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.

[Catholic_Lady]

I am not saying that you are personally childish but that the point you are trying to make is both trivial and naive. And it appears motivated by a desire to win a debate by resorting to insults and arguments of convenience rather than engage in constructive dialog. Everyone knows that God is presented in many different and often puzzling ways throughout the biblical texts. If your point is that these old stories should be dismissed just because they are challenging then it doesn't show much respect for the greatest thinkers of the past. That just puts you in the same category as Robvalue, who seems to believe that his arrogant YouTube analyses remotely compare with the insights of Maimonides and Hillel the Elder.

Similarly, if all you get from reading two verses that appear to contradict is a reason to dismiss the entire canon then you truly have not taken the text seriously. It boggles my mind how shallow modern critics, such as infidels.org and those who somehow think they are clever, believe  the most educated scribes and scholars of the ancient world, those who compiled these stories, were simpletons. The thinkers of antiquity could not have been completely unaware of the apparent discrepancies within the texts they exhaustively studied and scrutinized. These are old, old stories reflecting a body of collective wisdom handed down over centuries. Their persistence testifies not simply to geo-political circumstances but to the profound insights about the human condition they contain, insights that speaks across generations and around the world. That is not because they are easy. They are difficult and convicting.

Since neither of those actually describes my point or what I was doing, they are nothing but straw men, and the charge that you were just jerking off remains. I neither insulted Steve, nor used an argument of convenience. Steve's position was undermined by the biblical text, so I pointed it out. If you have a problem with that and wish to read all sorts of things into my simply quoting two verses from the bible, sans any commentary, then knock yourself out. The rest of us will see it for what it is, a groundless personal attack which you couldn't justify on its merits and so are resorting to making bankrupt and false insinuations about me. Now if you don't have anything of substance to add to the conversation, you can take your personal attacks and kindly fuck off.

Lol you dish out personal attacks all the time.

[Angrboda]

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? 

First off, even if God were not evident enough, that would not necessarily imply that belief should decrease rather than stay the same. As has been pointed out to you in the past, belief is increasing in absolute numbers, but not in terms of total share of the population, that number is relatively steady. That fact is likely explained by the overall growth of population in general, and so says nothing about the evidence for God. Either way, I don't see why you feel that the total number of believers should be less, and your entire argument seems founded upon an intentionally naive view of the nature of belief.

[Amarok]

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? 

That does not follow more people can believe in something  not evident .Your simply blaming the skeptic and trying to insinuate some personnel failing as the cause  .When it could be just as likely the billion are wrong and the one is right .

---

Lol you dish out personal attacks all the time.

So your in favor of more personnel attacks then ?

[SteveII]

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.

Here is some more context to discuss:

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Why would God be happy about the inordinate amount of people going to hell--with generation upon generation to follow? Do you think that God was unaware of Noah or what he would actually do when he shared his thoughts? You responded to a post where I said God does not make decisions based on emotion. I stand by that and this text does nothing to dispell that. 

1. Man was evil all the time
2. Evil men go to hell (justice)
3. God regrets such events (love)
4. God wiped them all out and started again with Noah (mercy)
re·gret
rəˈɡret/
verb
3rd person present: regrets

1. 1.
   feel sad, repentant, or disappointed over (something that has happened or been done, especially a loss or missed opportunity).
   

[The Grand Nudger]

ANGER, he smiles towering in, shiny metallic purple armor.......

[Amarok]

Steve the mental acrobatics continue

[Angrboda]

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.

Here is some more context to discuss:

5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” 8 But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.

Why would God be happy about the inordinate amount of people going to hell--with generation upon generation to follow? Do you think that God was unaware of Noah or what he would actually do when he shared his thoughts? You responded to a post where I said God does not make decisions based on emotion. I stand by that and this text does nothing to dispell that. 

I never suggested that God should be or was happy about it. Quite the opposite. So I don't know what the point of your question was. As a matter of principle, unlike some people, I try not to engage in mind reading about what God does or does not think. That God should have been unhappy does not refute my point that the reason he gave was his unhappiness. Nowhere in the text is "justice" even mentioned. If you think there is nothing in the text to dispel the notion that God does not make decisions based upon emotions then you are either exaggerating or in denial. If it's the latter, then your denial is simply ineffective. If it's the former, then my point stands as your exaggeration is nothing more than a misrepresentation of the facts. (Perhaps you meant that it does nothing to dispel your belief. That's a personal issue that I couldn't care less about. It could be that you are simply unreasonable. The question is whether the text gives any reason to believe that God makes decisions based upon emotions and it clearly does. Nothing you've said even remotely addresses that fact.)

[Neo-Scholastic]

Since neither of those actually describes my point or what I was doing, they are nothing but straw men, and the charge that you were just jerking off remains.

---

 I neither insulted Steve, nor used an argument of convenience.  Steve's position was undermined by the biblical text, so I pointed it out.  If you have a problem with that and wish to read all sorts of things into my simply quoting two verses from the bible, sans any commentary, then knock yourself out.  The rest of us will see it for what it is, a groundless personal attack which you couldn't justify on its merits and so are resorting to making bankrupt and false insinuations about me.

---

... Now if you don't have anything of substance to add to the conversation, you can take your personal attacks and kindly fuck off.

Lol you dish out personal attacks all the time.

It could very well be that I misinterpreted the point she was trying to make. If so, she had ample opportunity to expand and clarify what she meant. She is certainly capable of doing so. I find it inexplicable why she instead chooses to lash out and malign those with whom she disagrees.

[Amarok]

It could very well be that I misinterpreted the point she was trying to make. If so, she had ample opportunity to expand and clarify what she meant. She is certainly capable of doing so. I find it inexplicable why she instead chooses to lash out and malign those with whom she disagrees.

You did ( i would estimate willfully )and she has every right to give you shit for it .