Archived

Eternity

Read 1233 times
Is Hell Even Reasonable?
« on: October 31, 2019, 10:57:14 am »
It seems to me, in reading the New Testament (specifically in passages like Matthew 5:22, Luke 12:5, Luke 16:19-31, etcetera) that Jesus doesn’t shy away from talking about Hell. Now, Christians are to follow Jesus (and his teachings, which include topics like Hell)— that’s essentially the primary call. Many, however, seem to be hesitant to the Christian life because of this doctrine of Hell presented in the Bible. Is it the deal-breaker that some identify it as? I argue that the doctrine of Hell is actually not a deal-breaker, rather it is at minimum reasonable. Let me explain why I believe this.

If we look at the different ideas about Hell through the history of Christianity, many have held varying views on what exactly Hell might be at the end of the day. Some have argued that once a soul is in Hell, there is no escape, while others have contended that someone might be able to leave Hell. Some have taken Hell to be a place of punishment, as others have instead come to the conclusion that Hell’s primary purpose is one of refinement. And there are those who have read scripture and walked away believing Hell to be a place of physical torture, while others have arrived at totally different ideas— that Hell is instead a place of emotional anguish. For the sake of this argument, let’s assume that Hell would at minimum be eternal separation or distance from God and, as a result, cause psychological distress.    

In light of all this, one common question from skeptics is this: how could a loving God send anyone to this place? C. S. Lewis would probably defend the idea that those who find themselves in Hell choose to be distant from God, and God honors that choice. In this line of thinking, people choose to lock themselves in Hell, and the door of Hell only locks from the inside. I am personally a fan of this view and find it easier to come to terms with. On another hand though, is a view that might be harder to support—someone might say that although God is loving, He is also just; sending some people to Hell might be what justice requires. I contend that both responses have merit in answering the question, “how could a loving God send anyone to Hell?”. Below, I will explain the second, tougher reason— the “justice” reason, in more detail.

How could justice require that anyone be sent to Hell? It is surely hard to come to terms with the idea that even many terrible misdeeds across a lifespan could warrant eternal distress. For a very long time, I thought there would be no possible reason that eternal distress could follow from only seventy to eighty years of wrongdoing. But recently, a friend proposed this line of thinking, which has mostly changed my mind: “a first-level sin probably wouldn’t warrant eternal distress, but perhaps a second-level desire to sin would warrant eternal distress, as this would be willing the bad… this might be an ‘evil of a different order’”. The man who has a “second-level desire” to do evil has, in implementing these desires (aligning his first-level desires with his second-level desires), effectively put a complete halt to any and all good which may enter his life, and in doing so, may have warranted eternal distress for himself.

Allow me to explain. A first-level desire is simply about wanting or not wanting something. A second-level desire is about desiring to have or not have certain first-level desires. For example, I might have a first-level desire to sit on the couch and watch movies instead of writing this, but I ultimately desire that I wouldn’t even want to sit on the couch because I see more value in doing philosophy at this moment than watching movies in this moment— in the long run. So, I desire to want to do the good thing (or in this case, the “better” thing because watching movies might be considered “a good” as well), the good thing being philosophy. That desire is second-level. And ideally, my first-level desires will always reflect my second-level desires.

Now, here’s the thing… Just as my second-level desire is for the good, someone else might have a second-level desire for the bad, dare I say, evil. Certainly, many of us fail to constantly align our first-level desires with our second-level desires for the good (think of the times you’ve chosen to watch movies rather than work, or eat the cookie even though you know its sugary and bad for your blood-glucose levels); but what about those who, when doing bad (sinning) are actually aligning their first and second-level desires? What if these people (think of Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, etcetera) have second-level desires for evil? These people bring about the bad, not the good, intentionally, via deep-seeded commitment to evil. These people actively turn their wills away from God, in active pursuit of evil. I contend that it’s not ridiculous to imagine that justice might require eternal distress for the person who is that committed to evil— who is that committed to halting any and all good. Perhaps, eternal distress isn’t required for this kind of life (marked by a second-level desire for evil), but I argue that it’s at least reasonable to think it could be.

1

jayceeii

  • **
  • 474 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Is Hell Even Reasonable?
« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2019, 07:45:26 am »
Oh, you think there are good movies? I for one wish to be done with the entertainment of violence humans create to amuse themselves, but my evenings are long and my job duties severe. In general you’ve listed the long-term philosophy of hell, that God must punish those who would create further harm. You’ve neglected the fact the punishment might be temporary for some, but also the more terrible fact that it might be eternal for others. Religion can seem fun and God can seem fully loving, but the creation is under dreadful limitations even God can’t overcome, even by the Lord accepting death or torture at the hands of creatures. God loves all friendly people. Now, you show me one friendly person.

2
Re: Is Hell Even Reasonable?
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2019, 03:13:32 pm »
Oh, you think there are good movies? I for one wish to be done with the entertainment of violence humans create to amuse themselves, but my evenings are long and my job duties severe. In general you’ve listed the long-term philosophy of hell, that God must punish those who would create further harm. You’ve neglected the fact the punishment might be temporary for some, but also the more terrible fact that it might be eternal for others. Religion can seem fun and God can seem fully loving, but the creation is under dreadful limitations even God can’t overcome, even by the Lord accepting death or torture at the hands of creatures. God loves all friendly people. Now, you show me one friendly person.

Are you challenging whether there are "friendly" people? If so, I must ask why. It seems that "friendliness" is not a character trait that would open the gates of heaven on its own. Neither does it seem that “unfriendliness” exclusively lands anyone in hell (temporarily or eternally). Rather, my reading and interpretation of the Bible would lead me to believe that faith in Jesus would be the "gate-opener" so to speak. Now, we certainly need to hash out what the term “faith in Jesus” actually means, but I think there are probably some people that could have been described as “unfriendly” that are / will be in heaven. Although it is only a fictional exploration of heaven and hell, C. S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce” is a great illustration of how this might be. One of the ghosts (a former business man of sorts, who apparently lived a fair and reasonable life) is quite surprised to find that his former employee is in heaven. What is shocking is that the former employee was a murderer! Now, this former employee was probably not friendly— he was certainly far from friendly when he committed a murder! Yet, his actions did not open the gates of heaven for him. Rather, his desire and request for the “Bleeding Charity”— that is Jesus— reconciled him to the father. His friendliness, or lack thereof, had very little, if anything, to do with him being in heaven. Instead, this is the crux of Lewis’ point— that those who ask for Jesus and his sacrifice and have faith in him will be reconciled to God. The murderer, in response to the ghost who “just wants the rights he deserves” says this: “Ask for the Bleeding Charity. Everything is here for the asking and nothing can be bought” (Lewis p. 34). Apparently, no amount of friendliness, or unfriendliness for that matter, will open the gates of heaven or hell. Further, God loves those who are in heaven. It may follow that God loves even unfriendly people.

1. God loves all who will be in heaven
2. There is reason to believe that some unfriendly people might eventually be in heaven
3. God loves unfriendly people

Perhaps the illustration that Lewis provides does not suffice since it is only fiction. Obviously the story of the Ghost and the murderer who is in heaven is a tale. In light of this, I will turn to a Biblical example that would indicate that friendliness is not what matters for entry into heaven or “paradise”. Take the story of Jesus on the cross in Luke 23, verses 34-43:

34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”[c] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
35 The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is God’s Messiah, the Chosen One.”
36 The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar 37 and said, “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself.”
38 There was a written notice above him, which read: this is the king of the jews.
39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”
43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Right off the bat, Jesus asks for the forgiveness of those who have just nailed him to a cross. Certainly, those men are far from friendly— especially toward him. Yet Jesus, who I believe was fully God even on earth, effectively forgives them of their sin, effectively reconciling them to himself in this moment. In doing this, he is opening the gates of heaven to those who are very unfriendly indeed. According to verse 34, friendliness is not a requirement for entry into heaven (or at the very least, it is not a requirement for forgiveness of sins, which is most definitely an act of love). Reading further, Jesus even tells one of the criminals that he will be with him in paradise that same day. A criminal was likely not a friendly person. I understand that Jesus was completely innocent (and therefore could be deemed friendly), yet still considered a criminal. However, I find it hard to believe that the other criminals fit into the same category. I take it to mean that the two criminals in this scene were actual criminals, who had acted unfairly and unfriendly toward someone at some point in their lives (likely the reason for them being classified as criminals). Yet, it seems that there are things besides “friendliness” which might serve as the catalyst for Jesus’ loving and forgiving remark. Perhaps it is the criminal’s “fear” of God, or his understanding of Jesus’ blamelessness, or his plea that Jesus “remember” him— which served to prompt Jesus to say “today you will be with me in paradise”. None of these are exclusively friendly in nature. Thus, I am inclined to reject the notion that friendliness matters for entry into heaven. Apparently, God loves friendly people and unfriendly people. According to the passage, the love required for forgiveness of sins is not predicated on the friendliness of the individual. In fact, it might just be God’s nature to desire the reconciliation of all things and all humans. In other words, God’s nature may be to love all humans, regardless of their friendliness, even directly toward him.
1. If God forgives those who crucified Jesus, then he loves them
2. Jesus was fully God
3. If Jesus requested that those who crucified him be forgiven, then he (being God) would forgive them
4. Jesus requested that those who crucified him be forgiven, so God forgave them
5. God loves even those who crucified him
« Last Edit: December 07, 2019, 12:59:11 am by bennettmbiggers »

3

jayceeii

  • **
  • 474 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Is Hell Even Reasonable?
« Reply #3 on: December 08, 2019, 06:37:26 am »
Reply to bennettmbiggers, Part 1.
Are you challenging whether there are "friendly" people?
bb: Are you challenging whether there are "friendly" people?

jc: Yes, I am. I am not accepting that what the world has meant by “friendly,” is anything like what I mean by that. Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” but no one is doing it. This is why I say Jesus failed to finish His sentences. He needed to add in here, “I see the standards you use to raise children are treating them like yourselves, which is to say supporting every physical need of theirs, now I say unto you, treat your neighbor likewise.” Men know their children need not only food, shelter, and clothing, but education and job opportunities. There are a few charities who make small attempts at this, but by and large charity denies home and education to the poor. What you mean by “friendly” is just smiling at the others who successfully grabbed a house for their family.

There are two standards for friendliness, human and divine. Human friendliness is “behind a curtain.” You follow desire first, and make friends second. In that case the friends are basically being used to support selfish drives and delusions of centrality or control, not approached as noble independent persons whose presence is truly valued.

bb: If so, I must ask why.

jc: There is no safe refuge for a person of goodwill in this world, which is to say a place where you can expect to receive all that you need, when you are willing to work hard for the joy of your neighbors. You could say that God’s biggest problem is that the humans rise only to toleration, not to true friendship. We see cooperation, but it’s rough and often dangerous, circling around the paycheck and the corporation. No one really likes another.

bb: It seems that "friendliness" is not a character trait that would open the gates of heaven on its own.

jc: Actually it does, but defined God’s way, not man’s way, and this was not revealed in the religions because it was known men would reject it. It’s easy to make the case that money is exploitation of the needs of someone who might have been a friend did you truly care about him. He’s hungry but you say, “That’ll be ten bucks, or you can get lost.” Christian charity is an oxymoron. They dole out a little food, not really helping anyone.

bb: Neither does it seem that “unfriendliness” exclusively lands anyone in hell (temporarily or eternally).

jc: See, you’re not qualified to sit in God’s seat, and the remark appears irreverent. In fact you are dead wrong, and it is because you are using the human idea of friendliness. Unfriendliness was the problem when Jesus was crucified. It’s why I have to walk on eggshells around here. Men are hostile. They harbor a deep hatred of others, especially outside the family. Human society depends on this remaining hidden, as it mostly does.

bb: Rather, my reading and interpretation of the Bible would lead me to believe that faith in Jesus would be the "gate-opener" so to speak.

jc: This can be accepted as true, but only if you are thinking correctly about Jesus. The disciples could recognize that He was God Incarnate, but if you were near Jesus and did not recognize Him it would be a primary sign you haven’t formed a correct idea about the Lord. In general humans think Jesus is an enabler, not that He would oppose them deeply.

bb: Now, we certainly need to hash out what the term “faith in Jesus” actually means, but I think there are probably some people that could have been described as “unfriendly” that are / will be in heaven.

jc: Actually, those who are in Heaven appear very unfriendly to humans, as Swedenborg related. As he explained, those in heaven are oriented to spirit, and this is diametrically opposed to those who are oriented to matter. In general the angels seem cold to humans. They don’t identify with their bodies, for one thing, and don’t want to be touched. Another is that their kind of friendliness is a deep kind that humans cannot perceive.

bb: Although it is only a fictional exploration of heaven and hell, C. S. Lewis’ “The Great Divorce” is a great illustration of how this might be.

jc: I have not been impressed with Lewis. Why don’t you quote Merton instead?

bb: One of the ghosts (a former business man of sorts, who apparently lived a fair and reasonable life) is quite surprised to find that his former employee is in heaven.

jc: I’m not a believer in ghosts! The souls don’t have this much power. At death they hang limply, waiting for the Holy Spirit to collect them. The idea of ghosts is associated with human pride and failure to face death with wisdom. The human mind is externally oriented and has the idea that “somehow it will go on,” that is born entirely of the senses.

bb: What is shocking is that the former employee was a murderer!

jc: It is strange you should so quickly cite murder, when ostensibly we were discussing friendship. Yet I can use this to explain how it is the friendly win heaven. Such people have a right concept of themselves as one among many other created souls, where God’s purpose is universal harmony and joy. Therefore their motive is to enhance the joys of others and diminish their sorrows. This motive eliminates any negative thinking, so that not only is crime impossible, the very thought of crime disappears. If kept apart from the human race, they will soon lose all the negative words in the human dictionary because these concepts never occur to them. You’d have to try to explain to them what murder is, or stealing, or jealousy, or hatred, and they’ll look back dumbfounded, not believing it!

bb: Now, this former employee was probably not friendly— he was certainly far from friendly when he committed a murder!

jc: You say this as if you know murder is wrong, but the kernel of the idea of murder is still in your mind, therefore you are not classed among the friendly. In your ideas murder is wrong you are merely siding with the majority of citizens who achieve repression of their worst desires, that is often born in mere reaction to seeing others fail in repression.

bb: Yet, his actions did not open the gates of heaven for him. Rather, his desire and request for the “Bleeding Charity”— that is Jesus— reconciled him to the father.

jc: The blood of Jesus does not sanctify. You believe in Jesus, but demonstrate here that you’d bring thoughts of murder into heaven. For instance you’d get bored if there are no “murder mysteries” around to read, or if the films in heaven don’t carry a little mayhem.

bb: His friendliness, or lack thereof, had very little, if anything, to do with him being in heaven.

jc: The people in heaven are loving, therefore a murderer has no place there. Nor do animals, though many humans hypothesize they’ll bring their pets with them, and in truth these two facts are related. The tendency to murder is a tendency arising from animals.

bb: Instead, this is the crux of Lewis’ point— that those who ask for Jesus and his sacrifice and have faith in him will be reconciled to God.

jc: So you say, but I’d repeat I have not found one friendly person, only enemies and haters all around. I have seen some who are pure in heart but they remain asleep, my role to greet them if they awaken. The religionists, including Christians, conceive of themselves to be sanctified without applying any significant tests of virtue. They remain isolated in families, secretly detesting the neighbors, even sitting beside them in pews.

bb: The murderer, in response to the ghost who “just wants the rights he deserves” says this: “Ask for the Bleeding Charity. Everything is here for the asking and nothing can be bought” (Lewis p. 34).

jc: See, nobody really feels this, “nothing can be bought,” or you’d give up money now. Do you think there is money in Heaven? If not, why do you keep money here? Do you think the angels withhold things from one another, demanding payment? If not, why do you do so here? You are not ready to be an angel if you can’t start living like one today.

bb: Apparently, no amount of friendliness, or unfriendliness for that matter, will open the gates of heaven or hell.

jc: This is a delusion in your mind, a set of ideas that do not match the reality. You too are unfriendly, as we’ll see soon as you fight back angrily against what I’m saying, or else just turn away losing interest and telling yourself I am not important to your world.

bb: I understand that perhaps the illustration that Lewis provides does not suffice since it is only fiction.

jc: It’s not only fiction but shallow fiction, and so is the idea of salvation by grace alone. Jesus said what they think they have shall be taken from them, and I am taking it now, like a thief in the night no one was expecting. I remain in this night, until I find a friend.

bb: Obviously the story of the Ghost and the murderer who is in heaven is a story. In light of this, I will turn to a Biblical example that would indicate that friendliness is not what matters for entry into heaven or “paradise”. Take the story of Jesus on the cross in Luke 23, verses 34-43:

jc: Citing scripture equates neither to proof nor to good thinking. It amounts to superstition about the past, and a certain facile trusting in noble-sounding poetry.

bb: 34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”[c] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

jc: Jesus was the Father, but spoke like this in support of the false lower religion that was to come. The request was premature, since the Invisible God has not engaged in any negative actions against humanity so far. I do not ask for God to forgive any man, because as I’ve said I’ve found not a single one to be friendly, as I believe God defines it.

bb: 35 The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is God’s Messiah, the Chosen One.”

jc: The idea of a messiah is faulty. Such an idea is about a “chosen one” from among the human race, who is like the people and leads them. The Lord is not like His creatures, and He cannot lead them because He is too different, all of His traits opposed to theirs.

bb: 36 The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar 37 and said, “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself.”

jc: Such a simplistic story, and see how it captivates the human mind! Jesus could have kept Himself safe and written thousands of pages about God’s ways and plan, and this is what He would have done did He intend to communicate authentic truth to humanity. Instead He mumbled a few parables over a few years, allowing humanity to guide itself.

bb: 38 There was a written notice above him, which read: this is the king of the jews.

jc: The Bible presumes God to be a racist, preferring one set of people to another. Instead God sees individuals, the fate of their souls unrelated to their birth circumstances. This is unclear thinking, to want to be included in a group rather than justified as an individual.

bb: 39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

jc: Again, the concept of a messiah is faulty, as is the expectation the Lord will do miracles. These are primitive superstitions having nothing to do with God or salvation.

bb: 40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

jc: This is vinegar for the Lord too, for the thief classifies Him as a man. Apparently it was the most the Holy Spirit would offer to the Lord at this time, but He is prepared to answer it in a way that inspires the false religion where many would cry, “Lord, Lord.”

bb: 42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

jc: The terrible thing the humans are not expecting, is that the Lord expects to make the Earth His home, too, when they thought it was disposable for the sake of their greed. Yet Christians do pray earnestly for this, “Thy Kingdom come, on Earth as it is in Heaven.”

bb: 43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

jc: This is the ONE remark anyone has from Jesus, that there is Heaven after just one life. I say it was a false remark dragged from Jesus after torture, and that if you want true teachings from the Lord He needs to be physically secure, relaxed, happy, and respected.

bb: Right off the bat, Jesus asks the forgiveness of those who have just nailed him to a cross.

jc: They weren’t going to be condemned for this, anyway. The event was largely symbolic, that ANY man would persecute the Lord, which is the meaning of the crowd choosing Barabbas over Jesus. The Creator does not judge His local captors, because in a way they are being unfairly tested, merely revealing what every other human would do.

bb: Certainly, those men are far from friendly.

jc: You admit it, but you have not understood the jeering crowd represents you as well.

bb: Yet Jesus, who I believe was fully God even on earth, effectively forgives them of their sin, effectively reconciling them to himself.

jc: The reality was life just went on as usual. Nothing happened as a result of Jesus’ blessing. Those people are neither more forgiven, nor more condemned, because of what they did or how Jesus reacted to it. If they are to be judged, so will be all other humans.

bb: In doing this, he is opening the gates of heaven to those who are very unfriendly indeed.

jc: You are imagining a more “homey” relation between God and man than really exists. When God visits Earth He is an alien, finding that all humans hate Him and His ways. You say the gates of heaven are opened, I say they remain shut to all who are unfriendly.

bb: According to verse 34, friendliness is not a requirement for entry into heaven (or at the very least, it is not a requirement for forgiveness of sins).

jc: Again you are presuming Jesus gained (or did) something by His remark, but I say He gained nothing except to help establish a false religion. You have a string of words, but the reality lies elsewhere. Christians don’t even have, or want, a solid idea about heaven.

This can be pushed even farther, for “Forgive them, they know not what they do,” is about what you’d say regarding a pack of jackals. Your plea seems to be for forgiveness because of ignorance, but such forgiveness leaves the animals in their unredeemed state.

bb: Reading further, Jesus even tells one of the criminals that he will be with him in paradise that same day.

jc: Christianity is a weak religion in failing to note this is the ONE place Jesus speaks about heaven after just one life. I call it “Paulianity,” because the idea isn’t from Jesus except under duress, where the Master was plainly making the best of a terrible situation.

bb: A criminal was likely not a friendly person.

jc: Crime is still in your mind, if you cannot entirely leave crime, and if crime is still in your mind you’d bring it into Heaven. Men are always demonstrating they are not ready for Heaven, because Earth is a heavenly realm for cooperative and friendly persons. Every problem humans have here they’d drag into heaven, even trying to dispose of it and asking when the next will be ready. Redemption isn’t bought for a penny or a song.

bb: I understand that Jesus was completely innocent, yet still considered a criminal.

jc: What would you say if I told you the story was refreshed at the Second Coming? Yet I expect you to be angry instead of curious, or to strut away enveloped in the Christian lies.

bb: However, I find it hard to believe that the other criminals fit into the same category.

jc: Your reasoning appears to break down at this point, as you seem to place the Lord and the criminals “in the same category.” Of course they’re not innocent, it’s admitted in the text. In a sense the Lord is not innocent, because He is behind it all, as the Creator. What happens in this world is because of the forces the disembodied God unleashes, of whom Jesus is but the face. The terrible thing about Jesus is that He failed to provide guidance. There was a chance to talk, to give the real route to salvation, but Jesus remained dumb.

4

jayceeii

  • **
  • 474 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Is Hell Even Reasonable?
« Reply #4 on: December 08, 2019, 06:38:05 am »
Reply to bennettmbiggers, Part 2.
Are you challenging whether there are "friendly" people?
bb: I take it to mean that the two criminals in this scene were real criminals, who had acted unfairly and unfriendly toward someone at some point in their lives (likely the reason for them being classified as criminals).

jc: As I have seen in one of my favorite TV shows, you are “the master of the obvious.”

bb: Yet, it seems that there are things besides “friendliness” which might serve as the catalyst for Jesus’ loving and forgiving remark.

jc: No, I would not call this a loving remark. Only the lovable gain love. Jesus’ remark was as one given regarding the animals. If they are ignorant, why didn’t He teach them?

bb: Perhaps it is the criminal’s “fear” of God, or his understanding of Jesus’ blamelessness, or his plea that Jesus “remember” him— which served to prompt Jesus to say “today you will be with me in paradise”.

jc: None fear God today. It is because of this the churches are dead, as all churches that no longer receive prophets are dead. In the churches men stand alone, unsupported by heaven, but this is how they demand it should be, though the teachers were always eager.

bb: None of these are exclusively friendly. Thus, I am inclined to reject the notion that friendliness matters for entry into heaven.

jc: Each man has his opinion. In a friendly way I’d say yours requires more examination.

bb: Apparently, God loves friendly people and unfriendly people.

jc: God loves all, but in their station. The animals He loves only as ignorant animals. Who can love the unfriendly? They don’t respect your wisdom, or share your concerns.

bb: According to the passage, the love required for forgiveness of sins is not predicated on the friendliness of the individual.

jc: The human idea of friendliness is not actually supportive of the joy of the other, or the work situations would have been rearranged to reflect this. The human idea of friendship is not that they should spend time together, but that they should stay away while private bliss is pursued in the family, where all presume real value is found. There is no real bridge between the families, in human society, thus it can be said not to be a real society, but instead a collection of families each making their way and calling the rest competitors. Attempts at friendliness are just for the sake of smoothing the family’s path.

bb: In fact, it might just be God’s nature to desire the reconciliation of all things and all humans.

jc: The remark is again irreverent, as you presume to know God’s nature but instead reveal your own. It was against such thinking that Jesus said He’d come not to bring peace, but a sword. Again failing to finish His sentences, I’d suggest that He meant the sword of discrimination, that allows the wise to see there’s only misery with the unwise.

bb: In other words, God’s nature may be to love all humans, regardless of their friendliness, even directly toward him.

jc: Next you’ll be sleeping with a cobra in your bed. Friendliness is useless around the hateful, with whom authentic communication about God’s standards of goodness is not possible. As I’ve said, God has not acted against humanity before now, but in the long-term it will be seen this was because He does not like them. Some souls will find Judgment costly indeed, a cost that they’re increasing today by their foolhardy activities.

bb: 1. If God forgives those who crucified Jesus, then he loves them

jc: The only gain from Jesus asking “the Father” to forgive those who know not what they do, was in initiating the false religion. No forgiveness flowed to animalistic souls.

bb: 2. Jesus was fully God

jc: Yes, but you have to prove you know what this sentence means in order to be saved. Having admitted God takes on a body, what makes you think He would not do so again?

bb: 3. If Jesus requested that those who crucified him be forgiven, then he (being God) would forgive them

jc: Unless Jesus were putting on a show, to make the best of a bad and ugly situation. These sins are continual, not occasional. The Christians today would crucify Jesus again. Do you expect God to forgive those who perpetually crucify Him? Unless you leave the lion’s den there’ll be no end of rending, forgiveness meaning naught to violent creatures.

bb: 4. Jesus requested that those who crucified him be forgiven, so God forgave them

jc: You have the interpretation Jesus intended, but not the truth that Jesus scarcely knew.

bb: 5. God loves even those who crucified him

jc: Not as friends.

I'd be remiss to leave this without noting you, as other Christians, read these lines from the Gospel for the sake of what you think you can get from it, not because you want to be a friend to Jesus. Those who are able to make themselves Jesus' friends find the family to be a constraining structure. and this is why Jesus said, “Those who do not hate their kin are not fit to follow Me.” It's an ongoing thing. Even if wise children are born to wise parents, they basically disregard the family as a social structure. Jesus seemed unfriendly here but in fact this is the quintessence of friendship, genuine affection for noble others.

5

JohnnyZ

  • **
  • 70 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Is Hell Even Reasonable?
« Reply #5 on: December 08, 2019, 04:52:37 pm »
The Bible teaches in Psalm 5:5 and 11:5 that God hates the sinner. The idea that God "loves everyone" is an idea from the minds of people, but it's not taught in the Bible.

Nobody deserves salvation, and God elected certain ones to eternal life (Ephesians 1). The ones He didn't elect are deserving of punishment according to God's Law. We may not like what the Bible says about judgment, but God doesn't have to answer to anybody.

6

jayceeii

  • **
  • 474 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Is Hell Even Reasonable?
« Reply #6 on: December 09, 2019, 10:11:36 am »
The Bible teaches in Psalm 5:5 and 11:5 that God hates the sinner. The idea that God "loves everyone" is an idea from the minds of people, but it's not taught in the Bible.

Nobody deserves salvation, and God elected certain ones to eternal life (Ephesians 1). The ones He didn't elect are deserving of punishment according to God's Law. We may not like what the Bible says about judgment, but God doesn't have to answer to anybody.
jz: The Bible teaches in Psalm 5:5 and 11:5 that God hates the sinner.

jc: Psalms 5:5 is, “The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.” In this case “the boastful” represents all those who would use their substantial powers for private profit, while sacrificing the resources meant for future generations. The pride is in ability to perform complex tasks like building spaceships, while the mind is yet unable to attain a holistic perspective. Minds that have this holistic perspective refrain from resource waste on their own accord, recognizing it is in the planet’s interest. It’s such a simple lesson, but it could not be shared. Jesus should’ve given a “Sermon on the Amount of Resources it is Appropriate to Use,” not the useless Sermon on the Mount.

Psalms 11:5 is, “The LORD tests the righteous and the wicked, And the one who loves violence His soul hates.” It was not possible for God to approach humans in a friendly way, because their native hostility makes them suspicious of everyone, they demand to stay in control, and they can’t even form a concept about a true authority. Therefore the religions have been vague and left intentionally opposed to each other, for in fact it is this opposition that humans crave, not the truth. The religions do not contain the guidance needed for either salvation or the best life. “Hatred” is not exactly the right word for God, though it will do in a pinch. God loves all at their station, but the goal of religion would be that He love the devotee more than the apes or dolphins, not a state that humans strive to attain.

jz: The idea that God "loves everyone" is an idea from the minds of people, but it's not taught in the Bible.

jc: Yes, and the idea is formed in the minds of people for whom love is merely grasping. The higher love is rational. People who have noble traits draw this love out easily and naturally, from others who have noble traits. The goal of religion should have been for the adherents to strive to make themselves lovable, not to bind God to their present states.

jz: Nobody deserves salvation, and God elected certain ones to eternal life (Ephesians 1).

jc: This isn’t quite right. I’ve seen a path for twenty years, but no one asks me about it, for the aforementioned reasons. God needed the obedience Christians claim to give Him.

jz: The ones He didn't elect are deserving of punishment according to God's Law.

jc: Were my path to be revealed, the boastful would scoff, convinced the planet Earth is disposable as the Bible says it is. They lose the mighty God, attempting to flatter the “mighty God.” Jesus said the way is strait and narrow, but even to describe it brings down persecution, men hate it so much. However it is very simple and sweet to the wise.

jz:  We may not like what the Bible says about judgment, but God doesn't have to answer to anybody.

jc: And yet God has not acted against men or human interests as men define them, before now. I’ve been thinking there’s a window before He does act, where some could attain justification in His sight, and not be found guilty at Judgment. Yet all actions during this window are uncertain, for as Jesus said rightly, no one, even He, knows Judgment’s hour.