Loving God = Eternal Torture?

[Katzpur]

It's not an interpretation of the scriptures. It's what they say. I cannot understand why one would rely on another man's words, and reject God's.

Of course it's an interpretation. That's a hard pill for you to swallow, but it's the truth. But I'll play along... If you can provide me with chapter and verse which states:

If those millions are already dead, they will be resurrected and have one thousand years of judgement day to learn the new scrolls from Jehovah God. If they learn them and obey, they will live eternally in a paradise Earth.

...I'll issue you an apology. I have a feeling that's more than I could expect of you if the tables were turned.

 

[Katzpur]

So's the pope.

Yeah, especially this Pope!

 

[atpollard]

It's not an interpretation of the scriptures. It's what they say. I cannot understand why one would rely on another man's words, and reject God's.

That was a verbatim quote from Scripture?
No.
Then I guess that it is NOT what they say.

Heck, it barely makes sense ... 144,000? Total? Really? ... I think that we are already screwed under that math ... Quota has already been filled.

Although if I remember that number in context, that was 144,000 celibate Jewish men ... so I am disqualified twice.
Are you a celibate Jewish Jehovah's Witness?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes I am, and I'm sure you'd say the same thing. Is there some reason why you don't want to talk about the millions who were not as fortunate as we are?

I've already elaborated on my beliefs regarding Hell. You are 100% assured of salvation? You've done enough works to be okay with the King?

 

[Katzpur]

I've already elaborated on my beliefs regarding Hell. You are 100% assured of salvation?

Yes.

You've done enough works to be okay with the King?

He's not counting my good works. He's not putting them on a scale and seeing if they tip it in favor of Heaven. Boy, the misconceptions you sola fide folks seem to have about the rest of us are mind-boggling.

 

[Vishvavajra]

We deserve Hell but are granted Heaven.

Nobody deserves hell. Nobody deserves suffering of any kind. Nobody who spoke from a perspective of universal love would ever suggest such a thing.

 

[truthofscripture]

Nobody deserves hell. Nobody deserves suffering of any kind. Nobody who spoke from a perspective of universal love would ever suggest such a thing.

That's true, and no one is ever sent there, or to heaven, except the 144,000 firstfruits. We haven't got an immortal soul, in fact soul and life are synonyms in the Bible. Not two separate parts of us. The word hell in the Bible means "common grave of mankind", not some place of fiery torment. The latter is a teaching of false religions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes.
He's not counting my good works. He's not putting them on a scale and seeing if they tip it in favor of Heaven. Boy, the misconceptions you sola fide folks seem to have about the rest of us are mind-boggling.

That's worse. How can you have 100% assurance from the knowledge that you are more good than evil? That is almost incomprehensible to me as someone who is a saved sinner.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nobody deserves hell. Nobody deserves suffering of any kind. Nobody who spoke from a perspective of universal love would ever suggest such a thing.

I know what "universalism" is but not "universal love". Are you an atheist? Atheists tend to use absolutes, particularly "Nobody deserves suffering of any kind." Jesus suffered, for one notable example.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's true, and no one is ever sent there, or to heaven, except the 144,000 firstfruits. We haven't got an immortal soul, in fact soul and life are synonyms in the Bible. Not two separate parts of us. The word hell in the Bible means "common grave of mankind", not some place of fiery torment. The latter is a teaching of false religions.

Not true. There are different Hebrew and Greek words used for the lake of fire, gehenna, hell. Now gehenna, by the way, was in Jesus's day a trash dump that was on fire, day and night...

And the 144,000 of Revelation are TRIBAL MEMBERS OF ISRAEL. Your stance here is actually anti-Semitic.

 

[Vishvavajra]

I know what "universalism" is but not "universal love". Are you an atheist? Atheists tend to use absolutes, particularly "Nobody deserves suffering of any kind." Jesus suffered, for one notable example.

Jesus suffered. That does not mean he deserved to suffer. I shouldn't have to explain the difference.

Is Jesus not an embodiment of universal love? Does he not teach us to love even those we would otherwise regard as enemies? Is God not described in terms of love? Is that love then supposed to be limited, circumscribed so as to just apply to those who are deemed worthy? If so, what is the meaning of the parable of the prodigal son? What is the meaning of Hosea (e.g. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice")?

It's funny that believing in universal love (or moral absolutes in general) is now a sign of atheism. I have to say, I've not heard that one before. Or seen a Christian so quick to disown the concept (well, aside from the Phelps family, but they're hardly representative).

That love conquers suffering and death is the Gospel in a nutshell. All the rest is simply attempts to explore what that means, and to put it into practice. But without that core principle, there's nothing there.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Hell is justice, not love. Love is Jesus died as "tribute" so that those destined for Hell need not be. Did you see the Hunger Games movie?

Tribute to whom? In other words, are we assuming Ransom Theory or Satisfaction Theory here? The difference is more than half a millennium, as far as when each one arose.

My guess, based on the assertion that hell is justice, is that like most Evangelicals you're working from some permutation of Anselm's Satisfaction Theory, which made a great deal of sense to medieval noblemen of his day, at any rate. Not so much to most of us today, who find the moral underpinnings and assumptions at work... rather questionable.

Earlier theories of atonement, going back to the beginning of the Christian tradition, make no claim that damnation is either just or deserved--more like an aberration, or a disease that can be cured--and do not regard Jesus as a sacrifice or tribute paid to God himself. Those ideas never developed in Eastern Christianity at all and are generally regarded as bizarre. On the contrary, Jesus is framed as the triumphing over sin and death, liberating people from their grip, like a physician curing us of a metaphysical disease. In Orthodox images he's often depicted as literally reaching into hell to pull people out by the fistful.

And note that in The Hunger Games the entire point is that the whole thing is unjust and sickening, and that the people who designed the games (and the society that they support) are morally bankrupt to the point of self-parody. If we're going to use that analogy...

As for justice, I'm not even sure it's a useful concept, or at all compatible with love in the higher sense. Medieval aristocrats liked it (hence the popularity of Anselm's theory) because it gave them pretext to brutalize people that were less powerful and feel justified in doing so. Jesus's killers liked it for the same reason. Have we really learned nothing since then? Is Jesus's admonition to love indiscriminately still too hard for us?

 

[Katzpur]

That's worse. How can you have 100% assurance from the knowledge that you are more good than evil? That is almost incomprehensible to me as someone who is a saved sinner.

I never said I was more good than evil. I said, "He's not counting my good works. He's not putting them on a scale and seeing if they tip it in favor of Heaven." Sorry, but I can't dumb it down much more than that. Disagree with my theology all you want, but don't put words into my mouth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Jesus suffered. That does not mean he deserved to suffer. I shouldn't have to explain the difference.

Is Jesus not an embodiment of universal love? Does he not teach us to love even those we would otherwise regard as enemies? Is God not described in terms of love? Is that love then supposed to be limited, circumscribed so as to just apply to those who are deemed worthy? If so, what is the meaning of the parable of the prodigal son? What is the meaning of Hosea (e.g. "I desire mercy, not sacrifice")?

It's funny that believing in universal love (or moral absolutes in general) is now a sign of atheism. I have to say, I've not heard that one before. Or seen a Christian so quick to disown the concept (well, aside from the Phelps family, but they're hardly representative).

That love conquers suffering and death is the Gospel in a nutshell. All the rest is simply attempts to explore what that means, and to put it into practice. But without that core principle, there's nothing there.

With respect, the gospel in a nutshell isn't "love conquers all" but rather that Christ, according to predictive prophecy, died for sin and rose from the dead, then was seen by witnesses. (1 Cor 15:1-3):

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve...

Note how THIS message is what Paul is saying saves Christians, not works...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Tribute to whom? In other words, are we assuming Ransom Theory or Satisfaction Theory here? The difference is more than half a millennium, as far as when each one arose.

My guess, based on the assertion that hell is justice, is that like most Evangelicals you're working from some permutation of Anselm's Satisfaction Theory, which made a great deal of sense to medieval noblemen of his day, at any rate. Not so much to most of us today, who find the moral underpinnings and assumptions at work... rather questionable.

Earlier theories of atonement, going back to the beginning of the Christian tradition, make no claim that damnation is either just or deserved--more like an aberration, or a disease that can be cured--and do not regard Jesus as a sacrifice or tribute paid to God himself. Those ideas never developed in Eastern Christianity at all and are generally regarded as bizarre. On the contrary, Jesus is framed as the triumphing over sin and death, liberating people from their grip, like a physician curing us of a metaphysical disease. In Orthodox images he's often depicted as literally reaching into hell to pull people out by the fistful.

And note that in The Hunger Games the entire point is that the whole thing is unjust and sickening, and that the people who designed the games (and the society that they support) are morally bankrupt to the point of self-parody. If we're going to use that analogy...

As for justice, I'm not even sure it's a useful concept, or at all compatible with love in the higher sense. Medieval aristocrats liked it (hence the popularity of Anselm's theory) because it gave them pretext to brutalize people that were less powerful and feel justified in doing so. Jesus's killers liked it for the same reason. Have we really learned nothing since then? Is Jesus's admonition to love indiscriminately still too hard for us?

Sorry for the Hunger Games reference. I was being a little silly. Jesus died for our ransom. A ransom involves a payment, rescue and redemption.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I never said I was more good than evil. I said, "He's not counting my good works. He's not putting them on a scale and seeing if they tip it in favor of Heaven." Sorry, but I can't dumb it down much more than that. Disagree with my theology all you want, but don't put words into my mouth.

I apologize, I earlier read, "putting them on a scale" rather than "NOT putting them on a scale". May I ask then, where you receive your 100% assurance from, on what basis?

 

[sojourner]

Sorry for the Hunger Games reference. I was being a little silly. Jesus died for our ransom. A ransom involves a payment, rescue and redemption.

Uh, I don't think so. Substitutionary atonement is incongruent with earliest Christian thought.

 

[sojourner]

With respect, the gospel in a nutshell isn't "love conquers all" but rather that Christ, according to predictive prophecy, died for sin and rose from the dead, then was seen by witnesses. (1 Cor 15:1-3):

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve...

Note how THIS message is what Paul is saying saves Christians, not works...

Except Paul didn't say it. The verbiage is inconsistent with Paul. In fact, it's formulaic and comes from a source other than Paul.

 

[Katzpur]

I apologize, I earlier read, "putting them on a scale" rather than "NOT putting them on a scale". May I ask then, where you receive your 100% assurance from, on what basis?

Apology accepted. My assurance is from knowing that He and I have a relationship in which He promises me salvation and I promise Him that I will be faithful to Him and obedient to His commandments to the best of my ability.

 

[truthofscripture]

With respect, the gospel in a nutshell isn't "love conquers all" but rather that Christ, according to predictive prophecy, died for sin and rose from the dead, then was seen by witnesses. (1 Cor 15:1-3):

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve...

Note how THIS message is what Paul is saying saves Christians, not works...

James 2:26 Indeed, just as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.