H
HelenRose
Guest
Bahman, I read through your entire quotes and would like to address each point but I think I will address the two statements above.There are several issues relate to your post. 1) Logic close our hands when we are arguing (our discussion) or doing something (working on some. Without logic nothing has its own correction. 2) Logic is need to discuss our final destiny after death since we need to be convince about our action.
…
God’s love should be unconditional meaning that his love toward us shouldn’t increase or decrease by our action.
I don’t discount the necessity of logic. It is a wonderful tool and very useful in thinking through problems. The beginning point of logic is to find some common ground where two people can agree or at least define exactly what the disagreement is.
In the first place, we have to recognize the fact that neither one of us has a clue as to what Hell is. We could spend fruitless hours arguing whether or not Hell is a physical place filled with fire. I don’t have that vision of Hell but I could very well be wrong. I don’t know if the descriptions in the Bible concerning Hell are literal or metaphoric.
When you and I try to discuss Hell we are approaching the concept of God from opposite positions. From what I can gather you and I are disagreeing on who is being rejected and who is rejecting. My position is that God loves unconditionally so He is not rejecting His children rather there are some of His children who will reject Him and choose to live outside of His love. The Church teaches that He has given mankind free will to reject or accept His love. It is my belief that each one of us will decide, with full knowledge and understanding, whether or not we will or will not choose God.