People in Hell

[athanasius]

My friend, from other threads you have posted in , you seem very anti-atheist. From your preconceptions of how atheists think, I'd say you could stand to learn a few things yourself. But that's what we are here for. Lighten up a little, we're friends here.

Sorry you feel that way. I have no problems being your friend.

God bless you,
Athanasius

 

[Majikthise]

AWWWW! No need to apologize. My friend Jeff (a catholic) and me argue over the exsistance of Jesus (AND A FEW BEERS ) all the time!
My wife thimks it's great fun to watch us.

PS. You're stubborn like me , my old lady would love ya!

PSS. I don't remember if I welcomed you to the forums... so Welcome!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Majikthise]

I don't believe in Hell.

I should've just gone with this one.

 

[maggie2]

Well, I don't happen to believe in hell, but if I did, yes, God would still love anyone who was there.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

First of all--you guys rock. It isn't easy to make peace after delving into having conversations such as these and not always coming out understanding each others' positions.

This is a funny . A 20th century Mystic and priest St Padre Pio who was known for his gifts of healing and stigmata, and visions once counseled a women in the confessional who told him the same statement. She said Father "I do not beleive in Hell." Padre Pio, Then looked intently as if seeing a vison of the women in the future and said to her in a serious voice. "You will believe in it when you get there." It frightended the women tremendously.

Sometimes the simplest and truest theological answers are found in the most profound mystics and saints.

Just my 2 cents

So what have you to say to the OP?

I picked that option, as the closest to my actual belief, which is somewhat more complex than that choice implies. The best explanation I could come up with would be to say that if my son were to commit some horrible crime and be sentenced to death for that crime, I would be filled with remorse, anger, bitterness, etc. etc. etc. for what he'd done. I don't think I could ever actually stop loving him, though.

So you're saying that a god who sentences someone to ongoing rape, mutilation, dismemberment, and whatever the hell else that supposedly goes on down there, somehow loves the people whom he does this to? Can you honestly defend such a position?

God loves everyone.

There is a parable in the Bible about a man with a vineyard who had two sons. One of the sons was a really hard worker. He was loyal to his father and obeyed him completely. The other wasn't so much. The 2nd son had the audacity to ask for his inheiritence before his father had actually passed away. However, the father still gave the son the money. The son travelled from city to city, wasting his inheiritence on booze, women, etc, etc. Eventually, the son ran out of money. He felt horribly guilty at what he had done and returned to his father's house saying 'I am not worthy to be your son, father. Send me to work with the slaves.' But the father embraced him and put a robe around him and had a huge feast for the son. Naturally, the loyal son was ticked off. He told his father 'He wastes your inheiritence money on sinful things and now he comes back and you treat him like a king. I have worked these fields for so many years and anything you have asked of me, I have done. Why don't I get a feast?'. The father replied 'Be happy that your brother has rejoiced and learned the error of his ways. He was strayed from the path but has returned. You have always been here but both of you are my sons and will always have a place in my heart.'

God loves everyone, pretty much regardless of what you have done (a few exceptions). If you repented your sins...you will not be punished. If you turn to God, He will love you just as the father loved the son who returned to him in the parable.
Hope this answered what you were asking.

That deals with those whom God has forgiven. That's an easy question to answer. What about those whom God does NOT forgive?

 

[athanasius]

So what have you to say to the OP?

What do I have to say to the op? Nothing really. I love the Order of Preachers and know many good members in it. St. Thomas being my favorite. LOL!

 

[Booko]

So you're saying that a god who sentences someone to ongoing rape, mutilation, dismemberment, and whatever the hell else that supposedly goes on down there, somehow loves the people whom he does this to? Can you honestly defend such a position?

You addressed this to Katz, and I don't believe in eternal Hell anyway, but I'll take a shot at this one anyway...

I have taught my children how to be moral and law-abiding. Still, one of them might not follow what I taught them, and get tossed in jail as a consequence. I'd be very disappointed, obviously, but I would still love my child.

Like all analogies, it has its problems. But your comment seems to ignore free will. If one assumes God as judge, it doesn't mean He made anyone make the bad choices. They do that for themselves.

 

[Chibiusa]

My opinion? Yes, God loves even those murderers, rapists and all matter of people in Hell. Including those who choose Hell over Him. However, He is a just God, and He must pass judgement on sinful behaviour and sinful people who refuse to repent. However, He grieves whenever one of His children choose Hell over Him.

My beliefs are a bit more complex than this, though, and might require half a page of explaining to make sense.

 

[Katzpur]

So you're saying that a god who sentences someone to ongoing rape, mutilation, dismemberment, and whatever the hell else that supposedly goes on down there, somehow loves the people whom he does this to?

Congratulations. :bow: I can't recall having my words so eloquently twisted in quite some time. Where did I ever say that "ongoing rape, mutilation or dismemberment" are a part of hell?

Can you honestly defend such a position?

Hell no!

 

[Fluffy]

Some of the theists in this thread appear to be answering as if hell is a construct that is utterly independent of God. That is to say that hell was not created by God and that he does not decide who goes there and who doesn't.

If God loves those in Hell then he is expressing something very different to what I mean when I use the term. Clearly if God is not responsible for those who go to hell then this would not be the case. However, God is generally considered to be creator of everything and the judge of who goes to heaven and hell. It is his choice to send some humans to hell not the predetermined result of a person's moral lifestyle. It is this that seems inconsistent alongside a supposingly loving attitude.

An eternal punishment also brings into question the justice of this choice since it appears that no finite amount of evil could justify an infinite degree of correction. God might have overlooked this and still believe he is doing justice but this is contrary to his all-knowing nature. We would assume that a being that is deserving of the title "god" should at least have the intelligence to comprehend something so simple. Therefore, he must be fully aware that his actions are injust and so he cannot truly love those that they affect.

 

[Katzpur]

If God loves those in Hell then he is expressing something very different to what I mean when I use the term. Clearly if God is not responsible for those who go to hell then this would not be the case. However, God is generally considered to be creator of everything and the judge of who goes to heaven and hell. It is his choice to send some humans to hell not the predetermined result of a person's moral lifestyle. It is this that seems inconsistent alongside a supposingly loving attitude.

The way I see it, God doesn't send people to Hell; some simply choose to separate themselves from Him. I'm not saying, "If you're not a Christian, then you're choosing to spend eternity in Hell," because that's not what I believe. I believe that only a tiny minority of people will ever end up there and that these people are those who, having a perfect understanding of who God is, would literally prefer not to be in His presence.

An eternal punishment also brings into question the justice of this choice since it appears that no finite amount of evil could justify an infinite degree of correction. God might have overlooked this and still believe he is doing justice but this is contrary to his all-knowing nature. We would assume that a being that is deserving of the title "god" should at least have the intelligence to comprehend something so simple. Therefore, he must be fully aware that his actions are injust and so he cannot truly love those that they affect.

I don't believe for a minute that that's how God works, so I guess I'm just the heretical Christian again.

 

[Fluffy]

The way I see it, God doesn't send people to Hell; some simply choose to separate themselves from Him. I'm not saying, "If you're not a Christian, then you're choosing to spend eternity in Hell," because that's not what I believe. I believe that only a tiny minority of people will ever end up there and that these people are those who, having a perfect understanding of who God is, would literally prefer not to be in His presence.

If you define Hell to be "apart from God" then I would agree that this would have to be the choice of the individual and not the result of a vast spiritual penal system with God as the judge, jury and executioner. However, I personally believe that the authors of the Bible intended their words to be interpreted more in line with the latter version than the former. They may, of course, have got it wrong and the LDS interpretation then would be correct. It is certainly a more palatable spiritual view.

My only concern for such a view is it seems to be very recent. Historically, Christians appear to either be speaking very metaphorically or truely believing in fire and brimstone. That those in Hell are severed from God is noted but viewed as incidental compared with the punishment suffered within. Now, as I understand, the term "Hell" is founded in the understanding that these Christians had. I fully agree, as I argued in my last post, that this view is full of holes and very opposed to the notion of a personal loving God. However, I don't understand how we can then take the term "Hell" and argue that it is actually something altogether different. It does paint a more coherent spiritual picture, in my opinion, but it doesn't really bear any relation to what Hell has meant historically.

In altering the definition of Hell I agree that you completely solve the problems that the traditional view of Hell has suffered over the years. That this concept of Hell has any relation to the earlier, more common view of Hell (as assumedly is implied by the choice of name) including that of scripture is a point I must disagree on, however.

 

[logician]

Since I believe no god exists, then hell cannot exist for me, as there can be no separation from a non-existant entity.

 

[Fluffy]

as there can be no separation from a non-existant entity.

Surely there is universal seperation from the non-existant? You can't exactly be much further seperated.

Hey that would mean we are all in Hell already! Seems a bit alright...

 

[Katzpur]

If you define Hell to be "apart from God" then I would agree that this would have to be the choice of the individual and not the result of a vast spiritual penal system with God as the judge, jury and executioner. However, I personally believe that the authors of the Bible intended their words to be interpreted more in line with the latter version than the former.

Actually, if you look at some of the non-Biblical early Christian and Jewish writings, "Hell" clearly had more than one simple, cut-and-dried meaning.

They may, of course, have got it wrong and the LDS interpretation then would be correct.

Well, naturally.

My only concern for such a view is it seems to be very recent.

Actually, from my perspective, it was the original point of view, but was rejected fairly early on.