Infinite Nature of Sin and Hell

[Solo]

Cosmo,
When you are on bended knee telling all within earshot that Jesus is Lord, then you will understand the point that man is not righteous and man is not good, therefore man has no virtue apart from Jesus Christ. You can tag this any way that you want, but the bottom line is, that this is a Christian forum, and if you can not include that portion of reality into your argument, then you are lacking. You may want to try and find a place where you can argue philisophical arguments apart from a Christian perspective in another forum that is not a Christian forum.

ALL MANKIND will bow and say that Jesus is Lord just before admission to eternal life, or eternal punishment at the judgment of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Wow! Let's see here...

I see at least one of each type of logical fallacy I named in my previous post. If this is your conclusion, I commend you for going all out! More interestingly, I predicted quite accurately your response ahead of time. Does this mean I'm psychic? I wonder if I could make money doing this... :smt082 :smt081

The truth hurts doesn't it?! :D

 

[Guest]

The truth hurts doesn't it?! :D

The "truth" sure does hurt...my sides hurt from laughter. :D

 

[Solo]

The truth hurts doesn't it?! :D

The "truth" sure does hurt...my sides hurt from laughter. :D

I hope your virtue grows into that which God applauds and not a false misrepresentation that only man can applaud. Good night.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

God created us. Lets say you created a computer program. It had super good AI. But it got a virus, so you deleted it. Isnt it well within your rights to do so?

You don't see any difference between disposing of a computer program and disposing of living, feeling, sentinent human beings? They are equally disposable to you? Wolfman, I think there's a religious "virus" you may be infected with that is clouding your mind and heart. I was afflicted with it also for many years. Lay aside the pat, cliched apologetic responses a moment and think on the implications of the analogy you just drew.

Perhaps you will have the same revelation I had :angel:

We're talking scales here. I definately think we are different from a computer program. To me, deleting a computer program is nothing big, but killing a man is horrendous. But then, in this model, I would be equal to the program. We are viewing it from the standpoint of the creation. However, we think that we have some right to ourselves. As created beings, we are owned by that which created us. The analogy I drew is perfectly fine. Its relatively to scale. Im not saying we are no better than a program, because we are. However, we cannot create the entirety of another person, body, soul, and spirit.(Cosmo will disagree with me, however, there is no point in argueing with him in this thread, because in order for a person to accept these arguments, you have to accept that a God does exist. Me and him are argueing apples and cucumbers.) We create a computer program and make it everything it could be. If it comes up lacking, we can fix it or destroy it. For God, who is infinitely greater than we are as we are infinitely greater than a computer program, the same concept applies. If God wants to destroy us, he can.

21: Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? Romans 9:21

That is just an example of my point. So, God can send us to hell if he desires. He is justified in destroying us. However, he wants to extend mercy to any who will have it.

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

And Solo and Cosmo, would you two stop argueing here. I'll start a thread for you guys to bicker about logical fallacies. Lets get back on topic, which my above thread is trying to do.

 

[Drew]

Hello BWOG:

I have the following beliefs about Hell (this will be a repeat from a lot of other threads):

1. The unredeemed experience a time-limited stay in hell - they are ultimately destroyed and pass into non-existence. Perhaps, the act of being destroyed is "what hell is".

2. There is no immortal soul - human beings are not divisible into separate parts like body, soul, spirit, etc.

3. The overarching theme of the Scriptures is that the wages of sin is death (extinction), not eternal conscious torment.

4. One of the themes of Revelation seems to be the destruction of sin and the introduction of a "restored" creation. The existence of a lake of fire with tormented souls in this "new order" seems problematic.

You seem to believe that God has the "right" to do whatever He wants with his creation. I submit that this idea really does not hold up. Suppose that I developed the capability to create a living creature in my basement. Suppose that I then created a torture chamber and put the creature inside it and arranged the creature would never die - it would continue to suffer forever.

If the authorities found out about this, they would come down on me like a buzzard on a gutwagon - and rightly so. Even we mere men, being evil, can understand that pointless eternal suffering is grossly immoral. How much more so would our God view such a state of affairs. Being the "creator" does not give one carte blanche to abuse the thing that is created.

I want to be precise here - what I am saying is that the specific property of being the creator does not give any agent the moral right to inflict pain on the creature. You may have other arguments as to why God has the "right" to punish men in Hell, but the mere fact that He created them does not seem all that convincing.

 

[SputnikBoy]

If God wants to destroy us, he can.

The anihilationist is not arguing that point. It's the act of 'eternal torment' that irks so many. Destruction of the unrighteous is one thing. Allowing them to suffer for evermore (literally) is another.

21: Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? Romans 9:21

That is just an example of my point. So, God can send us to hell if he desires. He is justified in destroying us. However, he wants to extend mercy to any who will have it.

Again, God's destroying the unsaved is what the anihilationist believes. The issue is: will God NOT actually destroy the unsaved but instead allocate to them the same eternal life as given to the saved? One either has eternal life if one is to suffer eternal torment or one doesn't and is therefore eternally destroyed. Where do you stand on this issue?

 

[SputnikBoy]

Hello BWOG:

I have the following beliefs about Hell (this will be a repeat from a lot of other threads):

1. The unredeemed experience a time-limited stay in hell - they are ultimately destroyed and pass into non-existence. Perhaps, the act of being destroyed is "what hell is".

2. There is no immortal soul - human beings are not divisible into separate parts like body, soul, spirit, etc.

3. The overarching theme of the Scriptures is that the wages of sin is death (extinction), not eternal conscious torment.

4. One of the themes of Revelation seems to be the destruction of sin and the introduction of a "restored" creation. The existence of a lake of fire with tormented souls in this "new order" seems problematic.

You seem to believe that God has the "right" to do whatever He wants with his creation. I submit that this idea really does not hold up. Suppose that I developed the capability to create a living creature in my basement. Suppose that I then created a torture chamber and put the creature inside it and arranged the creature would never die - it would continue to suffer forever.

If the authorities found out about this, they would come down on me like a buzzard on a gutwagon - and rightly so. Even we mere men, being evil, can understand that pointless eternal suffering is grossly immoral. How much more so would our God view such a state of affairs. Being the "creator" does not give one carte blanche to abuse the thing that is created.

I want to be precise here - what I am saying is that the specific property of being the creator does not give any agent the moral right to inflict pain on the creature. You may have other arguments as to why God has the "right" to punish men in Hell, but the mere fact that He created them does not seem all that convincing.

Intelligent post, Drew.

 

[Free]

Even we mere men, being evil, can understand that pointless eternal suffering is grossly immoral. How much more so would our God view such a state of affairs. Being the "creator" does not give one carte blanche to abuse the thing that is created.

The hidden assumption here, which is used far too much by anti-ETists, is that God is going to forever torture and abuse his creatures. Ever read The Great Divorce? Torment does not necessarily imply physical torture.

You may have other arguments as to why God has the "right" to punish men in Hell, but the mere fact that He created them does not seem all that convincing.

And how is that different from creating them only to destroy them? How about those whom he creates that do all manner of evil to others that he has created? He created man despite this, why would it be different for those going to hell?

One of the main problems with your arguments is that Jesus is clear that the unsaved will experience agony in hell, some more, some less. You believe that man as no immaterial soul, that he is simply dead at death. However, if the unsaved are to experience punishment in hell, then God must resurrect them at the end of time with the righteous. God would then have to send them to hell for a limited duration and then annihilate them. But this makes hell utterly pointless and completely undermines Jesus' many dire warnings about hell.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Can anyone explain to me as intellectually as is possible 1. how tormenting anyone for ANY amount of time is beneficial either to the tormenter or the tormentee, 2. how those of the saved who have loved ones currently being tormented will respond, and, 3. where does/will this tormenting actually taking place? Is/will hell be on the New Earth, in heaven, some specially constructed penal colony ...where?

 

[SputnikBoy]

Even we mere men, being evil, can understand that pointless eternal suffering is grossly immoral. How much more so would our God view such a state of affairs. Being the "creator" does not give one carte blanche to abuse the thing that is created.

The hidden assumption here, which is used far too much by anti-ETists, is that God is going to forever torture and abuse his creatures.

But that IS the assumption of ETists, as you put it. The anti-ETists merely affirm what most ETists believe. It isn't a 'hidden' assumption.

Ever read The Great Divorce? Torment does not necessarily imply physical torture.

I haven't personally read The Great Divorce. But you raise the idea here that 'torment' might also be a 'symbolic' term!

You may have other arguments as to why God has the "right" to punish men in Hell, but the mere fact that He created them does not seem all that convincing.

And how is that different from creating them only to destroy them?

Well, I think there IS a big difference in 'destroying' and 'eternally punishing'.

How about those whom he creates that do all manner of evil to others that he has created? He created man despite this, why would it be different for those going to hell?

But, as long as God knows the end from the beginning, would He also know who would be eventually sent to hell and tormented forever BEFORE they were even created? Complicated, isn't it?

One of the main problems with your arguments is that Jesus is clear that the unsaved will experience agony in hell, some more, some less.

But for what purpose? Is this an act of vindictiveness only? Sure sounds like it.

You believe that man as no immaterial soul, that he is simply dead at death. However, if the unsaved are to experience punishment in hell, then God must resurrect them at the end of time with the righteous. God would then have to send them to hell for a limited duration and then annihilate them. But this makes hell utterly pointless and completely undermines Jesus' many dire warnings about hell.

It seems to annoy or irritate you that the wicked might somehow be getting away too lightly for their sins. Annihilation is not enough for you? You want more? Remember, the only difference between the saved and the unsaved is acceptance or nonacceptance of Jesus. Eternal torment is a HUGE and rather unreasonable consequence to pay for the latter, don't you think?

 

[Drew]

One of the main problems with your arguments is that Jesus is clear that the unsaved will experience agony in hell, some more, some less.

I have never disagreed with this

You believe that man as no immaterial soul, that he is simply dead at death. However, if the unsaved are to experience punishment in hell, then God must resurrect them at the end of time with the righteous. God would then have to send them to hell for a limited duration and then annihilate them. But this makes hell utterly pointless and completely undermines Jesus' many dire warnings about hell.

I do not understand. A finite duration hell experience is still no walk in the park. Jesus' warnings still make sense - why would a finite hell not be something to be warned of?

 

[guibox]

I do not understand. A finite duration hell experience is still no walk in the park. Jesus' warnings still make sense - why would a finite hell not be something to be warned of?

Yes, it seems to be some sort of inate bloodlust in man that DEMANDS there be some serious retribution for man's 'sins'. I just don't understand it because what we are doing is putting all His focus on the punishment of sinners.

Is this what God is like or what He is concerned about?

Why did God come to die for sinners?

Bottom line: He came so we wouldn't miss out on eternal life with Him.

He did not come so He could find a way to punish sinners whether with eternal torment or annihilation.

Isn't it enough punishment that for those brief seconds before the fire comes down, that the wicked see the results of their choices and see what they have missed out on?

Isn't it enough punishment to know that as they stand outside that glorious New Jerusalem, that they will never experience the ultimate love and fellowship of God's presence and grace?

God is not out to punish sinners, He wants to eradicate sin and this sinful world so He can 'make a new heavens and a new earth for the old earth and the old heavens have passed away'.

Sinners get caught in the crossfire because God respects their choice to hang on to sin.

"And the elements will melt with fervent heat and the world and all its works shall be burnt up"

This includes sinners.

God wants to eliminate suffering and sin, not prolong it in some fashion for no redemptive or reformative purpose.

 

[DivineNames]

Sin has an infinite nature.

Do you think that all sin is infinite, or only certain sins?

 

[DivineNames]

A sin is an offense against an infinite being. A sin offends a being who is infinite in majesty and power, and as such, the punishment can be in a certain respect, infinite. The greater the person you offend, the greater the punishment the offense entails.

So in your view, the seriousness of sin against God, and the punishment it should rightly be given, are outside of God's control? (Determined in part by God's nature - him being infinite.) So there is an objective standard of morality which God has to obey?

If we are all sinners, and sinners have to be burned in hell for all eternity, how come Christians don't get burned in hell?

Perhaps you could say that the sins of Christians have been forgiven via the atonement. But why would substitutionary atonement be allowed? If there is an objective standard of morality which God has to obey, and sinners deserve eternal punishment, then why would God be at liberty to punish the wrong person? (i.e. substitute Jesus)

 

[DivineNames]

The greater the person you offend, the greater the punishment the offense entails.

I think this is false, and I imagine that most people would agree.

It is true that should you kill a peer you will probably be given life. But when you kill a cop, its not difficult for the prosecutor to seek the death penalty. The penalty is increased because of the person offended.

This has nothing to do with the "greatness" of the person. Police officers are not considered especially "great" in our society! But they do play a unique role, they are on the frontline against criminal behaviour.

Lets say that a police officer is murdered when they are off duty, nothing to do with their work as a cop. It would not be considered to be more serious than the murder of anyone else.

 

[DivineNames]

And Solo and Cosmo, would you two stop argueing here. I'll start a thread for you guys to bicker about logical fallacies.

I think we need a thread that is only for Solo, he can repeatedly post about how he, "knows the truth", and how non-Christians will not understand that truth. If he has his own thread, all to himself, then he will not be wasting the time of other forum users with that rubbish.

 

[BradtheImpaler]

We're talking scales here. I definately think we are different from a computer program. To me, deleting a computer program is nothing big, but killing a man is horrendous. But then, in this model, I would be equal to the program. We are viewing it from the standpoint of the creation. However, we think that we have some right to ourselves. As created beings, we are owned by that which created us. The analogy I drew is perfectly fine. Its relatively to scale. Im not saying we are no better than a program, because we are. However, we cannot create the entirety of another person, body, soul, and spirit.(Cosmo will disagree with me, however, there is no point in argueing with him in this thread, because in order for a person to accept these arguments, you have to accept that a God does exist. Me and him are argueing apples and cucumbers.) We create a computer program and make it everything it could be. If it comes up lacking, we can fix it or destroy it. For God, who is infinitely greater than we are as we are infinitely greater than a computer program, the same concept applies. If God wants to destroy us, he can.

21: Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? Romans 9:21

That is just an example of my point. So, God can send us to hell if he desires. He is justified in destroying us. However, he wants to extend mercy to any who will have it.

Basically all you're arguing is that, if there is a God above us, He has the right to destroy us. That little rotten kid down the street in "Anytown, U.S.A." has the same right to torture small animals. He has the right because he can? Is this kid "justified" in torturing/destroying because it is in his power to do so?

 

[Solo]

We're talking scales here. I definately think we are different from a computer program. To me, deleting a computer program is nothing big, but killing a man is horrendous. But then, in this model, I would be equal to the program. We are viewing it from the standpoint of the creation. However, we think that we have some right to ourselves. As created beings, we are owned by that which created us. The analogy I drew is perfectly fine. Its relatively to scale. Im not saying we are no better than a program, because we are. However, we cannot create the entirety of another person, body, soul, and spirit.(Cosmo will disagree with me, however, there is no point in argueing with him in this thread, because in order for a person to accept these arguments, you have to accept that a God does exist. Me and him are argueing apples and cucumbers.) We create a computer program and make it everything it could be. If it comes up lacking, we can fix it or destroy it. For God, who is infinitely greater than we are as we are infinitely greater than a computer program, the same concept applies. If God wants to destroy us, he can.

21: Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for menial use? Romans 9:21

That is just an example of my point. So, God can send us to hell if he desires. He is justified in destroying us. However, he wants to extend mercy to any who will have it.

Basically all you're arguing is that, if there is a God above us, He has the right to destroy us. That little rotten kid down the street in "Anytown, U.S.A." has the same right to torture small animals. He has the right because he can? Is this kid "justified" in torturing/destroying because it is in his power to do so?

If the author of the universe who makes the rules says it is ok, then by all means; but if God determines that this stewardship is selfish and non-constructive in his Kingdom, a judgment will be based on rebellion against his Word. You can live by God's rules or by DivineNames rules, but remember that lawlessness has its consequences.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Can anyone explain to me as intellectually as is possible 1. how tormenting anyone for ANY amount of time is beneficial either to the tormenter or the tormentee, 2. how those of the saved who have loved ones currently being tormented will respond, and, 3. where does/will this tormenting actually taking place? Is/will hell be on the New Earth, in heaven, some specially constructed penal colony ...where?

Just want to bump this up in the hope of getting some answers or even guesses.