the problem with everlasting torment [Archive]

View Full Version : the problem with everlasting torment

qbanpride

June 28th 2004, 03:28 PM

FirstSunday33ad

June 28th 2004, 04:05 PM

if there is an everlasting torment in hell, do you see a problem with that doctrine? its not 500000 million years, 200000 billion years or even 23831298327 Gazillion years. at least with that theres the hope that after sometime, however long it is, you will get out. even if its so far off , but still theres the hope.

But no, its suppossedly eternal. Is there a crime that deserves that? Could God one day release some people in hell and give them a second chance.>? I mean if God is almighty, could not God do as he pleases?

just something that has me thinking. I cant fanthom an EVERLASTING punishment.

You might want to check out some other threads on this subject, but if it will help:

1) You are thinking in a linier manner. But absent of time there is no "gazillion years" there is only "now". Hell does not exist in the natural universe; therefore there is no reason to think that there will be time in Hell.

2) The "torment" comes from within. It is the realization of a loss of hope and a squandered opportunity. There is no physical torment involved.

3) To deserve Hell a person has to have rejected God and wanted to be separate from God. How can this be done if they are in Heaven? Hell is the realization of their wishes and desires.

4) Hell's purpose is not to "punish" a "crime" in a literal sense. It is to provide a place for those who do not want God.

5) Although those condemned to Hell are not released, Hell itself is not eternal. Revelations states that it will be "cast into the Lake of Fire". There are those who suggest that the souls of the condemned are destroyed at that time. But that is a different subject that I am not familiar enough with to discuss.

GoBahnsen

June 28th 2004, 04:41 PM

qbanpride

June 28th 2004, 09:37 PM

You might want to check out some other threads on this subject, but if it will help:

1) You are thinking in a linier manner. But absent of time there is no "gazillion years" there is only "now". Hell does not exist in the natural universe; therefore there is no reason to think that there will be time in Hell.

2) The "torment" comes from within. It is the realization of a loss of hope and a squandered opportunity. There is no physical torment involved.

3) To deserve Hell a person has to have rejected God and wanted to be separate from God. How can this be done if they are in Heaven? Hell is the realization of their wishes and desires.

4) Hell's purpose is not to "punish" a "crime" in a literal sense. It is to provide a place for those who do not want God.

5) Although those condemned to Hell are not released, Hell itself is not eternal. Revelations states that it will be "cast into the Lake of Fire". There are those who suggest that the souls of the condemned are destroyed at that time. But that is a different subject that I am not familiar enough with to discuss.

yes it can be put in pretty terms such as there is not time in hell, just the now. but fact is, if the doctrine is true, that now is still forever. time is time.

FirstSunday33ad

June 29th 2004, 08:57 AM

yes it can be put in pretty terms such as there is not time in hell, just the now. but fact is, if the doctrine is true, that now is still forever. time is time.

Actually, I never found an "eternal now" as pretty, but to each his own. And as I stated, Hell is not forever, the Bible does state that at some time in the future Hell will be destroyed. There is a school of thought at says the souls of the condemned are also destroyed at that time.

However, even if they are not, each of us makes decisions according to our wishes and each of us enjoys rewards or suffers consequences as a result of those decisions. It is immature to demand the freedom to live as you please without consequence.

Keller

June 29th 2004, 10:49 AM

4) Hell's purpose is not to "punish" a "crime" in a literal sense. It is to provide a place for those who do not want God.
I disagree.

It seems quite clear from the descriptions of hell within the Bible that it is, indeed, a punishment. If its entire purpose was simply a place for those that "do not want" or do not believe in god, it would seem more likely that its descriptions would not be so aggressively terrifying and unpleasant.

The message is quite clear: either turn to god, or face literal and metaphorical spiritual punishment in the form of pain, hopelessness, and fear; all of which hell clearly embodies. Even if one were to view hell as not an actual place/realm but as a metaphorical torment, it is still quite clearly painted as a punishment for those who 'sin'.

FirstSunday33ad

June 29th 2004, 11:04 AM

I disagree.

It seems quite clear from the descriptions of hell within the Bible that it is, indeed, a punishment. If its entire purpose was simply a place for those that "do not want" or do not believe in god, it would seem more likely that its descriptions would not be so aggressively terrifying and unpleasant.

The message is quite clear: either turn to god, or face literal and metaphorical spiritual punishment in the form of pain, hopelessness, and fear; all of which hell clearly embodies. Even if one were to view hell as not an actual place/realm but as a metaphorical torment, it is still quite clearly painted as a punishment for those who 'sin'.

The use of the words "punishment for crime" are metaphorical, which is why Hell is described as a prison in the Bible.

The message of the Bible is also not "turn to God or else". It is "You have a choice, one choice which leads to Heaven and another which leads to Hell. You make that choice by your desires. Continue to live as a slave to your desires and you will end up in Hell".

Finally, Hell is not described as "aggressively terrifying and unpleasant" in the Bible, but simply as a place to avoid at all costs. In light of the fact that Hell represents an complete loss of hope, that alone is reason enough to want to avoid it.

seer

June 29th 2004, 05:35 PM

Don't question God's ways, just believe them. That's my advice.

Good advice GB:

Romans 5:18

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men."

Ric

June 29th 2004, 11:11 PM

jason

July 16th 2005, 08:11 PM

But no, its suppossedly eternal. Is there a crime that deserves that?
Clearly the answer to your question is yes.

Could God one day release some people in hell and give them a second chance>? I mean if God is almighty, could not God do as he pleases?
How do you know, even if given such an opportunity, they would take it ? After all Hell is the place reserved for those who reject God. If they wont bend the knee in this life what makes you think they will in the next ?

C.S Lewis commented that he thought hells doors would be locked from the inside. I think he may be right, in a way.

The Orthodox Church (If I understand correctly) don't believe in Hell as a place as such, certianly not in the conventional sense people think of, but think everyone goes to be with God. The problem is that they are then forced to stand in the presence of a Holy God for all eternity and still being rebels and refusing the bow the knee they suffer for it. They are successful rebels to the end. That is why they flee to the outer darkness. Or at least that is what I thought was being said when it was explained to me.

Whatever hell is, after all the Bible uses a lot of different and sometimes contradictory imagery, it is somewhere you don't want to end up, and it is a place that is "easy" to avoid.

Incidentally, toughen up a bit, there is nothing unreasonable about hell being eternal. All things considered, if it was otherwise, God could not be God.

Jason

Bernie

July 21st 2005, 11:05 PM

God does not have to violate His nature to save everyone.

Rational Esotericism is the only belief which adequately explains the principles which lead to the conclusion that God in His love deflects eternality as punishment from the individual and places it squarely on the essence of evil. Salvation and damnation both take place in perfect justice wtihin the essence of each and every individual. It's really all a matter of interpreting the Bible using the dualistic structure of reality God created it in. Once understood, both Calvinism and Arminianism are reconciled, all are saved, and God's "honor" is left intact in all playing fields.

mentored1

July 22nd 2005, 12:42 AM

Great thoughts... thanks for the brain food... I'd like to comment a bit if I may. :teeth:

1) You are thinking in a linier manner. But absent of time there is no "gazillion years" there is only "now". Hell does not exist in the natural universe; therefore there is no reason to think that there will be time in Hell.

Okay... time is nothing more than a succession of cause and effect in a certain space... spacetime, perhaps. It is not measured other than by man's methods of measuring... But it still requires something to be in a state of change to be able to consider it time... So if all there is in hell is torment than change may not exist and neither may succession... or if it is no definite space than change cannot be measured at all... Either this makes hell way out of our league of consideration or makes it fictional...

Aside from that if something doesn't exist in the "natural" universe how can it even be considered for discussion? It remains only imagination and belief. I do not disparage a belief in hell - I do not presume to know of its existence or non-existence: but I doubt that absent of believing it hell can be demonstrated or grasped.

2) The "torment" comes from within. It is the realization of a loss of hope and a squandered opportunity. There is no physical torment involved.

While I grasp and accept what you say here this does not jive with the descriptions of hell in scripture where there is a smoke of torment ascending forever (revelation?) and the story of the rich man and the beggar lazarus in Luke (dip your finger in the water and cool your tongue)... If the intention was to convey a non-physical torment - especially to the average person - the result is not glowing.

3) To deserve Hell a person has to have rejected God and wanted to be separate from God. How can this be done if they are in Heaven? Hell is the realization of their wishes and desires.
4) Hell's purpose is not to "punish" a "crime" in a literal sense. It is to provide a place for those who do not want God.

It may just be a notion of theology but if you reject or accept Christ as savior and sacrifice for sin is that not the key to heaven or hell? It has nothing to do with wish or desire if that is it, it has to do with accept/reject... Again, I'm not disparaging your beliefs here and I may not be qualified to criticize... but the gospel I've experienced is just that... You are condemned and must be redeemed... by choice in Christ... You can use all the symbols you desire but you're still saying "choose or else"...

5) Although those condemned to Hell are not released, Hell itself is not eternal. Revelations states that it will be "cast into the Lake of Fire". There are those who suggest that the souls of the condemned are destroyed at that time. But that is a different subject that I am not familiar enough with to discuss.

Hell and death are cast into the lake of fire (along with all of those in them) but the Lake of Fire is not mentioned as being destroyed... The torment of those cast into it is without time... Again this is heavily swayed by one's interpretation of biblical prophecy / revelation as literal or symbolic... Like you perhaps there is a lack of familiarity

However, even if they are not, each of us makes decisions according to our wishes and each of us enjoys rewards or suffers consequences as a result of those decisions. It is immature to demand the freedom to live as you please without consequence.

The message of the Bible is also not "turn to God or else". It is "You have a choice, one choice which leads to Heaven and another which leads to Hell. You make that choice by your desires. Continue to live as a slave to your desires and you will end up in Hell".

Even if you demand that freedom it cannot be granted in the material world - never mind the spiritual. Cause and effect always require a reaction for action. That is irrelevant. What you say is perfectly applicable to materialism... but what of the spiritual? The only choice / consequence that matters is whether or not faith is placed in God or not... Again, perhaps the theological terms are different but its hard to understand where it doesn't come down (rubber meets the road) on "accept it on God's terms or else"...

Finally, Hell is not described as "aggressively terrifying and unpleasant" in the Bible, but simply as a place to avoid at all costs. In light of the fact that Hell represents an complete loss of hope, that alone is reason enough to want to avoid it.

I am honestly confuddled at this statement... Hell is to be avoided at all costs but is not terrifying and unpleasant? Having my arm chopped off is terrifying and unpleasant and I would say something to be avoided at all costs... Aren't you saying the same thing there? Loss of hope, if I understand scripture, implies loss of belief. Because in Hebrews 11(?) it is said that Faith is the evidence of things not seen; and that you cannot hope for something that is seen... Hope is belief, faith is acting on that hope... Loss of hope / belief is not choosing to have faith in God.... Again it comes down - unless I'm horribly mistaken - to 'God's way or the highway'...

Look forward to hearing back... Thanks again...

mentored1

July 22nd 2005, 12:46 AM

$cirisme

July 22nd 2005, 01:05 AM

I disagree.

If its entire purpose was simply a place for those that "do not want" or do not believe in god, it would seem more likely that its descriptions would not be so aggressively terrifying and unpleasant.

No, it is not more likely that hell would be less terrifying if it was "only" being separated from God. The whole point of Jesus' descriptions of hell is to draw a metaphorical comparison with what it is like to be separated from God.

No one one on Earth (except Jesus), even from a Biblical perspective, has ever experienced the total separation from God that hell creates.

It's not a fun experience, quite clearly, because every time separation from God is discussed, it is not done in a way that would lead you to believe that the description of hell is inconsistent.

Now, if you think that the description of hell is over-done from a human experience, then that's a subjective perspective. What's described in the Bible about hell's gruesomeness is entirely consistent with the description of separation from God.

But from a human perspective (which, btw, is skewed since no one on Earth except Jesus has ever experienced the total separation hell brings) it may seem over the top, but that isn't a valid comparison given the fact you've never experienced anything like it, so you have nothing to go by.

mentored1

July 22nd 2005, 01:16 AM

Now, if you think that the description of hell is over-done from a human experience, then that's a subjective perspective. What's described in the Bible about hell's gruesomeness is entirely consistent with the description of separation from God.

While I understand your point here I think there is confusion with the use of subjective perspective... Assuming things about hell is objective... the object presupposes the subject and vice versa... The existence of hell is not independent of subject nor is the subject able to perceive hell unless it is an object... I don't pretend to know which is true... I'm only pointing out that it is impossible to discern if another person is being subjective or objective because each presuppose the other...

But from a human perspective (which, btw, is skewed since no one on Earth except Jesus has ever experienced the total separation hell brings) it may seem over the top, but that isn't a valid comparison given the fact you've never experienced anything like it, so you have nothing to go by.

Aren't you being subjective here? Have you experienced the conscious life of everyone on earth? If the human perspective is skewed then so is yours and thus your perspective on everything about what Jesus might have experienced... What other perspective do you recommend? Consequently you have never experienced anything outside of the human perspective so you have no idea if it is skewed or not...

Excellent points in your replies... Take care!

$cirisme

July 22nd 2005, 01:51 AM

I'm only pointing out that it is impossible to discern if another person is being subjective or objective because each presuppose the other...

Both are subjective, then. :hrm:

In my case, I do not base anything I know about hell, etc on my own experience, but I base it off the Biblical perspective.

Obviously, it's arguable whether the Bible is accurate or objective, however that opens up an entirely different argument. :shifty:

If the human perspective is skewed then so is yours

And by definition, given the fact I am a human. :wink:

I do not know what complete separation from God (hell) feels like, because I haven't experienced it.

I do not know what complete and total unity with God (heaven) is like, because I haven't experienced it.

So, yes, my experience is completely irrelevant as it isn't representative of anything useful.

We just have to go based off of "objective" facts and argue from there rather than from personal experience.

Those facts could be completely wrong, of course, but it gives us an objective base from which to argue, ie, "If THIS is true, then that is also true."

If the human perspective is skewed then so is yours and thus your perspective on everything about what Jesus might have experienced...

I think "perspective" is slightly inaccurate in how it's used here (and I'm to blame for being unclear) and I think "experience" is much better.

My point was (and is) that the Biblical account of hell is entirely consistent, so there's no reason to think based on that that the description of hell is over the top... it's entirely consistent and at the same level of peril as how separation from God is described elsewhere in the Bible.

However, it's quite likely that a human would come to the conclusion that the Bible is over-dramatic in how it describes separation from God. Based on our own experience on earth, separation from God doesn't seem so bad. Quite possibly especially from the Christian perspective, since many have this notion that nonbelievers are already separated from God now.

That's a flawed view, in my opinion, as I don't think anyone today is as truly separated from God as hell will be.

So, to cut back on what is turning out to be a very long post, if you're going by the Bible, there's nothing to indicate that the description of hell is over-dramatic if hell is separation from God.

If you're basing it off personal experience, then:

That experience is off slightly since you may perceive you are separated from God when you're not, thus invalidating the comparison (Christian perspective)

OR

You're comparing your personal experience to the Biblical writers' accounts, both are subjective, and as you said it would be impossible to discern which one was accurate... at least without delving into a million other topics like the reliability of the Bible, the divinity of Christ, etc. (non-Christian Perspective)

Hopefully that clears things up rather than makes the water murkier. :smile:

Bernie

July 22nd 2005, 09:24 AM

Hello mentored1,

Not sure what you mean by "word play", but I suspect you intend it in a sarcastic sense. Assuming this to be true, what formula do you use to discern the truth or falsity of a statement or statements? Again assuming that you're dismissing my post [please forgive if I misunderstand] due to superfluous wording, how does my post weigh in in regard to your system of determining truth claims? Where does it fail?

I'd be happy to explain in more detail any portion of what I wrote if it's not clear to you.

Bernie

July 22nd 2005, 09:46 AM

opps...meant to include this in my last post but but clicked to post by mistake....

$cirisme, I like your overall approach to this subject. Seems very ordered and logical. Hope you won't mind....I have a couple of observations.

YOU: "In my case, I do not base anything I know about hell, etc on my own experience, but I base it off the Biblical perspective."

I think what you mean is that you--as is true of us all--base your belief on your and others' interpretation of the Bible, yes? My interpretation of the Bible's words may be different than yours, even though we may use the same words/Bible (I use the NASB most of the time, by the way). So what the Bible "says" contains wtihin any belief system, to varying degrees, both subjective and objective elements.

YOU: "I do not know what complete separation from God (hell) feels like, because I haven't experienced it. I do not know what complete and total unity with God (heaven) is like, because I haven't experienced it. So, yes, my experience is completely irrelevant as it isn't representative of anything useful."

If your experience is irrelevant and doesn't represent anything useful, how can you know either what literally any separation OR unity with God is like? How can you discuss these concepts unless there exists somewhere a point of reference from subjective experience from which you can form the notion of separation or unity? It would be impossible to explain color to someone who's been blind from birth--he/she has no valid point of reference for comparison. Unless we experience these concepts intuitively [spiritually], we can't know what they mean. Remember, Adam and Even didn't know they were naked in the garden of Eden. Until they sinned and allowed false information to infect creation, they had no point of reference to evil and morality, as such, didn't exist.

My point is, don't diss your personal experience...I'd bet there's more there than you realize. But by the same token, we shouldn't trust it completely with spiritual truths [thus the need for objective methods of determining truth claims] as our gnostic/mystical brethren do, either. This is a huge mistake. Jeremiah wasn't kidding when he said the heart is decietful above all things (Jer 17:9)

mentored1

July 22nd 2005, 05:26 PM

I enjoyed reading your replies - very thoughtful stuff... Thanks

We just have to go based off of "objective" facts and argue from there rather than from personal experience.

Those facts could be completely wrong, of course, but it gives us an objective base from which to argue, ie, "If THIS is true, then that is also true."

This is all murky isn't it? You can't have objectivity because the object is given its definition and its quality by the subject; and the subject can only do that if there is an object... it's like a collapsing wave... It cancels out the possibility of having a purely subjective or objective experience / perception... And 'if this true then that' is also irrelevant because logic is only an observation of the cause / effect relationship. It's a great tool for determining the validity of certain causes and effects but I find it hard to grasp how logic can be applied to metaphysical questions - or any area where the cause and effect cannot be experienced other than in abstract thought... If logic is used in conceptual areas / abstraction and abstract notions can be changed like symbols then logic can be manipulated too easily... So without a concrete experience of hell - or any supernatural issue - mental tools seem (to me at least) to be highly questionable...

My point was (and is) that the Biblical account of hell is entirely consistent, so there's no reason to think based on that that the description of hell is over the top... it's entirely consistent and at the same level of peril as how separation from God is described elsewhere in the Bible.

Over the top - perhaps not... but that is a weird to qualify... If God represents eternity (in a sense) then the opposite - or absense - of God must be temporality... If you're separated from the eternal then are you but temporal? i.e. 'dust thou art and unto dust you shall return?' It's hard to imagine God being 'apart' from something if he has made all and sustains all; if there's nowhere apart from God then how can one be separated? I believe there is a psalm where it says that even if 'i make my bed in hell thou art there with me'... I know this paragraph is very ad-hoc with ideas but I'm trying to probe the notion that hell is part of God as much as heaven is if he is present there and if it is eternal (as God's nature is)... In which case no description would be over-the-top as no description of an boundless eternal God could be over the top...

However, it's quite likely that a human would come to the conclusion that the Bible is over-dramatic in how it describes separation from God. Based on our own experience on earth, separation from God doesn't seem so bad. Quite possibly especially from the Christian perspective, since many have this notion that nonbelievers are already separated from God now.
That's a flawed view, in my opinion, as I don't think anyone today is as truly separated from God as hell will be.

I would have to agree - if separation from God is an experience awaiting the mortal world that rejects him then rejecting eternity and immortality must have some disturbing consequences. But I wonder if it can be done... If rejecting the eternal and immortal only leaves you with the finite and mortal... i.e. death and the grave.

Of course this is the nature of my doubt - with a mind conditioned and indeed dependent on duality to understand things how can we conceive of God without experience of such? If no experience / perception of God then no experience / perception of the separation from God... This perplexes me as it seems to cancel itself all out and leave us with what... just a ?

Wonderful thoughts - most appreciated

mentored1

July 22nd 2005, 05:38 PM

Hello mentored1,

Not sure what you mean by "word play", but I suspect you intend it in a sarcastic sense.
Again assuming that you're dismissing my post [please forgive if I misunderstand] due to superfluous wording,

Heh, I'm not dismissing your post but I am being sarcastic. I am impressed by your mental agility! That paragraph would have taken me a few hours to craft :teeth: So consider it admiration!

what formula do you use to discern the truth or falsity of a statement or statements?
how does my post weigh in in regard to your system of determining truth claims? Where does it fail?

That's a tough debaucle... What are formulas? I understand we try to wrangle the world down to formulas and symbols but those all exist in the abstract, in the mental picture we have of the world. Now some are indeed valid for the world - logic and what not; but they deal with cause and effect, premises and conclusions, etc...

My issue and the root of doubt grows from that very problem: cause presupposes effect and vice versa... without an effect you could never know the cause was a cause; and without a cause you'd never know you had an effect... you can apply that to anything that exists in duality... so to me (and I may be utterly misguided but so be it) that negates the possibility of determing anything by formulas and statements... It's all just word-play, fighting with symbols...

Ultimately we haven't resolved anything but who has the better symbols or how to explain the cause-effect relationships... Of course the frustration that accompanies this for me is that all we have are all symbols and statements and the mental tools available... And I appreciate the value of that but I haven't yet encountered a formula / system that resolves anything...

That's not to say that it doesn't work for what its intended for and it doesn't explain things in a satisfactory way... but is that all we can ever know? An explanation for causation and formulas to explain how all the experiences relate to one another? How about something that deals with why we experience at all, why is causation needed to perceive, etc... Even that is not stated correctly but it's the best I can do... What's behind all the symbols, formulas, causation, theologies, etc... ya know?

Thanks again and please do feel free to explain the formula / system that I am otherwise ignorant of...

$cirisme

July 22nd 2005, 05:42 PM

opps...meant to include this in my last post but but clicked to post by mistake....

$cirisme, I like your overall approach to this subject. Seems very ordered and logical. Hope you won't mind....I have a couple of observations.

Thanks. And no, I do not mind at all!

May I make a humble suggestion, however? I would suggest using the quote tags to make it easier to see when you quote me. You can use it like this:

What you're quoting

YOU: "In my case, I do not base anything I know about hell, etc on my own experience, but I base it off the Biblical perspective."

I think what you mean is that you--as is true of us all--base your belief on your and others' interpretation of the Bible, yes?

Yes, which brings the argument full circle back to what the Bible says, and whether that's true or not.

So what the Bible "says" contains wtihin any belief system, to varying degrees, both subjective and objective elements.

No, I wouldn't say that. I would simply say that the interpretation may be subjective.

However, whether the Bible is taken as subjective or objective, I don't think it really changes the point I was making, namely that a full reading of the Bible would not lead to one think that the description of hell is over-dramatic for being “separation from God”.

YOU: "I do not know what complete separation from God (hell) feels like, because I haven't experienced it. I do not know what complete and total unity with God (heaven) is like, because I haven't experienced it. So, yes, my experience is completely irrelevant as it isn't representative of anything useful."

If your experience is irrelevant and doesn't represent anything useful

The trials of posting after my bed time. :smile: I should have said that it doesn't give me any basis to know how bad separation from God is, given the fact I haven't experienced that.

So, in that way, it doesn't give me anything useful for this topic.

how can you know either what literally any separation OR unity with God is like?

That's quite the point, if I'm basing it off personal experience, I can't know.

My point is, don't diss your personal experience... I'd bet there's more there than you realize. But by the same token, we shouldn't trust it completely with spiritual truths [thus the need for objective methods of determining truth claims] as our gnostic/mystical brethren do, either. This is a huge mistake. Jeremiah wasn't kidding when he said the heart is decietful above all things (Jer 17:9)

Thanks.

$cirisme

July 22nd 2005, 06:08 PM

I enjoyed reading your replies - very thoughtful stuff... Thanks

Thank you. This has been one of the most thought provoking and pleasant discussions I've had in a while, and I appreciate your courtesy. :smile:

Over the top - perhaps not... but that is a weird to qualify... If God represents eternity (in a sense) then the opposite - or absense - of God must be temporality... If you're separated from the eternal then are you but temporal? i.e. 'dust thou art and unto dust you shall return?' It's hard to imagine God being 'apart' from something if he has made all and sustains all; if there's nowhere apart from God then how can one be separated? I believe there is a psalm where it says that even if 'i make my bed in hell thou art there with me'... I know this paragraph is very ad-hoc with ideas but I'm trying to probe the notion that hell is part of God as much as heaven is if he is present there and if it is eternal (as God's nature is)... In which case no description would be over-the-top as no description of an boundless eternal God could be over the top...

Well, as for the Psalm, some would argue that the “hell” of the Old Covenant is different than the “hell” of the New Covenant.

However, I don't want to get too caught up with that, as even Revelation says (paraphrased) that unbelievers will be punished in the presence of the Lamb and His Holy Angels.

So, let's not get too caught up with separation being actual, true separation from God.

As David was saying in that Psalm, where can you go to escape from God?

Nowhere, not even hell in my view. However, do not get too hung up on “separation from God”. I was going to go out in the very abstract in describing what I mean, but I think an example would do a lot better here.

Jesus was separated from God on the cross. This is why in Matthew 27 we read about Jesus crying out, “My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?”

At that point Jesus was separated from God, as people in hell will be separated from God.

Was God still “present”? Of course. At that point, when Jesus took the punishment for mankind, He literally felt such despair and ruin that He felt that God had completely forsaken Him.

The analogy I would draw would be the isolation and loneliness prisoners feel. Here, prisoners feel so hopeless and isolated that it is despairing, however they may live in some of the most highly dense places they've ever lived!

That is similar to how I think God can be present in hell, but that presence will not be felt by those in hell. Hopefully that makes some sense.

I would have to agree - if separation from God is an experience awaiting the mortal world that rejects him then rejecting eternity and immortality

One is not rejecting eternity and immortality, one is rejecting life with God.

I think that's a big distinction.

Wonderful thoughts - most appreciated

That feeling is most assuredly mutual!

Bernie

July 22nd 2005, 11:29 PM

Hello mentored1,

You seem to see cause and effect as the primary function of dualism, but C&E seems to me more a secondary byproduct of duality, not the summation of it. Personally, I'm also not very big on formulas because spiritual matters tend to spin off toward more universal and abstract concepts, don't seem to be defined by formula that well. But Rational Esotericism, which is my own term for a somewhat formulaic interpretive scheme, is an interpretive method which joins two typically distant aspects of experience/reality--the esoteric, which traditionally tends to be regarded as highly subjective and experiential, and the rational, usually considered to be objective.

When I mention interpreting using the duality God endued creation with, am referring to a structure in which philosophical dualism [the distinction between specific and general] is used as a filter through which to view the two primary theological dualisms, good/evil and spirit/body.

This 'filtering' leads to what I believe to be a legitimately objective and rational path to a deeper esoteric meaning in Scripture. When I say estoeric, I'm talking about the naturally hidden nature of the meaning which resides in prescriptive truth. Seems few today are aware of the distinction Aristotle made between descriptive (pertaining to matter) and prescriptive (pertaining to normative standards) truths.

For example, Jesus' teachings in the NT consistently uses particulars (tares, goats, sheep, green/dry trees, etc.) to refer to more universal and general truths, which are naturally more abstract and conceptual than the literal language He uses to refer to them. The sheep and goats[/] of Mat 25, when viewed through a literal interptretation as [i]particulars, retain a specific nature and refer to indiviudals. Thus, sheep and goats represent certain individual humans, some of whom are destined for hell, some for heaven.

But Jesus almost always spoke in parable, allegory and metaphor, which is categorically spiritual language, despite the objections of some literalists--which is by nature also prescriptive. Filtering theological and philosophical dualism, sheep and goats may be broadened beyond the literal to represent a multiplicity of elements [i]within each individual...one's constituent components, you might say. An example of this in the material world is by looking at an individual and realizing that he or she is really only a certain specific configuration of the same basic elements--atoms--as you and I.

In this view, God's decrees for both blessing and punishment can be seen to fall upon each individual via his/her component parts in spirit (or soul, if you happen to be a dichotomist).

It's a bit more involved than this, of course, but this presents the rough idea of what I mean by the term Rational Esotericism. The reason I asked you about your formula for testing truth claims is that I believe this interpretive structure holds up very well to conservative standards of testability, like the principle that Scripture does not contradict itself. I happen to think a very consistent pattern exists along the lines presented here for interpreting the entire Bible, both Testaments, using the same formula throughout. Consistency is, of course, a reliable indicator of truth from a correspondence standpoint.

From this, the conclusion can be seen that it is not individuals God condemns to eternal hell. Mr. Tutt and others are quite correct that the notion of eternal torment is disturbingly inconsistent with the notion of a God of pure love. Rather, it is evil--what I call one's false information--which is destroyed, and from which new life arises. Death and resurrection is taking place in the human spirit (sanctification) microscopically, fragmentally and progressively--more so in the believer than the nonbeliever (1Tim 4:10). Christ's outstretched and bloodied arms has deflected death from the individual to each individual's constituent components in spirit.

$cirisme correctly spoke of being cut off from God possessing scripturally a certain congruity throughout the Bible, and I agree completely with him. Where we differ is that most apply this eternal separation to particulars in a purely literal sense, where I see a higher degree of this same truth applying in a univeral and general sense which leaves the individuality intact, though brought through the "fire" of cleansing (1Cor 3:11-15). Once these dualistic distinctions are made and applied consistently to all the Bible's teaching, Calvinism and Arminianism become obsolete...and the mystery of the salvation of all is unveiled. I've not met a Christian universalist who understands these principles; most mistakenly try to marry their universalism to the standard literal interpretive schemes, with the same unsatisfactory results as other soteriological models.

The eternality of God's wrath is decreed to the stain of our inner evil [false information], which descends like smoke from its destruction:

"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name" (Rev 14:11)

The smoke of one's torment...the stain of evil itself with which we make our pact of death with our carnal father, satan...is forever destroyed. Thus the separation of smoke from the thing being burned. The Holy Spirit told us the same thing through Isaiah: "And I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the level; Then hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters shall overflow the secret place. And your covenant with death shall be canceled, And your pact with Sheol shall not stand; When the overwhelming scourge passes through, Then you become its trampling place" (Isa 28:17-18). Paul knew of this overwhelming scourge. It prompted him to caution us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling, for in the destruction of that which hinders our relationship with God [evil], He has decreed He'll have no mercy (Ezek 7:4, 9:10, Jer 11:11).

My issue and the root of doubt grows from that very problem: cause presupposes effect and vice versa... without an effect you could never know the cause was a cause; and without a cause you'd never know you had an effect... you can apply that to anything that exists in duality... so to me (and I may be utterly misguided but so be it) that negates the possibility of determing anything by formulas and statements... It's all just word-play, fighting with symbols...

But formulas can and do work. I don't understand why you dismiss C&E so quickly. Roll a ball down a hill and you have cause (I pushed the ball at the top of the hill) and effect (ball rolls down the hill) which can be predicted by a number of valid formulas. Science is built pretty soundly on formulas, most of which can be explained in cause and effect relationships.

Thanks for the tip on setting up quotes, $cirisme...I only recently learned to bold and italic this way, didn't know it would work for quotes, too. Just never seem to take the time to learn this stuff on my own.

Can one use simply "q" instead of typing the entire word, "quote"?

mentored1

July 27th 2005, 09:45 PM

This 'filtering' leads to what I believe to be a legitimately objective and rational path to a deeper esoteric meaning in Scripture. When I say estoeric, I'm talking about the naturally hidden nature of the meaning which resides in prescriptive truth. Seems few today are aware of the distinction Aristotle made between descriptive (pertaining to matter) and prescriptive (pertaining to normative standards) truths.

While I grasp what your translating here it is still difficult to put down so easily. All the definitions and terms of what is being discussed are symbols with attached meanings - both elements which man has given to them. I've read a bit about epistemology and there is so much about understanding and knowledge that remains aloof to each one of us. To use a system, formula, or symbol to describe something that is in itself only an artifact of the human mind is perhaps the penultimate circular process... I don't mean to sound rude, if I am, but before getting into descriptive and prescriptive what about truth? Truth is the other side of error and with a mind that is capable of deluding itself, falsifying data, and so forth where does truth enter in and error depart?

It's a bit more involved than this, of course, but this presents the rough idea of what I mean by the term Rational Esotericism. The reason I asked you about your formula for testing truth claims is that I believe this interpretive structure holds up very well to conservative standards of testability, like the principle that Scripture does not contradict itself. I happen to think a very consistent pattern exists along the lines presented here for interpreting the entire Bible, both Testaments, using the same formula throughout. Consistency is, of course, a reliable indicator of truth from a correspondence standpoint.

I would agree with you that the method you present for interpreting scripture can be used with great success (just from your examples here).

But is it the only one? Does it work because the Bible was intended to be interpreted that way or that the method is flexible enough to use on the Bible?

When dealing with any type of symbolic literature (like spiritual texts, the Bible) I read it just like that: symbol, allegory. There seems to be a language of myth... certain pictures that were painted over and over - often modified - to convey a certain concept, idea, or vision of the world. The Bible contains hundreds of these word-pictures woven together... That is - I suppose - the method of how I view spiritual messages... like stained-glass windows peering into human consciousness... ?

But formulas can and do work. I don't understand why you dismiss C&E so quickly. Roll a ball down a hill and you have cause (I pushed the ball at the top of the hill) and effect (ball rolls down the hill) which can be predicted by a number of valid formulas. Science is built pretty soundly on formulas, most of which can be explained in cause and effect relationships.

Formulas work, yes, as keys for explaining the natural world. Cause and Effect is not mystical - it is an observation of the natural forces working upon one another. The example you gave above is a good one: the ball being pushed. The cause and effect is easy to explain. But when you get into metaphysics, mysticism, religion, and so forth - there is no observable data or test to prove the formula.

Cause and Effect is irrelevant in a world that cannot be tested; CE belongs to the material world where causes and effects can be observed and verified. And I agree it works well and proven a marvelous tool for mankind; but I don't understand how it can be applied to Biblical interpretation... I'm not saying it is wrong to try - I am only expressing my own doubts about the validity of using tools of science in the realm of spirit.

Take care

Sparko

July 28th 2005, 12:56 AM

I moved this thread to Gen Theistics because YET AGAIN, Mentored1 posted in the theist only area and since he was so involved in this thread and CIRISME did not even notice and report him, I decided the best move was to MOVE the thread.

Mentored1 - you have already been warned about posting in the theist only areas. Watch it please! Next time I will have to moderate your posts.

$cirisme - :glare:

ilkhani'tus

July 30th 2005, 03:00 PM

The use of the words "punishment for crime" are metaphorical, which is why Hell is described as a prison in the Bible.

The message of the Bible is also not "turn to God or else". It is "You have a choice, one choice which leads to Heaven and another which leads to Hell. You make that choice by your desires. Continue to live as a slave to your desires and you will end up in Hell".Thing is, "jesus" said that it's only through him that one can get to heaven, and it's said that only he/god can "cleanse us of sin". So, in other words, "turn to God or else".

Finally, Hell is not described as "aggressively terrifying and unpleasant" in the Bible, but simply as a place to avoid at all costs. In light of the fact that Hell represents an complete loss of hope, that alone is reason enough to want to avoid it.
Let's see, "place to avoid at all costs", and "complete loss of hope"...How much different is that from "aggressively terrifying and unpleasant"? If a place is "to be avoided at all costs", what else could it be other than "aggressively terrifying and unpleasant"?

ilkhani'tus

July 30th 2005, 03:01 PM

$cirisme - :glare:$cirisme's in trouble!!!!

:rasberry:

Rowland

July 30th 2005, 08:52 PM

I've been posting my anti-eternal damnation stuff all over the place. I probably shouldn't have, but now I've found the right place.

To begin with, the word "hell" is not in the Bible. It's a Germanic word while the Bible was written mainly in Hebrew and Greek. I don't like to say that I don't believe in hell since this is not biblical word and as such has any meaning anyone would like to attach to it. I prefer to transliterate the original biblical terms directly into the English language: sheol, hades, gahenna and tartarus. Did I miss any? Sheol and hades refer to the grave or to the place where the dead are waiting-not a place of eternal punishment. Am I wrong about this? Gahenna was a place near Jerusalem where garbage was thrown. And like all garbage dumps, was always burning. Should a metaphorical term be used as a jumping off point for serious theology? I don't know what the hell tartarus means. "Damnation" is also an English word whose meaning has changed over time and now means what the translators of the King James Bible decided what it should mean. So, yes, the words "hell" and "damnation" are found all over the place in many English translations of the NT, but this in itself doesn't mean the doctrine of eternal pain in a place called hell is found in the NT.

Secondly, so called orthodox Christians cannot agree among themselve as to how people find themselves in hell. If I wanted to go to hell and should I ask the pastors of the Christian churches that are considered orthodox how I might get there I will get at least two very different answers. The strict Calvinist churches like the Reformed, Presbyterian and even Lutheran churches (Luther was a Calvinist even before Calvin) that still follow the theology of their founders would tell me that I cannot get to hell unless God wants me there. Furthermore, God had made up His mind about my final destination long before I was even born. If I want to go to hell I may be out of luck. I could think that I was doing everything to assure reaching my destination of hell and at the last minute on my death bed-POW. God could demolish my plans with a shot of His grace causing me to repent of my sins and believe in His Son. I cannot really be assured of my damnation. (The Roman Catholic Church also taught Calvinism long before Calvin was born. The church got its Calvinism from St. Augustine, which is probably where both Luther and Calvin got it.)

Now if I ask the more liberal Presbyterian and Lutheran pastors and the pastors of Free Will Baptist churches or the modern Catholic priests and the American originated Pentecostal churches, I would get a very different answer to my question of how do I get to hell. They would tell me that if I want to go to hell that is where I'll go. There is no one, not even God, who will stop me. It's up to me. Some of these folks may tell me that I have to make a conscious decision to reject faith in Jesus in order to go to hell. Others will tell me that I need do nothing. I could even not know that such a person as Jesus even existed and still end up in hell because of freely choosing the evil that I did know about. So, getting to hell has very little to do with Jesus. It's what I want that's determinitive. Let's just leave Jesus out of this rather nasty business of you wanting to go to hell, they might tell me.

But if God decided my destiny before I was even born or if I go to hell because that's where I want to go, where does the notion that this is punishment come in? Why should I be punished for Someone else's decision? And if I go to hell of my own volition, how can this be called a punishment? My notion of punishment is that it is involuntary. And if this is punishment to satisfy justice how can this punishment be said to fully satisfy justice when the punishment has no ending? When the punishment ends then justice is satisfied. But in the case of hell the punishment never ends so justice is never satisfied.

Just as I can never be assured of getting to hell so I can never be assured of getting to heaven if I depend on the directions of the orthodox Christian doctrines. The Calvinists say that if I have true faith this is a sign that God's decision was that I will go to heaven. The catch is how do I know that my faith is genuine and is a faith based on truth? This catch keeps me, while on this side of the grave, perpetually dangling over the abyss. I may be hanging on a stout rope or a thin thread, but hanging over the abyss I am. The problem with the free will position is that if my salvation depends on my free choice, I could just before my death freely choose to reject Jesus. My will is pretty fickle. I'm always troubled by buyer's remorse.

And the pressure that this decision to go to heaven puts on me is unbearable. Many in my family and many of my friends have either chosen to reject Jesus or have simply ignored the whole issue. So, I have to become a super salseman to get these nincompoops to buy Jesus, so to speak. I'm not the salesman type. And yet, if I don't do something these people, whom I love-sort of-will go to hell. I have tried. They've threatened to disown me or something worse if I didn't stop my Bible thumping. I thought that Jesus' yoke was light! Do you call this light-having to take responsibility for my loved ones eternal destiny???

My reading of the Bible tells me that I can be assured of my eternal salvation and the salvation of my loved ones because God has always had the intention and the power to save everyone. Since I'm among the everyone I cannot not be saved.

I will now give a few Bible snapshots of the everyone is destined for heaven teaching:

The Bible teaches that everyone will be saved. This is evident in the words of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 15:22 ff) "For as in Adam all die [this includes me, you, my family, your family], so also in Christ shall all be made alive [this too includes me, you, my family, your family]. But each in his own order [the believers are first to be saved; they are the firstfruits along with Christ]:Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put every enemy under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death [It is death that holds the unbeliever in his rebellion against God. Once all these evil powers are destroyed the atheists and secular humanists will freely become believers and worshippers of God]. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all [God will be all in the hearts and minds of all people.]

One sentence written by the Apostle Paul destroys the whole theology of free will and damnation: "For God has consigned [imprisoned, confined] all to disobedience [So much for freely rejecting Jesus], that he may have mercy on all [And so goes the belief that only some will be saved through the mercy of God] (Romans 11:32)."

According to free will theology, man's desire to be damned, his desire to reject Christ, is stronger than God's desire that these rebels be saved. If I were a betting man, I would bet that, in this battle of wills, God will be the victor. "God our Savior...desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4)."

In fact, the Bible guarantees that God will win the hearts and minds of all people including those who have died in unbelief: "And I heard every creature in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them saying, 'To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!' (Rev. 5:13)." "Every creature" must include those who have died or will die in unbelief.

Rowland

Scruffy

August 23rd 2005, 04:13 PM

5) Although those condemned to Hell are not released, Hell itself is not eternal. Revelations states that it will be "cast into the Lake of Fire". There are those who suggest that the souls of the condemned are destroyed at that time. But that is a different subject that I am not familiar enough with to discuss.

This is the impression I get when I read Revelations. Destroying condemned souls seems much more merciful than eternal torment. I prefer to think that God is merciful enough to grant destruction to those souls.

silasjones

December 24th 2005, 11:24 PM

if there is an everlasting torment in hell, do you see a problem with that doctrine? its not 500000 million years, 200000 billion years or even 23831298327 Gazillion years. at least with that theres the hope that after sometime, however long it is, you will get out. even if its so far off , but still theres the hope.

But no, its suppossedly eternal. Is there a crime that deserves that? Could God one day release some people in hell and give them a second chance.>? I mean if God is almighty, could not God do as he pleases?

just something that has me thinking. I cant fanthom an EVERLASTING punishment.

surely he could forgive us after much suffering, but surely he will not because he has told us, "either you follow me or you receive eternal punishment." you receive the consequences of your actions, and since god is the ultimate truth, he is unchanging and this will come to pass. and yes, there is a crime that deserves such a punishment - refusing to praise him, which is what the bible talks of as being "blasphemy of the holy spirit".

it is not enough to say that we do not think it is fair, for we are not our judge and we are not being judged in comparison to other people's actions, only by whether we followed perfectly the standard that god has set.

but of course, i don't know if i believe in an eternal hell, either - revelation, for example, says that satan and his followers that are locked up in hell will be there in torment "forever and ever"; however, this only makes sense in a world with time. hence, when the old earth and everything in it - including the space-time fabric that is what our universe consist of - ceases to exist, presumeably all hell and its constituents will as well.

also, for people to be in everlasting torment they would have to possess immortality, which i think is specifically reserved only for followers of god.

(and then again, you have to say, "well, the thing suffering is not the body but the soul.")