On Hell and Forgiveness

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly, then I burn down their house, kill their livestock, sow salt in the fields, and make off with any young girls in their care.

(fuck, I almost forget to shit in the well!)

[Fake Messiah]

People do not go to hell because they failed to "love God back". They go to hell because their sins have not been atoned for. Period. 

Yeah, LadyForCamus, how dare you assume who will god send to hell based on the Bible, like verses:

Galatians 2:16
A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.

Romans 3:28
A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:18, 36
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already .... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

When you should have gone with not what is actually in the Bible but what SteveII wants it to be in the Bible.

[LadyForCamus]

---

Why does god feel compelled to eternally punish only those folks who don’t love him back?  Why is that sin the only unforgivable one, and why isn’t it forgivable?  I have heard of hell described by Christians as a “self-imposed exile.”  If I were to die tomorrow and realize I was wrong, and I begged god for forgiveness but he refused, how could my exile be considered self-imposed?  It’s not self-imposed if god is actively preventing me from being with him.  [1]

Does god love the folks in hell?  If he does, and they are in agony for being separated from him, what logical or moral reason is there for god to keep them ostracized?  That sounds like the opposite of a forgiving god. It sounds to me like someone who holds grudges. [2]

Christians, would you do this to your own children?  If your child ran away, and came back a month later, filthy and in tears, saying, “mommy/daddy I miss you so much. I’m so alone and afraid. I’m sorry I left; I just want to come home and cuddle with you on the couch,” would you tell them it’s ‘too late’, and shut the door in their face for good?  Why or why not? [3]

Why is being loved back the most important thing to god; even more important than how we treat each other during life?  Even more important than how his chosen priesthood treat their children?

---

Why is this doctrine constantly mischaracterized? Is it because if you phrase it the way you do it sound more incredulous/ridiculous? It makes the objection no more than a straw man. People do not go to hell because they failed to "love God back". They go to hell because their sins have not been atoned for. Period.

Steve, it’s not my intention to mischaracterize anything. That’s why I posted this in the Christianity section. I’m not interested in a circle-jerk. I appreciate the correction. You have to understand, I have already gotten two diverging positions from theists in this thread, just on the subject of hell alone, so try to have a little empathy for the non-Christian. 😛

1. Hell is not so much self-imposed as a consequence of your decision not to seek atonement (or do the best you can with the information God made available to you and respond to him in some way).

I don’t agree with the concept of humans needing atonement in the first place, but if I’m playing by the rules, so to speak, then I have no problem with the above explanation.

2. No grudge. Just a state of existence that is now fully separated from God compared to your life where God's presence was all around you in some way.  It is quite possible (as Neo was discussing) that once a soul is really separated from God, it does not desire God nor anything resembling the Good (with a capital G).

If that’s true, then I guess hell wouldn't really be a punishment, would it?

3. False analogy. God does not make decisions based on emotions. They are based on essential characteristics of love, justice, holiness, and mercy.

You said this to me once in reference to the question of why god created people:

Why do we desire friendship, spouses? How about the desire to have children? I think it is because relationships add a specific kind of value to the lives of people. There is joy when the other person succeeds, there is a desire to help when the other is in needs, there is greater satisfaction in shared experiences, there is comfort when there is tragedy, and there is a feeling of peacefulness when everything is good between two people.

I think God created us for those and similar reasons: An eternal relationship has value both to us and to God

You seem to think it’s a fairly accurate analogy considering you’ve used it here to describe god’s reasons for creating us, and the nature of the relationship he has with is.

Also, things like joy, comfort, desire, peacefulness, tragedy, and love are all human feelings. This is about as emotionally-laden an explanation for god’s decision-making that I can think of. You see, if you appeal to humanity to describe god, then you have unintentionally placed him in the same category as his creation.  He then becomes subject to the same flaws and criticisms that we are.

As essential characteristics, one cannot be set aside when convenient. They all govern all the time. This is also the answer to whether God loves people in Hell. Yes, he loves all of his creation but it does not matter because there are other constraints in place.

So, God is constrained by his own nature? What about mercy?  I would think mercy would free his hands up a bit with regard to those in hell who see their error, and are truely remorseful, as CL has implied.

Now you might say what if the system was that when we all die, we are given another chance to respond to God and take the atonement offered? Wouldn't that be the logical equivalent of everyone getting into heaven no matter what their choices in life were--because really, who would refuse it standing before the eternal creator of the universe?

I don’t see a moral problem with your proposed scenario. Why shouldn’t everyone get into heaven?  Why wouldn’t god bring himself, as the eternal creator, before each and every person on the planet right now, so that we all get the irrefutable message? This hypothetical seems to contradict the usual Christian talking point that god reveals himself to us in this life clearly and satisfactorily. So, god’s message to us in life is clear enough, but it’s just not as clear as if I was standing at his front door? Why the test?  What’s the reason? 

Another thing, it seems that the mortal component of our existence is the window of opportunity to respond to God.

Why? I can’t think of a reason that isn’t either arbitrary or vindictive.

To claim that was not enough time, not clear enough, or somehow unfair is not a logical argument--it is an emotional argument without any real justification when closely examined.

Not as clear as other methods, according to you. Not as clear as him standing before me. It’s not an emotional argument at all.  It’s a logical one.  Considering how long a mortal life is, compared to how long eternity is (tongue in cheek), what is the logical reason for placing a time constraint on one’s ability to choose atonement?  What is the logical reason for not accepting atonement from a soul who wants it?  Why is god’s forgiveness finite when literally everything else about him is eternal?  

Thanks always!

[SteveII]

People do not go to hell because they failed to "love God back". They go to hell because their sins have not been atoned for. Period. 

Yeah, LadyForCamus, how dare you assume who will god send to hell based on the Bible, like verses:

Galatians 2:16
A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.

Romans 3:28
A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

John 3:18, 36
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already .... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

When you should have gone with not what is actually in the Bible but what SteveII wants it to be in the Bible.

On more nuanced subjects regarding Christianity, I check your posts to see if it is possible someone might think you have a point. That could be the case here, so let me correct that now.

When I say that people go to hell because their sins have not been atoned for--that is the correct/precise/plain/simple reason. You could ask how one gets that atonement--then you would find verses like those above. Jesus is the actual atonement that one needs to have their slates wiped clean.

[LadyForCamus]

Harry Potter.

Gee, and where do you suppose Rowling got it from? Why do we Westerners take so much of our intellectual and moral heritage for granted as if they always existed? The values and principles that inform our thinking did not spring up out of nowhere.

I bust on MK, because I’ve tried, over and over, to have reasonable discussions with him, and all I ever get back is, ‘the Quran is true because it’s magic. You are lazy and in denial.’  I’ve decided to give him a taste of his own medicine going forward.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Limbo was actually never a dogmatic teaching, and was removed from the catechism a while back ago. I gotta admit it was before my time, so I don't know much about it at all except that it's an old school concept that we don't adhere to anymore.

I get a lot of information from here: New Advent

Have you seen this site, New Advent in general? If so, what do you think?

[Catholic_Lady]

Limbo was actually never a dogmatic teaching, and was removed from the catechism a while back ago. I gotta admit it was before my time, so I don't know much about it at all except that it's an old school concept that we don't adhere to anymore.

I get a lot of information from here: New Advent

Have you seen this site, New Advent in general? If so, what do you think?

I am not familiar with that site, but it looks legit to me. I get my info mainly from the CCC itself. Also, I've long lurked on CAF (recently joined) and learn a lot from there as well.

[Rhondazvous]

Why does god feel compelled to eternally punish only those folks who don’t love him back?  Why is that sin the only unforgivable one, and why isn’t it forgivable?  I have heard of hell described by Christians as a “self-imposed exile.”  If I were to die tomorrow and realize I was wrong, and I begged god for forgiveness but he refused, how could my exile be considered self-imposed?  It’s not self-imposed if god is actively preventing me from being with him.  

Does god love the folks in hell?  If he does, and they are in agony for being separated from him, what logical or moral reason is there for god to keep them ostracized?  That sounds like the opposite of a forgiving god. It sounds to me like someone who holds grudges.

Christians, would you do this to your own children?  If your child ran away, and came back a month later, filthy and in tears, saying, “mommy/daddy I miss you so much. I’m so alone and afraid. I’m sorry I left; I just want to come home and cuddle with you on the couch,” would you tell them it’s ‘too late’, and shut the door in their face for good?  Why or why not?

Why is being loved back the most important thing to god; even more important than how we treat each other during life?  Even more important than how his chosen priesthood treat their children?

Well, obviously, god wants us to love him because that's why he created us. He's lonely as hell up there by himself with no one to talk to. The schizophrenic conversation he has with his other selves don't qualify as society. Sending us to hell is kinda like the woman who slashes the tires of the man who dumps her.

Truly, if christians treated their children the way they claim god treats his they'd go to jail for child abuse, child neglect, and child endangerment.

Hell has no redemptive qualities whatsoever. It's the last refuge of a deity that can't deal with what he created. Or, more precisely, the men who wrote the bible knew they had to scare people into believing their astronomically insane religion.

[Fake Messiah]

On more nuanced subjects regarding Christianity, I check your posts to see if it is possible someone might think you have a point. That could be the case here, so let me correct that now.

When I say that people go to hell because their sins have not been atoned for--that is the correct/precise/plain/simple reason. You could ask how one gets that atonement--then you would find verses like those above. Jesus is the actual atonement that one needs to have their slates wiped clean.

Yeah I admit you set me up. First you scoffed LFC for claiming that "you need to love god to avoid hell" by saying that you need to accept Jesus to avoid hell - which is the same shit, but since you first accused her of getting it all wrong and then you "corrected" her by agreeing with her you confused me for a moment and you used the opportunity to scoff me how you are so "right", but the reason you usually keep quiet for my replies is because I show what a fraud you are, like one of the last ones was when you insisted that so called early christian writings prove historical Jesus and then I put a link to Richard Carrier's page that ridiculed people like you who think that.

[Angrboda]

6 And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart. 7 So the Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.”

Go ahead, divorce that whole story (Gen 6) from God's holiness/justice/love/mercy and make the case for 'emotions'.

God says quite explicitly in Genesis 6 that he will blot them out "for I am sorry that I made them." It couldn't be any plainer than that Steve. Action, followed by cause. You can certainly suggest that his wiping them out was just, but God is quite clear on his motive here.