toldailytopic: Hell, what is it really like?

[Arthur Brain]

People often don't know what they want :idunno:

What type of answer is that? You can't just say that people get what they *want* if they end up not getting what they want because they don't actually know what it is they want...:dizzy: That totally undermines your initial premise where people supposedly get what they....want. Unless it's possible for people to want to not know what it is they actually want? (Mercy!) :dizzy: You need to seriously re-evaluate that one Zips!

If you understand the position then why are you so militantly opposed to it? It is a logical position that stands up to scrutiny (as our other discussion has shown). It is a position that values love and justice just as much as yours imo. I should think disagreement would be much less pronounced if you fully understand Trad and I's position. You point out that getting what we want should make us happy not unhappy, as if I have no intellect whatsoever :chuckle:. Give it a fair shake, obviously that isn't what I was saying and I think you know that.

I understand your militant opposition to the "eternal suffering" camp that take it a bit more literally as well as 'suffering' a bit more literally, but that is not me :idunno:

So my disagreement and opposition to your position actually is reflected through a lack of "fully understanding" it then? *You* think my disagreement should be 'much less pronounced' because I've not got the gist? I don't think your position does stand up to scrutiny and nor do I see a prevalence of logic in it either, else I wouldn't have been arguing against it for weeks! It may not be as nonsensical as eternal suffering via Aimiel's system but in itself I can't say I see any logical point. The annihilation position makes more sense to me than either your view or Trad's.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes indeed I think you are missing something if that is all you pulled from it. There is quite a bit in there that has nothing to do with conduct and goes quite far into the topic of hell and its reality, especially the "gulf" that exists.

If that's the case Zippy then it pretty much knocks your idea of hell on the head as much as it does mine. Do you think the rich man was on literal fire? In actual torment?

EDIT: Here's a link which goes into more detail regarding this parable and the context which puts it better than I could hope...

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/RichManandLazarus-Patching.html

 

[Krsto]

Who says they don't? :idunno: You should care because if this is not a parable then your own view on hell is way off. Or does that not matter? I see a fairly obvious message too. Love your neighbour as yourself and don't be a selfish miserly git. Am I missing something? :idunno:

This parable is the strongest argument one can make for eternal suffering for all unsaved. The one quoted from Rev. isn't even talking about the afterlife, it's symbolic of the spiritual condition of those it is describing, those who have taken the mark of the beast, and others.

First of all, you need to be aware that the Parable of Laz. is a Jewish FABLE, one they borrowed from the Egyptians and altered the details a bit. Jesus used it because he was a keen teacher, able to pull illustrations from things that people know and recognize in their culture, much as the pastor of the largest church in my community uses movie clips to illustrate spiritual truths. We all know that when he shows a clip from Star Wars that he isn't condoning everything in the movie or even everything in the clip, only that part that makes his point.

Here Jesus is making a point and borrowing from a Jewish fable because it makes his point, that we only have this life to deal with God's message, and that's it. God isn't going to send dead saints back to their loved ones to warn them, they already had Moses to warn them and didn't heed the warning so it's too bad for the rich man.

Here's the thing about parables, details are added to make a story, but not all the details are meant to be what the story teller is teaching. Keep in mind, stories . . . for teaching. Comprende? For example, the parable of the 10 bridesmaids has a lot of details. Someone could take those details and think, "Those details must apply in my life today, so when I get married I'm going to have exactly 10 bridesmaids in keeping with Jesus' teaching on weddings."

By the same token, we are saying there is eternal torment in hell because Jesus taught there is. But Jesus wasn't teaching about hell, he was using a Jewish fable that included a description of hell because he was teaching about when we get our opportunity to respond to God.

Understanding biblical liturature is very helpful to understanding how things are communicated in the bible. Those to whom Jesus was talking would have certainly understood this parable as it was meant to be understood since they already had an understanding that hell was simply the grave and Jesus' point wasn't to change their understanding of the nature of hell, only the nature of repentance.

 

[Krsto]

Well that's a heck of an oversight isn't it? Why do you think the word "especially" was used at all if it's only believers that are saved? I think the verse is clear. It gets on rocky ground if we try to change a verse into what we think an apostle should have wrote as oppose to what they did doesn't it?

What we can say is that there is a distinction between the salvation for all men and the salvation for the believers. That distinction can be easily understood in terms of Jesus (not anybody else) is the savior for all men at all times, and even more so for those who believe since Jesus death on a cross actually saves them.

There being a savior that exists for all men isn't the same as saying all men are saved by him. For those who end up in the grave without eternal life, Jesus was still the Savior.

If that's not the distinction then what is?

Universal salvation requires no distinction.

 

[Arthur Brain]

What we can say is that there is a distinction between the salvation for all men and the salvation for the believers. That distinction can be easily understood in terms of Jesus (not anybody else) is the savior for all men at all times, and even more so for those who believe since Jesus death on a cross actually saves them.

If that's not the distinction then what is? Universal salvation requires no distinction.

But then you're still effectively saying that Jesus is only the saviour of those who believe and not especially.

Is a rescue squad the saviour of all in peril or only those saved from disaster?

I would argue that the believer recognizes the hope beyond this life hence 'especially'.

 

[Arthur Brain]

This parable is the strongest argument one can make for eternal suffering for all unsaved. The one quoted from Rev. isn't even talking about the afterlife, it's symbolic of the spiritual condition of those it is describing, those who have taken the mark of the beast, and others.

First of all, you need to be aware that the Parable of Laz. is a Jewish FABLE, one they borrowed from the Egyptians and altered the details a bit. Jesus used it because he was a keen teacher, able to pull illustrations from things that people know and recognize in their culture, much as the pastor of the largest church in my community uses movie clips to illustrate spiritual truths. We all know that when he shows a clip from Star Wars that he isn't condoning everything in the movie or even everything in the clip, only that part that makes his point.

Here Jesus is making a point and borrowing from a Jewish fable because it makes his point, that we only have this life to deal with God's message, and that's it. God isn't going to send dead saints back to their loved ones to warn them, they already had Moses to warn them and didn't heed the warning so it's too bad for the rich man.

Here's the thing about parables, details are added to make a story, but not all the details are meant to be what the story teller is teaching. Keep in mind, stories . . . for teaching. Comprende? For example, the parable of the 10 bridesmaids has a lot of details. Someone could take those details and think, "Those details must apply in my life today, so when I get married I'm going to have exactly 10 bridesmaids in keeping with Jesus' teaching on weddings."

By the same token, we are saying there is eternal torment in hell because Jesus taught there is. But Jesus wasn't teaching about hell, he was using a Jewish fable that included a description of hell because he was teaching about when we get our opportunity to respond to God.

Understanding biblical liturature is very helpful to understanding how things are communicated in the bible. Those to whom Jesus was talking would have certainly understood this parable as it was meant to be understood since they already had an understanding that hell was simply the grave and Jesus' point wasn't to change their understanding of the nature of hell, only the nature of repentance.

Indeed. I've actually posted a link that addresses much of this also. :thumb:

 

[Krsto]

Indeed. I've actually posted a link that addresses much of this also. :thumb:

If you had been a little sooner you could have saved me a lot of work.:chuckle:

 

[Krsto]

But then you're still effectively saying that Jesus is only the saviour of those who believe and not especially.

Is a rescue squad the saviour of all in peril or only those saved from disaster?

I would argue that the believer recognizes the hope beyond this life hence 'especially'.

The ones still alive as they saw the rescue squad coming but drowned before they could get to them could have said at the time, "Here come the saviors of our crew!" So yes, all in peril. Savior is a position and title first and foremost. Jesus is the Savior of all men, regardless of whether they actually get saved, but even more so (especially) those who actually get saved. To the one he holds only the title of savior, to the others he is savior in deed.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The ones still alive as they saw the rescue squad coming but drowned before they could get to them could have said at the time, "Here come the saviors of our crew!" So yes, all in peril. Savior is a position and title first and foremost. Jesus is the Savior of all men, regardless of whether they actually get saved, but even more so (especially) those who actually get saved. To the one he holds only the title of savior, to the others he is savior in deed.

I think this is clutching at straws now. If Jesus is only the saviour of those who believe then the verse has no reason to emphasise belief as "especially". By your interpretation Jesus is not the saviour of all men because it is only those who believe who are saved! You're back to being the "potential" saviour and how it's the apostle's "bad" for not clarifying that. It can't be a case of "even more so" because one is either 'saved' or one isn't.

The rescue squad are only the saviours of those who survive. Not those unfortunate enough to see the help but demise anyway.

 

[Arthur Brain]

If you had been a little sooner you could have saved me a lot of work.:chuckle:

Yes. Sorry about that. But it was interesting anyway! :chuckle:

 

[zippy2006]

What type of answer is that? You can't just say that people get what they *want* if they end up not getting what they want because they don't actually know what it is they want...:dizzy: That totally undermines your initial premise where people supposedly get what they....want. Unless it's possible for people to want to not know what it is they actually want? (Mercy!) :dizzy: You need to seriously re-evaluate that one Zips!

It's easy, here's an example for you: Person A wants to be happy (generally). Person A must choose a practical method to happiness. They choose money, they become greedy, they do not become happy, they do not get what they want. Happiness is an ill-defined concept, and the path to it is not at all easily understood by many.

So my disagreement and opposition to your position actually is reflected through a lack of "fully understanding" it then? *You* think my disagreement should be 'much less pronounced' because I've not got the gist? I don't think your position does stand up to scrutiny and nor do I see a prevalence of logic in it either, else I wouldn't have been arguing against it for weeks! It may not be as nonsensical as eternal suffering via Aimiel's system but in itself I can't say I see any logical point. The annihilation position makes more sense to me than either your view or Trad's.

My view ensures love, justice, and free will.

Your view, in the end, I think ensures nothing since it doesn't safeguard free will. You override free will and incapacitate any other meaningful concept :idunno: Logically it is inferior, emotionally it is superior (everyone goes to Heaven and they live happily ever after).

I've no qualms about admitting that your view "sounds better." :think: I sometimes wonder if you are overly biased by this emotion appeal though, especially since many of your arguments end up in that area :idunno: You will not be able to resolve your position with free will, and I think this is becoming abundantly clear. You can ask "But why would they want that?" all day. I don't perfectly understand vice, but I can point to it easily enough and give examples that they indeed do want to be apart from God, even if I can't explain to you why.

If that's the case Zippy then it pretty much knocks your idea of hell on the head as much as it does mine. Do you think the rich man was on literal fire? In actual torment?

EDIT: Here's a link which goes into more detail regarding this parable and the context which puts it better than I could hope...

It surely doesn't, and that was my initial point. Just because it musn't be read perfectly literally (which is what I assume you meant by "a parable"), does not mean that it is not making points about things more than mere ethics.

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/RichManandLazarus-Patching.html

:chuckle: And this illustrates perfectly what I mean. Any nit could tell you that it wasn't a literal story, but this guy shows that and says nothing else. There is obviously a point being made in the story about hell, the article even says, "The last two parts regarding the unjust steward and the rich man are directed towards his accusers, condemning them for their covetousness and pride." Is Jesus condemning them by making up a crazy story that is wholly fictitious in order to...I don't know?.... scare them into behaving? Is that what you are saying? If Jesus isn't speaking or referring to truth then he is simply being dishonest and using scare tactics, which is utter nonsense. Consider some of the lines:

'And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

'And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

'Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

'And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

'And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'

What in the world do you think Jesus is trying to communicate with these things?

I understand you aren't a Christian, though you are willing to take Jesus' advice as a teacher, is that right? After reading the Bible, I strayed from your view that Jesus was just another ethical teacher, and I think that people who hold that position are simply reading biases into the texts--he is obviously saying more in this passage. After realizing he was something else entirely, I decided I must either become a Christian and believe or stop trying to make Jesus something that he wasn't :idunno:

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's easy, here's an example for you: Person A wants to be happy (generally). Person A must choose a practical method to happiness. They choose money, they become greedy, they do not become happy, they do not get what they want. Happiness is an ill-defined concept, and the path to it is not at all easily understood by many.

That still doesn't address people "getting what they want" in eternity though does it? All you're describing here is human fallibility which doesn't even lead to any satisfaction in the present given your analogy. Ironically you state the exact problem. They don't get what they want even in the here and now. So the problem remains. You say that "people get what they want" yet by your own admission they actually don't, either here or in eternity. You'd have been better off simply saying that those in 'hell' are just eternally unsatisfied without even bringing 'want' into the matter at all!

My view ensures love, justice, and free will.

In your view I'm sure it does.

Your view, in the end, I think ensures nothing since it doesn't safeguard free will. You override free will and incapacitate any other meaningful concept :idunno: Logically it is inferior, emotionally it is superior (everyone goes to Heaven and they live happily ever after).

And what does your view do? 'Free will' for a handful of years and then an eternity based on decisions, intent and action that most wouldn't even realize was shaping their eternal destiny anyway? Do you believe there's any such thing as 'free will' after death? Or is that where any such choice is taken away? That people are consigned to a fate where any ability to think, recriminate, feel remorse etc is stripped away? Do you concede that everyone will have to acknowledge that God exists? Where's the 'free will' in that?

What you mean by "incapacitating" any other 'meaningful concept' is something you'll have to explain because I don't get what you mean by that at all. I find the doctrine of eternal separation renders much in this life meaningless by its very definition. lain:

If you can explain to me how it's "logical" to have a realm where fallible people - the same as you and I - are consigned to a realm where any chance of reconciliation to their creator (and ironically with a complete absence of free will in order to make any such choice) makes sense then have at it!

I've no qualms about admitting that your view "sounds better." :think: I sometimes wonder if you are overly biased by this emotion appeal though, especially since many of your arguments end up in that area :idunno: You will not be able to resolve your position with free will, and I think this is becoming abundantly clear. You can ask "But why would they want that?" all day. I don't perfectly understand vice, but I can point to it easily enough and give examples that they indeed do want to be apart from God, even if I can't explain to you why.

Zippy, if it has to be constantly explained to you that people are not consciously choosing an eternity of what you describe then I wonder what else can possibly be said. Do people give in to temptation? Yes. Do we mess up and seek temporal pleasure, err, make bad choices etc etc etc? Yes. Does that mean that all those on the "wide path" are choosing to deny God and in full knowledge 'making their own bed' in an eternal hell? NO! If you want to place so much emphasis on free will and choice then one has to know what one is choosing to begin with! I mean, what happens in your view? People die, then come face to face with God? And then what? Those 'wise' enough go to Heaven and those others get carted off to hell? :idunno:

It surely doesn't, and that was my initial point. Just because it musn't be read perfectly literally (which is what I assume you meant by "a parable"), does not mean that it is not making points about things more than mere ethics.

Which is fair enough. I don't argue that a parable itself can't contain multiple meanings.

:chuckle: And this illustrates perfectly what I mean. Any nit could tell you that it wasn't a literal story, but this guy shows that and says nothing else. There is obviously a point being made in the story about hell, the article even says, "The last two parts regarding the unjust steward and the rich man are directed towards his accusers, condemning them for their covetousness and pride." Is Jesus condemning them by making up a crazy story that is wholly fictitious in order to...I don't know?.... scare them into behaving? Is that what you are saying? If Jesus isn't speaking or referring to truth then he is simply being dishonest and using scare tactics, which is utter nonsense. Consider some of the lines:

Yes, and any nit could tell you that a man who is literally on fire wouldn't ask, or even be capable of asking for a drop of water for his tongue! How do you account for this in terms of what you believe regarding hell? You are yet to answer that. If you accept that this is metaphorical then you can hardly talk about 'scare tactics' given your own position can you? Did you actually read the article or just skim it?

What in the world do you think Jesus is trying to communicate with these things?

I understand you aren't a Christian, though you are willing to take Jesus' advice as a teacher, is that right? After reading the Bible, I strayed from your view that Jesus was just another ethical teacher, and I think that people who hold that position are simply reading biases into the texts--he is obviously saying more in this passage. After realizing he was something else entirely, I decided I must either become a Christian and believe or stop trying to make Jesus something that he wasn't :idunno:

Where in the world have I ever said that Jesus was just a ethical teacher, let alone "another one" Zippy?! I explained why I don't use 'tags' to you a while ago and you've either forgotten or trying to score some kind of "point" which if the latter is more than disappointing. I have never held such a view and that should have been more than apparent during our debates! I'm sorry if I have to have the label "Christian" in order for you to accept that. lain:

 

[Krsto]

I think this is clutching at straws now. If Jesus is only the saviour of those who believe then the verse has no reason to emphasise belief as "especially". By your interpretation Jesus is not the saviour of all men because it is only those who believe who are saved! You're back to being the "potential" saviour and how it's the apostle's "bad" for not clarifying that. It can't be a case of "even more so" because one is either 'saved' or one isn't.

The rescue squad are only the saviours of those who survive. Not those unfortunate enough to see the help but demise anyway.

The rescue sqaud is the rescue sqaud for everyone on the sinking ship. The fact not all got rescued does not negate the fact they were the rescue squad for all. That's what the Coast Guard does, they rescue people in general. I have a friend who was a Rescue Swimmer for the Coast Guard. If you were to tell him he was not a Rescue Swimmer for the ones who drowned before he could get to them he would tell you he still held the title of Rescue Swimmer and was indeed the Rescue Swimmer for all on the boat even though he didn't actually rescue all on the boat. It's a title he carries because of the intense training and testing he passed at the academy. (Which included being left alone in the middle of the Atlantic for 36 hours with no boat as a practical joke!) His title is not based on the success or failure of any single rescue operation. When he goes out to rescue men from a sunken ship he is the Rescue Swimmer for all on the ship, and ESPECIALLY, and EVEN MORE SO, for those who got rescued.

 

[Aimiel]

Just as the prison guard who pushes the button to put a convicted murderer to death is a minister of God, on his behalf; so is Jesus to those condemned to hell, when He tells the lost, "Depart from Me, I never knew you." God isn't mocked by those who mis-translate His Word into universalism or 'annihilationism' or any other cult. His Word is clear. Hell is real. It is eternal conscious torment, literally.

 

[chrysostom]

war is hell

 

[zippy2006]

That still doesn't address people "getting what they want" in eternity though does it? All you're describing here is human fallibility which doesn't even lead to any satisfaction in the present given your analogy. Ironically you state the exact problem. They don't get what they want even in the here and now. So the problem remains. You say that "people get what they want" yet by your own admission they actually don't, either here or in eternity. You'd have been better off simply saying that those in 'hell' are just eternally unsatisfied without even bringing 'want' into the matter at all!

The point is that they don't agree with me on the definition of happiness. Ask Hitler et al to define happiness. They are getting, or at least moving toward, what they believe to be happiness.

My view ensures love, justice, and free will.

In your view I'm sure it does.

Lets hear some actual points then. What about my view rejects any of those concepts?

And what does your view do? 'Free will' for a handful of years and then an eternity based on decisions, intent and action that most wouldn't even realize was shaping their eternal destiny anyway? Do you believe there's any such thing as 'free will' after death? Or is that where any such choice is taken away? That people are consigned to a fate where any ability to think, recriminate, feel remorse etc is stripped away? Do you concede that everyone will have to acknowledge that God exists? Where's the 'free will' in that?

I believe in free will after death, a sort of purgatory, as I've said before.

Standing in front of someone isn't negating free will, as we've discussed (and kmo agreed with) regarding Saul.

What you mean by "incapacitating" any other 'meaningful concept' is something you'll have to explain because I don't get what you mean by that at all. I find the doctrine of eternal separation renders much in this life meaningless by its very definition. lain:

What is love, what is justice, what is faith, without free will? They are nothing. :idunno:

If you can explain to me how it's "logical" to have a realm where fallible people - the same as you and I - are consigned to a realm where any chance of reconciliation to their creator (and ironically with a complete absence of free will in order to make any such choice) makes sense then have at it!

They choose it. In my view, someone chooses A and they get A; in your view someone chooses A and they get B, or they are completely incapable of choosing A.

Zippy, if it has to be constantly explained to you that people are not consciously choosing an eternity of what you describe then I wonder what else can possibly be said. Do people give in to temptation? Yes. Do we mess up and seek temporal pleasure, err, make bad choices etc etc etc? Yes. Does that mean that all those on the "wide path" are choosing to deny God and in full knowledge 'making their own bed' in an eternal hell? NO! If you want to place so much emphasis on free will and choice then one has to know what one is choosing to begin with! I mean, what happens in your view? People die, then come face to face with God? And then what? Those 'wise' enough go to Heaven and those others get carted off to hell? :idunno:

Straight and narrow is the way. I've addressed these points many times AB. What are you warping my view into with "an eternity of what you describe"? People choose an eternity of what they want. Michael Jordan may choose to play basketball all through eternity, being a star and having everyone praise him. A pornstar may choose to seek physical pleasure and gratification all through eternity. What is it you think I'm describing?

Which is fair enough. I don't argue that a parable itself can't contain multiple meanings.

yes...:think: The important thing is that you seemed to take a line that said "literal or nothing" ('If you argue that it means something with respect to hell, then you must take the literal interpretation'). That isn't true at all, there is plenty of middle ground and meaning apart from a pefectly literal reading.

Yes, and any nit could tell you that a man who is literally on fire wouldn't ask, or even be capable of asking for a drop of water for his tongue! How do you account for this in terms of what you believe regarding hell? You are yet to answer that. If you accept that this is metaphorical then you can hardly talk about 'scare tactics' given your own position can you? Did you actually read the article or just skim it?

I read the section on this parable. That's a good question I suppose . Firstly I believe it is saying that hell or some state or separation or some gulf does indeed exist. From my view I believe Jesus is saying that there is a place separated from God, which in your heart of hearts you do not want to be (this to the Jewish leaders who were obviously trying to be men of God). He was speaking to the men about a true danger and painting it in an effective way. You could call it 'scare tactics,' but I believe he was referring to something real, and I also believe that we could argue all day about whether some fire or separation from God is more scary. Jesus could be said to have been watering down the truth (separation from God) instead of embellishing it. His analogy was adequate with respect to the minds of the men he was talking to and their hypocrisy in the situation.

Where in the world have I ever said that Jesus was just a ethical teacher, let alone "another one" Zippy?! I explained why I don't use 'tags' to you a while ago and you've either forgotten or trying to score some kind of "point" which if the latter is more than disappointing. I have never held such a view and that should have been more than apparent during our debates! I'm sorry if I have to have the label "Christian" in order for you to accept that. lain:

Well it would be helpful for you to identify yourself . I only recalled that you considered yourself an 'unorthodox believer,' but I never recalled you using the word "Christian" at all. I assumed it was a theistic position. Do you consider Jesus to be divine? If not, what do you consider him?

:e4e:

 

[PlastikBuddha]

Like being lost in your own nightmare with no possibility of waking up, caught up in self-created delusions and buffeted by the winds of unfocused desire.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The point is that they don't agree with me on the definition of happiness. Ask Hitler et al to define happiness. They are getting, or at least moving toward, what they believe to be happiness.

Even though they never actually get it?

Lets hear some actual points then. What about my view rejects any of those concepts?

An eternity of separation for finite shortcomings hardly smacks of justice. Unless it's possible for people to 'change their mind' after the 'purgatory' you describe then free will is actually rendered invalid as well. Love would leave the door open.

I believe in free will after death, a sort of purgatory, as I've said before.

:think: What exactly constitutes this 'purgatory'? How does free will take effect? When does it end? When does the capacity for choice end? Does it end?

Standing in front of someone isn't negating free will, as we've discussed (and kmo agreed with) regarding Saul.

Standing in front of God would pretty much remove the choice to decide He doesn't exist....not exactly fair on an atheist's free will.

Re Saul. I answered this on the "epic" thread. Saul wasn't frogmarched anywhere (which would have negated will) but he didn't exactly choose to go blind and get knocked off his horse either. Why do you suppose God did that? :think:

What is love, what is justice, what is faith, without free will? They are nothing. :idunno:

And I don't argue otherwise, although I think that love is something where free will and choice often play little part. You can reason why you may feel for someone but you don't choose it. It pretty much chooses you....

At some point though, if you believe that everyone will one day be 'face to face' with God then free will to deny or be unsure of His existence is simply going to end. Faith will even end. Then what are you left with?

They choose it. In my view, someone chooses A and they get A; in your view someone chooses A and they get B, or they are completely incapable of choosing A.

They choose it even after being faced with God? Or are you arguing that people 'choose' it beforehand? Problems either way. Is the presence of God not enough to convince people that 'hell' isn't the way to go? For people to 'choose' something they have to be aware of what it is they're choosing. A hedonistic atheist is not *choosing* to spend an eternity away from God because as far as they're concerned when they die that's simply it, end of so to speak.

In your view people are 'choosing' A without even realizing what 'A' actually is.

Straight and narrow is the way. I've addressed these points many times AB. What are you warping my view into with "an eternity of what you describe"? People choose an eternity of what they want. Michael Jordan may choose to play basketball all through eternity, being a star and having everyone praise him. A pornstar may choose to seek physical pleasure and gratification all through eternity. What is it you think I'm describing?

Um, so people get to choose whatever they want for eternity then? Is that what you're saying? And what do you mean by 'Straight and narrow is the way'? Expand, because if your meaning is that eternity rests on intent/action in this short existence then you reduce free will or capacity for choice in the afterward. Well, your purgatory notwithstanding but you need to explain how that works as well.

BTW who would 'choose' to have an eternity of praising Michael Jordan?

yes...:think: The important thing is that you seemed to take a line that said "literal or nothing" ('If you argue that it means something with respect to hell, then you must take the literal interpretation'). That isn't true at all, there is plenty of middle ground and meaning apart from a pefectly literal reading.

Well, if you're arguing that this parable is evidence for 'hell' then you're already using a literal approach in that regard. What you're effectively doing is simply changing the nature of hell as oppose to flame as described. If you see the 'hell' as metaphor then it's not so much of a problem.

I read the section on this parable. That's a good question I suppose . Firstly I believe it is saying that hell or some state or separation or some gulf does indeed exist. From my view I believe Jesus is saying that there is a place separated from God, which in your heart of hearts you do not want to be (this to the Jewish leaders who were obviously trying to be men of God). He was speaking to the men about a true danger and painting it in an effective way. You could call it 'scare tactics,' but I believe he was referring to something real, and I also believe that we could argue all day about whether some fire or separation from God is more scary. Jesus could be said to have been watering down the truth (separation from God) instead of embellishing it. His analogy was adequate with respect to the minds of the men he was talking to and their hypocrisy in the situation.

Well there's the rub. You see it as something real, presumably eternal (although that isn't actually specified) whereas I see it as metaphor and intended for a specific audience at the time. I forget exactly now but the rich man was a king which those at the time would recognize, not simply 'a' rich man and this was directly related to Israel.

Further, if you believe that people "in their heart of hearts" wouldn't want to be in such a place, that there is a literal gulf which prevents people from 'crossing over' then where does that leave any room for free will? It strikes me that you value free will up to a point, and then bizarrely leave no room for it at all.

Well it would be helpful for you to identify yourself . I only recalled that you considered yourself an 'unorthodox believer,' but I never recalled you using the word "Christian" at all. I assumed it was a theistic position. Do you consider Jesus to be divine? If not, what do you consider him?

:e4e:

Done via PM. I hope we're now clear

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Like being lost in your own nightmare with no possibility of waking up, caught up in self-created delusions and buffeted by the winds of unfocused desire.

Why would a loving God leave people to rot in such a wretched state PB? That is just cruelty. Annihilation makes so much more sense than that.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The rescue sqaud is the rescue sqaud for everyone on the sinking ship. The fact not all got rescued does not negate the fact they were the rescue squad for all. That's what the Coast Guard does, they rescue people in general. I have a friend who was a Rescue Swimmer for the Coast Guard. If you were to tell him he was not a Rescue Swimmer for the ones who drowned before he could get to them he would tell you he still held the title of Rescue Swimmer and was indeed the Rescue Swimmer for all on the boat even though he didn't actually rescue all on the boat. It's a title he carries because of the intense training and testing he passed at the academy. (Which included being left alone in the middle of the Atlantic for 36 hours with no boat as a practical joke!) His title is not based on the success or failure of any single rescue operation. When he goes out to rescue men from a sunken ship he is the Rescue Swimmer for all on the ship, and ESPECIALLY, and EVEN MORE SO, for those who got rescued.

Well once again, the verse doesn't say *for* all men. It says of all men, especially of believers. So that doesn't work either. Using your argument the apostles *should* have wrote "Jesus is the saviour for all men, but only those who believe will be saved". It doesn't.