God lets people to go to hell

Campbell...

Once again, you've followed your usual script ....reciting standard lines about prophecy while ignoring the main point. In my preceding post, this main point was in the first paragraph. I've read very many of your posts concerning Biblical prophecy as well as lots of other material on the subject, so it's not necessary to repeat it...I know where you stand.

The bit about Armageddon was a cheap shot and a distraction...apologies.

Now, without mentioning prophecy or using Biblical reference, would you please deliver a reasoned response to the first paragraph of the post?

What it all comes down to is that you can't force love with threats. The idea that God gives us the choice of loving him or being condemned to hell is like me dragging a hypothetical long-lost daughter to the edge of a volcano, and telling her that she will either love me or I will throw her into the hot lava. Yes, she may turn around and lie to me in order to save her life, but what does that mean? Love, especially spiritual love, is the ultimate positive emotion and has to originate with positive attraction.

 

This is beautiful.

 

I am not Campbell, but I will try and give you a well reasoned response.

Your analogy is seriously flawed. God does not say "love me or else!" God simply cannot tolerate sin. Not because He just doesn't like it, but because it would be unfair and unjust if He did. This has to do with the nature of sin. Basically, every sin is us saying to God "your laws mean dick and I do not honor or respect you." It is hard for westerners to understand, but in honor-shame cultures, honor is something that can be rightly deserved. If honor is something that is rightly deserved, then to deny that honor is to commit an offense against the person. Justice / equity demands that the offense be repaid. Do you understand? God cannot let it slide because to do so would be to allow injustice. Someone has to pay for the offense of dishonoring God.
Also, your might want to re-evaluate your concept of hell. There are many scriptural indications that it is more of a state of self-inflicted agony than a God-ordained torture session. What we see in scripture is a place where God effectively dishonors those who dishonor Him. He turns His back on them and, by doing so, shames them and then removes all hope of ever experiencing true joy, peace, happiness, love, or goodness. They are left to wallow in their own self-misery and shame.
Thirdly, love is *not* an emotion. It is a state of mind. A mother that loves her kids isn't sentimental when she punishes them. Her emotions might be all over the place in fact. Her love, however, demands that they are punished, prasied, fed, protected. This is not some sort of emotional state that wavers and wanes with the winds of chance, chemistry, and circumstance. This is a commitment to do what is best for the child. THAT is love. A commitment to do what is best for someone else, regardless of how you "feel" about them, regardless of your emotions, at the time.

 

Thanks for responding.

Yes, my analogy was emotional and shallow but not without substance...the way that people present God can easily give a strong first impression of "Love Me or Else!". The point remains: a spiritual life starts for the average individual with the question "how will my life be better by bringing God into it?"...the grass has to look greener on God's side of the fence or no one would jump.

Regarding love, that's a good description of the mature state.

Your characterization of hell is more state-of-mind than place...it seems as much akin to Eastern philosophy as to the orthodox Christianity I'm familiar with. In my experience, Christians have nearly always described it as a literal place where the resurrected physical body will be tortured for eternity by various means: medieval methods, unending fire, or both, with bitter regret as the accompanying state of mind...as a young boy I sat through a couple of sermons in which the minister seemed to delight in describing the torments awaiting the congregation.

 

God gives human beings free will. without freedom we would be preprogrammed robots. God doesn't force his love on people or force people to love him. without choice, love is meaningless. if God made it impossible for us to sin we wouldn't have freedom. everyone has the light of both creation and conscience. God's not hiding from us. if we respond to the light we have been given he will give us more light. we also have archeology, history, and the fullfilled prophecies found in scripture that point to the reality of God. Christianity is not a blind faith. it's really not that men don't have enough light but that men love darkness more than light as Christ says in John ch. 3. God however does not want any to go to hell as Peter points out "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." 2 Peter ch. 3. That is why he sent Christ. to make a way for us to be forgiven of our sins and have a relationship with him. He isn't going to drag people into heaven against their will kicking and screaming either. As the apostle Paul point out in Acts 17, "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."

 

God has put certain facts of life into motion. God is a Being that would have all people come to Him. If you are going down a road at a 100 miles an hour and hit a stone wall there is a very good chance you are going to die. God has stated there are only two roads after this life. One road leads to Hell and the other to heaven. There are no gray areas where our spirit goes to live after death. God does not tell us we must love Him to get to heaven. He does tell us, that if we confess with our mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, and accept Him as God, and live our life for Him, we will inherit eternal life. It's not our love for Him that will save us, but obediance and acceptance of Gods free gift of salvation. God is giving salvation to all who will accept it. Even God asks the question, how shall they neglect so great a salvation? Salvation is a free gift given to all who accept it. Salvation required that Gods Son be tortured and nailed to a cross and die. If you were the only one on earth that required this sacrifice to be saved. Christ would of done the same just for you. This was the only way He could show you His love for you. Jesus allowed Himself to be murdered so you could live. All you need to do, is accept His sacrifice.

 

....



............god is a toddler




...........and you are his tinker toy set




...........catch him on a good day and you are going to Heaven




...........catch him on a bad day and you are going to fry in Hell



....

 

How black and white the world is with no shades of gray.

 

I agree that it was not without substance. And yes, the "love me or else" reaction is what many people encounter with modern Christianity. The scripture, when read using a reasonable criteria (read poetic language as poetry, hyperbole as hyperbole, historical claims as history, etc.) points to a slightly different viewpoint. We see a God who desires to commune with us, but we won't have any. The thing is that the grass *is* greener on God's side of the fence. God doesn't need to coerce us. I blame modern biblically illiterate preachers going "hellfire and brimstone!" Christ's pattern of teaching was vastly different. He never denied Hell, but treated it matter of factly. He also didn't beat the "follow me or else" drum. He maintained the dignity of those around him by respecting their choice. At the same time, he promised peace, understanding, and comfort.
God woos us to him as a flower woos the bees. He doesn't need to coerce us. Unfortunately, people don't see it that way.

Thanks, I wish the thought was original to me... alas, I stand on the shoulders of giants.

I do believe in a physical resurrection. A physical hell I am less convinced of. The reason it is difficult is that the spiritual is always described in Bible through analogy and metaphor. Things like heaven and hell are typically over-literalized in my opinion. I don't believe that we can really comprehend what heaven and hell will be. I do think that we can aprehend them though.

In terms of the torments of hell (and no, the word "torture" is never used in describing hell), I believe that they might be a physical expression of an mental state. Like people who literally worry themselves sick, the torments in hell will be self-inflicted agony.

 

Alsharad...Thanks for your "reasoned resonses". I can see that you, among other notables here, are an individual who is not afraid to think in analytical and critical terms. That's a good reality check for me, because I tend to mentally stereotype Christians...a very bad habit. Unfortunately, the black/white fire-and-brimstone variety do tend to make the most noise and get the most attention.

 

SELF-INFLICTED AGONY? DOESEN'T SOUND LIKE IT TO ME.

Revelation 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, 10. The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11. And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

 

Thanks, Campbell; I've always wondered about the origin of the phrase "fire and brimstone".

 

That's because you have a poor hermenuetic, inconsistent interpretation, and a dependency on futurism to validate your faith. Either way, let's look at what you state below...

Ah, the mark of the beast. You believe that this will be an actual mark of some kind... could be a tattoo, or a microchip or a scar or something. I simply point out your literal interpretation here and contrast it with...

So, Campbell, what does the wine of the wrath of God taste like? What would it be mixed with? What is the "cup of his indignation" made of? How heavy is it? You, like most futurists, laugh at these questions. The "wine" and the "cup" are obviously metaphorical. But wait...

This *has* to be literal? So, never mind that the first part of the verse was allegorical, this describes a literal hell and not what it is like, but what it actually *is*.

And so we continue with mixing metaphor with the actual. I doubt you believe that a literal smoke of *torment* ascends. What part of "torment" burns to create smoke? And if the smoke ascends up, where does it ascend up to?

Campbell, you and futurists like you, mix metaphor and literal at your whim, by the dictates of what seems absurd to *you*. This is a poor method of scriptural interpretation. With regards to verse 11 is there any way that you can justify the position that the first part is allegorical and the second is literal when you have no contextual clues in or around the passage to indicate it? You force your model of belief into the passage as opposed to taking out of the passage what is there.

Let me clarify what I said earlier, when I said that it was self-inflicted, that is not entirely accurate. The *shame* of hell is, like all shame, both self-inflicted and the result of another's action. The agony of Hell is "inflicted" by God because He righteously and justly *rejects* the presence of the unrepentant. He turns His back on them and visits dishonor on them. However, the picture of angels torturing those who reject Christ is an inaccurate conclusion reached at the end of a poor interpretation of Scripture.

 

I have no problem with wine and cup being metaphorical. It is clearly an expression of the author speaking of the anger of God. And its meaning could only be obscured by those who would lead us to believe that Scripture cannot really be understood, because who can say where the literal ends and metaphore begins. I would add to this, that God has told us the Holy Spirit will guide us in Biblical understanding, and feel confident that those who love the Lord and seek His understanding, will be given that understanding.
The mark of the beast is literal, and this can be seen in Revelation 13:16-17.
He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17 and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. The text is very clear on this.
And im not sure why you thought I was stateing that Gods angles were doing the torturing, the text states that those being tormented were in the PRESENCE of Gods holy angles. At know time did I state the angles were doing the torturing.

 

So can you justify switching from metaphor at the beginning of the verse to literal at the end? Is this type of fast-switching between metaphor and literal a common literary device used 1st century Near-east? If you think so, please provide your sources so that I can correct my understanding. If not (or you don't know), then don't you think that you should look into the possibility that the passage is completely metaphorical or completely literal?

I agree. The problem with this "defense" is that ANYONE can use it! Hey, I didn't research my position, this is the understanding that came to me after I prayed about it. Wrapped up in your statement is not just that God *will* guide you in a biblical understanding, but the implication that He has given *you* the correct interpretation. The thing is, I believe the same thing... so how do we determine who is correct?

I would say that we should develop a method for scriptural interpretation based on reason and not on some theological (or eschatological) model that we force into scripture. What say you?

It is "clear" to a you. However, what about the understanding that "head" and "hand" in the ancient near-east are symbolic for "thought" and "action." This is completely within Biblical understanding that Christians are to be known by our thoughts and actions. Is it possible that this passage more reflects that the "mark" of the beast is the same as the mark which denotes Christians throughout history... thoughts and actions.

You are correct, my apologies. I was trying to address the idea that some have that angels or demons do the torturing. I didn't mean to imply that you thought that way.

 

that's the way I was taught it's not what you do it's that you believe in Christ and by the Grace of God you are saved and you try to do good, good works is not the way. Oh I was raised Lutheran and went to Lutheran School 4th-12th but I too have trouble with Faith it's hard to believe in something you can't see or touch. I have traveled to many places over 20 countries and have found that helping people I come in contact with is more enjoyable that trying to always get things for myself and the love of money. Hey man that's me I LOVE THE POSITIVE and stay away from the NEGATIVE. Love feels better than HATE to me how about YOU

 

How do I justify switching metaphor to the literal in the same verse?
This is a common understanding in the Christian faith, and few mainline Christians have any problem in this area. It is basic Christian understanding.
H.P. Mansfield states. Figures of speech are also used in Scripture to garnish the literal. Thus the Messiah is described as "a stone," "a branch," "a shepherd" and so forth. Both metaphor and literal speech have their functions, but each is so distinct from the other that ordinary discrimination can recognise and seperate them, THOUGH MIXED IN THE SAME SENTENCE. This will be evident on a little reflection.

We should develop a method for Scriptural interpretation based on reason and not some theological eschatological model that was forced into Scripture.

I have never felt I have used someones Model to base my belief on. That is why I was never big into ministers. Always felt they based much of their sermon on someone elses view. My understanding of prophecy has come about from my own personal study.

The mark of the Beast that I spoke of has nothing to do with Christian thought or action. For the text refers to those who are not Christian at all, and that is why they are receiving the mark. They receive the mark, because they are opposing God.

 

Metaphor and literal can be mixed in the same sentence. We do it all the time. My question is why you assume that the entire passage was not metaphor? To say that "it is a common understanding of scripture" is basically saying "because everyone else does." Is your understanding of the text consistent with the style of apocalyptic literature employed in scripture? Is your understanding the same understanding that those to whom Revelation was written (the Christians of the 1st century, not *us*)?

Based on what method? What guidlines have you set for interpreting passages in scripture? And I didn't say that you used someone else's model. However, you have your own assumptions (like that Revelation *must* be future, or that every use of the word "coming" in the scripture either refers to the 1st advent or the 2nd advent, or that the "end of the age" or the "end" always refers to the end of time) that you rely upon in your reading of scripture. So when something like Revelation rears its head, you read it through your own assumptions. This is not uncommon and we all do it to some degree.

Sorry about that. Allow me to rephrase... Christians are also given a mark earlier in Revelation. This mark resembles the mark of the beast in many ways. Is that mark a literal, physical mark? How did you come to that conclusion?

 

If the entire passages were simply Metaphore there would be little or no content to that passage. The Bible does not waste words, and the Book is trying to convey a definte warning to the people of this world. First century Christians would of had only a vague understanding to the meaning of the prophecy in Revelation, simply because prophecy is often not understood until the event actually happens. The prophecy will give a glimpse of the future, yet it is as the verse stated in Corithians. We now see through a glass darkly, but then face to face. My guide lines are simply leaning on Gods Holy Spirit. He is the one who reveals the truth. It was like the time I was comeing home from work. I was thanking the Lord for my life when He spoke to my mind and told me my wife was going to have a child. I stopped in the center of my prayer and told the Lord the my wife and I had not even discussed having another child. I then thanked the Lord for the child He was sending us. I got home and found my wife was asleep. I recall leaning against the door and saying to myself. My poor wife she is pregnant and does not even know it. I then went to sleep only to be waken up 4 hours later to see that my wife was sick in the bathroom. And the rest is history. It was Gods Holy Spirit who revealed this to me, and it is God who reveals the passages of the Scriptures. The God who revealed my wife was with child, is my guide line.
The Mark of the Beast might be simlar to the mark which Christians are given earlier in Revelation, yet, these are two seperate events. This can be seen by a quick read.

 

I commend you on your faith. Unfortunately, since you will not listen to reason, we may as well stop here. I appreciate your comments and thank you for not being nearly as inflammatory as I was.