homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Hell. Surprised it's not a DH? So am I. (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Hell. Surprised it's not a DH? So am I.
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Somewhere, the issue of the immortality of the soul is likely to come up. I don't believe in it. It's not Biblical, not even in any of the ecumenical creeds, and I see not the slightest reason to believe it.

How is it not biblical. The Bible has almost 400 references to the word "soul" and there are numerous indications that it is immortal.

For example:
quote:
Psalm 23:6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; And I will dwell in the house of the LORD Forever.

Psalm 37:27 Depart from evil, and do good; And dwell forevermore.

Psalm 37:29 The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell in it forever.

John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 16:26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

Revelation 20:4 Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

It seems to me that the biblical view is that people's souls are supposed to live forever.

--------------------
"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
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
But the Apostles' Creed ends "resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." What does that mean to you?
I think that christian hope should be focussed on resurrection. This has always been an official teaching, but has tending to fade out in preference of "going to heaven when we die". This approach is being pushed by Tom Wright, who is getting a lot of attention since the idea of an robustly evangelical Bishop of Durham is exciting for Anglicans. I do believe there is some continuity, and that the concept of a soul is not useless. But I believe that human life can only be embodied.
The fact that the creed echoes the belief in life everlasting cannot be taken to apply to the damned, since life is not what they've got. Incidentally, I'm not implying that you think that.
quote:
On the issue of free will--surely, if it exists, then one can choose to reject God and keep on choosing that way, for all eternity. Such an attitude would equal hell.
Maybe, but not the specific version I am campaigning against, since in that version there is no post-mortem free-will to turn to God.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Father Gregory

Orthodoxy
# 310

 - Posted      Profile for Father Gregory   Author's homepage   Email Father Gregory   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dear anteater

On the immortality of the soul go here for the Orthodox view ...

"The Immortality of the Soul" by Fr. George Florovsky

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™

Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754

 - Posted      Profile for IconiumBound   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think I recall that the only thing Jesus talked about more than Hell/Ghenna was money. Is anyone ready to argue that money isn't real?

As for me I take my vision of Hell from G B Shaw. In Don Juan In Hell old George presents a vision of Hell where everyone's selfish desires are fulfilled; rather like some of the visions of Heaven in another FG thread. The problem for Don Juan is it is tiresome and boring with extremely boring people to associate with. He opts (and it is a choice available) to transfer to Heaven where serving God is the constant task.

ISTM that the old atheist Shaw might have surprisingly hit upon the truth. His version answers the old questions of whether God wants to punish sinners or save them.

Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I like that IB. Fulfilling our selfish desires seems like it would be fun. I think that this is only true in the short run.

One of the things about desire is that it is not static. A place that allowed people to unleash and attempt to fulfil all of their desires would have to somehow account for the likelihood that different people's desires might conflict.

--------------------
"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
PhilA

shipocaster
# 8792

 - Posted      Profile for PhilA   Email PhilA   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
What is Hitler is is Heaven, but Old Mrs Miggins from down the road, who devoted her entire life to charitable works but never once believe in God is in Hell?

For me, that possibility (and it really doesn't have to be any more than an abstract possibility) alone is sufficient to show that EITHER there is a loving God OR there is a Hell but that BOTH existing at the same time is an impossibility.

The problem, Papio, is that so many people use the exact same argument for not believing in God at all. Either there is an all loving God, or there is evil but there cannot be both. e know that there is evil therefore... The only difference is that you've opted for the other premise being wrong.

I don't know, maybe you are right and there is no hell. I sincerely hope that you are right, but I don't think I believe it myself. To be honest, I don't know what I believe about the whole 'life after death' thing. I guess I'll find out one day though, and I live in hope.

--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.

Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
PhilA

shipocaster
# 8792

 - Posted      Profile for PhilA   Email PhilA   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Ok different track Papio. How come Jesus seemed to take Hell for granted? More cultural relativism? A profoundly mistaken Messiah?

Jesus took the story of 'Jonah and the whale' for granted too.( Matt 12:40 )Is that story literal? Was Jesus mistaken?

--------------------
To err is human. To arr takes a pirate.

Posts: 3121 | From: Sofa | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
pimple

Ship's Irruption
# 10635

 - Posted      Profile for pimple   Email pimple   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lamb Chopped. It may be an attractive cliche, but I don't see quite how the doors of hell can be everlastingly locked on the inside. Not unless the process somehow involved voluntary insanity.

--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)

Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PhilA:
Jesus took the story of 'Jonah and the whale' for granted too.( Matt 12:40 )Is that story literal? Was Jesus mistaken?

You could say that about any miracle. I think that the miracle of Jonah and the great fish really happened. Just like the manna and the parting of the Red Sea.

--------------------
"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
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for saying most of what I would have if I'd got here sooner, Papio [Smile] .

But I'd like to pick up on a few points.

The first is that Hell is Eternal. Therefore it is not the same as Evil, which is only transitive. I firmly believe that most evil is simply the result of a lack of balance or perspective - and entities in this world can not grow in a manner that is truly balanced - and do not have a complete perspective without omniscience. Therefore the problem with hell is not the same as the problem of evil. Or rather not all solutions for the problem of evil will work with the problem of hell.

The second is again that Hell is Eternal. This world is not. Therefore condemning someone to Hell for sins in this world is unjust no matter what the sin. Justice for Hitler may involve torment equivalent to the suffering of millions of people. And it may feel eternal to Hitler while it is taking place. But there is a point beyond which punishment ceases to be justice and becomes vengance. And any punishment that is eternal is vengance rather than justice.

And for a being who is Love and is Justice and is Mercy to take actions that are vengance demonstrates that such a being is not Love, or Justice, or Mercy. Such a being is an impostor masquerading as one of the above qualities. And as such is not fit to lick my boots.

So what would it take for a good God to have created a Hell? I see several possibilities.

The first is that Hell is not eternal but is instead a place where people are sent to learn their lesson before they can be admitted to Heaven. In which case, what we have is not Hell but Purgatory. Fairy 'Nuff. Unpleasant but perhaps necessary.

The second is that Hell is somewhere people directly and continually condemn themselves to and choose to remain in. If no one remains in Hell for eternity, you are in the same situation as the previous - with Hell actually being Purgatory. If there are those who choose to stay in Hell eternally, then you can have a good, kind, and merciful God - but he is imperfect as evidenced by the fact that he has wrought amiss with those individuals and can not persuade them to redeem themselves (or perhaps doesn't care).

The third is that Hell is death - a short sharp shock. Here, you not only have an imperfect God (who creates beings that are so amiss that he will not redeem them) but an unmerciful one (who will not use his omnipotence to show them how to redeem themselves). In short, such a Hell is vengance personified. And such a God is many things including Just - but not Merciful or Loving.

Finally, you get that Hell is reincarnation. This is a subset of Purgatory.

To sum up, there is no way any entity can be eternally condemned to Hell without making God more Vengeful than he is Just, Loving, or Merciful. And such a God I call good only on the principle that the Furies were known as the Erinyes or Kindly Ones.

[ 26. July 2006, 21:02: Message edited by: Justinian ]

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Papio

Ship's baboon
# 4201

 - Posted      Profile for Papio   Email Papio   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
You think a loving God who condemns (perhaps predestines?) to Hell is more credible than universalism?

Wow.

Yes - I for one think (on balance) that a God who could send Hitler to hell is better than one who would send him to heaven.
What is Hitler is is Heaven, but Old Mrs Miggins from down the road, who devoted her entire life to charitable works but never once believe in God is in Hell?

For me, that possibility (and it really doesn't have to be any more than an abstract possibility) alone is sufficient to show that EITHER there is a loving God OR there is a Hell but that BOTH existing at the same time is an impossibility.

Why would a loving God who is also just not solve the problem just as well?
I am not at all sure, but then I am not at all sure why "solving the problem is the same as "condemning to Hell"...

I think I agree with Justinian.

--------------------
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      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The second is that Hell is somewhere people directly and continually condemn themselves to and choose to remain in. If no one remains in Hell for eternity, you are in the same situation as the previous - with Hell actually being Purgatory. If there are those who choose to stay in Hell eternally, then you can have a good, kind, and merciful God - but he is imperfect as evidenced by the fact that he has wrought amiss with those individuals and can not persuade them to redeem themselves (or perhaps doesn't care).

Justinian, are you sure that this makes God imperfect? If people stay in hell because they prefer it, why is God imperfect?

I can easily imagine people prefering adultery to legitimate marriage. A God that allows them to do this seems more, not less perfect to me.

--------------------
"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
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
How come Jesus seemed to take Hell for granted?

I suppose that would depend a lot on what Jesus meant when he referred to hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Custard.:
Why would a loving God who is also just not solve the problem just as well?

Because you must mangle the concept of just so far beyond recognition so as to lose all legitimate or useful meaning. "Just" becomes "able to do whatever he wants and whatever he does IS just, no matter how it lines up with our own concepts."
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If there are those who choose to stay in Hell eternally, then you can have a good, kind, and merciful God - but he is imperfect as evidenced by the fact that he has wrought amiss with those individuals and can not persuade them to redeem themselves (or perhaps doesn't care).

This is, in my opinion, an excellent point. Consider modern evangelism. At least part of the idea revolves around the attempt to convince the unbeliever to believe, so as to avoid hell. We are not called to sit idly by in hopes that everyone will just get it on their own, hopefully.

Wouldn't God do the same? Would he not spend eternity pleading and convincing those who haven't yet understood their true natures, those who haven't embraced the potential of who they were created to be? And if God ultimately fails in this campaign, what does that say? Free will is fine, but what do you believe about God when you say that an eternity would not be enough for him to convince some people of his goodness?
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Justinian, are you sure that this makes God imperfect? If people stay in hell because they prefer it, why is God imperfect?

I can easily imagine people prefering adultery to legitimate marriage. A God that allows them to do this seems more, not less perfect to me.

Do parents who allow their children to drink in excess, do drugs, etc. seem more perfect than those who step in to remind, and occasionally interrupt their children's free will to teach them about the true dangers of certain life choices? This concept of God seems like a young parent who is trying to "be cool" and "fit in" with the child's friends. Buying them booze and taking them to get their noses pierced. "Boy, Christian, your God sure is cool!" all of the other children would exclaim. "I wish my God was cool like that!"

There is always a point when love steps in to make up for misunderstandings, ignorance, immaturity and even stubbornness. I find it so hard to believe that anyone will feel any bitterness about God having dragged them part of the way out of despair and into Life.

Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939

 - Posted      Profile for Ruudy   Email Ruudy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
DH is not popping up on my acronym Google. Can someone spare me the agony of this frustration?

--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.

Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
DH
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939

 - Posted      Profile for Ruudy   Email Ruudy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whoa, I feel sick to think that didn't occur to me. Thank you. It's late here...

[ 26. July 2006, 22:05: Message edited by: Goar ]

--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.

Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I can easily imagine people prefering adultery to legitimate marriage. A God that allows them to do this seems more, not less perfect to me.

Do parents who allow their children to drink in excess, do drugs, etc. seem more perfect than those who step in to remind, and occasionally interrupt their children's free will to teach them about the true dangers of certain life choices?
So God should not allow adultery after death? How about adulterous thoughts?

People aren't children. You have to let them follow their own desires - at least to some degree.

--------------------
"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
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Justinian, are you sure that this makes God imperfect? If people stay in hell because they prefer it, why is God imperfect?

I take it back. God is either not perfect or not loving. And it assumes that Heaven is better for people than Hell. We have two options here. Either God can not convince some people to prefer Heaven to Hell or God chooses not to convince some people to prefer Heaven to Hell.

If God can not convince people to prefer Heaven to Hell, then there is something he(/she/it) can not do and he has wrought completely amiss because despite God's efforts, they will not. Therefore he is not perfect.

If God chooses not to convince people that Heaven is better for them than Hell over the timeframe of Eternity, God clearly does not want what is best for them. And as loving someone involves wanting what is best for them, God clearly isn't loving towards them.

quote:
I can easily imagine people prefering adultery to legitimate marriage. A God that allows them to do this seems more, not less perfect to me.
I wouldn't use perfection here (the word is both too simple and too complicated) - but a God that allows them to do this seems better than one that doesn't. But a God that then convinces them to repent and choose legitimate marriage (assuming that such is good for them) seems better still.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So God should not allow adultery after death? How about adulterous thoughts?

People aren't children. You have to let them follow their own desires - at least to some degree.

So let them. Why do we so negatively expect they will choose adultery every time, for all eternity? Especially if we assume that God is actively involved in persuading them that there is something better?
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24

 - Posted      Profile for Demas     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Part of the problem with these threads is that it becomes increasingly clear that there are deep differences in opinion between non-universalists as to what hell is, who gets there and how.

Some people tone down their view of hell from the traditional lake of eternal fiery torment; you can see this approach in The Great Divorce very clearly. Hell is still bad; but not so obviously sadistic.

The second approach I see is that people diminish God's role. He becomes no longer the Just Judge, righteously condemning the guilty, but a worried parent, looking on as his children jump off the cliff but unwilling to interfere with their 'free will'.

To be honest, I find much more biblical justification for thorough-going universalism than either of these two half-way houses, which seem to be attempting to sugar-coat arsenic to make it more palatable.

--------------------
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
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chemincreux:
Lamb Chopped. It may be an attractive cliche, but I don't see quite how the doors of hell can be everlastingly locked on the inside. Not unless the process somehow involved voluntary insanity.

Yes!!!! That's PRECISELY what I think it involves. Thank you!!!!

But I would argue that, in the end, choosing anything but God (and all the Good that comes along with him) is a form of insanity. To choose otherwise during this lifetime is very often simply a mistake, and one that we all make daily. But when life is over, and the clouds of confusion are gone, then our real, lifelong summed-up choice becomes clear; and we're permitted to enjoy it (or not, as the case may be).

Lewis was of the opinion that people in hell are not happy, but that they prefer it to heaven. That is because what they want is unreality, a state of affairs that cannot possibly exist (such as a universe centered around one's own self); and hell is as close as they can come to realizing their unrealistic desires.

Truly entering heaven would mean leaving the hellish illusions behind and embracing Something that has become wholly inimical to their deepest desires. As somebody above noted, the fire of God's love is light and warmth to His people, but burning pain to those who refuse Him.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Some people tone down their view of hell from the traditional lake of eternal fiery torment; you can see this approach in The Great Divorce very clearly. Hell is still bad; but not so obviously sadistic.

The second approach I see is that people diminish God's role. He becomes no longer the Just Judge, righteously condemning the guilty, but a worried parent, looking on as his children jump off the cliff but unwilling to interfere with their 'free will'.

Demas, I see your point, and it's a good one. But I think we might have one of those concepts which can be communicated truthfully in more than one way (like the atonement, etc. etc.)

As for the "new hell" being not so very bad after all--I don't think anybody but a citizen (!) could ever find it remotely tolerable, and its citizens would be utterly miserable. The Biblical burning imagery conveys pain, suffering, and destruction; we could probably use a less colorful metaphor and say "utter spiritual destruction" to convey the same reality, but that simply doesn't have the same gut-gripping, terrorizing quality that fire does to most people. Which is a short way of saying that I think both sets of metaphors are useful and necessary to communicate in the modern Western world.

As for God as the righteous Judge who condemns the unrepentant to destruction--this is most certainly true. Yet I think the "worried parent" analogy is also true and Scriptural--witness passages like "How can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Judah? My heart turns within me.... I am God among you, and I will not come to destroy."

Again, I think we need both analogies. Frankly, it's difficult to preach the Gospel in the Western world, because those who hear us rarely feel any great sense of guilt or shame themselves. They are more likely to sit in judgement on God for his immoral behavior(witness this thread! [Biased] ) than to see themselves as sinners in front of the Judge. How to reach such people? Before we can ever get to the good news (the acquittal Christ offers us) we have to preach the bad news of human guilt, sin and brokenness--and that news is very, very bad indeed.

So in these cultures, we generally begin from a different starting point. We try to meet people where they are, not where we think they ought to be.

Just how do you think it would go over if I were to say to your average, decent non-Christian who raises these issues, "How dare you sit in judgment on the Most High? He is the Creator, you are the creation. Stop being so cheeky."

It's certainly a biblical viewpoint (witness Job and parts of Paul), but it's apt to shut down the conversation immediately. AND the friendship. The person never gets to a point where that rebuke makes sense, because I've shoved it in his face when he hasn't got the wherewithal to understand it. Rebukes like that are probably best saved for those who already admit the Lordship of Christ--to those who have already "signed on," so to speak.

This is NOT an argument for hiding bits of the Truth, or sliding over troublesome bits of Scripture or doctrine. That would be dishonest and stupid, too. And if the person brings it up in conversation himself, it's time to talk about it. But jamming God's Lordship and Justice into every conversation with a non-believer is likely to have the same effect hellfire-and-brimstone preachers had on my granddad--to turn them away from the church before they ever really know what it's all about.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If God chooses not to convince people that Heaven is better for them than Hell over the timeframe of Eternity, God clearly does not want what is best for them. And as loving someone involves wanting what is best for them, God clearly isn't loving towards them.

Justinian, this point of view doesn't allow for any differences at all, then. If God allows any person to have a weaker love than another, He does not want what is best for them.

Surely God allows for some degree of variety and extent in people's love of Him and His laws. It's just a question of how great you allow that variety to be. How much variety would you allow?

--------------------
"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
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Some people tone down their view of hell from the traditional lake of eternal fiery torment; you can see this approach in The Great Divorce very clearly. Hell is still bad; but not so obviously sadistic.

The second approach I see is that people diminish God's role. He becomes no longer the Just Judge, righteously condemning the guilty, but a worried parent, looking on as his children jump off the cliff but unwilling to interfere with their 'free will'.

As the alternative is that of an abusive parent ("I made you, therefore I have power over you and I am *whack* doing this *whack* this to *sizzle* you for *whack* your own *burn* good! Now *whack* stop making *whack* my omnipotent self *sizzle* torture you."), I think that the worried parent is far, far superior.

The Just Judge doesn't come into it with eternal punishment because any form of eternal punishment is ipso facto unjust for finite sins in an imperfect world.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Again, I think we need both analogies. Frankly, it's difficult to preach the Gospel in the Western world, because those who hear us rarely feel any great sense of guilt or shame themselves. They are more likely to sit in judgement on God for his immoral behavior(witness this thread! [Biased] ) than to see themselves as sinners in front of the Judge. How to reach such people? Before we can ever get to the good news (the acquittal Christ offers us) we have to preach the bad news of human guilt, sin and brokenness--and that news is very, very bad indeed.

In short, in order to sell someone a cure, you need to sell them the idea that they are sick.

quote:
Just how do you think it would go over if I were to say to your average, decent non-Christian who raises these issues, "How dare you sit in judgment on the Most High? He is the Creator, you are the creation. Stop being so cheeky."
Only slightly worse than most ham-fisted evangelism normally does. But it would get you dismissed.

quote:
But jamming God's Lordship and Justice into every conversation with a non-believer is likely to have the same effect hellfire-and-brimstone preachers had on my granddad--to turn them away from the church before they ever really know what it's all about.
And it's also normally presented such a risible notion of justice (by virtue of being so disproportionate) that you can be dismissed as insane twice over.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If God chooses not to convince people that Heaven is better for them than Hell over the timeframe of Eternity, God clearly does not want what is best for them. And as loving someone involves wanting what is best for them, God clearly isn't loving towards them.

Justinian, this point of view doesn't allow for any differences at all, then. If God allows any person to have a weaker love than another, He does not want what is best for them.
I don't understand your objection. Wanting what is best for my girlfriend is different from wanting what is best for my sister. And I treat them very differently. But in neither case do I condemn them to eternal torment. And in neither case do I kill them.

There are some things that are different in different cases and some things that are the same. To use another analogy, I cook different things for different people - but cyanide is never on my list of cooking ingredients. You seem to think that because cyanide is not on my list of cooking ingredients, I don't allow for differences.

quote:
Surely God allows for some degree of variety and extent in people's love of Him and His laws. It's just a question of how great you allow that variety to be. How much variety would you allow?
Some - but not enough to leave anyone eternaly in hell.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Frankly, it's difficult to preach the Gospel in the Western world, because those who hear us rarely feel any great sense of guilt or shame themselves. They are more likely to sit in judgement on God for his immoral behavior(witness this thread! [Biased] ) than to see themselves as sinners in front of the Judge.

I agree, LC! I think that this is the primary reason why the church is failing in the West. In places like Africa, by contrast, people are amazingly humble.

It really comes down to what people are willing to believe, and what they are willing to do based on that belief.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If God chooses not to convince people that Heaven is better for them than Hell over the timeframe of Eternity, God clearly does not want what is best for them. And as loving someone involves wanting what is best for them, God clearly isn't loving towards them.

Justinian, this point of view doesn't allow for any differences at all, then. If God allows any person to have a weaker love than another, He does not want what is best for them.
I don't understand your objection. Wanting what is best for my girlfriend is different from wanting what is best for my sister. And I treat them very differently. But in neither case do I condemn them to eternal torment. And in neither case do I kill them.
My point is that God allows everyone to be different. Some love Him more and some less. Those who love Him less and love one another less need to be given that freedom. How much less love do you allow them to have? That's my question.

As Demas said:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Part of the problem with these threads is that it becomes increasingly clear that there are deep differences in opinion between non-universalists as to what hell is, who gets there and how.

I think that's the problem here. I think that the medieval idea of hell is a straw man. Lewis' idea is more realistic and compassionate. I don't agree that it's watered down.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Demas     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that's the problem here. I think that the medieval idea of hell is a straw man. Lewis' idea is more realistic and compassionate. I don't agree that it's watered down.

Let's leave compassionate to one side for the moment - I'm not sure what you're meaning when you say that Lewis' conception of hell is more 'realistic'?

Do you mean that it is closer to Jesus' conception? Paul's? The description of hell in scripture? More in keeping with certain philosophies? More in keeping with our empirical knowledge of the world?

--------------------
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
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24

 - Posted      Profile for Demas     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Frankly, it's difficult to preach the Gospel in the Western world, because those who hear us rarely feel any great sense of guilt or shame themselves. They are more likely to sit in judgement on God for his immoral behavior(witness this thread! [Biased] ) than to see themselves as sinners in front of the Judge.

They're not judging God; they're judging you.

More specifically, they're judging what you are telling them about God. They are comparing it with what other people are telling them about God, and with what their innate sense of right and wrong and their own knowledge of the nature of love tells them about a story which says that God is just and loving, and will also eternally torture (or allow to be tortured) the people he loves.

--------------------
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      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Let's leave compassionate to one side for the moment - I'm not sure what you're meaning when you say that Lewis' conception of hell is more 'realistic'?

Do you mean that it is closer to Jesus' conception? Paul's? The description of hell in scripture? More in keeping with certain philosophies? More in keeping with our empirical knowledge of the world?

More in keeping with what I observe about happiness and sadness in this world as it is correlated with what the Bible says.

The Bible's imagery seems to me to be just that. Imagery.

The way that people actually suffer is more like the way that Lewis describes it. The fires of hell are actually the fires that burn in human hearts.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Demas     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So where you would disagree with a universalist is whether or not God is willing and able to relieve us of our suffering if we have chosen to trap ourselves in it?

--------------------
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      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
So where you would disagree with a universalist is whether or not God is willing and able to relieve us of our suffering if we have chosen to trap ourselves in it?

Not exactly. I'm not sure that it works to anthropomorphise God in that way. You end up with a bad God or no God.

It's more that there is a hierarchy of laws that govern all reality from the divine love according to the divine wisdom. These laws are the perfect expression of God's love, and operate to make humanity happy, and to preserve our freedom to the highest possible extent over the span of eternity. Their purpose is to extend the purposes of the divine love to the human race.

If humanity were not free to accept or reject that love, the essential purpose of existence would be defeated. It depends on a mutual bond, and if the mutuality is not there, it is not a real bond. There is no way to preserve that mutuality while forcing it on every subject.

So it is essential that people be able to do what they themselves actually choose. Self centered desires do provide joys, it's just that those joys are misery compared with heavenly joy. People are able to experience this in the world as well.

The system is also a dynamic system, in which everything and everyone is interconnected. The state of the world as a whole therefore influences the state of heaven and hell, and vice-versa. The beauty of it is that this means that the entire system is always changing and progressing. It interacts with each one of us, and we with it. This does provide a hope for the future, both for everyone on earth and even for those in hell. It is not purely up to each individual independently.

But every person needs to be free to be self-centered if they wish. It's not that God can't or doesn't wish to change them. It is that the best thing both for them and for all of humanity is for them to choose what they love. God wants the best thing, and knows precisely what it is.

--------------------
"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
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Frankly, it's difficult to preach the Gospel in the Western world, because those who hear us rarely feel any great sense of guilt or shame themselves. They are more likely to sit in judgement on God for his immoral behavior(witness this thread! [Biased] ) than to see themselves as sinners in front of the Judge.

They're not judging God; they're judging you.

More specifically, they're judging what you are telling them about God. They are comparing it with what other people are telling them about God, and with what their innate sense of right and wrong and their own knowledge of the nature of love tells them about a story which says that God is just and loving, and will also eternally torture (or allow to be tortured) the people he loves.

Well, first of all, I specifically said that this is not a form of "evangelism" I favor (hellfire and brimstone preaching). Second, I didn't make up the doctrine of hell. It's out of the Bible. So anyone who wishes to judge may do so, but it isn't me they're judging.

But I think you're missing my point. I have nothing against a person who hears the teaching about hell and says, "I simply can't believe it, I can't get my mind to take that particular shape, it just doesn't seem right to me." Nor do I think such a person is in any more danger of judgment than the rest of us.

What I WAS trying to say is that most cultures I'm aware of (I've studied quite a few, so this isn't total gas) have a deep-seated sense of "God (or the gods) is up there, and I'm down here, and I'd better keep that fact in mind." They may moan and bitch and complain, in extremely robust language (see the psalmists for example) but they don't usually lose track of who's on top. They consider hubris to be a sin, and they commend the man who knows his place--in the universe, in the world, in the family. And who functions in it properly, beautifully, and freely.

But in the West, many (most?) of us have lost that sense of hierarchy, of being under anyone's authority but our own. We sit in judgement on God, on our leaders, and on our parents. (Okay, in the case of some of our leaders, that's more than warranted. [Biased] ) But we make our own personal judgement the standard of the universe, and we have a darned hard time in admitting that We Might Possibly Be Wrong. Or in bowing gracefully to the will of someone else when we are convinced that They Are Wrong--even in fairly trivial matters.

And God forbid that we should be asked to accept the authority of a sacred book, an old tradition, or the opinions of those older and more experienced than us.

(Yes, I know I'm talking heresy, and will likely be flamed for it. But I do think there is some medium ground between "I did it my way" and "Father knows best." Western culture leans far too heavily to the first, IMHO.)

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My point is that God allows everyone to be different. Some love Him more and some less. Those who love Him less and love one another less need to be given that freedom.

This is a confusing twist. Your objection to the idea that all could end up in heaven is that this would make everyone the same?
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Ok different track Papio. How come Jesus seemed to take Hell for granted? More cultural relativism? A profoundly mistaken Messiah?

A bloke who was in and of his time.
But, you see, for me, that bloke also happened/happens to be God. Which means that, dislike them intensely though I may, I have to take His words on the topic in hand very seriously.

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
les@BALM
The Ship's Visionary
# 11237

 - Posted      Profile for les@BALM   Author's homepage   Email les@BALM   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hell isnt a far away place, but rather those places on Earth humans usually men have turned into Hell.

--------------------
il sole d'Italia mi è rimasto nel cure
Italia campioni del mondo ****

Tiggs the cat.

Posts: 1863 | From: Canada, eh! | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Earthling
Shipmate
# 4698

 - Posted      Profile for Earthling   Email Earthling   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Self centered desires do provide joys, it's just that those joys are misery compared with heavenly joy. People are able to experience this in the world as well.

I find this idea interesting, that serving others = happiness = heaven, and serving oneself = (ultimately) misery = hell.

Don't you find that to live a happy, balanced life we need to do both, we serve other people which is good and we also sometimes do things for ourselves, which is also good? Perhaps eternal happiness might be spending the week serving in heaven and then partying in hell at the weekends?

--------------------
Art thou in the Darkness? Mind it not, for if thou dost it will fill thee more, but stand still and act not, and wait in patience till Light arises out of Darkness to lead thee. James Nayler, 1659

Posts: 105 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792

 - Posted      Profile for CrookedCucumber     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
[...] Second, I didn't make up the doctrine of hell. It's out of the Bible. So anyone who wishes to judge may do so, but it isn't me they're judging.

Undoubtedly terms like Shaol and Gehenna are used in the Bible. But what these terms mean is not at all obvious. One certainly can make a case from Scripture that there is a post-mortem state that people in it will find disagreeable. The question is whether this is the only reading, or even the best reading, of the relevant passages. But we've been here before, no?

quote:

But in the West, many (most?) of us have lost that sense of hierarchy, of being under anyone's authority but our own. We sit in judgement on God, on our leaders, and on our parents. (Okay, in the case of some of our leaders, that's more than warranted. [Biased] ) But we make our own personal judgement the standard of the universe, and we have a darned hard time in admitting that We Might Possibly Be Wrong.

On the one hand you complain that we (Westerners) have no natural respect for authority; on the other you say that sometimes it is right to judge those who occupy positions of authority. But surely if one is to accept authority as authority, one should never presume to judge.

For example, if I am called on to respect the authority of (say) the Prime Minister, because he is (say) a decent, sensible, hard-working, honest, and diligent fellow, then it seems appropriate to call him out if he doesn't live up to these standards. However, if I am called on to respect the authority of the Prime Minister simply because he is the Prime Minister, and a person `in authority', then I can never have any grounds to judge him. There is simply no basis for judgement.

But why should we humbly accept the authority of a person (or even a Person) whose exercise of that authority gives me no grounds for respect?

Moreover, it seems to me that the greater the authority one holds, the more diligently one must exercise that authority to be worthy of respect. And if one has perfect, absolute authority, surely one must exercise it with perfect diligence.

The question then surely arises whether the various views of Hell that are presented correspond to God's exercising his authority with perfect diligence. If they do not, then I don't see why God should not be judged and found wanting.

Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From Freddy:
quote:
How is it [the immortality of the soul]not biblical. The Bible has almost 400 references to the word "soul" and there are numerous indications that it is immortal.
I can't see how you can establish this based on the texts you cite. I don't think you're even close.
You can't argue from the everlasting reward of the righteous that immortality is something intrinsic to all humans. It just doesn't follow.
The only two you cite which mention those outside of God's favour talk about there soul being destroyed or lost. Why does this prove they are immortal?
The part this doctrine plays in the defence of hell, is the argument used by CSLewis that God would mercifully rub out the lives of the unsaved if he could, but he can't because as a metaphysical fact, the annihilation of the human soul is an impossibility.
I don't know a shred of evidence for this in the canonical scripture.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think of Heaven and Hell like this.

If Heaven is fully-realised eternal life, none of us deserve to have it. We're agreed that we can't earn our way into Heaven, right? We can't be perfect enough to compel God from simple justice to grant us an entry pass to Heaven.

If we think of Hell as the alternative or perhaps the collective name for the alternatives to Heaven (whatever that might entail) then by this argument, everybody deserves Hell. So, the existence of Hell can't be said to make God unjust in the sense of "it would be unfair of God to send anyone to Hell."

A more nuanced argument is that it would be unfair of God to rescue some and not others, since nobody deserves Heaven anyway. I think this might be fair criticism of full-on predestination Calvinism but on the other hand, consider this...

...think about a person who eternally rejects God and ends up in Hell. From an eternity-eye view you could say that a loving God should either 1) have never caused this person to exist, 2) cause the person to cease to exist so as to avoid Hell, or 3) change something about the person such that they would not maintain their resistance.

1) and 2) are deeply problematic for me. How could you be said to love someone if your assessment of their value was that they should be wiped out of existence? If one of my children grew up to be a murderer, deeply unhappy and so on, would I be loving if I were to develop a time machine and then go back and kill him at birth?

3) is trickier but "Just as I am" and all that says that God really does love a person even if that person ends up in Hell. I'm approaching my level of philosophical incompetence here but I don't know how far you could change a person against their will without actually erasing them and replacing them with somebody else.

The crux (cough) of the matter is whether God is looking at Hell (whatever Hell is like) thinking "Bastards. I wonder if I could make it any hotter?" or if he would drag them out if it was meaningful and possible to do so.

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24

 - Posted      Profile for Demas     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So, in summary, we are back at the old position that if hell exists then God is either impotent or a bastard.

--------------------
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
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
[Overused]

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682

 - Posted      Profile for GreyFace   Email GreyFace   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
So, in summary, we are back at the old position that if hell exists then God is either impotent or a bastard.

In a sense, but not exactly.

In your opinion Demas, would it be more loving to create somebody who doesn't make it to Heaven, or to fail to create them at all?

[ 27. July 2006, 09:55: Message edited by: GreyFace ]

Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Earthling:
I find this idea interesting, that serving others = happiness = heaven, and serving oneself = (ultimately) misery = hell.

Don't you find that to live a happy, balanced life we need to do both, we serve other people which is good and we also sometimes do things for ourselves, which is also good? Perhaps eternal happiness might be spending the week serving in heaven and then partying in hell at the weekends?

Yes, I think you're right. Not partying in hell, exactly, but certainly enjoying yourself.

I meant those categories in terms of a person's overall or reigning motivation and interest.

To serve others effectively, however, a person needs to take care of himself/herself, which includes periods of rest and recreation. He doesn't need to always be thinking of others or of God. When the central interests in life revolve around useful service, this affects everything in his life.

I think that every person has a hierarchy of interests and desires within them. It is different for everyone. Some rule and some are subordinate, and they shape our goals and actions.

So both serving one's self and serving others are good. It is just a matter of priorities. When the priorities are messed up the whole enterprise suffers.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Demas     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
In your opinion Demas, would it be more loving to create somebody who doesn't make it to Heaven, or to fail to create them at all?

Well that really depends on what 'doesn't make it to Heaven' means, doesn't it.

--------------------
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      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I don't know a shred of evidence for this in the canonical scripture.

Shreds are pretty small things. Would these qualify?
quote:
Matthew 18:8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into the everlasting fire.”

Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels….45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Mark 9 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 44 where ‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.
45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched— 46 where
‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.
47 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire— 48 where
‘ Their worm does not die
And the fire is not quenched.’

Isaiah 66.23 And it shall come to pass
That from one New Moon to another,
And from one Sabbath to another,
All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says the LORD.
24 “ And they shall go forth and look
Upon the corpses of the men
Who have transgressed against Me.
For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

2 Thessalonians 1 “It is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.”

Anteater, if you want to dismiss these go ahead. It would be helpful if you noted why some particular quote or other is not, in your mind, relevant. I thought the other list that I posted was pretty indicative. How was it lacking?

--------------------
"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      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
My point is that God allows everyone to be different. Some love Him more and some less. Those who love Him less and love one another less need to be given that freedom.

This is a confusing twist. Your objection to the idea that all could end up in heaven is that this would make everyone the same?
Yes, in response to Justinian's point that if God allowed us to be less than perfect He must not really care.

My point is that if God loves us He will let us be who we want to be and do what we want to do. This allows for a creation in which everyone and everything is different and unique.

The point is not that everyone needs to be exactly as happy as everyone else on some absolute scale. Rather it is for everyone to seek happiness in their own unique way, according to their own desires and interests. Everyone's happiness is therefore unique and chosen. Some people's idea of happiness is actually suffering, when compared with others, but that doesn't mean that this person should be forced to be like the other. The higher good is that people be led in freedom to choose among real alternatives.

It is inconceivable to us, for example, that this ship's discussion might be curtailed by a loud commanding voice from God, cutting off all of us who are "wrong." A merciful God allows me to say whatever idiotic thing I want, as long as I obey the Ship's Commandments. According to Justinian's argument, I think, God would not be loving if He allowed those who are wrong to keep on being wrong.

--------------------
"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
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
So, in summary, we are back at the old position that if hell exists then God is either impotent or a bastard.

Sorry, Demas, but my [Overused] was to Greyface, not you; I wouldn't describe God so much as impotent as lovingly self-limited

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Lurker McLurker™

Ship's stowaway
# 1384

 - Posted      Profile for Lurker McLurker™     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
There have been a few posts seemingly influenced by Orthodox ideas, to the effect that Hell is a self-inflicted state. I can't tell whether they believe that the experience of hell is what I have called hell-fire, i.e. excruciating, everlasting and unavoidable. Pls clarify.

I'd say it is excruciating (if the souls in Hell are conscious enough to feel) as separation from God would mean separation from everything good.

Everlasting? I don't know if those in Hell are capable of repentance or not. I think that Jesus' descriptions of Hell aren't clear enough to say one way or the other.

Unavoidable. Of course not, if Hell is our choice then it is avoidable. Hopefully everyone will avoid it.

As for the Hitler question, what about Paul, who tried to stamp out Christianity? What about John Newton, involved in a crime against humanity of the same order of magnitude as the Holocaust? Would anyone say they don't belong in Heaven?

--------------------
Just War Theory- a perversion of morality?

Posts: 5661 | From: Raxacoricofallapatorius | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I guess we need to have a God we can live with. I wonder if the issue in eternity is: What can God live with? The Bible describes him as not only good, but holy. Holy is problematic for me cos I'm not. But if he is then how can I dwell with him? Wouldn't I rather be somewhere else? Holy is scary. Holy is fire. Holy is hell for the unholy.
If God knowing his own nature knew that some of his created beings would be unable to handle being in proximity to him and consequently created a place or whatever that they could be given their immortality, wouldn't that be a loving act?

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools