[Omniscaper]

Originally posted by aldo_14


But.... if God gave humanity free choice, then he gave them right not to believe in God.  But then he would have created Hell to punish humanity for making the free choice not to believe...... which seems a bit unfair.

I think people have the age old mental picture of hell as a place where dudes running around with pitch forks torturing fallen souls in this fiery environment of eternal pain. The basic Biblical description of hell is a place devoid of God's presence. Now thats not because He CAN'T be there, but its a place where He choses not to be present. Its a place without His love, grace, and justice.

Now if God gave humans the choice whether or not to follow Him, why is it inconceivable and inappropriate or even unfair for Him to create an after life realm that is for the souls that have rejected Him. I personally don't see Hell in it of itself as punishment for those who have rejected Him in this life but as an appropriate result of that decision. I just have a gut feeling that when a fallen soul finally understands God's true nature, the true punishment is the realization that they can no longer be part of it. Thats my perspective on the subject on Hell.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Omniscaper
The basic Biblical description of hell is a place devoid of God's presence.

There is that, and there is also this

Revelation 20:15
If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

and

Luke 16:22-24
The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'

It's not this Limbo-like existence where people wander around feeling sorry for themselves.  It's a very real and horrifying place.

[Omniscaper]

In essence, Hell is the absence of God's presence. Considering the fact that all that is good is OF God, I couldn't even begin to imagine what His absense would bring about. I am not contesting the other descriptions of hell, nor am I saying that its a simple limbo. From my perspective,  God is quite real to me because of particular events I have experienced and witnessed as well as a number spiritual experiences. In light of those, my choice of definition is enough to describe it for me. The other descriptions add to the detail of its definition.

[Grey Wolf]

Of course, Goober, of the two examples you've cited, one is from a book that came very close to being apocryphal and is commonly regarded by Bibilical scholars to have a fairly good chance of having been a fever dream, and the other is a parable.

[Omniscaper]

I almost forgot about the apocryphal books! Thanks for the heads up. More research for me!!! =)

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Of course, Goober, of the two examples you've cited, one is from a book that came very close to being apocryphal and is commonly regarded by Bibilical scholars to have a fairly good chance of having been a fever dream, and the other is a parable.

Perhaps.  But a simple search turns up a host of other references:

2 Peter 2:6
...he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to ashes, and made them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly...

Matthew 25:31-32, 34, 41
When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.  All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats...Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world....Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Isaiah 66:24
And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.

to name a few.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by aldo_14
But.... if God gave humanity free choice, then he gave them right not to believe in God.  But then he would have created Hell to punish humanity for making the free choice not to believe...... which seems a bit unfair.

A bit unfair? In what sense, would you say? Because I think you've hit right on the head of the nail on the issue, but I'd love to know what you think is unfair about this. And consider the question - did God make Hell, or did man? Not that an answer is forthcoming, but it certainly is an interesting thought to consider.

Anyway, I find all the images of fire to be an analogy to what the absence of God represents. People really are unable to comprehend what spiritual effect the absence of God would cause; thus images are invoked to assist understanding. I have no doubt that what Hell will actually be will be worse than the images allude to.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Setekh


A bit unfair? In what sense, would you say? Because I think you've hit right on the head of the nail on the issue, but I'd love to know what you think is unfair about this. And consider the question - did God make Hell, or did man? Not that an answer is forthcoming, but it certainly is an interesting thought to consider.

Anyway, I find all the images of fire to be an analogy to what the absence of God represents. People really are unable to comprehend what spiritual effect the absence of God would cause; thus images are invoked to assist understanding. I have no doubt that what Hell will actually be will be worse than the images allude to.

Well, God is suppossed to be - AFAIK - a benevolent entity.  So why introduce free choice if it can lead to Hell?  (which begs the whole question of why hell exists if God is benevolent....)

Of course, for me the crux of the matter is why believe?  In the grand old scheme of things, who is preferred by God - the person who leads a really generous, charitable life but is an aetheist, or the likes of Torquemada - a feverent, devout believer who happens to be completely evil?  i.e. how much does belief count for, compared to the actions of a person?  

And why does a supreme being need to be worshipped, anyways?  I mean, surely there's no lack of self-confidence issue there, so why is it necessarry?  Why can't the bible (or any other holy book) be considered as a starting point for society, rather than the be-all and end-all?  I.e. why should the bible be static?  Presumably it wasn't 2000 years ago, so why is it unalterable now?

[Setekh]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, God is suppossed to be - AFAIK - a benevolent entity.  So why introduce free choice if it can lead to Hell?  (which begs the whole question of why hell exists if God is benevolent....)

Of course, for me the crux of the matter is why believe?  In the grand old scheme of things, who is preferred by God - the person who leads a really generous, charitable life but is an aetheist, or the likes of Torquemada - a feverent, devout believer who happens to be completely evil?  i.e. how much does belief count for, compared to the actions of a person?  

And why does a supreme being need to be worshipped, anyways?  I mean, surely there's no lack of self-confidence issue there, so why is it necessarry?  Why can't the bible (or any other holy book) be considered as a starting point for society, rather than the be-all and end-all?  I.e. why should the bible be static?  Presumably it wasn't 2000 years ago, so why is it unalterable now?

The question of benevolence and free will is indeed a big one. It is just like the combination of justice and mercy. My thoughts are that free will enables the possibility of such gain (ie. the creation of more "sons of God", but that's a big topic on its own - for now let's assume that this is a precious outcome worth paying a great price for) that it supercedes the death that results from the presence of Hell. So it seems like a question of: allow the possibility for humanity to both rise to great heights and sink to great lows, or limit them all to a mere robotic existence, devoid of both the possibility for love and for hate? If the Christian view is true, then God in his infinite wisdom believed that the former was best.

As for beliefs/actions, that is a curly question indeed. I'm not sure either of those situations would necessarily be deserving of God's preference - because in light of God's absolute holiness, no ordinary human being's actions, however charitable they may appear to our eyes, is enough to meet his standard on its own. The believer who is evil, though, seems to have a twisted view of his belief, whereby his actions betray the fact that he believes a lie (eg. murder is a great way to serve mankind!) or has an empty belief in the truth that God offers (eg. sure, I believe that God wants me to live a certain way and that's the best for me... but his actions show that he does not really believe that).

On God's "need for worship", C. S. Lewis has some great comments on the Christian view of this, IMHO. Would you be interested in hearing them?

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Setekh
So it seems like a question of: allow the possibility for humanity to both rise to great heights and sink to great lows, or limit them all to a mere robotic existence, devoid of both the possibility for love and for hate?

Wow... I read that sentence and had a flashback of sorts to the movie Equilibrium - that's the core message of that movie. The situation is that humanity has concluded that the reason behind all the world's wars is emotion - feeling. So through use of drugs, they outlaw emotion, resulting in a peaceful society internally (there are clashes with the feel-crime outlaws), but one that is completely robotic.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Ghostavo
Yes, you were right, I was interpreting perfect in another way, although I don't feel completly satisfied with regarding perfect as "doing it's job". But even still I think I'm correct by saying that because of the impossibility of a perfect man/woman, there isn't a perfect man/woman in any religion and if there ever was, that and any religion would crumble due to that existing reality.

I'd be more inclined to say "being what it is supposed to be," rather than "doing its job."  At least, "being what it is supposed to be" is what is outlined in the definition of perfect that you posted above.  If you are finding the term is not helpful for expressing what you want to express, perhaps you  might try another term?

Since I will continue to use perfect in the sense of the definition posted, I ask: why is it impossible to have a perfect human being?

Now I'm beginning to see where we diverge... you're saying that only after making such a choice were they perfect. I'm saying that due to the choice they made they couldn't be perfect before. So the main point of this is... can perfection be lost or does perfection endures forever?

This is the crucial paragraph in your last post.  Three things need to be said about it.

1)  I'm saying that only after making such a choice were they imperfect.  (I assume that was just a typo in your post.)

2)  Saying that their choice was due to something before is saying that their choice was caused by something else.  If any choice is caused by something else, it is not a free choice--it is a predetermined one.  A free choice has to be causeless.  That means that citing any prior imperfection as the cause of their choice is to deny that they possessed free will.

(It may be that a large part of this debate derives from our different usage of the term "perfect")

3)  Perfection, as defined in the link you gave above, can be lost.  If the perfect entity stops being what it is supposed to be, it ceases to be perfect.  Using the very words of the definition, somethign can cease to be perfect if

• it falls from consummation or completeness;
• it becomes defective nor redundant;
• It stops having all the properties or qualities requisite to its nature and kind;
• it develops a flaw, fault, or blemish;
• it falls into error;
• it ceases to be mature;
• it breaks and is no longer whole;
• it becomes impure;
• it becomes unsound;
• it becomes wrong or incorrect.

Those three things should pretty much answer the rest of your post, since the rest was really just expanding on that one paragraph.  (Note: my three points do not correspond to your three points, but to the three sentences of the paragraph I have quoted.)

Now off topic (this is off topic too but...) why didn't "god" create a world with er... for example... "angels" instead of men?

Well, he made a world with both angels and humans, and animals and plants, etc.  And it seems that some angels also did what we did, and rebelled against God and became imperfect.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by Setekh
Anyway, I find all the images of fire to be an analogy to what the absence of God represents. People really are unable to comprehend what spiritual effect the absence of God would cause; thus images are invoked to assist understanding. I have no doubt that what Hell will actually be will be worse than the images allude to.

Precisely.  In fact, when we think about all that fire imagery, we would do well to consider what it is that fire does: it burns stuff up.  Afterwards there is nothing but the ash.  It is significant to note that it is the fire that is called eternal in some passages, not the process of burning. The fire is the symbol of destruction, and it is eternal, symbolising the fact that the destruction is permanent--this is a fire that doesn't go out, a destruction that will not cease.  

Matthew 25 is an especially interesting verse on this subject.  It says that the eternal fire was prepared for the devil and his demons.  Note that it is not a place humans are meant to be.  In Revelation is says that Satan, "The Beast" (a.k.a. the Antichrist) and "The False Prophet" (a.k.a. the Beast's right hand man) will be tormented forever and ever, whereas the rest of us seem to be consumed and destroyed.  This becomes even more clear when we move out of Revelation into the plainer language of the rest of teh New Testament.

[Setekh]

@ Sandwich: Maybe this movie really is worth me digging up at the local rental store. But I really do think that's the core question of why we were given free will. If you're portraying Equilibrium accurately, then popular culture seems to agree that free will is worth it, despite the costs involved.

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Precisely.  In fact, when we think about all that fire imagery, we would do well to consider what it is that fire does: it burns stuff up.  Afterwards there is nothing but the ash.  It is significant to note that it is the fire that is called eternal in some passages, not the process of burning. The fire is the symbol of destruction, and it is eternal, symbolising the fact that the destruction is permanent--this is a fire that doesn't go out, a destruction that will not cease.

Yeah, those thoughts run right alongside mine. The idea of eternal fire as a symbol for permanent destruction makes great sense of the passages without in any way undermining the terror of the situations described - if anything, it emphasises that Hell is actually worse than any human description can articulate.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Well, God is suppossed to be - AFAIK - a benevolent entity.  So why introduce free choice if it can lead to Hell?

All excellent questions, Aldo.

As Setekh said, free choice was introduced because it was the only way to accomplish what God wanted to accomplish: the creation of beings who would be like himself (though finite), with whom he could share life.  If they did not have free will (or more accurately, the independent, creative "spark of life" of which free will is only one mainfestation) then they could not be like him.  So to accomplish his purpose, risk was necessary.

 (which begs the whole question of why hell exists if God is benevolent....)

Why does hell exist?  Well, before we begin, it is important to note that "hell" has become a very muddled concept in the English-speaking mind these days.  In the Bible, there are two different things that in English we both translate as "hell."  The first is what the Greeks called Hades and the Hebrews called Sheol.  This is simply the "realm of the dead."  It refers to the state of existence we have between our physical death and the day when we will be resurrected to bodily life again.  The second is the final "place of destruction" in which all who choose to reject God will be destroyed one day in the future.  It is important that we keep these two things separate in our minds, so from her forward I will not use the term hell, but rather the terms Hades and destruction.

Destruction is the issue you are asking about, right aldo?  Well, the simplest answer is ths: we either have the choice to have eternal life in relationship and under the rulership of Jesus Christ, or the choice to reject him, and with him the life that he alone can give.  You see, God is the source of all life and goodness, and if we choose to turn away from him, we turn away from life to death.  We face possible destruction, not because he decides to destroy us, but because we decide we'd rather be destroyed than take him as our friend and king.

This is the big risk in giving us that "divine spark of life" as I called it: to really have it, we must have the option to put it out.

 Of course, for me the crux of the matter is why believe?  In the grand old scheme of things, who is preferred by God - the person who leads a really generous, charitable life but is an aetheist, or the likes of Torquemada - a feverent, devout believer who happens to be completely evil?  i.e. how much does belief count for, compared to the actions of a person?  

Why is believing so important?  Well, essentially, believing in the Bible means a lot more than we usually mean in our culture today.  In the Bible, to believe is not merely to "give mental assent to the truth of something."  It is what we might call really believing--the conforming of our lives to the new reality we have been shown.  

Said slightly differently, Jesus didn't simply call to people and say "Hey you, accept this as true and you'll find eternal life!"  Instead, he said to them "Follow me, be my disciple and learn to be like me, and then you'll find eternal life!"  A Christian is supposed to be a disciple of Jesus.  That means believing certain things to be true, letting him be the guy "in charge" and from whom you learn how to live, and carrying out the mission that he gave us by the power of his Holy Spirit*.  

So on the one hand, merely believing that certain things are true (as Torquemada did) is not enough, for one is not doing parts two and three of what a disciple does.  One the other hand, merely being good is not enough either, for one is still not being a disciple of Jesus--at best, one is merely living in a way that sort of so happens to resemble the way Jesus did.

And why does a supreme being need to be worshipped, anyways?  I mean, surely there's no lack of self-confidence issue there, so why is it necessarry?  

You are right: God does not need to be worshipped.  That isn't why he created us.  He created us because he liked being alive so much that he decided to share that life with others.  So he made us.  It is that simple.

What is the point of worship, then?  Well, given who God is, the best way to relate to him (which is what we are made to do) is what we call worship.  When I am with my fiancee, it is not without reason that the poets might say that I worship her.  I love her.  I delight in her presence.  I want to be with her as much as I can.  And when I am, I express this joy to her.  That's what worship is supposed to be.

Why can't the bible (or any other holy book) be considered as a starting point for society, rather than the be-all and end-all?  I.e. why should the bible be static?  Presumably it wasn't 2000 years ago, so why is it unalterable now?

A very good question!  The key phrase is "the be-all and end-all."  The Bible is not the be-all and end-all.  Its function is to provide a guideline, a rule against which to measure our Christian life as disciples.  Being a disciple of Jesus, guided and empowered by the Holy Spirit as we journey through this life on our way to our home with our Father, is a dynamic, continuous activity, and could never be reduced merely to studying a book.  Studying the book is good, as there is much stuff in it for us, but the point is not the book.  The point is a dynamic, ongoing life with God that is new and different every day.

The Bible is not unalterable because it is all there ever was or will be, the great ultimate of all Christian life and hope.  It is unalterable now because we want to preserve a clear record of what God has done with humanity in the past so that we can make sure we are sticking with him in our ever-unfolding lives in the present.

I hope all this was helpful to you, Aldo.  I'd be happy to keep talking with you.  Now I must get some sleep.

*The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity.  The Holy Spirit is God as he is actively present to us now.

[Setekh]

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
I hope all this was helpful to you, Aldo.  I'd be happy to keep talking with you.  Now I must get some sleep.[/size]

True dat, me too. Great explanations btw Sesq, couldn't have said any of it better myself.

[Sesquipedalian]

Random insertion for Setekh, Sandwich, Goober5000, and any other parties, Christian or non-Christian, who want to read some really great stuff that answers a lot of questions about theology beautifully well:

I give you Athanasius' On the Incarnation, the one piece of writing that I'd take with me to a desert island along side my Bible if I could only have two things to read.

It's a bit of a read (45 pages copied into my word processor), but so worth it!

[Gloriano]

just few words: I like this thread

Athanasius is indeed nice reading long

[TrashMan]

@Sesquipedalian

Good post.
I agree with you there - alltough I think that the Bible souldn't be changed coause some things must not be changed...EVER!
It's not the religion that should be changed to our liking - it's us who need ot change to suit the religion....

[Omniscaper]

BOOOYAH!!!

[Kazan]

TrashMan keeping us in the darkages since the late 1990s