The Doctrine of Hell.

JimiTime

OK, once in a while this topic pops up, so I thought it pop it up again. I've never been satisfied with the explainations (Which are so diverse) of 'Hell'. Simply put, my belief has always been that all the metephors like gahenna and the lake of fire etc point towards as John plainly put it, 'The second death of which there is no resurrection'.

Is the doctrine of eternal concious punishment based on 'tradition' or is it something that the Jews and/or the Early Christians believed?
The doctrine has been watered down it seems over the years, into a sort of ambiguous 'Its seperation from God'. While others still hold to a literal fire etc.

Firstly, the strongest evidence IMO for hell being nothing of the sort of thing we hear about in traditional Christian circles, is Johns quite concise explaination of the lake of fire being 'The second death of which there is no resurrection'. Secondly, the fact that things like 'death' and 'hades' being thrown into the lake of fire signals destruction.

Secondly, Gahenna, the word that Christ used for describing what is commonly referred to as 'hell', was a place where all the rubbish etc of the city was burnt. It was a fire that never went out, and signified destruction. When fire is used symbollically in the bible, as far as I can see, it was two things. 1) Destruction and 2) Tempering. The doctrine of hell is not in line with either of these things. Jesus talks about the wheat and the chaff, what happens to the chaff? It is burnt up. Destroyed!

Thirdly, the confusion about 'eternal' punishment. As far as I can see, the punishment is what is eternal, i.e. As John put it, there is no coming back. It is an 'eternal' punishment. No more chance of salvation etc.

Fourthly(Is that a word?). It makes no sense. Now, just because I can't understand why God would do it, does not mean its not true. Far be it for me to think that if I don't understand God it musn't be so. However, not only does it make no sense, but there is a biblical basis as to why the common doctrine of hell is false, as described above.

It seems that things like 'It means seperation from God' etc, are not only a bit ambiguous, not facing up to all the destruction metephors, but also tacked on to scripture. Some eisegesis that aims to fit into an immovable doctrine. Rather than dealing with the doctrine itself, eisegesis is being carried out to make things fit into it.

I'd love to get your insights, and also ask why you would be so adament that hell is what tradition has taught us?

Soul Winner

If you use a common denominator approach and balance out all the descriptions and allegories for it, it still adds up to being a God awful existence. So for me it is enough to know that I do not want to go there and as such don't really wanna know what it is actually like.

JimiTime

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you use a common denominator approach and balance out all the descriptions and allegories for it, it still adds up to being a God awful existence. So for me it is enough to know that I do not want to go there and as such don't really wanna know what it is actually like.

I understand that, whatever it means, its not what we want. I'm asking you however, to think about what has become a generally accepted doctrine, and offer some insight of your own. If you have some.

Soul Winner

JimiTime wrote: »

I understand that, whatever it means, its not what we want. I'm asking you however, to think about what has become a generally accepted doctrine, and offer some insight of your own. If you have some.

I can only go with the descriptions that Jesus Himself gave in the New Testament. Those descriptions are bad enough for me to want to avoid the kip. As the LORD of Glory I think we are on better ground hearkening to His words on the subject than anyone else's. So as far as I'm concerned it is an unquenchable fire eternal that is in everyone's interest to avoid.

It was created for Satan and his angels not for mankind but there be many of our fallen race that cannot get there fast enough. They're welcome to it. Only a moron would actually want to go there or end up there regardless of whether they believe in the place or not. And there are three reasons for that. 1) They don't actually believe that it is a real place i.e they don't believe the Word of God Himself. or 2) they actually think they are going to be having a good time there (parties every day and wot not) as apposed to the boring existence of heaven or 3) they think the choice is to either rule in hell or serve in heaven. They don't (or won't) realize that they will be food for eternal death in hell. Only when they get there will they know for sure and by then it will be too late for them.

The scriptural view is that saints will rule and reign with Christ forever in eternal bliss and light with no more pain and suffering or death. How can anyone prefer the other place over that? It boggles my mind, but then that's morons for you.

PDN

I would strongly recommend a book called 'Erasing Hell' by Francis Chan. Chan, like most of us I suspect, would love for there to be no hell. But he examines carefully the linguistic evidence in the Bible and comes to the conclusion that, for first century Jews, Gehenna was understood to refer to everlasting punishment. Jesus, who was very willing to challenge traditonal Jewish ideas, gives us no hint at all that He taught anything different on this issue.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

I would strongly recommend a book called 'Erasing Hell' by Francis Chan.

If you get the time, I don't suppose you could summarise the arguement he has?

Chan, like most of us I suspect, would love for there to be no hell.

I can honestly say, that whether hell is the place of eternal fiery concious punishment, or whether it is the second death of which there is no resurrection is not an issue for me. If the eternal concious punishment is shown to be true, then i have absolutely no issue whatsoever with it. god knows best, and I'm happy with what he decides. The issue, is that i don't see a good case for the common doctrine we have of it.

But he examines carefully the linguistic evidence in the Bible and comes to the conclusion that, for first century Jews, Gehenna was understood to refer to everlasting punishment.

Could you expand on this? Why would a Jew look upon Gahenna as an everlasting punishment? Also, that term 'everlasting' punishment can be a punishment that lasts forever could it not? I.E. theres no coming back from it, no more chances. A death from which there is no resurrection.

Jesus, who was very willing to challenge traditonal Jewish ideas, gives us no hint at all that He taught anything different on this issue.

If it can be shown that Gahenna meant a concious punishment to the Jews, then we can take the step top Jesus using it in that context.

I appreciate the book recommendation, but if theres anyway you could fatten up the insight you've referenced above here in the thread, I'd appreciate it. If you haven't the time, i understand.

Fanny Cradock

See here for a 10 minute video from Chan.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

OK, once in a while this topic pops up, so I thought it pop it up again. I've never been satisfied with the explanations (Which are so diverse) of 'Hell'. Simply put, my belief has always been that all the metaphors like gehenna and the lake of fire etc point towards as John plainly put it, 'The second death of which there is no resurrection'.

I'd be inclined not to add a sense of unconsciousness to the word death since we know that the word can mean the kind of death into which all of us were born into (spiritually dead but conscious for all that) or the physical death we will all experience after which we are still conscious.

That there be no return from the second death says nothing about whether it is a conscious existence or not.

Is the doctrine of eternal concious punishment based on 'tradition' or is it something that the Jews and/or the Early Christians believed?
The doctrine has been watered down it seems over the years, into a sort of ambiguous 'Its seperation from God'. While others still hold to a literal fire etc.

I am inclined to think it involves conscious existence and that the experience of it - which we cannot imagine - is best put in words we can begin to comprehend. Fire.

Firstly, the strongest evidence IMO for hell being nothing of the sort of thing we hear about in traditional Christian circles, is Johns quite concise explaination of the lake of fire being 'The second death of which there is no resurrection'. Secondly, the fact that things like 'death' and 'hades' being thrown into the lake of fire signals destruction.

It signals to me, the sense of God's waste bin. Where everything that is deemed useless is placed. I wouldn't be inclined to take a too literal sense from the metaphor since something can be destroyed by fire without being consumed (think twin towers).

Then there are expressions of an environment ongoing when it is said of the lost in Hell that "their worm never dies" and that "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever". Whilst I don't think there will be literal worms in Hell, there is a sense of perpetuity. How can their worm (a gnawing sense of their own unholiness which eats away at them*) never die if they cease to exist? How can the smoke of the fire of gehenna rise forever and ever if there isn't a constant source of fuel to be burnt?

Thirdly, the confusion about 'eternal' punishment. As far as I can see, the punishment is what is eternal, i.e. As John put it, there is no coming back. It is an 'eternal' punishment. No more chance of salvation etc.

To me eternal punishment merely takes place in the eternal realm (as opposed to the temporal one).

Fourthly(Is that a word?). It makes no sense. Now, just because I can't understand why God would do it, does not mean its not true. Far be it for me to think that if I don't understand God it musn't be so. However, not only does it make no sense, but there is a biblical basis as to why the common doctrine of hell is false, as described above.

It makes sense to me. I would see this life as a God appointed stage on which each and every player gets to make their own choice about how it is they want to exist.

There are only two options: with God or without God. The without option means without love, light, joy, peace, purpose, contentment, relationship, etc. - for all those things find their source in God and it is our being made in his image and likeness which fuels those things in us.

Which isn't to say that without those things there can be no existence - this life proves you can exist without those things being present (it just isn't very pleasant and the chances are that without any of them and you'll take your own life as soon as the things you take and do to try to fill the void with, run out of steam).

In my view, those without God have made as much a choice for that direction as have the ones who choose to be with God. For God to annihilate them would be to disrespect the choice they have made. And seeing the trouble he went to do provide it I'm not inclined to countenance that.


Hell: conscious eternal existence without God and his attributes. His wrath can be perfectly expressed by his mere absence.

gimmebroadband

"Here on earth they are changed by the first resurrection, in which they are enlightened and converted, thus passing from death to life, sinfulness to holiness, unbelief to faith, and evil actions to holy life. For this reason the second death has no power over them. It is of such men that the Book of Revelation says: Happy the man who shares in the first resurrection; over such as he the second death has no power. Elsewhere the same book says: He who overcomes shall not be harmed by the second death. As the first resurrection consists of the conversion of the heart, the second death consists of unending torment.
Let everyone, therefore, who does not wish to be condemned to the endless punishment of the second death now hasten to share in the first resurrection. For if any during this life are changed out of fear of God and pass from an evil life to a good one, they pass from death to life and later they shall be transformed from a shameful state to a glorious one."

Fulgentius of Ruspe, bishop (468-533)

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

See here for a 10 minute video from Chan.

Working at the moment, (or skiving ) So can't access here. Will do when I get the chance though. Cheers.

alex73

To me Hell has always seemed to me to be the state you will live for eternity, If you live your life in denial of God and in denial of fellow man occupied satisfying your own existence they you move you soul further away from God. Heaven is like the sun while hell would be somewhere beyond pluto, Cold and far away with the sun in the distance a reminder of what could happen.

Its just my own view, not the Orthodox view. There are many book and theological discussions on hell, If hell exists then why would God create man knowing that some of them would go there? at the centre of the question is mans free will, we can choose God or Evil.

georgieporgy

Memories of Sister Lucia of Fatima

“A sea of fire”
The secret is composed of three different parts... The first is the vision of hell! Our Lady showed us a large sea of fire which seemed to be beneath the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls, who were like embers, transparent and black or bronze-colored, with human forms that floated about in the conflagration, borne by the flames which issued from it with clouds of smoke, falling on all sides as sparks fall in great conflagrations, without weight or equilibrium, among shrieks and groans of sorrow and despair which horrified us and caused us to quake with fear. The devils were distinguished by horrible and loathsome forms of animals, frightful and unknown, but transparent and black

To read more ( and it's catholic I'm afraid) click here

http://www.michaeljournal.org/fatima.htm

Monty.

JimiTime wrote: »

the common doctrine we have for it

What Docterine ? Which Church ?

PDN

Monty. wrote: »

What Docterine ? Which Church ?

Historic Christianity in general (including Roman Catholicism, Orthodox and the vast majority of Protestant churches) has held a common doctrine for nearly 2000 years that hell is a place of conscious everlasting punishment. In contrast to this there has been a small minority that has taught other beliefs.

Soul Winner

Jesus must have been a bit confused if this guy is right:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtIREJVPfQY

When will people learn that popular views of ultimate reality are not necessarily true views of ultimate reality. If this guy is right then Jesus was wrong, or what Jesus was supposed to have said in the New Testament on the subject was added by men in order to control the populace. But we all know that Christianity did not become the dominant world view (state religion if you like) until the time of Constantine which was a few hundred years after the new Testament as we more or less have it today was widely accepted by the early church elders who were not interested in controlling the minds of the populace.

In fact Christianity was an underground religion at that time, and the earliest manuscripts that were accepted by the early church have Jesus speaking about hell as we read it today, so this priest has confused what he would like to be true with what Jesus actually said or is reported to have said on the subject by the early recorders of His Words and sayings. So we either go with what this priest and others like are saying or with the written Word which has been accepted as Holy Scripture long before so called "christians" tried to control the minds of the masses by using scripture for their evil ends and not God's good ends.

So yes, maybe the subject of hell has been utilized by unscrupulous religious church leaders to manipulate and intimidate the masses into order but that does not mean that they made it up or that it not real place.

Slav

PDN wrote: »

Historic Christianity in general (including Roman Catholicism, Orthodox and the vast majority of Protestant churches) has held a common doctrine for nearly 2000 years that hell is a place of conscious everlasting punishment.

To make things a little bit more complicated Orthodox are not in this list I think. Not a place and not exactly punishment; some even speculate not everlasting.

Manach

Perhaps the souls of the deceased are still in a holding pattern in purgatory, until the judgement that has been ordained has been served or the prayers for the dead have been heard.

Fanny Cradock

Soul Winner wrote: »

Jesus must have been a bit confused if this guy is right

That's actually the former Bishop of Newark, John Shelby Spong. It's a sign of a great malaise in the Episcopal Church that he was ever posted to the position of Bishop.

Tomtata

I personally don't believe in any Hell or life after death but I do believe (Having been forced feed Catholicism since early childhood) having a belief in Hell is a luxury.

For all the descriptions of hell, I can see so many worst off living hells in the world today.

Monty.

Tomtata wrote: »

I personally don't believe in any Hell or life after death but I do believe (Having been forced feed Catholicism since early childhood) having a belief in Hell is a luxury.

Why ?

Tomtata

Monty. wrote: »

Why ?

From attending and watching 20+debates on the subject of Religion and Christianity. (Something that seems to be lacking when it comes to religious belief systems in general)

And of course,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning

Monty.

Tomtata wrote: »

From attending and watching 20+debates on the subject of Religion and Christianity. (Something that seems to be lacking when it comes to religious belief systems in general)

And of course,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning

I've watched more than 20 and studied reasoning, logic, and philosophy.
So have most people on this forum.

That does not answer the question. Why is having a belief in Hell a luxury ?

Soul Winner

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's actually the former Bishop of Newark, John Shelby Spong. It's a sign of a great malaise in the Episcopal Church that he was ever posted to the position of Bishop.

Well the good news is he's retired.

antiskeptic

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well the good news is he's retired.

The good news is that salvation is available for bishop Sprong through Jesus Christ. One hopes he avails of it before he retires if he hasn't already.

Soul Winner

antiskeptic wrote: »

The good news is that salvation is available for bishop Sprong through Jesus Christ. One hopes he avails of it before he retires if he hasn't already.

He obviously feels that the scriptures should not be viewed as authoritative with regards to the subject of hell so I fail to see what he does regard as authoritative except what he feels should be true as it measures up to what he internally feels it should be. He seems to suffer from a curious form of gnosticism/stoicism as far as I can tell. Yes salvation is open to him but the problem would appear that He's not open to it. "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." That includes the Words about hell as well I would assume. If Jesus' words about hell are not to be taken seriously then why should we take this bishop's words seriously?

UB Dude

There are only two options; Eternal Life or Eternal Extinction. The 'punishment' is 'eternal', there is no come back from the 'second death'. If a person refuses to do the will of the Heavenly Father then they cannot expect to exist for long in a Universe that is ultimately dominated by God's will. You either flow with the trend of the universe and journey toward the Eternal Infinite, or endeavour to move counter to this trend and into Finitude and Finality of being. God offers us eternal life, but real free-will carries with it the freedom to reject that stupendous gift. Further, the God of Love could not countenance the endless torture of even his erring children, extinction is a right that the Father will not deny his children. The immature individuals of previous ages lived according to the mores of the previous dispensation, the Fear/Worship Urge - wherein we learn that 'the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom'. The present dispensation, and please remember we haven't quite let go of the old mores just yet, is to be governed - ultimately - by the Love/Worship Urge, wherein we learn that the Love for God is the end of Wisdom. Presently we live in a time of transition between the old wisdom of fear and the new wisdom of love; from this battle we've inherited 'outmoded' social systems that think 'fear' is the way to motivate people, it isn't - at least not for a society that aspires to the level of enlightenment to which we aspire. Indeed, the terrors we've dreamed up out of our ignorace beggar belief! Fear was a great motivator but love is better. For some folks Hell 'works', helps 'em get to where they need to be. For others it's an obstacle. Paul said, 'when I was a child, I thought and acted as a child, but as I grew I learned to put away childish things and think and act as a man' - or something to that effect. As children this fear model helped activate a higher moral consciousness, but as adults we must learn to put away childish things and learn to live in the higher morality born of sincere love and ultimately learn to do the will of the Father. Hell is an instructive concept; an existence without hope or love; one cursed with regret without hope of redemption. Hell is something many of us pass through, especially when we look upon the cross and find the one we love above all others, the chiefest among 10,000, and find him beaten, tortured and murdered. Hell and purgatory are powerful concepts that can communicate life changing truths to us, if we have the 'ears to hear'! As i read recently, we can learn more from our doctrines/myths/symbols when we take them seriously than if we take them to be merely 'literal'. So, let me finish this with a parable; the Kin-dom of Heaven is like someone on a great journey, it doesn't matter so much where they are as that they are going in the right direction and are daily making progress.

Namaste
B.

UB Dude

One more thing, this is class!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055075741&page=11

Morbert

Hell, as a place of eternal torment, is incompatible with Christianity. The closest reconciliation I have seen is in the notion that Hell's doors are locked by those who dwell there, but even this doesn't make a huge amount of sense.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

Hell, as a place of eternal torment, is incompatible with Christianity. The closest reconciliation I have seen is in the notion that Hell's doors are locked by those who dwell there, but even this doesn't make a huge amount of sense.

Could you expand on this? While I think there are many views on what hell is (everything from annihilationism to universalism), I don't see why the notion that "the doors of hell are locked from the inside" is incompatible with Christianity.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Could you expand on this? While I think there are many views on what hell is (everything from annihilationism to universalism), I don't see why the notion that "the doors of hell are locked from the inside" is incompatible with Christianity.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who die as agnostics, wondering if there is a God and if they will get to meet Him, but who just weren't convinced enough to accept Jesus as the son of God. Do these people suddenly decide to lock themselves in Hell with all the anti-theists, and subject themselves to conscious, everlasting punishment? Is Hell reserved for people other than those who rebel? Is it reserved for those who were simply unsure as well? Or is it possible for someone to accept Jesus after death?

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of people who die as agnostics, wondering if there is a God and if they will get to meet Him, but who just weren't convinced enough to accept Jesus as the son of God. Do these people suddenly decide to lock themselves in Hell with all the anti-theists, and subject themselves to conscious, everlasting punishment? Is Hell reserved for people other than those who rebel? Is it reserved for those who were simply unsure as well? Or is it possible for someone to accept Jesus after death?

Well, somebody like the much maligned Rob Bell, or the his more sophisticated compatriot, Brian McLaren, would suggest that such a thing is possible. My understanding - which could be well off - is that the emergent movement, of which both Bell and McLaren are leading figures, largely shares this soteriological view. It's not new theology by an mean. However, books like Love Wins have introduced it to a new audience uncomfortable with the idea of a . In doing so the topic of hell has been brought back to the table.

Inclusivism, exclusivism, annihilationism and so on. I'm unsure what to believe when it comes to the nature of hell. But in a sense it doesn't matter what I believe because it's either a reality or it's a fiction. Yet even with this question mark left hanging, if I have faith in God - that is to say the God of love, justice and judgement (all of which play a huge role in both OT and NT) - then I think it is logical to assume this same God will be loving and fair in all matters of judgement.

Perhaps I can be taken to task on my following stream of thought, but I see no reason to assume that we will remain the same after death in terms of our spiritual essence as we are now. Indeed, central to Christianity is the idea of becoming a new creation in Christ. Out with the old, in with the new! If people are separated from the source of goodness then, again, I think it is logical to assume that they may well transformed into beings consumed by badness.

Additionally, I don't think that Lewis was suggesting that "locking the doors from the inside" to endure torture is a concious choice. Rather, it is a continuation of rebellion. Perhaps I misunderstand him here.

One must also question if the notion of everlasting punishment is entirely accurate. If one accepts the idea that hell is populated by people devoid of goodness then I think the punishment talked about is inherent to a life that knows only badness. This is different to God continually and actively punishing those in hell.

Fanny Cradock

BTW, if anyone is interested in an overview of the perspectives on hell then this PDF (haven't read it myself) might be useful.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of people who die as agnostics, wondering if there is a God and if they will get to meet Him, but who just weren't convinced enough to accept Jesus as the son of God. Do these people suddenly decide to lock themselves in Hell with all the anti-theists, and subject themselves to conscious, everlasting punishment? Is Hell reserved for people other than those who rebel? Is it reserved for those who were simply unsure as well? Or is it possible for someone to accept Jesus after death?

As I understand it, the idea is that all people are born rebels by default. At root is a dependence on self / independence from life under Gods reign. Whether they are vocal in this (per the anti-theists) or whether they say they just don't know (but in the meantime live as self-dependently as do the anti-theists) isn't the relevant issue. The relevant issue is a life lived where the person themselves are king.

It seems to me that the 'salvation transaction' occurs prior to the point where people "accept Jesus as the son of God". That salvation transaction occurs between God and the person and as a result of their being saved, their eyes are opened to Christ as their saviour and accept him they shall. That acceptence is a consequence of their having been saved - not a cause of their being saved .. in other words.

If a person never will hear of Christ (due to the time they live or the location they lived in) then no matter - once the salvation transaction has occurred between them and God they are saved. It's a notion that happens to deal with the "what happens the sheepherder up the side of a mountain" objection.

Summing up. If these agnostics weren't convinced that Jesus is the son of God then the reason they remained unconvinced is that their eyes weren't opened by God in order that they would see that Jesus was who he said he was. And the reason their eyes weren't opened lies in the fact that the salvation transaction never occurred between them and God. And the reason for that lies in their insistance on rebellion unto death.

himnextdoor

alex73 wrote: »

To me Hell has always seemed to me to be the state you will live for eternity, If you live your life in denial of God and in denial of fellow man occupied satisfying your own existence they you move you soul further away from God. Heaven is like the sun while hell would be somewhere beyond pluto, Cold and far away with the sun in the distance a reminder of what could happen.

Its just my own view, not the Orthodox view. There are many book and theological discussions on hell, If hell exists then why would God create man knowing that some of them would go there? at the centre of the question is mans free will, we can choose God or Evil.

Not some men, ALL men.

Let's not forget that God was fully aware that NOONE could keep the law of God and therefore ALL men were bound for hell. (That is as per the 'first covenant'.)

Good plan, huh?

And now it's 'only Christians' (by definition) who can escape hell. (Sinners cannot be Christians.)

Obviously, God only requires a few souls for His 'New Creation'.

I wonder, is 'hell' a punishment or is it just existence apart from religion?

I don't think that I would miss God if He wasn't here.

Soul Winner

himnextdoor wrote: »

Not some men, ALL men.

Let's not forget that God was fully aware that NOONE could keep the law of God and therefore ALL men were bound for hell. (That is as per the 'first covenant'.)

Good plan, huh?

And now it's 'only Christians' those who accept the escape route from the previous impossible path (by definition) who can escape hell. (Sinners folks who don't accept the door that is now open to them cannot be Christians.)

There fixed

himnextdoor wrote: »

Obviously, God only requires a few souls for His 'New Creation'.

"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim 2:3

himnextdoor wrote: »

I wonder, is 'hell' a punishment or is it just existence apart from religion?

You'll find out when (if) you get there I suppose. The fact that you treat this subject lightly speaks volumes but like I said in others post on this subject, if hell exists at all then it hardly matters whether we believe in it or not. So enjoy your bliss while you have it I suppose.

Fanny Cradock

himnextdoor wrote: »

And now it's 'only Christians' (by definition) who can escape hell. (Sinners cannot be Christians.)

Obviously, God only requires a few souls for His 'New Creation'.

Why do you bother posting here, himnextdoor? Is it that you are so enamoured with your own words?

Christians are sinners. God by definition doesn't require anything.

Time and time again you have deliberately misrepresented and ignored the views of Christians to give you a platform to base your silly attacks upon. What you do is soap-box, constantly pontificate and tell us how it is by means of rhetorical questions that bear little relation to the posts you quote. I've just about had my fill of your refusal to engage in honest discussion.

We'll be back in DR if you don't play nice.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

I'm sure there are plenty of people who die as agnostics, wondering if there is a God and if they will get to meet Him, but who just weren't convinced enough to accept Jesus as the son of God. Do these people suddenly decide to lock themselves in Hell with all the anti-theists, and subject themselves to conscious, everlasting punishment? Is Hell reserved for people other than those who rebel? Is it reserved for those who were simply unsure as well? Or is it possible for someone to accept Jesus after death?

Hell is reserved for sinners. Nobody goes there for being anti-theist, atheist or agnostic. They go there for lying, stealing, being selfish etc.

It may well be that, upon death, we become aware of our true natures and, instead of glossing over our sins as minor blemishes, we realise just how much we have offended God and hurt others. In that case, it would be reasonable that people would accept that eternal separation from God is indeed what they deserve and would choose to remain in that condition.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

It would be reasonable that people would accept that eternal separation from God is indeed what they deserve and would choose to remain in that condition.

Honour amongst thieves .. as it were.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, somebody like the much maligned Rob Bell, or the his more sophisticated compatriot, Brian McLaren, would suggest that such a thing is possible. My understanding - which could be well off - is that the emergent movement, of which both Bell and McLaren are leading figures, largely shares this soteriological view. It's not new theology by an mean. However, books like Love Wins have introduced it to a new audience uncomfortable with the idea of a . In doing so the topic of hell has been brought back to the table.

Inclusivism, exclusivism, annihilationism and so on. I'm unsure what to believe when it comes to the nature of hell. But in a sense it doesn't matter what I believe because it's either a reality or it's a fiction. Yet even with this question mark left hanging, if I have faith in God - that is to say the God of love, justice and judgement (all of which play a huge role in both OT and NT) - then I think it is logical to assume this same God will be loving and fair in all matters of judgement.

Perhaps I can be taken to task on my following stream of thought, but I see no reason to assume that we will remain the same after death in terms of our spiritual essence as we are now. Indeed, central to Christianity is the idea of becoming a new creation in Christ. Out with the old, in with the new! If people are separated from the source of goodness then, again, I think it is logical to assume that they may well transformed into beings consumed by badness.

Additionally, I don't think that Lewis was suggesting that "locking the doors from the inside" to endure torture is a concious choice. Rather, it is a continuation of rebellion. Perhaps I misunderstand him here.

One must also question if the notion of everlasting punishment is entirely accurate. If one accepts the idea that hell is populated by people devoid of goodness then I think the punishment talked about is inherent to a life that knows only badness. This is different to God continually and actively punishing those in hell.

I would say rebellion is specific to the sin of pride. I have heard it said on this forum that people who have never heard of Christianity may still be able to get into heaven. I don't know how mainstream this is, but it would imply death is not an automatic moment of separation from God, where all non-Christian sinners are transformed into rebels. I am wondering what the difference is between someone who has not heard the message, and someone who did not trust the messenger.

antiskeptic wrote:

As I understand it, the idea is that all people are born rebels by default. At root is a dependence on self / independence from life under Gods reign. Whether they are vocal in this (per the anti-theists) or whether they say they just don't know (but in the meantime live as self-dependently as do the anti-theists) isn't the relevant issue. The relevant issue is a life lived where the person themselves are king.

It seems to me that the 'salvation transaction' occurs prior to the point where people "accept Jesus as the son of God". That salvation transaction occurs between God and the person and as a result of their being saved, their eyes are opened to Christ as their saviour and accept him they shall. That acceptence is a consequence of their having been saved - not a cause of their being saved .. in other words.

If a person never will hear of Christ (due to the time they live or the location they lived in) then no matter - once the salvation transaction has occurred between them and God they are saved. It's a notion that happens to deal with the "what happens the sheepherder up the side of a mountain" objection.

Summing up. If these agnostics weren't convinced that Jesus is the son of God then the reason they remained unconvinced is that their eyes weren't opened by God in order that they would see that Jesus was who he said he was. And the reason their eyes weren't opened lies in the fact that the salvation transaction never occurred between them and God. And the reason for that lies in their insistence on rebellion unto death.

This is the crux of the matter I think. A core belief of Christianity is the existence of free will. If I rebel, it is because I actively choose to rebel. The above explanation implies some unconscious insistence on rebellion I am unaware of, which does not gel with free will. Perhaps someone is agnostic because, instead of being exposed to NT Wright or C.S. Lewis, they were exposed to a passionless Fr. Ted. Would these people be allowed the possibility of a transaction?

PDN wrote:

Hell is reserved for sinners. Nobody goes there for being anti-theist, atheist or agnostic. They go there for lying, stealing, being selfish etc.

It may well be that, upon death, we become aware of our true natures and, instead of glossing over our sins as minor blemishes, we realise just how much we have offended God and hurt others. In that case, it would be reasonable that people would accept that eternal separation from God is indeed what they deserve and would choose to remain in that condition.

It may be what we deserve, but my objection is regarding consistency with Christianity. Realising just how offensive our sins are is, I assume, a core step in salvation. Hurting others deeply offends God. What I find inconsistent is the idea that God, who is Love, who abhors hurt and torture, who would give up His son to grant us the gift of salvation, would not work to save those in Hell even if it is what they deserve, just as He has worked to save those on earth. The maintenance of a permanent place of torture for those who want to be with God, by a God who abhors torture, is what I have difficulty understanding.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

Honour amongst thieves .. as it were.

I think PDN is describing a different scenario to what you have presented. Correct me if I am wrong, but PDN is not claiming we would choose to remain in Hell due to an honour among thieves, but rather because we would be too ashamed to accept an offer of salvation that we clearly don't deserve. In the latter case, I would wonder why people in Hell would choose not to accept the gift, but why people on earth, equally deserving of hell, would accept the gift.

IamtheWalrus

Would you people not wish there was no heaven and hell? Because if there isn't, when you die, there's nothing. But if there is, then it is possible you could go to hell. What if God is a very strict person. What if you lived your life as a good person but one time told a lie. Imagine if God hates lies and sends you to hell for that one indiscretion. Would it not be preferable to have neither heaven or hell, just to be on the safe side?

NB. Not trolling. Just something that struck me recently.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

I would say rebellion is specific to the sin of pride. I have heard it said on this forum that people who have never heard of Christianity may still be able to get into heaven. I don't know how mainstream this is, but it would imply death is not an automatic moment of separation from God, where all non-Christian sinners are transformed into rebels.

I think judgement and not death is the moment of separation - final separation. (Of course, people like Rob Bell would disagree, which is fair enough.) Christianity and Judaism both believe that there will be a final judgement at the end of time. And both believe that this judgement will be meted out from a just God.

Morbert wrote: »

I am wondering what the difference is between someone who has not heard the message, and someone who did not trust the messenger.

Good question.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

I think PDN is describing a different scenario to what you have presented. Correct me if I am wrong, but PDN is not claiming we would choose to remain in Hell due to an honour among thieves, but rather because we would be too ashamed to accept an offer of salvation that we clearly don't deserve. In the latter case, I would wonder why people in Hell would choose not to accept the gift, but why people on earth, equally deserving of hell, would accept the gift.

I should have added a question mark since I would more query PDN than concur. Perhaps PDN will clarify.

As I see it, the denial that enables our own root-awfulness to be suppressed out of view can either be defeated by God's effort to save us on this side of the grave (mercy). Or will wrenched from our grasp, permitting even the condemned to (reluctantly but inescapably) agree that God is just in his condemnation of them, on the other side of the grave (wrath).

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote:

This is the crux of the matter I think. A core belief of Christianity is the existence of free will. If I rebel, it is because I actively choose to rebel. The above explanation implies some unconscious insistence on rebellion I am unaware of, which does not gel with free will.

The decision to save doesn't appear to revolve around the fact of our wrongdoing - all are infected with a desire to sin and no one can resist it for long. Rather, it is our free willed response to our condition which seems to lie at the root of salvation.

Shame, guilt and dishonour attach to evil doing per 'natural' law. Whatever about blaming our co-conspirator (satan/fallen world or, if you are naturalistically inclined, society/parenting/education/genes) we recognize our own culpability. We recognise "I know this to be wrong but because of my own selfish desire, I'm ignoring that to get what I want".

Our free-willed activity is directed first at suppressing the restraint that tells us that we ought not to do what it is we plan to do. And then, after we have done the deed, we freely suppress the guilt and shame that comes with it. We make excuses for what we do, we apply loose standards to ourselves, we forgive ourselves our sins, we promise to do better next time. All suppression.

You can visualize each act of suppression as one of those yellow barrels permanently attached to the back of Jaws. It takes effort (an act of willpower) to hold the truth contained in each of those barrels down below the conscious surface. This barrel says "I am was appallingly selfish then", that barrel say that "my mind is capable of such depraved desire sometimes", the next "you managed to avoid anyone catching your being stingy in that night out". We suppress so frequently (a hundred times a day) it might seem that it happens unconsciously. There is indeed a hardening of heart that makes our evil doing unconscious to a degree after a while. But like the layers peeled back on an onion, there is always the next stage down to be embarked upon, a fresh, deeper level of sin requiring a conscious suppression of "I ought not do this".


Either the will will hold out and maintain the suppression until the bitter end - in which case death will cause all of a persons barrels to be brought to the surface where the contents will be, as it were, revealed at Judgement. Or the will will be brought to it's knees in surrender in time. With no will to maintain suppression - all those barrels pop back up to the surface where the full, awful truth about one's own utter depravity brings them to their knees in despair. Salvation follows.

Why the one holds out to the end when the other didn't? It's a matter of the (free) will

Perhaps someone is agnostic because, instead of being exposed to NT Wright or C.S. Lewis, they were exposed to a passionless Fr. Ted. Would these people be allowed the possibility of a transaction?

Whilst God might well utilize mankind in his work, a mans salvation isn't in the hands of other men, it's in his own hands.

As I said earlier, I'm of the view that salvation transaction can occur between God and man without Christ/God/Bible/Sin/Heaven ever have being mentioned. The transaction appears to involve mans response to the knowledge of good and evil installed in him (as outlined above) not whether he's responded to an altar call or done an alpha course.

Interestingly (and somewhat self-defeatingly for him) Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion cites a piece of anthropological research which indicates that mans morality at root is the same all over the world - even in primitive tribes with no exposure to the West. That is to say: when you strip back the influences brought about by society, education, class, religion, etc., men display a common knowledge of good and evil.

Dawkins utilizes this in his argument for a common ancestor. So do I

Monty.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Honour amongst thieves .. as it were.

Similar to the third of God's angels that choose to rebel against God and follow Satan.
I think CS Lewis was right when he said the gates of hell are locked from the inside.

PDN

IamtheWalrus wrote: »

Would you people not wish there was no heaven and hell? Because if there isn't, when you die, there's nothing. But if there is, then it is possible you could go to hell. What if God is a very strict person. What if you lived your life as a good person but one time told a lie. Imagine if God hates lies and sends you to hell for that one indiscretion. Would it not be preferable to have neither heaven or hell, just to be on the safe side?

NB. Not trolling. Just something that struck me recently.

I would prefer that I looked like Tom Cruise and had the brains of Albert Einstein. However, we are not engaging in wishful thinking but rather discussing what we believe to be true.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why do you bother posting here, himnextdoor? Is it that you are so enamoured with your own words?

Christians are sinners. God by definition doesn't require anything.

Time and time again you have deliberately misrepresented and ignored the views of Christians to give you a platform to base your silly attacks upon. What you do is soap-box, constantly pontificate and tell us how it is by means of rhetorical questions that bear little relation to the posts you quote. I've just about had my fill of your refusal to engage in honest discussion.

We'll be back in DR if you don't play nice.

Codswallop!!!

himnextdoor

Soul Winner wrote: »

There fixed



"For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim 2:3



You'll find out when (if) you get there I suppose. The fact that you treat this subject lightly speaks volumes but like I said in others post on this subject, if hell exists at all then it hardly matters whether we believe in it or not. So enjoy your bliss while you have it I suppose.

So all the Jews that existed BC are in hell?

Fix your own post.

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

BTW, if anyone is interested in an overview of the perspectives on hell then this PDF (haven't read it myself) might be useful.

Faith in action?

himnextdoor

antiskeptic wrote: »

As I understand it, the idea is that all people are born rebels by default. At root is a dependence on self / independence from life under Gods reign. Whether they are vocal in this (per the anti-theists) or whether they say they just don't know (but in the meantime live as self-dependently as do the anti-theists) isn't the relevant issue. The relevant issue is a life lived where the person themselves are king.

It seems to me that the 'salvation transaction' occurs prior to the point where people "accept Jesus as the son of God". That salvation transaction occurs between God and the person and as a result of their being saved, their eyes are opened to Christ as their saviour and accept him they shall. That acceptence is a consequence of their having been saved - not a cause of their being saved .. in other words.

If a person never will hear of Christ (due to the time they live or the location they lived in) then no matter - once the salvation transaction has occurred between them and God they are saved. It's a notion that happens to deal with the "what happens the sheepherder up the side of a mountain" objection.

Summing up. If these agnostics weren't convinced that Jesus is the son of God then the reason they remained unconvinced is that their eyes weren't opened by God in order that they would see that Jesus was who he said he was. And the reason their eyes weren't opened lies in the fact that the salvation transaction never occurred between them and God. And the reason for that lies in their insistance on rebellion unto death.

See, I have a problem with assuming babies are evil!!!

I believe it is evil to assume babies are evil.

Babies don't bomb Muslims, money-grabbing adults do.

That is why religion should be opposed: because they like to fight with 'babies'.

It is the lowest form of cowardice.

Hell is here, made by the adults of today.

God must be so proud. :rolleyes:

himnextdoor

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why do you bother posting here, himnextdoor? Is it that you are so enamoured with your own words?

Christians are sinners. God by definition doesn't require anything.

Time and time again you have deliberately misrepresented and ignored the views of Christians to give you a platform to base your silly attacks upon. What you do is soap-box, constantly pontificate and tell us how it is by means of rhetorical questions that bear little relation to the posts you quote. I've just about had my fill of your refusal to engage in honest discussion.

We'll be back in DR if you don't play nice.

Where did I 'soap-box'? I haven't even got started!