Proof that eternal hell is not an option

[Paraprakrti]

Sin means to presume as if separated from God. If we were factually separate from God then presuming to be separate from God would not be considered a sin.

Therefore, no one is absolutely separate from God.

 

[Snowbear]

Sin means to presume as if separated from God. If we were factually separate from God then presuming to be separate from God would not be considered a sin.

Therefore, no one is absolutely separate from God.

What proof?

I see a hypothesis here.... so where's the evidence to back it up?

 

[Paraprakrti]

What proof?

I see a hypothesis here.... so where's the evidence to back it up?

It isn't a hypothesis. It is logic.

When one sins, they are presuming as though they are separate from God. This is what constitutes a sin (i.e. "missing the mark" of God). Since it is sinful to act as though one is separate from God, it therefore follows that no one is factually separate from God. If they were, then presuming to act as though separate would not be "missing the mark" since it would be right on the mark!

Now, eternal hell (absolute separation from God) cannot exist since we know that separation from God is not a fact.

 

[Inky]

Or it may just follow that no one sins in Hell; i.e. once you get to the point where you are separate from God you are past sin and non-sin and are simply taking punishment for what you did in the past. (I don't believe in Hell or that sin works the way you describe, but I couldn't resist pointing this out.)

 

[Paraprakrti]

Or it may just follow that no one sins in Hell; i.e. once you get to the point where you are separate from God you are past sin and non-sin and are simply taking punishment for what you did in the past. (I don't believe in Hell or that sin works the way you describe, but I couldn't resist pointing this out.)

But there is no "separate from God". That has already been deduced. If we were separate from God then our presuming as though separate from God would not be considered sinful. But since it is considered sinful, it therefore follows that we are not factually separate from God.

How then does one get to the point of being separated from God? In Christianity it is taught that we are at that point because of sin. But as I have shown, sin constitutes that we are factually not separate from God, and only that we presume to be.

Another point that I had not previously introduced is that God is absolute. This is a premise accepted by Christians. If God is absolute then separation from the absolute God cannot be absolute. Either God is absolute or separation from God is absolute. This is the same as saying, either truth is absolute or non-truth is absolute. In the case that "non-truth" is absolute, that therefore concludes that such a thing is actually TRUTH. Similarly, if we say that hell (separation from God) is absolute, then hell is actually "God" by definition. However we look at it, there cannot be both absolute God and absolute separation from God.

 

[roli]

But there is no "separate from God". That has already been deduced. If we were separate from God then our presuming as though separate from God would not be considered sinful. But since it is considered sinful, it therefore follows that we are not factually separate from God.

Sin separates man from entering into His presence,can man still pursue God ,of course,are they lost and separated from Him while still alive on earth,no.
He still works in the persons life, to get their attention,He says,He is not willing that any perish but all come to repentance.
A person can still be spiritual and practice the art or craft of religious protocol ,but in the flesh (sinful nature)it is to no avail in regards to pleasing God,as that may not sit well with some,that is the case nevertheless.
By His own nature and Holiness He cannot be united to the sinful nature of man,so in a sense He is separate.
It is only when the new nature is put on ,through Christ can one have access to the Father

How then does one get to the point of being separated from God? In Christianity it is taught that we are at that point because of sin. But as I have shown, sin constitutes that we are factually not separate from God, and only that we presume to be.

You have shown only your logic in this,God's word trumps your opinion.
According to God's word
Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear.
Deu 31:18 And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods
Eze 39:24 According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions have I done unto them, and hid my face from them.
Jhn 9:31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
I am not sure about you, but this clearly appears to me to be a type of ," separation" of God to the people.
According to the definition "separate =adj] Online Dict independent; not united or joint; discontinue an association or relation;"
Webster- To disunite; to divide; to disconnect; to sever; to part
in any manner.

Another point that I had not previously introduced is that God is absolute. This is a premise accepted by Christians. If God is absolute then separation from the absolute God cannot be absolute. Either God is absolute or separation from God is absolute.

On the contrary, you violate His absolute law, you will be absolutely separated from Him but only at the point of your physical death and there will be no possible way to revert back.

Could it be possible that they are 2 different issues here.
God is absolute in His,word, nature, Holiness,rightousness and His law.
Separation from God is absolute of course,but on the part of us violating His absolute laws not Him not being absolute.
How do our actions (sin) and the consquences of them after continual warning constitute God to not remain absolute.
If anything our sinful nature and present state, clearly shows His absolutism in His laws,your own conscience will affirm that.
It is His absolute laws that we violate.not him violating his own absolutism

Violate some of the absolute laws of the land and tell me if the Gov't has reverted from their original position of being absolute just because we violate those laws
The consequences of our violation of the absolute law set in place is the evidence of the Gov't remaining absolute in the function of laws that were fixed and set in place to govern and regulate order.
I hope that makes sense,

 

[Inky]

First of all, how are you defining "presume"? Acing in a manner God may not like, which is how most people describe sin, is an entirely different thing than believing oneself to be separate from God. Which do you mean?

 

[Paraprakrti]

First of all, how are you defining "presume"? Acing in a manner God may not like, which is how most people describe sin, is an entirely different thing than believing oneself to be separate from God. Which do you mean?

Presuming as though separate from God does not require a conscious belief of being so. The act of sinning in ignorance of God and out of sheer lack of knowledge both fall into the category of presuming in an act as though separate from God.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Paraprakrti]

By "presuming" I mean, "taking for granted".

 

[Inky]

I would say that the action of committing a sin doesn't guarantee ignorance (deliberate or unconscious). Many people will sin in defiance of God, or because they believe they'll be forgiven, or for other reasons. I don't think that disobeying God (sinning), being ignorant of God, and being separate from God are all the same thing. One can be ignorant but not separate, disobedient but not ignorant, and so on.

 

[Paraprakrti]

Sin separates man from entering into His presence,can man still pursue God ,of course,are they lost and separated from Him while still alive on earth,no.
He still works in the persons life, to get their attention,He says,He is not willing that any perish but all come to repentance.
A person can still be spiritual and practice the art or craft of religious protocol ,but in the flesh (sinful nature)it is to no avail in regards to pleasing God,as that may not sit well with some,that is the case nevertheless.
By His own nature and Holiness He cannot be united to the sinful nature of man,so in a sense He is separate.
It is only when the new nature is put on ,through Christ can one have access to the Father


You have shown only your logic in this,God's word trumps your opinion.
According to God's word
Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear.
Deu 31:18 And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods
Eze 39:24 According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions have I done unto them, and hid my face from them.
Jhn 9:31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
I am not sure about you, but this clearly appears to me to be a type of ," separation" of God to the people.
According to the definition "separate =adj] Online Dict independent; not united or joint; discontinue an association or relation;"
Webster- To disunite; to divide; to disconnect; to sever; to part
in any manner.



On the contrary, you violate His absolute law, you will be absolutely separated from Him but only at the point of your physical death and there will be no possible way to revert back.

Could it be possible that they are 2 different issues here.
God is absolute in His,word, nature, Holiness,rightousness and His law.
Separation from God is absolute of course,but on the part of us violating His absolute laws not Him not being absolute.
How do our actions (sin) and the consquences of them after continual warning constitute God to not remain absolute.
If anything our sinful nature and present state, clearly shows His absolutism in His laws,your own conscience will affirm that.
It is His absolute laws that we violate.not him violating his own absolutism

Violate some of the absolute laws of the land and tell me if the Gov't has reverted from their original position of being absolute just because we violate those laws
The consequences of our violation of the absolute law set in place is the evidence of the Gov't remaining absolute in the function of laws that were fixed and set in place to govern and regulate order.
I hope that makes sense,

No comment. Your faith is undefeated! Certainly whatever logic I give, even though it follows from a premise you as a Christian accept, must be faulty if it does not keep intact the contradictions that are present in the Bible.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I would say that the action of committing a sin doesn't guarantee ignorance (deliberate or unconscious). Many people will sin in defiance of God, or because they believe they'll be forgiven, or for other reasons. I don't think that disobeying God (sinning), being ignorant of God, and being separate from God are all the same thing. One can be ignorant but not separate, disobedient but not ignorant, and so on.

Blatantly disobeying God and being ignorant of God may not be the same, but they are both cases of presuming oneself as separate from God. Once again, "presuming" does not mean that one thinks, "I am now separate from God". It means that one commits an act as though they are separate from God. The only acts that are in full knowledge of being connected to God are devotional acts of serving God. Sin means to act as though one were disconnected. Sometimes it is a simple thing like flirting with a member of the opposite sex. Other cases it may be premarital sex or even go as far as rape. These are all examples of our presuming as though separate from God.

So the logic is that since presuming as though separate from God is what constitutes a sin, therefore no one is factually separated from God since, if they were, then presuming such would be living in one's constitutional position. Furthermore, since we are not separate from God, an eternal hell (absolute separation from God) cannot exist.

Some Jews and Christians believe that eternal hell is false. They say that separation from God is simply nonexistence. This is the only option that follows logically. God, being absolute, means that anything which is not in connection with Him is nonexistent. Everything that exists rests on the Absolute.

The problem I have with the theory of complete destruction of the soul is that it is to say that God creates some individuals who He knows will be rejects before He creates them. So then, what is the purpose of creating them? If they exist solely as a means to an end for the saved souls, let us say, then why create them with a will of their own? The existence of free will is the proof that love is the objective. Free will exists for no other purpose. If God wanted to move everyone around like chess pieces then no will would be necessary. Instead, God desires loving reciprocation. Therefore He creates entities with choice. Because, after all, one cannot be forced into love. So the fact that these damned souls are created with free will is evidence that the intent is for them to also find love of God. So in conclusion, it is unnacceptable, however we look at it, that an eternal hell exists. What constitutes "sin" proves it nonexistent, God being absolute proves it nonexistent, and God desiring love proves it nonexistent as well as proves that destruction of the soul is not plausible.

 

[Inky]

I don't see any evidence in Church doctrine that if one was fully separate from God, than acting as if that were true would be sinful. It's typically believed that this can only happen after death, which is why it would be sinful for people on Earth. Since those in Hell don't necessarily have the same free will or ability to act, they may not have the opportunity to sin anyway. Also, from all the Christian education I've had (which is quite a bit), it's always been assumed that the idea of sin as "separation" is a metaphor anyway.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sin means to presume as if separated from God. If we were factually separate from God then presuming to be separate from God would not be considered a sin.

Therefore, no one is absolutely separate from God.

Where are you getting these definitions?

Perhaps your initial definition of sin is incorrect, as you show. Sin is open rebellion to God's commands - there is no seperation - there is a change in relationship. Sin is relating to God inappropriately, and hell is being in the presence of God to whom one is in an inappropriate relationship.

God is like fire in this respect - good relationship = warmth. Bad relationship = destruction.

 

[Paraprakrti]

I don't see any evidence in Church doctrine that if one was fully separate from God, than acting as if that were true would be sinful.

This is exactly my point. If one was factually separate from God, then acting as if that were true would not be sinful. Therefore no one is separate from God. I have always heard from Christians that because of Adam's sin we are separated from God and Jesus is the bridge back. I understand the basic concept here, but literally it isn't true that we are separated from God. "Separated" means that we continue the illusion of separation from God.

It's typically believed that this can only happen after death, which is why it would be sinful for people on Earth. Since those in Hell don't necessarily have the same free will or ability to act, they may not have the opportunity to sin anyway. Also, from all the Christian education I've had (which is quite a bit), it's always been assumed that the idea of sin as "separation" is a metaphor anyway.

In hell we may not have the same conscious will and ability to act, but there can still be no absolute separation from God. Especially one that is determined by a tiny duration of earthly life. I tell people, if I live a sinful life of 80 years and then go to suffer endlessly in hell, then that means that God's love for me is limited to 80 rotations of the earth around the sun. I choose not to condition God in such a way and I feel that every sincere theist should choose the same. In any instance when the Bible has been translated to regard hell as "eternal" or "forever" or "for ever and ever", I understand that as a mistranslation and/or misinterpretation. In this way, I don't throw out the Bible entirely, but instead give it the benefit of the doubt. Even in what I follow, there are instances when the Sanskrit term "sanatana", which means eternal, does not really mean exactly this. For example, it is said that there are two types of souls: the eternally liberated and the eternally conditioned. But does this mean that some souls are forever conditioned with no chance at liberation? No, because Vedic Sastra teaches how the conditioned soul may transcend this material conditioning. So, in this case, 'sanatana' means "for an inconceivable amount of time", although generally it means "eternal - without beginning and without end".

 

[Paraprakrti]

Where are you getting these definitions?

I am just applying what it is to commit a sinful act. "Sin" means to "miss the mark" of God. The act of sinning constitutes presuming oneself as separate from God. All actions that are free from sin are done for the aim of pleasing God. Any act that does not have this aim, is sin by definition. So a sinful act is done without consciousness of God and therefore it is presumed as though one is one's own separate enjoyer from God.

Perhaps your initial definition of sin is incorrect, as you show. Sin is open rebellion to God's commands - there is no seperation - there is a change in relationship. Sin is relating to God inappropriately, and hell is being in the presence of God to whom one is in an inappropriate relationship.

Well, even if my intitial definition of sin is incorrect, you seem to agree with the conclusion that there is no separation. Also, I agree that sin is relating to God inappropriately and can agree furthermore with your definition of hell. Nevertheless, because we are eternally related to God and because God desires our success in Him, it does not follow that God condemns souls for all eternity to the illusion of separation. It may be a very, very long time, but eternity is not even an option. Another way to look at this is that if God creates a being who He knows will suffer endlessly in hell, then that is to say that God is therefore a sadist - He desires the suffering of others - and certainly God only desires what He takes pleasure in. This contradicts a God Who desires loving reciprocation with us.

God is like fire in this respect - good relationship = warmth. Bad relationship = destruction.

I like this analogy. Although, I would not apply destruction literally to the spiritual being. I would say that "destruction" means the suffering that is the disease and decay of this material world. So long as we engage a relationship with the Lord's material energy, we will suffer ignorance of the controller of such energy. This is not to say that we will never for infinite time have a chance at realizing God and developing love for Him after this tiny duration of earthly life. I am also not advocating that we procrastinate. We should utilize this human life we have now for returning to God's association. We do not know when we will get another opportunity. It may not be for quadrillions upon quadrillions of years (seemingly an eternity).

 

[Inky]

Where are you getting these definitions? ...
Sin is open rebellion to God's commands - there is no seperation - there is a change in relationship.

Exactly what I've been saying. The "separation" is a way of talking about a bad relationship, even if the two people (or God and a mortal) are still in communication and have a bond of some sort. It's the same way you can say you feel separated from someone if the relationship is damaged somehow, even if you still keep in touch. Hell is not a literal lake of fire and people who "miss the mark" don't literally have bad coordination; this is the same thing.

The act of sinning constitutes presuming oneself as separate from God. All actions that are free from sin are done for the aim of pleasing God. Any act that does not have this aim, is sin by definition.

This is using two definitions for the word separate, and also moving far away from mainstream Christian thought about what constitutes sin. In this case does "presuming to be separate" mean acting as if your own interests are important to you, or does it mean acting as if God is not in contact with you? Neither of those constitutes sin as far as I've ever heard. One of the reasons we were given free will is to learn what we like and don't like, and enjoy ourselves (within limits of course). So in the first definition, presuming to be separate from God is appropriate for beings with free will. For the second one, lack of contact, no specific rules come to mind for what would comprise acting in this way. Your argument is based on the absolute assumption that "presuming to be separate" is always sinful, whether alive, or dead, or in heaven, or hell, while from your definition (which is still rather fuzzy), standard doctrine probably wouldn't believe that to be true.

 

[sparkyluv]

Sin separates man from entering into His presence,can man still pursue God ,of course,are they lost and separated from Him while still alive on earth,no.
He still works in the persons life, to get their attention,He says,He is not willing that any perish but all come to repentance.
A person can still be spiritual and practice the art or craft of religious protocol ,but in the flesh (sinful nature)it is to no avail in regards to pleasing God,as that may not sit well with some,that is the case nevertheless.
By His own nature and Holiness He cannot be united to the sinful nature of man,so in a sense He is separate.
It is only when the new nature is put on ,through Christ can one have access to the Father


You have shown only your logic in this,God's word trumps your opinion.
According to God's word
Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid [his] face from you, that he will not hear.
Deu 31:18 And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods
Eze 39:24 According to their uncleanness and according to their transgressions have I done unto them, and hid my face from them.
Jhn 9:31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth.
I am not sure about you, but this clearly appears to me to be a type of ," separation" of God to the people.
According to the definition "separate =adj] Online Dict independent; not united or joint; discontinue an association or relation;"
Webster- To disunite; to divide; to disconnect; to sever; to part
in any manner.



On the contrary, you violate His absolute law, you will be absolutely separated from Him but only at the point of your physical death and there will be no possible way to revert back.

Could it be possible that they are 2 different issues here.
God is absolute in His,word, nature, Holiness,rightousness and His law.
Separation from God is absolute of course,but on the part of us violating His absolute laws not Him not being absolute.
How do our actions (sin) and the consquences of them after continual warning constitute God to not remain absolute.
If anything our sinful nature and present state, clearly shows His absolutism in His laws,your own conscience will affirm that.
It is His absolute laws that we violate.not him violating his own absolutism

Violate some of the absolute laws of the land and tell me if the Gov't has reverted from their original position of being absolute just because we violate those laws
The consequences of our violation of the absolute law set in place is the evidence of the Gov't remaining absolute in the function of laws that were fixed and set in place to govern and regulate order.
I hope that makes sense,

:yes:

 

[Paraprakrti]

This is using two definitions for the word separate, and also moving far away from mainstream Christian thought about what constitutes sin. In this case does "presuming to be separate" mean acting as if your own interests are important to you, or does it mean acting as if God is not in contact with you?

It means to seek enjoyment for oneself.

Neither of those constitutes sin as far as I've ever heard. One of the reasons we were given free will is to learn what we like and don't like, and enjoy ourselves (within limits of course).

We have free will because love is not possible without free will. The fact that we are able to deviate is a result of having free will, but it is not one of the reasons for having it. As long as we seek enjoyment for ourselves, we are missing the mark. The mistaken idea here is that we require to endeavor for such enjoyment. Actually, we receive real enjoyment in reciprocation from pleasing God. As soon as we look to please ourselves, we are invariably missing the mark because we are not enjoyers in ourselves. God is the only independent enjoyer and we receive enjoyment as a result of pleasing Him.

So in the first definition, presuming to be separate from God is appropriate for beings with free will.

Just because presuming to be separate from God happens with entities who have free will does not mean that it is appropriate.

For the second one, lack of contact, no specific rules come to mind for what would comprise acting in this way. Your argument is based on the absolute assumption that "presuming to be separate" is always sinful, whether alive, or dead, or in heaven, or hell, while from your definition (which is still rather fuzzy), standard doctrine probably wouldn't believe that to be true.

Just consider the logic. What is the purpose of life in Christianity? It is to serve and love God. We are sinners because we have deviated from this ideal. Therefore sin constitutes the endeavor for self-enjoyment because that means to presume oneself as separate from God. In any instance that we seek to be at the receiving end of pleasure, we are thinking ourselves to be God (and thus separate from the real God). This is an illusion because we are not God. Now, does this mean that we will not have pleasure? Of course it doesn't. It just means that the aim of all activities is to please God. And as a result of this, pleasure will come to us naturally without the need to seek it. It might not be that the Bible explains this in such depth, but with just a little intelligence this can be discerned.