No, I do not believe that it is incompatible with God, to be just there must consequences for rebellion. That's why I believe that God send's no one to this place call hell but my choices determine my destiny. God established path & leaves the choice to us not Him.
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.
Matthew 28:20 shows Jesus has authority over all. Jesus says in John 12:48, "the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day". Acts 1:8 illustrates the authority of the apostles "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." Paul writes in his second letter to the Thessalonians "and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 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.
…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.
God is perfect and He loves everyone of us and that's the reason He gives everyone a chance to live his/her own life, but in this process if you do not follow the path of truth, it will not be a good thing and God will not be willing to send you through the miseries but He has to do it to help you learn a lesson.
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.
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.
If persons who die without having come to a conscious decision to embrace Jesus as Savior are doomed to eternal punishment, this means that approximately 90% of the human race will suffer unspeakable agony for all eternity. This is, to put it mildly, bad news, and renders the work of the cross a massive failure. More importantly (and blasphemously), it exalts the will of man over the will of God by suggesting that God's will, which as stated expressly in the scriptures is that all men be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, is no match for man's ability to ignore and reject it. Will God lose 9 out of 10 souls and be satisfied? Not the God of the Bible, who would leave behind the 99 to seek out the 1 who is lost, and who swore by his own name to accomplish ALL of his will. "Eternal punishment" is simply incompatible with the Gospel. See http://www.tentmaker.org for resources.
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?
Login 
Register 
Home
Read original blog post
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
Search 
Recent Comments