Hell: a discussion

[Helcaraxë]

Alright, on the "Which Guarentee Would You Accept" thread, courtesy of Celebthol, Elgee and myself were having a dicussion about Hell, its logicality, and its existence. Celebthol requested that we cease the philosophical banter, and we did thusly. But seeing as it is an intriguing topic that warrants discussion, I would like to continue the discussion, if Elgee would be willing. Note: I don't mind (I don't think Elgee will either) if anyone else participates in the discussion.

About the time we broke off, I was arguing that even in the parameters of Christian belief, Hell was self-contradictory. Elgee responded that because we have no real basis on which to prove the existence of Hell, saying it is an unfounded belief is itself unfounded.

My argument is this. It is somewhat self defeating to say that because of lack of sufficient evidence, arguing against Hell is itself ungrounded. First off, to not accept something because it is groundless and unprovable does not make that argument against the groundless thing itself groundless. I was basing my critisism of Hell partially off of the fact that there is really no logical reason for it to exist. If it is really illogical for Hell to exist, than to doubt it is logical, because there is no reason why it should exist and many reasons why it shouldn't, which I will discuss promptly.

The Christian God is supposed to be very just. (Also very compassionate, but that's somewhat irrelevant.) If someone commits a crime such as murder, it is in no way just to punish them for all eternity. My point is, for justice to be done, the punishment has to fit the crime.

MB

[HLGStrider]

About the time we broke off, I was arguing that even in the parameters of Christian belief, Hell was self-contradictory. Elgee responded that because we have no real basis on which to prove the existence of Hell, saying it is an unfounded belief is itself unfounded.
I don't think this was exactly my arguement.

More accurately what happened was this: You broke into someone else's statement which involved going to hell that this was simply a matter of belief and an ungrounded one because there was no proof there was Hell. I said your belief was probably no more grounded than Neothen's. You returned that you had logical proof for yours. I said your logical proof was faulty and that I believe Neothen probably believes what he believes is logical. I know Neothen well enough to know he is fairly logical.

If someone commits a crime such as murder, it is in no way just to punish them for all eternity.
Why isn't it?

You can't just throw out the word just and expect us to follow suit in our view of justice. There are people who don't believe it is just to execute a murderer, for instance. Do you? I do. But if you don't and I do, justice obviously means different things to us. Why can't it mean a different thing to God than it does to you, and if it came down to trusting God or trusting you, I'd trust God's definition of just.

My point is, for justice to be done, the punishment has to fit the crime.
You'd have to prove that it doesn't to prove that is illogical. To some people you'd have to prove that murder is wrong.

But that asside, your definition of Hell is more a matter of punishment than seperation. For the Devil it was punishment, the punishment of seperation, for us it is just seperation, an inevitable result of telling God to shove off.

However, Thorin doesn't even believe in eternal hell, and is a Christian, and will be in this thread shortly to tell me how my beliefs are traditional but not Biblical and quote verses very quickly and use words that confuse me. .. which is a short way to say that he actually has a VERY long thread about this entitled Hell that got archived with the Guild of Religion. I never read it because I don't get into threads that had gone as far as that one had when finally saw it. I don't know what it would take to get that one unarchived, however. I'm sure it is worth a looksie.

[Eriol]

I don't think Hell is a concept that is deducible by natural reason unaided by revelation. In other words, we would not know about it if God had not told us about it. So there is no (rational) reason for a non-Christian (or non-Jew / non-Muslim; I won't repeat that phrase every time, but Jews and Muslims share the belief in Hell, and for the same reason -- that God revealed it) to believe in Hell. There may be emotional inclination, or intuition of some sort, but no "reason". That's how I look at it.

So, to a panentheistic like you MB, Hell is simply a superfluous concept. There is no evidence in its support. However, to a Christian, it is very clear (in the Bible; and usually in words by Jesus Christ himself) that there is evidence for Hell. Christians may disagree on the nature of Hell; as Elgee said, Thorin says that Hell is a temporally finite punishment. Which addresses one of your concerns. Most Christians however stick with the "eternal punishment" idea.

All Christians agree on the idea of Hell.

You may be claiming that there is an internal contradiction among the Christian ideas of Hell and of a perfectly just and benevolent God. But you must recall that we believe in Hell because we believe in God and in His words. It is the assumption that God is perfectly just and benevolent (and truthful) that leads us to believe that there is a Hell, since this perfect God said it quite clearly, and repeatedly.

I don't know the particulars of your discussion, so I'll wait for your response.

[Thorin]

Morgoth'sBane is really looking for a scrap with the moderators isn't he? :D

MB, unfortunately, the thread where all this was hashed out before has been deep-sixed so I don't think you could go through and check it out.

You may be claiming that there is an internal contradiction among the Christian ideas of Hell and of a perfectly just and benevolent God. But you must recall that we believe in Hell because we believe in God and in His words. It is the assumption that God is perfectly just and benevolent (and truthful) that leads us to believe that there is a Hell, since this perfect God said it quite clearly, and repeatedly.However, misinterpreting original language and context and then trying to explain those inconsistencies with references to God's character is blasphemous at most and false at the least. The benevolent, just and mercifully loving character of God exists before we intepret what we feel His actions are, not the other way around. When we look at the scriptures with this view, we see that the nature of hell CANNOT be what everyone makes it out to be or those characteristics of God are contradictory.

The issue of the nature of Hell is not as clear cut as you think. We have gone through this before and I have shown that the evidence not only for the existence of eternal punishment is lacking in the scriptures, but that the exact opposite (that man is ultimately annihilated) has massive support from the Bible (both Old and New Testament). To you as a Catholic, that doesn't matter. The church and 'sacred tradition' trump the scriptures. What are the other protestants' excuses?

For years this theology has been based on a few texts (many of which the KJV can't properly translate) and many of those ambiguous at best, without studying it. They would rather hold on to what they grew up believing. Thankfully many Christians and theologians are taking a closer look at this traditional doctrine and finding it to be riddled with errors. Any attempts I have seen to reconcile God's love and justice with His children suffering 2nd and 3rd degree burns for billions of years is so far fetched and stretching that it is obvious that support is built on an assumption after an assumption rather than trying to reconcile the Biblical inconsistencies with the traditional view.

Of course you will always have those who will believe it no matter what. Oh well.

[celebdraug]

the Religion thread should be opened again!!

Hell is actually what you make believe!

[Gothmog]

celebdraug, please do not try to re-open the GoR argument again. Discussion of Religious topics is allowed in the "Off Topic" fora of TTF.

[Eriol]

The issue of the nature of Hell is not as clear cut as you think. We have gone through this before and I have shown that the evidence not only for the existence of eternal punishment is lacking in the scriptures, but that the exact opposite (that man is ultimately annihilated) has massive support from the Bible (both Old and New Testament). To you as a Catholic, that doesn't matter. The church and 'sacred tradition' trump the scriptures. What are the other protestants' excuses?

Thorin, are you a religious NPW as well?

:D

Look again at what I said. "Christians may disagree on the nature of Hell, but they agree that there is a Hell". Do you find any flaw in that? What you call "annihilation of man" is not called "Hell" in the Bible version that you use? And therefore, don't you believe in Hell, with the proviso that it isn't eternal, but a temporally finite punishment of the sinners that ends in their annihilation?

I think MB wanted the general Christian position on Hell, and I hope to have described it correctly. What do you think?

I remember that thread, and your arguments. They are thought-provoking, and I had never looked at the issue before. But I also remember that your arguments were countered. Anyway, the nature of Hell is (apparently) not what is being investigated by MB, but rather the existence or not of a Hell (whatever its nature is).

It's interesting that you said this:

The benevolent, just and mercifully loving character of God exists before we intepret what we feel His actions are, not the other way around. When we look at the scriptures with this view, we see that the nature of hell CANNOT be what everyone makes it out to be or those characteristics of God are contradictory.

I find it interesting because I wrote the same thing and then struck it out, because I found I was going into a delicate matter, "what makes one believe?". I agree with you that we believe in the perfectly good God before we believe in Hell (I said as much), but it is a sad fact that many if not most believers believe in Hell first and God second. They believe in God because they are afraid of Hell. Then I found myself stating that belief like that is not God's intention. And then I found myself stating that God is merciful enough to take believers in any way He can.

All in all, I was stating a lot of personal opinions about the character of God as truth, and it felt uncomfortable. That's why I struck out the paragraph.

Perhaps this is completely off-topic, but it was interesting, and surprising, that you posted what I was about to post, in the very next post :).

Still on off-topic territory, Catholics do not think tradition "trumps" scripture, they ascribe equal value to both, and they never contradict each other. You never know, there might be a reader that believes what you are saying about Catholics, so I must be a bit of a NPW myself when you talk about it :D.

[Thorin]

Look again at what I said. "Christians may disagree on the nature of Hell, but they agree that there is a Hell". Do you find any flaw in that? What you call "annihilation of man" is not called "Hell" in the Bible version that you use? And therefore, don't you believe in Hell, with the proviso that it isn't eternal, but a temporally finite punishment of the sinners that ends in their annihilation? ....I think MB wanted the general Christian position on Hell, and I hope to have described it correctly. What do you think?Yes, I do agree and that is why I didn't comment when you said "All Christians agree that there is a hell". The problem with those like MB and others, is that when they ask "Do you believe there is a hell?", they are really asking, "Do you believe that sinners will be tormented at death for eternity". We all know that is what most people think when they hear 'hell', because that is the traditional view that has turned many people away from God. I do not believe in that 'hell' and I do believe that 'hell' is a lousy translation of the Greek and Hebrew. Hence, the need to futher clarify my position despite what seems a general enquiry by MB.

I remember that thread, and your arguments. They are thought-provoking, and I had never looked at the issue before. But I also remember that your arguments were countered.And I don't believe at all that my arguments were 'countered' an attempt was made to discredit the idea of annihilation, but logic and reasoning (as well as biblical support) was lacking. I find that traditionalists will spend most of their time trying to discredit annihilation rather than trying to support eternal torment. This is because linguistically and contextually, there is no support for it. To me, I don't see that as 'countering' anything.
Still on off-topic territory, Catholics do not think tradition "trumps" scripture, they ascribe equal value to both, and they never contradict each other. You never know, there might be a reader that believes what you are saying about Catholics, so I must be a bit of a NPW myself when you talk about it :D.And I'm saying that there are instances where the Church does contradict the Bible (this being a prime example). The question is, can the church admit that (like Protestants) they can go off the mark theologically and substitute tradition in the scripture's place? Or do they continue to stand by the dictum, "The church cannot err"?

Like I said before though, Eriol. Catholics have a way out of theological disputes (deluded though it may be ;) ) Protestants who claim to follow Sola Scriptura do not.

[Eriol]

Yes, I do agree and that is why I didn't comment when you said "All Christians agree that there is a hell". The problem with those like MB and others, is that when they ask "Do you believe there is a hell?", they are really asking, "Do you believe that sinners will be tormented at death for eternity". We all know that is what most people think when they hear 'hell', because that is the traditional view that has turned many people away from God. I do not believe in that 'hell' and I do believe that 'hell' is a lousy translation of the Greek and Hebrew. Hence, the need to futher clarify my position despite what seems a general enquiry by MB.

I understand your stance now.

So, if MB is asking about the (general) idea of Hell, we'll both try to defend the Christian position; and if he's asking about the idea of "eternal torment", then you won't be at the defending side.

I prefer it when we're at the same side, rare though it is :D.

[Thorin]

So, if MB is asking about the (general) idea of Hell, we'll both try to defend the Christian position; and if he's asking about the idea of "eternal torment", then you won't be at the defending side.Though I can't speak for our Muslim brethren (though I'm sure that Mohammed was somewhat influenced by the views of hell that existed at his time), I don't think hell is commented on or defended and (mis)understood from other than a Christian perspective. I don't recall anyone berating in public about the ancient Greek view of what hell was. It is always the traditional Christian view. So when someone says, "I have a problem with hell", I assume it is the Christian perspective and I go about debunking the foolish myths that many Christians ignorantly believe today that is causing this problem.

I prefer it when we're at the same side, rare though it is :D.Then start using the Bible instead of "The church says so" and we shall be a force to be reckoned with!
:D

[Elessar II]

The Christian God is supposed to be very just..... If someone commits a crime such as murder, it is in no way just to punish them for all eternity. My point is, for justice to be done, the punishment has to fit the crime.

Well, first of all, ( according to my beliefs as a Christian) you don't go to hell for committing a crime, no matter how huge. The reason you go to hell (again, these are just my beliefs, I don't want anyone jumping on me ;) ) is because of refusing to accept what Christ did on the cross. See, Christ paid for all of humanity's crimes on the cross, and you have a choice on where you want to be for eternity. You can either accept Christ into your life, repent of your sins and join me in heaven :D , or you can refuse the pardon and go to hell. It's your choice.

And those are my beliefs as a Christian, although not all Christians share the same beliefs on this subject.

[Helcaraxë]

I don't think this was exactly my arguement.

More accurately what happened was this: You broke into someone else's statement which involved going to hell that this was simply a matter of belief and an ungrounded one because there was no proof there was Hell. I said your belief was probably no more grounded than Neothen's. You returned that you had logical proof for yours. I said your logical proof was faulty and that I believe Neothen probably believes what he believes is logical. I know Neothen well enough to know he is fairly logical.


Why isn't it?

You can't just throw out the word just and expect us to follow suit in our view of justice. There are people who don't believe it is just to execute a murderer, for instance. Do you? I do. But if you don't and I do, justice obviously means different things to us. Why can't it mean a different thing to God than it does to you, and if it came down to trusting God or trusting you, I'd trust God's definition of just.


You'd have to prove that it doesn't to prove that is illogical. To some people you'd have to prove that murder is wrong.

But that asside, your definition of Hell is more a matter of punishment than seperation. For the Devil it was punishment, the punishment of seperation, for us it is just seperation, an inevitable result of telling God to shove off.

However, Thorin doesn't even believe in eternal hell, and is a Christian, and will be in this thread shortly to tell me how my beliefs are traditional but not Biblical and quote verses very quickly and use words that confuse me. .. which is a short way to say that he actually has a VERY long thread about this entitled Hell that got archived with the Guild of Religion. I never read it because I don't get into threads that had gone as far as that one had when finally saw it. I don't know what it would take to get that one unarchived, however. I'm sure it is worth a looksie.


Eternal punishment is unjust because any crime commited on Earth is necessarily finite, thus the punishement (if it is just) is also necessarily finite.
Even God's idea of justice can't credibly be outside of these parameters or it wouldn't be justice at all, by definition.

MB

[Thorin]

However, Thorin doesn't even believe in eternal hell, and is a Christian, and will be in this thread shortly to tell me how my beliefs are traditional but not Biblical and quote verses very quickly and use words that confuse meLOL. I didn't even look at your thread before I posted, LG, and I did exactly that. How well you all know me! :D

Eternal punishment is unjust because any crime commited on Earth is necessarily finite, thus the punishement (if it is just) is also necessarily finite.
Even God's idea of justice can't credibly be outside of these parameters or it wouldn't be justice at all, by definition.Amazing how a non-Christian can see the logic in this reasoning but some Christians cannot. By this reasoning, I find the atheists and non-Christians actually supporting the loving character of God while the Christian brings it down.

No, we don't go to hell because we did something wrong but because we ultimately rejected God. And yet the questions must be raised. Why would a loving God of justice create such a place to begin with? What purpose does hell serve and is it the will of God that people suffer? When was this place created?

Ultimately, our views on the nature of man, the sin problem and what was accomplished at the cross will determine how we view hell. When we look at all these things in the grand scope of salvation history (along with biblical support), we see that not only is it illogical and unfair for God to have created such a place, but it goes against the very nature of God.

Does that mean that all will be saved or that the wicked will not be punished? Absolutely not! Consequences are consequences. However, when we understand that Christ saved us from DEATH, and not a fiery hell, and when we understand that this world will be 'hell' at the end of time to purge sin (i.e. God will eradicate sin and sinners will fall along with it), we see that God's responsibility is nil and being destroyed by fire is a natural consequence of a sinful life.

However, if I believe that Christ established this hell solely for the purpose of punishment,not redemption or reformation, and that man will be given an immortal body to suffer these agonies, we see a vindictive, unmerciful and vengeful God who MUST take some responsibility for this hell fire regardless of man's freedom of choice.

Again, we must go back to the language used in the scripture to determine what was meant by 'hellfire' how it is to be interpreted, and when and how it is received. Until we understand that, there is going to be serious interpretation problems as to how we look at God. We can't judge God until we truly understand the nature and method of this fire.

[Helcaraxë]

That was a beatifully written and constructed post, Thorin. I couldn't agree more.

Keep in mind, Elessar, that I'm using fundamental Christian beliefs as the basis for my argument. And refusing to accept Christ is a finite action even if it is not really a crime, and thus warrants finite consequenses.

MB

[HLGStrider]

LOL. I didn't even look at your thread before I posted, LG, and I did exactly that. How well you all know me!
Oh all too well. . .Though truthfully I want to agree with you, I do trust years of tradition before someone I met on the internet on this one because you are the only one I have ever heard argue this based on Biblicality. Most people just argue it because they don't care what is in the Bible. All my spiritual role models, who are Bible believing (and Protestant if that matters) believe in Hell traditionally as well, and my mom is the type who is forever digging in that Bible concordance, looking up the original word and such. . .so at the moment I am simply choosing to believe them over you because I trust my mom more than I trust you which is as it should be, don't you think? I think I'll wait until I'm a little older to decide finally.

And refusing to accept Christ is a finite action even if it is not really a crime, and thus warrants finite consequenses.Is it a finite action? I believe that when one accepts Christ one literally bonds with him. . .I'm not sure if that is a correct word, and through that bond one is able to go to Heaven. I believe that if you don't go to Heaven you are not going to be with God. Hell is seperation from God, and therefore you're in hell.

Accepting Christ is permanent and eternal. I don't see why rejecting him should be otherwise.

[Merry]

Sorry for just making bible quotes but I believe (as a Christian) that only the bible should be taken as authority. If you cannot find the answer in the bible then it is wrong to believe in confusing doctrines. I still however remain respectful of everyone else's viewpoint, Christian or not.

Eccl. 9:5, 10: "The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." (If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.)

Ps. 146:4: "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish."

Rom. 6:23: "The wages sin pays is death."

Rom. 6:7: "He who has died has been acquitted from his sin."

Jer. 7:31: "They [apostate Judeans] have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart." (If it never came into God's heart, surely he does not have and use such a thing on a larger scale.)

Illustration: What would you think of a parent who held his child's hand over a fire to punish the child for wrongdoing? "God is love." (1 John 4:8) Would he do what no right-minded human parent would do? Certainly not!

What is the origin of the teaching of hellfire?

In ancient Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs the "nether world . . . is pictured as a place full of horrors, and is presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness." (The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898, Morris Jastrow, Jr., p. 581) Early evidence of the fiery aspect of Christendom's hell is found in the religion of ancient Egypt. (The Book of the Dead, New Hyde Park, N.Y., 1960, with introduction by E. A. Wallis Budge, pp. 144, 149, 151, 153, 161) Buddhism, which dates back to the 6th century B.C.E., in time came to feature both hot and cold hells. (The Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 14, p. 68) Depictions of hell portrayed in Catholic churches in Italy have been traced to Etruscan roots.-La civiltà etrusca (Milan, 1979), Werner Keller, p. 389.

[Thorin]

All my spiritual role models, who are Bible believing (and Protestant if that matters) believe in Hell traditionally as well, and my mom is the type who is forever digging in that Bible concordance, looking up the original word and such. . .so at the moment I am simply choosing to believe them over you because I trust my mom more than I trust you which is as it should be, don't you think? I think I'll wait until I'm a little older to decide finally.I challenge you to challenge her. If your mother is the searching kind (of which we all should be) I think she will eventually come to the same conclusions if she is willing to let go how she was raised and what she sees around her. If she does use the concordance, she will see that the different words for hell (Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, Tartaros) have three different meanings. Ask her how can we lump them together into one english word, 'hell' and derive a theology from that?

Out of the 11 usages of Hades in the NT, only Luke 16, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, gives us an impression of conscious punishment immediately at death. How can one base this belief solely on one bible text? Especially when the uses of Hades don't give us a view of consciousness after death in all the other passages and is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol which was the grave and a place of no consciousness (as was pointed out by Merry with Ecclesiastes)?

Actually, many Protestants who believe in eternal hell admit that the wicked aren't there now, but receive it at the end of time. This is biblical. Why are they coming to this conclusion? Because there is no support that the wicked are in a fiery hell right now. My question then, is this. If eternal torture believers are accepting this now after centuries of believing otherwise, why is it so hard to believe that they may be wrong about the rest?

We must search the scriptures with an open mind, logical thinking, the aid of the holy spirit and common sense. To think that just because everyone else believes it makes it right is a dangerous way of thinking.

[Merry]

It is encouraging that your mum takes such an interest and I understand completely why you trust her more than you would this forum but don't forget to search for the truth yourself!!

Ask her how can we lump them together into one english word, 'hell' and derive a theology from that?

Good point especially when you take a look at this definition of Hell:

Definition: The word "hell" is found in many Bible translations. In the same verses other translations read "the grave," "the world of the dead," and so forth. Other Bibles simply transliterate the original-language words that are sometimes rendered "hell"; that is, they express them with the letters of our alphabet but leave the words untranslated. What are those words? The Hebrew she'ohl´ and its Greek equivalent hai´des, which refer, not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind; also the Greek ge´en·na, which is used as a symbol of eternal destruction. However, both in Christendom and in many non-Christian religions it is taught that hell is a place inhabited by demons and where the wicked, after death, are punished (and some believe that this is with torment).



Out of the 11 usages of Hades in the NT, only Luke 16, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, gives us an impression of conscious punishment immediately at death. How can one base this belief solely on one bible text?


I found this article on the very same point:

By what Jesus said about the rich man and Lazarus, did Jesus teach torment of the wicked after death?

Is the account, at Luke 16:19-31, literal or merely an illustration of something else? The Jerusalem Bible, in a footnote, acknowledges that it is a "parable in story form without reference to any historical personage." If taken literally, it would mean that those enjoying divine favor could all fit at the bosom of one man, Abraham; that the water on one's fingertip would not be evaporated by the fire of Hades; that a mere drop of water would bring relief to one suffering there. Does that sound reasonable to you? If it were literal, it would conflict with other parts of the Bible. If the Bible were thus contradictory, would a lover of truth use it as a basis for his faith? But the Bible does not contradict itself.

What does the parable mean? The "rich man" represented the Pharisees. (See verse 14.) The beggar Lazarus represented the common Jewish people who were despised by the Pharisees but who repented and became followers of Jesus. (See Luke 18:11; John 7:49; Matthew 21:31, 32.) Their deaths were also symbolic, representing a change in circumstances. Thus, the formerly despised ones came into a position of divine favor, and the formerly seemingly favored ones were rejected by God, while being tormented by the judgment messages delivered by the ones whom they had despised.-Acts 5:33; 7:54.

I completely agree about not taking one section of the bible and using it as your only arguement. The bible is in harmony throughout and should therefore be viewed completely and cross-referenced.

[Thorin]

However, both in Christendom and in many non-Christian religions it is taught that hell is a place inhabited by demons and where the wicked, after death, are punished (and some believe that this is with torment).This is Tartaros and is only used ONCE in the NT (in 2nd Peter, I believe). It is the realm where the demons reside. A sort of 4th dimension you could say. A place where we can't see them but they can cross over into our world. Unfortunately, because it is translated as 'hell' along with Hades 'hell' (the grave) and Gehenna 'hell' (the endtime punishment) we have a morphing of all of them which has given way to the current belief (the wicked die, go to hell and burn for eternity while either keeping the demons company, or being tortured by them). However, if we substituted the original language in it would sound ridiculous. "The wicked die and go to Hades where they receive Gehenna and are joined by the demons in Tartaros."
Their deaths were also symbolic, representing a change in circumstances. Thus, the formerly despised ones came into a position of divine favor, and the formerly seemingly favored ones were rejected by God, while being tormented by the judgment messages delivered by the ones whom they had despised.-Acts 5:33; 7:54.I don't totally agree with this interpretation of it. I think the crux of the matter is at the very end in vs 30,31. "And he said, 'Nay father Abraham, but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.' And he said unto him, 'If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead'"The consciousness served more of a literary purpose. The dead characters in the parable were given voices (they'd have to otherwise there would be no conversation!) to emphasise the issue of the stewardship of the Jews to the Gentiles. Notice the use of "Abraham's Bosom". Christ is pointing to the emphasis the Jews put on being of Father Abraham's lineage.

Nowhere else is such a thing as 'Abraham's bosom' being part of the afterlife mentioned anywhere else in scripture I believe that Jesus was using some of the Hellenistic Jews' false beliefs on the afterlife (for they were influenced by the Greeks) to show that they did not have a 'shoe in' just because of their lineage. Jesus was not trying to explain any sort of afterlife. To interpret it as such would be to make the whole message of the 'parable' meaningless.

Also, considering the metaphorical language used and the fact that nowhere else in the scripture is Hades interpreted it as such means the usage of it in this context is meant only for the situation of the parable and not to convey factual information.

[Helcaraxë]

Elgee, rejecting Christ is finite. It is reversible. The action is done at a specific time, in a specific place, and for a specific reason. And to argue that the "effects" are eternal doesn't hold water either. For someone to deserve eternal punishment for rejecting Christ they would have to continue it for eternity. Therefore, them being sent to Hell forever would need to be postponed until they ceased rejecting Christ, which would never happen because they are doing it eternally. Thus, they couldn't go to Hell forever. It's a paradox.;)

MB

[Thorin]

There are people who don't believe it is just to execute a murderer, for instance. Do you? I do. But if you don't and I do, justice obviously means different things to us. Why can't it mean a different thing to God than it does to you, and if it came down to trusting God or trusting you, I'd trust God's definition of just.But is it really God's definition of justice, or man's vengeful and retributive attitude towards sinners imposed on God? The human mind (in general) does not revolt at the idea of someone dying for a heinous crime when it is retributive. It does revolt at the idea of someone being kept alive under hideous pain with no thought of cessation or relief. Why would God be worse then us when his thoughts are higher than our thoughts?

The problem is that we take this and try to apply it an eternal hell. We automatically accept that eternal torment is true and then accept on the basis that God is higher than us so we can't say that it is false or that God is wrong. That is thinking that paints us into a corner that we must accept this character of God. The character of God must be looked at first and used to interpret such a doctrine, not the other way around. When we do that we will find such a concept foreign to the nature of a being such as God.
But that asside, your definition of Hell is more a matter of punishment than seperation. For the Devil it was punishment, the punishment of seperation, for us it is just seperation, an inevitable result of telling God to shove off.It's all semantics. It doesn't change the fact that hell would exist for nothing more than torture and punishment. Why? Because God had to have made that hell first before we chose to go there.

That's like me digging a pit outside my classroom and telling my students not to leave the classroom. The kids do leave anyway and plummet to their deaths. I can try and justify myself by saying. "Hey, I warned them. They could have stayed in the classroom and been saved." It still begs the question:

What was the purpose for digging the hole to begin with?

And so it is with the traditional view of hell. You may say that the fires were prepared for the devil and his angels. That may be true but the devil and his angels don't get their reward until the end of time after the 1000 year reign in heaven of the saints after the end of the age. How could sinners go to this hell of torment at death when whom it was prepared for isn't even in it yet?? Is it really fair for Satan to burn the same amount of time with those poor souls who were deceived by him? If burning in fire is the punishment, don't you think that duration should be a retributive factor? Especially when the bible says that we will be judged by our works and Christ says in Revelation 22 that "his reward is with me to give every man according as his works shall be"?

Everyone is tossed in together, sinners, demons and all. It devours them and as Malachi says, "there is no root nor branch left and they (wicked) will be ashes under the soles of your feet" (Malachi 4:1-3).

When we understand that the 'wages of sin is death' (Romans 6:23) we see that everyone has sinned, therefore everyone gets the same punishment. Death is the harshest form of punishment that can be given on this world and every government instituted by God or allowed to reign by God has practiced it, even been commanded by God Himself to implement it. Why wouldn't God hold himself to His own word?

GOD: "Well, my Word says that the wages of sin is death, but hey. I've decided to commute that sentence to conscious life in fire. Death is too swift and painless. And even though my Word also says that I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, it doesn't say anything about the eternal fiery torment of the wicked. Of course, I won't take pleasure in that either despite the fact that it is ten times worse than your other punishment. I guess I'm going to just have to deal with it somehow."

[Narya]

Hell = Sheol (hebrew) = Hades (greek) = Common Grave (modern English)

[Eriol]

Wow, great rhetoric there Thorin :).

Your reasoning applies with the same force to the notion of an eternal Heaven, though. What is the reason for us to not conclude that after a period of bliss we'll be annihilated?

[HLGStrider]

Gehenna Does anyone else remember this being a name somewhere in one of the Myst games?

For someone to deserve eternal punishment for rejecting Christ they would have to continue it for eternity.
I believe they do. I actually believe that they will continually have the chance to repent while in hell and continually reject it. However, this is a belief based on nothing but me thinking, so I don't put much stalk in it.

I have catagories for my belief:
A. I believe it but only in that I thought it once and I liked it so I'm going to believe it until I get something better (you can only loosely call these beliefs. Notions would be more accurate.).
B. I believe it, but not firmly. You'd actually have to use a reason to dissaude me. . .or be someone who I believe with authority. I generally won't argue these, though, because they don't mean enough to me, and I don't usually care enough about them to research them better. I won't just reject them on a whim however.
C. Beliefs based on things I'm sure of. Very good logic can make me doubt them, but it takes awhile to make me change my opinion.
D. Things I'll stubbornly believe no matter what. I can't think of anything that would make me change my mind, but since one of my beliefs is that all things are possible, it must be possible for these to be change.

The belief listed above is an A.
My belief in an eternal hell is a C based on fore mentioned trusted resources.
My belief in God is probably a D.
The only thing off the top of my head that I can think of that is a B is . . .gosh. . .I can't think of a B.

How could sinners go to this hell of torment at death when whom it was prepared for isn't even in it yet? Actually, you had already persuaded me on this one subject. I believed about a year ago that after death we were immediately placed in whatever afterlife we go to, but you (Thorin) showed me one or two verses that showed me I was wrong. When I held this belief it was probably a B. It was based on one verse which changes with puncuation and that I really like the idea of instantaneous gratification.

[Helcaraxë]

Emotions can be illogical and that is why they can get out of hand. That is why we have therapists. To tell us to stop hating and fearing irrationally.

If we give up on logic, what do we have?

I think there is logic to some things.

And I don't think nature is a conscious being. If so it is a self-destructive one.


I was actually thinking about this at work today because one thinks when mixing the chocolate powder with the chocolate syrup and then pouring the coffee on top because all you really have to think about to do this is not splashing your clothes and making sure all the powder disolves which doesn't take much thought. . .anyway. . .

I'm going to try and answer Eriol's question. I was thinking about the differences, and I came up with an answer, but the answer seemed wrong to me because it didn't seem that I had pantheism right.

My way of looking at it, for the sake of clarity, was to ask the question: What do you have left of your god if you take everything else away?

Meaning if there was no earth, no space, no inhabitants, no elements, no matter, no emotions, no anything, besides God, what would it be?

For the Christians the answer would be "God." God in Christianity is a whole, independent being who doesn't need any of that.

For Panenetheistic the answer would be, "A smaller god." . .or something like that. Better phrased of course. But the idea would be there would be something left, but it would be less than what it was before.

For Pantheism, I think the answer is "Nothing" for all those things listed above are god.

But I kept thinking, no no no, even a pantheistic god must have some element that is himself apart from everything else (I use himself because I don't like him/herself and itself seems . . .I don't know. . .odd.).

Or does it?

First question first. No emotion has any real logic. It is all a matter of personality. All that therapists do is try to help us give some order to this great heap of feelings and emotions. But order does not make it logical.

Second: if we give up logic, we have plenty of things. Perception, for one. Logic is a very specific way of thinking. It is an ordered progression from a premisis to a conclusion. (Thus it is only valid insofar as its indemonstratable premisis are valid, which cannot be verified by logic itself. But that's not the point.) We can still anylize our perceptions and our thoughts without being logical. There are many more schools of thought than mere logic.

Third: Nature is not a self-destructive consiousness. It just has many parts to it that are at times conflicting. Is a person self-destructive because of ambivalence? Or because their mind has several different parts to it that act and think differently? No, the parts of the person mind, conflicting as they may be, synthesize into an ordered whole.

Fourth: I think it is (at least in my philosophy of panentheism) somewhat self-defeated to ask, "What would happen if you made all of nature non-existant?" Nothing can be destroyed, only reduced to something much smaller. But if you ask, "What is there besides God?", that is answerable. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. God contains all of nature, but gives it a higher consciousness.

I just saw your last post. When you say the "above" belief is an A, which belief do you mean?

And there is another problem. The person who rejects Christ can't go to hell in the first place if hell is eternal, because they have commited a finite crime. They could never go to hell for commiting an infinte crime, because then they would never go to hell (they would never complete the crime.) You can't send someone to Hell merely because you don't think that they will repent at all, even in hell.

If it has a personality, it must make choices. If it makes choices, then it has preferences. If it has preferences, then it has a notion of good and evil. That comes with consciousness and choice.

Will you try to answer to the question of the observable difference between the panentheistic and the pantheistic God, MB? As well as the question of where do our own ideas of good and evil come from?

*Waits with a great curiosity*

:)

Pantheism is more of an "omnipresence." God permeates and is present in all things. Panentheism implies that all things are part of a higher consciousness, not that the higher consciousness is a part of all things. It's a subtle but important difference.

MB

[Thorin]

Your reasoning applies with the same force to the notion of an eternal Heaven, though. What is the reason for us to not conclude that after a period of bliss we'll be annihilated?Not true. Immortality is a gift promised by God to those who believe. Death is a natural consequence for those who sin. Death was never meant to be to begin with, immortality was. The end will be like the beginning before sin came to be. God will restore things to what they were.

You can't argue cessation of life for both parties because one needs to be terminated out of mercy, justice and love. The other is a promised gift given directly by God, and not a natural consequence.I believe they do. I actually believe that they will continually have the chance to repent while in hell and continually reject it.And to me, I see this as a needed (but irrational) justification to continue believing in such a doctrine. I don't care who you are, the most evil person or your average Joe. If you hold their hand on a stove burner on high and say, "Will you recant or repent? If you do I'll take your hand off". I guarantee they will repent. Then you will say, 'Well it won't be heartfelt or genuine. It will only be to save themselves.' The possibility of that happening are remote in the beginning, but what about later on? Do you think even a good person would take the time to truly analyze themselves and search their heart to make a rational decision under those circumstances? Should they even be held accountable to make a rational decision under those circumstances? Come on here we are talking about torture by fire. That makes God even worse to expect genuine repentence under such conditions that He is allowing. That's like tossing the life rope a few feet away from the drowing person, chuckling and saying "Come on now. Do you really want to be saved? Try and reach for it."

I would think that even after a few days of second degree burning, the wicked would be wishing for a second chance to make it right with God and choose to live. You are assuming that only those in hell have no conscience or are the most stubbornly evil person in the world where a second chance means nothing to them. Do you honestly believe that? Unfortunately, many say it off the cuff because they have to justify hell somehow. If they stepped back and truly analyzed the logic of it all, they'd see more holes in it then swiss cheese.

The point is mute anyway because either death or eternal torment, the choice was made, the fate is sealed because God respects free choice and has given ample enough opportunity to accept His gift of eternal life and reject the punishment. If one truly believes this then we have a problem. God, by having the wicked conscious with freedom of choice intact, is allowing them the chance to want to recant under torture. They are not allowed to, however. Even from a mercy standpoint, doesn't destroying them so there is no opportunity at all (if God by His own laws cannot offer the second chance at this time) make God benevolent and merciful instead of acting like the cruel child who dangles the piece of meat and dish of water over the beaten and tortured body of a dog through the glass knowing that there is no way the dog can get it?

Instituting the death penalty satisfies divine justice and puts an end to those suffering from sin. Consequences promised are given, freedom of choice is respected, everyone can get on with their life. Sin and sinners are destroyed and eternal life as was meant to be is given. Revelation 21 is affirmed.

[Eriol]

If you hold their hand on a stove burner on high and say, "Will you recant or repent? If you do I'll take your hand off". I guarantee they will repent.

This presupposes that eternity has a temporal continuity. I don't think I agree with that; I don't think there will be a "before" or an "after" in Hell (or Heaven), it is a constant present. Eternity is a tough concept for us to deal with.

The argument that Heaven is like a mirror image of Hell in your argument is based on the disproportionality of the reward (or punishment), not on the temporal duration of the reward (as I said I don't think there's any temporal duration). Finite crime brings infinite "punishment"; finite faith brings infinite "reward". I don't like either of the two words, because both bring the notion of something super-added to another thing. As if Heaven were a gift for our faith, or Hell a "gift" for our sin. I think both -- Heaven and Hell -- are essentially and intrinsically related to faith and sin respectively, and there is no question of something external being added to it.

As I look at it, faith "begets" Heaven, and sin "begets" Hell; both destinies are implicit in the nature of the thing, and God does not "add" the destiny to the faith or sin. Indeed, he would be "taking away" from the thing if he denied Heaven (or Hell).

I don't see any contradiction, be it of duration or of justice, in the notion that sin begets Hell, or that faith begets Heaven. This is simply another way of saying that we were made to behold the face of God and worship Him. When we look away, it's Hell; and this is a consequence of our own nature, of how we were created. It's how God made us.

MB, I think you posted this in the wrong thread :D. Anyway, I know the conceptual difference between panentheism and pantheism, but I still would like to know an observable difference. It's the scientist in me ;). How can we choose between one of the two Gods empirically? Is it a guess? How do you know it is a panentheistic God? Do you have any reason for choosing panentheism over pantheism, or was it a purely aesthetic choice?

By the way, perception uses logic ;). We use logic to move from raw sense perception to integration of senses to conceptualization. Check the Kasparov thread for a discussion between me and Aiwendil2 that touched upon these matters...

[Thorin]

Finite crime brings infinite "punishment"; finite faith brings infinite "reward". I don't like either of the two words, because both bring the notion of something super-added to another thing. As if Heaven were a gift for our faith, or Hell a "gift" for our sin. I think both -- Heaven and Hell -- are essentially and intrinsically related to faith and sin respectively, and there is no question of something external being added to it.

As I look at it, faith "begets" Heaven, and sin "begets" Hell; both destinies are implicit in the nature of the thing, and God does not "add" the destiny to the faith or sin. Indeed, he would be "taking away" from the thing if he denied Heaven (or Hell).But eternal life is a gift from God. Even Adam and Eve's existence was contingent on God before they sinned. Man was not made with an immortal soul (another disagreement between us) Heaven is our restoring to what once was.

Your assumption that 'sin begets hell' as 'faith begets heaven' is a false comparison. If you had said that 'sin begets death' as 'faith begets heaven', you'd be right. In the traditional sense, Hell is not a natural consequence because hell had to have been created by God. In other words, hell is the punishment deliberately inflicted by God because of our actions. And because eternal life is not naturally a gift to the wicked, God has to GIVE them eternal life. This is a deliberate act by God and He is making this punishment continual for the wicked. This is a contradiction to the nature of God. You cannot take the onus of responsibility off God and place it solely on the sinner.

If however, you believe in the Biblical view of sin=death, death is the natural consequence and 'hell fire' is the means to the end. Sin must be destroyed and the earth cleansed of sin. Fire is this end and death is the natural consequence. God is not responsible because without God there is no life. That is why He had to come down and die for our sins. We were already doomed to die, hell-fire or not. As a matter of fact, were there not ANY fire at all to destroy, the wicked would still die because of their separation from God and combined with their sin. With the conditional view of hell, God can only be held responsible for not saving everybody.

[Eriol]

Your view makes sense. However, I think you go to far when you say that the traditional view doesn't make sense. Both are reasonable, to me, and I would not be surprised if God chose either way.

I still disagree on the nature of sin, though. The nature of sin is not death; the wages of sin is death. This is an allusion to a superimposed concept. My work is not my wage; my wage is what I earned through my work. Similarly, death is what I earned through sin, but they are not the same thing.

The traditional view of Hell is simply the natural consequence of sin, taken into eternity. Once a soul is "outside time", it can't repent. I don't see the need of a Hell "created" by God, in the sense that God set up a part of the Universe for the punishment of the sinners; to me, Hell is where the damned are (including demons). Where are they? I have no idea. But they must be somewhere. There is where Hell is. It does not entail special creation of a place for the sole purpose of punishment.

You cannot take the onus of responsibility off God and place it solely on the sinner.

Why not? I don't understand that. Is there any responsibility in the damnation of a soul that pertains to God?

As a matter of fact, were there not ANY fire at all to destroy, the wicked would still die because of their separation from God and combined with their sin. With the conditional view of hell, God can only be held responsible for not saving everybody.

Well, everybody dies. I think you are using death in a spiritual as well as in a physical sense, therefore. We'll soon get into the matter of the immortality of the soul, again :D. But I see no problem with what you call "conditional immortality", that the soul is immortal just because God allows it to be. I fully believe in that. After all, everything that is, is just because God allows it to be. The soul is no exception.

However, if the soul is immortal (for the sake of argument ;)), then to kill (i.e. destroy) a soul is a direct intervention of God. To let it continue to exist is not "unjust", therefore. The sinner reaps what he sowed.

Another thing is that you think that annihilation is somehow more merciful than eternal punishment. I see the reason for that belief, but it is still simply a belief. There is no support for it. Perhaps God chooses eternal punishment because it is, in fact, more merciful than annihilation. We can't know. This is one of those tricky dilemmas, such as "would you trade freedom for happiness?"

Would you trade existence for freedom from pain? It is not as simple as it sounds. Existence is another tough concept for us to digest.

[Thorin]

I don't think there will be a "before" or an "after" in Hell (or Heaven), it is a constant present. Eternity is a tough concept for us to deal with.The traditional view of Hell has not (nor does not) exist in eternity. Rather, it is a solution to the sin problem created by God to punish sinners when the sin problem occured. However, this punishment is not going on now. It is nothing more than a 'tool' (for lack of a better word) to deal with sin. Your fundamental flaw is to assume that immortal souls are burning in hell (wherever it is) outside the realm of existence as we know it. This is not biblical.I still disagree on the nature of sin, though. The nature of sin is not death; the wages of sin is death. This is an allusion to a superimposed concept. My work is not my wage; my wage is what I earned through my work. Similarly, death is what I earned through sin, but they are not the same thing.Whether it be our nature or an intentional act, sin is sin. Sin came into the world and from that day on, life began to die. The wages of sin is death does not just mean what we've earned (i.e. intentional sin) but who we are. Our very nature is doomed to die. Unless we accept God's gift of eternal life, that death will take it's course.

The traditional view of Hell is simply the natural consequence of sin, taken into eternity. Once a soul is "outside time", it can't repent. I don't see the need of a Hell "created" by God, in the sense that God set up a part of the Universe for the punishment of the sinners; to me, Hell is where the damned are (including demons). Where are they? I have no idea. But they must be somewhere. There is where Hell is. It does not entail special creation of a place for the sole purpose of punishment.Ah, but we can know. The bible makes it plain that the dead are not suffering now, but are in Hades (the grave) the demons live in Tartaros. They are not in the same place. If a fiery hell existed from the beginning, we would still have to say that God set that place up for nothing more than torment. It would not be a natural consequence. God is still responsible. If a fiery hell did exist for us when we died, then Christ would have established it when he conquered death on the cross (immortality for all mankind including sinners - this totally contradicts the Bible but let's use it for the sake of argument). Christ is therefore responsible for establishing a place solely to punish sinners.

When we believe that the fires come at the end of time simply to purify the earth and all sin on it, we see there is no responsibility on God.

In other words, you'd be better off abandoning this midieval belief that the wicked are in 'fire' now and not at the end of time. You might have a better argument even if you just believed the wicked will get their eternal torment at the end of time (which many Christians are coming around to).

Your misuse of the word 'hell' and when it is received creates many contradictions both logically and scripturally.
Another thing is that you think that annihilation is somehow more merciful than eternal punishment. I see the reason for that belief, but it is still simply a belief. There is no support for it. Perhaps God chooses eternal punishment because it is, in fact, more merciful than annihilation. We can't know. This is one of those tricky dilemmas, such as "would you trade freedom for happiness?"

Would you trade existence for freedom from pain? It is not as simple as it sounds. Existence is another tough concept for us to digest.I cannot fathom how God will take a punishment that blows any sort of punishment on earth we humans can inflict (and would be loathe to inflict and would do anything to avoid) and try to make it better then death? Again this is an argument needed to be created to make God look better to us then He does, because He is God after all and He is supposed to be better than us. If a soldier in war has his legs blown off and his intestines on the ground he'd rather suffer than ask someone to put a bullet into him to end his misery? On a smaller scale both in magnitude and intensity, you are saying that you'd rather be burnt alive in a house instead of someone or having something destroy you earlier to end your pain? And you are trying to tell me that burning for eternity is better than being put out of your misery? If there were some sort of end where redemption and reformation could take place, then maybe suffering for awhile is better than non-existence. But an existence without any end or hope of redemption is more appealing then not existing? What is freedom to exist if it is under those conditions?

I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around such a concept, Eriol. Sin dehumanizes, destroys us spiritually and makes our lives miserable. Why would God want to compound that misery when He wants to put an end to sin? Sin should NEVER HAVE EXISTED. It only makes sense that that sin will go back to non-existence as it was before, doesn't it?

[Helcaraxë]

This presupposes that eternity has a temporal continuity. I don't think I agree with that; I don't think there will be a "before" or an "after" in Hell (or Heaven), it is a constant present. Eternity is a tough concept for us to deal with.

The argument that Heaven is like a mirror image of Hell in your argument is based on the disproportionality of the reward (or punishment), not on the temporal duration of the reward (as I said I don't think there's any temporal duration). Finite crime brings infinite "punishment"; finite faith brings infinite "reward". I don't like either of the two words, because both bring the notion of something super-added to another thing. As if Heaven were a gift for our faith, or Hell a "gift" for our sin. I think both -- Heaven and Hell -- are essentially and intrinsically related to faith and sin respectively, and there is no question of something external being added to it.

How do you come to the conclusion that Hell has no temporal continuity, only a "constant present?" I see no basis for this. But whether it has temporal continuity or not makes no difference. The punishment in Hell is continuous, even if it is static. The crime is not continuous (as well as not being static.) So the punishemnt still does not match the crime. Because the punishment has no beginning and no end, it is infinite (finity implies a defininable time with a beginning and an end), and thus cannot be the product of a finite action. And even if Heaven and Hell are only consequences and not punishments or gifts, the consequence must still fit the crime.


You say that Thorin's argument is based on disproporitonality of the reward, not on the duration of the reward. But these are one and the same; it is precisely the duration of the reward or punishment that makes it disproportional.

As I look at it, faith "begets" Heaven, and sin "begets" Hell; both destinies are implicit in the nature of the thing, and God does not "add" the destiny to the faith or sin. Indeed, he would be "taking away" from the thing if he denied Heaven (or Hell).

I don't see any contradiction, be it of duration or of justice, in the notion that sin begets Hell, or that faith begets Heaven. This is simply another way of saying that we were made to behold the face of God and worship Him. When we look away, it's Hell; and this is a consequence of our own nature, of how we were created. It's how God made us.



"A consequence of our nature?" Looking away is a crime (supposedly) and thus deserves a matching punishment. Even if it was simply inherent that looking away is Hell, that is still injustice, perhaps even more so because God gave us less choice because it is in our "nature"


MB, I think you posted this in the wrong thread :D. Anyway, I know the conceptual difference between panentheism and pantheism, but I still would like to know an observable difference. It's the scientist in me ;). How can we choose between one of the two Gods empirically? Is it a guess? How do you know it is a panentheistic God? Do you have any reason for choosing panentheism over pantheism, or was it a purely aesthetic choice?

By the way, perception uses logic ;). We use logic to move from raw sense perception to integration of senses to conceptualization. Check the Kasparov thread for a discussion between me and Aiwendil2 that touched upon these matters...

Not really. Conceptualization is a seperate skill from logic. One can integrate a chaotic mass of perception into an ordered picture of reality subconsciously, and certainly without logic. I am getting an orderly picture in my mind of the key board upon which I am typing without logic; logic, remember, is deduction based on premises. I am making no deductions about the keyboard and am using no logic. Reason, perhaps, but not logic.

MB

[Eriol]

I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around such a concept, Eriol. Sin dehumanizes, destroys us spiritually and makes our lives miserable. Why would God want to compound that misery when He wants to put an end to sin? Sin should NEVER HAVE EXISTED. It only makes sense that that sin will go back to non-existence as it was before, doesn't it?

Oh, but people in Hell do not sin ;). Sin will not exist in Hell.

I think you put too much weight in the "fiery Hell" description. That is universally accepted by theologians as a metaphor; and yes, it is a metaphor seen in pre-Christian religions; this does not detract from it, not everything that is pagan is useless. But the point is not the degree of burning, or the place of the burning; the point of the "Hell metaphor" is -- you don't want to go there.

I think it was St. Catherine of Siena (I may be wildly mistaken) who said that if Hell had actual fire, it would not be as bad, because actual fire is a creature of God and therefore inherently good. Hell does not have "fire"; it has infinite pain, as a result of separation from God. That we describe this state as fire is not strange, since burning pain is among the greatest pains we can feel and imagine. But as any spiritual reality, the image described by the words is beyond our everyday concepts.

Again this is an argument needed to be created to make God look better to us then He does, because He is God after all and He is supposed to be better than us. If a soldier in war has his legs blown off and his intestines on the ground he'd rather suffer than ask someone to put a bullet into him to end his misery?

Yes, it is an argument created to make God look better, and why should I be ashamed of it? He is God after all, and He is supposed to be better than us ;). It's the point of Job. Who are we to question God?

Now, as I said I think both viewpoints make sense from what the data (Scriptures) tell us. I also think this is a supremely unimportant question compared to the reality of Hell. Who cares whether it is finite or eternal? We don't want to go there. That's the point.

I don't think annihilation is merciful or good in any way. And I don't think killing wounded soldiers is Christian. There is a short distance between this and euthanasia and abortion. That Christians uniformly oppose euthanasia and abortion is evidence that they think that life -- existence -- is more important than the absence of pain. The same point is seen in the analysis of Hell.

The Scriptural data are unconclusive, as far as I can see. I'm lucky to be able to access a second way to truth, Sacred Tradition :D. Remember that Sacred Tradition never contradicts the Scriptures, and vice versa ;).

[Helcaraxë]

D'oh! I mixed one thread up with another and combined two threads into one! Now I'm really confused :mad: :confused: .

See, my parents kicked me off the computer, and I had just written a really long post so as not to lose it I copied it and saved it to word. But then I posted it in the wrong thread. It was supposed to be in the Christian God thread. Not only this, but I added some stuff that pertained to this thread in with the bundle. AGGGHHHHH!!!! :mad: :D

MB

[Eriol]

How do you come to the conclusion that Hell has no temporal continuity, only a "constant present?" I see no basis for this.

I would think this is the standard definition of "eternity". The Christian belief is not in a "Hell of infinite duration", but in an "eternal Hell". An eternal Hell stands outside time. It has no duration. It makes no sense to talk about temporal disproportion between crime and result if there is no duration there. A million years are felt as one moment, one moment is felt as a million years, and quite frankly what this all means is that we can't really understand how it will play out :). And it does not quite matter as a practical problem. The main point of Hell is that we don't want it. That's the point of all the words written about it. Whether it is finite or eternal makes no difference. What should be questioned is not the nature of Hell, but whether it is a reality. If it is, then we should avoid it, even if we ignore its nature.

But whether it has temporal continuity or not makes no difference. The punishment in Hell is continuous, even if it is static. The crime is not continuous (as well as not being static.) So the punishemnt still does not match the crime. Because the punishment has no beginning and no end, it is infinite (finity implies a defininable time with a beginning and an end), and thus cannot be the product of a finite action. And even if Heaven and Hell are only consequences and not punishments or gifts, the consequence must still fit the crime.

"Continuous" and "static" either are synonymous with "eternal", or don't fit into it. But there is a difference between an eternal and an infinite punishment, as you assert when you define finity as a matter of time. There is no time in Eternity. There is no infinity or finity either, there.

"A consequence of our nature?" Looking away is a crime (supposedly) and thus deserves a matching punishment. Even if it was simply inherent that looking away is Hell, that is still injustice, perhaps even more so because God gave us less choice because it is in our "nature"

No, looking away is not something that "deserves punishment"; looking away is its own punishment. We can't be happy while looking away from God. God can't make "looking away" be the same thing as "looking towards" without breaking the rules of logic or our own free will (in effect, forcing us to look towards Himself).

If the sinner does not want to look at God, God can't make him look at God without breaking his will. And if Hell is separation from God (as all theologians assert) then God can't help the sinner. It's not a punishment for sin; it is the nature of sin. You can't look away without avoiding to look towards.

Not really. Conceptualization is a seperate skill from logic. One can integrate a chaotic mass of perception into an ordered picture of reality subconsciously, and certainly without logic. I am getting an orderly picture in my mind of the key board upon which I am typing without logic; logic, remember, is deduction based on premises. I am making no deductions about the keyboard and am using no logic. Reason, perhaps, but not logic.


A matter of definition, perhaps, when you say "Reason, but not logic". But every step, from the identification of a keyboard to the movement of the fingers towards the keys to the typing of words -- every step -- agrees with the fundamental laws of logic (Identity, Non-contradiction, Excluded Middle...). We can't be non-logical. Even our attempts to be non-logical are logical ;).

As you see, I don't take logic to be "deduction based on premises", that to me is a particular application of logic -- a deductive syllogism. I take logic to be the axioms of thought (those fundamental laws I mentioned). Even when we write poetry we're following those laws.

[Eriol]

D'oh! I mixed one thread up with another and combined two threads into one! Now I'm really confused :mad: :confused: .

See, my parents kicked me off the computer, and I had just written a really long post so as not to lose it I copied it and saved it to word. But then I posted it in the wrong thread. It was supposed to be in the Christian God thread. Not only this, but I added some stuff that pertained to this thread in with the bundle. AGGGHHHHH!!!! :mad: :D

MB

I copied my questions about panentheism in the other thread to help with sorting it out :).

[Helcaraxë]

I would think this is the standard definition of "eternity". The Christian belief is not in a "Hell of infinite duration", but in an "eternal Hell". An eternal Hell stands outside time. It has no duration. It makes no sense to talk about temporal disproportion between crime and result if there is no duration there. A million years are felt as one moment, one moment is felt as a million years, and quite frankly what this all means is that we can't really understand how it will play out :). And it does not quite matter as a practical problem. The main point of Hell is that we don't want it. That's the point of all the words written about it. Whether it is finite or eternal makes no difference. What should be questioned is not the nature of Hell, but whether it is a reality. If it is, then we should avoid it, even if we ignore its nature.



"Continuous" and "static" either are synonymous with "eternal", or don't fit into it. But there is a difference between an eternal and an infinite punishment, as you assert when you define finity as a matter of time. There is no time in Eternity. There is no infinity or finity either, there.





But the very fact that it is "eternal" and thus can have no temporal meaning is precisely why the punishment can never suit the crime there. The punishment is "timeless", while the crime has a finite and definable duration. They are on two very seperate levels of existence and cannot correspond.

If looking away is its own punishement than it is a punishment instituted by God, because he created it in such a way.


MB

[Eriol]

Not really, since we are the ones looking away. Would you blame the height of the building for the death of the suicide? Or would you blame the suicide? God created the world in such a way as to allow us to have eternal bliss. If we refuse, is it His fault? I can't agree.

What does not correspond is not the nature of the punishment, but the perceived nature of the entity being punished. When we are alive, we think we are not eternal, and are thus fooled into sinning. When we die, we realize we are indeed eternal (either contingently or not, Thorin ;)) and we see that what we chose is eternal pain.

It's not as if this was not publicized. We can't blame God for our own obstinacy.

[Thorin]

Oh, but people in Hell do not sin ;). Sin will not exist in Hell.Sin does exist, whether it is practiced or not. Sin in it's very nature exists and therefore, God's new heaven and new earth are marred from day one.I think you put too much weight in the "fiery Hell" description. That is universally accepted by theologians as a metaphor;..But the point is not the degree of burning, or the place of the burning; the point of the "Hell metaphor" is -- you don't want to go there.Hold on here. The traditional view on hell which is believed by the vast majority of Christians who believe in 'hell' involves tormenting fire. You can't explain that away (as well as the obvious Bible texts) as "metaphoric" or that it is 'universally accepted by theologians. The biggest defenders of hell I've read make no bones that it is exactly what Revelation describes it as and 'metaphoric' does not come into their vocabulary.

Again, these are attempts to 'sanitize' hell to make God look better. The point is indeed the nature of hell, for the nature of hell determines the light the character of God is viewed at. To say 'the point of the 'hell metaphor is--you don't want to go there" is a cop out and basically saying that we don't understand it and God is God so...make sure you don't go there. To me that is not searching the scriptures for truth and allows one (or forces one) to accept any view of hell that is put forward no matter what it makes God look like.That we describe this state as fire is not strange, since burning pain is among the greatest pains we can feel and imagine. But as any spiritual reality, the image described by the words is beyond our everyday concepts.First you must work around the fact that fire will come down out of heaven and devour Satan and the wicked. Not to initially punish, but to cleanse the earth so it can be made new. You can't explain THAT metaphorically. Considering this is the 'hell fire' that has caused all this doctrine to begin with, you can't escape the fire's secondary function, that of punishment and that this fire actually exists. I find it highly unlikely that God was being so descriptive of the end of the age with fire only to have it mean nothing more than a 'metaphor' for separation from God.Yes, it is an argument created to make God look better, and why should I be ashamed of it? He is God after all, and He is supposed to be better than us ;). It's the point of Job. Who are we to question God?Circles, circles...we're going in circles. Exactly my point! We are digging God's pit for him and trying to make it good because God is supposed to look good. Why did we dig the pit to begin with? We automatically accept that eternal conscious torment (and that's what it is regardless of how you interpret it or label it as 'separation from God') and then try to make God look good from it.
Now, as I said I think both viewpoints make sense from what the data (Scriptures) tell us. I also think this is a supremely unimportant question compared to the reality of Hell. Who cares whether it is finite or eternal? We don't want to go there. That's the point.I don't believe they do, but even if they did, we must follow the path that agrees with the rest of scripture as far as the character of God is concerned. Whether one can take the scriptures and 'make it fit' still doesn't explain the contradictions elsewhere. As for the second point...see my argument at the beginning of the thread.I don't think annihilation is merciful or good in any way. And I don't think killing wounded soldiers is Christian. There is a short distance between this and euthanasia and abortion. That Christians uniformly oppose euthanasia and abortion is evidence that they think that life -- existence -- is more important than the absence of pain. The same point is seen in the analysis of Hell.We have a right to live because this world is all we have to live the life we do. Eternity is another story. The reason why people don't believe in euthanasia is because they don't feel someone has the right to play God, not because they enjoy seeing someone suffer. God is God and therefore those decisions are ultimately His. Nonetheless he has put in our moral framework the necessity for compassion and not to see suffering.

Not wanting to abort is different then how we treat a criminal. The innocent unborn have a right to experience a life they haven't lived yet. A criminal has lived his right and forfeits his right to live when he has taken one. You cannot compare these points with the final state of the wicked. No matter whether we pull the plug or allow someone to suffer through life and die of natural causes. In hell there is no end. A big moral difference.The Scriptural data are unconclusive, as far as I can see. I'm lucky to be able to access a second way to truth, Sacred Tradition :D. Remember that Sacred Tradition never contradicts the Scriptures, and vice versa ;).And here is where we ultimately disagree. There is ample enough scriptural data (never mind the cosmological, judicial, ethical and moral arguments) in favor of annihilation. It is far from 'unconclusive'. I cannot accept the whole 'sacred tradition' being so different from scripture in this regard. It doesn't hold water, my Catholic friend. Ultimately the facts are that people want to believe what they've been taught as true regardless of how it portrays God or is contradictory, rather than search for themselves and step back and see the whole picture of God's character. They'd rather take a few texts and arguments and base a whole theology on it no matter if the foundation is faulty to begin with.

[Eriol]

Hold on here. The traditional view on hell which is believed by the vast majority of Christians who believe in 'hell' involves tormenting fire. You can't explain that away (as well as the obvious Bible texts) as "metaphoric" or that it is 'universally accepted by theologians. The biggest defenders of hell I've read make no bones that it is exactly what Revelation describes it as and 'metaphoric' does not come into their vocabulary.

And yet, there is that statement of a saint that I quoted, and the old, old link that Malbeth used in the old, old Hell thread:

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0085a.html

which explains that the metaphorical use of "fire" and other bad symbols is not to make for a less worrisome message, but on the contrary, to emphasize the pains of Hell. It is not less painful than ordinary fire, it is much more painful than fire.

Again, these are attempts to 'sanitize' hell to make God look better. The point is indeed the nature of hell, for the nature of hell determines the light the character of God is viewed at. To say 'the point of the 'hell metaphor is--you don't want to go there" is a cop out and basically saying that we don't understand it and God is God so...make sure you don't go there.

No, as my prior comment says. It is not "sanitizing" Hell, it is establishing that it is the worst thing we can imagine -- in fact, worse than the worst thing we can imagine, just as Heaven is better than our wildest dreams.

I find it highly unlikely that God was being so descriptive of the end of the age with fire only to have it mean nothing more than a 'metaphor' for separation from God.

Why is the metaphorical interpretation equated with a "non-existent fire"?? Are we going to discuss THAT again? :) The fire will exist, but it will not be material fire, such as flames from combustion of organic compounds when mixed with oxygen and ignited at high temperatures :D. It will be another kind of fire, the fire that can't be extinguished, a non-material fire (which does NOT mean non-existent fire, as you know), and which will inflict much more pain than ordinary fire.

Why did we dig the pit to begin with? We automatically accept that eternal conscious torment (and that's what it is regardless of how you interpret it or label it as 'separation from God') and then try to make God look good from it.

Yes, that's what we do, and for a very good reason -- Jesus Christ and the NT talk of an eternal Hell, and we do not usually dispute with those guys :).

Some snippets:

Luke 23

28 But Jesus turning to them, said: Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not over me; but weep for yourselves and for your children.

29 For behold, the days shall come, wherein they will say: Blessed are the barren and the wombs that have not borne and the paps that have not given suck.

30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains: Fall upon us. And to the hills: Cover us.

31 For if in the green wood they do these things, what shall be done in the dry?

Do these guys, who want the mountains to fall upon them and the hills to cover them, sound like people who were annihilated to you?

;)

Apocalypse 6:

15 And the kings of the earth and the princes and tribunes and the rich and the strong and every bondman and every freeman hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of mountains:

16 And they say to the mountains and the rocks: Fall upon us and hide us from the face of him that sitteth upon the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb.

17 For the great day of their wrath is come. And who shall be able to stand?




Again the same theme. These guys are hoping for annihilation.

You also have to address why would God resurrect the wicked, just to annihilate them. Wouldn't it be better to leave them annihilated (since you don't believe in an immortal soul that survives death?)

[Helcaraxë]

Not really, since we are the ones looking away. Would you blame the height of the building for the death of the suicide? Or would you blame the suicide? God created the world in such a way as to allow us to have eternal bliss. If we refuse, is it His fault? I can't agree.

What does not correspond is not the nature of the punishment, but the perceived nature of the entity being punished. When we are alive, we think we are not eternal, and are thus fooled into sinning. When we die, we realize we are indeed eternal (either contingently or not, Thorin ;)) and we see that what we chose is eternal pain.

It's not as if this was not publicized. We can't blame God for our own obstinacy.


I did not say precisely that God was to blame. What I said was, the punishment must suit the crime. If the person jumps off the building, it is just and fair that the person would die. It is just for the person to be tormented for a crime that deserves death and nothing more?

And I am confused when you say that the nature of the punishment does not correspond, as it is precisely for this reason why the eternal hell is not a just concept, because of the nature of the punishment. Indeed we are eternal, but us ourselves being eternal does not necessitate all of our actions being eternal, as they are in a definable time. So the fact that we are eternal creatures really has nothing to do with the question of whether eternal punishment is just.

MB

[HLGStrider]

You are assuming that only those in hell have no conscience or are the most stubbornly evil person in the world where a second chance means nothing to them.
I think we'll be exactly something like that when we're totally seperated from God. All goodness and love flows from him. God is love. Can we truly love without Him? Even atheists touch God when they love, that's why love is so powerful. When we enter Hell, we can't take love with us, for it is part of God. None of our other good points will remain as well, and we will shrink into whatever humans are completely void of God and therefore completely void of goodness. We don't need hellfire. We'll make ourselves miserable by being evil, consumed by hate.

Perhaps God chooses eternal punishment because it is, in fact, more merciful than annihilation. I think that was Rich Mullin's idea of it, but I don't exactly consider him the world's greatest theologian. I just have never quite figured out his statement about feeling that hell was less than we deserved. I always assumed the only other option was annihilation, and that he felt hell was more merciful.

So the punishemnt still does not match the crime.
I think the idea of punishment fitting the crime is a human idea that we rarely put into action. The only case is the death penalty, really, where you kill and so are killed. Most cultures use alternates. No one is stolen from for stealing or raped for raping. Is it therefore injust to send them to prison for these actions?

The traditional view on hell which is believed by the vast majority of Christians who believe in 'hell' involves tormenting fire.
Actually, I don't think I ever have believed in a hellfire hell. The idea seemed too associated with that cartoon where Sylvester has used up eight of his lives. . .have you seen that one? Anyway, I remember reading somewhere it was more of Dante idea than a Christian philosophy one, but I've never read Dante.

So the fact that we are eternal creatures really has nothing to do with the question of whether eternal punishment is just.
But it may have something to do with it being inevitable.

[Thorin]

Which explains that the metaphorical use of "fire" and other bad symbols is not to make for a less worrisome message, but on the contrary, to emphasize the pains of Hell. It is not less painful than ordinary fire, it is much more painful than fire....No, as my prior comment says. It is not "sanitizing" Hell, it is establishing that it is the worst thing we can imagine -- in fact, worse than the worst thing we can imagine, just as Heaven is better than our wildest dreamsSo we want to make hell WORSE then what is already described in the Bible? WHY? What purpose? We cannot impose a vindictive vengeful attitude on God because theyare foreign to his nature. A hell of torment (worse then fire if that is possible) solely for punishment with no relief and no redemption is alien to our own limited moral conscience and yet we want to make God be this way? This is almost blasphemy! This blows any accusation against God's character Satan has made anyday. Yet this rhetoric is coming from God's followers??
Why is the metaphorical interpretation equated with a "non-existent fire"?? Are we going to discuss THAT again? :) The fire will exist, but it will not be material fire, such as flames from combustion of organic compounds when mixed with oxygen and ignited at high temperatures :D. It will be another kind of fire, the fire that can't be extinguished, a non-material fire (which does NOT mean non-existent fire, as you know), and which will inflict much more pain than ordinary fire. Nevermind that this is pure speculation with no biblical support (any support for that matter) but see the above comments.
Yes, that's what we do, and for a very good reason -- Jesus Christ and the NT talk of an eternal Hell, and we do not usually dispute with those guys :).ANd my point is that it is not Christ's words but man's faulty interpretation by not looking at the liguistic and contextual evidence properly. Don't blame this view on God.You also have to address why would God resurrect the wicked, just to annihilate them. Wouldn't it be better to leave them annihilated (since you don't believe in an immortal soul that survives death?)I'll address this at a later date.

[Helcaraxë]

I think the idea of punishment fitting the crime is a human idea that we rarely put into action. The only case is the death penalty, really, where you kill and so are killed. Most cultures use alternates. No one is stolen from for stealing or raped for raping. Is it therefore injust to send them to prison for these actions?

Whether we put it into action is irrelevant. The very defining feature of justice is that the punishment and the crime must correspond. I don't think that prison is even intended to be just and fair. It is only meant as seperation from society. So in truth, prison is not a just punishment, but it is effective (to an extent... ;) :D ).

But it may have something to do with it being inevitable.


I'm not sure what you mean by that.

MB

[Thorin]

Luke 23
28 But Jesus turning to them, said: Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not over me; but weep for yourselves and for your children.
29 For behold, the days shall come, wherein they will say: Blessed are the barren and the wombs that have not borne and the paps that have not given suck.
30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountains: Fall upon us. And to the hills: Cover us.
31 For if in the green wood they do these things, what shall be done in the dry?

Do these guys, who want the mountains to fall upon them and the hills to cover them, sound like people who were annihilated to you?I'm not sure where you are going with these quotes. This quote could very well be Jesus again reiterating his prophecy from Matthew 24 about the destruction of Jerusalem. Either way both your quotes seem to be describing the second coming of Christ where the mountains shake and the glory of the one they are crucifying at that point will be revealed. They will be destroyed for that matter anyway as they wish. This has nothing to do with the final judgement...Surely, Eriol you have better biblical support than this.
You also have to address why would God resurrect the wicked, just to annihilate them. Wouldn't it be better to leave them annihilated (since you don't believe in an immortal soul that survives death?)First of all, the Bible makes it very clear that this will indeed happen. We can't get around that fact. If we believe that the wicked go to a torment straight at death, this whole scenario makes no sense. The fact that it DOES occur proves my view correct. The wicked haven't been judged yet. They do not know at this point that they are (or why they are) condemned to fire. If this fire is eternal, don't you think that they would have the right to know why they are in it and not in heaven? At the second coming of Christ, the wicked will be destroyed by the brightness of His coming (see 2 Thesslonians 2:8). Sin cannot exist in the presence of God and their destruction is automatic. Not because of what Christ does, but because of who He is.

They are resurrected so everyone (saved, accusers, evil and holy ones and the wicked) can see where they went wrong and why they are not going to be saved. The executive judgement must be fair and all the world (and even Satan himself) will bow before God and say that His judgements were fair. Now God's character is finally vindicated by the accusations of Satan. There is no more doubt in anyone's mind about the fairness of God.
I think the idea of punishment fitting the crime is a human idea that we rarely put into action. The only case is the death penalty, really, where you kill and so are killed. Most cultures use alternates. No one is stolen from for stealing or raped for raping. Is it therefore injust to send them to prison for these actions?What is meant by the punishment fitting the crime (retributive justice) is not that the crime is matched tit for tat, but that the severity of the crime must be met with a similar severity as a punishment. We would not strap a vandal who sprayed graffitti on a building into the electric chair and pull the switch. Nor would we slap a multiple murderer on the wrist, fine him a $100 and let him go. There is no crime on this earth that warrants trillions of years of torment.

Actually, I don't think I ever have believed in a hellfire hell. The idea seemed too associated with that cartoon where Sylvester has used up eight of his lives. . .have you seen that one? Anyway, I remember reading somewhere it was more of Dante idea than a Christian philosophy one, but I've never read Dante.Sorry. Both the Bible and the majority of Christendom believe that fire is involved in the punishment of the wicked. The belief that the wicked go to a fiery hell at death where they are punished by demons is a Dante-ish believe and a gross misinterpretation of Luke 16. The belief that fire will be involved in torment is obvious. Why? Because the fires at the end of time are to totally burn up the earth so God can make a new one. The bible makes it clear that the wicked will be part of this fire. You cannot make that metaphorical. To do so would then be to make God's new creation invalid.

This is why I believe that the traditional view of hell does not jive with the overall salvation history of the Bible. (Paradise-->sin-->death-->Savior-->new life-->final eradication of sin-->restoration)

The biggest faux pas with the traditional view of hell is how the nature of man, especially the nature of the wicked is not understood. The wicked do not have immortal souls, nor do they have immortal bodies. It is therefore, illogical for them to somehow be tormented forever. The only option is for God to GIVE them eternal bodies (as the righteous will be given new bodies (see 1 Corinthians 15:51-55) which will somehow be able to keep fire from consuming them. Therefore God is directly involved in the punishment and suffering of sinners.

[Eriol]

First of all, the Bible makes it very clear that this will indeed happen.

And so we get to the irreducible conflict; that when you read the Bible, everything is "clear". That man does not have an immortal soul is clear, that the wicked will be resurrected is clear, that Hell is annihilation is clear, that the fires are material fires is clear...

Not that I disagree with any of these interpretations per se, but I am wary when I see the vast majority of the theologians throughout time disagreeing with you. (Apart from the matter of the resurrection at the end of times). I don't know enough of the Bible to make a case against it, and I don't feel comfortable in using the arguments of other people. But the dissent is enough to show me one thing: it is not clear. And when it is not clear, in a matter of interpretation, of a thing I'm not an expert at, I see no reason to doubt the majority.

Wooden, perhaps. But you have not pointed any contradiction in the traditional view, you only described an alternative view and think we should prefer it on ethical and aesthetic grounds (since the data are not clear). I don't agree with your evaluation of the two alternatives...

I still think that link (and Malbeth's old arguments in that thread) are more than enough to keep a "reasonable doubt" about the matter.

[HLGStrider]

The very defining feature of justice is that the punishment and the crime must correspondDefine correspond.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I mean that there may not be anyway around it. That an eternal creature once seperated from God will be in that state eternally and that there is nothing God can do about it without changing the entire laws of nature and ceasing to be God.

What is meant by the punishment fitting the crime (retributive justice) is not that the crime is matched tit for tat, but that the severity of the crime must be met with a similar severity as a punishment.
But MB wasn't talking about severity. He seems entirely focussed on length at the moment.

[Thorin]

And so we get to the irreducible conflict; that when you read the Bible, everything is "clear". That man does not have an immortal soul is clear, that the wicked will be resurrected is clear, that Hell is annihilation is clear, that the fires are material fires is clear...Actually what you quoted from me is the argument that the wicked dead will be resurrected, not on your above mentioned. This is fairly clear in scripture and as far as I know there hasn't been any major dispute or alternative interpretation that I know of in Christendom.Not that I disagree with any of these interpretations per se, but I am wary when I see the vast majority of the theologians throughout time disagreeing with you. (Apart from the matter of the resurrection at the end of times). I don't know enough of the Bible to make a case against it, and I don't feel comfortable in using the arguments of other people. But the dissent is enough to show me one thing: it is not clear. And when it is not clear, in a matter of interpretation, of a thing I'm not an expert at, I see no reason to doubt the majority.Eriol, you need to get out of this 'majority' mentality. You'd be surprised at how logic and reason is ignored and how even PhDs even accept the opinions of others with the same logic you've just espoused. Many people go to the Bible not only preconcieved ideas, but are looking to confirm what they think it already says rather than see what they can learn.

We'd probably be fairly surprised at the amount of theologians who are keeping silent about their views due to the controversy it would cause. Even in my own faith our church leaders would be mortified at some of the reasoning our own theologians are coming up with that contradict years of tradition and what was accepted as truth. Theologians such as John Stott, Clark Pinnock and Edward Fudge are speaking out on what they've found in the scriptures concerning hell and are being both ridiculed and respected in their field. They don't care because they feel they need to change their attitude about what they've grown up to believe to what the Bible really says. They are not responsible for a congregation or whether their church conference will cut their paycheck. They view the scripture from its basic form and work up and accept their findings because they are heurmenutically sound, not because the priest or pastor said so based on what they were taught.

This forces others to look at the scriptures closely and sometimes make some decisions that are uncomfortable. If Christians think that God has revealed all light or that the church has never made a mistake in interpretation or can't change its mind on theological issues, then we are all in a sorry state and are no better than a cult or other religions we view as 'close minded'.
I still think that link (and Malbeth's old arguments in that thread) are more than enough to keep a "reasonable doubt" about the matter.I would like you to explain some of the problems that are staring us in the face concerning your view then and debunk my 'alternative' views. Show me some support. Why can't you address the previous problems?

1) How do you explain the idea of immorality for the wicked? How does anything of substance burn forever? Where does God's role come into play here? What about the Bible statements that plainly state that the wicked do not have immortality or eternal life whatsoever? (Even if you believe the righteous have immortal souls)

2) How do you make Sheol, Hades, Gehenna and Tartaros morph together? How is this linguistically and theologically possible? You MUST do this to believe in the traditional Catholic/midieval belief of 'hell'.

3) How do you explain Hades as being the torment of the wicked forever when Hades is used 90% of the time to mean the grave or that there is no consciousness, and the 'tormenting' texts speak of Gehenna? How do you explain Revelation 20 and the fate of the wicked in light of the belief that the wicked are in 'hell' now suffering?

If more people would make serious efforts to explain this and many other inconsistencies not mentioned, rather than accept the traditional view with arguments such as "God doesn't send sinners to hell, they choose to go there" and "Well all we really know is that we don't want to go there", more might come to the conclusion myself and others have: that there are serious flaws biblically, linguistically, philosophically and theologically with the traditional view of hell that cannot be ignored if we want to properly convince the world of God's love.

Perhaps you should study this in depth in the scriptures yourself, Eriol. You are a very intelligent and logical person. Your philosophy is admirable and you are a worthy debater. I really think the scriptures need to be looked at closer and you seem to be too smart to take other's words for it (Yes, even your revered St. Augustine ;)) Perhaps you will come to the conclusion that you first believed. However, I challenge you to put your preconceived ideas on the shelf and study the scriptures in context.

[Helcaraxë]

Define correspond.


I mean that there may not be anyway around it. That an eternal creature once seperated from God will be in that state eternally and that there is nothing God can do about it without changing the entire laws of nature and ceasing to be God.


But MB wasn't talking about severity. He seems entirely focussed on length at the moment.

Length and severity are very similar in this case. A punishment in an eternal Hell is more "severe" than a punishmentin a temporary Hell.

But God created us this way (according to Christianity, of course). If "there is nothing he can do about it," then he should have thought of that before. And since he did, that would make him an unjust God.

Correspond:to be in conformity or agreement b : to compare closely : match -- usually used with to or with c : to be equivalent or parallel.

Merriam Webster Online Dictionary definiton, all rights reserved.

So in justice, the punishment and the crime must "be in agreement," they must be "equal or parallel," or must "match." Hell meets none of these criteria.

MB

[HLGStrider]

If "there is nothing he can do about it," then he should have thought of that before.
He did. And He probably realized that man could be immortally souled or mortally souled and chose immortally so he could bless the good and probably for other reasons I can't understand.

[Helcaraxë]

This still does not justify eternal punishment. Even if we are made in such a way that we are eternal, God made us this way and thus it would be a punishemnt dealt out by him for us to go to hell eternally.

MB

[Thorin]

This still does not justify eternal punishment. Even if we are made in such a way that we are eternal, God made us this way and thus it would be a punishemnt dealt out by him for us to go to hell eternally.

MBWhich is why when we study what the Bible has to say about the nature of man, we avoid all these confusing issues over the correlation between an immortal soul going to hell and eternity and God's responsibility in it.

The Bible teaches the mortality of man and the hope of the resurrection that will bring on immortality for the righteous. When we see that the wicked do not have immortal souls but will die because of their sin, we see that they cannot burn forever. God cannot be held responsible for creating man immortal and then allowing him to burn forever. The righteous, however, are given immortality so they will live forever. The Bible has made things so simple and man has come and made it so complicated.

[Eriol]

1) How do you explain the idea of immorality for the wicked? How does anything of substance burn forever? Where does God's role come into play here? What about the Bible statements that plainly state that the wicked do not have immortality or eternal life whatsoever? (Even if you believe the righteous have immortal souls)

a - I think you mean "immortality". I would suppose that the burden of proof would be with you, to show that the wicked are different from other humans and therefore not immortal. Why would the wicked last less than the other people? Aren't they just as humans?

b- God's role is simply following the laws he determined for Creation. It is the same role that He plays in physics.

c- Could you show those statements again? I always check both your statements and those of your opponents, and I always see it as a matter of interpretation. Nothing is obvious. So if you restate it, perhaps you can show me the obviousness (is this a word?) of it.

2) How do you make Sheol, Hades, Gehenna and Tartaros morph together? How is this linguistically and theologically possible? You MUST do this to believe in the traditional Catholic/midieval belief of 'hell'.

Why is it necessary?

There is a very good case (without checking it with theologians and Scripture, I'm thinking on my own here) for the effect that after Jesus went to the *********** (insert proper name :D), the nature of that place changed. You agree that Jesus did go into some "place", and that he met souls there, don't you? It's in the Athanasian creed (and implicit in the Nicene creed).

3) How do you explain Hades as being the torment of the wicked forever when Hades is used 90% of the time to mean the grave or that there is no consciousness, and the 'tormenting' texts speak of Gehenna? How do you explain Revelation 20 and the fate of the wicked in light of the belief that the wicked are in 'hell' now suffering?

For the first question, see above. Perhaps the nature of the place changed after Jesus' visit. All souls were there, "asleep", and then Jesus went there, saved the saved (an odd phrase), left the wicked, and the place became what we nowadays call "Hell".

For Revelation, what happens after the soul is re-joined with its body is quite different from what is happening with the soul before this happens. The wicked are now suffering in Hell; after the resurrection they will be suffering as humans, not as disembodied souls. Their bodies will be there. The same goes for the saved, by the way. They are in Heaven as disembodied souls, they will be in Heaven as human beings after the resurrection of the body.

Perhaps you should study this in depth in the scriptures yourself, Eriol.

That's certainly right :D ;). And this is why I ask you to repeat the appropriate quotations. I have no strong personal opinion on this matter, I am just being a nice sheep and following my Church :). I don't see any problem with that, by the way, most of our opinions are the opinions of others...

I'm quite open to "conversion", therefore, hehe. But I start from a very different place compared to you. Our concepts of interpretation and metaphor and myth are completely different. And I place a strong weight upon the matter of the timelessness of Eternity. Most of the problems that you see sprout from these matters.

But go ahead, take a shot ;). I don't want to "debate" this, I just wanted to show that the traditional doctrine is reasonable. That's how far as we may go in interpretation... only very rarely we reach verdicts of "impossible" (excluding obviously mischievous doctrines such as the notion that Jesus never claimed to be divine). In delicate matters of Biblical interpretation there are many ways to go, or so I feel with my (unfortunately) small knowledge of these matters.

As with the matter of Evolution in Genesis, I just wanted to show that my viewpoint is reasonable, not that it is right. And I think the same of the traditional doctrine of Hell; but since I'm not a "Hellologist" I don't have non-Biblical data that sway my opinion to one side of the matter...

[Eriol]

This still does not justify eternal punishment. Even if we are made in such a way that we are eternal, God made us this way and thus it would be a punishemnt dealt out by him for us to go to hell eternally.

MB

When God creates beings with free will, many things are no longer His responsibility. Murder and war are not God's responsibility. By the same reasoning, if one person chooses to go to Hell, this is not God's responsibility. I'm sure I have Thorin's support on this matter :D. Whether the punishment is eternal or finite, it is the fault of the sinner, not of God.

At least assuming the Christian God, and not a panentheistic one ;). Which leads me to a new question, that I will probably ask in the other thread, whether a panentheistic world view allows free will.

Nice name change :).

[Helcaraxë]

Thank you. :cool: MorgothsBane didn't quite sound Tolkieny enough. ;)

The crime is the fault of the sinner, not the punishment. The sinner (consciously or not) chose to be dealt the punishment. But God still institutes the punishment. Take the "hole" analogy that Thorin thought up. The Children may have known that the hole was there and may have chose to fall, but it is inevitably the digger's responsibility for digging the hole, and as the hole is a punishment, the digger, by creating the hole, is the "punisher."

~Helcaraxë

[Eriol]

Thank you. :cool: MorgothsBane didn't quite sound Tolkieny enough. ;)

The crime is the fault of the sinner, not the punishment. The sinner (consciously or not) chose to be dealt the punishment. But God still institutes the punishment. Take the "hole" analogy that Thorin thought up. The Children may have known that the hole was there and may have chose to fall, but it is inevitably the digger's responsibility for digging the hole, and as the hole is a punishment, the digger, by creating the hole, is the "punisher."

~Helcaraxë

It is the "(consciously or not)" clause that gives pause. If the digger consciously digs a hole and jumps into it, there is no one else to be blamed. We shouldn't blame God for creating earth and a shovel and gravity. That's how Hell is in Christian theology; we dug our own hole.

[Thorin]

I think you mean "immortality". I would suppose that the burden of proof would be with you, to show that the wicked are different from other humans and therefore not immortal. Why would the wicked last less than the other people? Aren't they just as humans?Because of their very nature. The wicked do not have eternal life, the righteous do. 1 Corinthians 15:51-55 says that the mortal shall put on immortality (yes, not 'immorality' : ) ) and the corruptible, incorruption. The wicked obviously are still in this state if the righteous are changed from it. This shows that the wicked do not have immortal souls and can't be suffering 'hell' at this moment. but don't take my word for it, let Christ do it. He makes it plain who has eternal life (immortality) and who does not:

John 3:16,17
Romans 6:23
John 6:40,44,47,54
John 11:24,26
John 17:2,3

God's role is simply following the laws he determined for Creation. It is the same role that He plays in physics.And which law of physics states that something material or immaterial (body or soul) can burn forever and ever?Why is it necessary? There is a very good case (without checking it with theologians and Scripture, I'm thinking on my own here) for the effect that after Jesus went to the *********** (insert proper name :D), the nature of that place changed. You agree that Jesus did go into some "place", and that he met souls there, don't you? It's in the Athanasian creed (and implicit in the Nicene creed).If is very necessary because these places are different places which serve different roles. Sheol/Hades is the abode of the dead for everybody. Christ himself went there (Acts 2:24-31 makes that plain and even alludes to the OT prophecy of David using, yep you guessed it...Sheol. You cannot use Sheol to mean Gehenna because Christ and Revelation make it plain that this hell is experienced at the end of time.

Perhaps the nature of the place changed after Jesus' visit. All souls were there, "asleep", and then Jesus went there, saved the saved (an odd phrase), left the wicked, and the place became what we nowadays call "Hell".See the above. Again a linguistic and theological impossibility.

For Revelation, what happens after the soul is re-joined with its body is quite different from what is happening with the soul before this happens. The wicked are now suffering in Hell; after the resurrection they will be suffering as humans, not as disembodied souls. Their bodies will be there. The same goes for the saved, by the way. They are in Heaven as disembodied souls, they will be in Heaven as human beings after the resurrection of the body.Oi! This has got to be the biggest face saving view put forth in Christianity. It is needed to remedy the contradictions in the scriptures to the immortal soul theology. First of all, even if we belived that the 'soul' of the wicked burned forever at the end of time, you cannot make that apply to the hell at death (Sheol and hades) for the OT makes it plain that ALL go down and all go down in body. If the wicked do not have immortalit