As a Christian do you believe in an honest-to-god punishing Hell?

[Sultan Of Swing]

You can't use your conclusion as evidence for the thing you're trying to establish.

This so-called reality is not self evident.. presuppositional apologetics does not solve this problem. It is merely circular reasoning with big words. 'God exists because if you presupposed he exists it would be self evident to you.' That is utter gibberish. What is it that you calling 'common justice and law' that necessitates such a reality?

This is not presuppositional apologetics, not at all. Whenever you read the word 'presupposition', don't assume I am engaging in some presuppositional argument for God's existence.

We were not addressing the existence of God. I was addressing the question, given God exists and that He has revealed Himself as described in the Scriptures, how does one determine Him moral? Given we have no objective moral standard, it is a presuppositional problem in the sense that it requires an objective foundation, and, given God is who He is as revealed in the Scriptures, I trust His claim that He is that objective foundation.

 

[DoubtingNate]

The trouble is that you are imposing your idea of 'good' to mean benevolent to the utter neglect of justice. No, that's not what we mean by good. God is good in that he is pure to the point that he cannot grant any concession to evil whatsoever. God is benevolent, but you must on your part do your best to renounce sin. You cannot on the one hand, live a life of deliberate sin and expect God to bend over to comprise himself to meet you on your terms, if you have steadfastly refused to make the attempt to meet God on his. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I am thinking of "good" as a way that God would want us to treat each other, based on principles of human empathy or the golden rule. We aren't to kill, steal from each other and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. How are we to know what God really wants if he tells us to treat each other one way but then does just the opposite? The 6th commandment is 'thou shalt not kill..' yet he issues the execution orders of entire groups of people in the old testament. So his decrees are violating the very principles he has laid out for us to follow ourselves.. it is The Euthyphro delimma.. are God's commands good because he command them, or does he command things because they are good?

It's not any one particular thing that you do that leads you to Hell. All sins can be forgiven if repented of. Hell is the consequence of an irrevocable rejection of any reconciliation with God. The reason Hell is eternal, is not because people 'deserve' eternal punishment per se, but that those in Hell have refused all avenues of escape of that condition. They do not want mercy. They have freely chosen it because they refuse to acknowledge God's moral authority. And God thus gives them what they want, separation from him to dwell in the consequences of their own sin.

How can you know any of this? Sultan of Swing says we do deserve hell but you say we don't. How can you know that people in hell do not want mercy, or that they would refuse any avenue of escape?

 

[DoubtingNate]

This is not presuppositional apologetics, not at all. Whenever you read the word 'presupposition', don't assume I am engaging in some presuppositional argument for God's existence.

We were not addressing the existence of God. I was addressing the question, given God exists and that He has revealed Himself as described in the Scriptures, how does one determine Him moral? Given we have no objective moral standard, it is a presuppositional problem in the sense that it requires an objective foundation, and, given God is who He is as revealed in the Scriptures, I trust His claim that He is that objective foundation.

I'm not accepting it as a given that God exists at all, or that we can know what he wants from us even if he did. But IF HE DID exist, tormenting nonbelievers in hell forever would not be consistent with his commands we use as a basis for what is "good."

So we don't have to get into God's existence, for the sake of this argument I'm saying that IF he exists, and IF he is going to torture most of humanity for eternity, he is not something we can call "good" based on what he himself declares to be good. Because sometimes it's good to slaughter a nation of people and leave only the young virgins to be taken captive.. and sometimes it's good to not kill and love your neighbor as yourself.

In other words, I would say that what is revealed in scripture is incoherent, confusing and contradictory thus NOT a good basis for any kind of objective morality, much less for determining the rightness of God's judgments.

 

[Glaurung]

I am thinking of "good" as a way that God would want us to treat each other, based on principles of human empathy or the golden rule. We aren't to kill, steal from each other and we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. How are we to know what God really wants if he tells us to treat each other one way but then does just the opposite? The 6th commandment is 'thou shalt not kill..' yet he issues the execution orders of entire groups of people in the old testament.

Traditional Christian teaching is not that killing is in all instances always wrong (if always unfortunate) but that the commandment addresses murder. (Unjustified taking of life) The realities of the Old Testament was a much harsher world where mass killing and slaughter were accepted aspects of war, even as far as the middle ages it was standard military doctrine that besieged civilians were fair game. We do not live in an ideal world, nor was it ideal in bronze age Mesopotamia. We believe that as harsh as the Old Testament is, it laid the foundation for the Christian revelation. And yes, the Christian world was never perfect, atrocities still happened, but the moral foundation you take to criticize God and the Old Testament was laid by the very cultures that embraced that very revelation bequeathed by Christ. There's no escaping the foundation of Christianity in our moral reasoning, even if you explicitly reject its religious claims. You cut the branch on which you sit.

are God's commands good because he command them, or does he command things because they are good?

It's a false dilemma. God's moral standard is good because he, as the very source of all that exists, is the objective benchmark of what is good by his innate nature as the source of all that is good.

ow can you know that people in hell do not want mercy, or that they would refuse any avenue of escape?

Because it is laid our explicitly that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin. That is what results in Hell. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the steadfast and irrevocable decision maintained until the very end to say no to God, who is required to be forgiven of sin. Once you cross over from this life all moral grey disappears. You will either assent to God, or you will be so hopelessly attached to sin to the extent that you'll cling to it even to the point of separating from God. Who is your only true and lasting happiness.

 

[DoubtingNate]

Traditional Christian teaching is not that killing is in all instances always wrong (if always unfortunate) but that the commandment addresses murder. (Unjustified taking of life) The realities of the Old Testament was a much harsher world where mass killing and slaughter were accepted aspects of war, even as far as the middle ages it was standard military doctrine that besieged civilians were fair game. We do not live in an ideal world, nor was it ideal in bronze age Mesopotamia. We believe that as harsh as the Old Testament is, it laid the foundation for the Christian revelation. And yes, the Christian world was never perfect, atrocities still happened, but the moral foundation you take to criticize God and the Old Testament was laid by the very cultures that embraced that very revelation bequeathed by Christ.

But why would God's commands need to conform to any kind of contemporary standard.. ie, genocide (which is really just a form of mass murder) or slavery is bad now but it was ok back then because that's just what people did.

It's a problem that this was ever ok with God.

There's no escaping the foundation of Christianity in our moral reasoning, even if you explicitly reject its religious claims. You cut the branch on which you sit.

This may be true for western civilization but ancient near eastern priests and peasants do not have a monopoly on ethics and morality. Ancient Greeks, Chinese, Native Americans, Celts, prior to any contact with Christianity have all had ideas about what's right and wrong. The ten commandments themselves are clearly influenced by Hamaurabi.

It's a false dilemma. God's moral standard is good because he, as the very source of all that exists, is the objective benchmark of what is good by his innate nature as the source of all that is good.

Yet this is not evident in his commands which you have already admitted are shaped by the time in which they were written, not from some transcendent universal standard.

Because it is laid our explicitly that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin. That is what results in Hell. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the steadfast and irrevocable decision maintained until the very end to say no to God, who is required to be forgiven of sin. Once you cross over from this life all moral grey disappears. You will either assent to God, or you will be so hopelessly attached to sin to the extent that you'll cling to it even to the point of separating from God. Who is your only true and lasting happiness.

Isn't this a false dichotomy though? If you faithfully and righteously serve another God because that's what you were taught from childhood, does that mean you are steadfastly and irrevocably saying no to this one? Surely it can't be one or the other.. believe in Jesus or else you are choosing to rebel?

And isn't this all conjecture anyway? How can anyone know exactly what the point of no return is? Is there a purgatory?

The main problem with hell and the afterlife is that there is no evidence for it. Nobody has been able to confirm that there is a place of torment where unbelievers suffer forever. It is an imaginary place, and it doesn't' even originate with Christianity; it has been grafted in from other mythologies.

 

[Pegg]

To repeat Kolibri's post, Hell is the grave. Nothing more.

I hate when people who claim to speak for God or speak from the bible tell others that hell is a place where God punishes the wicked... its simply not true. Its religious falsehood and needs to be called out for what it is.

Any biblical based religion teaching such rubbish is among the false religions condemned by the bible. Let Gods Word be your guide!!!

 

[Thanda]

Isn't this a false dichotomy though? If you faithfully and righteously serve another God because that's what you were taught from childhood, does that mean you are steadfastly and irrevocably saying no to this one? Surely it can't be one or the other.. believe in Jesus or else you are choosing to rebel?

You seem to be missing a very important aspect to what Tlaloc is saying. He is saying if you keep rejecting God until the very end - remember Christians believe death in this life is not "the very end". Therefore if even after you cross over to the other side you continue to reject God then your fitting punishment will be hell.

From my side I would put it like this - you will live in hell for as long as you reject God. So you have had good reason to believe in God in this life but you rejected him - then when you die you will find yourself in hell. But how long you stay in hell will be entirely up to you - the longer you reject him the longer you stay there. So the only people who will spend forever in hell those who will reject him forever. Is this not just?

 

[DoubtingNate]

no, it's not just at all. A slap on the wrist or a small fine would be just. Never ending excruciating fiery torment is cruel and unusual and not a just punishment for anything.

But I think in that situation most people would be able to make themselves believe anything if it would end the torture. But that's not what I was taught growing up. My upbringing was more protestant/Reformed, closer to what Sultans of Swing was describing. I was taught there is no escape once you're dead.

 

[Skwim]

Best summation ever! ​

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is a "criminal"? Someone who has broken a law. We have broken God's law, we have breached the justice of this universe. The very word "criminal" you used implies some sort of moral system that we can impose upon God, to the point we can call Him a criminal. But God can't call us criminals? Is that too unseemly, too offensive? How come we can judge God, but God can't judge us? We are beyond accountability and responsibility, are we?

God does not threaten us with Hell, rather He will give criminals, a word you used yourself, their due sentence.

If God was real, he would have aided and abetted every crime that ever happened.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If God was real, he would have aided and abetted every crime that ever happened.

We opted for a fallen world by rejecting God, and He allows us to see its consequences.

 

[Sleeppy]

this sums it up pretty well for me..

Woe! Officer Christ is at the door.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We opted for a fallen world by rejecting God, and He allows us to see its consequences.

Do you think that this would make God not culpable for the consequences of his actions, or his omission of action?

Also, your position assumes that human beings have no inherent value. Have you heard of Kitty Genovese? It's a famous case - Google her if you haven't heard of her. Do you think that the *human beings* who ignored her cries and let her attacker kill her were blameless?

 

[Skwim]

God is good, and He punishes wrongdoers. He is committed absolutely to justice. It would also be important to note that those sentenced to Hell cannot really be called God's 'children', having been born in rebellion and choosing to remain in such a state, God adopts undeserving men and women into His family, it isn't a default state at birth. You claim goodness becomes meaningless by the way in which He has chosen to do so, but I don't see why. We have no objective standard ourselves, we are not in a position to judge God.

Yet Christian DO judge god to be good.

Thing is, there is no place in the Bible where god says he's good, NONE! Only verses where others are quoted as judging to be good. And there's nothing in the Bible indicating they have more of a right to judge him than anyone else. So, if they can judge god to be good, I and anyone else have an equal right to judge him however we wish.

He who is infinitely holy, and worthy, and desirable, He gives those who reject Him the only fitting punishment

Problem is, he not only sends to hell those that reject him, but those, who through no fault of their own, are unbelievers; those who through their ignorance never had a chance to reject him. All of which is spelled out quite clearly in Mark 16:16 (KJ)

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
​

Note that there's no qualification whatsoever regarding those who "believeth not". No extenuating circumstances that might get a guy a lighter sentence. It's an across the board sentencing. "Don't believe? The reason doesn't matter. Get in the Go-To-Hell line, Charley."

So, is god good? Not by any definition of the word I ever came across.

 

[Sleeppy]

Yet Christian DO judge god to be good.

Thing is, there is no place in the Bible where god says he's good, NONE!

Isaiah 46:13

 

[Skwim]

Isaiah 46:13

Isaiah 46:13 (KJV)
13 I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.

 

[Thanda]

no, it's not just at all. A slap on the wrist or a small fine would be just. Never ending excruciating fiery torment is cruel and unusual and not a just punishment for anything.

But I think in that situation most people would be able to make themselves believe anything if it would end the torture. But that's not what I was taught growing up. My upbringing was more protestant/Reformed, closer to what Sultans of Swing was describing. I was taught there is no escape once you're dead.

But how can a small slap on the wrist be fine when you continue to reject God. Let's put it this way: you'll continue getting slaps on the wrist for as long as you reject God: does that sound better to you?

 

[Thanda]

Yet Christian DO judge god to be good.

Thing is, there is no place in the Bible where god says he's good, NONE! Only verses where others are quoted as judging to be good. And there's nothing in the Bible indicating they have more of a right to judge him than anyone else. So, if they can judge god to be good, I and anyone else have an equal right to judge him however we wish.

Problem is, he not only sends to hell those that reject him, but those, who through no fault of their own, are unbelievers; those who through their ignorance never had a chance to reject him. All of which is spelled out quite clearly in Mark 16:16 (KJ)

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
​

Note that there's no qualification whatsoever regarding those who "believeth not". No extenuating circumstances that might get a guy a lighter sentence. It's an across the board sentencing. "Don't believe? The reason doesn't matter. Get in the Go-To-Hell line, Charley."

So, is god good? Not by any definition of the word I ever came across.

RE: Your Mark 16:16 quote. I hate it when people quote dishonestly. I believe you are an iintelligent person and you understand the concept of context. If you had just included the previous verse you would have answered your own question.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

RE: Your Mark 16:16 quote. I hate it when people quote dishonestly. I believe you are an iintelligent person and you understand the concept of context. If you had just included the previous verse you would have answered your own question.

Mark 16:15:

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.

Ah... so it's only the people who aren't convinced by your preaching who are damned.

If so, then evangelism is the most evil act a person can commit.

 

[Skwim]

RE: Your Mark 16:16 quote. I hate it when people quote dishonestly. I believe you are an iintelligent person and you understand the concept of context. If you had just included the previous verse you would have answered your own question.

What question was that?

Sorry, but I guess my dumb brain cells have overtaken my smart brain cells. Exactly what is it about the previous verse,

Mark 16:15
And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
​

that answers my own "question"?