Well, there’s a certain balance to it, I suppose, but there is no logical case here that says God is just and loving after all.
If you’re talking about the Calvinist concept of predestination, the idea is that we’re all worthy of Hell (because of original sin). Some of us are predestined for Heaven because God has decided beforehand to show mercy. ← But it’s still all decided before any of us have a chance to prove our worth.
James,
I had some quotes but I left them at home (I’m at work). Will post them later.
In the meantime, why don’t you tell me your position. Do you challenge the traditional understand that God sends wicked souls to an eternity of Hell?
Matthew 25:46:
“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Daniel 12:2:
“Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake – some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.”
Revelation 14:11:
“14:11 And the smoke from their torture will go up forever and ever, and those who worship the beast and his image will have no rest day or night, along with anyone who receives the mark of his name.”
But seriously, you seem to be suggesting that an eternity in Heaven or Hell is an inevitability–like one’s destiny in a deterministic universe–and God or the Bible is only warning us about the consequences of how we live our lives. Kind of like a parent might warn his children about the consequences of drugs.
This undermines God’s omnipotence, of course, but there are tons of variants on this theology. Undermining God’s omnibenevolence, as I’m doing in this thread, is another.
A thing is either consistent or inconsistent. If inconsistent, allowing both the liar and the honest to receive the same favor, the lazy and the hard worker the same profit, then none can determine right from wrong, good from bad, need from waste. None could be guided fore there would be no compass. Even evolution couldn’t work.
Would casting Man into that gray world of blindness and confusion be loving of the species? Would it be a just thing to do?
An act is “loving” if it’s for the sake of another–if you think it somehow benefits the other. It is just if it matches what the other deserves.
It’s interesting that an act of love, though it may go well beyond what is just, what one deserves, isn’t typically considered immoral, but often the opposite.
God is a metaphor for women, Cold, Uncaring, and Irrational, Do as I say Not as I do, Their own holiness has the most value…sitting in the heavens above with maximum bliss, sending people to hell and not caring about anyone’s bliss but their own
Satan is a metaphor for Baphomet, the transsexual (transsexuals are a Spiritual Meme, that is why glamrockers wear makeup) Satan represents the Fetus as Female (Angel in heaven) And his transition to the male hellrealms, kicked out by the females in heaven, and his futile attempts to transition back into the heavens.
Satan is the accuser, and the Tree of Knowlege (Wise One). But automatically declared evil and a villian by the madgods, who do Do as I say Not as I do kind of morality.
Now Satan kind of is evil, because he got sick of pretending to be a hypocrit goodie-two shoes like the madgods, however not as evil as the gods because he didn’t actually create Hell (Earth or EarthHell), just enjoys when people suffer with him in it.
The problem with most major religions: someone else interprets the text for you and sections are taken out of context. That will screw religions up within one generation. The major religions have been behaving this way for many generations. Read without yanking verses out of context, use your truth without prejudice to interpret. Then compare to modern beliefs. It is hard but, if you honestly read original texts not the altered versions, you will find it all pretty interesting.
Easier said than done, Kris. It implies learning an ancient language for one thing. And assuming I can find the originals on the internet, a huge part of the context involves the culture surrounding the author at the time, recent sociopolitical events, the authors intentions, etc.
This is all depends on what “truth” you want to get at. If you believe there is an objective truth that we can trace starting with today’s religious scriptures and following them back to the originals, expecting to find maybe the word of God itself, then that’s one truth. But there is also religion as a product of history, of all the translations, distortion, and skewing–Christianity for the 21st century–to get at that truth, you need only consult with whatever modern day experts are saying.
well I actually meant original in a modern language. The oldest of the Old Testament.
I agree that you must take all that you said into figuring it all out. It is not a semester study nor just a one subject study. I did not say all that because I thought it was a gimme .
I do not see, through my readings and studies that the God today is what was intended. Fear and worries were greater back then, death was all around. People would have needed comfort and hope in order to work together and become a society. A priest would not have threatened, a priest would promise hope.
If you can , find some mythology books that date back at the very least 150 yrs. Rare as hell. Try maybe 100 or as old as possible. In any modern language. Then put them beside new versions and " reprints". The changes can be amusing or disturbing. All my old old texts are safed away access is a pain in the butt and an expensive trip.
I credit my grandparents for getting me into social studies, anthropology, sociology etc.
They also brought me to study animals and their behaviors to learn about humanity.
I know some of the older texts don’t consistently use the same word for Hell. Sometimes it’s sheol, which actually means grave, and there’s Hades, which is borrowed from the Greeks. I remember learning in school that the ancient Hebrews didn’t really have a concept of an eternal realm of suffering in the afterlife for those who lived a wicked life. When they used the word “sheol”, it was only to depict the unpleasant state of being dead, buried in the ground, rotting. But you can see how the wording can be carried over to the modern Christian concept of hell. To describe it as unpleasant, horrible, even eternal, fits very well. And for a Christian scholar who came later in history and didn’t know much about the original meanings and connotations of these words, he could easily equate it with the concepts he was brought up on.
Yes and toss in attitude, ability to translate and personal belief, a whole paragraph would be changed. I would not follow a modern biblical God but, I might follow the original since I think the original intent for that God was positive not negative.
Perhaps this is my “good triumphs over evil” showing, but I think the bible can be read (as I want it to read) that Satan learns his lesson and is forgiven
Lets invision a reality where God has the power (omnipotence = he does have this power) to make an “eternal hell” go away instantaneously… ie a heaven where the timeframes of eternal suffering is negligably small (conceptually)
Keep in mind I am not trying to belittle God nor his ability to make any of us suffer for whatever reason
Your thread begins with the most Christian conservative view of hell, then brings out this card-stacking of verses devoid of their original contexts. This is not like you, Gib.
Is this an argument for God’s omnipotence over logic itself? That Hell is eternal yet it isn’t? ← This would be like the rock so heavy not even God can lift it.
Or is this more like an argument for higher orders of infinity? Hell remains eternal, but Heaven is a higher order of eternity (like eternity^2), thus making Hell seem negligible (like a line being infinite but a negligible slice compared to a plane).
It was good enough to answer James’s question. Also, these verses are online. Anyone can look up the original context. I don’t think I’m giving off a false impression of what they mean. They essentially say that there is a place called Hell where wicked souls go to be tortured for all eternity, which is in accordance with standard Christian interpretation.
Well, the case is then “do we know just and loving in themselves or are they just terms that hide our own self-interest”. So that the question becomes is God actually unjust and unloving or is that my impression because I am not satisfied with this or that?
The thing to remember is that we are placing our judgment as supreme on all things and that might not be the case. We are temporal beings trying to judge eternity. From that perspective what are the defining characteristics of justice and love? I don’t know but I could understand why those standards might be different even if the terms remain the same.
I’ll let Calvinist defend that. I was simply going by what I have read about Luther. Luther grappled with predestination, so I would not say that it is what demonstrates God’s benevolence but His omnipotence and to Luther, Calvin and others, this seemed to be the trait of God that they wanted to maintain. The problem of evil, which has been discussed many times before in this forum, presents the believer with a choice about what God is like. Omnipotent and removed or Loving and limited in power. I go for the latter.
Different yes… but all I’m saying, then, is that such a form of justice and love is, at best, inevitably incomprehensible to finite beings like us–and totally untenable at worst.
What do you mean? You mean, debunk God’s existence, or debunk God himself–as if we were in a debate with him and he lost?
I mean, if God really is as cruel is this–to send us to Hell for all eternity–maybe he’s just a malevolent God–doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.
well I actually meant original in a modern language. The oldest of the Old Testament.