The concept of hell is certainly not incompatible with the concept of a morally perfect deity. If we are philosphically consistent in our view of God, we must conclude that the moral perfection of a deity does not obtain because the deity does (or does not do) “this” or “that”; rather, the moral perfection of the deity is derived from the nature of the deity itself. It is not based on the deity aligning with a standard of moral behavior exernal to the deity; to the contrary, the full concept of “moral perfection” itself is based exclusively on whatever the deity does or does not do.
In this way, then, whether God damns all that God has created irrevocably to annihilation or simply incorporates all that God has created into the eternal being, God's moral perfection remains in tact. But again, that God's moral perfection is unaffected is not because God has been found in alignment with that which defines moral perfection, but rather because moral perfection derives from that which God is and does.
The question of loving-ness is a bit more difficult to answer, and depends upon how one fundamentally defines the nature of hell.
If hell is to be understood as some manner of divine “punishment” for moral imperfection on behalf of the creation, then I would lean more in the direction of denying that such is compatible with an ideal of a “loving” God (there are good philosophical reasons for this, I think, and would be glad to go into them if someone is interested).
If, however, hell is understood as the natural consequence of what happens to those who choose death and dissolution over relationship with God, then I do not see it as necessarily opposed to the notion of a loving God. In such a construct, I would further argue that the understanding of a “hell” is, in fact, necessary to the definition of a loving God, as either annihilationism or universal redemption would signal a fundamental diminution of creaturely freedom, which diminution is inherently opposed to the notion of the loving-ness of God.
…with God, to be just there must consequences for rebellion…
I'm not sure I see the necessity in this statement. If God is just, it is because justice proceeds from and is, in fact, defined upon the basis of that which God does and is. Divine justice, IMO, is not based on God's alignment with some “standard” of justice; to the contrary, the standard of justice is derived from that which God does, whatever God does.
Therefore, if God arbitrarily damns all of creation irrevocably for its sinfulness, or turns a blind eye and just “lets it go,” God is equally just.
In this way, then, the consequences of human sinfulness do not obtain because of God acting to “ensure that divine justice is maintained,” but rather because the consequences of human sinfulness are what happen when humans sever themselves from the life and goodness of God. In such a state, death and eternal dissolution inevitably follow, and one need not imagine any intervention on behalf of the “justice” of God in order to account for what will necessarily be their end.
This is one of the areas, IMO, where Western Christian theology has disasterously veered off course. We have supplanted a philosophically rational view of God's justice with a vision of our own, and have remade the divine in our own, sinful image–a God who is driven by necessity, hatred, and violence.
…They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,” 2 Thess. 1:7-9. Hopefully this clears up the subject of hell and that it does exist and that those who do not obey God's commandments will be condemned their after death.
I think it's interesting that even here we see “hell”–though couched in apocalyptic language–envisioned as something that exists apart from, or at least only in passive relationship to the being and will of God. For although the writer speaks of the inhabitants as suffering “eternal destruction”, this destruction is not from the hand of God, but is rather “away” from God. This “away,” IMO, is both proximal (in terms of logic, not time/space) and existential, and it is this proximity of existential removal which itself defines the fundamental nature of hell.
In this way, I think this passage provides some interesting insights into what “hell” is in relationship to God. Rather than being identified as the “active” punishment of sinners by God, it is to the contrary the state of being that accrues from being existentially and proximally removed from the “presences” (life) and “glory” of God.
No. Much like our parents who love us but need to punish us when we have done wrong, God created hell for those who didn't learn when he punished them.
Amy–
I don't see that these examples are equivalent or applicable. When parents punish, it is not out of a “need” to do so, but as discipline whose ultimate goal is reformation and restoration. After all, parents don't punish unconditionally, but do so based on conditions and what is in the best interests of the child (or this is at least the goal).
With the idea of God “punishing” sinners in hell, however, neither restoration or reformation is possible. It is the irrevocable destruction of life in which all hope and goodness is annihilated. While one might suggest that this is God's doing, it is certainly not an act of “love.”
I believe that God and Hell are compatible and I'll give you three reasons why. 1. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God sends anyone to Hell. They choose it personally. 2. God is our Father. While God is loving, just like any good parent, He is also just. If we make mistakes He will make sure to show us that we were in the wrong in order to hopefully prevent it from happening again. 3. Hell may not be a fair punishment for one sin but when you think about how many sins we commit each and every day, by the time we die Hell fits the crime. Those are my sentiments at least.
Nicholas–
If reason #1 is true, who, precisely, is doing the “punishing” of #3? If God isn't sending people to hell (per #1), and humans “choose it personally,” exactly where does “punishment” fit into the equation? Do people “punish” themselves for their crimes by “choosing” hell? Is Satan punishing them?
“Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.”— 2 Timothy 1:13-14 (ESV)
Join the forum discussion on this post
The concept of hell is certainly not incompatible with the concept of a morally perfect deity. If we are philosphically consistent in our view of God, we must conclude that the moral perfection of a deity does not obtain because the deity does (or does not do) “this” or “that”; rather, the moral perfection of the deity is derived from the nature of the deity itself. It is not based on the deity aligning with a standard of moral behavior exernal to the deity; to the contrary, the full concept of “moral perfection” itself is based exclusively on whatever the deity does or does not do.
In this way, then, whether God damns all that God has created irrevocably to annihilation or simply incorporates all that God has created into the eternal being, God's moral perfection remains in tact. But again, that God's moral perfection is unaffected is not because God has been found in alignment with that which defines moral perfection, but rather because moral perfection derives from that which God is and does.
The question of loving-ness is a bit more difficult to answer, and depends upon how one fundamentally defines the nature of hell.
If hell is to be understood as some manner of divine “punishment” for moral imperfection on behalf of the creation, then I would lean more in the direction of denying that such is compatible with an ideal of a “loving” God (there are good philosophical reasons for this, I think, and would be glad to go into them if someone is interested).
If, however, hell is understood as the natural consequence of what happens to those who choose death and dissolution over relationship with God, then I do not see it as necessarily opposed to the notion of a loving God. In such a construct, I would further argue that the understanding of a “hell” is, in fact, necessary to the definition of a loving God, as either annihilationism or universal redemption would signal a fundamental diminution of creaturely freedom, which diminution is inherently opposed to the notion of the loving-ness of God.
ro10910 said:
I'm not sure I see the necessity in this statement. If God is just, it is because justice proceeds from and is, in fact, defined upon the basis of that which God does and is. Divine justice, IMO, is not based on God's alignment with some “standard” of justice; to the contrary, the standard of justice is derived from that which God does, whatever God does.
Therefore, if God arbitrarily damns all of creation irrevocably for its sinfulness, or turns a blind eye and just “lets it go,” God is equally just.
In this way, then, the consequences of human sinfulness do not obtain because of God acting to “ensure that divine justice is maintained,” but rather because the consequences of human sinfulness are what happen when humans sever themselves from the life and goodness of God. In such a state, death and eternal dissolution inevitably follow, and one need not imagine any intervention on behalf of the “justice” of God in order to account for what will necessarily be their end.
This is one of the areas, IMO, where Western Christian theology has disasterously veered off course. We have supplanted a philosophically rational view of God's justice with a vision of our own, and have remade the divine in our own, sinful image–a God who is driven by necessity, hatred, and violence.
Joshua_Daniel said:
I think it's interesting that even here we see “hell”–though couched in apocalyptic language–envisioned as something that exists apart from, or at least only in passive relationship to the being and will of God. For although the writer speaks of the inhabitants as suffering “eternal destruction”, this destruction is not from the hand of God, but is rather “away” from God. This “away,” IMO, is both proximal (in terms of logic, not time/space) and existential, and it is this proximity of existential removal which itself defines the fundamental nature of hell.
In this way, I think this passage provides some interesting insights into what “hell” is in relationship to God. Rather than being identified as the “active” punishment of sinners by God, it is to the contrary the state of being that accrues from being existentially and proximally removed from the “presences” (life) and “glory” of God.
Amy said:
Amy–
I don't see that these examples are equivalent or applicable. When parents punish, it is not out of a “need” to do so, but as discipline whose ultimate goal is reformation and restoration. After all, parents don't punish unconditionally, but do so based on conditions and what is in the best interests of the child (or this is at least the goal).
With the idea of God “punishing” sinners in hell, however, neither restoration or reformation is possible. It is the irrevocable destruction of life in which all hope and goodness is annihilated. While one might suggest that this is God's doing, it is certainly not an act of “love.”
Nicholas said:
Nicholas–
If reason #1 is true, who, precisely, is doing the “punishing” of #3? If God isn't sending people to hell (per #1), and humans “choose it personally,” exactly where does “punishment” fit into the equation? Do people “punish” themselves for their crimes by “choosing” hell? Is Satan punishing them?