What's the purpose of hell?

[GaryTaylor]

You have illusion, unrealistic, non-existent illusion. You have no free-will which would make any difference. No evil, you have your own illusion. If all die or all or saved then no free-will exists individually and that which may has no relevance. What would be the need for grace? Why would anyone worship, what would it matter.

 

[Counterpoint]

Interesting! However, this is another understanding, which leads me see that Catholicism completes the understandings of the Course. Here is my connection:

The Course shares simply that the way to Love is through forgiveness.

Therefore, if person A fully declares I will never want to forgive, nor will I ever forgive person B for B’s offence, then A has declared an eternal separation from Love. Since A will never do what is necessary to experience Love, A will forever exists in a state of no love (Hell).

You err by saying “never.” If it is everyone’s nature to seek love, then it logically follows that everyone will eventually do whatever is necessary to experience love.

For example: If I was in the company of the Creator of Everything, and the Creator tells me, “I give you all-power to do anything you want.” And with all this power, I destroy the Creator of Everything, then I have committed an eternal offense, in which I am eternally separating myself from the Creator.

Where did this “desire” to destroy the Creator come from? THINK!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I believe God reveals himself to me via reason.

So you are a deist?

You have personal access to the mind of God?

Your God must reason the way you do?

You must reason the way your God does?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Love is non sequitur. Man creates his own illusion of love and rejects the only real love there is. Examples proved already. Further this indicates free-will which is abolished yet an apparent reality. Love comes in the bottle for the alcoholic, so he thinks and I have indeed heard them claim, and very intelligent individuals too. Grace rejected for vanity.

 

[EMFrost]

You claim reason, but that reason you have made subject to your own will and understanding therefore it is flawed reason. Mostly you are making arguments, but not following the logic through.

For instance collaborative salvation is highly unjust. Any 5 year old who has been subjected to group punishment by a teacher can tell you this much. I’m sure you mean it in the sense that everyone will be saved, but to actually follow your own argument through logically you also need to consider that- if this is the case- all could be damned because of one. This is not very reasonable is it? And if God is revealed in reason, this idea is not from God, but from you. See my point?

In regards to previous posts, you seemed to be using the concept of grace to dismiss the concept of hell. Grace is a gift, yes. But you do realize there is an action involved in rejecting or accepting that gift? We have free will, we can say no and not receive it. This would not be because God is being unjust , immoral, or unreasonable.

I am trying to follow your reasoning. How do you reason this?

 

[Counterpoint]

I’m sure you mean it in the sense that everyone will be saved, but to actually follow your own argument through logically you also need to consider that- if this is the case- all could be damned because of one. This is not very reasonable is it? And if God is revealed in reason, this idea is not from God, but from you. See my point?

Apparently, my concept of God is greater than yours because I believe God has the capacity to reconcile everyone and everything unto himself. You don’t.

In regards to previous posts, you seemed to be using the concept of grace to dismiss the concept of hell. Grace is a gift, yes. But you do realize there is an action involved in rejecting or accepting that gift?

The capacity to accept is the grace…the gift of God.

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 not of works, lest any man should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9

We have free will, we can say no and not receive it. This would not be because God is being unjust , immoral, or unreasonable.

I am trying to follow your reasoning. How do you reason this?

If we are all created to seek the good, then how is it that some are acting contrary to their nature?

Free will does not resolve the problem. I fully explain why in my thread entitled “Free Will, Determinism, Indetrminism, Moral Responsibility, and Salvation.” No one here has been able to refute the argument I have presented in that thread.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Eternal punishment and suffering for a temporal offense is not justice. It’s a mockery of justice. Rationality and our moral sensibilities tells us this much.

So prison for life isn’t a permanent punishment in your world? What? Do you believe in an afterlife, too, where Hitler frolics in the meadows with Francis of Assisi?

I believe in Hell because I believe some things can never be made right. And those things are the souls of those who think they’re fine just as they are. Who will not bend to the will and knowledge of God, who made them, and knows everything about who they are and who they are supposed to be. And I believe - though I am not certain - that God will leave you no opportunity to believe otherwise. If you go to Hell, you will do so knowing full well God is in the right, believing as much, and utterly rejecting it.

I do not think many souls will reject God under His scrutiny.

But let’s say this, Counterpoint: what reason would God have for unjustly punishing someone? On the other hand, what reason does God have for giving us life, or undeserved rewards?

 

[Alindawyl]

You err in your thinking. The refusal to repent is temporal, not eternal. So, reason tells us the temporal offense of refusing to repent does not justify eternal punishment and suffering.

I don’t contest the validity of your reasoning. I contest your premise that no one refuses to repent forever. On what basis do you make this claim?

The capacity to repent is a grace…a gift of God. So, your argument tacitly assumes that the difference between the heaven-bound and hell-bound is that the former have been endowed by God with grace while the latter have not.

I make no such tacit assumption. I am not a Calvinist. God does not decide who will be saved and give them his grace, and decide who will not be saved and withhold his grace from them. He offers his grace freely to all, and permits them to decide whether or not they want it.

Some choose not to accept that grace. As you say, grace is a gift. A gift by its very nature can be rejected if the intended recipient doesn’t want it. If they couldn’t reject it, we would call it something else rather than a gift.

If you think that all will eventually accept that gift, then I go back to my earlier statement and request your explanation. You believe that no one is in hell, which means you believe that everyone will eventually accept God’s grace. That means you don’t have a problem with eternal acceptance of grace. Why then is eternal rejection of grace objectionable?

 

[EMFrost]

Well no. We weren’t debating God’s capacity. I was expanding the full logical argument of collaborative salvation to see if you still fully agreed with it. You’ve attached the extra clause to it however, that everyone is saved, and unfortunately this argument would not support that conclusion on its own. Other concepts need to be expanded upon to explain that so lets take a look.

Accepting grace, a gift from God, is a matter of free will, another gift God has already provided when He made us. This does not disagree with the verse you posted there. We do not give ourselves free will.
I highly recommend reading upon the nature of grace, particularly the distinction between actual grace and sanctifying grace. I think you might like it.

Aha, now we’re getting somewhere. Actually we all in some way act contrary to our good nature. You see this is the concept that we are fallen. Why are we fallen? We sin. Sin by definition are actions contrary to our good-seeking (and thereby God-seeking) nature. This is also something you may want to read more about, but would you like specific examples to clarify?

There’s been a lot of talk here about hell, but what about heaven?
You’ve hit two of three points
1st Created
2nd Fallen

the third is
Redeemed.
Ironically this is the on you’ve been trying to talk about the most here.

 

[Ion]

What’s the purpose of hell?

You did not declare your faith and the first question is : What is life, what is to live? Do you believe everlasting life is possible? And on what rest your belief?

 

[jochoa]

You err by saying “never.” If it is everyone’s nature to seek love, then it logically follows that everyone will eventually do whatever is necessary to experience love.

It is not everyone’s nature to seek love. Although every created human’s nature is to seek love, God made human does not seek love because He is Love and only shares Love. Another example is Satan: Satan does not seek love because Satan knows love, yet rejects love.

Where did this “desire” to destroy the Creator come from? THINK!

Non-loving free will: pride, greed, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sloth is definitely one of the greatest of evils. It viciously attacks all our virtues by sapping them of their strength and potential for good. Worse, it is a vice we are usually too lazy even to notice, and lazier to do anything about it if we do notice it. Wallowing in the trough of spiritual entropy means the devil has a smooth and fast road road into our hearts and minds.

 

[littlestsouls2]

Yes, but is it punishment without end, or *punishing *without end?

There’s a real difference. Eternal death, without any consciousness at all, would be eternal punishment without end (although the victim would know nothing about it). Think of it like the time before you were conceived. You didn’t exist.

Eternal suffering in some spiritual realm would be *punishing *without end, and the victim would know everything about it for all eternity.

That’s the difference. I can believe in the punishment, but not the punishing.

I simply argue that the notion of eternal punishing is contrary to the notion of a forgiving god and infinitely exceeding the nature of the crime.

The objections you raise are answered in the link I provided. The author is very logical and objective.

 

[Thorns]

You err by saying “never.” If it is everyone’s nature to seek love, then it logically follows that everyone will eventually do whatever is necessary to experience love.

You err by thinking that the state of hell is inside of time; it isn’t. The state of hell is an eternal present moment. A person cannot change their present moment any more than they can change their past. What they can do is change their future. They can only change their future because time allows it, but in such a state/place where time does not exist, there is no future and there is no past, only the present.

If a person dies rejecting God, they will forever reject God because they do so actively in their present moment and they will not change ever, because the absence of time does not allow change.

So it isn’t God punishing us eternally for temporal sins, but rather He warns us of how things work outside of time. That is why it is imperative to change here and now on earth where time exists.

 

[Counterpoint]

It is not everyone’s nature to seek love. Although every created human’s nature is to seek love

Well, if God created human beings with an innate desire to seek love, then everyone’s nature should be to seek love. To argue otherwise is to talk nonsense.

Non-loving free will

Who created this “non-loving free will?”

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, if God created human beings with an innate desire to seek love, then everyone’s nature should be to seek love. To argue otherwise is to talk nonsense

Everyone is living or everyone is perishing with the god of your mind. That means Hitler, Stalin, Charles Manson along with all the Saints will all be together. Do you have a doctrine for this.

Quantify this with your understanding of ego. Hitler or Stalin were not evil since it doesn’t exist? Here’s another point glossed over repetitively. I don’t see where you respond to anything?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, if God created human beings

Tell me about your concept of God, you reject free-will, you reject the Abrahamic God. Help us understand what you are talking about.

Your not making any sense, unless the only point is to attack the Abrahamic God without the open mind to respond to dialogue. This isn’t dictation its conversation. You have no “fact” or “law” understand this clearly, you have fringe “theory”. And undefended as I see.

 

[rcwitness]

Well, if God created human beings with an innate desire to seek love, then everyone’s nature should be to seek love. To argue otherwise is to talk nonsense.

That’s why its a ‘fallen nature’

Who created this “non-loving free will?”

It’s not so much a non-loving free will, as a self loving free will. It is a false love. A love of the flesh and things which die. The Spirit sustains life. To love the Spirit is to love God.

 

[jochoa]

Well, if God created human beings with an innate desire to seek love, then everyone’s nature should be to seek love. To argue otherwise is to talk nonsense.

Although I am willing to agree with you and not talk “nonsense,” according to your understanding that everyone’s nature should be to seek love, then logically you must either perceive God as one who seeks love or perhaps God is no one. Either way, this logical progression mistakes who God is, and what God does. For example, God does not seek love because God is love.

Who created this “non-loving free will?”

Non-loving free will is not a creation, it is a destruction, and non-loving free will is eternally done by Satan and all the evil spirits. Therefore, God lovingly created the person, Lucifer, who freely and eternally willed not love, Satan.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Jochoa, would you say it’s proper to say self-love, or love of anything other than God, is a “twisting” of love - sort of the way using an umbrella to scrub out a toilet is a “twisting” of the nature of the umbrella?

But, yeah. Basically self-love, or any love that does not ultimately lead to God, is a love that is twisted.

Now, why God gave us this capacity, to love things other than Him. That is a good question. I’ll answer it with another question which gets to the heart of the matter:

Why did God, who is Himself perfect, create us?