Why?

[Oneiromancer]

I'm sorry to have to raise this question. I know it's a hard one, a confronting one, one that's hard enough that it can drive one to doubt and even despair, even madness, but — I myself am now a victim of that despair. I'm desperate for an answer: Why? If you haven't gone through this despair at some point, I advise you don't read on. But perhaps, if you've managed to get through that despair yourself, you might help me to do the same, and lead me on.

I've almost fully read the Bible recently, and, strange as it sounds, I couldn't help feeling sorry for all those sinners in hell — and I can't help but raise the question, why? Why can't God somehow help them see the light? Is it really their fault that they are ignorant? I mean, can we blame them?

I read the Bible online, so that I could copy any passages that I did not understand. Eventually, however, the only thing I could not understand was this one thing: is suffering really the best way to teach people? I know that suffering can be enlightening. I know it from experience. Yet is suffering really the best way? Is punishment the best way? There is so much suffering. I guess God has a use for it, that we have our use for it, that he is trying to help us through it.

There were many passages that raised that question, maybe citing them would make it clearer just what I meant. Because it's a question that runs very deep. It's easy to think you know the answer when you're well-off, but there's so much more suffering in the Bible than we'll ever have in our own lives.

http://cloudscape.blogspirit.com/media/ ... 146654.pdf

[Volbrigade]

Absent you say? Is your view of God not omnipresent?

God has prepared a place for Lucifer and his minions. It stands to reason that if He inhabits it, then it will contain goodness. But that doesn't seem to be the plan. Perhaps it's in some sense a "no-place" that contains nothing good; only the enraged, chaotic remnants of what were once spirits; and what were once the souls of those foolish enough to be deceived by them.

Maybe that's what the "Lake of Fire" is: the eternal burning hatred of the damned. We can't imagine the experience of immortal creatures eternally divorced from the source of all goodness and all good things, which is undoubtedly a good thing in itself.

I counter you with this. If God is omnipresent, and there is no God in Hell, then there is nothing there, and nothing doesn't exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism

It's true that God is "omnipresent." It does not follow that He is "everything." If that were the case, then "everything" would be God. That is the view of Pantheism, not Christianity.

God created that which is other than Himself -- a material universe. He even created creatures capable of doing other than His will.

To say that there is "nothing there" in Hell is inaccurate. There is something there: only we know not what. It is something like the remains, or residue, of eternal creatures once God has removed them from His presence. If you're interested in knowing what it's like there, that's easily arranged. The path is broad, and easy underfoot, that leads there. I'm thinking you won't like it.

One thing God didn't create is a lie. Here's a thought experiment for you. Is a lie a thing, or a "no-thing"? It exists as a concept, as an idea, as an utterance, as words on paper; but it refers to something that doesn't exist -- something that is counter to the truth of existence, if that's a phrase that carries any meaning.

Is that why God hates a lie? Because it is counter to the truth of His utter reality; an offense to His utter existence?

[ChaosBorders]

Absent you say? Is your view of God not omnipresent?

God has prepared a place for Lucifer and his minions. It stands to reason that if He inhabits it, then it will contain goodness. But that doesn't seem to be the plan. Perhaps it's in some sense a "no-place" that contains nothing good; only the enraged, chaotic remnants of what were once spirits; and what were once the souls of those foolish enough to be deceived by them.

Maybe that's what the "Lake of Fire" is: the eternal burning hatred of the damned. We can't imagine the experience of immortal creatures eternally divorced from the source of all goodness and all good things, which is undoubtedly a good thing in itself.

I counter you with this. If God is omnipresent, and there is no God in Hell, then there is nothing there, and nothing doesn't exist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism

It's true that God is "omnipresent." It does not follow that He is "everything." If that were the case, then "everything" would be God. That is the view of Pantheism, not Christianity.

God created that which is other than Himself -- a material universe. He even created creatures capable of doing other than His will.

To say that there is "nothing there" in Hell is inaccurate. There is something there: only we know not what. It is something like the remains, or residue, of eternal creatures once God has removed them from His presence. If you're interested in knowing what it's like there, that's easily arranged. The path is broad, and easy underfoot, that leads there. I'm thinking you won't like it.

One thing God didn't create is a lie. Here's a thought experiment for you. Is a lie a thing, or a "no-thing"? It exists as a concept, as an idea, as an utterance, as words on paper; but it refers to something that doesn't exist -- something that is counter to the truth of existence, if that's a phrase that carries any meaning.

Is that why God hates a lie? Because it is counter to the truth of His utter reality; an offense to His utter existence?

My sentence was poorly phrased, so let me restate. If God is omnipresent, then God must be present everywhere (whether perceptible or not). If Hell is a place where God is not present, then either God is not omnipresent or Hell does not exist as a place. If Hell does not exist as a place, then perhaps it may be better thought of as a termination of the soul, rather than eternal torment thereof.

Also, your lie metaphor is poorly thought out. Lies of omission are a lack of truth, but lies of commission are a fabrication or misapplication of ideas that can most definitely be considered "things".

[Volbrigade]

My sentence was poorly phrased, so let me restate. If God is omnipresent, then God must be present everywhere (whether perceptible or not). If Hell is a place where God is not present, then either God is not omnipresent or Hell does not exist as a place. If Hell does not exist as a place, then perhaps it may be better thought of as a termination of the soul, rather than eternal torment thereof.

Also, your lie metaphor is poorly thought out. Lies of omission are a lack of truth, but lies of commission are a fabrication or misapplication of ideas that can most definitely be considered "things".

We appear to be at loggerheads. You apparently believe that either God must be in Hell, or Hell doesn't exist. I believe that to be a false dichotomy.

Not to be overly technical, but I didn't present a metaphor in regard to whether or not a lie is a "thing": I merely asked a question. I don't deny that it may have been a poorly thought out one, however.

This one may be, too -- or perhaps the caffeine just hasn't taken effect yet; but can you explain to me how one "commits" a lie? Or "omits" one for that matter?

[ChaosBorders]

My sentence was poorly phrased, so let me restate. If God is omnipresent, then God must be present everywhere (whether perceptible or not). If Hell is a place where God is not present, then either God is not omnipresent or Hell does not exist as a place. If Hell does not exist as a place, then perhaps it may be better thought of as a termination of the soul, rather than eternal torment thereof.

Also, your lie metaphor is poorly thought out. Lies of omission are a lack of truth, but lies of commission are a fabrication or misapplication of ideas that can most definitely be considered "things".

We appear to be at loggerheads. You apparently believe that either God must be in Hell, or Hell doesn't exist. I believe that to be a false dichotomy.

Not to be overly technical, but I didn't present a metaphor in regard to whether or not a lie is a "thing": I merely asked a question. I don't deny that it may have been a poorly thought out one, however.

This one may be, too -- or perhaps the caffeine just hasn't taken effect yet; but can you explain to me how one "commits" a lie? Or "omits" one for that matter?

If I were only suggesting that God must be in Hell, or Hell doesn't exist, that would indeed be a false dichotomy because the option that God is not omnipresent exists. However, if part of the premise is that God is omnipresent, then it is no longer a false dichotomy because it would violate the premise for there to be a place where God is not present.

But you can't have your cake and eat it too. If God is omnipresent, then God must be in some manner present in 'Hell' or Hell should be better understood as non-existance.

I don't have my Lying and Deception textbook with me to give you an exact definition, but a Lie of Omission is deliberately leaving out part of the truth you know is relevant to the conversation. Half-truths, equivocation and such.

Lies of Commission are deliberate fabrications or alterations of the truth. Things that are more commonly referred to as lies.

[Volbrigade]

If I were only suggesting that God must be in Hell, or Hell doesn't exist, that would indeed be a false dichotomy because the option that God is not omnipresent exists. However, if part of the premise is that God is omnipresent, then it is no longer a false dichotomy because it would violate the premise for there to be a place where God is not present.

I'm sorry -- I thought we'd already established that God is omnipresent. So given that assertion: it follows, according to your position, that He must be present in Hell, or else Hell doesn't exist.

While I am fine with the latter -- the doctrine of Hell being second only to the doctrine of heterosexual monogamy in terms of unpopularity among Christian doctrines -- my preferences have no bearing on the truth of the matter.

The Bible, which I consider authoritative, makes numerous mentions of it; as does Our Lord.

Nevertheless, your objection is valid. May I suggest the problem might be properly framed by asking: how is God's omnipresence reconciled with Hell being in some sense a "place"; but a place where He is not?

I think this takes us back to my earlier mention of Hell as a place not meant for man, but for "the devil and his angels." It has been asserted that such a place would be absent of the goodness of God. But you would rightly point out that isn't existence itself of God, and isn't it therefore good?

To which I would respond that existence apart from God is not good; that in fact it is the worst thing possible -- that it is indeed Hell.

Which puts us back where we were before. So allow me to offer this: It is part of Christian doctrine that God "emptied Himself of His glory" during His incarnation. Could Hell be a place where He "empties Himself of His presence?"

There is a connection and correlation with "lies" here, I think. After all, Satan is the "father of lies." However, it's more of a bite than I'm able to chew on at the moment.

But I will offer the following for consideration:

Would it be accurate to say that a lie is statement or idea that is "empty of the truth?"

That a lie is an attempt to fabricate a false standard when measured against the real?

That the true damage done by lies, the ripple effect of evil that they generate, are the actions produced as a result of conforming to them -- and the actions produced by those actions, and so on, in what can be an indefinite chain reaction that leads to error, ignorance, pain, etc.?

Is that why God hates a lie?

Is there a difference between a lie and a mistake? If so, what?

[ChaosBorders]

I'm sorry -- I thought we'd already established that God is omnipresent. So given that assertion: it follows, according to your position, that He must be present in Hell, or else Hell doesn't exist.

While I am fine with the latter -- the doctrine of Hell being second only to the doctrine of heterosexual monogamy in terms of unpopularity among Christian doctrines -- my preferences have no bearing on the truth of the matter.

The Bible, which I consider authoritative, makes numerous mentions of it; as does Our Lord

Nevertheless, your objection is valid. May I suggest the problem might be properly framed by asking: how is God's omnipresence reconciled with Hell being in some sense a "place"; but a place where He is not?

What I do not understand is why you insist that Hell is a place God is not. There are several ways to reconcile 'Hell' with the omnipresence of God.

A) Hell is better understood as the termination of the soul. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism
B) God is present but imperceptible
C) Hell is a state of conciousness and not a place
D) Both Heaven and Hell are in the direct presence of God, but those who reject the love of God experience this presence as torture instead of peace.

The only thing that DOESN'T WORK, is a PLACE where an OMNIPRESENT GOD is NOT PRESENT. That does not work, pick another option.

It should also be noted that there are two different concepts that are sometimes translated as Hell. One of which is better described as a place, but has no indication of being more than a temporary holding area of sorts for souls. Perhaps you are confusing the two and mixing them together as the result of a poor translation?

I think this takes us back to my earlier mention of Hell as a place not meant for man, but for "the devil and his angels." It has been asserted that such a place would be absent of the goodness of God. But you would rightly point out that isn't existence itself of God, and isn't it therefore good?

To which I would respond that existence apart from God is not good; that in fact it is the worst thing possible -- that it is indeed Hell.

And I would argue that existence apart from God is nonexistance. Perhaps existance being unable to perceive God (or any of the good things provided by God) would be the worst thing possible and could be thought of as Hell. Or existence in direct opposition to God, thus reviling the good things that can be perceived. But existence completely outside of God's presence is not possible when God is omnipresent.

Which puts us back where we were before. So allow me to offer this: It is part of Christian doctrine that God "emptied Himself of His glory" during His incarnation. Could Hell be a place where He "empties Himself of His presence?"

Only if empty is taken to mean that he is not perceivable, and not that he is not present.

There is a connection and correlation with "lies" here, I think. After all, Satan is the "father of lies." However, it's more of a bite than I'm able to chew on at the moment.

But I will offer the following for consideration:

Would it be accurate to say that a lie is statement or idea that is "empty of the truth?"

That a lie is an attempt to fabricate a false standard when measured against the real?

That the true damage done by lies, the ripple effect of evil that they generate, are the actions produced as a result of conforming to them -- and the actions produced by those actions, and so on, in what can be an indefinite chain reaction that leads to error, ignorance, pain, etc.?

Is that why God hates a lie?

Is there a difference between a lie and a mistake? If so, what?

It would not be an accurate statement to say lies are empty of the truth because many (maybe even most) use at least partial truths. They frequently fabricate something that is not in actuality, but on the other hand so do stories. Are all stories to be understood as lies? You're using the lies beget lies argument for the ripple effect thing. Research indicates that is not accurate.

The difference between a lie and a mistake is generally intent.

[Volbrigade]

The only thing that DOESN'T WORK, is a PLACE where an OMNIPRESENT GOD is NOT PRESENT. That does not work, pick another option.

Thank you for the helpful suggestion. It is duly noted, and will be given all proper consideration.

It would not be an accurate statement to say lies are empty of the truth because many (maybe even most) use at least partial truths. They frequently fabricate something that is not in actuality, but on the other hand so do stories. Are all stories to be understood as lies? You're using the lies beget lies argument for the ripple effect thing. Research indicates that is not accurate.

I am reminded of Twain's remark: "The truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economize it."

This is sage advice. Prudence often requires that we impart only as much of the truth in regard to any number of things as is wise.

As for whether lies can contain partial truths -- I'd have to think that one over. Off hand, I'm inclined to think not. For instance, if you say "I have a black dog," when in fact your dog is white -- you've told a partial truth (you do have a dog), but a total lie.

As for the remark about stories, I would think that the criteria you identified below with regard to mistakes obviously applies here. A fictional story, by definition, doesn't claim to be true. It may contain and express great truths, even so; or it may "ring false" in what it conveys.

A fictional story that purported to be true would be -- well, it would be a lie.

And non-fictional stories or accounts that contain undisclosed fictional elements are referred to as mainstream media news reporting; as well as high school and college textbooks.

In reference to the "ripple effect": I don't know whose research you're referring to , but my personal research indicates that lies definitely do lead to other lies, usually in order to provide fabricated justification for the earlier lies.

But that's not the worst of it. It is the actions that are produced as a result of lies that can, and often do, lead to serious and even devastating harm. Like when a political system is founded on lies, for example.

The difference between a lie and a mistake is generally intent.

Here we are in agreement; and may be at a good stopping point. After all, we are far afield of oneiromancer's opening post. I wonder if he/she is still suffering near-despair over the suffering of the damned? I hope not. Perhaps their post was the product of a particularly bad day. That's my hope.

[ChaosBorders]

I am reminded of Twain's remark: "The truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economize it."

This is sage advice. Prudence often requires that we impart only as much of the truth in regard to any number of things as is wise.

Hardly advice, Mark Twain was making a joke. He was notorious for jokes about lies. A couple are: "Note that venerable proverb: Children and fools always speak the truth. The deduction is plain: adults and wise persons never speak it."

And "Lie--an abomination before the Lord and an ever present help in time of trouble."

http://www.twainquotes.com/Lies.html

As for whether lies can contain partial truths -- I'd have to think that one over. Off hand, I'm inclined to think not. For instance, if you say "I have a black dog," when in fact your dog is white -- you've told a partial truth (you do have a dog), but a total lie.

In reference to the "ripple effect": I don't know whose research you're referring to , but my personal research indicates that lies definitely do lead to other lies, usually in order to provide fabricated justification for the earlier lies.

But that's not the worst of it. It is the actions that are produced as a result of lies that can, and often do, lead to serious and even devastating harm. Like when a political system is founded on lies, for example.

I'm not sure how to reference half a semester's worth of material on Lying and Deception to refute this....

Here we are in agreement; and may be at a good stopping point. After all, we are far afield of oneiromancer's opening post. I wonder if he/she is still suffering near-despair over the suffering of the damned? I hope not. Perhaps their post was the product of a particularly bad day. That's my hope.

This is true. Once I have the time though I must consider starting a new thread on this topic. Something like "What does God seem to consider a lie?", "How does God's apparent definition differ from current definitions if one assumes God never lies?", "If God's definition were the same as current definitions, what (if any) are examples in the Bible of where God has lied?", "What are the implications if God has a different concept of what qualifies as a lie?"