On Hell and Forgiveness

[SteveII]

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?

At the very least, the soul (made in the image of God) would be in turmoil if it could not participate in any of the things for which it was made: a physical presence, relationships, purpose, hope, love, etc. etc.

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.

Desiring (and having) a relationship is very satisfying process that provides something tangible that you cannot have on your own. I don't see why this is an example that somehow puts a constraint on God. God cannot have the same sort of relationships humans can have with each other so, while the comparison is useful for understanding, our relationships are not a mirror to God's relationship with us. 

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.

Desiring to be merciful can not in any way 'water down' the justice and holiness characteristics. Rather it generates effects like offering the atonement that would otherwise be impossible. 

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?

Your objection is that God is not evident enough. But do the facts really support that? If that were the case, then there would be less people believing in God every year--not more. So the real problem is that God is not evident to you in a way you are satisfied with. What is the reason you do not believe the billions of people who believe in God? 

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!

Because we started our existence here, we developed and because the people we are here, we are uniquely designed for physical/relational/loving/moral/purposeful/hopeful existence here AND most importantly, this is where we sinned and fallen short and therefore need the atonement for those sins for phase 2.  God's forgiveness is actually infinite. I don't think there is anything at all puzzling/inconsistent/illogical about a post-death judgement/account for how you lived you life. 

A point of clarification. God forgiving you is not the same as Jesus atoning for your sins. Anyone can forgive. It is possible for me to forgive a drunk driver who hit me. That does nothing to remove the consequences or penalties of the action. Jesus' atonement wipes the slate clean like it never happened. With that understanding, post-death "forgiveness" would have no effect. Due to God's holiness/justice the consequences are set that you 1) cannot be in the presence of God in an unholy state and 2) that universally, sin demands a payment that you cannot pay.