Hell

[vison]

Your self-esteem is safe with me, Voronwë. I understand the pickle you are in.

But my self-esteem is smarting. Not from what ANYONE else has said or done, but from within.

I don't think of myself as having a heavy hand. I don't think of myself as a woman who has a hard time making herself clear or expressing difficult thoughts. And yet I find that here, in this thread in particular, but on Hall of Fire in general, I keep bumping up against some invisible barrier.

I feel like Frodo in Shelob's tunnel, things brushing his face in the dark.

(Not that I think I'm like Frodo in general, though, I hasten to add.)

You think I'd get over it, or find a way to make things "nicer". But I can't. I am not prone to take offense quickly and indeed, I haven't taken offense here. Truly. And so I am always amazed and shocked and cast down when other people are offended ---- over what I see as --- as what? Not unimportant. Not trivialities. I can't think of the word. I guess I'm always taken aback when people get offended about things I wouldn't be offended about.

It is impossible for me to discuss certain topics without my own ideas seeping through. It is impossible for me not to attempt "wit". It is impossible for me to see these things with the right eyes.

So, since there are so many other cool things to discuss, that's where I will put my energy.

You know, the old saying is, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." How very, very true that is!!!

There are those here on Hall of Fire to whom the spectre of Hell and a possibly wrathful (but forgiving) god are as real as the grass outside my window. I can't go there. I can't pretend to go there. I don't want to keep stepping on toes, hurting feelings, making stupid jokes, over a topic not involving my heart.

I will say this, though. I am not "leaving" the thread and vowing never to return. If something comes up that I simply have to respond to, I will.

Voronwë, we don't always agree. But I respect your efforts and your kind heart and your concern for this forum.

[Cerin]

vison, I can't think of anyone who fits at HoF better than you do. And I think we all fit here.

This forum is different from all the others here. If a person felt restrained in some way in this forum because of its particular guidelines, that wouldn't mean they should feel that way on the rest of the board where different guidelines apply.

I don't want to keep stepping on toes, hurting feelings, making stupid jokes, over a topic not involving my heart.

This seems like an enormously important concept to me.

In this forum, whatever belief we are talking about, I think it's safe to say that it will involve someone's heart (whoever holds to that belief) in the most personal kind of way. Isn't that the very reason it's meant to be a safer place than normal? Because people's hearts are involved?


Now I'd like to apologize for derailing the thread. It was downright stupid to think that this could be talked about without making anyone feel criticized, and I shouldn't have brought it up.

[vison]

Precisely.

Cerin.

[Jnyusa]

Well, at least each of us is saying it's our own fault.

Imagine what this thread would sound like if we were each saying it was someone else's fault!

[vison]

I shall, very carefully, back out at this point.

I suppose this is an example of civility as she ought to be. It reminds me of the scene in Pride and Prejudice where Elizabeth accepts her aunt Gardiner's advice: same, only different.

[Cerin]

Imagine what this thread would sound like if we were each saying it was someone else's fault!



vison

[Primula Baggins]

Thus ends a Halofirian flamewar, in which everyone ignites his or her own toes.

I love this place.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Looks like I can keep me self-esteem after all.

Whew!

[Alatar]

I just like to say that it was everyone else's fault but mine.

I am, naturally, above reproach.

[Cerin]

Well, maybe not naturally.

[Jnyusa]

Alatar, there is a punctuation mistake in your above statement. You left out a llama at the end.

Jn

[Cerin]

Now that I've, I think, come to terms with this forum, I'd like to post the answers to the questions I was uncomfortable answering before some forum issues were clarified for me.

tolkienpurist asked:

(1) Why does the existence of free will mandate that the consequence be eternal?
I'm not sure it's free will that mandates that. We are eternal and therefore our sins are eternal in the sense that we can't undo what we did, unsay what we said, unthink what we thought, or take back the infinite ripples of consequence that resulted from those things. Our sins are part of us and always will be unless we can somehow be separated from them.


How would it negate free will for nonbelievers to suffer some finite penalty, for their actions plus their lack of belief, that would expunge their wrongdoing here on earth? Are any of the wrongs that the average person commits here on earth so very terrible that they cannot be forgiven after any period of finite emotional or physical agony, but must be forever punished - infinite agony?

Again, I think it's not necessarily a matter of their terribleness (though we can't truly conceptualize what sin is to a Holy God), but of the eternal nature of ourselves and our sins. We have to be separated from our sin if we are to abide in God's presence.

If theoretically we could spend some time in hell as a penalty for our sin, there would still be needed a mechanism for forgiveness, that is, of removing from us that sin and the burden of its consequences. Serving the penalty for a wrongdoing satisfies the requirements of justice, but it doesn't secure forgiveness. That is, the effects of the murderer's crime are not wiped away because he served the penalty for it. He still bears the burden of that crime, which is the evil of his act and the loss to the world of that life and all that it would have meant.

So even if we could serve a finite time in hell as penalty for our sins, that would not serve to gain us forgiveness; those sins and the burden of them would still attach to us, and they would still have to be removed from us and the debt forgiven if we are to abide in God's presence.

Jesus accomplished this by taking our sins on himself, dying with them on the cross and being cast from the Father's presence in our stead. He thus payed the penalty for those sins and secured forgiveness for us, removing our sins from us and from God's presence forever. He left those sins in hell where they belong when he ascended to heaven.

Since our sin and the responsibility for it belong to us, we have to agree to this arrangement. We have to accept Jesus bearing the burden and paying the penalty so that we can be forgiven; that decision can't be made for us. I think that's where the connection to free will comes in. Apparently God is not willing to impose this upon us, as that would be an usurpation of our free will and of our responsibility to acknowledge our wrongs.


(2) Why is death the end of the final chance to believe in Jesus and thus be saved?
There has to be some point at which we must move on past this stage of eternity, whether it be death or some other point. I think the objection would remain to whatever was that final point of decision. Why now?

Or are you asking, why can there not be a time after this segment of eternity when one could avail themselves of the blood of Christ, why isn't it possible for one to say, 'Ok, I see now that it was true, I accept Jesus' sacrifice for my sins.'

It would seem the answer has to do once again with free will. Acknowledging the existence of a God whose magnificence and power are fully revealed is not an exercise of free will; desire to escape uncomfortable consequences is not a function of free will. So this scenario does not reflect a choice freely made.


If the answer is that, after death, we will all know that Jesus is Divine and thus there is no choice to make...why would it not be possible for those who have not believed in Jesus to be "given another chance" by being allowed to exist in some form without being given the certainty of Jesus' divinity? Indeed, how do we know that this is not the case?
My first reaction is, why? Why would we choose differently then, if we haven't until then? Every day on earth is another chance for God to reach us.

But I think we err if assume that all what we can observe of the process of death is necessarily all that is taking place. I find the idea appealing and plausible that there are interactions at the 'time' of death (God being outside of time) that we know nothing about.

[Cerin]

The problem I have with this reasoning is that, in Christian theology, God is both the creator of the cosmos and all-powerful. As such, he would be able to let people come to heaven with him even if they were unsaved sinners if he wanted to – he sets the rules.

Sin cannot abide in God's presence, they are antithetical, like light and darkness. If darkness could persist in the presence of light, well then, light and dark would no longer be what they are. If you say that God could make it that light and darkness are no longer antithetical, that Himself and sin were no longer antithetical, well I'm afraid that's entering into the realm of the illogical for me. The idea of God changing His very nature so as to accommodate sin would result in the obliteration of everything, since it is the nature and character of God that underlies all of creation.

Therefore, the only conclusion that I can make is that most people would end up suffering eternally in hell because that is what God wants.

I don't follow the logic of your reasoning. God is certain things. God is righteous and just. Any eternal solution to the problem of sin must satisfy the requirements of justice as well as be consistent with the fundamental nature of creation.

Furthermore, he is all-knowing and not bound by normal time – he created humanity knowing that it would fall and that most of his children would end up in hell.

I don't think it's by any means certain that most of humanity will end up in hell. We certainly have no way of knowing that. But putting that aside, yes, God created humanity with free will because He desired a relationship of love, not of prescribed behavior. Though knowing beforehand that with free will came the propensity to choose disobedience, God at the same time made a way for us not only to be forgiven for our disobedience but to become His children rather than merely His creation.

An analogy would perhaps be this –

Suppose I’m a parent. I outline chores that my children need to do each week. I tell them that, because they’re not perfect children, I should, by rights, kill them.

You can't enjoy the fellowship you desire with your children because their sin separates them from yourself (you are fundamentally different in nature). But because you love them so much and desire their fellowship through eternity, you arrange a way for them to share in your very nature and to enjoy that eternal fellowship with you.

However, being infinitely loving, I will let them live as long as they do their chores.

You will make a way for them to spend eternity with you regardless of their sinful lives. All they need do is avail themselves of your forgiveness.

One child misses a chore one week or doesn’t do it satisfactorily, and I kill them.

If one child should decline the forgiveness you have offered, feeling sufficient in himself to stand before you in eternity, then he would necessarily be cast from your presence along with his sin, which cannot abide there.

I express regret that the child needed to die, but point out that it didn’t work out as I wanted – I wanted the child to accept my mercy and live – they chose to die.

I wouldn't try to characterize God's reaction to a single one He loves rejecting fellowship with Him. As I've touched on previously, I hope there is a chance in those mysterious moments of life beyond our knowledge, when everyone will accept God's mercy.

I hope I haven’t trivialized anyone’s beliefs with this, but it strikes me as a bizarre line of reasoning.

Indeed, I agree it is bizarre and horrible as you have presented it.

If you wished to pursue this further, I think it is a more debate-type of exchange suitable for the Lasto Beth Lammen forum. I don't promise to continue with you there, however, as I have no desire to debate such topics.

[Cerin]

Athrabeth asked:

I'd like to know what you believe about the fate of infants, children, and the mentally handicapped. Are they also "sinners"?
They are sinners in the sense that it is the nature of all human beings to sin.


Is this an inherent part of their being from the get-go?
I would say that the tendency to sin is an inherent part of their nature from the get-go. There are no human beings who grow up and do not sin.


If not, at what point in human development can actions and thoughts be "sinful"?
I would say that it would be when the person has an awareness of right and wrong, of doing something they should not, that their actions and thoughts would become 'sinful'. I think this is referred to as 'the age of reason', which of course varies from person to person.


If it is through free will that we ultimately make our choice between redemption and hell, when does free will "kick in", so to speak?
I would say it would kick in with the awareness of wrong doing, when we would also become aware of our need for forgiveness.


If one has not found God through Jesus before death at age five, would this be the same as one not finding God through Jesus before death at age ten.........or fifteen?
As above, someone too young to understand right and wrong would not be held responsible for accepting God's forgiveness.


As I've said, I am hopeful that those who have passed the age of reason and have heard the Gospel but not accepted God's forgiveness during their conscious life will have additional opportunities, perhaps in that mysterious time after consciousness but before death.

[Cerin]

I would also wonder about the fate of people who have never been exposed to Christianity. It's not their fault they never learned about it, but they would go to Hell and suffer enternally?

I'm pretty sure some denominations of Christianity believe this, although I don't understand how holding a person accountable for a choice they do not know exists could be just. That would seem to be inconsistent with the lines of reasoning offered on free will and hell. It would be interesting if someone of a denomination who believes that could explain the reasoning behind it.

I think an awareness of sin and an awareness of the need to be forgiven with a desire to accept that forgiveness is essentially accepting Christ without knowing the particulars of God's plan. Perhaps this is sufficient? There are verses in Romans that seem to indicate that we are held accountable according to what we know; my thought is that the attitude of humility in which one lived before God for those who have not heard the Gospel would serve as a precursor to an after-life but pre-final judgment acceptance of Jesus. This is similar to the comforting notion C.S. Lewis offered, I think.

Another idea I have heard is that God sovereignly reveals the gospel to hidden peoples, as I've heard it said that there are missionaries who have encountered cultures for the first time and find they are already familiar with Jesus.

[narya]

Several thoughts from a retired Catholic. This is what I was taught, but no longer what I feel a conviction about. (More on that in the Heathen thread.)

Catholics who die in the state of sin, or as Cerin says - attached to sin, go to Purgatory, where they are cleansed of that sin (through their own suffering and the prayers and sufferings offered up for them by those remaining on Earth). Eventual they are made clean/whole and go to Heaven.

The ones who go to Hell are the ones who walk in of their own volition - those who meet God and refuse him to his face.

By the time we reach Heaven, we are perfected in Christ. Heaven is not a place where imperfect people live out their imperfect ways for eternity, like some Olympian saga or some Islamic orgy among the virgins. Which is something I've wondered about for many years. If I did go to Heaven, and was perfected, how much of what makes me me, and not someone else, would be left? Are there different versions of perfect? Would enough of my idiosyncracies, my different slants on things, my personality, be there that you could say for sure it was me? Would it be me? If Hitler had made a last minute repentance, did his gig in Purgatory, and ended up in Heaven, (or went there instantly, in the Protestant formula), would he be recognizable as Hitler? Would he be someone entirely different, Hitler in name only? Could you tell me apart from a saintly Hitler? Would people with low IQs come to know the infinite intelligence of God? Would highly screwed up people from dysfunctional families become something they've never been?

I found the whole concept of Hell hard to believe in from an early age. Eternal Damnation never synced well with my image of the God of Love. I eventually settled on the idea of being in Hell as being out in the cold, cut off from all love. That would indeed be hellish.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Very interesting thoughts, narya. Thank you for sharing them.

[Pearly Di]

Those are very deep thoughts, Narya and this evangelical Protestant finds herself very much on the same page regarding those thoughts.

My sister always told me I'd make a good Catholic.

I do believe in the purification of the soul, actually.

However that happens.

I mean, it's all a mystery ... is it not?

[TheEllipticalDisillusion]

When I was younger I never gave much thought to hell, except in a comic book manner. It seemed an odd thing for a god that I was taught (I started out life as a catholic) who loved us to create. If god created everything, it had to have created hell, or else there is a force more authoritative and powerful than god.

One day while reading Norse mythology I came across their notion of the underworld (Helheim). Theirs was a dark, snow-covered barrenness. The catholic notion of hell made less sense to me in contrast to the Nordic. The catholic notion relied on pain (fire and brimstone) while the Nordic one relied on emptiness and loneliness. I think the fire and brimstone type pain would be physical fire hurts your body, whereas the emptiness version is a more mental/emotion pain. Which would be worse, eternity of pain you can't feel or an eternity of nothing, no one and nowhere?

[axordil]

Most Christians for whom Hell matters believe that the real punishment there is eternal separation from God, which sort of begs the question of why the tangible torment (flames, et al) is necessary. It makes more sense as a metaphor, really, of the eternal consumption of the self by the self in the absence of God as Renewer.

Not saying I believe any of it, of course, being pagan these days. But I am intrigued by eschatology of all stripes. You can take the boy out of the evangelical church...

Interestingly, the Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe in Hell as a place of eternal torment. Their notion is that at the End of all Things God asks you, one last time, if you're in on his Plan or not, and if you aren't, you just cease to exist.