find oneself than hell, but a million years having your sinful nature transformed might involve a certain amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
3. (Stretching it a bit) the warnings could be metaphorical ones for this life. Heaven and hell do effectively start here, after all.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
Thank you, GreyFace - those are good answers but I'm *still* hoping for the genuine universalist slant(s), as it were... nudge, nudge.
(edited to spell his name right!!!)
[ 07. December 2005, 08:51: Message edited by: LynnMagdalenCollege ]
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
You rang?? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Ok, very quickly, as I have to go to work, and will be "on shore" for the next ten days or so.
1) Many of the passages where Jesus speaks about "Hell" do not actually refer to the "end-times" as we would call them, at all, but to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70? He seems to relate the fate of the Jewish nation with their rejection of Him. It's not hard to see why. In their desire for a Messiah after their own image, as political leader, they were on a collision course with Rome. Their refusal to repent of their hatred of the Romans led ultimately to their being cast out, desolate, from Jerusalem.
2) Other passages, such as the Lazarus and Dives parable, have been interpreted over literally by some over the years. If this parable is a literal picture of Hell, then why do we not go to a literal "Abraham's Bosom"? Jesus seems to have adapted a pre-existing Jewish story (Abraham and Eleazar?) to make a point that it is impossible to scare people into the Kingdom. Only a real change of heart is enough to alter conduct. This is congruent with the rest of his teaching.
3) Jesus was speaking in an accepted idiom of the time, which stressed the need for repentance in the face of what the people saw as God's wrath. What He added was the fact that (and I know Freddy will disagree with me here ) it is impossible for anyone to live to those standards, and that only Jesus himself could obey the Law fully. His object was to point out how hopeless, without Christ's work of salvation, was the lot of any person, and thus turn them towards Himself as saviour. The pictures of Hell are there because that would be all our fates, apart from Him, and would have been familiar images to his hearers. It does not follow that anyone will actually end up "there". The cross made sure that this would not happen. Of course, this is also preaching, rather than theology. Jesus discourses with His disciples, and particularly, the events of Maundy Thursday, give a more nuanced picture of Jesus' theological (if such a word can be used of Him) position.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) GreyFace and Jolly, I would have been happy to attempt an answer for Lynn, but now I see no need to!!! Outstanding.
Lynn, does this resonate with you at all? Does it seem like too much squirming to get out of something that, to you, seems obvious (even if unfortunate)?
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
"I reject the blood of Jesus and I want no part of God - I want to do as I damn well please
Never known anyone say that. "I don't believe that Christianity is true" is rather more common. It's hardly the same thing.
I've had more than one person tell me that if Christianity, as in the Christian story of who God is and what he's done, is true then the problem of pain still leads them to believe he's evil.
I think an argument along the following lines is entirely reasonable.
- Science shows that the fall cannot have happened, except as (possibly) an allegory or a metaphor for evolution (which, as I say, I could find plausible).
- Even if it were not for this, the idea of Hell is so monstrous that any God who could allow Hell to exist would be evil. No better than Satan.
- If that God exists, then I will take my chances because, whatever happens, it cannot concievably be worse than ending up in His "Heaven"
- However, our highest logical and moral truths would tend to say that Hell is not just and is not rational.
- Any God worth his, her or its salt can surpass out logic and morality by vast and unimaginable amounts.
- Therefore, it is extremely unlikely to say the least that there is a Hell or a literal Satan or literal demons etc.
Some people will find such an argument plausible and convincing. Others won't. But, since I do, I can't see any reason to change to mind.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
Even if it were not for this, the idea of Hell is so monstrous that any God who could allow Hell to exist would be evil.
I find the idea of free will absolutely monstrous. And yet it exists despite my intense and fierce feelings toward it. I find that if a god allowed free will and the repercussions of it - meaning that there is so much hell on earth it isn't much of stretch for my imagination or logic to deduce pain later if there is an afterlife.
I'm curious what do you think of the god who allowed so much wrong in this world. Isn't that just as bad (or similar to) hell?
quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
However, our highest logical and moral truths would tend to say that Hell is not just and is not rational.
Of course, I want everybody not to suffer but to enjoy life and I would be some sick person if I wanted people to burn, burn, burn. But that is far from the reality of life. Sometimes shit happens that is not our faults and sometimes shit happens that we induce. One example, (that has been mentioned before) is my lack of exercise. It has serious reprecussions/consequences.
The most logical and moral and rational response would be to get off my butt - but most of the time I do not do the just and right and most rational and higher moral thing.
So unfortunately, I gain weight and hurt myself. Is this god's fault that I'm in pain? And what if god doesn't even exist at all? It doesn't take away the consequences of my life, choices and actions, behavior, and thoughts.
I guess I don't arrive at the position that hell is unjust because I see it as something that starts here on earth - and it is just a part of life/death. Hell, to me, is no more irrational or unjust than the consequences of an action that is harmful.
quote:
Originally posted by Papio.:
I can't see any reason to change my mind.
I wrote awhile back on Demas's "Unimportance of Hell" thread that having hell as the centre of one's beliefs seems fundamentally flawed to me. I think that Jesus was far more concerned on bringing wholeness and healing to people's lives. i.e. bringing the kingdom of heaven (or God for St. Luke, St. Mark, etc...). In john's gospel & his other books, Jesus seems predominantly concerned about love.
I personally don't see it a huge thing to focus on other things rather than hell. At the same time, this topic is interesting.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I'm curious what do you think of the god who allowed so much wrong in this world. Isn't that just as bad (or similar to) hell?
For me, the only honest answer to your question is that I don't see the suffering on earth as being comparable to that of any Hell. Perhaps that is because there are certain things which have never happened to me and because the things which have happened to me mostly happened when I was a child.
But, for me, the suffering of this life is better and more justifiable then Hell for the simple reason that, even if only at death, it ends*. I am not attempting to deny that some Earthly suffering is Hellish in all save it's length.
Papio
*Of course, I am assuming that there is no afterlife. I take comfort in the idea that all things shall fade, shall end, shall come to pass. Including my own consciousness. I'm not sure that I can possibly explain why that is to someone who finds my feelings on this hard to grasp, because I think it is an instinctive thing.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
I do appreciate the postings, y'all - but Digory, you're not off the hook! I read these posts and I comprehend these posts but then the authors come to conclusions which don't follow, *for me* - which I find really fascinating! I had a similar expereience reading Stephen Hawkings "A Brief History of Time" shortly after it first came out and he walked through some Big Bang stuff and came out the other side saying something to the effect of, "so as you can see, there is no need to believe in God," which made about as much sense as a passenger in my car yelling at me, "Look out, the light is red! Paint the dog green!"
And perhaps my "straightforward reading of scripture" is only straightforward to me and many of you experience a similar sense of disconnect or disorientation when you read my posts!
Jolly Jape, (thank you, sir!) when you talk about the Lazarus and Dives parable, you are talking about the account Jesus gives of the beggar Lazarus, yes? (who the heck is Dives? I don't know this name!) I would argue (in the nicest possible way, of course) that it's not a parable - if you note, when telling parables Jesus says, "a man was going down to Jericho" (for instance), but in THIS case He says, "there was a certain beggar named Lazarus..." (omits the name of the rich man to protect the innocent?) - which leads me to believe He's talking about an actual event.
My understanding of "sheol" ("the grave") is that up until the cross we all went to the grave but there was a gulf between portions, so you'd have the more pleasant and the less pleasant side - but "sheol" is a temporary abode of the dead. At the cross, the pleasant side is opened to heaven ("to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord") but the unpleasant side continues to receive inhabitants until "the Great White Throne Judgement" when all the dead will be raised and judged.
So-- how does that pan out? Why does Jesus, post resurrection, having received the revelation from Father God, talk about judgement and suffering as He does (Rev.20)? I just can't reconcile all this talk of hell, damnation, suffering, torment, and exhortations to *avoid* such a fate, with the knowledge that "nobody's going to go there, anyway." How does one get from here to there?
So yeah, maybe I'm just selectively dumb in this area (stranger things have happened...!) - but no, it doesn't resolve it for me - sorry! And I don't spend much time thinking about hell (it's certainly not *central* to my theology) - but I can't wave it away, either (NB - I'm not accusing anybody else of "waving it away" - rather recognizing that, at this point in time, for me to embrace the universalist view would require that I "wave it away").
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
[QB(who the heck is Dives? I don't know this name!)[/QB]
Latin and Middle English I think, literal translation is "wealthy man" - and incidentally, I've heard Lazarus translates as "one whom God helps."
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
thank you. Once again, my complete lack of knowledge of anything other than late 20th century English trips me up!
But you're not arguing that "Lazarus" was not *also* a name? Most Biblical names have word-meanings ("Ichabod" to you, too!)...
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
But you're not arguing that "Lazarus" was not *also* a name?
Not quite, I'm suggesting that Jesus may well have picked that name for his story because of its meaning.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
*looks up* - I realize I mis-stated that - actually, I speak French like a 6-year-old and just enough Italian to find the toilets and buy food... sorry, off-topic but a valid correction nonetheless! It's *English* of which I only have a late 20th century mastery...
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
*looks up* - I realize I mis-stated that - actually, I speak French like a 6-year-old and just enough Italian to find the toilets and buy food... sorry, off-topic but a valid correction nonetheless! It's *English* of which I only have a late 20th century mastery...
If you phrase your Italian like you just phrased this English, people may look at you sideways when they think you are looking to buy food from the toilets...
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Of course, I want everybody not to suffer but to enjoy life and I would be some sick person if I wanted people to burn, burn, burn. But that is far from the reality of life. Sometimes shit happens that is not our faults and sometimes shit happens that we induce. One example, (that has been mentioned before) is my lack of exercise. It has serious reprecussions/consequences.
The most logical and moral and rational response would be to get off my butt - but most of the time I do not do the just and right and most rational and higher moral thing.
So unfortunately, I gain weight and hurt myself. Is this god's fault that I'm in pain? And what if god doesn't even exist at all? It doesn't take away the consequences of my life, choices and actions, behavior, and thoughts.
I guess I don't arrive at the position that hell is unjust because I see it as something that starts here on earth - and it is just a part of life/death. Hell, to me, is no more irrational or unjust than the consequences of an action that is harmful.
Well, the place where this analogy happens to break down is, IMO, a very important one. I can point to my gut and say, "See, I stopped exercising a long time ago and haven't really watched what I eat, and now I have this to show for it." I know the consequences, I know how to avoid them. When I choose not to exercise, I know what I'm going to get for it, but I just don't care.
That's very far away from being told that if I don't do this or that or this other thing, I will end up in hell after I die. "How do you know?" I ask. "Well, I just believe that you do because that's how I interpret the Bible. Oh, and by the way, there are about seven million different possible ways to avoid hell, and only one that will work. Hope you pick the right one, like I did!"
It's just not similar to earthly consequences at all, neither in foreknowledge nor severity.
-Digory
(Don't worry, Lynn, a response is coming...)
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
...when you talk about the Lazarus and Dives parable ... I would argue that it's not a parable - if you note, when telling parables Jesus says, "a man was going down to Jericho" (for instance), but in THIS case He says, "there was a certain beggar named Lazarus..." (omits the name of the rich man to protect the innocent?) - which leads me to believe He's talking about an actual event.
Okay. That's an understandable belief. However, we don't know if Jesus was telling a parable there or not, do we? So, what you are asking for is how people like myself and Jolly can look at the same scripture that you look at and yet come to a universalist conclusion. As has been stated before, there are universalist scriptures too, that have to be overlooked. I said a while ago that we are just more accustomed to hearing about the hell-based ones, and you said that you grew up in CA around a lot of universalist churches so you heard those more. Well, my point was more that for just over a thousand years the predominant Christian theology has been non-universalist ("damnationist"?), so regardless of your upbringing, I would argue that we all hear about hell passages and hell-supported arguments more than we realize.
But for this particular passage, Jolly put out a very plausible explanation for how this could be looked at as universalist-compatible. The fact that you think it was NOT a parable doesn't change the fact that it could be, you know what I mean?
quote:
My understanding of "sheol" ("the grave") is that up until the cross we all went to the grave but there was a gulf between portions, so you'd have the more pleasant and the less pleasant side - but "sheol" is a temporary abode of the dead. At the cross, the pleasant side is opened to heaven ("to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord") but the unpleasant side continues to receive inhabitants until "the Great White Throne Judgement" when all the dead will be raised and judged.
Where do you get this understanding of Sheol? My understanding of Sheol was that it meant the grave, as in death itself, not referring to beyond. I think most of the Old Testament thought of death, or being robbed of earthly life, was the ultimate punishment.
quote:
So-- how does that pan out? Why does Jesus, post resurrection, having received the revelation from Father God, talk about judgement and suffering as He does (Rev.20)? I just can't reconcile all this talk of hell, damnation, suffering, torment, and exhortations to *avoid* such a fate, with the knowledge that "nobody's going to go there, anyway." How does one get from here to there?
Well, there's not quite as much as you think. Though Jesus talks about hell more than anyone else, he in fact doesn't mention it as much as our theology would suggest that he does. Could you point to what you see as the top 3 to 5 passages in support of Eternal Punishment? I think I could explain how I see each and every one. In the meantime, I will get 3 to 5 passages that I think support Universalism.
Keep in mind: I don't need you to become a universalist. I would only hope that somewhere down the road, perhaps, you could at least see how myself and others could come to such a conclusion. I guess that's what a discussion is for, eh? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Hoping that gets me off the hook for now,
Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
"I reject the blood of Jesus and I want no part of God - I want to do as I damn well please
Never known anyone say that. "I don't believe that Christianity is true" is rather more common. It's hardly the same thing.
I've said the second half of it many times. Whether my saying that means I have effectively said the first half as well is moot...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
It's just not similar to earthly consequences at all, neither in foreknowledge nor severity.
-Digory
Digory, you rock.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
I am having a very interesting conversation with an Orthodox Christian. The God he worships is not the one I reject. At all.
I need to think about this more carefully.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
