Explain the justice of hell.

[SonCatcher]

Is not all history moderated? Where might one find an impartial account of history without necessarily reading as many texts as possible and drawing one’s own conclusion?

There are at least 2 sides to every story. Piecing the facts together afterward is a grueling process, especially with far-removed events. Recognizing that is perhaps the first step in any attempt to develop an unbiased understanding of history.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Not a problem.

Of course the bible may be taken to mean whatever one so wishes. Any literary may be taken to mean whatever the reader wishes. That does mean the author intended their words to be construed as such. Irrespective of how accurate and selective the author is in choosing their words, it is more than possible the reader may interpret what they say in a whole variety of ways.

May one choose from any of a number of interpretations surrounding the meaning of an Agatha Christie novel? How about the autobiography of Anne Morrow Lindbergh? How about an textbook on advanced mathematics? If not, might it not be fair to consider that only such works that are left open to interpretation are actually capable of being so disabused?

Further, is it not certain that of the many interpretations of such open-ended works, all save a handful are erroneous? Further still, is it not conceivable that of the few correct interpretations only one is the actual conscious intent of the original author? If only a single intent might be expected, is not any effort that might fall short of delivering the desired message necessarily to be viewed as a failed (or flawed) one?

What perfect deity might be expected to communicate his most important words to mankind through a failed (or flawed) effort?

To illustrate, I am a Law student. Legislators are very particular when composing legislation. Their words can still be interpreted in a whole variety of ways. My coursework is on the Theft Act, and I have just read a case were one of the Lords devotes six pages to the meaning of the word ‘appropriation’ in the Theft Act and Parliament’s intention in including the word ‘appropriates’ in the Theft Act. I have read a text book that devotes almost an entire chapter to the meaning of the word ‘appropriates’ as stated in s1 of the Theft Act.

This is a fair example of the difficulties with pinning down a precise legal framework that must be proof against those whose special training allows them to exploit any vagaries for personal gain.

What is not clear, however, is how this might excuse a perfect God’s large volume of random and unnecessary words written through 2nd party mediums with often contradictory messages?

Consider the above example of your legal text. Would it be immensely improved were it laid out in a random series of parables, allegories, poems, lists, and outright mythological fabrications? Would the legal framework of any court be able to support its many contradictions and still be able to provide a fair source of justice for all?

More precisely, would a legal textbook that took to invention as often as fact be considered a reliable reference when one was desperate to understand the facts proper? Would an encyclopedia holding a large portion of false entries be one’s best source for knowledge of reality?

Are we to understand that the Bible may be considered God’s best possible effort? If not, why did he not provide one? If so, how is it that mankind might come up with such vastly superior means of conveying information surely?

What amazes me is in relation to the bible, people seem to think God should have made things absolutely clear in regard to one word or sentence in the bible. Yes, God should have used his almighty power to ensure authors and translators wrote absolutely accurately. However, he would have to use his power to ensure everyone who read it to construe the words and context accurately.

How much power might one imagine it to require in order to keep a text true to its original meaning? Does the world not publish Voltaire in numerous languages? Dante? Shakespeare? How often might one’s translation of such works manage to be entirely at odds with the meaning implicit in the original?

Not much room for speculative and imaginative thought their, and no room for self expression. Such a Revelation would be pretty dull. I’ve no problem with speculation and imagination. I think it’s a essential element of being human. However, one needs to recognize their personal speculation and imagination and not teach it as ‘God says’ and if you don’t agree with me you’re not only wrong but going to hell.

Yet is this not precisely the point? What purpose serves a text that is purported to serve as a guide between how one might win one’s soul and how one might lose it if one is able to imbue the text with whatever meaning one wishes? For what purpose might a perfect author wish to make his work on arguably the single most important point to mankind so startlingly sub-par?

And are there any to argue that it is not sub-par? Who might honestly claim that the Bible was the most riveting and inspiring of reads that they could scarcely put it down? That once through its chapter upon chapter of valuable information it became a near obsession to share it with those necessary few who still had not had the opportunity to plumb its fantastic depths?

Instead, how many among us may lay claim to having read it through in its entirety without occasionally nodding off?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Does it say in scripture homosexuals should be killed?

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
(Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

However, in spite of such a warning as the above, are there not numerous apologists who claim the Bible actually condones homosexuality in much the same way they have successfully argued against St. Pauls misogynistic and pro-slavery tendencies?

One can grow close to whatever image of God one chooses. The image we choose is not necessarily who God is.

Might one then plainly ask what is the purpose of so choosing?

If God was not concerned about how we interpret his meanings, he would have become Incarnate.

Is this for certain? Consider: God did not become incarnate for thousands of years. Could it truly be said that he was particularly concerned with how he was perceived during the time that he allowed such misunderstanding to flourish unchecked?

If God might remain content with being misrepresented for so many thousands of years, how might one be certain he is not equally content to remain so for another few thousand?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Yes, if that is what is need for people to understand. I used an illustration of this in another post to Searcher. God responds according to need. We cannot assume everyone thinks the way we do, or need the same thing from God we do.

He did. His explanations weren’t given to everyone. Why? They didn’t ask - perhaps because they didn’t want to know.

Given to those who want it. Not given to those who don’t. Those who want an abundance will have, those who don’t will not grow spiritually and therefore, their potential for spiritual growth, which is equivalent to those who desire to know more, is stunted and they loose the potential because they don’t want it to grow. Jesus spoke in parables not to confuse but to make people think, and as a taster. Anyone who wanted more knowledge could have it. Anyone who didn’t was not given it. Is it not fair to say that you and I engage in dialogue to a greater extent with people who are interested in what we have to say than those who don’t?

This is possible. A fair point.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I engaged many an atheist in dialogue who states they want God to spell everything out for them. Are you saying if God spelled everything out you would believe? I don’t think so. If someone felt they needed to spell everything out for me, I would feel pretty insulted and suggest they talk to a 4 year old who needs everything spelled out for them because they don’t have the cognitive ability to reason as an adult, whereas I do. Do you think God is at fault because He asks you to work things out for yourself? Is it not fair to say you be miffed with God if he denied you opportunity to make your own decisions? If God did not denied you that, you wouldn’t be an atheist. You’d believe in him whether you liked it or not.

In my uncertain position I am able only to consider what is provided by those who feel more certain in such things. Where from comes their certainty is to me of chief interest as it seemingly defies explanation. Many of those who appear so certain admittedly have never read the Bible complete. Many have never explored the texts of other religions and many have not weighed the matters fairly from a historical perspective. Seemingly their certainty often lies not in superior knowledge, but in reduced scope of same.

Why might it be conceived that God might desire that those who seek to understand him more, often find to understand him less?

Were I, but gifted with the simple insight of a 4-year old I would gladly take whatever bold truths were laid upon me with clear reasoning and be satisfied. To ever doubt is a tiring enterprise indeed.

Are you saying from your point of view God is conspiring against our inability to understand Him?

It would certainly appear to be the case.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I would say God does not offer us life in heaven because he needs our company. Do we as humans need children? Do we need a pet dog or cat? We could not only survive but have a fulfilling life without either. Of course I don’t mean to suggest that we are just God’s pets. To explain - I once had a conversation with a workmate in which she suggested people have children for selfish reasons. Primarily, they have children to fill their own needs and desires and it’s not about the child’s needs. Perhaps she had a point. In contemporary society children have almost become a fashion accessory. We have celebrities who adopt children and it is a questionable practice. Why don’t they use their money to help a village, give lots of children a good life an leave them with their family? So, there is an argument that having or adopting a child is more about making ourselves feel good than it is about the child. God is not in the business of making himself feel good about himself. God desires to share a life with us. This is why he created us in his own image - so we may share that life. It is not so God can feel fulfilled, but so we can. Love is not fulfilled when kept to oneself. It is fulfilled when shared with another. However, if your going to ask me why God created humans, and wanted them to share his life in the first place, I have absolutely no idea.

I know why I had children. I wanted kids. Why? Who knows? However, I would reject the theory it was simply because I wanted to preserve my genes, and I didn’t have them simply because I needed the company. I may have had them because I needed someone to show me how to work the remote and programme the DVD.

I can recall having a conversation with a computer technician on the phone one night. My IT skills weren’t great at the time and he asked me if there was anyone else in the house who knew more about computers than I did. I said, ‘Yes, my son’s here.’ He asked if I could put him on the phone and I said I could. The problem was he couldn’t read because he was only 5.

A good story .

To clarify my earlier statement, certainly I hold no belief that God requires company. Equally suspect, however, is the concept that he had as his aim the specific wish for mankind to have company.

Alternately, is it fair to consider that God had no purpose in creating life? If no purpose, however, what was the impetus?

Specifically then, if God had a purpose, what was it?

 

[minkymurph]

In my uncertain position I am able only to consider what is provided by those who feel more certain in such things.

I take your point. All I can say is one needs to come to know God for oneself.

Why might it be conceived that God might desire that those who seek to understand him more, often find to understand him less?

Someone once said to me, ‘the more you learn the more you realize you don’t know.’

Were I, but gifted with the simple insight of a 4-year old I would gladly take whatever bold truths were laid upon me with clear reasoning and be satisfied. To ever doubt is a tiring enterprise indeed.

It’s true there are people who take things at face value. However, we can’t all be Professors. There’s a charity here that run houses for people with learning disabilities. Others live there a companions for them, so they can have their independence yet still have someone to care for them. They are the happiest people I’ve ever met, and sometimes I envy the fact they are perfectly at peace with themselves. They don’t care if they don’t have a flat stomach, a tan, and perfect nails. They don’t care they are not clever and more to the point, they don’t care how clever anyone is, how good looking they are and how much money they have. There’s no doubt the more intelligent we become, the more we sacrifice that ‘inner child’ that is willing to accept people at face value. People with learning difficulties need those who have greater intelligence to guide them. Perhaps there’s something we can learn from them.

It would certainly appear to be the case.

I would say many have felt the same way at times. Human relationships are hard work, confusing and difficult. A relationship with God is not easier.

 

[minkymurph]

A good story .

To clarify my earlier statement, certainly I hold no belief that God requires company. Equally suspect, however, is the concept that he had as his aim the specific wish for mankind to have company.

Alternately, is it fair to consider that God had no purpose in creating life? If no purpose, however, what was the impetus?

Specifically then, if God had a purpose, what was it?

If I ever find out I’ll tell you.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

You seem to have this image of God that’s all about getting everything he says right, and following his directives to the letter and the only way we can avoid hell is if we follow his directives to the letter which he has intentionally made obscure. Why is that? Does a parent not know when they have a child they will not always follow their directives to the letter? Could it not be said expecting a child to follow your directives to the letter is unrealistic and unreasonable - in that that expectation is too high?

Perhaps if one were to view God as a loving parent and we his children one might fairly relax in this regard and settle for one’s best efforts.

Is it not God’s own words, however, that seemingly refute this image? Is he not stridently strict in his demands and desiring of perfection in all things? Consider the story of the flood.

Assuming such a fantastically impossible tale were merely intended to serve as a story lesson and not to be strictly believed, did it provide an example of a loving father’s response to a wayward world? What loving father might make elaborate such elaborate plans to rescue his pets while abandoning his children to drown?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

We can go down endless trails. I’m not good at that. Just being transparant

So here’s what I absolutely know. Having been conceived we are body and soul. We are already immortal by virtue of being conceived. The body is mortal, the soul is immortal. It never sleeps it won’t die. Once created by God at our conception, It has memory intellect and will forever. No matter how one might want to change that plan or argue against it, they can’t. One can argue all they want, it’s not going to change. They will live forever. The question is, where? The beatitudes and consequences God put in place. We can’t change any of that either. Both are realities, both are states, and will last forever. It makes sense then, to be in the state/place of beatitudes and not consequences. So we need to choose well. This life is the time of testing. No matter how good things are in this life, it’s merely a snack. No matter how bad things are in this life, they’ll be over soon. For the one who thinks this life is all there is, no God, no heaven, no hell, they’ll have a huge realization.coming. Those who seek heaven will be inclined to want the things of God. They’re already seeking the correct choices, no matter how difficult those choices seem to be. Therefore, our prized possession, is our soul. We have to protect it at all cost. Fortunately, to keep this all within the topic of the thread, not even the gates of hell which truly exists, will prevail against the Catholic Church.

If one is a pure secularist then I would say do a cost benefit analysis. Everybody dies. It’s 1 for 1. If God, heaven and hell don’t exist and it’s lights out for all eternity, then no harm no foul. But if God exists, and all one has heard about God, heaven and hell are true, and it’s an eternity in hell, seems to me, under no circumstances, would one want to even consider going against such odds.

Thank you for a fair and succinct summery.

Were there only two choices it would appear a simple matter, but what of other religions? Is not the teaching of Islam that the Christians have diluted the faith and that the torch has been passed, as it were, to those more worthy? Given God’s apparent favor towards the spread of that religion, would it not seem advisable to effect an early conversion in order to remain in God’s favor?

How extreme might one seek to go in order to ensure the salvation of their precious soul?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

There are at least 2 sides to every story. Piecing the facts together afterward is a grueling process, especially with far-removed events. Recognizing that is perhaps the first step in any attempt to develop an unbiased understanding of history.

Agreed.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I take your point. All I can say is one needs to come to know God for oneself.

Someone once said to me, ‘the more you learn the more you realize you don’t know.’

It is the very truth.

It’s true there are people who take things at face value. However, we can’t all be Professors. There’s a charity here that run houses for people with learning disabilities. Others live there a companions for them, so they can have their independence yet still have someone to care for them. They are the happiest people I’ve ever met, and sometimes I envy the fact they are perfectly at peace with themselves. They don’t care if they don’t have a flat stomach, a tan, and perfect nails. They don’t care they are not clever and more to the point, they don’t care how clever anyone is, how good looking they are and how much money they have. There’s no doubt the more intelligent we become, the more we sacrifice that ‘inner child’ that is willing to accept people at face value. People with learning difficulties need those who have greater intelligence to guide them. Perhaps there’s something we can learn from them.

I appreciate your wealth of storified information: your repertoire appears endless.

I would say many have felt the same way at times. Human relationships are hard work, confusing and difficult. A relationship with God is not easier.

Quite so: a relationship with God must needs be more difficult for at the least one might be able to look about and see that humans actually exist.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

If I ever find out I’ll tell you.

Consider this one to be holding his breath in anticipation.

 

[minkymurph]

Perhaps if one were to view God as a loving parent and we his children one might fairly relax in this regard and settle for one’s best efforts.

That’s pretty much how I would see God.

Is it not God’s own words, however, that seemingly refute this image? Is he not stridently strict in his demands and desiring of perfection in all things?

Is he? Can it be considered just to desire perfection from what is imperfect? If we were capable of being perfect, would Christ ever had needed to come?

Consider the story of the flood.

Assuming such a fantastically impossible tale were merely intended to serve as a story lesson and not to be strictly believed, did it provide an example of a loving father’s response to a wayward world? What loving father might make elaborate such elaborate plans to rescue his pets while abandoning his children to drown?

What is the point of the story of the flood? What was the authors intention? The key to discerning the authors intention is in the structure of the text. It’s constructed in a very specific way that was common in Ancient Near East writings. There’s a name for it which eludes me at the moment. It’s set out in a particular pattern - this happened, that happened until it comes to the authors point of the whole story. Then it works backwards - kind of like repeating everything that has been said in the build up to the point of the story but in reverse. I’m explaining this very badly, but you can see the construction in the text. The point of the story is, ‘God remembered Noah.’ Yes, the story does mention divine retribution - a common belief in the Ancient Near East. If it was divine retribution, drowning all the animals who had done nothing to deserve it doesn’t make sense. However, neither does drowning all the people if it was divine retribution if they were later to be forgiven and enter heaven. Now some would say none of those drowned at the flood would enter heaven. However, we don’t know that. So why drown people if they are later going to be saved and if not, could God not just have painlessly put them out of existence? Strange story indeed.

The tale is possible because there is evidence of flooding. It may have been a consequence of ice caps melting at the end of the Ice Age, it may have been a localized flood. Ancient civilizations - Babylonians, Eskimos to mention but a view - have myth narratives or legends of a flood. My take on it is the flood was something that was going to happen anyway, and Noah and his family were saved because God had communicated to Noah how to survive the flood. That means of survival was open to all because the account tells us how Noah preached about the impending flood. Most didn’t believe him and chose not to heed his warning. The point of the story is Noah believed in God, was saved because he followed what God said, and God remembered him. That’s the significance of the story. Not how many animals Noah took into the Ark or what it looked like.

 

[minkymurph]

I appreciate your wealth of storified information: your repertoire appears endless.

Told you I’d kissed the Blarney Stone.

Quite so: a relationship with God must needs be more difficult for at the least one might be able to look about and see that humans actually exist.

Indeed.

 

[minkymurph]

Consider this one to be holding his breath in anticipation.

 

[Called_by_Name]

Apologies for commitments having so delayed my response to you!

Did not Jesus’ own disciples require proof of his divinity? They lived with him and yet even they stood unconvinced after his death. Why might one alive today feel any differently?

After Jesus’ death AND RESURRECTION, His apostles/disciples stood quite convinced–to the extent that untold numbers of them willingly martyred themselves for faith in Him. Their powerful, passionate witness has, throughout the ages, fostered belief in those not privy to their firsthand “proof.”

Where is the shame in requesting proof while in a receptive mindset? Would not a fair request be, “Lord, I am willing to follow you, but please provide clear proof that I am on the correct path in assessing these matters?” Why might such a prayer continue unanswered?

I don’t know, because Jesus said, “Seek and you shall find.” Was the prayer offered with a hopeful (rather than challenging) heart? Was it offered in a spirit of sincerely desiring friendship (rather than bargaining)? Was it offered so earnestly that quantities of time were devoted to quietly “listening” for an answer?

Alternately, is the demand to believe without proof a fair one? Particularly if one cannot ascertain that it is God who is making this demand and not merely an individual after one’s 10% tithe?

I can only speak for the Catholic Church, but it is not about the money. No one keeps tabs on who gives what except for tax-deductibility documentation (and then only if you choose not to contribute anonymously). One can be an active member of a parish his entire life without having given a dime (but it would be highly unlikely that his heart would remain unmoved to do so). And while we are encouraged to engage in sacrificial giving (“tithing”), the church begs only 6% of the stereotypical 10% tithe (5% to support one’s parish and 1% to support the ministries of the diocese in which the parish resides); we are encouraged to give the remaining 4% to charities of our choosing. Truly, the Catholic Church isn’t after your 10%, only your salvation!

Why is lack of skepticism considered a virtue if God provided men minds with which to think? Why might their subsequent logical confusion come with a potential penalty of eternity in Hell?

FAITH is a virtue, not lack of skepticism–and the two cannot be the same. One who fully understands something is not skeptical of it–and full understanding leaves no room for faith! Perhaps Almighty God, creator of heaven and earth and everything in between, wishes for us to be humble enough to allow for the possibility of an intelligence greater than our own, to admit that the particulars of His being and His ways might be beyond our grasp.

Whaddaya think?

 

[Called_by_Name]

I found your tongue in cheek response amusing and a good match to my at times sarcastic bent. And-- a good point.

Actually, I have given much thought & even prayer along these lines. I’ve had some medical issues that while modest to some seem so unfair to me that I at times am angry that such was allowed to occur. It is hard to shake the bitterness even though most of my life would be viewed as quite good, even affluent to many. I do, however, remain puzzled at the lack of any tangible proof whatsoever, that any religion is true which I admittedly need. My brain just isn’t wired to accept anything on on urgings of others. Wish I could change that, but so far that is my core. “Faith” isn’t something that comes easy to me. I need more than the writings of men to feel it.

Here’s the irony-- I do very much want to believe in something with real meaning and long for life to mean more than the hamster wheel it often appears to be. What is the earth, 4.7 billion years old with the universe over 14 billion & modern man but a blip in the screen, so to speak? Our lives are ephemeral at best . We live, we die, the world goes on. For countless generations humanity has struggled along and nearly been made extinct. In time it likely will be, probably due to our own stupidity. In short, what really matters? Does anything? I just don’t see the logic of contemporary religions as they to me seem too narrowly focused and arising from a simpler time not analogous to the modern world. Again, no insults intended, these are just the thoughts that come to mind without conscious effort. I view modern religion as inexorably arising from & tied to a primitive era, without ever having evolved to any appreciable extent. This isn’t a conclusion I am proud of or wanted to find, but the one that springs to mind.

After being away for the weekend, I am just now catching up on reading these posts–and this one of yours made my heart ache (rather literally). My future prayers will include a plea that your search will come to rest at the feet of Jesus, where you will come to know His beautiful peace.

 

[Called_by_Name]

After Jesus’ death AND RESURRECTION, His apostles/disciples stood quite convinced–to the extent that untold numbers of them willingly martyred themselves for faith in Him. Their powerful, passionate witness has, throughout the ages, fostered belief in those not privy to their firsthand “proof.”

Oops! Somehow I neglected to add the most important part: Jesus said that BLESSED are those who have not seen and yet believe!

 

[steve_b]

Thank you for a fair and succinct summery.

Were there only two choices it would appear a simple matter,

There are only 2 choices. Heaven or hell. Both are for eternity.
J:

but what of other religions? Is not the teaching of Islam that the Christians have diluted the faith and that the torch has been passed, as it were, to those more worthy?

Comparing Jesus and Mohammed is for another thread.
J:

Given God’s apparent favor towards the spread of that religion, would it not seem advisable to effect an early conversion in order to remain in God’s favor?

Viewing the events

Obviously It wasn’t Ishmael’s fault that Abraham had him though Hagar the slave and not through Sara his wife. Islam traces their line of descendants from Abraham through Ishmael. However, there is no covenant in that direction. There is a blessing though for Ishmael asked by Abraham, and it was given.

Genesis 17:20
And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.

Here’s what’s important though. God’s covenant is through the line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through Sara, Abraham’s wife… … not through Ishmael and his line

1. 
   *]Exodus 2:24
   God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob.
   
   *]Leviticus 26:42
   I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land.
   *]2 Kings 13:23
   But the LORD was gracious to them and had compassion and showed concern for them because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To this day he has been unwilling to destroy them or banish them from his presence.
   
   This lineage won’t be undone. This line is the direction one is to follow to it’s fulfillment …Jesus
   J:
   

   How extreme might one seek to go in order to ensure the salvation of their precious soul?

   Avoid wrong directions and trails. Follow the only One who will judge all souls. Jesus