Eternal suffering in hell isn't in the Bible

Faith & Science Conversation
217

I agree. I think our point of departure might be how we view the natural end of a person. Are humans naturally immortal? If so, then I see how it follows that “people habitually torment themselves and create a hell for themselves and everyone around them” – and this goes on for eternity in whatever place they inhabit.

But I think Genesis begins with an alternative to this. When the humans in the garden rebel, we get a strange statement from God:

Then the Lord God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever”—therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man; and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim, and a sword flaming and turning to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22–24)

So when humans are in rebellion, God sees the possibility of them becoming immortal, and it’s an unspeakable horror. God begins the thought but leaves the sentence dangling. Perhaps what God sees is what you described: people continuing to torment themselves and others eternally.

Rather than allow that to happen, God cuts off access to the tree of life. This isn’t about God taking back a gift humans were already enjoying, but rather revoking an unopened gift that, if opened now in their changed condition, would work a curse instead of a blessing. God will not unnaturally multiply by infinity the potential for inward-turned humans to wreak havok on themselves and others. God doesn’t hate us! Just as our earthly lifespan puts a cap on the pain and harm any one person can inflict or feel, so too our spiritual lifespan.

If we are not naturally immortal, then insisting on separation from our life’s source when raised to face judgement will naturally lead to a second death. It will be God’s doing in the same way as the weather is God’s doing: because it is the way God has set up reality to work.

2 Likes
218

How do we define “natural” in your “natural end to a person?” Redemption, restoration, and resurrection are all about a return to some previous state. Therefore, which is natural? Is it what fallen men can expect or is it the result of Paul’s description of a resurrection to an imperishable spiritual body?

To be sure, there are many alternatives – practically endless. But ad-hoc fixes are not only unsatisfying but they leave other problems requiring endless series more ad-hoc fixes. So your suggestion is that God witholds immortality because sinful man will make a hellish world if so? I don’t get it. Seems to me, immortality will ruin the earth whether we have sin or not. And we still make the Earth a pretty hellish place without immortality.

As for the Garden of Eden, I do not believe in golems of dust and bone, magical fruit, or talking snakes. Sorry. I do think what is being told here is the story of historical people and events but with considerable symbolism. I think the names of those two trees in the garden shout symbolism louder than anything else in the Bible. And the tree of life represents a relationship with God, who is indeed the source of all life and without which an eternal existence would lack everything that would make an eternal existence worthwhile. But a relationship with God takes time to develop and is not just a matter of reaching up to pick a fruit. Thus it is explained why A&E did not eat the fruit which should have been a great deal more desirable. So what was all that at the end about a flaming sword blocking their way to the tree of life? Something to stop them from getting their hands on a fruit which will give them eternal physical life? I don’t think so! It means that the relationship with God as their parent is broken. Because God cannot associate with sin? Not hardly! Jesus demonstrated that this was not so.

There is only ONE thing that can break a parent child relationship and that is when the parent’s presence in the child’s life does more harm than good. The self-destructive habits of sin demonstrated by the behavior of A&E changed God from their best teacher into their most convenient scapegoat and excuse. The only way forward was separation. For man to live by the consequences of his own actions, they would have to accept that blaming others will get you nowhere. But ultimately, it is a no win scenario, because not only is God the source of life, but we were never meant to navigate the moral landscape of life without the guidance of God. Our creation was always about a very intimate relationship with God.

So without the resurrected spiritual body connected to the source of life what can we expect? Not only an existence without that which makes existence worthwhile, but there are also our sins which are a degenerative spiritual disease and without their removal we can only expect a downward spiral into evil and the destruction of everything of value within us. Thus my alternative to ECT is ECTPDA or eternal conscious torment with possibly diminishing awareness as we are devoured by our sins.

219

I meant “natural” in the sense of what happens without a special, new act of God. In other words, what goes beyond sustenance and general providence. I don’t include eternal life within what is natural for humans because I see it as an undeserved gift from God that not all will accept.

Not quite. I don’t see eternal life as something compatible with life apart from God (apart both in the sense of separation and the sense of rejecting God’s guidance/governance). But yes, were it possible, I think that eternal life apart from God would be hellish.

I’m quite open to “considerable symbolism” in the story myself, including what is suggested by naming the main character Humanity. I think that makes the story more relevant rather than less, since it speaks to human nature rather than just what our first parents did.

Yes, they’re on a trajectory of separation from God. But God will still reach out, and their (our) story isn’t over ’til it’s over.

Agreed.

Certainly not ongoing life, right? In that scenario I’d expect the second death.

220

And I say it is not natural for fallen spiritually dead humans but very much natural for man as God created him – to be sure it still requires a continuing relationship with God but the saving intervention was only made necessary by the introduction of sin.

You know… as an aside… with your suggestion of making the story so metaphorical that Adam = mankind, you make me wonder if you even believe in a fall of man at all – almost as if you are equating salvation and evolution. Seems to me this is exactly why so many Christians object to evolution because they see it pulling the rug out from Christian theology in this way. I certainly want to reassure them that evolution doesn’t require any such thing. And remember that I wasn’t even raised Christian, so its not about clinging to some antiquated myth but seeing, from my completely scientific worldview, value in this story as one of real people and events. …even if I do not quite buy into this as a story of magical fruit, talking animals, and golems of dust and bone.

The problem is that there is very prominent distinction in the Bible between life and existence. In Luke 9:60 Jesus says “let the dead bury their own dead,” clearly implying that dead doesn’t equal physically dead or nonexistent. And this is added the fact that God said in Genesis 2, the day A&E eat the “fruit” they will surely die. Again the story strongly implies that death doesn’t equal physical death or nonexistence. When Jesus says, “I came that you may have life, and have it more abundantly,” do you really see that as just meaning Jesus was going help us exist longer? I do not.

Because of this I see a very big difference between life and existence. I remember many movies and TV shows exploring immortality where unending life is just burden they seek to escape from. Existence without something to make it worthwhile is a kind of hell all its own. So I see two very different things being offered by God which traditional Christianity tends to blur together.

  1. the natural relationship we always should have had with God which makes existence worthwhile, where there is no end to what God has to give and no end to what we can receive from Him. This is the substance of eternal life.
  2. the removal of sin, and I very much disbelieve that there is any magical or easy way of accomplishing this. Sin which I think consists of self-destructive habits will make hell of our existence long before we suffer from the lack of a relationship with God. This is why I do not believe in purgatory, because none of us are without sin. The only choice here is between getting God’s help to deal with sin in the kingdom of God or letting it devour us in hell.

And I do not think going that far is warranted. The naming thing goes both ways. We see an animal for the first time and call it Lion and what is more natural than when we see another just like the first that we say “oh, another Lion.” It is perfectly reasonable that the name we have for the first one becomes the name all things like it. So, I just don’t buy that argument at all. Besides, with the talk of other homo sapiens on the planet in Gen 4-6, this just doesn’t read to me like it is talking about mankind in general, but rather a specific person with specific wife and children.

221

I believe that mankind fell, but not that an individual couple fell and God punished all their descendants with a changed nature as a result. Put differently, I don’t think Adam and Eve had a chance but the rest of us, due to what we inherit from them, don’t.

Perhaps. For me it was the aspects of traditional Christian theology that didn’t make sense or didn’t seem compatible with God’s character that shifted. My issue with original sin in the form I was taught it had nothing to do with whether the human population ever reduced to a couple: it was about thinking God wouldn’t punish all progeny for the act of one or two ancestors.

Agreed. Eternal life is more than just continued existence. But it is that too. And the second death is more than just the end of existence. But I think it is that too.

The time frame may not seem to match, but it does end with emphasizing that they will return to dust – physical death. Again, I think it’s more than just physical death, but not less.

That’s a nice way of putting it!

Sure, but in Genesis, the first time the word Adam/Humanity is used is in Genesis 1 where it means people in general, male and female. It’s used again in Genesis 5:1–2 as God’s name for people in general, male and female. So when, between these texts, we have an extended story of the Humanity that, as you’ve noted, uses a lot of symbolism (“golems of dust and bone, magical fruit, or talking snakes”), I’m quite open to this being one more part of the symbolism. The Humanity being split into a man and a woman who are made of the same stuff, who are not complete on their own, and who can unite again into one flesh in the intimacy of marriage is more meaningful to me as a picture of humanity and the sexes than as historical statements about our first parents. If all those strange details are about those literal people, then it shows they are nothing like me rather than showing how their story is mine as well.

But, I do agree that verses like Genesis 5:3–5 do read much more like they are about a real person. There, the question is more what we do with the ages, and what we do with how the text blurs from Adam who is all humanity in verses 1–2 to Adam who fathers Seth in 3–5.

222

One issue is that even after the “fall” God still spent time with them. He was still in communication with them, and have them clothes and even talked to Cain after he killed Abel. So God still had a relationship with them.

I also don’t believe that the fruit was a one time thing. Since humans were not immortal, I believe the tree was something used to sustain life. Like the manna. They would have to keep eating from it to have sustained life eternally. Their sin cut them off from it because the wages of sin is death.

223

What does Rev 20:15 mean exactly? I know Revelation is pretty much entirely symbolism, but this is something he has repeatedly alluded to in the last few weeks.

And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.

Thanks for your thoughts.

224

Verse 14 says what it is in my opinion.

The symbolism is the lake of fire. It’s where death and hades was thrown too. They are not actual beings that can be tortured for all eternity so what does it mean for them to be cast symbolically into the lake of fire? It means they are destroyed. No more. Same for the people cast into the lake of fire because again verse 14 gives not only the symbolic language ( lake of fire ) but also its literal meaning. It’s the second death.

So a question to ask would be well what is the second death? Well it’s the same as the first death, except it’s the second time and the final time people die.

The righteous and unrighteous are both resurrected. One to eternal life and one to eternal destruction because the punishment of the dying the second time is that it’s forever. Eternal. No hope of a third resurrection.

225

I would not take Ehrman as the only or best source for things. Weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth…Lazarus crying out for just a drop of water and being told "no sorry no can do buddy!! You had your chance…the argument can be made for an eternal hell as much as against…Just depends on what verses you pick.

226

Not true.

Take the Lazarus verse. First it’s clearly a parable. But let’s say it is real and it’s literal.

Lazarus would have been in hades being tortured waiting for the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous at the white throne judgement. Lazarus would not already be in hell.

The land of the dead, hades, gets cast into the lake of fire. So whatever Lazarus would be dealing with would have been in hades, not hell.

Revelation 20:14
New American Standard Bible
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

One thing to also note is that the lake of fire is the symbolism in this verse. That symbolism is then explained just like most parables were done parable first followed by explanation. So the explanation for the lake of fire is that it’s a second death. It’s a second death because the first death is the one we almost all face. Then we all get resurrected. Then those names not found in the book of life gets destroyed in hell.

Acts 24:15
New American Standard Bible
15 having a hope in God, which these men cherish themselves, that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.

The key to sound doctrine, including in hell , is not cherry picking but systematic theology. Including tracing quotes back to their original source.

227

Mark 3:29 sure looks like it is talking about eternity.

228

I don’t know whether the account of Lazarus is a parable or not…some say people of that era may have known who was being talked about. …and perhaps they did!!

What I did say is that you can make a case for an eternal something from various biblical statements. You can puzzle over a lot of details along the way too – such as what IS the second death? annihilation? or eternal nastiness somewhere? How is the tongue going to get me sent to hell? If it is eternal, a billion years from now, the inhabitants of said realm will hardly remember what they did to get them there. “And if your eye causes you to sin, fear it not. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” …“This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of likfe he was thrown into the lake of fire.”…“It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell to the unquenchable fire…”…If you curse someone you are in danger of the fires of hell…fear God who has the power to kill you and throw you into hell…" I dunno…what I was saying is that you can argue a number of ways about that subject. Ehrman probably can too…You want a little roasting or an eternal one? Seriously!! Which is better??

But it is all avoidable…“There is no other name given among men by which we may be saved.”

It’s a lovely summers day, go out and enjoy it…

229

I will. I work in the sun all day. Been here since 630 am with a handful of breaks and still have 2 hours left. Then I’m going on about a 10 mile hike. I enjoy nature a lot and so I’m outside in it beyond work about 28-30 hours a week on average. Definitely looking forward to being done with work and hiking. Lots of my recent hikes are portrayed a bit in the creation photo forum.

1 Like
230

Cool! I should check that forum out…maybe when I come back from the Grand Tetons, I will have something …

1 Like
231

I hardly dismissed that since death was the consequence in many examples I used. Ultimately however, death is simply a part of life, without which life would not even exist.

I guessing that what you are really talking is not death but nonexistence… and the reason annihilation doesn’t work for me is because for me that is no threat at all. If you read my post above, you will see I have no problem whatsoever with the atheist idea of simple no existence after death… if anything, I think it sounds too good to be true, and it makes suicide a good solution to many problems.

But I don’t believe God created hell or sends anyone to be tormented. What I see in the world is people creating hell for themselves, and torment is often something that people do to themselves. To be sure there are many who torment others and I think it likely that the victims will go to God to be comforted and the perps will be left with only themselves to torment.

I believe in a God who chose love and freedom over power and control – a God who chose to limit Himself to accept the choices of others. I therefore, do not believe that the spiritual aspect of living things can be destroyed by external forces, but only by their own choices. So when Jesus spoke of fearing one who can destroy the spirit, I do not believe He was describing God as a soul destroying monster as you seem to think. I believe the one to fear most is not God but ourselves and it is we who destroy our own spirit. (which is not to say their is no place for a proper fear of God, but I don’t think this is about God representing some threat to us)

Nor do I, but your argument is founded on other premises which I have already rejected such as this Gnostic gospel of salvation by knowledge of a savior. I believe in the gospel of salvation by the grace of God and not something earned by ANYTHING we do. I don’t see your ad-hoc fix by changing this from a threat of torment to a threat of annihilation as solving anything. A soul destroying monster sounds like an even worse monster to me. And I don’t see much merit in the high handed idea of spiritual euthanasia with love either.

232

Hi Mitchell,

I appreciate the depth of your thought, and your willingness to participate in discussions here. Discussions in forums such as this, though valuable and useful, can be prone to misunderstanding. The best way to assure one is understanding another is to express the other’s views in ones own words. So let me see if I understand you correctly (drawing on all of your comments in this forum that I have read).

You believe

God created the universe.

God created human beings.

Human beings have souls.

Souls do not die with the death of the body.

If human beings submit to God in this life, if they “believe in [Jesus] and do [his] commands…” in this life, then they are saved and will have eternal life in Heaven.

If they do not, then they will suffer eternal punishment in Hell.

This is just punishment.

While death itself is punishment, it is not enough punishment to act as a deterrent.

Eternal punishment in Hell, then, serves both as just reward for those who reject God and as coercion to get people to accept God.

Yet, God did not create Hell. Humans created (or are creating? Or will create?) Hell through the acts they committed in this life in their rejection of God. Eternal suffering is, then, self-punishment.

“God chose love and freedom over power and control,” and thus does not want human beings, his creation, to suffer eternal punishment, but allows them to choose that fate. Yet, he will not destroy the souls of those who reject him, because it is just that they suffer eternal punishment unless they accept his gift of salvation through Jesus. It is just, even if they otherwise obey all of his laws (this would be the case with adept Buddhists monks who adhere to precepts that are even more strict than the laws in the Bible, such as no alcohol or even music), but do not believe in Jesus or any form of God identity.

Am I understanding you correctly?

1 Like
233

Yes but not a work of art or a novel but as a womb… a place with the conditions supporting the self-organizing process of life. Nor as a machine or experiment to sit back and watch but a living creation to have a relationship with His involvement.

Yes but not as golems of dust and bone by magic or by design as if we are nothing but clever machines, but by the kind of process by which living things are created in the example of a shepherd, teacher or parent through the process of involvement in our lives as we make our own choices.

I do not buy into the Gnostic Greek notion of (trapped or implanted) immortal rational souls but follow the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor of a spiritual body which grows from the natural physical body like a tree from a seed.

Again according to Paul in 1 Cor 15, the spiritual body resurrected to a relationship with God is imperishable, but the dead spirit is ghost or shadow of person which does not have what it takes to make a continued existence worthwhile.

God values love and freedom not power and control. Submission is only the interest of those who use religion as a tool of power. As the shepherd, God would guide us away from the self-destructive habits of sin to the ways of greater life (more awareness, more choices, more of the things that make a continued existence worthwhile).

If we do not let go of our self-destructive habits and let God remove them, then they will devour us, destroying everything of value within us – a descent into greater depravity and darkness.

To get what we want and choose, suffering the natural logical consequences of our own choices is indeed the ultimate justice. With that alone we are all doomed. Glory be to God that there is also mercy and grace, where if we will let Him, God can reach down into our darkness to help us overcome the habits which are destroying us.

Physical death is not a punishment but a natural inevitable transition in life, like when the new born infant leaves the womb to experience a much greater world. But the womb had a purpose to prepare us for the dangers which are always inherent in greater power and freedom. If we are not prepared for it, then the transition can bring death rather than life.

I don’t believe in a God seeking power and control by making threats. And no I don’t believe the threat of annihilation is better than the threat of torment. Indeed the threat of annihilation is an empty threat as far as I am concerned making suicide and death a solution to many of our problems. So this is a seriously flawed way of thinking.

So I am rejecting the whole God threatening us to get our submission idea. Instead God is simply warning us about what we can expect. And the danger Jesus warns us about is not annihilation but torment.

You can see the creation of hell by human beings in many places and times on the earth. It is not about the scenery which is incredibly superficial but about the relationships between people. This is why many unbelievers say that they would prefer the company in hell rather than be stuck with the self-righteous intolerant prigs who will apparently populate heaven. There are those who create heaven around them with the love they give to others and there are those who create hell around them with the nastiness they are always showing to others around them. This follows them wherever they go and cannot be escaped.

No, you do not understand me correctly.

First of all I reject the Gnostic gospel of salvation by the knowledge of a savior and special password name of “Jesus”. I believe in the gospel of salvation by the grace of God. This is not a payment earned by believing or following any other salvation formula. What can we do to get salvation? Someone asked Jesus this in Matthew 19. His reply was, “with men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” It is not what we do but what God does. What God asks of us is faith and accepting this gift. And no this is not about a declaration of allegiance to Jesus or Christianity. This is about a desire to leave our sins behind and do good. It most certainly is not about doing enough good works to buy your way into the good graces of God. It is about doing what is right for its own sake whether you are Buddhist, or atheist, or Muslim, or Christian. That is the meaning of faith and having the law of God written on our hearts. As Paul said in Romans 10: 5 Moses writes that the man who practices the righteousness which is based on the law shall live by it. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, Do not say in your heart, “Who will ascend into heaven?” (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). This is the difference between faith and legalism. Faith doesn’t ask for rewards and legalism thinks you have a way saying who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.

234

Thanks for your elucidating reply, Mitchell!

I am going to split my reply into topics. So first…

BODY & SOUL

mitchellmckain:

"the teaching of Paul in 1 Cor of a spiritual body which grows from the natural physical body like a tree from a seed.”

mitchellmckain:

"Again according to Paul in 1 Cor 15, the spiritual body resurrected to a relationship with God is imperishable, but the dead spirit is ghost or shadow of person which does not have what it takes to make a continued existence worthwhile.”

Kguess:

One can very much interpret what Paul says in 1 Cor 15 as saying the spiritual body is a new and different body, for he says, "the splendor of the heavenly bodies is of one degree, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is of another…” and “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body…” and "I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.”

In Mark 20 & Matthew 22, Jesus says, “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels of heaven.”

Do the angels in Heaven have material bodies? If so, they must live in a material world, right? What would be the point of having a material body without a material world? If they do, then did God create a prior material world/universe in which he created the angels? Why? Did they, like us, also have to begin with a physical body as a seed from which grows their spiritual body? If so, how are they different from us in substance or being?

Further, when Jesus appeared to Thomas, Thomas’ doubt was removed by touching the nail wounds and putting his hand INTO Jesus’ side where the spear had pierced it. This is quite curious to me. For in Luke 22:51, when Jesus’ disciple cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest, Jesus instantly healed it. Surely, then, Jesus could have healed his own wounds such that the evidence Thomas sought was no longer evident.

But, of course, Thomas would not then believe Jesus had been resurrected. In Jesus’ appearances after his resurrection, he was not initially recognized by those who knew him well, even while they conversed.

Jesus said, “If you have faith as small as this mustard seed, you could say to this mountain move from here to there and it would obey you.”

And, of course, Jesus himself and God in the Old Testament, treat material reality as malleable to their will, just as Jesus said it is to ours, if we have sufficient faith.

All of these things suggest to me that material reality IS illusory, at least in the sense that it’s structure and its forms at any given time are entirely subordinate to the will of one who knows and believes that.

Yet, overall, material reality is an evolving structure, which is plainly visible to anyone who takes the time to observe it deeply enough and long enough, as the Greeks began to do in many ways, as Darwin began to do with regards to bodies themselves, and as many have since with just about all aspects of that structure. Like a tree, if you just go randomly willing its parts to do this or that, the overall structure is altered, possibly causing it to fall apart. This would explain why there is little evidence of God doing that even though the Bible claims that he has done it. It should be recognized, I think, that all the ways he did it were relatively trivial in terms of affecting the overall structure, with the exception of the flood, and in that case, the expected consequences for the Earth did follow. As portrayed in the Bible, God is clearly a creator with a grand purpose for his creation. You seem to find the ideal of Heaven or us being like a work of art objectionable, but the process by which God is shaping his creation is like that of an artist; or rather, it is the other way around. The way the artist, the true and master artist, approaches his creation is a reflection of the way God approaches his. And the goal, according to the Bible, is for us to have his laws put into our mind and imprinted on our hearts that we may all know him (Jeremiah 31:33-34) and that we may be “perfect, … as [he] is perfect.” In Heaven, the creation of which ends the Bible, everyone knows God and is sinless. The grand purpose of God’s creation is completed. Is that not the case?

What does all this say, then, about the nature of the soul and the relationship between the soul and the body?

For me, it says that we must learn something concretely before we can be aware of it and understand it abstractly. As a friend of mine who founded a theater school for kids as young as 6 liked to say, “Kids learn through their bodies.” We all do.

Could it be that this is what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 15: 42-45?

We in the West often think of perfectionism as being stifling, particularly where creativity is concerned, yet in this case, I think it’s very important to realize that the perfection we are talking about is that of a being who created the universe and everything in it. There is no greater creativity possible. And it is of a being who is not tied to a material form. Could it be that in Heaven, we will have material forms and exist in material reality, with all the creative possibilities such a reality makes possible, but will not be tied to our material forms or that body?

1 Like
235

And second…

SUBMISSION

mitchellmckain:

“God values love and freedom not power and control. Submission is only the interest of those who use religion as a tool of power. As the shepherd, God would guide us away from the self-destructive habits of sin to the ways of greater life (more awareness, more choices, more of the things that make a continued existence worthwhile).”

Kguess:

I don’t believe submission has to be what you say, although it can be. As a teacher, I seek to do for my students what you say God seeks to do for us within the limits of teaching music/piano. If they submit to my guidance, I can do that most effectively. If they do not, they hamper my effectiveness as their guide. I am not God, though, so my students and I are both within the same larger reality that God created and through which he is seeking to guide us. If I submit to that larger reality, if I submit to God, then the situation of a student refusing to submit to me becomes an opportunity for God to guide me to be a better guide for my student. For example, rather than try to force my student to submit, the cause of their refusal often becomes more known to me and the larger purpose in what I’m doing more clear. Through this how to proceed to be of benefit to them and to that larger purpose becomes more clear. If do not submit to the situation, however, then I become embroiled in a conflict with my student and things get worse. There could be exceptions to those two scenarios, but I’ve been teaching for 30 years, and there have not been many.

My experience reflects what God demonstrates in the Old Testament. God uses coercion often in the Old Testament, in both the form of threats and of rewards. This rarely leads to the fulfillment of his ultimate aim (Jeremiah 31:33-34). With Jesus, the tact is different. In fact, I would argue, it is not a tact at all. It is an honest demonstration of our nature as both bodies and souls, of our relationships to material reality and to God and to each other.

“For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.” (Luke 9:24)

Isn’t this the crux of the matter? If we cling to our Self—whatever form that may take—we resist God, we resist Jesus (who is God), and lose our true selves, which are not separate from God and, therefore, cannot be clung to. In the case of the Pharisees, they clung to their doctrine and the perks of their position in society, and this clinging blinded them so much that they could not recognize and thus rejected God standing before them in the form of Jesus.

I feel a need to caution you about getting too attached to your own doctrine. I lack the awareness to know if you are right or wrong, but I believe I do have the awareness to know that you are very enamored of your own interpretation of God’s word, your own conception of God and us, of what is going on in this existence and of what the purpose and nature of it all is. Maybe I’m wrong. I say this as a fellow member of the Body of Christ, as one who wants all to become members of that body and of none of those who have become sheep following Jesus to become lost sheep.

1 Like
236

And finally…

HELL AND PUNISHMENT

mitchellmckain:

"If we do not let go of our self-destructive habits and let God remove them, then they will devour us, destroying everything of value within us – a descent into greater depravity and darkness.”

“Physical death is not a punishment but a natural inevitable transition in life, like when the new born infant leaves the womb to experience a much greater world.”

"You can see the creation of hell by human beings in many places and times on the earth. It is not about the scenery which is incredibly superficial but about the relationships between people. This is why many unbelievers say that they would prefer the company in hell rather than be stuck with the self-righteous intolerant prigs who will apparently populate heaven. ”

Kguess:

Definitely you can see human beings creating their own torment, and definitely the fundamental issue is relationships. The two greatest commandments are entirely about the two relationships we each have, with God and with each other.

But death is the most significant part of the punishment God meted out to Adam in Genesis 3, and the entire point of Jesus being resurrected is overcoming death. In 1 Corinthians 15:24-26, Paul speaks of God destroying his enemies, and the “last enemy to be destroyed is death.”

So how can it be that “physical death is not a punishment but a natural inevitable transition in life?” It is natural that it seems that way to us, because we see death all the time, and we know that the bodies of those who die are absorbed back into the biological system and become nourishment for new life. Yet, doesn’t Genesis 2-3 make it clear that this is only “natural” in the Fallen World, where things die and we have no access to the Tree of Life?

You said, “There are those who create heaven around them with the love they give to others and there are those who create hell around them with the nastiness they are always showing to others around them. This follows them wherever they go and cannot be escaped…”

You may not realize it, but you are describing the Buddhist view of “Heaven” and “Hell.” Death as birth from the “womb” of material life to “experience a much greater world" is very much in line with the concept of reincarnation. And saying that this “much greater world” is Hellish or Heavenish due to how we lived in the womb is exactly the concept of Karma. The only difference between reincarnation/karma and your conception is that you believe this only happens once. Yet, you seem to believe that after death, those who are in Hell continue to create it. Is that correct?

Now, reincarnation/karma makes a lot of sense IF there is no God-identity who created it all for the ultimate purpose of creating Heaven. For then there is no moral issue. Buddhism does not posit a creator. I’m not sure I understand fully how Buddhists think of it, but it seems to be that they regard the idea of beginnings and endings as more illusions the mind creates, and thus the question of how it all begin is just a trap laid by the ego.

But if there is a God-identity who created it all for the ultimate purpose of creating Heaven, a place where we all live in his Love, Joy and Peace, and in which we all know him, then how can he avoid responsibility for the consequences to his creations? How can he be relieved of responsibility for eternal suffering if he created it all? Was it an oversight? God had an “oops” moment, and many of his creations will suffer eternally because of it?

Or did he do it on purpose, intending for some of his creations to live in Heaven forever in Love, Peace and Joy, and some to live in Hell forever in suffering and torment?

If God does have a grand plan for his creation, then how do you get around this question? How can God both love us so much that he would sacrifice his Son that we might be forgiven—that he would declare he takes no pleasure in anyone’s death, that he would spare all of Sodom and allow its corruption to continue if only a few of its inhabitants were found to be innocent—and choose to allow us to get trapped in eternal suffering and torment?

How is that possible?