Explain the justice of hell.

[Jelrak_TB]

Really?

Here is the scenario:

God is lurking before you, all smiles. He is busy reading your every thought and you’ve had a bad day. Just for a lark he decides to inform you that you will be receiving a demotion and some new creation will be taking your place. In an instance of panic/anger/alarm you blurt out: “I will not stand for this!” God obliges and you drop from Heaven like a flash of lightning. The end.

If human nature is anything to go by, he/she may want the person even more.

I hadn’t considered that one.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Already offered opinions based on biblical scholarship concerning passages such as these.

Rape not condoned, payment had to be offered - but I understand why some would argue this is not a serious enough penalty.

Forced marriage - misinterpretation of scripture - already explained why, based on biblical scholarship, I would hold this opinion.

By now you must have worked out what I would say to this.

We can quote scripture at each other from now until the cows come home but by now, I would say you know how I would answer this as I provided a commentary with every scripture I quoted. If you find the commentary I provided unsatisfactory, fair enough, I don’t claim to be infallible. However, you have not said why you would reject that approach in preference for a literal reading, and your posts suggest you are of the opinion the bible should be given a literal reading.

Fair enough.

So, do you reject historical, redaction and literary criticism of scripture? If so why?

Would it not be expected that God would be doing the redacting if he thought it important? If not, is it possible that he considers the unadulterated messages important? if not, is it possible that he considers any form of communication with mankind important?

Do you think the bible should be given a literal reading - why?

If the best God is allegedly able to provide as his book to humanity is a history of lies does it not remove a great deal of authority from all structures and rituals founded upon it?

Or, does it not actually matter to you either way?

How is one to join a religion, serve it with all of his heart, mind, and soul and yet not believe in its origin?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

In which case, they were not all killed.

I don’t see anything in this text to support the view this is a command. Instructions yes, command no.

It can suggest whatever one wants. Whether it is what the author intended others to believe is another matter.

There is nothing trivial in the taking of a human life, war, rough justice and the dark side of human nature. One does not make a study of history to establish ‘things really weren’t that bad,’ but rather to understand history from the perspective of those who lived during that time period. For example, I wouldn’t concur with the philosophy of Thomas Hobbs, I can understand his reasoning against the historical backdrop in which he wrote.

OK

 

[minkymurph]

Does God sanction scripture? Or does he ignore it? Is it possible God has not even read the Bible, perhaps?

In my view, notions of God ‘sanctioning’ scripture developed as a consequence of belief in ‘scripture alone’ and the inerrancy of scripture, and the culture we live in - among other things. Claims such as; ‘if it’s not in the bible, it’s something it’s not necessary to know,’ ‘if it was important God would have recorded it,’ all ‘the answer to all life’s questions can be found in the bible’ endorse this belief.

In addition, we now live in a ‘blame and claim’ culture. were taking responsibility for own actions and using your own common sense (or as my grandfather used to call it, 'uncommon sense) is greatly discouraged. I don’t know if you’ve had this experience, but I have bought tins and bottles with instructions on how to open them written on the side. The human race managed to open tins and bottles for years without instructions. In today’s climate, the manufacturer must place a written warning the side of bottles, instructing people who have taken leave of their senses opening it with one’s teeth as opposed to a bottle opener is not recommended. If they don’t, the plonker who ends up in the Accident and Emergency department of the hospital with a cut lip and missing a few molars will sue them, because ‘they weren’t told.’

The consequence of all this is an image of God has emerged, that is one of a God who spells everything out. Is that the image of God the Israelite’s had? Did the author’s believe God ‘sanctioned’ every word, and ‘ignored’ any mistakes they, or anyone else in years to come would make? Did they write it so in years to come people would be able to answer any question posed to them on an internet forum? Did God have them write it for that purpose?

How significant is the ‘sanctioning’ of every word of scripture in terms of understanding and interpreting Revelation? In the first instance, how were the words revealed? Did God require the cooperation of the authors in the compilation of scripture? Did they have a choice in writing it? Could they have refused? Did they record scripture simply out of obedience because they were told to, and every single word has God’s ‘approval’ He proof read the bible and ‘rubber stamped’ it? Take for instance the Psalms - poems, song of praise. If the above were true then God is merely writing about Himself. Take the Song of Solomon - pretty erotic stuff. What message is the author communicating in this? Is it a book of ‘commands?’ Did God ‘sanction’ every word?

The bible is not a book of commands. Historical events are recorded from the perspective of the author - not for purpose of telling us God approved of everything the Israelite’s did, that is not the author’s intention. The Israelite’s weren’t the nicest, kindest bunch of people you could have met, and it should not be assumed everything they did had God’s approval because it is recorded in the bible. We can say that sometimes the author’s of the OT believe God approves of the actions of the Israelite’s, which has to do with their image of God - but sometimes they don’t. It is a record of the human experience of God, a growing in understanding of Revelation, the struggles of a nation to live in accordance with Divine Law, and the belief that God does not cast people of because he does not approve of their actions, but rather desires they return to him, restores them, and they have greater understanding of who God is as a consequence.

Is it possible God has not even read the Bible, perhaps?

I’m trying to imagine God reading the bible and I’m not finding it easy to visualize. If He was actually engaged with the author during their life, I’m not sure he would need to read about it.

 

[minkymurph]

Here is the scenario:

God is lurking before you, all smiles. He is busy reading your every thought and you’ve had a bad day. Just for a lark he decides to inform you that you will be receiving a demotion and some new creation will be taking your place. In an instance of panic/anger/alarm you blurt out: “I will not stand for this!” God obliges and you drop from Heaven like a flash of lightning. The end.

‘I will not stand for this!’ may be the initial response - and a very human one. However, God gives us time to reflect and on that reflection, we may see the wisdom of the decision. Particularly if it involves the lives of others.

 

[minkymurph]

How is one to join a religion, serve it with all of his heart, mind, and soul and yet not believe in its origin?

Good question.

Some people join a religion, give the appearance of serving it with all their heart, and don’t believe in it’s origin. In fact, I would question whether they even believe in God. Some join a religion, serve it with all their heart out of genuine desire to do what is right, but doubt it’s origin. Others join a religion, serve it half-heartedly, and don’t really care about it’s origins.

There are many reasons why this should be the case. One reason is the religion takes precedence over God.

 

[Imcatholic7]

Is it not possible to knowingly reject what one might consider to be falsehoods that later might be proven true after death?

To clarify, is it not possible to unknowingly reject truth in favor of falsehoods?

Does one not have to first acknowledge something as being true in order to properly reject it and expect such dire consequences as previously outlined?

The Holy Bible says that if men never hear the word of the Lord Jesus Christ, they will be judged by their actions.

 

[Imcatholic7]

I honestly don’t think we should be trying to say what God is or will do about hell or anything like that. He is the only one to judge.

 

[je333]

Why would a super intelligent and loving being decide to punish people forever based on what they believe about what they can not be sure about or fully understand? Why does it make sense to reward faith, when its lack of basis in proof and observable certainty makes it arbitrary, and usually just whatever somebody’s parents believed? Why make the punishment for what people do in their life infinitely disproportional to what they have done, based instead on a simple black and white arbitrary qualification?

From what I understand, God has already paid for the sins of his children past, present and future when Jesus Christ was crucified on the cross. All human beings are his children and they have this sense of naivety/innocense especially in fully understanding and knowing who their father is in comparison to the angels who possessed far more intelligence and knowledge of God. Human beings are saveable but angels who reject God are not! Therefore, Hell is meant for Satan and all the angels who rebelled against God because they were jealous of God’s children and refused to bow down to them. That is the trademark of Satan and the bad angels, they like/love the sin(disobedience and separation from God) and dislike or hate people. JESUS on the other hand taught us to hate the sins but to love the sinners(people). BIG DIFFERENCE! And I do believe that this should always be a point of reference for all of us, brothers and sisters, on how to treat each other.

 

[je333]

Good question.

Some people join a religion, give the appearance of serving it with all their heart, and don’t believe in it’s origin. In fact, I would question whether they even believe in God. Some join a religion, serve it with all their heart out of genuine desire to do what is right, but doubt it’s origin. Others join a religion, serve it half-heartedly, and don’t really care about it’s origins.

There are many reasons why this should be the case. One reason is the religion takes precedence over God.

True and False Disciples

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoer!’

With that said, can they still be saved and enter the kingdom of God? Is the kingdom of God the same as the kingdom of heaven?

 

[CarolVP]

I haven’t been able to get near this site for weeks, now, and am bamboozled by the number of new posts on this topic. The thread seems to have strayed well and truly away from where it was, which is in the nature of it all, and only to be expected. Need a clear head (and lots of time) to get to the nub of it all, and am debating exactly what to do.

God bless all.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
This is so wrong and self centered that I’m shocked that you would propose it. Right and wrong has nothing to do with a person’s personal desires. Hitler wanted power. Does that make what he did, right? Of course not. Right is that which is aligned with God’s will. Wrong is that which opposes it. God, as the creator of the universe, is the only one qualified to define right from wrong.

Well we can’t truly judge what went through Hitler’s mind but what seems clear is that he valued power over love…That is always the case with sin- the sinner values something over doing God’s will, even after being told that such a path leads to condemnation.

Seemingly God did not concern himself overly much with the victims of the holocaust so it seems difficult to conceive of how he might have been the pivotal reason, rather than the West’s empathy for the plight of the oppressed, that the allies might have fought to prevail.

Again, you are looking at this solely from the vantage point of death being the end of an individual and suffering being the worst thing that can happen. The informed Christian can see past this secular view and recognize that suffering leads to love and death is simply moving on the next stage of existence.

Quote:
Perhaps the truth is you just don’t understand the lessons being taught in the Old Testament. Have you ever considered your starting point in your journey toward knowledge? Ask yourself honestly about your approach. Is it " The church teaches this lesson that I don’t get, what am I missing?" Or is it " This doesn’t make sense to me, the church must be wrong. Only by taking the first approach are you open to learning and if you aren’t open, you will not learn.

I didn’t say it was wrong to question. I said that you should be open to the fact that the church is right in what it teaches and that your first response shouldn’t be that the Church is wrong, when the more likely truth is that you simply don’t understand what it is teaching and why.

Further, if God’s message is not to be easily interpreted, save by laborious study and much re-working of the text, of what value is it truly? Could not any body claim the authority to interpret its message in any way necessary to support their own existence?

Well, you are right that those that try to interpret the bible on their own, even with laborious study, are likely to be wrong. The truth of salvation was past down to the church for it to be explained to the people… Scripture is an aid developed by the church for spreading that truth, but it can not be done in a vacuum.

Finally, might it truly be considered exceedingly difficult to determine that when Moses claimed God commanded him to slaughter the Midianites it was neither metaphor nor a means for a loving deity to provide an example for his people to witness his infinite love for mankind? Is it not necessarily clear that either:

1. Moses was misrepresenting God–in which case may he not have equally contrived his entire account of God’s interactions with him, including the bestowing of the 10 commandments?
2. God was not particularly concerned about appearing loving at that given moment;
3. The entire tale was a fabrication–in which case would such not bring into question the validity of the entire Old Testament, while equally invalidating the New?
4. God has changed over time, perhaps acting barbarically when surrounded by barbarous peoples and civilized when around the more enlightened.
5. God is not as he appears.

1. you are judging God;s dealing with the midianites according to human standards, where suffering equates to evil and death is the end of existence, Actually God puts us in situations where we can grow in faith and love, even if we can’t see it at the time.

:
You only need worry if you can’t bring yourself to do what God wants for you.

That is good but your situation is different from that of the time and can’t be judged in the same way.

Perhaps a more accurate consideration of the issue might be that it is seemingly difficult to do what one is unsure that God [rather than men using the voice of God to further their own aims] really wants one to do.

That’s fair, but remember Moses had credibility because of the miracles God did at his hands (the 10 plagues, the parting of the red sea, manna from heaven, etc.)

Quote:
Its perfectly apparent to me that you already believe in God’s existence, otherwise you wouldn’t be worried about any of this.

You aren’t debating the existence of God, you are searching for His nature. Start with the basic philosophy of God: the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe. And then remember, if God created the universe, he defines what is right and wrong in that universe. The third point is the most telling and it says to me that your concern is how much you are willing to give to the creator that gave you everything. You seem to be looking for excuses not to love God.

Quote:
Your real struggle, it seems to me, is that you have preconceived (and incorrect) notions about the nature of God that you can’t reconcile.

This is really for you to explore your self. I hope to help you by pointing out where to look.

Quote:
Some of this appears to me to be simple misunderstanding about God.

Well, one thing seems clear is that so far you are judging God’s action based on a very secular view of what is important. Try to think about what is important to a God who can create anything he wants from nothing.

Quote:
The rest is a struggle to put others first - which is a struggle for most people by the way.

Okay, I’m not trying to judge you, just to give you food for thought. Love, which is doing things for others, is what is really important.

Quote:
It has nothing to do with God viewing criticism. Satan wanted to be God. He was not content with what he had – he wanted more.

What account are you referencing?

Quote:
Many, many people fall into this trap. Do you see it in yourself?

You don’t come across here as having a retiring personality…

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Two points: Sometimes punishment is also meant as a deterrent for others. And again, Hell is where people go who don’t want to do God’s will. They are getting their wish.

Hell is more than a rumor, is it not? Many people are deterred from crimes without ever having seen a jail in real life or the inside of a gas chamber.

Arguably none therein are likely getting any sort of wish that might be reasonably conceived.

They value things more than heaven.

Is it not the selfless who might choose suffering and the selfish who generally choose to avoid it?

Its the selfless who make the best of any situation and the selfish who are never satisfied with what they have.

Quote:
People make bad choices all the time and that doesn’t make them mentally unstable. They just prioritize the wrong thing or fail to think through the ramifications. People steal or kill and end up in jail or death row, right?

I’m no psychologist but I would say that blaming every crime on mental deficiency is denying any sense of personal responsibility for our own decisions.

 

[minkymurph]

True and False Disciples

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoer!’

True and False Disciples is one reason - yes - and would explain why someone would devote their life to a religion they don’t believe in. However, I would say it’s more complex.

To explain, some people follow a religion out of fear, fear of others in that religion and a desire for approval from them, and fear of the repercussions of leaving it. In this instance, religion becomes more about having approval of others, particularly those who are influential within that religion, than it is about God. That is what my reference to religion taking precedence over God meant - people being more concerned about what others think of them rather than follow what they believe in their heart to be true.

With that said, can they still be saved and enter the kingdom of God? Is the kingdom of God the same as the kingdom of heaven?

Jesus used the phrase, ‘the kingdom God is like’ many times, and illustrated it with many parables. I see the ‘kingdom of God’ as like the earthly extension of heaven? That doesn’t really explain it, but it’s the best I can come up with.

 

[CarolVP]

"It is fair to conclude that a belief in God is a possibility, but currently there are several difficulties:

1. If a god, which god?
2. If God, which temperament?
3. If God, which degree of religious fervor must be adopted?"

You aren’t debating the existence of God, you are searching for His nature.

This is exactly the problem. The perceived nature of God becomes a sticking point for those who may otherwise accept His existence. There are those who obdurately refuse to look at any evidence at all, and are blinded by their own prejudices and inclinations. They are willing to distort and caricature Christianity by writing books such as The God Delusion.

There are others, however, who are inclined to believe, but who can’t see past the difficulties. These people need to look at the miracles. If they are willing to look, with sincere seriousness, at the miracles wrought within the Catholic Church, then they can work backwards, from the evidence of God’s work, to the truth of His Church, and to the truth of His teachings.

If the miracles really did take place, then at least some of the Catholic Church’s claims must be true. If the Catholic Church is the true Church, and has existed for around 2,000 years, then Jesus must have established it. If Jesus did establish the Catholic Church, then what the Church teaches about Him must be true. If Jesus is really God-made-man, and the Messiah, then at least some aspects of Scripture must be true, and must be accepted as the Revelation of the one, true God. This means that even the difficult and seemingly contradictory passages in Scripture must have some true meaning within the context of the whole of Scripture. And so it goes on, each link in the chain being connected to another. Today’s evidence points to the truth through history, and this applies both backwards and forwards.

God bless.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

In my view, notions of God ‘sanctioning’ scripture developed as a consequence of belief in ‘scripture alone’ and the inerrancy of scripture, and the culture we live in - among other things. Claims such as; ‘if it’s not in the bible, it’s something it’s not necessary to know,’ ‘if it was important God would have recorded it,’ all ‘the answer to all life’s questions can be found in the bible’ endorse this belief.

In addition, we now live in a ‘blame and claim’ culture. were taking responsibility for own actions and using your own common sense (or as my grandfather used to call it, 'uncommon sense) is greatly discouraged. I don’t know if you’ve had this experience, but I have bought tins and bottles with instructions on how to open them written on the side. The human race managed to open tins and bottles for years without instructions. In today’s climate, the manufacturer must place a written warning the side of bottles, instructing people who have taken leave of their senses opening it with one’s teeth as opposed to a bottle opener is not recommended. If they don’t, the plonker who ends up in the Accident and Emergency department of the hospital with a cut lip and missing a few molars will sue them, because ‘they weren’t told.’

The consequence of all this is an image of God has emerged, that is one of a God who spells everything out. Is that the image of God the Israelite’s had? Did the author’s believe God ‘sanctioned’ every word, and ‘ignored’ any mistakes they, or anyone else in years to come would make? Did they write it so in years to come people would be able to answer any question posed to them on an internet forum? Did God have them write it for that purpose?

How significant is the ‘sanctioning’ of every word of scripture in terms of understanding and interpreting Revelation? In the first instance, how were the words revealed? Did God require the cooperation of the authors in the compilation of scripture? Did they have a choice in writing it? Could they have refused? Did they record scripture simply out of obedience because they were told to, and every single word has God’s ‘approval’ He proof read the bible and ‘rubber stamped’ it? Take for instance the Psalms - poems, song of praise. If the above were true then God is merely writing about Himself. Take the Song of Solomon - pretty erotic stuff. What message is the author communicating in this? Is it a book of ‘commands?’ Did God ‘sanction’ every word?

The bible is not a book of commands. Historical events are recorded from the perspective of the author - not for purpose of telling us God approved of everything the Israelite’s did, that is not the author’s intention. The Israelite’s weren’t the nicest, kindest bunch of people you could have met, and it should not be assumed everything they did had God’s approval because it is recorded in the bible. We can say that sometimes the author’s of the OT believe God approves of the actions of the Israelite’s, which has to do with their image of God - but sometimes they don’t. It is a record of the human experience of God, a growing in understanding of Revelation, the struggles of a nation to live in accordance with Divine Law, and the belief that God does not cast people of because he does not approve of their actions, but rather desires they return to him, restores them, and they have greater understanding of who God is as a consequence.

This is sensible, but why would a sketchy, quasi-historical, largely mythical collection of odd tales be considered Holy? Why might it be considered a closed cannon if none of the information is particularly trustworthy anyway? Why would churches not be reading from the latest modern-day authors instead of harkening back, week after week, to the blurry thoughts of nomads thousands of years removed?

Further, how might a god of such vague and meandering communication skills be so very keen to judge mankind in such an apparently precise and final way?

Finally, given your insight into this matter is fairly astute, why might God, in full knowledge that his words and actions might be being considered literally true in the Bible, be content to ignore the consequences? How is one to believe in a personal god who offers no personal contact or guidance–even insofar as his very words are allegedly concerned?

I’m trying to imagine God reading the bible and I’m not finding it easy to visualize. If He was actually engaged with the author during their life, I’m not sure he would need to read about it.

Perhaps even he might prefer to read something else?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

‘I will not stand for this!’ may be the initial response - and a very human one. However, God gives us time to reflect and on that reflection, we may see the wisdom of the decision. Particularly if it involves the lives of others.

Precisely the point: seemingly Satan had the additional obstacle of not being able to have that moment of reprieve to recalculate his response.

 

[Jelrak_TB]

Good question.

Some people join a religion, give the appearance of serving it with all their heart, and don’t believe in it’s origin. In fact, I would question whether they even believe in God. Some join a religion, serve it with all their heart out of genuine desire to do what is right, but doubt it’s origin. Others join a religion, serve it half-heartedly, and don’t really care about it’s origins.

There are many reasons why this should be the case. One reason is the religion takes precedence over God.

However, for those who truly seek God, is it to be considered that not only is no religion necessary, but that no religion might genuinely be possible?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

The Holy Bible says that if men never hear the word of the Lord Jesus Christ, they will be judged by their actions.

What of those who have heard, but do not believe?

 

[Jelrak_TB]

I honestly don’t think we should be trying to say what God is or will do about hell or anything like that. He is the only one to judge.

If one is not able to logically reconstruct what God may or may not do, how is one able to live a life that might be allegedly pleasing to such an entity? Is it not certain that in the past mankind thought it might be pleasing to God to burn heretics? How is one to understand what path to tread with a laisez-faire attitude towards the divine?