I would sooner you 'stop' in regards to the friend I told you about and your presumed intent on my behalf.
All I can tell you is that I didn't presume your use of that narrative or mean any offense in my noting...and I won't go further with arguing the point. Instead, I'll leave the post on the it in spoilers below with why I believe what I do, from your hand, in bold for your consideration at some point.
That aside I see what escaped me the first reading was "recently". Again, probably my conditioning on the point. If that had sunk in I would have excised the thing except for the ending and, again, I'm sorry for the loss of your friend.
Not really, no. It's not like it's something I have a choice in to be honest.
How does that act as a buffer? You believe one thing for your own reasons. You understand others believe a different thing for theirs. In advancing your belief you move beyond that sort of declaration or one on points to assert that the reason for your difference is that you possess "
an inbuilt moral objection to torturous suffering and cruelty". It follows, logically, that those who differ must lack that inbuild or degree of sensitivity to oppose you. If it doesn't suggest that then your inbuild can't have anything to do with your lack of choice and its inclusion then can't make any point for you. At the very least it is inescapably superior. Is the belief we hold a superior moral, personal position, related as such condescending? Maybe not, but if it doesn't have to be made to advance an honest difference, maybe so. And that's the problematic nature of rhetoric and perhaps why we should ask one another for clarity and not presume the worst sorts of self serving intentions.
The notion of eternal or any sort of pointless suffering is abhorrent to me.
And I think that's perfectly fine as a statement, disagreement on the point of what produces it notwithstanding. Pointless though...that's a valuation and where some of the argument begins. It is just that men are judged and found wanting and in that want must be separated from God as surely as sin itself is separated from God?
"Hell" is the ultimate in fear mongering on that level so I can't help but question any doctrine that promotes it in any fashion, especially from a supposedly loving God. Doesn't mean I feel as though I'm so much better than anyone who does follow such a doctrine or believe in such. I ain't.
I think as an operation of reason you believe yourself to be superior on the point or you wouldn't hold it. I don't think it follows that you think you consider yourself better than others because of it. My point in raising the problem of rhetoric was mostly to demonstrate how easily we can assert the motivation of others. I'm fine with accepting your intent on the point.
Those and more, and to be quite frank what you describe from this pastor, well intentioned as it may have been is pretty much the bog standard response on such issues. If your traditional orthodoxy on hell/the lake of fire is right then most of mankind is gonna end up there. Put a pastor on the spot and most of them will say something similar. Heck, I've had similar convos on here, even with Calvinists who when I try to get them to give a straight answer will just give a pretty much pat answer for the most part where it comes to loved ones. That nobody knows, it's God's call etc etc...
When faced with something that overwhelms our understanding the response should be to both pray for guidance and to trust the God who has earned our trust in every moment of our consideration. I wouldn't belittle that response as a "pat answer" and don't believe you should either. It may be a tremendous act of faith on the part of that pastor or some of the people you speak to...it doesn't require your agreement, but it merits respect.
Well, if you've got a volcanic lake of lava rumbling after you then running away from it is certainly a prudent way to go, but as before, coercion and threats of horror don't invite genuine love, not at all. Nobody got a choice in being here TH and please do not make some semantic point about that...
Like I said to shag, you can see it as a threat and coercion or you can look at it as a warning that your house is on fire and that you will die as a consequence if you don't do something about it. It's context.
Is a fireman trying to coerce you? If so, it's for the good and there's no real complaint against it. Who derives the benefit? And whatever our reason, a closer walk with God, a contemplation of the cross and an indwelling of the spirit invites love.
If it's out of fear for their own butt then yes, understandably so but yes.
So the family escaping their burning house is acting selfishly? Then selfish behavior can serve the good. Just as it is self serving and therefore selfish to act to further our highest principles, even though their elevation serves everyone. Selfish is a bit slippery as you're applying it.
So would I be if I only followed such out of dread, almost did. Doctrines such as that instill fear and there's nothing any human despot or sadistic tyrant could do that would hold a candle to the prospect of eternal torment.
Well, unless you've shed a profession of faith you did follow, only you ran toward and not from. Else, a despotic, sadistic tyrant could never justify his actions (and likely wouldn't care to) any more than he'd be found sacrificing for others.
What I know is this: if a literal lake of fire and eternal torment is the truth of hell, then it is a just truth, however incomprehensible that might be to me. Because I know the author of it is incomprehensibly good and just. The lack would be in my understanding, not in God's nature. That said, I don't pretend to have an easy answer on the particulars so many argue within the context of hell. I have informed speculation and, ultimately, absent anything else, a trust in God. I'd say to anyone of any particular stripe that the last part of my declaration must be true for all of us in our relative certainty and uncertainty or what's the point?
Well, in honesty, no and it certainly wasn't intended as such even if that's how you've taken it.
I'm not really taking it that way, only underlining how it could be and how easily we can assume a point reasonably.
Given your position on this topic I've not really seen anything from you that suggests you've seen just how such doctrines can floor people and lead to all manner of psychosis even. If I'm wrong then hey, correct me.
I'd answer that many ideas and things can be deadly to one and medicinal to another. That most of the good and evil in the world is found in how we approach and use them.
It's not my judgement, it's what many 'traditionalist's did and plenty still do believe. If 'hell' is the grave then sure, it exists, but if it is this place of agonizing fiery torment then there's the suffering aspect TH, so why would you speculate and fashion your own understanding on the topic?
Because there was a time when I considered the subject for a number of reasons in an attempt to reconcile my understanding to what I believed I knew of God...the problem was that what I was really doing was demanding that God justify Himself to me. When that became clear I stopped talking about and to Him and listened instead. I was led elsewhere. I may return to considering it again at some point, if God leads me there. At present I'm not...whether that means I have the right notion, enough of the right notion or God was tired of watching me stumble about and would rather I continue my walk until He brings me back to the consideration with a better understanding, I can't say. And so, I rest in faith.
I came into this thread because shag was presenting a stunted window into our faith. I thought it merited more and tried to proffer a bit of that. I never entered the thread to discuss the particulars of hell.
It was rather more a case of unbaptized babies, children roasting in the same literal fiery hell that traditional doctrine dictated for anyone "unsaved". Such is the nature of the thing...
I can't understand how anyone ever drew that out of scripture or even a rudimentary understanding of God's people and accountability. But given the whole racist use of the mark of Cain business I don't put much past some any more than I'm shocked by evil men pretending to be moral leaders. It comes with the territory and its one reason we should measure teachings by the Bible and pray for those who instruct and shepherd us.
What instruction and what rebellion?
Instruction to gather, the instruction to pray for and submit to elders within the church. Hebrews 13:17, for one, though there are more.
If you place tradition & adherence to "orthodox" doctrine as integral then who's to say you aren't just making an icon of religiosity itself?
Hopefully the above clears it sufficiently...if not,
here's a good link to able and authoritative commentary on the point.
