A reasonable concept of hell

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you want to get a more clear concept of what Hell is, go to YouTube and search for “near death experiences in hell.” Believe me, some of these videos are eye-opening and graphic. Some videos are even from children, agnostics, and atheists. Most of the people who have had such experiences come back and are changed forever.

Just as God and Satan are real, so are Heaven and Hell. I had a NDE in Heaven and made a video about it. If anyone is interested, here is the link:

youtube.com/watch?v=DV_IeRlIWVU

Beware, my friends, don’t put your eternity at risk just because you don’t want to believe!

This life is only a moment in time…eternity is really forever!
 
KmCarl56: I read a book by a local professor here at Northern Kentucky University, by the name of Howard Storm. who had an NDE, and it was absolutely terrifying. Mr. Storm was an admitted nasty character who was not only an atheist, but used his position and personal rage against any and all religion to persecute students and anyone else he could. After he was taken to hell, he prayed a fractured prayer, having never prayed before, consisting of old memories, the pledge of allegiance, etc. The point is he cried out with all his heart to Jesus, and his prayer was answered. Jesus came and rescued him and took him to heaven. Interesting as NDE’s go.
TonyRey: A lust for power, and many other things, can overcome all considerations, but why? It is because that person has been deceived into believing that this is in their best interest, and don’t get me wrong, I think they are responsible for their decision. But since it is God’s will that none should perish, and God’s will cannot be thwarted, I think that God will eventually overcome all lies and deceptions of the enemy and that individual will be presented with the unclouded truth, and choose what is truly in his best interest. However, I do believe that scripture teaches that if you reject Christ’s payment for your sins, while in this life, you yourself will not be released from hell until “the last farthing is paid,” in other words until YOU have paid the penalty for your sins. THAT is a good reason to avoid hell, and would not diminish our evangelical motivation in the least. I just can’t see a just God punishing someone FOREVER. God has written his law on our hearts and my heart, (and I bet yours too) tells me that when God says His mercy endures forever, he means just that. For the scriptual case for this, and scripture does teach this, check out some of the writings of Robin Parry. Regards, Rod.
 
My own concept of Hell is that it is God giving into the wishes of sinful men. After all, predestination is the idea that God wills us all to be saved. So Hell is the opposite of God getting what he wants. Please correct me if this understanding is wrong though.
 
Rodb said:
Code: 
 TonyRey: A lust for power, and many other things, can overcome all considerations, but why?  It is because that person has been deceived into believing that this is in their best interest, and don't get me wrong, I think they are responsible for their decision. But since it is God's will that none should perish, and God's will cannot be thwarted, I think that God will eventually overcome all lies and deceptions of the enemy and that individual will be presented with the unclouded truth, and choose what is truly in his best interest.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum, Rod. 🙂

I entirely agree with you. The lust for power is not utterly uncontrollable.
However, I do believe that scripture teaches that if you reject Christ’s payment for your sins, while in this life, you yourself will not be released from hell until “the last farthing is paid,” in other words until YOU have paid the penalty for your sins. THAT is a good reason to avoid hell, and would not diminish our evangelical motivation in the least. I just can’t see a just God punishing someone FOREVER. God has written his law on our hearts and my heart, (and I bet yours too) tells me that when God says His mercy endures forever, he means just that. For the scriptural case for this, and scripture does teach this, check out some of the writings of Robin Parry. Regards, Rod.
Click to expand...
God doesn’t punish anyone because He is infinitely loving and merciful. When we sin we punish ourselves because moral laws are truths about our personal development and fulfilment. Corruption is a cancer which destroys our integrity and brings us misery.
 
newenglandsun said:
My own concept of Hell is that it is God giving into the wishes of sinful men. After all, predestination is the idea that God wills us all to be saved. So Hell is the opposite of God getting what he wants. Please correct me if this understanding is wrong though.
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum! 🙂

Hell is not entirely the opposite of God getting what He wants because He wants all of us to be saved and He also wants us to be free to choose whether to love ourselves more than others.
 
Bahman said:
It is required since otherwise we cannot know the consequence of our action when it comes to divine justice.

If morality was taught to Adam and we are children of Adam then why there should be any need for further instruction.

Maybe they are not just aware of consequence of their actions, what I highlighted as ignorance. Could we really one day overcome to our ignorance when it comes to absolute knowledge?
Click to expand...
On what basis are you declaring that the consequences must be known in order to determine if an immoral act has occurred?
 
If you’ve yet to realize it, at least one of the universalists in this thread wouldn’t accept the doctrine of Hell if God himself came down from Heaven and preached it to him. He’d say “anathema sit” to Christ himself. Insert Bible passages about “vain ramblings and being blown about on winds of doctrine, according to the first principles of this prince of this world instead of according to Christ” and any other apropos proof-texts.

There reaches a point in any argument or debate where either there is then a winner, or there can not be. Think of trying to convince the American politicians Biden and Sebelius that they’re heretics and shouldn’t receive communion. Typical response? Get on the radio and attempt to justify abortion from the writings of the Angelic Doctor. Enough has been written in this very thread, backed by the Magisterium and directly quoted from Magisterial documents, on the subject of a true and eternal Hell, so as to (if I may mis-apply a verse out of context here, in a sense I think Paul would have approved of) make those who persist in error “without excuse” (Rom 1:30).

Six pages later, we have done all we can, except for this: to continue to pray.
 
Bahman said:
How do you define an action immoral?
Click to expand...
1750 The morality of human acts depends on:
  • the object chosen;
  • the end in view or the intention;
  • the circumstances of the action.
    The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.
    1751 The *object *chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.
    1752 In contrast to the object, the *intention *resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.
    1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39
    1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
    II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS
    1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
    The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. 1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
Click to expand...
Nowhere in this definition is the requirement for knowledge of the consequences.
 
davidv said:
Nowhere in this definition is the requirement for knowledge of the consequences.
Click to expand...
I have objection toward what is highlighted as blue.

The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good (what is true good). Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience (how we could trust that).

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39
 
Bahman said:
I have objection toward what is highlighted as blue.

The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good (what is true good). Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience (how we could trust that).

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39
Click to expand...
:confused:
 
As near as I can tell he agrees with our premises but refuses to let them lead to their logical conclusion because of a faulty doctrine of God and the relationship of Creator (ex nihilo) and created. Granted, that’s “as near as I can tell” both because that last post was rather unclear and I’m extrapolating in rather broad strokes (from various remarks indicating an incorrect and logically-inconsistent view of free will to one of their logical scenarios: either universal salvation or universal damnation, and then using the view of free will to attempt to reconstruct the kind of God a man would think gave and used “free will” in such a manner), to mix metaphors.

If I might state it more simply, it seems as if all of his error stems from this: he believes in the “TULIP” of Calvinism, in fact if not in name, but with the “L” (limited atonement) substituted for a “U” (unlimited atonement) while still retaining the “I” (irresistible or efficacious grace) and the “P” (final perseverance). At first I thought it was some form of process theology (God is evolving) or open theism (God can’t see future contingencies), both of which are the diametric opposites of the conclusion (unlimited atonement-efficacious grace) I have drawn, which led to the erroneous view of the Creator-creature relation and thus to an incorrect view of Hell. However, it still may be that he is coming from a philosophically-confused open theistic or process theology paradigm.
 
Khalid said:
If you’ve yet to realize it, at least one of the universalists in this thread wouldn’t accept the doctrine of Hell if God himself came down from Heaven and preached it to him…
Click to expand...
Genuine free will implies that a person is capable of rejecting God forever.
 
If someone doesn’t want to be with God, then how is giving them what they want a punishment?
Are the bodies that are reunited with our souls at the General Judgement physically tormented after that reunion? If they are, then wouldn’t that require that the existence of that place of torment be actively sustained by God, as are all other physical places? Since it’s unlikely that the damned would freely choose to physically torment themselves for all eternity, wouldn’t it also follow that the physical torment inflicted on the damned be through either the active or passive will of God?
 
tonyrey said:
Genuine free will implies that a person is capable of rejecting God forever.
Click to expand...
Whether or not we have free will is beside the point: Hell exists and is eternal. I was not speaking of myself. If we do have free will in a genuine sense (I’m a compatibilist at best, if you consider compatibilist will to be “free”, you judge), aka Libertarian will, it demands not only that we are capable of rejecting God forever but that we are capable of not rejecting God forever under our own power (if we were endued with libertarian will), and that God can not compel us, but only persuade us (process theology, open theism). The latter conclusions are more dangerous than the former.

Libertarian will with an omnipotent and eternal God is compatible will. Even compatible will strongly implies the existence of Hell, but does not demand it (which, as I stated, leads to a form of Calvinist universalism, where God will drag every man to Heaven “kicking and screaming”; determinist will would be that God will drag everyone to Heaven, while at the same time making them forget they don’t want to be there).

The fact that an argument from free will (or any such natural argument) is not and can not be a proof of Heaven or Hell does not mean that such an argument does not exist. An argument from free will is at best inductive, leading to a probability of certainty, such as in Pascal’s wager (dealing with how to get to Heaven or Hell assuming that we have libertarian will), but not forming an absoluteness of certainty. For this we require revelation; but if we reject revelation a priori, it does no.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top