(April 30, 2012 at 7:18 pm)jess_essential Wrote: I personally do not believe in either the concept of a place full of sunshine and angels, nor a place of fiery depths and erupting valcanos of repeated death. They're both quite far fetched.
For sure.
I hope you have some moral reason for your view as well.
If not, I give this to Christians to try to help them think deeper into their theology. Some actually do.
Judgment and punishment go hand in hand.
Our human laws have a form of punishment where the penalty is graduated to fit the crime. An eye for an eye type of justice.
God‘s punishment seems to surpass this standard.
The definition I am comparing here is the eternal fire and torture type of hell and I am not particularly interested in the myriad of other definitions and theories that some use to supplant this traditional view.
To ascertain if hell would be a moral construct or not, all you need do is answer these
simple question for yourself.
1. Is it good justice for a soul to be able to sin for only 120 years and then have to suffer torture for 12000000000000000000000000 + years?
2. Is it good justice for small or mediocre sinners to have to bear the same sentence as Hitler, Stalin and other genocidal maniacs?
This might actually include God if you see Noah’s flood as God using genocide and not justice against man. Pardon the digression.
Punishment is usually only given to change attitude or actions and cause the sinner to repent.
3. Is it good justice to continue to torture a soul in hell if no change in attitude or actions are to result?
4. If you answered yes to these questions, then would killing the soul not be a better form of justice than to torture it for no possible good result or purpose?
Is hell a moral construct or not?
Please explain your reasons and know that ---just because God created it ---does not explain your moral judgment. It is your view I seek and not God’s as no one can speak for God.
Regards
DL
