Thread: Purgatory: So, what about Hell? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001068

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
This came to mind again while reading "Why do we fear Death?" and the continuing series of threads on substitutionary atonement. So why is the deal such that atonement had to be made? Why did God want his pound of flesh?

I'll say up front that the concept of Hell is a big sticking point with me. On the one hand, God loves us; it says so in this book here. On the other, if we don't love/obey/interpret him properly we are tossed on the eternally burning trash heap of Holy Zion. Also in the book. This doesn't sound like any deity I could love. I'd as soon love Pol Pot.

Different interpretations I've heard:

• It's not God's fault. We choose to be separated from him ie in Hell.
  He just made the place/state of being and the rules of the game. But if in our mortal pain and confusion we fall out of line it's still not his fault.
• We are hopelessly sinful. Our default position is hell bound.
  And Original Sin means we have no choice in our tendency to sin. But we must grovel in our wretched state to be saved from the nature we didn't choose.
• OR in salvation of the Elect God makes an arbitrary choice of some from our sorry numbers and the rest can hang thenselves. Tough luck, suckers!
• There is a Hell for those who totally comprehend the choice of loving and serving God but willfully reject that option. But in this world how can you be sure to detach your own neurotic reponse to the pain of the world and "totally comprehend" the correct choice?

In short, how can a God who should be heads above the best earthly parent rig the game so there is a good chance you'll wind up in a situation that makes the Killing Fields look like a flowery meadow?

So I've decided to believe that while Hell may be eternal, people's stays in it may not be. If God "desires that we should turn from our wickedness and live," he can eternally be ready for us to do that. Not that I'm crazy about even a limited duration Hell. For myself, I can either believe in the eternal possibility of salvation for all (or no Hell at all) or cease to love God. Denying eternal damnation seems the better option for me.

So how do those of you who don't go that route and yet consider a God who does condemn people to endless punishment for their sins after death someone to love, reconcile it? Do you feel that as long as you are saved, it doesn't bother you that this system God set up allows others to be damned? That it's their fault and their problem about how to deal with the reality God gave them? You might help them avoid the dilemma by Accepting Christ as Their Lord and Savior™ but beyond that, God's division of wheat in the granary and tares in the fire is not a problem.

(The above is a shortish essay on Why I Can't Be a Biblical Inerrantist.)

Yeah, I really have an attitude on this subject. I do, however, want to hear why this doesn't trip up others the way it trips up me.

[ 08. January 2006, 22:00: Message edited by: Erin ]
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 

quote:

---

We are hopelessly sinful. Our default position is hell bound.
And Original Sin means we have no choice in our tendency to sin. But we must grovel in our wretched state to be saved from the nature we didn't choose.

---

Yep! That's what my last church said. It was supposed to spur us on to evangelism. It just spurred me to total confusion.

I await other views.

Nic
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 

quote:

---

Yeah, I really have an attitude on this subject. I do, however, want to hear why this doesn't trip up others the way it trips up me.

---

I really worry about the people it doesn't trip up. I really worry about people who have no problems with this.

One of my biggest problems with attitudes to hell and damnation is this 'moral inversion' whereby people rant about goodness and kindness and loving behaviour not being enough to save you - because it's all illusory, of course - whereas the bigger, more dysfunctional, judgmental and unchristlike a bigot you can be, the surer you are of going to heaven.

I've never believed this. It may be the view found among tabloid readers and the unchurched, and it may be expressed in right-wing redneck ways that make my flesh creep, but there's ultimately something slightly less unwholesome (and that's as far as I'll go!!) about the take that the bad people who go to hell are bad people who have done such bad things that they have chosen to sunder their relationship with the good, the loving - with God. There's something here that's better than the view that the people who go to hell are the 'good' people who loved, cared, spoke up against injustice - but weren't 'born again' in precisely the approved way.

Of course, what these indignant tabloid-reading reactionary people tend to be saying, in their own bigoted way, is that the measure of goodness is the extent to which people are like us. But in the end, isn't that what the religious bigots are saying, too?

And that' by the way is my answer to Nicodemia's post, too. That's where the confusion comes from. Start with a concept of a hell that you can mentally fill with people you disapprove of, and the idea that you know whom God disapproves of, and the end of the line is very predictable. Start with the twin notions that God is God, and God is love, and the awful possibility that one might miss the meaning of existence, which is the fulness of being in this love, looks quite different. Hell becomes a matter of our repudiation of God's love and grace, and the overcoming of God's will to bring us all (back) to himself. And what might constitute such a repudiation I don't know.

[Slight Tangent]

Hi, Nicodemia! I'm responding to your post, Nicodemia! And for the record, I think you had a point before...
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
Hell has always been an interesting topic for me. I've never believed in the traditional christian concept of hell.

What is the biblical basis for this concept of Hell? I understand that it is taught, I've been taught that way myself. Yet the only scriptures I know that support this concept are symbolic.

The NT (Revelations) refers to a "lake of fire" into which all those not written in the book of life are cast into, but notice that both "Hell" and the "death" are tossed in their also. The only ones whom are eternally tormented are "the devil that decieved them", the beast, and the false prophet.

In OT judaic thought, hell seems to refer to a physical place or physical/spiritual state of being, not a place of eternal punishment.
Sheol is commonly translated as "hell" and to that has been added the greek concept of Hades. By marrying this word with the "Hades" concept, the bible can be shown to support the christian view of HELL as its been taught. But if we get rid of the preconception (a place of eternal punishment for the wicked) and re-read the bible, we don't find any real, literal basis for HELL. Hence our concepts change the entire meaning of a simple sentence.

Preacher: You will eventually die and go to Hell[sheol].
Scientist: You will eventually die and go to the grave [sheol].

We are all going to die, the grave (sheol) is our ultimate physical reward for the sins of our life -all sins, not just the really wicked ones. God can raise us up from the grave and give us eternal life, but good deeds do not guarantee this.
Aside from all this, if you believe in the traditional Hell, and you believe God is good, then you must believe that Hell is good and the punishment just.


A few scriptures: The usage of the word "sheol" is in bold.

quote:

---

Ge 37:35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him.
This is in ref to Joseph's supposed death. Is Jacob going to Hell because he mourns his son? Did he believe that Joseph to be in a place of eternal torment and suffering?

1Ki 2:6 Do therefore according to thy wisdom, and let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace. Can one go to a fiery pit in peace?

So 8:6 Set me as a seal upon thine heart, as a seal upon thine arm: for love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame. Wouldn't this be a perfect place to use the word Hell with all its preconceptions? The grave is never satisfied(always waiting for more) and neither is jealousy.

Amos 9:2
Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down:
Could man "dig into" the traditional view of hell?

Jonah 2:2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice. A fiery pit surrounded by whale blubber? Perhaps that is where it getrs its fuel?

---

quote:

---

Hi, Nicodemia! I'm responding to your post, Nicodemia! And for the record, I think you had a point before...

---

Psyduck:
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

One of my biggest problems with attitudes to hell and damnation is this 'moral inversion' whereby people rant about goodness and kindness and loving behaviour not being enough to save you - because it's all illusory, of course - whereas the bigger, more dysfunctional, judgmental and unchristlike a bigot you can be, the surer you are of going to heaven.

---

Another for Psyduck
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Sorry, I don't do Hell.
I can believe in nothingness, though (Limbo?)
 

---

Posted by Lurker McLurker, of the clan Lurker (# 1384) on :
 
I think of Hell as being more of a state than a place. People who reject God do not choose to go to Hell, rejecting God, eternally, is Hell.
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Hy guys (& Ladies)

I confess I have not read all this thread.

But, I have read the need to show there is another way...
This way has been there all along, it's just that it isn't expounded very often...

Christians are not the only ones saved. All who truly desire for righteousness will be saved in my reading (Matthew 5:6). Irrespective of their theology providing their conscience is clear in regards to practising righteousness then my bible reveals to me that these are born again as per John 3.

So that those who go to hell. And I can't avoid reading it there. Are those who do not want righteousness and thus practise wickedness (John 5:29).
[in the proverbial nutshell] of course.

Does this help?

Jacques
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
Do you go to hell if you don't believe in God? My sister, who does not believe in anything that I can see, believes in oblivion, and thinks that is a Good Thing. Sometimes I'm inclined to agree with her!

Do spiritual things exist if we don't believe in them?

Nic
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Hi Nic,

The bible as I read it does not say believe in God or else go to hell, it says if you do good you will be accepted (within the understanding it is not the doing that saves but the faith in righteousness). Therefore no it is not a prerequisite to hell to disbelieve in God, but instead to practise wickedness: i.e. be evil.

Jesus said it like this (in a nutshell):
"those who have done good, to the resurrection of life [they go], and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation [i.e. hell]" John 5:29

Santa does not exist even though some believe in him, Satan and more importantly God exists even when you do not. But, you may find this helpful:

"If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself."
2 Timothy 2:13

However, for assurance of salvation it is clear that a living conscious relationship with Jesus - the living God - following Him, is necessary. And once you have such a relationship the verse before applies:

"If we endure, we shall reign with Him.
If we deny Him, He also will deny us." 2 Timothy 2:12
[NB you cannot deny whom you do not know]

But if you deny the righteousness you know, then you are denying Him (in the revelation you have received) and this shows itself by practising wickedness: then He denies you.

Does this help?

Regards,

Jacques
 

---

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 

quote:

---

Santa does not exist

---

sniff...sob...I've just written him a letter....
 

---

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 
Does Satan??
 

---

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :
 
Jesus said Satan existed!



Nic
 

---

Posted by musician (# 4873) on :
 
Maybe Jesus was dyslexic???
 

---

Posted by psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
I saw Santa fall from heaven...
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 


Jacques
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
nonpropheteer-

quote:

---

So in a sense, IMO, Hell is a state of being while one is alive, a state that will lead you to the grave without peace of mind. If we are cognizant after death, this state stays with us through our time in the grave - i.e. we are aware of the waste our life became and devoid of hope for future joy. This sense of loss and self loathing will one day be cast away by God, as will the need for graves and the fear of death; either by the salvation or destruction of those who suffer its affliction.

Np

---

Very well put, np. That goes along with my feeling about being part of the "Kingdom". Our relationship with God is not pie-in-the-sky, it's a taste of Heaven now. Likewise being out of relationship with God is a kind of Hell-on-Earth although people who live apart from God may not see it that way. They don't know what belongs in the empty space that is God's place in our lives; it probably seems like the normal angst of being human.

So you think people separated from God endure "Hell" from the moment of death until- what? The Judgement Day? And if they can't find their way to relationship by then, it's on to oblivion for them? That's an interesting concept if I'm getting you right.

Jacques More-

quote:

---

Jesus said it like this (in a nutshell):
"those who have done good, to the resurrection of life [they go], and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation [i.e. hell]" John 5:29

---

What if we've done both, as most of us have? How much good do you have to do to balance your evil deeds? The scary thing that a lot of Hell theology leaves you scared that you don't have it right. So how does abject fear square with love? Or how does love square with anger and resentment toward such a God who would (some tell us} offer his love and care if we get it right and eternal agony if we get it wrong? We are starting to get into Pelagian territory if we do all the heavy lifting. There is grace, is their not? Will grace cover our sins, even of those who do not believe in Jesus?

quote:

---

However, for assurance of salvation it is clear that a living conscious relationship with Jesus - the living God - following Him, is necessary. And once you have such a relationship the verse before applies:

"If we endure, we shall reign with Him.
If we deny Him, He also will deny us." 2 Timothy 2:12
[NB you cannot deny whom you do not know]

---

So you have to know Jesus to embrace or deny him. The problem for me is that I think some people deny him because they have a flawed idea of who and what he is. Often garnered from his flawed followers.
 

---

Posted by Singleton (# 3256) on :
 
Lyda Rose of Sharon said:

quote:

---

<snip>... being out of relationship with God is a kind of Hell-on-Earth although people who live apart from God may not see it that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon:
So you think people separated from God endure "Hell" from the moment of death until- what? The Judgement Day? And if they can't find their way to relationship by then, it's on to oblivion for them? That's an interesting concept if I'm getting you right.


So you have to know Jesus to embrace or deny him. The problem for me is that I think some people deny him because they have a flawed idea of who and what he is. Often garnered from his flawed followers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I have been interested by the sudden surge in interest on threads concerning death, hell

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeke:
...the thread on fundamentalists in Hell.

---

Ouch. Couldn't you have worded that a little differently?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppone:
But then, it's Advent: when we reflect on the Four Last Things- death, judgement, heaven, and hell. Maybe it's natural these topics come up at this time of year?

---

Well, there you have it. I was vaguely aware of Advent, but totally clueless about what it involves. Thanks a lot -- I think that may explain it.

P.S. Will they start thinking about heaven again when it's over?
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
I was hoping you'd turn up Grits.

As a resident believer in the traditional view, doesn't the idea that God has set up a system where one's salvation is dependent on our insights in this place where we "see in a glass darkly", where there are myriad possibilities of missing the mark, bother you at all? Sure, you and I were lucky enough to come up through circumstances that made Christianity look like the right choice and hopefully set us on the road to salvation. I just see all the ways that a person can go wrong with their choices, people essentially no worse than me. And here I am assuming I'm "saved"; some people, even here on the Ship, would probably argue that idea in the privacy of their own heads. "Lessee...she's a universalist, doesn't think homosexual behavior is a Christian deal-breaker, argues with scripture; this girl's on thin ice..." And if I was as certain as you seem to be that God does, indeed, send people to Hell eternally, I could not think of heaven without instantly thinking of the reverse, ever and always, amen.
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Grits (sorry for the choice of words, by the way), Advent is, as the name implies, a time of preparation for the coming of the Christ in the Incarnation. It also commemorates the ministry of John the Baptist. It is the four Sundays immediately preceding Christmas.

I'm sorry, I'm with Lyda Rose on this one. Trying to reconcile the notion of a God who loves everyone with a God who is ready to send someone he loves to eternal torture is more than I can do. It may seem weak to some, but I am sticking with the loving God, who is not willing that anyone should perish, as it says in the book. If he is not willing for anybody to perish, than nobody will, let's get serious. Unless he is a very impotent God and can't control what happens (and I am aware that is also a point of view held by some), nothing will happen that he doesn't want to happen, and allowing anyone to go to eternal torture without any possibility of further growth or preparation to bear the light of his face does not square with love. Sorry, Grits.
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
It is true that He is patient toward us, not willing that any should perish. So what does He want? The rest of the verse tells us: "..for all to come to repentance". The further growth and preparation you speak of is supposed to be happening NOW. That's what this life is for, and that's why He's waiting.

The preceding verses tell us that "the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." There's no way I can read the Bible and conclude that there will be no one in hell. Unfair? God doesn't like being called unfair. (See the parable of the workers in the vineyard and/or Job.) Just as Abraham told Lazarus, "They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them," I think that places a responsibility on us to (back to our original scripture in II Peter) "be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord to be salvation ..."
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon:
I was hoping you'd turn up Grits.

---

And I was hoping all day that anyone would show up to challenge Grits, since I've pushed it to the limit recently!

On this thread and the SA thread, I hear Grits pleading with people to tell her why they:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon:
argue[s] with scripture

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon:
I wonder sometimes if this is just a tool of Satan (oops -- another disclaimer: "I believe..."!) to keep us in a dark place concerning salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeke:
If he is not willing for anybody to perish, than nobody will, let's get serious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeke:
Sorry Grits.

---

Lyda and Zeke, I don't believe that you have succumbed to a tool of Satan to keep you from salvation by not taking the plain as day truth of the Bible without a lot of second guessing. But Grits does. It's just a belief, though, so I hope you don't take offense and have a nice chat about it. Like Frasier, "I'll be listening!"

I see that Grits has already responded! Her sword is indeed swift!

[ 01. December 2003, 01:55: Message edited by: JimT ]
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Singleton:
Lyda Rose of Sharon said:

quote:

---

<snip>... being out of relationship with God is a kind of Hell-on-Earth although people who live apart from God may not see it that way.

---

Surely this is the only thing that matters? Subtly but truthfully trying to influence people to make them realise that? How possible is that?

How would this work as a replacement of "hell theology": "there's-more-to-life-theology"?

Apologies to all I offended or irritated. I can't stay away...

---

No offence or irritation here, Singleton.

Yes, that is exactly why, to me, relationship with God, with Christ, is of crucial importance. IMO "there's more to life" -much more- is all the theology needed. No threats, just the fact that as difficult as life is on this earth, he joined us here. We aren't alone.


 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Well, if God doesn't like being called unfair, then he should send down a bolt or two right now, because that interpretation of God's nature does make him extremely unfair. He made us the way we are, weaknesses and all, and to be blamed for being the way we are made is VERY unfair. True, by great effort you can be a better person, but that apparently isn't good enough either. I wouldn't treat my own children this way, and I think God should be at least as good a parent as I would.

And once again you are limiting God's love by saying he is just waiting around to see if we jump through the right hoops or not, or if we are fortunate enough to be part of the few who fulfill all the requirements to be truly loved. Because you don't have a God who can be described as
being love in this scenario at all. So perhaps I should give up the idea of having a loving God altogether, and instead concentrate on propitiating a scary vindictive one? Maybe I should get myself ready to enjoy watching the people in Hell fry across that "gulf", assuming I luck out enough not to be one of them? Apparently almost everybody is going to Hell. We can pretty much write off India, Hindus and Muslims mostly there. And most of the Middle East. But it isn't pleasant to think about that, so I won't.

This view of God makes him really rather contemptible, and I would rather think better of him.

Grits, you have expressed surprise that people would focus on this apparent inconsistency in God's nature, rather than think about Heaven. Well, it's a pretty big deal to me, and to others here. I can't handle "well, it's really going to happen just like this, eternal torture and agony and the whole bit, but I don't know why we have to think about it all the time." I know this isn't a direct quote, but this is how you come across, at least to me.
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
I guess I'm just needing someone to explain to me the obsession you all have with needing to make God a big ol' happy teddy bear in the sky. Where does that concept come from, I wonder? Why does a "loving God", as you all like to call Him, have to fit your definition of loving? To me, being loving can mean being constant and true and reliable. How do most people describe parental discipline? As showing love, I think. Why can this not be the kind of love God has for us, rather than the all-inclusive, "oh, gee, I was just kidding with all that hell stuff" picture that you have? None of what you're saying comes from the biblical concept of God.

Do I like the concept of eternal damnation? Hell, no. (That's a pun, BTW.) Would I love to lull myself into a glassy-eyed reverie that God loves me to the point that nothing is expected of me in return, other than to be a nice person most of the time? Sure, I would. But I can't.

I guess I need to know who those are that Jesus speaks of when He talks about the ones who will "go away into eternal punishment" and the people in the cities for whom "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you" and for those who, at the end of the age, will be gathered by the angels and, because of their lawlessness, will be cast "into the furnace of fire; in that place where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth". And that's just a few examples of what seems to be Jesus speaking of hell.

I don't know, guys. I guess I'm just not into trying to make things all neat and happy for myself. I'm OK with things the way I think they are presented in the Bible. Not because it's easy or suits me, but because I truly believe that's the way it is. I don't really have a problem with your concept of a God of total universal acceptance -- it sounds wonderful! I just don't find it acceptable for me.

I have to say that a lightbulb has gone off for me on this thread as to the whys and wherefores of all this. The loving God, the full acceptance, the denial of hell and/or eternal punishment as it goes against the loving God concept -- that has finally all come together for me. I don't profess to understand it or why you have the need to believe in it, but at least I'll know a little better why you react to certain things the way you do.

However, if I'm willing to let you have your beliefs, is it so hard to let me have mine? It's not like I'm ramming it down your throats, but I have to speak up when I see something that is so astonishingly contrary to what I believe. And I am always interested in knowing from whence certain concepts arise. Live and learn, read and think, post and run!

BTW, JimT, I don't really think Zeke's apology was an apology for her post. It was just a "sorry to disagree". Sheesh -- we can be polite in Purgatory, can't we?
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
JimT was just ribbing me a little.

You have my permission, Grits, to believe anything you want. I am interested to see where you come from, as you say you are interested in other points of view as well.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I'm with what Lurker said, mostly.

The classical Orthodox understanding of Hell is that it is the experience of being "face to face" with a God whom you hate -- whom you have grown incapable of loving due to the selfish and hurtful decisions of a lifetime.

The idea being that we all will stand before our creator for eternity -- face to face and not "through a veil, darkly" as it is now. Those who have in this lifetime grown Godwards will experience that with joy; those who have grown the other way will experience it as pain and torment.

This "growth-toward or growth-away-from" theology (to coin a term) is clearly found in Screwtape although Lewis doesn't parse the afterlife in the quite traditional Orthodox way.
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
from JimT's post-

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon [not!]:
I wonder sometimes if this is just a tool of Satan (oops -- another disclaimer: "I believe..."!) to keep us in a dark place concerning salvation.

---

Nope that wasn't me, that was Grits.

quote Grits-

quote:

---

The preceding verses tell us that "the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." There's no way I can read the Bible and conclude that there will be no one in hell. Unfair? God doesn't like being called unfair.

---

If I believed that God was a cruel, unfair bastard, that would keep me in a dark place concerning salvation. And there's no use pretending I wouldn't suppose God was unfair by leaving us in a confusing world and then giving us the ultimate punishment for being angry, unhappy, and confused. I mean, he's God and already knows what I think, so being dishonest and telling myself that I can't think that way when I do think that way would only be fooling myself, not God. I realize that I may be getting this all wrong, but if the only way I can keep myself pursuing God and salvation is to reason that God can't be both more loving than we can ever possibly be while at the same time being the cruelest deity imaginable, that's what I'll do.

And only God can decide if that's good enough for him. At this point that's all I can offer. I'm a little child of God and I trust him to be my loving Father despite my errors. AND I trust that he is the loving Father of all his creation. If he can't love better than us, what's the point? In this world, love may be unimaginable and many people can't even articulate their need. So I have to believe that the God who sees into our hearts can give us what we need even if we can't ask it. I have to believe that the God of eternity has the patience to wait lovingly for us to recognize the gift- even beyond the grave.
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
Zeke, a little ribbing from JimT? A kinder, gentler JimT, no doubt. I myself am preparing to be flamed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon:
And only God can decide if that's good enough for him. At this point that's all I can offer. I'm a little child of God and I trust him to be my loving Father despite my errors. AND I trust that he is the loving Father of all his creation.

---

I can stand with you on this one, sister.
 

---

Posted by Chris (# 111) on :
 
I can get as far as seeing that there may be reasons that someone will not be with God for eternity, even though God's will is for all to be saved. For freedom to mean something, for human dignity to ultimately exist, means to me that our choices have genuine consequences, and that no one will be forced to love a God they have chosen not to love.

What I cannot see is how it could possibly be just for God to keep those people in constant torment, as the tradition of hell would require. Even if that torment is just not being with God, I see no way that God could keep someone existing merely to suffer. When a dog gets old and sick and in constant pain, we put down - we are asked to believe God would keep someone alive, for ever, suffering with no hope of reprieve.

So - I tend to read the descriptions of hell with an emphasis on destruction rather than suffering... I think that can be consistent with the Biblical description, especially given the inevitable wriggle room around the concept of the eternal (timeless v. everlasting...)
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Yes, Grits kinder and gentler. I was ribbing Zeke and I knew she would think it was funny. And apologies to Lyda for the misattribution of quotes: I was cutting and pasting from another block.

Grits, I really hope I can make another light bulb go off. I sense a genuine desire in you to understand the "non-fundamentalist" mindset, and have sensed it since your first posts. It seems to me that you are going about it in a "fundamentalist" way that is not working: you invite others into your fundamentalist world and ask them to explain where your interpretation of scripture is wrong. This will never give you a look outside your box. You have a perfectly good, solid, interconnected system of belief all tied down in the scriptures and if anyone takes one out of the context you have provided, you reply with your context. Nothing is gained in the exchange.

If you really want a glimpse of the "universalist" world, you need to use a lot of imagination. Let's try this: Gritsdharma was born in a remote village in India to loving parents who taught her that if she followed the path of enlightenment, she would enter nirvanna after death. Her parents will ensure that this will happen. She will need not fear having to reincarnate as a snake or insect because they will show her the path to enlightenment, which is plainly described in the holy scriptures. Gritsdharma believes her loving parents with all her heart of course. Missionaries come to the village and say, "you must put aside the path of enlightenment you were taught and believe that the blood of Jesus has saved you from eternal torment in Hell." Gritsdharma is sad for the missionaries. They do not see the path to enlightenment. They will have to be reincarnated for scaring children and taking them from the true path that is laid out so clearly.

Grits, when you can see yourself as Gritsdharma, arguing with the missionaries and arguing with friends that have converted to Christianity, and doing so until your death, you may get a glimpse of the universalist mind.

Now close your eyes, take a deep breath, and...


 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
I think my big problem, Grits, is the interpretation of Hell as being an eternal destination for the damned. That and some of the nit-picky reasons that Biblical interpreters have for condemning poor, addled humanity. So I went to Bible Gateway and searched "hell".

NIV has 15 references in the entire Bible for "hell". I think they exclude sheol, which as NP pointed out could just mean death. Okay, try the good, old King James Version. Lots more. . But wait: none of them say a person would be there for eternity. None. (Although I haven't gone through all the references to check out context.) The fires might be eternal but not necessarily your stay in them, at least as far as I could determine in the actual references. Could you see this as a possibility? If not, why not?

Hell as purification I could tolerate. The metaphor of Isaiah that speaks of God putting people? Israel? through the fire to rid the gold of the base metals, I can see. Not nice, not cuddly, cruel-to-be kind, but at least redemptive. But tossing souls out for good on the basis of actions in this troubled world, this I can't and won't believe. By no possible construction can I see that as in any way loving.

Hans Christian Andersen had an interesting story about Hell being redemptive, "The Girl Who Trod on a Loaf". The version I read as a kid actually had the frozen Inge given to the devil's great-grandmother as a parlor decoration. I suppose that Andersen wrote more than one version. Anyway the story can still make me cry.
 

---

Posted by Jacques More (# 5157) on :
 
Hi Lyda,

I have a few moments before I dash off, but should return later tonight...

quote:

---

Jacques More-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus said it like this (in a nutshell):
"those who have done good, to the resurrection of life [they go], and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation [i.e. hell]" John 5:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if we've done both, as most of us have? How much good do you have to do to balance your evil deeds? The scary thing that a lot of Hell theology leaves you scared that you don't have it right. So how does abject fear square with love? Or how does love square with anger and resentment toward such a God who would (some tell us} offer his love and care if we get it right and eternal agony if we get it wrong? We are starting to get into Pelagian territory if we do all the heavy lifting. There is grace, is their not? Will grace cover our sins, even of those who do not believe in Jesus?

---

Jesus said, (5 times recorded in the gospels)

"For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him." Mathew 13:12

If you have a desire for righteousness, then more revelation, understanding, ability will be given you - those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will be filled (Mat.5)- but, if you really don't then even your ability to choose will disappear...

Basically we all 'have' [total depravity/inability is a lie]. If, with that we desire for righteousness (for example) this relates to the use of our 'haves' and = the 1st have. This releases life and revelation into our lives to enable us to be righteous and practise it. If, on the other hand we do not have a desire - a faith in what is right and good - then our senses die off and ability to choose is lost by being smothered by death...

Predestination Paul said involves those who love God in their hearts, but don't know it...

Have a great day.

Regards,

Jacques
 

---

Posted by Freehand (# 144) on :
 
Hell is hating yourself while being unwilling or unable to change.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go burn in Grits' hell and bask in Mousethief's heaven . I want to see the face of God, without the dim glass, regardless of the scorching I receive.

Freehand
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
Interesting stuff, Jacques.

quote:

---

The hunger and thirst in view - the faith in righteousness present - seen by God within the heart, but not altogether recognised and expressed outwardly (by the individual) is a prayer to God to enable the person further to be fulfilled in that particular desire. Although prayers cannot be expressed in words uttered, because we do not know how, God knows how and does this on our behalf as a direct result of the hope in the heart visible to Him: The heart display.

---

 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
Freehand-

quote:

---

Hell is hating yourself while being unwilling or unable to change.

---

That explains how I felt for a few years there.

Hellish.
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
Thanks, Jim. I want to make sure you understand that I've always known what you believe -- I've just never been able to figure out why . And closing my eyes, and breathing as deeply as possible, I will never find any cause for it other than the fact that it feels better. Because, as you have aptly and very inoffensively stated, a religion that is not based on the Bible will never be a path I could choose. But it is just my path.

And, Lyda, this "hell, but not for eternity" is a new can of worms, at least, for me. I don't know how I feel about that, but I will think about it and try to find out more. I assume you believe heaven is for eternity? And not that some will start in heaven then go to hell? (Kind of the vice versa of your idea.) I guess I'm still on those words "everlasting" and "eternal" in reference to hell. I'd have to find a way to get around that.

As I've said, there's no doubt about your way being the happier. I still see some kind of hang-up with the concept you perceive as a "loving God" and mine. My parent analogy again: The worst kind of parent is the one who allows their kid to do anything they want, not enforcing rules and/or punishment, setting no boundaries and giving no guidance or discipline. A loving parent will stick to his guns, and enforce any discipline laid down for the child, no matter how "unfair" it seems. And if they don't, utter chaos will ensue. No, the punishment will not be ongoing, unless the disobedience continues. My thought is that, if we die in our disobedience, the punishment will be ongoing. But I will think about the "temporary hell" idea.

Does the story of the rich young ruler make you sad? Here was someone who had obviously worked hard at being as obedient as he knew how. Yet when confronted with something that was out of his comfort zone and ability to give up, he couldn't do it. Jesus used this to teach how hard it is to give up the riches of the world. And I think riches come in all forms. In the end, we must do what He says.

It is much later here than on the West Coast, so I'm off to bed.
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
While I agree this is certainly a parable, I don't know why that infers that the setting is not real. The other parables, while all "stories", did not take place in imaginary settings. Why would one assume this one does?

---

quote:

---

the Good Book:
Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? 11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. 12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath. 13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeke:
NP, are you thinking of the time Saul used the witch of Endor to contact the prophet Samuel?

This whole thing sounds a lot like the thread on fundamentalists in Hell. Perhaps the discussion here will be more helpful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:

The preceding verses tell us that "the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." There's no way I can read the Bible and conclude that there will be no one in hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I guess I'm just needing someone to explain to me the obsession you all have with needing to make God a big ol' happy teddy bear in the sky. Where does that concept come from, I wonder?

---

quote:

---

<snip>... that Jesus speaks of when He talks about the ones who will "go away into eternal punishment" and the people in the cities for whom "it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you" and for those who, at the end of the age, will be gathered by the angels and, because of their lawlessness, will be cast "into the furnace of fire; in that place where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth".

---

quote:

---

However, if I'm willing to let you have your beliefs, is it so hard to let me have mine? It's not like I'm ramming it down your throats, but I have to speak up when I see something that is so astonishingly contrary to what I believe. And I am always interested in knowing from whence certain concepts arise.

---

I hope I haven't given you the impression that I begrudge you your beliefs - everyone should believe as they feel called. I think that is what God wants. Maybe one day my belief will come around to being more like yours, o yours more like mine. There is only one thing I firmly believe in: God is real. All the details are, from my perspective, speculation.


Np
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
Grits, when you can see yourself as Gritsdharma, arguing with the missionaries and arguing with friends that have converted to Christianity, and doing so until your death, you may get a glimpse of the universalist mind.

---

This is still Purgatory, not Hell, right?


Np
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freehand:
Hell is hating yourself while being unwilling or unable to change.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go burn in Grits' hell and bask in Mousethief's heaven . I want to see the face of God, without the dim glass, regardless of the scorching I receive.

Freehand

---

Right on , Freehand.
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I guess I'm still on those words "everlasting" and "eternal" in reference to hell. I'd have to find a way to get around that.

---

quote:

---

2Pe 2:4
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell(tartaros), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Re 6:8
And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell (hades) followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
Re 20:13
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell(hades) delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Re 20:14
And death and hell (hades)were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Jas 3:6
And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell (gehenna).

---

quote:

---

Mt 10:28
And fear * not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell(gehenna).

Mt 11:23
And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell (hades/grave): for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Mt 16:18
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell (hades/grave) shall not prevail against it.

Mt 18:9
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell(gehenna) fire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I will never find any cause for it other than the fact that it feels better.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
Because, as you have aptly and very inoffensively stated, a religion that is not based on the Bible will never be a path I could choose.

---

There is no question in my mind, none, that you would reject the Bible and Christianity if you were born the Gritsdharma of my story. Do you find it impossible to even consider this? Again, are you sure that it is others and not you who take the easy way out with a form of "feel good" Christianity?
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Consider the idea that Hell is punishment by fire forever.

Hold your finger over a candle flame for a second.
It hurt, didn't it?
Now imagine that feeling all over your hand,
all over your arm,
all over your body.
Not for a second, but for an hour.
Not for an hour, but for a year.
Not for a year, but for a lifetime.
(I will go no further - none of us can really imagine more than a lifetime.)

If God sentences people to Hell because they haven't put their faith in him, then that's what they're in for.

So I'm going to Hell.

Not because I haven't put my faith in God, but because if there was one person, no matter how 'bad', suffering like that for ever, with no hope of release ....

then even Heaven would be Hell to me.

(Which all goes to show that this classical formulation of 'Hell' involves a massive failure of the imagination.)
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
Your opinion reminds me of Ursula K. Le Guin's "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" although some may argue that the hapless child in "Omelas" is innocent while those who are condemned to Hell aren't. But in some ways it is similar- if you believe in a God who would torture a person through eternity, you've got your heaven at the price of setting aside your compassion and declaring that the eternal torture is all right since it is the will of the one who gives you heaven.

I don't know that heaven could be heaven for me in that case either, Adeodatus.
 

---

Posted by Glenn Oldham (# 47) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Consider the idea that Hell is punishment by fire forever.

Hold your finger over a candle flame for a second.
It hurt, didn't it?
Now imagine that feeling all over your hand,
all over your arm,
all over your body.
Not for a second, but for an hour.
Not for an hour, but for a year.
Not for a year, but for a lifetime.
(I will go no further - none of us can really imagine more than a lifetime.)

If God sentences people to Hell because they haven't put their faith in him, then that's what they're in for.

So I'm going to Hell.

Not because I haven't put my faith in God, but because if there was one person, no matter how 'bad', suffering like that for ever, with no hope of release ....

then even Heaven would be Hell to me.

(Which all goes to show that this classical formulation of 'Hell' involves a massive failure of the imagination.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... Do your opinions change if Hell does not involve such torture?

... No torture - in fact they might have a reasonable time - but the absolute knowledge that they are sundered from God.

Would your opinion of God change if that were the nature of Hell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
If God is a God who tortures individuals unrelentingly, constantly, for eternity, with no end, forever, with no benefit arising from it for the sufferers, then that God is the amongst the most evil beings imaginable.
G.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
To me, my view makes more sense.

---

You know, Jim, I actually find very little about Christianity that makes sense. I guess that's not really the basis for my belief, because most of it would seem like a bunch of hooey if I started only believing the parts that "made sense".

And, of course, we know that's where our biggest issues are. You have to have proof, documentation, viable reason -- every human factor for belief possible -- for something to fit into your system. I just don't. And that's why I am labeled a robotic, blank-brained nimcompoop who can't possibly have any kind of cognizant thought about anything.

I know it is hard to understand being able to relinquish pride and human prejudices in the face of faith. That's OK, if that's how you want to do it. As to your "village girl" scenario -- what's the point? That seems totally irrelevant to me. Don't you find that making your way through your own life gives you plenty to keep you occupied? This is the life God has given me, and I think I am responsible for finding the purpose in it. I would love to say I am noble enough to want to a "world view", but I'm not. It's not about feeling better. It's just about knowing God and what He wants for me. I assume that's what your aim is, too, ultimately. We're just going about it in radically different ways.

My biggest concern is how quick so many have been to say they would totally dismiss the idea of a God who would allow an eternal place of torment. I'm still amazed there are some who want to call the shots about the nature of God, and I'm still waiting to find out where that concept comes from.

I am writing this under the influence of Claritin-D and very little sleep, so I'm afraid it's a little less gracious than I'd like for it to be. I know you know where I'm coming from, so it's not as detailed as it could be. I have appreciated all the posts and reading the different ideas and concerns. I have little concern for myself, as usual, but I do feel the need to present my beliefs in a respectable manner. I don't feel I have done that as well on this thread, perhaps because I realize that this is one of the touchiest areas in theology. I don't feel my beliefs are that radical -- they're just the beliefs that are so despised by the ones who have rejected this viewpoint because it doesn't fit their "loving God" code. I do understand that, and I understand the difficulties involved. Just don't be resentful or dismissive or insulted that it is not a "tough issue" for me.
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
While curling my hair just now I had a thought: The aspects that have been expressed about dismissing a God who would allow hell is exactly the way I feel about the concept of a God who is not true to His Word. If I ever felt He was not consistent with the nature presented in the Bible I think I would be quick to trash the whole idea. The concept of a God who would allow an ongoing perpetration of lies to humanity would certainly strike me as .

And, JimT, I didn't mean to dismiss your point about the village girl. It was a good analogy. This is just a personal quirk with me. I simply find no joy nor benefit in "What ifs"; I am all about "What is".
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon:
Yeah, I really have an attitude on this subject. I do, however, want to hear why this doesn't trip up others the way it trips up me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeke:
Well, if God doesn't like being called unfair, then he should send down a bolt or two right now, because that interpretation of God's nature does make him extremely unfair.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonprepheteer:
If God is good, God is love, God is all powerful and all knowing - if our wisdom is foolishness to God, then who are we to judge God? If people are to be put in hell for all eternity, never dying -and will eternally be cognizant of their pain and suffering - then that would be a just and fitting punishment for them. Period. Its God that makes the rules and knows all the details, and I have to trust that such a decision would not be made lightly. Note: ...* I'm just saying, if that part is real, then we have to believe that it is good and just.

---

quote:

---

Job 38

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:

2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

at Job 40:8 God continues with:

"Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?"

and Job 42:

1 Then Job replied to the LORD :

...

3 "You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know."

---

quote:

---

I'm still amazed there are some who want to call the shots about the nature of God, and I'm still waiting to find out where that concept comes from.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
To me, my view makes more sense.

---

You know, Jim, I actually find very little about Christianity that makes sense. I guess that's not really the basis for my belief, because most of it would seem like a bunch of hooey if I started only believing the parts that "made sense".

And, of course, we know that's where our biggest issues are. You have to have proof, documentation, viable reason -- every human factor for belief possible -- for something to fit into your system. I just don't. And that's why I am labeled a robotic, blank-brained nimcompoop who can't possibly have any kind of cognizant thought about anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by space monkey:
Faith isn't somehow better because it's a faith in an absolutist and literal interpretation of something. Liberal believers can have faith just as strong as a fundamentalist's, but they're able to change and adapt it in the light of new information.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:

quote:

---

Originally posted by space monkey:
Faith isn't somehow better because it's a faith in an absolutist and literal interpretation of something. Liberal believers can have faith just as strong as a fundamentalist's, but they're able to change and adapt it in the light of new information.

---

Yes, I was quickly informed of this just a few seconds after I first started here. I understand the concept; I guess I just usually have issues with "new information".

I understand your traditional view of fundamentalism, although I don't validate it. I do see how people come to those conclusions, however.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:

I understand your traditional view of fundamentalism, although I don't validate it. I do see how people come to those conclusions, however.

---

I note that you didn't quote the start of my post, where I explained my criticism more clearly...

My point was that it's the fundamentalist viewpoint, not the 'liberal' one (as you seemed to be implying), that demands literal truth as the only, or principal, measure of value. I believe I've seen you myself on these boards saying words to the effect that unless the whole Bible is absolutely true, you don't see the point of it.

That's fair enough, those are your beliefs. But can you explain how you 'don't validate' my assessment of the fundamentalist worldview? You haven't said anything to show how my understanding is wrong.

And if my view of fundamentalism is the 'traditional' one, what's the 'progressive' one, please?

Genuinely interested, not meaning to be rude.

[ 01. December 2003, 14:48: Message edited by: Space Monkey ]
 

---

Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
If God is good, God is love, God is all powerful and all knowing - if our wisdom is foolishness to God, then who are we to judge God? If people are to be put in hell for all eternity, never dying -and will eternally be cognizant of their pain and suffering - then that would be a just and fitting punishment for them. Period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Steve:

My problem with a fundamentalist version of hell is more that people without that same fundamentalist faith are essentially doomed - which is very harsh considering the world population we currently have.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I know it is hard to understand being able to relinquish pride and human prejudices in the face of faith. That's OK, if that's how you want to do it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Steve:

My problem with a fundamentalist version of hell is more that people without that same fundamentalist faith are essentially doomed - which is very harsh considering the world population we currently have.

---

Have you got some proof of that being the fundamentalist position? Or did you infer it yourself?

I believe there will be many liberals in heaven - in fact all of the Christian ones.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Steve:
My understanding of fundamentalism is the attitude of "we're right and everyone who disagrees is damned", whereas conservative may be defined as "we're right, but everyone can have their say".

---

quote:

---

1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by josephine:
Nonpropheteer, I'm a mom. I have four children. When I punish them, it's so that they can learn what they did wrong and amend their behavior. If it's impossible for them to learn what they did wrong, and it's impossible for them to amend their behavior, then grounding, spanking, removing privileges, whatever I'm doing for punishment isn't punishment. It is cruelty.

God the eternal father, the lover of mankind, is not cruel. He will not punish people for eternity. He may allow them to suffer for eternity, if that's what they choose. But never to appease some external sense of justice. Never for any reason other than love.

I know I've posted the link to The River of Fire before -- my apologies to those who've read it already and may be tired of hearing it! But it's the best answer, from the Orthodox POV, to the question, "so, what about hell?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
I know it is hard to understand being able to relinquish pride and human prejudices in the face of faith. That's OK, if that's how you want to do it.

---

This is a first for me ever on The Ship. I want a Host ruling. This is a stereotypical, personal attack on me that presumes pride and prejudice for not holding the same views as the author. I have heard quite enough of Grits' stereotypical characterization of the non-fundamentalist mind and this is the last straw.

---

Oh puhlease. Like you didn't stereotype her position. Besides, it is extremely difficult to relinquish pride and human prejudice.
She has a view she believes is more correct than yours, you have a view that you believe is more correct than hers. Both of you feel like you have an understanding of God - and the kicker is that each of you may be just as right as the other, or completely wrong, or only have bits and pieces of your views right.

All of us believe what we believe and are biased against others - not to say we wont allow others their own beliefs, but when it gets down to brass tacks, we all think the view we have adopted is closer to the truth than someone else's. If we don't, then we really don't have a view point - only bits of stuff we've learned that we don't understand.

I commend Grits for sticking to her guns. We should only let what God reveals to us to be our compass.


[edited because Grits was sticking to her Gnus. Should wash those beasts more often]

Np

[ 01. December 2003, 18:13: Message edited by: nonpropheteer ]
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon:
Yeah, I really have an attitude on this subject. I do, however, want to hear why this doesn't trip up others the way it trips up me.

---

Ok, so it might be a little late to be quoting the OP on this thread, but I just read it this morning.

It seems to me that, while the OP says she wants to hear why others believe in a "literal" hell, it appears that the thread has changed its nature to "Why Grits should not believe in hell". Interesting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zeke:
Well, if God doesn't like being called unfair, then he should send down a bolt or two right now, because that interpretation of God's nature does make him extremely unfair.

---

Be careful what you ask for - remember Noah? How about the plagues of Egypt in Exodus? How about Elijah vs the prophets of Baal (I Kings 18:16-40)? God is powerful. He shows His power - sometimes in devestating ways.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonprepheteer:
If God is good, God is love, God is all powerful and all knowing - if our wisdom is foolishness to God, then who are we to judge God? If people are to be put in hell for all eternity, never dying -and will eternally be cognizant of their pain and suffering - then that would be a just and fitting punishment for them. Period. Its God that makes the rules and knows all the details, and I have to trust that such a decision would not be made lightly. Note: ...* I'm just saying, if that part is real, then we have to believe that it is good and just.

---

My point exactly. *edited out the only phrase I did not agree with - I don't think it alters the nature of the point.

Read Job 38-42 for some examples here of why we should trust and not question God. Selected verses:

quote:

---

Job 38

1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:

2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel
with words without knowledge?
3 Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.

4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?
Tell me, if you understand.

at Job 40:8 God continues with:

"Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?"

and Job 42:

1 Then Job replied to the LORD :

...

3 "You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?'
Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,
things too wonderful for me to know."

---

and as Grits said:

quote:

---

I'm still amazed there are some who want to call the shots about the nature of God, and I'm still waiting to find out where that concept comes from.

---

Perhaps someone can answers that challenge without resorting to arguments like "I cannot believe that a God of love would ..."

---

Welcome to the discussion, Sharkshooter. I'm glad we have another person representing the traditional viewpoint. Note I didn't say "fundamentalist viewpoint". Don't want to stereotype. Now we won't just pick on her.

I'm not calling the shots as to what God is; I don't know exactly what God is. Neither do you. Neither did the writers of the Bible. We all feel just part of the elephant. The ancient Hebrew storytellers who passed down the story of Abraham and Moses wouldn't have recognized the Lover of The Song of Solomon or the Suffering Servant of Isaiah or the loving Father of Jesus. I don't understand the story on a God who is vengeful and vindictive; to me God has to be better than humanity not just more: more generous, more powerful, more wrarhful, more jealous of his perogatives. Otherwise we might as well go back to worshipping Odin or Zeus.

All I know is that I cannot love God if he is a vindictive deity who plays at games with Satan with a man's life, or is the God who "hardened the heart" of the Pharoah to wring the last bit of sadistic plague-making out on the Egyptian people. I can't. But I want to love God and the direct experience I've had of him is not that cruel God. I'm grateful to God for giving us this world because he's bounteously generous and full of mercy, not because we caught him on a good day. If I believed that God was this disfunctional parent who enforced his will on his children like a Joan Crawford, I'd fear him, yes, reluctably serve him, but not love him. Might makes right™. Might could enforce my servitude but not my thoughts and certainly not my love.

If you can love the God of Job, more power to you. If you can see eternal damnation as a good and proper thing 'cause God says so, or so you believe, fine. A lot of us can't. As I said, all I can do is believe what I can believe and love the God of that belief. If I'm wrong and God says Bzzz! Wrong answer! I'm no worse off than if I didn't honor the God of love I had in my imagination because I wouldn't have served him at all otherwise.

As I said in my limited-duration-of-Hell post I could understand punishment/purification that would lead to salvation. I don't have that much of a fluffy bunny approach to God where I think suffering is not an option with God for getting us where we need to go in our development. But as josephine rightly pointed out eternal damnation does nothing toward correcting the damned; it's just cruel and a waste. The either/or idea of salvation makes the unsaved look like dead men walking, a waste of space.
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
and as Grits said:

quote:

---

I'm still amazed there are some who want to call the shots about the nature of God, and I'm still waiting to find out where that concept comes from.

---

Perhaps someone can answers that challenge without resorting to arguments like "I cannot believe that a God of love would ..."

---

...I'm not calling the shots as to what God is; I don't know exactly what God is. Neither do you. ...
All I know is that I cannot love God if ...

---

quote:

---

The Ark Brought to Jerusalem

1 David again brought together out of Israel chosen men, thirty thousand in all. 2 He and all his men set out from Baalah of Judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the Name, the name of the LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim that are on the ark. 3 They set the ark of God on a new cart and brought it from the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab, were guiding the new cart 4 with the ark of God on it, and Ahio was walking in front of it. 5 David and the whole house of Israel were celebrating with all their might before the LORD , with songs and with harps, lyres, tambourines, sistrums and cymbals.
6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out and took hold of the ark of God, because the oxen stumbled. 7 The LORD's anger burned against Uzzah because of his irreverent act; therefore God struck him down and he died there beside the ark of God.
8 Then David was angry because the LORD's wrath had broken out against Uzzah, and to this day that place is called Perez Uzzah. [5]
9 David was afraid of the LORD that day and said, "How can the ark of the LORD ever come to me?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I believe there was a French theologian who said that he had to believe in the existence of Hell because it was in the Bible. Because of what the Bible said about the love and mercy of God, however, he could only conclude that Hell was empty. Any one any idea who this chap was?

---

I can't remember.

Though the idea goes way back to Origen surely?

But I've known more than one minister or preacher who has said that that is their hope, and their private belief, but that they couldn't claim it as the teaching of the Church.
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
Okay, Sharkshooter, you've chosen to believe that the Bible is literal possibly because you can't imagine that God would allow people to be people and be fallible when writing the scriptural record. Your choice may have a certain simplicity and consistancy compared to mine but it is still a choice. The people who wrote the Bible had a choice in what they put down and how they viewed it, unless you think that God used them like a spirit uses a medium, without volition on the writer's part.

God is God. I don't call the shots on him, but I do call them on me. I try to be honest with God and with myself. I know that bad things happen but I think they are because creation is as it is. Plagues happen; famines happen; to both the good and the bad blessings happen and sh*t happens. If God uses them to bring people to their whole nature in him, I can deal with it. But if they are deliberate, empty cruelty I can't. I'd rather take the chance that my view and experience is right and continue to love and serve him as best I can, even if I'm in error and acting in pride. But right now, if I believed that God gives up on even one of his own, I would walk away.

"I believe. Help my unbelief." Go ahead and pray that I'll be on the right path. And I'll pray the same for you. Prayer is always a good thing even if we're touching a different part of the elephant.
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
I don't think I have time for as complete a post as I would like (neighbor child needs to use the computer), but I do want to offer an apology to JimT. My response was obviously addressed to you, and that, in and of itself, made it personal.
 

---

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
JimT, you wanted a hostly ruling. Here it is. First, there was nothing in Grits' post that violated the 10 commandments. Second, it was not personal and you need to quit personalizing things, especially on a board where vigorous debate is encouraged. Third, as you are aware, the hosts read every single post on their boards and take action as they deem necessary. We are not in need of calls for a hostly ruling.

Tortuf
Purgatory Host
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
I appreciate the apology, accept it, and know that it is sincere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
All of us believe what we believe and are biased against others - not to say we wont allow others their own beliefs, but when it gets down to brass tacks, we all think the view we have adopted is closer to the truth than someone else's.

---

Hey thanks, I needed that little bit of perspective.

nonprotheteer, I was going after one thing and one thing alone: the stereotypical response I have heard from Grits and others that the reason why those on the other side of an argument reject their view is "pride and prejudice." This is not respectful, hard-hitting debate, which is what I think I was engaged in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Do you dismiss all of the Biblical passages which make you uncomfortable (just as some do with passages relating to a hell and eternal torment)?
<snip>
Story of Uzzah

---

You've picked an excellent story, sharkshooter. In fact, it was used to introduce me to the willingness of God to torment in Hell. Yes, I rejected it out of hand when I heard it because it was so obviously a primitive picture of God; one that goes with ancient Israel's picture of a God who required blood sacrifice for sins. To me, this story tells us about the evolving revelation of God that begins as a fearsome supercreature demanding obedience under pain of death and culminates with God as Love and Truth. I don't think it makes sense to attempt to fuse the God of the Gospel of John with the God who struck Uzzah dead for trying to be helpful nor the God who cursed Eve with childbearing in Genesis. The Bible says that they are one in the same, yesterday today and forever, but to me it is painfully obvious that they are not.
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Crosspost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tortuf:
JimT, you wanted a hostly ruling. Here it is. First, there was nothing in Grits' post that violated the 10 commandments. Second, it was not personal and you need to quit personalizing things, especially on a board where vigorous debate is encouraged. Third, as you are aware, the hosts read every single post on their boards and take action as they deem necessary. We are not in need of calls for a hostly ruling.

Tortuf
Purgatory Host

---

Well I stand corrected and apologize for personalizing too much. I will say that I have heard people call for rulings before without reprimand, but that was a few months ago. I certainly did not mean to imply that hosts need prompting to do their jobs; it was my impression that sometimes people asked for clarification on borderline issues.
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
[Warning: Annoyingly long and wordy post to follow:]

OK, I’m ready to respond now, but let me begin by saying I had been avoiding this thread (as well as the one on the crucifixion) like the plague. Not because I have any qualms with it, but because I knew there would be those watching and waiting to jump out and do an “Ah, ha! The fundamentalist b***h finally admits to believing in hell and damnation! And she was trying to make us think she was different.” That’s OK – I’ve just been assuming that was a given.

It is interesting to see what has been posted, as I had a discussion about this at lunch today. I posed the question, and the answer I received was, "Well, if I believe in an all-loving, all-good God..." I stopped him right there. Where does that picture of God come from? Sure, I believe God is good and loving, but that is certainly not ALL I think He is. Surely you recognize that God has a vengeful side, a jealous side, and, yes, even a murderous side. But you know what? I am OK with that. Why? BECAUSE HE'S GOD, and He can be whatever and everything He wants to be, without any approval from me. You completely ignore a huge aspect of His character if you whittle Him down to only "good" and "loving". And I guess I believe that's a dangerous aspect to ignore.

I also asked the question, "Well, if you believe He loves you too much to send you to hell, then why does He let bad things happen to us here?" Lyda has addressed that somewhat in her last post. I don't know if I believe God "uses" bad stuff to reveal Himself -- I certainly believe He can do that. But if you believe that, and yet those affected are not turned to God as a result, you're saying that He then accepts that rejection and offers them heaven anyway? I'll have to think about that one.

I appreciate the comments made by sharkshooter and nonpropheteer, both basically saying who are we to question what God does and why.

Big Steve, you ask a lot of questions! “Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” I think that answers most of them. I just get it from the Bible (and maybe my “gut”.) I really don’t believe faith can be “taught”. Principals can be taught, ideas can be presented, but I think faith has to come from within. And God hasn’t told me anything... lately.

Space Monkey, I don’t think you rude at all. Sometimes it’s hard to ask questions without sounding a little snippy, I know. I guess I believe truth is a good “measure of value”, but only as far as religion is concerned. I certainly don’t believe every true thing in this world is valuable. My problem is, and has always been, letting men tell me what to believe, or what the Bible really means, or which parts of it really happened, etc. There isn’t a human being on the face of the earth I would trust to do that for me. Who are they to make these decisions? How can you take one part as truth and not take it all? What if you’re taking the wrong part? I would not be able to have faith in something that I could never “be sure about”.

I don’t “insist” that the Bible be the literal truth; I just believe that it is. But you know what? It won’t blow me away if it isn’t. I’ll be just fine if I find out, “What? Whadaya mean, no flood?” , or “Why did you say six days if it really took you 300 years?” , or “You mean Wednesday nights didn’t count?” Do you see my point? Anything less than what I believe will be OK with me. Now, can you say the same thing about your beliefs – that if you find out it all really did happen, just like it says in the Bible – that will be fine with you? If you can, then I don’t think there’s really much to argue about, do you? (And maybe that’s a taste of “progressive” fundamentalism.)

Everyone (well, almost everyone) has been very polite to one another – such a nice change from Hell. I was glad to see sharkshooter’s definition of fundamentalist, and I guess I fit it to a “t”, but I have to admit I kind of like Big Steve’s conservative turn – “we’re right, but everyone else can have their say.” It's funny, but I hope I don’t really come across like that!

quote:

---

God has a plan, and I can only believe its a good plan. The bad things that happen to me are easier to bear because of my faith that anything God allows to afflict me is there to teach myself, or someone else, a lesson.

---

Did I write that? That was a really good post, nonpropheteer. Wish I had written it. I am glad to see the side of God you expressed so well represented. However, when I first read your funny edit, I could have sworn it said, “Should wash those breasts more often.”

Lyda, my dear, you can pick on me anytime. You have a wonderful, open, inquisitive nature that appeals greatly to me. And remember I’m saying that even with the awareness that you opened this hellish can of worms! I think I understand most of your positions and where they are coming from. It’s just that final event we seem differ on, and I hope you know that I don’t believe God gives up on anyone for one minute, unless they choose to take that last step without Him.

I appreciate sharkshooter’s comment, “God makes me uncomfortable.” That seems a very honest, vulnerable admission to make. I thought about it, though, and realized I feel the same way. I suppose those of us who do recognize God as a more “multi-faceted” deity than some do tend to squirm a little when people start “undeifying” Him. I just feel better leaving Him on the throne and telling it to Jesus.

Wanderer, I’m sure hell is there, and I surely do hope it is empty.

And, JimT, I believe that God Himself is the same today, tomorrow and forever. But it's not the entity God we're at odds with here, is it? It's His nature, His character, His actions and reactions, and how many faces of God we think there are. Food for thought...

I really have enjoyed this thread, guys. Thank you for letting me be a part of it.
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
Arrrrgh!

I wrote a long, insightful reply to Grits' post and the fricking server lost it. Double !

Before I go off to sulk, thanks, Grits for the kind words .

back at you, girlfriend!
 

---

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :
 
Don't sulk. If I had a dollar for every time that has happened to me, you and I could afford a trip to Hawaii.
 

---

Posted by nonpropheteer (# 5053) on :
 
Thank you for the kind words Grits. I feel like we have agreed to disagree. I've always suggested that to people before, but never really experienced it.




Np
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
The 'hardline' (since we're not allowed to say 'fundamentalist!!!) teaching on Hell is quite simple. If you die with so much as one unrepented sin on your conscience, then the Divine Justice is so outraged that there is no other choice than that you suffer in fire for ever and ever.

One unrepented sin, no matter how small, how slight. No matter that no-one else was harmed, or that this sin took place only inside your mind. A single covetous or lustful thought, so fleeting and trivial that you forget it and consequently never repent of it - and you are in Hell for ever and ever.

This is necessarily the teaching on Hell. Because if God can ignore one such slight sin, why can't he ignore two and admit you to Heaven? If he can ignore two, why can't he ignore them all? Therefore the doctrine of Hell must necessarily apply to the smallest, slightest unrepented sin.

This presents a problem. The problem is that I am morally superior to a God who operates this system. I cannot imagine a sin so bad that I would impose everlasting punishment, let alone imposing it for a small sin. My moral sense is outraged by the very thought: how could I punish like this, when the punishment so obviously does not fit the crime?

If this is how God works, then God is the only Being who might just possibly be worthy of Hell, the only Being whose crime of near-infinite injustice might warrant such a punishment.

That's why I don't believe in this God, or in anything like this idea of Hell.
 

---

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
Posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

One unrepented sin, no matter how small, how slight. No matter that no-one else was harmed, or that this sin took place only inside your mind. A single covetous or lustful thought, so fleeting and trivial that you forget it and consequently never repent of it - and you are in Hell for ever and ever.

This is necessarily the teaching on Hell. Because if God can ignore one such slight sin, why can't he ignore two and admit you to Heaven? If he can ignore two, why can't he ignore them all? Therefore the doctrine of Hell must necessarily apply to the smallest, slightest unrepented sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Fundamentalist (Miriam Webster on-line):

quote:

---

1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

---

So, we are sola scriptura, inerentist, literalists. I don't see this saying anything about what the fundamentalist thinks about other people, but perhaps it is me who is not reading it correctly.

---

quote:

---

Luke 12
5. "But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
[snip, snip]
8. "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. 9But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
Space Monkey, I donÕt think you rude at all. Sometimes itÕs hard to ask questions without sounding a little snippy, I know. I guess I believe truth is a good Òmeasure of valueÓ, but only as far as religion is concerned. I certainly donÕt believe every true thing in this world is valuable. My problem is, and has always been, letting men tell me what to believe, or what the Bible really means, or which parts of it really happened, etc. There isnÕt a human being on the face of the earth I would trust to do that for me. Who are they to make these decisions? How can you take one part as truth and not take it all? What if youÕre taking the wrong part? I would not be able to have faith in something that I could never Òbe sure aboutÓ.

---

What I think you're missing here is that your interpretation of the Bible is just as much a human creation as any other interpretation of the Bible. Unless God physically comes down and says, 'This is what I actually meant', you're applying your own interpretation, or that of another preacher or theologian or your church tradition, or a combination of those. You are letting men tell you what to believe, at least as much as anyone else. Unless you really feel God has literally spoken in your ear, you're making your decisions the same way I do - following your own instincts and the accumulated wisdom and ideas of other people.

The fact that we're having this debate at all is proof that there is no one clear truth that emerges unambiguously from the BIble for all its readers. The Bible speaks in metaphor, poem and parable - surely if literal truth was so important, God could have been a little clearer and avoided all this hassle? I really think you're missing the point, and missing out on a lot of freedoms and joys in the process.

My problem with fundamentalism in my experience is that it not only claims there is one simple truth (thereby discounting other people's views), it also fails to see its own nature as a human construct. At its worst, this means that people present their own prejudices as divine revelation.

As you say, this has been an interesting debate, but I think we've both heard it all before and are unlikely to change each other's minds. Thanks anyway for a polite repsonse.

Space Monkey
 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 
Phew, I've waded my way through some interesting posts on the way, via a minor country lane through 'fundamentalists vs the liberals' country, but now I'm here - hurrah!

First off, just to summarise my position. Like you, Lyda - I struggle amazingly with concept of Hell. But then I struggle with Heaven too, so that's ok. I kinda like the Orthodox position, though would get launched by my evo church for saying so but I do have some interesting ideas which have been milling around that I see haven't been mentioned yet... so here goes!

<AB steps up to the podium. //tap tap, is this on?//>

Let's start at the beginning. God creates the world - and creates it so that in His perfect order everyone will live in harmony. Our job therefore is three-fold. To live in harmony with God, to live in harmony with each other, and to live in harmony with creation.

The costliest snack in history™ later and Heaven, we have a problem. So then God's great redemption plan to sort the world out, involving a chosen nation, a messiah and some attitude re-aligning on our part e voilla, one new creation.

I'm kinda getting to my point now, so bear with me. The rebuilt creation is to be perfect, and free of the stuff that's got us into this mess in the first place. It is to be Eden all over again. Now in order for creation to be perfect then we all must be living in harmony with God, each other and creation. Anything less than this 100% harmony rating and we have a sub-perfect creation v2. Do you follow?

Now, here's the rub. Most of us don't want to live in harmony with those three things, because we don't want to share power with anyone else. [aside - living in harmony requires more actual power than living to serve oneself, but I digress] - yet by very definition of a re-perfected creation everyone there will have to be that way.

I'm a firm believer that not everyone in the world rejects God explicity. But it is clear when you look at the world that pretty much the majority are out there serving themselves, and thus in their current mindset, a quick poll of "do you want to relinquish your power?" simply isn't going to yield many positive answers.

So a 'Heaven' where everyone is serving everyone else rather than themselves isn't going to be a place they want to be, one might even say that 'Heaven' might be a 'Hell' to them, but hmmmm, I'm not sure that one has the legs to sustain it. A re-ordered creation won't be perfect if not every single member is willfully living in harmony with all.

So what do we do with the others who don't make it there? Can they also be redeemed? Or will they simply be apart from God's presence. Well let's be realistic here - God sustains life - to be where God is not, means to be where life is not.

So perhaps God, in his mercy, has created a place where selfish attitudes are no longer seen 'through a glass darkly' and where everyone can feel the full force of their selfish ambitions. The people there in that 'Hell' of a reformed creation would in effect be exiled from their land of milk and honey - sound familiar? And let's see, where was the 'Gehenna' that Jesus referred to in his parable about the Rich Ruler? Outside of Jerusalem, the Holy City - in effect, in exile. If Revelation 21 can talk of the reformed creation being the new Jerusalem, could not Gehenna be just outside the city walls too? Food for thought...

And could it be that when Jesus descended to the 'depths' that he popped his head in there to see whether there were any captives that fancied being free? And let's think about the possibility that Jesus was outside of our understanding of time at this point, so we really are talking about the eternal 'Hell' here.

That some may never be able to give up their self-serving I can fully accept - that was entirely the sin of Satan - but they can never have a place in the re-formed creation, surely? And to keep them hanging around in torment for an eternity does seem jolly unfair - so surely the merciful thing to do with them is to end them? And, look, what have we here? a lake of fire...

<thus ends my rambling thoughts>

A quick heads up to Grits This is based on Biblical principles so it should be quite easy to pick apart with scattered proof texts - but I'd be genuinely interested in it being discussed with Biblical principles of redemption/mercy/harmony etc...

Apologies all, for making this page that little bit bigger.



AB
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Steve:
I still don't think GRITS is a fundamentalist and you probably aren't either. For example, take the following passages :

quote:

---

Luke 12
5. "But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
[snip, snip]
8. "I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. 9But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God.

---

The only possible literal interpretation I can get from this is that everyone on earth who professes any other faith than Christianity will be disowned before the angels of God.

Is there any other literal interpretation possible?
If not, and if you disagree with my literal interpretation of the text, then you are not a fundamentalist, according to the Miriam Webster definition.

---

quote:

---

The 'hardline' (since we're not allowed to say 'fundamentalist!!!) teaching on Hell is quite simple. If you die with so much as one unrepented sin on your conscience, then the Divine Justice is so outraged that there is no other choice than that you suffer in fire for ever and ever.

---

quote:

---

The only possible literal interpretation I can get from this is that everyone on earth who professes any other faith than Christianity will be disowned before the angels of God.

Is there any other literal interpretation possible?
If not, and if you disagree with my literal interpretation of the text, then you are not a fundamentalist, according to the Miriam Webster definition.

---

• The bit about gouging out your eye if it causes you to sin
• The bit about hating your family if you want to be a follower of Jesus
• The bit about women not braiding their hair and remaining silent in church
• The bit that says only 144,000 will be saved
• The unforgivable sin of speaking against the Holy Spirit

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
If God is a God who tortures individuals unrelentingly, constantly, for eternity, with no end, forever, with no benefit arising from it for the sufferers, then that God is the amongst the most evil beings imaginable.
G.

---

I totally disagree. If God is good, God is love, God is all powerful and all knowing - if our wisdom is foolishness to God, then who are we to judge God? If people are to be put in hell for all eternity, never dying -and will eternally be cognizant of their pain and suffering - then that would be a just and fitting punishment for them. Period. Its God that makes the rules and knows all the details, and I have to trust that such a decision would not be made lightly. Note: Its not that I believe there is a fiery hell of eternal punishment, I'm just saying, if that part is real, then we have to believe that it is good and just.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Steve:

Anyway, sorry Sharkshooter, I had you down as a near-fundamentalist, not the real deal.


I've lived my life at times believing that many people I know and billion I don't are on the highway to hell. It's a hard world-view to have - you either spend your life evangelising or else stop caring. I can't live with either choice - partly because I believe God must have a better plan. I sure hope He does.

---

quote:

---

I'm kinda getting to my point now, so bear with me. The rebuilt creation is to be perfect, and free of the stuff that's got us into this mess in the first place. It is to be Eden all over again. Now in order for creation to be perfect then we all must be living in harmony with God, each other and creation. Anything less than this 100% harmony rating and we have a sub-perfect creation v2. Do you follow?

Now, here's the rub. Most of us don't want to live in harmony with those three things, because we don't want to share power with anyone else. [aside - living in harmony requires more actual power than living to serve oneself, but I digress] - yet by very definition of a re-perfected creation everyone there will have to be that way.

I'm a firm believer that not everyone in the world rejects God explicity. But it is clear when you look at the world that pretty much the majority are out there serving themselves, and thus in their current mindset, a quick poll of "do you want to relinquish your power?" simply isn't going to yield many positive answers.

So a 'Heaven' where everyone is serving everyone else rather than themselves isn't going to be a place they want to be, one might even say that 'Heaven' might be a 'Hell' to them, but hmmmm, I'm not sure that one has the legs to sustain it. A re-ordered creation won't be perfect if not every single member is willfully living in harmony with all.

---

Interesting ideas, AB. By the salvation you possit, Heaven would seem to be the empty part of eternity. I'd think that God would have trouble rounding up 144,000 of such paragons let alone most of Christianity. I certainly wouldn't make the grade. I mean, just look at my language on this thread, it's full of pride, and we sure aren't getting along in perfect harmony although I'm pleased that we have all been pretty polite. (Now, Grits might well make the cut. ) I think what is missing in your theory is grace. All fall short of the glory of God. The only thing we could bring to the Throne that would point to the possibility of eternal harmony would be a humble willingness to learn and submit to being molded perfectly by God in that place where we don't "see through a glass darkly".
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon:
The only thing we could bring to the Throne that would point to the possibility of eternal harmony would be a humble willingness to learn and submit to being molded perfectly by God in that place where we don't "see through a glass darkly".
Emphasis mine

---

Woah there.

So the afterlife becomes a choice between Hell (torture, pain, nothingness? We haven't decided yet..) and Heaven, which involves a complete changing (or indeed removal) of one's nature in order to enter?

What if I still want to be me after I die (assuming the existence of an immortal 'soul', yadda yadda)? Remove all the imperfections and what's left won't be in any way recognisable as Marvin. Will it?

Hmmmm, maybe we need a thread about the nature of Heaven...
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
I was working from AB's point of view that Heaven would be perfectly harmonious. I have my doubts about that, too, Marvin.

Yeah, a thread on Heaven would be interesting. Wanna start one?
 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 
Marvin, Lyda,

Grrrr, I knew I was going to leave a crucial bit of my thinking out and you've both spotted it! See I don't think we will attain perfection down here, no sireebob. Not while temptations/satan/flesh (delete according to your own personal faith™) is around to muck up the whole sherbang.

I think the crucial thing is our hearts. Do we *want* to love our neighbour as ourselves? Do we *want* to submit to God's sovereign rule? Do we *want* to tend creation in a responsible way. I'd like to think my attitude is in the right place, but heck, I screw up more than most. AND I'M ONE OF THOSE WHO IS TRYING!

If Heaven is full of people who really wanted that kingdom of God - indeed who wanted it in their hearts, then maybe the kingdom has indeed been near all this time. It isn't about being someone different - it's about being the true you, without all that other stuff mucking it up...

(ps. seconded, let's have a thread about heaven)



AB
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Pardon me, Alaric and shrkshooter, but I believe you imisrepresent the conservative teaching on Hell.

Posted by Alaric the Goth:

quote:

---

the people likely to be there ... are the ones that will stand before God still defiant

---

quote:

---

The fundamentalist view (at least this fundamentalist's view) is that it is the personal relationship with Jesus, our Lord and Saviour that leads to Heaven

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Or am I missing something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Or am I missing something?

---

Yes - in that fundamentalists and evangelicals and theological conservatives in general don't teach that you need to repent every sin explictly and individually in some sort of catalog of personal failure.

And they don't teach that all who died before the Crucifixion are neccessarily damned.

And they don't all teach that those alive now who haven't heard the Gospel are neccessarily damned, though some do teach that.

You might wish that they did. You might even have been told that they did. But in lots of years of hanging around evangelical churches and reading books by evangelical and fundamentalist preachers, I can tall you they don't.

---

quote:

---

Well that's even worse! You have just consigned almost everyone - good as well as bad - who ever lived to everlasting torture! Everyone who lived before the time of Jesus; everyone who lived outside Judaea or Galilee during his life; everyone who lived in Australia or the Americas before Europeans exported Christianity there..... Or are you saying there's some sort of 'mystical' way of enjoying a relationship with Jesus without ever having heard of him? If there is, why doesn't the Bible say so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
(ps. seconded, let's have a thread about heaven)

---

Done

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If you don't have to repent of every sin, then why do you have to repent of any? (See my argument above: if God can 'ignore' one sin, then why not two? If not two, then why not ... etc.?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Everyone who lived before the time of Jesus; everyone who lived outside Judaea or Galilee during his life; everyone who lived in Australia or the Americas before Europeans exported Christianity there..... Or are you saying there's some sort of 'mystical' way of enjoying a relationship with Jesus without ever having heard of him? If there is, why doesn't the Bible say so?

Or am I missing something?

---

quote:

---

I always thought the traditional teaching was that one repents of all one's sins ("Forgive us our tresspasses"), rather than each one individually.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Pardon me, Alaric and shrkshooter, but I believe you imisrepresent the conservative teaching on Hell.

Posted by Alaric the Goth:

quote:

---

the people likely to be there ... are the ones that will stand before God still defiant

---

Conservative teaching on salvation is that we cannot choose to deny or 'give in to' God after death: we must do it now in this life. Traditionally, it has been taught that when you stand before the throne of God, it's too late to change your mind. So I'm afraid, Alaric, you depart from traditional teaching on this point. You also depart from traditional teaching on resurrected bodies being only for the saved - see, e.g. Book XXI of Augustine's 'City of God' (and having read it, see if you can still sleep at night after the old windbag has spent a whole book glorying in the pains of the damned!).

....
If on the other hand, these people are exempt from your model of judgement and will be judged by their deeds, then we're back to my model of judgement and God is still a monster.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
If you can stand before the throne of God on judgement day and choose Hevane or Hell, why should I choose now?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I have yet to see any traditional teaching on Hell that is all of three things at once:
(1) Logical
(2) Biblical
(3) Moral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Well then, ken, what do they teach?

If you don't have to repent of every sin, then why do you have to repent of any?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Now, in my last second of life I have committed a sin every bit as bad as adultery. A sin which was explicitly spoken of from the mouth of God himself. Do I go to Heaven or Hell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
ken - if my salvation is God's eternal choice, are you saying he caused me (or allowed me) to argue with my brother at that precise moment, on that street corner, and then also caused the bus to be where it was, simply because before the world was created, he had already decided Adeodatus belonged in Hell?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Then how, Steve, do you interpret the case of calling my brother a fool, for which Jesus said I would pay in hellfire?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Marvin - your standpoint fails both logically and biblically, I'm afraid. Biblically, because scripture nowehere supports this view. Logically, because I could ask forgiveness now and then sin with impunity for the rest of my life! This is a variant on the antinomian view that St Paul argued so consistently against and that he had such recurrent trouble with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Big Steve:
Talitha, the reason I chose the texts was because they related to the OP.

Anyway, sorry Sharkshooter, I had you down as a near-fundamentalist, not the real deal. I'm still curious as to GRITS position.

GRITS - does everyone on earth who is not a Christian go to hell? I always get the impression from you that you are happy enough that other people have different types of faith. You seem to have a "this is my faith, but you can choose whatever faith you want", which is some strange kind of postmodern fundamentalism. Am I right or wrong about this?

Hmm, as for you Sharkshooter, I've lived my life at times believing that many people I know and billion I don't are on the highway to hell. It's a hard world-view to have - you either spend your life evangelising or else stop caring. I can't live with either choice - partly because I believe God must have a better plan. I sure hope He does.

---

quote:

---

. And traditional teaching on judgement says that in order to enter Heaven, I must have repented of all my sins. In saying that my repentance somehow 'holds good' for any future sins I may commit, you are departing from traditional teaching (which is what I'm arguing with).

---

I suggest that you cite specific "traditional teaching", ie that of a truly inerrantist pastor or theologian, not just your logic of what the Bible adds up to in your view of inerrant interpretation. Cite in context also, please.

Chick tracks don't count.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Dear Lyda -

(a) What's a chick track?

(b) Arguments. First, I suggest that for an argument to count as 'conservative' under my definition, it must include a real concept of Scriptural inerrancy. Therefore passages such as the following must be true in a 'real' (rather than metaphorical) sense:

quote:

---

'if you say [to your brother] "You fool", you will be liable to the hell of fire.' (Mt 5.22)
'And these [who did not do "these things"] will go away into eternal punishment' (Mt 25.46)

---

quote:

---

Do you account of sin as a peccadillo, a flaw scarcely to be noticed, a mere joke, a piece of fun? But see the tree which springs from it. There is no joke there- no fun in hell.
You did not know that sin was so evil. Some of you will never know how evil it is until the
sweetness of honey has passed from your mouth,
and the bitterness of death preys at your vitals. (Spurgeon)

---

quote:

---

No matter how insignificant a sin is in terms of harm caused and harm intended, if it is a sin against God, it automatically becomes so serious that it deserves an infinite punishment. No weaker account of God’s relationship to human sinfulness could give a theoretically satisfactory defense of the strong view of hell.
(From this site on the teaching of Jonathan Edwards)

---

quote:

---

This neat little piece

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Note: Its not that I believe there is a fiery hell of eternal punishment, I'm just saying, if that part is real, then we have to believe that it is good and just.

---

AND I COULD NOT DISAGREE MORE, NONPROPHETEER. "Who are we to judge God?" sounds very pious doesn't it? But when offered two different views of what God is like what are we to do? 'Choose this day whom you will serve!' We are morally responsible persons who have to make judgements and moral decisions. You judge God all the time!

As a result I simply CANNOT believe that an eternal hell <snip> is NOT evil. I can see no way that it would count as good.
Glenn

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
... Read the above very carefully Glenn. I distinctly used the word "If" several times in that statement.

---

quote:

---

if our wisdom is foolishness to God, then who are we to judge God? If people are to be put in hell for all eternity, never dying -and will eternally be cognizant of their pain and suffering - then that would be a just and fitting punishment for them. Period. Its God that makes the rules and knows all the details, and I have to trust that such a decision would not be made lightly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
To believe anything else is to treat the bible as a salad bar (take what you like, leave the rest) and brings to mind the moniker: Pollyanna.

---

To treat every word in the Bible as breadcrumbs that God has left for you to find your way to Heaven brings to mind a moniker: Pollyanna.

I'd like ken or someone else to address my little Gritsdharma's eternal fate, having heard the Christian gospel and rejected it in favor of her vision of a Christ-like life taught to her by her loving, caring Hindu or Buddhist parents.

Glenn, as usual you are spot on. I loved your line about the choice to be sane. I especially love it because you choose to insist on rationality and an assumption that we have to be able to have insight into God via knowledge that we are created in His image. I point out that you could have chosen other ways to remain sane that involve irrationality or denial though. They work too, don't forget.
 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 
Thanks for the links, Adeonatus.

I especially found Dr. Geisler's essay enlightening- not persuasive, but enlightening. Sort of like nonpropheteer's screeds.

Behold! A pertinent Chick Tract!

 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
It is interesting to see what has been posted, as I had a discussion about this at lunch today. I posed the question, and the answer I received was, "Well, if I believe in an all-loving, all-good God..." I stopped him right there. Where does that picture of God come from? Sure, I believe God is good and loving, but that is certainly not ALL I think He is. Surely you recognize that God has a vengeful side, a jealous side, and, yes, even a murderous side. But you know what? I am OK with that. Why? BECAUSE HE'S GOD, and He can be whatever and everything He wants to be, without any approval from me. You completely ignore a huge aspect of His character if you whittle Him down to only "good" and "loving". And I guess I believe that's a dangerous aspect to ignore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
Now, you appear not to believe this particular version of the doctrine of hell yourself, and yet absolutely no moral consideration enters into you judgement of whether the doctrine can be true or not.

---

quote:

---

However, assessing the correctness of the interpretation of the bible involves human wisdom (since the bible is not self interpreting). But since you take the view that " our wisdom is foolishness to God " then you are left with no means of assessing this version of the doctrine at all.

---

quote:

---

Black is white, white is black, we are mere worms and God can do no evil even when he does evil.

I am not battling here for a view of God that is safe and likable. I am only battling for a view of God that is not morally revolting.

Glenn

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
So much about having to be able to reason it out, make it logical, be brought into understanding about it. I just don't think that's how God intended us to approach Him. Where's the awe? Where's the reverence? Where's the worship?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Boam:


I can believe that this unquestioning faith somehow works for you, but find it hard to understand why you don't see how impossible it is for others...

Fear God as a being who may see to it that you are tortured forever, but also love him? Either there is an alternative meaning to "fear" to be explored or this is a completely different idea of love than anyting I have encountered...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
golden key, your posts (and others) sadden and discourage me. Why is it so important and apparently imperative to be able to explain and present God in human terms? We are living in an age of such rabid self-promotion that we have totally lost the concept of omniscience. We are democratic to the death, no one better than another, and somehow we have managed to bring God into the arena with us. So many posts about "morality" and "how could God do that" and "not being able to conceive of a God..." So much about having to be able to reason it out, make it logical, be brought into understanding about it. I just don't think that's how God intended us to approach Him. Where's the awe? Where's the reverence? Where's the worship?

---

quote:

---

My response is exactly the same as yours: I would not want to know a God who could be controlled by the concepts of man. He would have nothing to offer me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mousethief:
1000 year reign of Christ is not biblical. He shall reign forever. Rev 11:15, Luke 1:33, etc etc.

---

Re 20:2
And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,

Re 20:3
<snip>... that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: ...

Re 20:4
<snip>... and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Re 20:5
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Re 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Re 20:7
And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

How many syllables are in "Thousand year reign"?


 

---

Posted by Lyda Rose of Sharon (# 4544) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry Boam:


I can believe that this unquestioning faith somehow works for you, but find it hard to understand why you don't see how impossible it is for others...

Fear God as a being who may see to it that you are tortured forever, but also love him? Either there is an alternative meaning to "fear" to be explored or this is a completely different idea of love than anyting I have encountered...

---

Does a child not fear and love it's parents at the same time?

Love God because of the good things he as done. Love him because you owe it to him to love him.
Love him because he deserves it.

Fear him because he is a fearful being. Only those with limited imagination or incredible ego would not be awed by an all-knowing, all-powerful diety.

Np

---

Children in loving, functional homes do not fear their parents will literally torture them the rest of their lives if they get out of line.

A God who gives his children the world on one hand but threatens them with the ultimate punishment if they don't repeat the mantra of "God, dearest" on cue, and then demands their absolute love reminds me of Joan Crawford. It takes a lot of therapy to recover from a parent like that.

I can see fearing such a God, having a sober gratitude to him for my life, and serving him as a slave to avoid the ultimate punishment. But don't ask me to love him because it wouldn't be possible for me.
 

---

Posted by golden key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Does a child not fear and love it's parents at the same time?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by golden key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:
Does a child not fear and love it's parents at the same time?

---

If a child really fears her/his parents, something's wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonpropheteer:

Re 20:3
<snip>... that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: ...

Re 20:4
<snip>... and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Re 20:5
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Re 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Re 20:7
And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

---

...because Revelation has always been a good book to take literally...

BTW, I was kinda hoping someone might cast a helpful eye over my previous two posts and critique them. I, too, am trying to figure this lot out.



AB
 

---

Posted by Astro (# 84) on :
 
It's probably my Baptist background, but I believe that the Bible is inerrant in giving us principals to follow not rules. The Bible contains example of how people live and go wrong and yet God still loves them, but their failings are not given as an example of how to live.

If we are going to look at sections of teh Bible then Ephesians talks about christians being sealed by the Holy Spirit once and for all, so having been sealed commiting another sin does not unseal. It seems to me that dying with one small unconfessed sin causing a person to go to Hell is a strawman and I have never heard it preached. If you read teh gospels you can see that to anyone who thinks they are free of sin Jesus tell that they have sins that they are not aware of, so I would think in Jesus's view everyone dies with unconfessed sins.

Finally why Hell - well to me hell is where God is not _ or at least he withholds his presence - why: because some people do not want to be in his presence and he is NOR CRUEL so he allows them to not be in his presence. Do you not think that forcing everyone to be with him whether they wanted to or not would be kind or loving?
Although I am prepared to accept that on meeting him face to face nobody would choose not to be in his presence.
 

---

Posted by Space Monkey (# 4961) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:
It seems to me that dying with one small unconfessed sin causing a person to go to Hell is a strawman and I have never heard it preached.

---

quote:

---

on meeting him face to face nobody would choose not to be in his presence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I actually do recognise that the God who will throw you into fire for ever for the theft of a penny is a God who appears to appear in Scripture, and who can be believed in with logical integrity. He can even be said to be moral, within his own system of morality. The problem is that this God's morality is as far removed from our morality (based on conscience and moral reason) as the east is from the west. In this case, how can we ever get through the world? - since any 'moral' decision I might make according to reason or conscience might, for all I know, be a monstrous offence against God? (See, for a particularly horrifying example, the already cited example of Uzzah and the Ark.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
So, sharkshooter, you would agree with Augustine that the 'godly' way to punish an offence is for the punishment to be completely out of proportion to the crime?

And how do you answer my point that if God's morality is so totally different from the moral sense he has placed in us, then we live our lives in a state of moral paralysis, never knowing - except by proof-texting particular cases from his inerrant Text - what God's ruling on a moral situation would be?

You see, a God who strikes down Uzzah for touching a box he's been told not to touch; yet who can then turn round and say that there is only one unforgiveable sin (the never-completely-defined 'sin against the Holy Spirit') is a God who is whimsical at best, capricious most of the time, and terrifyingly unpredictable the rest of the time. Is that God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It's a pity you want to disengage with the discussion, sharkshooter, because at the moment you're the only person putting up what I would call a down-the-line traditional viewpoint.
...
If my conscience - which dictates, for instance, that the punishment should not outweigh the crime - is so woefully uninformed by God's own morality, how can I ever trust it?

---

You cannot trust you conscience.

This is why I will be leaving the discussion - because we are going around in circles.
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Okey-dokey. Having established that our consciences – according to sharkshooter – are as useless as our appendixes, let’s turn the tables. I’ll put forward an idea of Hell and see what everyone thinks.
1. I believe in Hell. It is too central a part of the Christian tradition not to.
2. The conservative teaching on Hell I understand to be as follows. It is a place of everlasting pain and punishment reserved for unrepentant sinners and for those who have never known Christ.
3. I do not believe (2) for all the reasons I’ve been arguing for the last couple of days. It certainly makes no logical or moral sense, and I believe it is also a distortion of some passages of Scripture (though not all) – see below.
4. Since I believe in Hell, I cannot also logically believe that anyone otherwise destined for Hell simply stops existing. Otherwise Hell would be useless, empty, and a waste of fuel.
5. I also can’t believe in Hell as the eternal absence of God. Everlasting boredom or everlasting alone-ness is every bit as bad as everlasting fire.
6. Therefore I am left with two options. Both rely on the idea that Hell is not forever. Option (A) is that after a period of punishment, the occupants of Hell are consumed by the fire and cease to be. Option (B) is that Hell is a purifying fire, after which the occupants go to Heaven.

Surprisingly, Option (A) has a certain amount of Scriptural backup. Look carefully at Jesus’s teaching. Only very rarely does he say that the punishment lasts for ever. Far more often, he refers to ‘outer darkness’ (no definition of how long you’re there) or a fire that ‘never goes out’ (the fire never goes out – he doesn’t say how long you have to stay in it). I think we must not read these passages as indicating everlasting punishment. We’re left then with only two cases in the gospels (that I can find) in which punishment is defined as eternal (and even then, is that the same as ‘everlasting’? My Greek needs a polish). Now, I’m not a conservative and not a scriptural literalist, so I’m ok with the idea that in these passages, the gospel-writers just got it wrong. I honestly think that if you suggested to any of the New Testament writers that the fire of Hell would burn you for ever and ever and ever, they would either laugh in your face or change what they’d written.

Option (B) of course reduces Hell to a version of Purgatory. I’m cool with that. It also, interestingly, fits well with Matthew’s and Luke’s metaphors of punishment being a payment of debt – e.g. ‘you will not get out until you have paid the last penny’.

What do others think?
 

---

Posted by Theophilus (# 2311) on :
 
Sorry to go all Kergymania on you, but I think Adeotatus' points need to be answered - and as a GLE, I work best from The Book.

Matt 5:22 -

I think the point Jesus is making here is not that God will 'punish' somebody with hell for saying a few nasty words. It is rather that any sin, no matter how small, involves a turning of the attitude against God - and that that turning of attitude is one that will eventually lead one to Hell: so being angry leads to one being 'in danger' of Hell.

The 'principle', therefore, is that any sin can damn you, not because getting cross is so bad that it means you deserve to be eternally fried, but because any sin puts you on the road to destruction, and you will end up being destroyed unless that sin is dealt with.

Jos 7
The point with Achan is that he disobeyed God, he appropriated that which belonged to God, and he tried to hang onto that which God wanted to be destroyed. By taking the stuff, he rated tainted material wealth above the covenant with God - unfaithfulness to the covenant is the central message of the passage (v11). Achan has been unfaithful to the promise that he (as a member of a corporate community) made to God. He valued a robe and a bit of money more than his relationship with God - and his sinful action had a result which impacted the entire community, as the covenant was a corporate one.

The total destruction of the plunder is also symbolic of Israel's purity and seperation from the sinful ways of the Caananites - by taking the plunder, in defiance of God, Achan introduced impurity into the chosen people.

In terms of modern application, I would view the plunder as sin. The 'principle' is that we must give sin no quarter: consciously deciding to hang on to sin, no matter how small it may seem, and how desirable, is a breach of our covenant relationship with God and is incredibly serious.

1 Sa 6
The point is that Uzzah treated God with contempt, and didn't take his commands seriously. I'm not sure if Uzzah was a priest, but it's quite clear that they weren't carrying the Ark as they were supposed to - and the Ark was one of the things which most strongly represented the presence of God. Under the Israelite covenant, holiness was primarily symbolised by physical factors; thus, all the rules about uncleanness, periods, skin diseases etc. Touching the ark was verboten - doing it, even to steady it, implied a casual intimacy with God that was almost blasphemous, given the context. (The fact that he needed to steady it rather implies that he wasn't taking due care in the first place.) Uzzah's action proved that he didn't really respect God.

The seriousness of Uzzah's action needs to be seen in an ancient Middle Eastern context. As an example, in Esther (4:11), there is a punishment of death for anyone approaching the king in the inner court, unless he pardons them with the golden sceptre. Taking physical intimacy for granted was an outrage of monarchical majesty. Uzzah showed no respect for the majesty of God.

(Also cf Acts 5:1-10: Ananias again doesn't take the holiness of God seriously; here, in regard to truth rather than physical proximity, but the principle is the same. The holiness of God is a serious thing.)

I don't think we can assume that any of these people were sent to Hell for what they did. But God chose to judge them for their actions - and I don't see why he should be condemned for doing so. After all, God kills everyone eventually. For God to kill someone is not the same as for a human to kill someone - because their lives belong to him already.

Sharkshooter: I don't think human morality is discontinuous with God's morality. Rom 1:18 - 2:16 rather suggests otherwise (particularly 2:14-15). I think we need to take the fact of our being made in the image of God seriously.
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Finally, God is predictable - He will never allow sinfulness into His presence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I am genuinely sorry to be this picky, but none of these arguments make sense!

ken - if I genuinely repent of all my sins right now - at 8pm - then yes, God readily forgives all past sins. But then if I sin at 9am tomorrow and die at 9.01, how can God have forgiven that sin? I haven't repented of it. I die having unrepentantly offended God's eternal Justice. all my sins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
6. Therefore I am left with two options. Both rely on the idea that Hell is not forever. Option (A) is that after a period of punishment, the occupants of Hell are consumed by the fire and cease to be. Option (B) is that Hell is a purifying fire, after which the occupants go to Heaven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
5. I also can’t believe in Hell as the eternal absence of God. Everlasting boredom or everlasting alone-ness is every bit as bad as everlasting fire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I suggest that for an argument to count as 'conservative' under my definition, it must include a real concept of Scriptural inerrancy. Therefore passages such as the following must be true in a 'real' (rather than metaphorical) sense:
[...]
[QUOTE] Do you account of sin as a peccadillo, a flaw scarcely to be noticed, a mere joke, a piece of fun? But see the tree which springs from it. There is no joke there- no fun in hell.
You did not know that sin was so evil. Some of you will never know how evil it is until the
sweetness of honey has passed from your mouth,
and the bitterness of death preys at your vitals. (Spurgeon)

---

quote:

---

No matter how insignificant a sin is in terms of harm caused and harm intended, if it is a sin against God, it automatically becomes so serious that it deserves an infinite punishment.

---

quote:

---

I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

"If ever it should come to pass,

That sheep of Christ might fall away,

My fickle, feeble soul, alas!

Would fall a thousand times a day"

If one dear saint of God had perished, so might all; if one of the covenant ones be lost, so may all be; and then there is no gospel promise true, but the Bible is a lie, and there is nothing in it worth my acceptance. I will be an infidel at once when I can believe that a saint of God can ever fall finally. If God hath loved me once, then He will love me for ever. God has a mastermind; He arranged everything in His gigantic intellect long before He did it; and once having settled it, He never alters it, 'This shall be done," saith He, and the iron hand of destiny marks it down, and it is brought to pass. "This is My purpose," and it stands, nor can earth or hell alter it. "This is My decree," saith He, "promulgate it, ye holy angels; rend it down from the gate of Heaven, ye devils, if ye can; but ye cannot alter the decree, it shall stand for ever." God altereth not His plans; why should He? He is Almighty, and therefore can perform His pleasure. Why should He? He is the All-wise, and therefore cannot have planned wrongly. Why should He? He is the everlasting God, and therefore cannot die before His plan is accomplished. Why should He change? Ye worthless atoms of earth, ephemera of a day, ye creeping insects upon this bay-leaf of existence, ye may change your plans, but He shall never, never change His. Has He told me that His plan is to save me? If so, I am for ever safe.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Option (A) is that after a period of punishment, the occupants of Hell are consumed by the fire and cease to be.

---

quote:

---

who are we to question what God does and why.

---

quote:

---

I define Biblical principals as moral. I do not define morality and then check to see if the Bible confroms to it. See I Corinthinans 1:18-21 for some comments on earthly wisdom.
…
you choose to see God through human morality, I choose to see Him through His morality as expressed in scripture. I trust God's morality: I do not trust human morality.
…
You cannot trust you conscience.

---

quote:

---

For me to foist my selfish, human idea of what is good or bad upon God is just plain silly.

---

• - firstly it might not be and thus be mistaken in its claim; and
• - secondly it might be in which case it is true in what it says about being God’s revelation.

• if you are wrong about the Bible you have cut yourself off from ever finding that out;
• you take the Bible as God’s revelation without any questioning or reasoning and then condemn others for doing exactly the same with the Qu’ran, or the Vedas; but
• worse still, you condemn those other people who DO seek reasons for believing their holy books to be revelation! They act as responsibly as they can and you condemn them for it! You make blind, unquestioning faith superior to responsible discrimination!
• to use the word’s of Keith Ward (in Religion and Revelation p21) you are one of those like Barth and Brunner who ‘insist that reason cannot judge revelation, though they themselves judge all revelations and decide that the Christian is alone true.’
• by refusing to be critical you thus elevate yourself above being a finite limited human being to a position of infallibility.
• by claiming that your religion is above reasoned and moral assessment you cannot point to any reason why others should become Christians.
• by being so dismissive of reason and experience you insulate your faith against any assessment and present Christianity as a closed minded and intellectually bankrupt sect.

As a footnote, what conservatives like Derek do in practice is to shamelessly appeal to reason and morality in any way possible to support their position BUT THEN deny the validity of reason and morality when others appeal against their views! It is that that is so galling and frustrating!

Glenn

[ 03. December 2003, 23:06: Message edited by: Glenn Oldham ]
 

---

Posted by Jerry Boam (# 4551) on :
 
Glenn


Lyda (I almost forgot!)

[had to add Lyda]

[ 03. December 2003, 23:23: Message edited by: Jerry Boam ]
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
ken - from my point of view I think you're still making some logical errors.
(1) On repentance. Do you mean that if I repent of my sins today, and then for the rest of my life (no matter how much I 'subjectively' forget my repentance and sin) I need never repent again? Because if I repent now, and in a minute's time stumble and sin, and need not repent in order to avoid the jaws of Hell, then why only a minute? An hour - a year - a lifetime - when, sinner that I continue to be, would I need to repent again? For something as serious as heaven or hell, I'm not prepared to trust conscience on this - my own or anyone else's - so I need to know.
(2) Your posting on Spurgeon hints that you believe only Christians are bound for heaven. What about the billions who never heard of Christ? I'm attracted to the idea that an after-death encounter with God might be a last chance to accept him, but this is definitely not traditional conservative teaching.
(3) I was interested to read elsewhere, and see repeated here, your thought that death followed by non-existence is a terrible thing. But why is it? I can't see that to die and cease to exist is categorically different from never having existed in the first place. So, for instance, I have never had children; my son does not exist; would it be better that he exist? Similarly, I do not believe that a beetle has an immortal soul: is it terrible that the beetle should die and cease to exist? And if not the beetle, why me? (Call me perverse if you like, but the idea of not existing rather intrigues me!)

Theophilus. You seem to say that the bizarre punishments of the Old Testament are just insofar as they are culturally relevant - Uzzah died on touching the Ark because one may not touch the King. But in my culture, one may touch a king. Are you saying that God will punish us liberal postmodernists differently from the way he punished Old Testament monarchists, in order to maintain his cultural relevance?
(Or are you saying what I, a non-literalist, would say - that someone made up the story of Uzzah for reasons of propaganda, theology, and the aetiology of 'Perez-Uzzah'?)
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Glenn Oldham:
Sharkshooter, Nonpropheteer, and Grits,
ONE CANNOT AVOID USING REASON AND MORALITY to assess claims made about what God is like. .

But if human reason and morality are so corrupted then this actually leaves them without any grounds on which to give a reasoned justification for what they believe. What we seem to be seeing here is the astonishing sight of Christians actually repudiating reasoning about truth and morality.

---

You have left out faith.
 

---

Posted by AB (# 4060) on :
 
Glenn, Sharkshooter,

//disclaimer: the following is inspired by a friend's response to Glenn's post - but he's too scared to post here - thinks you'll pick holes in his ideas! this is basically a cut and paste with a touch of embelish, with his permission//

I think the truth lies in the middle, to be fair. A third way needs to be sought...

Some random thoughts...

#1 We cannot read (and therefore interpret and understand) anything (including the bible) without the use of our human reason

#2 As we read (and reason with) the bible over time we build up experience of using and applying the bible as it relates to our experience of life in general. We prove the truthfulness of Jesus' teaching as we live it. There's a lot of interplay...

#3 There's no such thing as some sort of "disembodied universal reason" by which we may judge truth claims... Reason does not exist in a vacuum - it can only be expressed in language and as such is the product of the culture and community within which I am raised. What's "reasonable" to a given culture at any one time depends entirely on the reigning plausibility structure. (MacIntyre, Berger)

#4 Any epistemological claim for ultimate authority is bound to be circular by definition. "I believe the bible because I believe the bible". "It is reasonable to trust reason". "I trust what my senses tell me because I always have". (etc - see Grudem) I must initially accept such a statement acritically by faith before it can be proved to myself as I seek to indwell it and use it as a framework to best understand the world I see and experience. (Polanyi, Newbigin)

(Cf. learning Maths - you have to accept acritically what the teacher's authority [representing the authority of a tradition] before you can prove to yourself that they are true. You prove the truth by participation)

#5 There's no such thing as pure doubt. You cannot doubt everything at the same time. To doubt one idea you have to be accepting another acritically ie. you need somewhere to doubt from. (Polanyi, Newbigin)

AB
 

---

Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
Your friend is welcome to post, I see a lot there that I agree with, actually.

In response to sharkshooter, faith without reason, IMHO, suffers from a sort of blindness, surely, otherwise, how does one discern what/who to have faith in?

I have similar misgivings about hell to Lyda and Adeodatus, for comparable reasons.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
ken - from my point of view I think you're still making some logical errors.
(1) On repentance. Do you mean that if I repent of my sins today, and then for the rest of my life (no matter how much I 'subjectively' forget my repentance and sin) I need never repent again? Because if I repent now, and in a minute's time stumble and sin, and need not repent in order to avoid the jaws of Hell, then why only a minute? An hour - a year - a lifetime - when,

---

quote:

---

sinner that I continue to be, would I need to repent again? For something as serious as heaven or hell, I'm not prepared to trust conscience on this - my own or anyone else's - so I need to know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

The idea of predestination or election to Heaven or Hell I find to be the most confusing and objectionable thing of all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Or if you're saying that God's election of me before time began depends/depended on my actions here and now, you're saying that things like my repentance and confession do matter, since it's on these day-to-day things in my life now that conditioned God's 'choice' of me before creation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

The idea of predestination or election to Heaven or Hell I find to be the most confusing and objectionable thing of all.

---

That's another discussion entirely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AB:
Glenn, Sharkshooter,

//disclaimer: the following is inspired by a friend's response to Glenn's post - but he's too scared to post here - thinks you'll pick holes in his ideas! this is basically a cut and paste with a touch of embelish, with his permission//

I think the truth lies in the middle, to be fair. A third way needs to be sought...

Some random thoughts...

#1 We cannot read (and therefore interpret and understand) anything (including the bible) without the use of our human reason

#2 As we read (and reason with) the bible over time we build up experience of using and applying the bible as it relates to our experience of life in general. We prove the truthfulness of Jesus' teaching as we live it. There's a lot of interplay...

#3 There's no such thing as some sort of "disembodied universal reason" by which we may judge truth claims... Reason does not exist in a vacuum - it can only be expressed in language and as such is the product of the culture and community within which I am raised. What's "reasonable" to a given culture at any one time depends entirely on the reigning plausibility structure. (MacIntyre, Berger)

#4 Any epistemological claim for ultimate authority is bound to be circular by definition. "I believe the bible because I believe the bible". "It is reasonable to trust reason". "I trust what my senses tell me because I always have". (etc - see Grudem) I must initially accept such a statement acritically by faith before it can be proved to myself as I seek to indwell it and use it as a framework to best understand the world I see and experience. (Polanyi, Newbigin)

(Cf. learning Maths - you have to accept acritically what the teacher's authority [representing the authority of a tradition] before you can prove to yourself that they are true. You prove the truth by participation)

#5 There's no such thing as pure doubt. You cannot doubt everything at the same time. To doubt one idea you have to be accepting another acritically ie. you need somewhere to doubt from. (Polanyi, Newbigin)

AB

---

This is excellent stuff, AB, and is largely my own position! #1 is not quite how I would put it and #4 is put a little amgiguously but of that I may say a little more later when I get a chance. But bravo!

There is the embarassingly (to me ) nagging question as to why this is being called a middle way. Between what and what or between who and who? Have I given the impression that I am some sort of arch rationalist? I am not. I think that the use of human reason in any attempt to be responsible about what one chooses to believe is inescapable. That is not the same as saying that human reason is the only source of truth. If people understand me to be saying that then I apologise for not being clearer.

G
 

---

Posted by Singleton (# 3256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by musician:
I haven't read the first 3 pages on this thread, so apologies if I'm stating the previous.

I alswys liked Origen's viewpoint; that all would be saved in god's good time.
It makes more sense IMHO for a loving god to do so.
[*]Could we assume that there may be additional consequences, both positive and negative, beyond what you've foreseen?
I can't see that anyone could be consigned to hell eternally, when we as human are fallible and don't see All.
It would be like taking a baby to task for not reading a list of rules. IMO.
To actually commit a "mortal sin" requires full knowledge of the action and its result, would suggest to me that anyone who chose such a path was not in their right mind, so it would be unjust to so punish them.

---

quote:

---

...it is worthwhile at this point to realize that the horrific biblical imagery of hell and the enticing imagery of heaven must be intended for this very purpose: to magnify and intensify for us the significance of the consequences of losing or keeping interest in the spiritual search...(p.260)

---

He also asks seven questions of the reader:

1. Does it matter to you whether you lose interest in your search or persevere in it?
2. If you lose interest and give up your search, what negative consequences would you expect?
3. If you persevere in your search, even when it is difficult to do so, what positive consequences would you expect?
4. Could we call the consequences of number 2 "hell", and the consequences of number 3 "heaven"?
5. Could we also assume that there may be additional consequences, both positive and negative, beyond what you've foreseen?
6. May we assume that whatever is meant by heaven and hell is meant as an encouragement not to lose interest...to impress on us how consequential our spiritual decisions are?
7. And may we assume that you'll make your own free, adult decisions about losing or maintaining interest in the light of relative importance to you of those expected consequences?

No hell definitely shouldn't mean "anything goes", which I think a number of people have been steering close to on this thread...

[There I go, getting all moralistic on you )
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0