Why would God need a hell?

[Prizebeatz1]

The Holy Spirit was available to mankind in the OT, as thus...

And Yahweh said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man; in their erring he is flesh. And his days shall be a hundred and twenty years. (Gen 6.3)


We are not spirit.

We have a spirit.

I infer from your statement that we are separate from the spirit, is that correct? If spirit is God and God is everywhere then we cannot be separate from God. And do we have a spirit or does a spirit have us?

 

[patrick jane]

The principles I shared stand. You are apparently not understanding what 'karma' is, and its dynamics....yet it still stands that what a soul sows, that also it shall reap. Actions bear consequences, in all dimensions or realms, this life and the afterlife. As long as there is cause/effect you cannot escape this law. You have a misconstrued concept of 'karma'.

False equation. There is no reason to believe this, unless your presupposing or assuming an 'atonement' of some kind behind Jesus death. Even still,....."God(universal law) is not 'mocked' (it cannot be put aside or derided),...whatever a man sows, that also must he reap". An avatar, savior, demi-god, holy man may grant you grace and atone for some degree of personal or planetary karma, but this does not abrogate or take away your own personal self-responsibility for your own sins, and expiating those sins by your own repentance and reformation. You cant just put all your sins upon another person and assume they've take on all your karmic debts, and you get a free pass into heaven. Universal laws hold. Grace is given, of course because God is love....but you must do your part, YOU are responsible


You're misconstruing 'karma', by not understanding it. It is also called the 'law of compensation; law of retribution; law of cause/effect; action/consequence. A rightful understanding of this law, deters people from sin and suffering, you have it backwards, plus have a warped view about 'eternal punishment' which we've clarified elsewhere.

You're preaching works salvation now, along with the UB

 

[Apple7]

I infer from your statement that we are separate from the spirit, is that correct? If spirit is God and God is everywhere then we cannot be separate from God. And do we have a spirit or does a spirit have us?

Humans have both a soul and a spirit.

Our spirit is eternal, our soul is not, and is what separates us from the animal kingdom.

Our spirit continues on after physical death....of which, can either reside in the presence of God (Heaven)....or in the absence of God (Hell).

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Humans have both a soul and a spirit.

Our spirit is eternal, our soul is not, and is what separates us from the animal kingdom.

Our spirit continues on after physical death....of which, can either reside in the presence of God (Heaven)....or in the absence of God (Hell).

Okay so this confirms for me that we believe God is not everywhere. Do you think most people are going to agree or disagree that God is everywhere? What do your feelings say about this? Do we always have to resort to a book to tell us what to feel? Is it possible that we are somehow limiting the full power and scope of God? What do your gut instincts tell you? Could your instincts be connected to a part of you that was left behind in childhood and which is now suppressed? Is it possible to get in touch with this part of you and see what it's about or is it more important to stick with what has been handed to us? Do we stick to what has been handed to us because its comfortable and convenient and gives us approval? Why do we need approval in the first place? Is the spirit not the source of our value? Are we accidentally replacing it with something else?

 

[Apple7]

Okay so this confirms for me that we believe God is not everywhere. Do you think most people are going to agree or disagree that God is everywhere? What do your feelings say about this?

Hell is a separation from the presence of God, so why would He be there?

That is why scripture depicts this separation in terms of 'torture' etc, as this we can understand in human terms.

Do we always have to resort to a book to tell us what to feel? Is it possible that we are somehow limiting the full power and scope of God? What do your gut instincts tell you? Could your instincts be connected to a part of you that was left behind in childhood and which is now suppressed? Is it possible to get in touch with this part of you and see what it's about or is it more important to stick with what has been handed to us? Do we stick to what has been handed to us because its comfortable and convenient and gives us approval? Why do we need approval in the first place? Is the spirit not the source of our value? Are we accidentally replacing it with something else?

So...

You would rather use your own worldly observations and musings to replace scripture that has withstood the test of time?

 

[Prizebeatz1]

Hell is a separation from the presence of God, so why would He be there?

That is why scripture depicts this separation in terms of 'torture' etc, as this we can understand in human terms.





So...

You would rather use your own worldly observations and musings to replace scripture that has withstood the test of time?

That is the misunderstanding: that we can somehow be separate from God. This is easy to believe if we have not experienced God. It's much easier to depend on other people's experiences of God rather than our own. This comes from a lack of self-esteem. We don't believe we are good enough. We attempt to convince ourselves otherwise by trying to obtain a sense of value outside ourselves. We think we are worthless. The enemy has trapped us already and we don't even know it: "Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." 1 Peter 5:8. The enemy has sucked out our self-worth. Oh yeah, one more thing. I don't rely on what stands the test of time. I rely on that which is one with timelessness.

 

[Apple7]

That is the misunderstanding: that we can somehow be separate from God. This is easy to believe if we have not experienced God. It's much easier to depend on other people's experiences of God rather than our own. This comes from a lack of self-esteem. We don't believe we are good enough. We attempt to convince ourselves otherwise by trying to obtain a sense of value outside ourselves. We think we are worthless. The enemy has trapped us already and we don't even know it: "Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." 1 Peter 5:8. The enemy has sucked out our self-worth. Oh yeah, one more thing. I don't rely on what stands the test of time. I rely on that which is one with timelessness.

νηψατε γρηγορησατε ο αντιδικος υμων διαβολος ως λεων ωρυομενος περιπατει ζητων καταπιειν

nēpsate grēgorēsate ho antidikos hymōn diabolos hōs leōn ōryomenos peripatei zētōn tina katapiein

Be sober-minded, watch, the adversary devil of you walks about as a roaring lion seeking whom to devour; (1 Peter 5.8)


This passage does not refer to ‘The Devil’ himself, as ‘diabolos’ is anarthrous (i.e. it lacks a preceding Greek definite article).

Further, ‘ho antidikos’ (the adversary) is used in only one other NT passage, Mat 5.25, and is in the context of being thrown into prison.


The Devil was bound at The Cross.

What you think is Satan, is really the demons...don't let yourself be a safe harbor for them...

 

[Prizebeatz1]

νηψατε γρηγορησατε ο αντιδικος υμων διαβολος ως λεων ωρυομενος περιπατει ζητων καταπιειν

nēpsate grēgorēsate ho antidikos hymōn diabolos hōs leōn ōryomenos peripatei zētōn tina katapiein

Be sober-minded, watch, the adversary devil of you walks about as a roaring lion seeking whom to devour; (1 Peter 5.8)


This passage does not refer to ‘The Devil’ himself, as ‘diabolos’ is anarthrous (i.e. it lacks a preceding Greek definite article).

Further, ‘ho antidikos’ (the adversary) is used in only one other NT passage, Mat 5.25, and is in the context of being thrown into prison.


The Devil was bound at The Cross.

What you think is Satan, is really the demons...don't let yourself be a safe harbor for them...

That is one way to see things but I don't think it's the most accurate. I think it's more likely that the crucifixion is a metaphor for dis-identifying with the personality or who we take ourselves to be. There is a very strong attachment to this personality which needs to be loosened in order for one to experience that they are much more than this identity. There is tremendous fear around the process and not much support so I don't blame people for skepticism. I was the same way at first. In time I realized this is not an enemy that needs be defeated. We just need to understand how it operates to make us think we are separate.

The personality, the ego, the enemy, the adversary, Satan, the devil or whatever is symbolic. It is not bad. Judging it is going to make things worse. We must accept it and love it. Matthew 5:44 becomes twice as advanced as previously thought: "But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." The personality is actually a very good thing. Where would we be without it? Yet when I contemplate why the world is in shambles I realize that we have a very hazy idea of the enemy. Jesus did not really have an arch-nemesis so most people don't go through the trouble of pinpointing who or what it could be. Is it not important to identify the enemy in a battle? Where is this enemy? Who is this enemy? When and how can we come into contact in order to see how to overcome it? It doesn't do much good if we can't answer these questions. We might as well be throwing punches in the air.

 

[way 2 go]

The principles I shared stand. You are apparently not understanding what 'karma' is, and its dynamics....yet it still stands that what a soul sows, that also it shall reap. Actions bear consequences, in all dimensions or realms, this life and the afterlife. As long as there is cause/effect you cannot escape this law. You have a misconstrued concept of 'karma'.

karma is a lie

sin
And you are dead in the trespasses and sins

I treated it rightfully here.

Dan 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

False equation. There is no reason to believe this, unless your presupposing or assuming an 'atonement' of some kind behind Jesus death. Even still,....."God(universal law) is not 'mocked' (it cannot be put aside or derided),...whatever a man sows, that also must he reap". An avatar, savior, demi-god, holy man may grant you grace and atone for some degree of personal or planetary karma, but this does not abrogate or take away your own personal self-responsibility for your own sins, and expiating those sins by your own repentance and reformation. You cant just put all your sins upon another person and assume they've take on all your karmic debts, and you get a free pass into heaven. Universal laws hold. Grace is given, of course because God is love....but you must do your part, YOU are responsible.

Jesus is not another human he is God
God was crucified for our sins
which was the only way to pay for sins
that deserve eternal punishment

you can't earn salvation

You're misconstruing 'karma', by not understanding it. It is also called the 'law of compensation; law of retribution; law of cause/effect; action/consequence. A rightful understanding of this law, deters people from sin and suffering, you have it backwards, plus have a warped view about 'eternal punishment' which we've clarified elsewhere.

you have it wrong

Heb 10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy of punishment, the one who has trampled the Son of God, and who has counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

 

[freelight]

lets expand on this abit, if we missed the points.....

lets expand on this abit, if we missed the points.....

You're preaching works salvation now, along with the UB

Not quite pj...you'd have to read with a little more understanding and clarity, since I'm expounding on 'karma' (the word simply refers to 'action' and its corresponding consequences/results),...."what a man sows, that also he reaps,....measure for measure, the law cannot be abrograted or bypassed, as long as cause & effect continues. The eastern understanding and western understanding of 'karma' can be synthesized, or the Pagdett messages have a good presentation on this from their perspective here (called 'the law of compensation'). This universal law is the arbiter of justice and is merciful and beneficial in that it teaches one by their own suffering to repent, and choose the path of reformation. See how it works?

NOTE, this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a 'concept' of 'salvation'. What you sow, that you reap,....the law is self-evident in nature, in human experience, agreeable to reason/logic, although 'effects' may turn out in different ways and within differeing time-points, where a 'harvest' of one's deeds is collected at some point. Again, this is recognizing universal laws of nature, the law of action/consequence. When you do good, and are loving, walking in the light, you naturally reap the reward/harvest of that 'good'. When you do evil,....likewise. That's all Im essentially bringing to the fore.

This whole 'works salvation' notion, by Paulinists (lol) yeah...had to throw that in...is just rhetoric based on 'saved by grace' concepts, which 'free gracers' love to bring up to claim their 'free gift' of 'salvation' (so they don't have to work for it!) but its just a concept, - and then again, you have to take it by 'faith' (your faith has to work good results, or its 'dead'). One is still called to DO WHAT IS RIGHT, walk in the Spirit, love one another, deny the 'flesh'(selfishness/pride/egoity) so you will produce the fruit of the Spirit, and so on. Love is still the eternal way, the law itself, which alone fulfills all. So,....accept any 'blood atonement concept' you like, you are still called TO DO God's will, correct? You are still commanded to love one another, to conquer evil with good. So,...you are not off the hook with having a 'cop-out' for doing good, by some blood-sacrifice done for you. No way. - it may help ease your conscience for a time, but then you have to ATONE for your own sins. Yep, you heard it right. How? You have to repent, You have to do God's will, You have to love, You have to change your ways and return to 'God'.

I challenge any religionist to prove this wrong.

 

[freelight]

Exhaustion point............

Exhaustion point............

karma is a lie

sin
And you are dead in the trespasses and sins



Dan 12:2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."



Jesus is not another human he is God
God was crucified for our sins
which was the only way to pay for sins
that deserve eternal punishment

you can't earn salvation



you have it wrong

Heb 10:29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy of punishment, the one who has trampled the Son of God, and who has counted the blood of the covenant with which he was sanctified an unholy thing, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Well, I think its about official here after so many rounds with you, that this discussion isn't going anywhere,...there comes an exhaustion point, where one would rather choose to believe a literal dogmatic rendering of words in a book he deems 'infallible', with a whole host of misconceptions, illogic, ridiculousness and insanity. This kind of person has traded reason, logic, sanity, conscience and the highest principles of truth, for a narrow dogmatic inflexible, and damnable view of reality, portraying 'God' by that same constrained view which is 'damnable'.

By principle alone, on moral/ethical grounds, by reason, logic, fairness, goodness, mercy, real justice.... ECT fails, and its 'god' also is a mirage, a frightful ghoul of older dark times when human imagination concocted horrible images and torments, to the delight of misguided religionists who by their concept of justice would punish the wicked to no end, but keep them alive and conscious in an eternal state of agony/suffering from which God could not save them, nor apparently even attempt to do so. So much for love, much less an omnipotent God whose will is all-supreme.


:carryon:

 

[patrick jane]

Not quite pj...you'd have to read with a little more understanding and clarity, since I'm expounding on 'karma' (the word simply refers to 'action' and its corresponding consequences/results),...."what a man sows, that also he reaps,....measure for measure, the law cannot be abrograted or bypassed, as long as cause & effect continues. The eastern understanding and western understanding of 'karma' can be synthesized, or the Pagdett messages have a good presentation on this from their perspective here (called 'the law of compensation'). This universal law is the arbiter of justice and is merciful and beneficial in that it teaches one by their own suffering to repent, and choose the path of reformation. See how it works?

NOTE, this doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a 'concept' of 'salvation'. What you sow, that you reap,....the law is self-evident in nature, in human experience, agreeable to reason/logic, although 'effects' may turn out in different ways and within differeing time-points, where a 'harvest' of one's deeds is collected at some point. Again, this is recognizing universal laws of nature, the law of action/consequence. When you do good, and are loving, walking in the light, you naturally reap the reward/harvest of that 'good'. When you do evil,....likewise. That's all Im essentially bringing to the fore.

This whole 'works salvation' notion, by Paulinists (lol) yeah...had to throw that in...is just rhetoric based on 'saved by grace' concepts, which 'free gracers' love to bring up to claim their 'free gift' of 'salvation' (so they don't have to work for it!) but its just a concept, - and then again, you have to take it by 'faith' (your faith has to work good results, or its 'dead'). One is still called to DO WHAT IS RIGHT, walk in the Spirit, love one another, deny the 'flesh'(selfishness/pride/egoity) so you will produce the fruit of the Spirit, and so on. Love is still the eternal way, the law itself, which alone fulfills all. So,....accept any 'blood atonement concept' you like, you are still called TO DO God's will, correct? You are still commanded to love one another, to conquer evil with good. So,...you are not off the hook with having a 'cop-out' for doing good, by some blood-sacrifice done for you. No way. - it may help ease your conscience for a time, but then you have to ATONE for your own sins. Yep, you heard it right. How? You have to repent, You have to do God's will, You have to love, You have to change your ways and return to 'God'.

I challenge any religionist to prove this wrong.

I hope we all get what we deserve :devil:

 

[freelight]

Infinite LOVE............

Infinite LOVE............

I hope we all get what we deserve :devil:

In a way we do,...but we must understand this from multiple perspectives, and even still while the law of 'sowing and reaping' modifies and conditions our experience,...God's justice and mercy will be wholly fair and reasonable, no matter what consequences arise.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Well I would " All" of these verses, and notice the continual use of the term " All", which includes all the dead of humanity;

http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/DoYouBelieve.html

I think God most definitely will kill the human body after they are resurrected, and give them a new body, which is the new birth. It is once appointed for every human to die, flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, its a spirit kingdom. Flesh is just temporary physical chemical existence. We all were born to be born again.

None of those 75 verses speak of post death reformation. Or do you assume that since the verses might indicate all people will be saved that post death reformation is implied and necessary?

I'll take one of those 75 "All" verses to show how shallow some of the interpretations are.

11) 1Cor 15:22 In Adam all die, in Christ all live. Again, the same all?

Verse 23 clarifies verse 22 "But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him."


The ALL Paul is talking about is "those who belong to him" NOT everybody who was ever born.

Those 75 "All" verses must be read along side verses like Revelation 20:15 "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

How can you get away from verses like this which tell us that not everyone will have their names in the book of life at the final judgement?

 

[Aaron the Tall]

I think sin is a natural punishing within itself, before Jesus death, it was no different then, than it is now; sin punishes humanity everyday. Jesus had to die because God wrote the book on humanity long before he created us. Look in Rev. 4th chapter. God had already decided to create humans in sin and flesh, that's the way he planned it all, and God is a predestined planner , and Jesus was chosen to pay for humanities sins before the world was. So the forgiveness of our sins was determined before we were even created.

Yes, sin often has consequences, but you can't say that every sinner who lived has received just compensation for his sins simply through the potential natural consequences.

I missed the part in Rev 4 where it says God planned to create humans in sin.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

The world NEEDS the mercy of God, they need him to be kind to them in the day of salvation In Romans 11:1, " Has God cast away his people?" God forbid, no!

Why was the answer "God forbid, no!"?

Paul's answer is that he is an Israelite, and he is not rejected, he is saved. Also, Paul's answer is that there was at that time a remnant chosen by grace.

The bottom line: there was a small group of Israelites who received Christ, while the majority rejected Him. That is why Israel as a whole was not cast away - even though most rejected Christ and were headed toward judgement and death.

Sorry, that verse doesn't serve you well.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

God is too sure of himself to have children that he would later abort, Is.66:9. Believers who actually think universal salvation is not possible, just really don't understand that God is not going to give birth to trillions of humans, only to loose most of them. God is a giver of life. And God is unique in many ways still yet unknown to people.

Maybe I haven't come across your answer yet - but I still don't know how you think this is accomplished. Many people do reject Christ while alive on earth. How are they saved after they die?

 

[Aaron the Tall]

Sure, a loving parent chastises their children when necessary but the punishment, if borne of love is for the actual benefit of the child overall.

True - Hebrews 12 indicates that God disciplines his children - and if we aren't disciplined, we aren't true children of God. It is for our good!

However, not every person is a child of God. Only those who believe in Christ have been given the right to be children of God (John 1:12). Those who reject Christ are children of the devil (John 8:44).

Define "reject" else there's little parameter to work with here. If it helps any then I don't consider agnostics/atheists/those of faiths besides 'Christianity' to be rejecting God whereas you might.

Would you agree that sin is disobeying God? That it is rejecting God's will? Isn't it God's will to believe in Jesus?

Do you believe a person must be born again to belong to God's Kingdom? Do you believe there are other ways to be born again outside Jesus? I don't believe so, so I consider those who reject Christ's provision of salvation to be rejecting God.

As above, and in any case why would there need to be an eternal place of torment in order for God to be good?

There must be a punishment that fits the crime. If the worst penalty our justice system could dish out was 30 days in jail - it wouldn't be a good justice system. There must be penalties that fit the crime.

I've made my case as to why I believe hell is the only possible penalty to fit the worst possible crime we can commit.

Because you think those who don't believe as you deserve it? I notice you didn't address my questions to you in this reply so I'll ask them again. You're a fallible human being like the rest of us right? You've screwed up in multiple ways just like all folk right, to whatever extent that might happen to be? Yet you decree that other people deserve to be in torment for an eternity because you did something to avoid it?

Perfect description of me - flawed. I can escape torment because of what Christ has done. That's not my crazy notion - that's what I see taught in the Bible.

Then here lies the dichotomy. If God is love - then why create fallible creatures who for the most part would not make the mark to avoid this 'place' set up by His own parameters? Nobody gets a say in being thrust into this existence, all the pain and obstacles that can be present just on this plain and then having a handful of years to 'find the right path' or ending up there in an afterlife.

Great question - I think a bit outside the bounds of this topic. Why did God create anything rather than nothing. The Bible doesn't give a straight forward answer to this, but if God is love and if God knew the result of creating the world would be that some would reject him, then he must have taken that into consideration and still deemed that creation would result in greater net quality and love than not creating. I suppose I'd have to be God to perfectly answer that question.

You see it as a place of torment right? Torture/torment, it's pretty much semantics when you get down to it as it would be a terrible state of suffering regardless right? Why don't you see it as fiery though? Do you use your own thought processes to determine that it isn't actual fire? Why see it the way that you do? As above as regards the 'rejection' angle. It should be pretty obvious I have no truck with the concept of eternal interminable suffering although that doesn't mean I don't think justice doesn't happen, just not along 'doctrinal black and white' lines.

No doubt it would be a terrible state. A lot of the verses on hell are found in parables and Revelation - both of which are filled with non-literal language. Hell is described as a place of fire and a place of darkness. Those two things don't quite go together. I think the Bible uses this language to depict a terrible place. I don't think an infinity of inflicting physical pain would accomplish justice. The penalty for rejecting Christ's provision to be with God is to be apart from God forever. I actually think this is worse than any physical pain. Our minds are able to cope with ongoing physical pain - eventually we can tune out the pain - but to be apart from God for all eternity - to be in regret - to replay the opportunities you had in your life to turn to God - that will haunt you for eternity - and like all mental pain and anguish, you can't tune it out.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

"For the wages of sin is death..." Death does not mean eternal life in hell being tortured alive forever, as you seem to imply, "But the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord", Eternal Life is a gift given to those who put their faith in Jesus Christ, not everyone, some in heavenly bliss and all the others in hellish torture, as you seem to imply.

Can you even show me where the Bible says that "death" really means "eternal life in hell being tortured alive"??? That definition is truly bizarre, but if you show me where the Bible says this, I will accept it. I'm expecting you to show me a passage that DOESN'T SAY "death really means eternal life in hell being tortured alive forever", while claiming it does. Either that, or you will run away with a statement like "I've already shown you a verse that says that, but you rejected it." I'm just wondering now, which tactic you will use, since I've been down this road with torturists before.

I never attempted to say death means being tortured in hell forever. Death is a spiritual state of being dead to God - the end result of this state is that you spend eternity apart from God - hell.

I hope that clarifies it.

Yes, eternal life is for those who are in Christ - but eternal existance in hell is not eternal life. Jesus explains what eternal life is - it is knowing Jesus and knowing the Father (John 17:3). This eternal life is a present reality for the Christian (John 3:36) - and it reaches fulfillment by spending eternity with God.

Again, my point in saying any of this is to reject your simplistic interpretation of Romans 6:23. Again, Paul said he was dead.

 

[KingdomRose]

Could you do us a favor, show us the scriptures that describe the Christian hell like they describe it.

You know what scriptures they'll come up with, and the whole bottom line is that Jesus was not talking about a literal hell-fire, but he spoke in metaphors. "Gehenna" is translated as hell-fire, but when Christ mentions Gehenna he is focusing on the RESULT of a fire in the dump rather than the fire itself. Hell-fire proponents just see the fire. They don't understand that Jesus wasn't saying there is a literal fire, but that whoever is wicked will be totally destroyed, just as something that is set on fire would be---gone.:burnlib: