Philosophical and Theological Problems With Hell

[ThinkerMan]

Thinkerman, re-read the MacDonald quote. I may be missing something, but it looks like you have (in a very thoughtful and detailed response) absolutely agreed with the underlying premise of the quote (and much of MacDonald's work) which is that the CHARACTER of GOD is of a piece with the piece of His Character that He has instilled in us.

Thanks Dean, but this one sentence is the crux of what MacDonald is saying.

God can have no duty that is not both just and merciful.

When one raises the question of eternal damnation and suffering for a few short years on earth, one must ask "Is this really merciful?"

By a reasonableness standard almost all would say "Of course not". However, they justify it by stating, as MacDonald did, that we are essentially incapable of grasping the true morality and justice of God.

However, he does not state we have a different level of justice, but rather a lesser level of justice. This in incompatable (in my estimation) with the justice of infinite suffering for finite reasons.

It is not reflective of any "lesser" justice that we recognize, it is fundamentally incompatable with what we perceive as justice.

So again, if God has a different justice than we have, how can we know that any of the rules, laws, justice that we hand down could truly be compabable with God's? How can one say that we derive our justice and morality from God, when we are unable to perceive and recognize what it is?

It makes for the ultimate in "subjective morality" since hell demonstrates a substantially different, not just greater, sense of justice.

 

[Free]

ThinkerMan,

This in incompatable (in my estimation) with the justice of infinite suffering for finite reasons

Then the burden of proof rests on you to show that the reasons are, in fact, finite.

 

[guibox]

ThinkerMan,

This in incompatable (in my estimation) with the justice of infinite suffering for finite reasons

Then the burden of proof rests on you to show that the reasons are, in fact, finite.

The only argument that most have to justify it is this:

"God is an infinite being, therefore those that sin against Him suffer an infinite punishment"

For some strange reason, most traditionalists think this ends the argument. This argument doesn't solve a hoot worth of problems like the ones I mentioned at the beginning of this thread. It is NEEDED to justify the traditional view, it does nothing to solve the problems of the argument.

Again, we must go back to the nature of the punishment.

The punishment is death. The fire is a means to an end. The punishment is eternal in its results, not its duration (again see Jude 7 for an example of this)

There is no need for a 'burden of proof'. It is no 'burden' as there is a truck load of scriptural, moral, philosophical, judicial, logical arguments against such a concept. However, most traditionalists want t hang on to their one phrase and a few misinterpreted bible texts and bring God's character down rather than admit that perhaps this view needs to be rethought.

Sad...[/i]

 

[Free]

The punishment is eternal in its results, not its duration (again see Jude 7 for an example of this)

I fail to see how that supports your argument. The verse states that the punishment is eternal. Period. It says nothing about what that punishment is and there certainly is no reason to say that it is speaking of results and not duration.

There is no need for a 'burden of proof'. It is no 'burden' as there is a truck load of scriptural, moral, philosophical, judicial, logical arguments against such a concept.

Yes, there is. He has made a claim with no support. And support doesn't include saying "there is a truck load...".

 

[phatdawg]

There you go again, guibox. More from you that is well thought out and exhibiting a certain amount of depth. That is what I was talking about earlier. I get used to reading things like this come from you, and it is disheartening to see you post "The 4 major cop-outs".

This subject matter is worty of more than knee-jerk reactions and out-of-hand dismissals. If we want to put the word of God on trial, we need more than over-heated zeal to present the case.

 

[Dean]

Every time I hear the phrase "truck load", I instantly hear John Belushi singing in my head:

In the King James... (Huh!)
I was EDUCATED...
I know one THiNG....
Sinnahs gonna be Annihalated!"

ARG-u-ments...
I won't go down that ROAD!
Scripture Verses,
I got a TRUCKLOAD!

I'm a SOUL MAN!!!
(trumpet flurry)
I'm a SOUL MAN!!

 

[Dean]

Revelation 21:8
But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars–their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.â€Â

Problems or no problems, it will happen.

[quote:455e2]Revelation 20:14-15
Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

The fact of hell is not being disputed here DIME (Universalists notwithstanding, but I am not reasoning with them on this one, just traditionalists). It is the nature of this hell and the duration that my arguments are addressing. Did you honestly look at what I wrote at the beginning?

Do you not find your God-given conscience and sense of right and wrong agreeing with the logic of it? If so, then that tells us that God and the Bible are not the problem, but our interpretation that needs adjustment.

[/quote:455e2]

Guibox, a Universalist here, agreeing with you (gasp!) that "Problems or no problems, it will happen". But as I posted in another string -- what happens AFTER it happens? Keep on reading Revelation, even AFTER Chapter 20:

Revelation 21:6: "He said to me: "It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

By the way, where is the "Get-out-of-jail-free" section for Christians we all expect to see at the end of this verse: "...Unless of course, that cowardly, unbelieving, sexually immoral, idolatrous liar has... accepted-Jesus-Christ-as-his-personal-lord-and-saviour." The silence is deafening. I got thrown in The Lake. So did you, unless you were beheaded for not bearing the mark of the beast.

Now, follow along. Everyone assumes these vile reprobates are TOAST, but in the VERY NEXT CHAPTER, we find these folks outside the gates of the New Jerusalem... No less an authority than Our Lord Jesus says in 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. "

Now where did these pernicious murdering, idolatrous, sexually-immoral liars come from? Didn't we already exterminate them in Chapter 21? Yet HERE THEY ARE AGAIN, AFTER the New Jerusalem is established. And here is Jesus asking them to WASH THEIR ROBES so that they might enter the City. Why are they WASHING THEIR ROBES even after the Millenium, the Rapture, and the advent of the New Jerusalem? Because even then, in that Day, the timeless Truth echoes, and the WORD implores - "Today is the Day of Salvation!"

I apologize for the re-post, btw, but in the 5 times that I have quoted this section of Revelation, not once has either a 'traditionalist' or an 'annihalationist' responded, so whenever I see Rev. 20 or 21 quoted with that smug "There they go into the Lake, and that's that!" attitude, I get all verklempt.

 

[Charlotte]

Dean,

What is verklempt?

Charlotte

 

[Dean]

Mike Myers, Saturday Night Live, COFFEE TALK.

Pseudo-Yiddish for "too emotional to speak", "choked up".

 

[cj]

Mike Myers, Saturday Night Live, COFFEE TALK.

Pseudo-Yiddish for "too emotional to speak", "choked up".

Becoming verklempt is one thing...... but, I wonder if the reason you become verklempted is due to the inward smugness present.

What is it that verklempts you Dean? Knowing, that is, as you say you know, this "real truth that sets you free."

Free from everything except verklempting?

In love,
cj

 

[cj]

Matthew  5 : 22, "But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, Raca, shall be liable to the judgment of the Sanhedrin; and whoever says, Moreh, shall be liable to the Gehenna of fire."

Notes from the Recovery Version bible - Gehenna, valley of Henna, is equivalent to the Hebrew Ge Hinnom, valley of Hinnom. Also called Tophet, or Topheth (2 Kings 23:10; Isa. 30:33; Jer. 19:13), it is a deep valley near Jerusalem and was the refuse-place of the city, where all kinds of filth and the bodies of criminals were cast for burning. Because of its continual fire, it became the symbol of the place of eternal punishment, the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15). This word is used also in vv. 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5; and James 3:6.


Revelation  21 : 8, "But the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and fornicators and sorcerers and idolaters and all the false, their part will be in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

Notes from the Recovery Version bible - In the old heaven and old earth there is the sea of water to hold the result of God's judgment, whereas in the new heaven and new earth there will be the lake of fire to replace the sea. All negative and filthy things, after being judged by God, will be cast into the lake of fire, where they will suffer the second death and be tormented by being burned in fire and brimstone for eternity (14:10-11). According to 22:15, the lake of fire will be outside the New Jerusalem, as Gehenna (which signifies the lake of fire  Matt. 5:22 and note 8), that is, as Topheth, a place for filthy things (Jer. 19:11-13), was outside the old Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:10; Isa. 30:33). The lake of fire is much more restricted than the sea of water.



Revelation  21 : 25, "And its gates shall by no means be shut by day, for there will be no night there.

Funny thought here.... if, according to Dean's URist thought, there are unsaved outside the city that has no shut doors, then why is it that they are required to wash there robes to come in? Why can they just not walk in through the open gates? Washing robes is in and of itself a type of shut gate.


Dean........ have you considered how these good folk, the ones who have the right to the tree of life and can enter into the city, came to have "robes" to wash in the first place?

No? Then perhaps you should.



Also...... do you know what a city represents in biblical typeology?

In love,
cj

 

[Dean]

Brother cj, are you off your medication again?

Let's "take it outside" - I think guibox meant this string to be addressed to the "annihalation vs. eternal torment" discussion, not hijacked by yet another UR detour. My bad, I lack impulse control - - grrrr, putter-putter.

Meet you at 4pm outside the "Ministering to the Disobedient Dead".

Bring your bible, and your profound lack of amusement.

 

[guibox]

Brother cj, are you off your medication again?

Let's "take it outside" - I think guibox meant this string to be addressed to the "annihalation vs. eternal torment" discussion, not hijacked by yet another UR detour. My bad, I lack impulse control - - grrrr, putter-putter.

:o I'm impressed, Dean! Thank you for your restraint and consideration here! cj, you haven't presented any misinformation I and others haven't already known or talked about (nay, refuted by the linguistics of scripture).

Even though I don't agree with our UR brethren, they have the correct understanding of how words like "eternal", "everlasting" and "forever" are used in the scriptures. Anybody who not only ignores that plus the numerous references throughout the entire Bible to God's enemies being "destroyed"
"facing destruction"
"wasting away"
"consumed into smoke"
"brought to ashes under the soles of your feet
experiencing the "second death"
"being no more"
"destroyed both body and soul"

are choosing to hold on to their ignorance of biblical study and would rather continue hanging on to their beliefs merely because that's what they grew up with.

Take all those references PLUS the problems I mentioned in the beginning of this thread, and you should see that there are some serious problems with 'hell'.

 

[Free]

quibox,

Even though I don't agree with our UR brethren, they have the correct understanding of how words like "eternal", "everlasting" and "forever" are used in the scriptures.

And the correct understanding is...temporary? If that is the case, then the believer will not have eternal life, we will simply be raised from the dead to go through another life and then die once again. URists are very wrong in their understanding of the use of those words. I don't think any of them, or you, have really thought that through as it undermines much of the gospel and Scripture.

 

[guibox]

quibox,

Even though I don't agree with our UR brethren, they have the correct understanding of how words like "eternal", "everlasting" and "forever" are used in the scriptures.

And the correct understanding is...temporary? If that is the case, then the believer will not have eternal life, we will simply be raised from the dead to go through another life and then die once again. URists are very wrong in their understanding of the use of those words. I don't think any of them, or you, have really thought that through as it undermines much of the gospel and Scripture.

Look back at this thread and scroll to near the bottom of the page to see how eternal and everlasting are used.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 2&start=30

As far as allowing them "to live another life then die once again" It is not exactly like that. When Christ comes a second time, the wicked are automatically destroyed at His coming. They haven't the chance to be judged executively in front of the universe. They, neither the righteous have had the opportunity to see where they went wrong and why God's actions were indeed just in having them where they are. It is a vindication of God's character, plus it is only fair to show them. Revelation 20 and many other biblical references makes it plain that there are two resurrections and that the wicked will indeed be resurrected again. They make one last attempt to attack God and they are shown where they went wrong, then "every knee shall bow" in recognition that He was indeed fair and just. Then they are destroyed along with sin.

Read your Bible, Free.

 

[ThinkerMan]

ThinkerMan,

This in incompatable (in my estimation) with the justice of infinite suffering for finite reasons

Then the burden of proof rests on you to show that the reasons are, in fact, finite.

True. I think the fact that we are only alive for a finite amount of time tends to qualify for that.

In terms of a sin against an infinite being deserves infinite punishment, that is a valid argument. However, I still think it is lacking.

For example, a six year old who steals and yells at his parents dies, he has never heard of Jesus. Probably go to hell under most people's idea, yet are those infinite sins deserving eternity in hell?

Does it make any difference if the kid is 6 months, 3 years, 9 years, 12 years, 15 years, 18 years old?

As some point the sins are only finite (since most likely believe infants and young children would not be sentenced to hell by a merciful god), but then at some point.....boom.....infinite sin.

It seems capricious and arbitrary justice if this is the case.

 

[Free]

I really like how you are very selective in your interpretation of Scripture - that "eternal" means "eternal" only when applied to the believer, that's cute. Your point regarding the diffence in meaning is completely unsupported except by your presuppositions.

When Christ comes a second time, the wicked are automatically destroyed at His coming.

No. The Bible is clear that at least some of the righteous are resurrected prior to any of the unbelievers being resurrected. If the wicked are completely destroyed at his coming, then who are Jesus and the overcomers reigning over for the 1000 years? Your idea is, again, completely unsupported by Scripture.

Read your Bible, Free.

I did, and it disagrees with you.

 

[Free]

ThinkMan,

Probably go to hell under most people's idea, yet are those infinite sins deserving eternity in hell?

Not necessarily. The only reason someone goes to hell is for rejecting the atoning sacrifice of Christ. It is not necessarily for things done, but for one thing not done.

As some point the sins are only finite (since most likely believe infants and young children would not be sentenced to hell by a merciful god), but then at some point.....boom.....infinite sin.

In rejecting Christ, people are rejecting God himself who came down to be offered as a sacrifice. God is the ultimate sacrifice, none greater can be given - the creator was sacrificed to redeem his creation. To reject that, to me, is an infinite sin.

 

[cj]

To reject that, to me, is an infinite sin.

I hear you free, but we need to be take care, inthat, there is no sin left uncovered by the blood of the perfect Lamb.

The crime that is being paid for in the Lake of Fire, is that of Satan's unrighteousness..... at the end of this old creation, anything found to be of Satan is thrown into the Lake of Fire. Although this might include unbelieving men, God simply deems them to be of His enemy and not of Him, and therefore condemned to Satan's condemnation.

In love,
cj

 

[guibox]

I really like how you are very selective in your interpretation of Scripture - that "eternal" means "eternal" only when applied to the believer, that's cute. Your point regarding the diffence in meaning is completely unsupported except by your presuppositions.

How am I being selective? The context of explaining some of these terms must be looked at in association with others. Where is your disputations on these matters? Where is it wrongly applied? To ignore the context is to misapply the meaning.

When Christ comes a second time, the wicked are automatically destroyed at His coming.

No. The Bible is clear that at least some of the righteous are resurrected prior to any of the unbelievers being resurrected. If the wicked are completely destroyed at his coming, then who are Jesus and the overcomers reigning over for the 1000 years? Your idea is, again, completely unsupported by Scripture.

And you get this from where?

[quote:a6a0a]And I saw thrones and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them (the righteous). And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years....But the rest of the dead (wicked) lived not again until the thousand years were finished. this is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection. On such the second death hath no power. But they shall be priests of God and of Christ and shall reign with him a thousand years - Revelation 20:4-6

The first resurrection is the resurrection when Christ comes. Those that 'sleep in Jesus' will be brought forth from the grave and reign with Christ a 1000 years. They are not reigning over anyone, nevermind the wicked. The wicked are then resurrected in the second resurrection where they are judged (Revelation 20:8,9)

Read your Bible, Free.
I did, and it disagrees with you.

[/quote:a6a0a]

Prove it then in its linguisitic and hermeneutical context. You haven't, you can't. Linguistically and exegetically the weak argument is on your side. You can tell me that the Bible disagrees with me but to ignore the evidence makes it nothing but meaningless words.