Is it possible that God can relent on the eternal punishment in Hell?

[ChainBreaker]

Hello Kindred.

You don’t mind if I step in?

You are misunderstanding Hell. I’ll try some simple logic. One description of Hell is the absence of God. If God is Love and Hell has no God in it, then there is no love in Hell.

If hell is a place (as opposed to being a state of being), then there can be no such thing as God for there is no place where God is not if God is infinite. God permeates all being. There is no existence where God does not exist, for if there is a created place in existence where God cannot be then that would mean that God has finite limitations in respect to that place and a potency in respect to the creation of that place. This is ontologically impossible.

Hell is defined by our relationship with God, not the physical dimensions where in.

God cannot defy logic for the sake of your interpretation.

God cannot love someone in Hell because that would place some of what He is there and that cannot be. There is no God in Hell therefore there is no love there either.

God allows people to choose hell precisely because he loves them. God’s love for somebody cannot change because that would logically mean there is potency in his nature. Human beings change how they value people because they can change. God is perfect because his nature never changes.

Oh and about this: God’s willing the good of the other by keeping them in existence in Hell is pure poppycock.

It is a philosophical statement that God’s love wills folks into being, not an actual theological statement.

Its not a theological statement that God creates out of love? Have you never heard of a Catholic priest speaking of God’s love for all his creation?

The God you believe in doesn’t seem to be the Catholic God.

If God’s willing of the damned’s existence in Hell is evidence of His love, I’d sure like to know how you drew that conclusion.

Nothing in creation is ontologically evil.

I’d say a kindergartener would think the opposite - that it is evidence God didn’t love that person at all.

Glenda

Thankfully we don’t need to look to kids for a proper understanding of Catholic theology.

A truly good person does not hate his enemies. a perfect person loves his enemies.

God bless.

 

[edwest2]

Your assertion presupposes that God did not write His law onto all of our hearts(Romans 2:15).

Such a presupposition simply doesn’t exist. In regards to God, sin and the moral law, there is no such thing as an “uninformed decision”.

And if you think that there are people who would not refuse or resist Love, then you possess a rather myopic view of human nature, one that our Lord was not so naïve about.

Have you even read the Scriptures?

Romans 1:
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
[19] **For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. **
[20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
[21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
[22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
[29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
[30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
[31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[32] Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Jesus said in Matthew 12, “1.[36] I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter.”

If on the day of judgment we must render an account for every “careless” word we utter, I guarantee you we must render an account for everything else as well.

We are called NOT to be ignorant in regards to sin. So ignorance, carelessness, intellectual laziness or cowardice I guarantee you will be no excuse either. That’s not innocent ignorance, but dishonest ignorance. It’s like avoiding going to the doctor when you know that you’re ill or avoiding the assignment board at work because you are afraid that you’ll get some unpleasant duty.

No. Those are rationalizations, not reasons. Dishonest ignorance, not innocent ignorance.

Sure, “sin obscures sight”. But the fact of human nature and natural law remains. They KNOW that they ought not to sin. They know that what they are doing is sinful. That knowledge is sufficient to cost them their eternal souls. Period.

Thank you, very much, for what you have written. God is with us at all times. He knows our hearts, our thoughts and deeds.

Thanks again,
Ed

 

[OneSheep]

Your assertion presupposes that God did not write His law onto all of our hearts(Romans 2:15).

Yes, the law is written into our hearts. However, we start as children fully unaware of this law in our hearts. As our conscience develops, we become more and more aware of the law within.

Such a presupposition simply doesn’t exist. In regards to God, sin and the moral law, there is no such thing as an “uninformed decision”.

You must be using a different set of definitions. When a person does not know how to reconcile, and chooses to fight to solve a problem, he is making an uninformed decision. When a person marries another out of lust without considering all of the other important aspects of marriage, he is making an uninformed decision. When the crowd hung Jesus on the cross, they were making an uninformed decision. There are an infinite number of examples.

And if you think that there are people who would not refuse or resist Love, then you possess a rather myopic view of human nature, one that our Lord was not so naïve about.

. Okay, man, support your argument. Give me an example of a persson who would refuse or resist love, when they fully understand what they are resisting

Myopia, is it? Are you saying that I have a more positive, loving view of people than Jesus?

Have you even read the Scriptures?

Romans 1:
[18] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
[19] **For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. **
[20] Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
[21] for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
[22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
[23] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
[24] Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
[25] because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
[26] For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions…
[27] and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women … receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
[28] And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct.
[29] They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips,
[30] slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
[31] foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
[32] Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.

Do you see the contradiction in the verse? On the one hand, it says “they knew God” on the other hand, it says they were “senseless”. I go with the latter. Bottom line, Paul resented what those people were doing, understandably. Perhaps the rest has something lost in the translation. Paul is expressing that God as he perceives Him is condemning those individuals. Again, this stance is understandable. However, does God condemn, or does He forgive? If we do not put all of this in the context of a forgiving God, then it is simply out of context. God’s attitude expressed here is a contradiction to unconditional love and forgiveness. It is the attitude of our God-given conscience, or is it that of the underlying God? Do you see how our interpretations are heavily influenced by our relationship with our creator and one another?

Jesus said in Matthew 12, “1.[36] I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter.”

If on the day of judgment we must render an account for every “careless” word we utter, I guarantee you we must render an account for everything else as well.

We are called NOT to be ignorant in regards to sin. So ignorance, carelessness, intellectual laziness or cowardice I guarantee you will be no excuse either. That’s not innocent ignorance, but dishonest ignorance. It’s like avoiding going to the doctor when you know that you’re ill or avoiding the assignment board at work because you are afraid that you’ll get some unpleasant duty.

No. Those are rationalizations, not reasons. Dishonest ignorance, not innocent ignorance.

A very wise man I knew once said, “Is it a reason, or is it an excuse? I’m not sure of the difference.” I pondered this myself, and I have sort of determined that excuses are attempts to avoid some type of consequence, and so we resent excuses. Reasons are explanations free from our compulsion to judge. So, a “reason” to one person is an “excuse” to the other, depending on whether our “judgment function” (conscience) is activated. Think on that one for a bit, if you like.

In the mean time, please provide an example of “dishonest ignorance” and we can investigate its “dishonesty”.

Sure, “sin obscures sight”. But the fact of human nature and natural law remains. They KNOW that they ought not to sin. They know that what they are doing is sinful. That knowledge is sufficient to cost them their eternal souls. Period.

Did the crowd who hung Jesus know that what they were doing was sinful?

 

[Thorns]

I take it that you have a literalistic view of the bible, however God’s nature is love. God is ontologically identical with love, and thus it is logically impossible for God to potentially hate as much as it is impossible for God to potentially cease to exist; neither can God be both identical to love and hate at the same time.

Your interpretation of scripture is necessarily false and it is not the view of the Catholic church.

Why does God harden some peoples hearts then?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Did the crowd who hung Jesus know that what they were doing was sinful?

:twocents:

Yes. They were crucifying someone.
I am not sure they all would have known it was the sixth, but they would have known the commandment.
It is a tenet of every society that one should not do unto others what one would not have done to oneself.
What sort of brute does not know torturing a person unto death is evil.
I believe that it is central to sin that one turns from the truth. If they did not know it was sinful, it was by choice.
In spite of their being forgiven, face to face with love, the damned will run to hide in hell.

 

[Aloysium]

Why does God harden some peoples hearts then?

If you are referring to Pharaoh, I believe He lifted the fear, thereby making him stronger and determined. Did you mean something else? He most assuredly did not take away Pharaoh’s love for the Jews.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Why does God harden some peoples hearts then?

The hearts of some sinners harden in the face of God’s light because of pride. The pride of Pharaoh when faced with God’s truth is what caused his heart to be closed to God because it conflicted with Pharaohs personal ambitions. This is the reaction of the sinner in the presence of God’s truth.

God wants all people to be saved wishing that non should perish. Therefore it is not a reasonable interpretation to suggest that God actively and intentionally blinds people to truth by hardening their hearts because he hates them.

The Catholic church has a rich theological and philosophical tradition that exists apart from the bible. In light of that tradition the interpretation that God hates his creation or regrets creating them makes no rational sense.

It seems that sola scripture is very much alive among some Catholics.

 

[Amandil]

:twocents:

Yes. They were crucifying someone.
I am not sure they all would have known it was the sixth, but they would have known the commandment.
It is a tenet of every society that one should not do unto others what one would not have done to oneself.
What sort of brute does not know torturing a person unto death is evil.
I believe that it is central to sin that one turns from the truth. If they did not know it was sinful, it was by choice.
In spite of their being forgiven, face to face with love, the damned will run to hide in hell.

Its an absurd statement. Jesus told the Sanhedrin that He was the Son of God.

They wanted Him crucified because He called Himself the Son of God.

When they took Him to Pikate then lied to Pilate and instead charged Him with treason claiming that Jesus was the king as opposed to Caesar.

They were plenty informed.

His other examples are equally absurd and are basically attempts at special pleading.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Its an absurd statement. Jesus told the Sanhedrin that He was the Son of God.

They wanted Him crucified because He called Himself the Son of God.

When they took Him to Pikate then lied to Pilate and instead charged Him with treason claiming that Jesus was the king as opposed to Caesar.

They were plenty informed.

His other examples are equally absurd and are basically attempts at special pleading.

Forgive them for they know not what they do.

 

[Thorns]

God wants all people to be saved wishing that non should perish. Therefore it is not a reasonable interpretation to suggest that God actively and intentionally blinds people to truth by hardening their hearts because he hates them.

If you are referring to Pharaoh, I believe He lifted the fear, thereby making him stronger and determined. Did you mean something else? He most assuredly did not take away Pharaoh’s love for the Jews.

“Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.” Romans 9:18

It was also being discussed in another thread about the presumption of God’s mercy. People were stating that one presumes they will have the capacity to love and turn to God later in life if they persist in sin now, because sin binds us and it would be risky to assume that God will just easily free you from your bondage of sin and perhaps keep you darkened instead. Any truth to that?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . People were stating that one presumes they will have the capacity to love and turn to God later in life if they persist in sin now, because sin binds us and it would be risky to assume that God will just easily free you from your bondage of sin and perhaps keep you darkened instead. Any truth to that?

:twocents:

Following the living Way that is Christ Himself we grow in love, ever closer to God, ever less capable of sin.
Falling deeper into sin, it makes sense to understand this as becoming more demonic, to the point that there may be little if any humanity left and no possibility for feeling regret or remorse for the harm one has done to others.
I would see this as something we do to, or rather that we become ourselves.
It would not be God who takes away our capacity to love, but we ourselves who have, in bits and pieces destroyed love within ourselves.
Even in the most extreme case, there may be a chance for redemption; however, without repentance, what will be left but a hard, cold shell where once there was a heart.

 

[Aloysium]

Forgive them for they know not what they do.

This reveals God’s mercy and the reason why He came - to save and redeem us.
It is a testament to His love, not to the insignificance of sin.

They are killing God - the Source of their existence and the means by which they can attain eternal joy.
I would doubt that this was clear to many there. Some did know, imho, and were essentially following Satan.
Whatever. It was definitely the case that they were treating a human being, the most innocent one at that, in the cruelest manner imaginable.

You would have done well to remember what happens in the following verses.
Of the two hung on crosses with our Saviour, only one is said to have joined Jesus in heaven.
Perhaps the other, in his last and final prayer asked for God’s forgiveness and mercy, maybe not.

Anticipating this sort of reply, on a previous post, I opined that “in spite of their being forgiven, face to face with love, the damned will run to hide in hell.”

 

[Amandil]

Yes, the law is written into our hearts. However, we start as children fully unaware of this law in our hearts. As our conscience develops, we become more and more aware of the law within.

Wrong. Natural law is, by definition, known by us naturally. Conscience, properly speaking, is the judgment by which we know an action we have taken, or not taken, is in accord with natural law.

As we grow older we grow in that we either use reason in accord with grace to become more sensitive to our conscience or by habitual sin we stifle the voice of conscience. We all have sufficient knowledge of what is sinful and we know by natural law to do the good we ought to do and avoid the evil which we ought to avoid.

Perfect knowledge of sin for a mortal sin to be mortal sin is absurd. Sufficient knowledge is all that is required for a sin to be mortal.

Good conscience which is by nature in accord with natural law we possess by default as it were. There is a reason for the phrase, “…out of the mouths of babes.”

You must be using a different set of definitions. When a person does not know how to reconcile, and chooses to fight to solve a problem, he is making an uninformed decision. When a person marries another out of lust without considering all of the other important aspects of marriage, he is making an uninformed decision. When the crowd hung Jesus on the cross, they were making an uninformed decision. There are an infinite number of examples.

Special pleading. Your first example is too vague to even address. Your second example is absurd, he possesses sufficient knowledge of what marriage is and he says the words of the OATH(calling God as witness), to love, honor, and cherish until death do them part.

Your third example I answered in the previous post.

. Okay, man, support your argument. Give me an example of a persson who would refuse or resist love, when they fully understand what they are resisting

I gave you several, and your still committing special pleading.

Myopia, is it? Are you saying that I have a more positive, loving view of people than Jesus?

No, I’m saying that your have an absurdly idealistic view while Jesus had a realistic one.

Do you see the contradiction in the verse? On the one hand, it says “they knew God” on the other hand, it says they were “senseless”. I go with the latter.

There is no contradiction, just you committing circular logic. Paul clearly states that they’re knowledge of God was sufficient to cost them their eternal souls.

They because “senseless” because they already MADE the decision, possessing the sufficient knowledge which they already had, to reject God and worship creatures.

Bottom line, Paul resented what those people were doing, understandably. Perhaps the rest has something lost in the translation. Paul is expressing that God as he perceives Him is condemning those individuals. Again, this stance is understandable.

…more special pleading.

However, does God condemn, or does He forgive?

False dichotomy. He does both. He has that right.

If we do not put all of this in the context of a forgiving God, then it is simply out of context. God’s attitude expressed here is a contradiction to unconditional love and forgiveness. It is the attitude of our God-given conscience, or is it that of the underlying God? Do you see how our interpretations are heavily influenced by our relationship with our creator and one another?

What incoherent nonsense. If salvation is conditional, then so is His gift of justification, i.e. IT REQUIRES THAT WE ACCEPT HIS LOVE AND FORGIVENESS IN FAITH AND BE BAPTIZED IN ORDER TO BE JUSTIFIED before Him.

The words speak for themselves. People mentioning “Interpretations” in my experience are attempts by those who try to explain away things they find disagreeable in Scripture because they do not fit into someone’s particular worldview, as you seem to be doing.

 

[Amandil]

cont’d

A very wise man I knew once said, “Is it a reason, or is it an excuse? I’m not sure of the difference.” I pondered this myself, and I have sort of determined that excuses are attempts to avoid some type of consequence, and so we resent excuses. Reasons are explanations free from our compulsion to judge.

So, a “reason” to one person is an “excuse” to the other, depending on whether our “judgment function” (conscience) is activated. Think on that one for a bit, if you like.

Wrong again.

Reasons, reasoning, is to apply the method of logic to solve a problem. Logic is the science of thought by which we apply reason to identify the facts of reality.

Rationalizations OTOH begin with an assumed conclusion and work backwards to prop it up.

Which is precisely what you are doing with your assertions. Your beginning with your conclusion and making spurious arguments to prop up that conclusion.

In the mean time, please provide an example of “dishonest ignorance” and we can investigate its “dishonesty”.

I gave you two. Perhaps you overlooked them, so I’ll give them again:

It’s like avoiding going to the doctor when you know that you’re ill or avoiding the assignment board at work because you are afraid that you’ll get some unpleasant duty.

Or no different than those who avoid answering their phone when they know that they owe money to a utility of credit card company.

Or those who receive the Eucharist unworthily when they have knowledge, implicit or explicit, of some mortal sin and refuse to go to confession.

Did the crowd who hung Jesus know that what they were doing was sinful?

Matthew 27:1.[25] And** all the people answered**, “His blood be on us and on our children!”

 

[Amandil]

Forgive them for they know not what they do.

Matthew 27:[25] And** all the people answered**, “His blood be on us and on our children!”

They had sufficient knowledge. They knew what He claimed to be(the Son of God), they witnessed His miracles which testified to His claim(John 10:38).

Jesus asking the Father to forgive them necessarily implies that what they are doing is in fact sinful.

If your argument, and that of “One Sheep” is true, then it would be absurd for Jesus to ask forgiveness for them because by his/her/your logic they would not be sinning because they were “ignorant” of what they were doing.

The verse contradicts, rather than supports, your argument.

 

[glendab]

Hello ChainBreaker.

The hearts of some sinners harden in the face of God’s light because of pride. The pride of Pharaoh when faced with God’s truth is what caused his heart to be closed to God because it conflicted with Pharaohs personal ambitions. This is the reaction of the sinner in the presence of God’s truth.

God wants all people to be saved wishing that non should perish. Therefore it is not a reasonable interpretation to suggest that God actively and intentionally blinds people to truth by hardening their hearts because he hates them.

The Catholic church has a rich theological and philosophical tradition that exists apart from the bible. In light of that tradition the interpretation that God hates his creation or regrets creating them makes no rational sense.

It seems that sola scripture is very much alive among some Catholics.

I cannot speculate about Pharaoh’s mindset nor the disposition of his heart all those thousands of years ago but I suspect the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart had to do with God showing His glory through the works that He would preform at the hands of Moses prior to and after the liberation of Israel. His heart got hardened so all the people would do as God said, and beg the Israelites to leave them so their God would stop striking them. And they even gave them gifts of gold and silver upon their departure. If Pharaoh had relented when Moses first asked no opportunity for God to show His mighty power and what happens when He stretches out His Arm to anyone. The deeds were spoken of for generations afterwards among the enemies of Israel and the news of what had happened spread to the surrounding lands ahead of the people as they went to conquer the Promised Lands. One other thing - Pharaoh’s heart being so hardened that the last strike by God falling on the first born of the Egyptians is a typology for Christ and God’s on First Born Son being struck upon the Cross fro the Nation, us. If the final curse hadn’t landed on the Egyptians, killing all the first born males of man and beast alike, the sign that was wouldn’t have been burnt into the minds and memories of the Israelites to show when Jesus came along and died.

“Therefore it is not a reasonable interpretation to suggest that God actively and intentionally blinds people to truth by hardening their hearts because he hates them.” This isn’t true and the Church doesn’t teach this. Think about Judas Iscariot. I’ll comment about that another time. God does hate. Don’t give Him reason to hate you. Choose life.

Glenda

 

[OneSheep]

My question: Did the crowd who hung Jesus know that what they were doing was sinful?

:twocents:

Yes. They were crucifying someone.
I am not sure they all would have known it was the sixth, but they would have known the commandment.
It is a tenet of every society that one should not do unto others what one would not have done to oneself.
What sort of brute does not know torturing a person unto death is evil.
I believe that it is central to sin that one turns from the truth. If they did not know it was sinful, it was by choice.
In spite of their being forgiven, face to face with love, the damned will run to hide in hell.

There have always been some caveats to “do unto others”. Punishments have always been meted by societies. One says “if I were to commit that crime, I would deserve this too” as they punish the sinner. People are willing to do awful things unto others in the name of justice, with the understandable explanation that doing such punishments is “God’s will” etc.

Jesus was not seen as a “person” at that point. He was seen as something evil, a mosquito, so much garbage. Such is the functioning of the mind. When I condemn a behavior, my mind condemns the person who exhibits the behavior. It takes forgiveness to get beyond this. The crowd did not forgive Jesus.

When people torture, they perceive that what they are doing is “right” in some way. The tortured “deserves this”. Is the thinking of such deserving a matter of choice, or is it a matter of triggered response? When you have, as I have, thought someone “deserved” something bad, was it a rational, objective choice, or was it heavily influenced by emotion? Yes, people make choices, choices fraught with misperceptions.

As far as “running to hide in hell”, I think I quoted before what a priest once told us, “In my opinion, if anyone chooses hell, they go screaming and kicking against God the whole way.” God would never let anyone run away from Him without doing everything He can to show the person Who He Is. There is so much that serves as false witness in the world we live in.

 

[OneSheep]

In the interest of brevity, I am only going to address some of your post. Please, Amandil, practice a little respect by not calling my statements absurd. You have different opinions, please try to be courteous.

Your third example I answered in the previous post.

Okay, on that previous post you said that the people heard from the mouth of Jesus that He was the son of God. Did the people believe Jesus?

No, I’m saying that your have an absurdly idealistic view while Jesus had a realistic one.

And Jesus’ realistic view was…?

False dichotomy. He does both. He has that right.

Condemnation is the opposite of forgiveness. What are we do forgive if we are not forgiving what we condemn? Jesus said, “If you hold anything against anyone, forgive them.” This “holding against” is condemnation in our minds, we condemn others. Now, follow my thinking, would God come here and tell us to forgive what we condemn but not do the same Himself?

 

[Amandil]

Please, Amandil, practice a little respect by not calling my statements absurd. You have different opinions, please try to be courteous.

Absurd; (adj), 1)unreasonable, unsound, incongruous 2) meaningless, lacking order or value.

It is not discourteous to speak truthfully. It is rather discourteous not to.

If I call a statement absurd it is because it is. I’m not going to lie just so you can feel nice about opinions which are unsound if not outright false.

Perhaps you ought to distance yourself a bit from your opinions so that you can perhaps look at them more objectively.
OneSelf:

Okay, on that previous post you said that the people heard from the mouth of Jesus that He was the son of God. Did the people believe Jesus?

Irrelevant. You said that they didn’t know who He was and that that excuses them. I demonstrated that they did.

Now you’re apparently admitting that they did but now they have to “believe”?

You’re simply shifting the bar here.

OneSheep:

And Jesus’ realistic view was…?

John 2:23-25
"Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in Him when they saw the signs which He did, **but Jesus did not trust Himself to them, because Jesus knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for He Himself knew what was in man. **

OneSheep:

Condemnation is the opposite of forgiveness. What are we do forgive if we are not forgiving what we condemn? Jesus said, “If you hold anything against anyone, forgive them.” This “holding against” is condemnation in our minds, we condemn others. Now, follow my thinking, would God come here and tell us to forgive what we condemn but not do the same Himself?

This is simply incoherent nonsense.

You do realize that there is a difference between us as creatures and Jesus Who is God, don’t you?

 

[rinnie]

Is it possible for God to eventually relent? Is there some type of stain on these souls that God cannot cleanse or change? Sure, the damned are in Hell due to their own free-will, but that does not mean that they would not repent under the right conditions.

LOVE!

No its what it is. People that are in hell are there because they choose to be there and want nothing to do with God.

God know everything and if there was a chance of them choosing him he would know.