Which "idea" of "hell" is the right one? How assured are you that your particular belief on the score is correct?
Not sure the fine tuning on the point matters. Aside from the point of separation it's mostly speculation.
Gravity is impersonal, it's merely a force that's there,
Sure. The point is that in both cases we're really describing the consequence of a willful act.
Comparing physical laws to an unproven doctrinal idea of justice/consequence fails
Not to me and not in the way I used it. And given I'm not trying to talk the Pope out of his hat, that's the ballgame.
You may believe that eternal hell of some sort awaits non believers but there's no proof for it, nor is it set in stone and not all Christians believe in such a thing either.
I don't know what sort of Christian wouldn't, but you're probably right. The proof is in scripture if you credit it. If not, it isn't.
So those who don't agree on what you believe to be the consequences are simply misunderstanding?
We differ. I suppose you could put it that way for either of us, but I don't see why either of us would.
You may not be but you simply cannot deny that 'turn or burn' doctrine of any description is primarily rooted in fear.
I think that summation of hell absolutely is...and it's been approached like that, sometimes to real success. But it's not really my approach to grace.
Take a look at a 'chick tract' and that would sum up many an evangelical church by way of. Sure, most people will probably take an honest look at themselves at some point but 'hell' shouldn't have any remote bearing on that process.
I didn't say hell was part of that deliberation. But I understand how thinking about moral actions and ramifications can bring the question of consequence into play.
And the very same person who lies for self gain or to protect themselves may very well commit an act of kindness for someone half an hour later.
Sure. That's not my point, but sure.
Most people are a mixture. A truly hardened heart is just that but few reach such a state and a doctrine of horror would hardly be likely to soften it but love might have a shot...
I think Germany is an argument that you're an optimist on the point and I'd say that the little evils added up until a nation could largely accept and espouse a greater one. I don't think we go through life in stasis, so how and in what sense we grow and change is important and I think context largely determines it.
I'm not saying you're being deliberately glib but you do downplay the coercion of a doctrine that feeds on fear. I've been in churches that advance it and seen the effects of such a monstrous doctrine both on myself and on other people.
Most, the overwhelming majority of Christendom advances the idea of hell as a consequence for unrepentant sinners, but I believe that the emphasis in most churches is on how we respond to God and then one another, which is in line with the greater concentration of Christ's teaching.
That anyone who subscribes to scripture on the point of hell is in need of "getting" it.
It's the actual 'horror' of such doctrines that make it completely open to question. It alienates, it's incomprehensible, it shocks, it manipulates and is utterly grounded in anything but love.
Justice isn't love. Mercy is. And not everything that it is profitable to understand will make you happy for understanding it. Evil, for instance.
So again, it's fear as the primary. Not much point in going on about how great and fulfilling such a life of faith is if the alternative is to interminably rot in some sort of horrific state.
Couldn't disagree with you more and for the reasons given prior.
So you do admit there's fear then. Kinda my point.
Fear for whom? And there's mine.
Sure. Scripture isn't veiled about the existence of hell or the consequence of sin. I don't agree with you that there's "no consistency" in orthodoxy. I'm equally sure there's a good bit of room for honest disagreement on particulars.
For something that's so "clear" there's a "hell" of a lot of differing takes on the matter, so how do you explain that?
The same way I'd approach any honest argument within the Body.
Questioning doctrines is no bad thing.
It depends. By way of, if you question whether or not we should commit murder, whether the wages of sin is death, whether or not Christ is God or rose on the third day I'd say you're not really questioning doctrine, but a fundamental commitment to a particular faith. I question my understanding constantly.
Fair enough but that kinda boots out most hell doctrines anyway.
:idunno: