God sends people to Hell

[ManBearPig]

This is one of my pet peeves, so I thought I'd make a topic about it. It's quite common on these forums that a Christian will say

God doesn't send people to Hell. People send themselves!

Not only is this completely nonsensical (would anyone ever say thieves "send themselves" to prison?), but also unbiblical, since the Bible unequivocally declares God to be a Judge, regularly "damning" people and "casting" them into pits and whatnot.

So does God send people to Hell? If so, why do so many Christians refuse to admit it?

[Greatest I Am]

Bound for Hell.
We are moving to a society where parents are forced to accept blame for the actions of offsprings as well as others. IE. The laws relating to responsibility of hosts at a party. Responsibility for property damage by youth.
As this relates to sin and hell.
God creates our souls. He allows this soul to follow it's God given nature till death. He must take responsibility then for the action's of this soul. Jesus died to show us that sin was forgiven. This obvious condition existed before the crucifixion and therefore the Crucifixion was only a confirmation of an existing condition of innocence on the part of the soul. God knew His responsibility, we just forgot it and Jesus was the reminder.

From this point of view we bear no responsibility for sin because the penalty we never had, as reenforced by Jesus and the Crucifixion.

Things are as they should be.

It is ridiculous to think that God would loose part of his universe to a place called hell where God does not rule. The existence of hell would be a blight on a universe that is perfect except for that little area were God has no power. Ridiculous.

Regards
DL

[Jester]

Bound for Hell.
We are moving to a society where parents are forced to accept blame for the actions of offsprings as well as others. IE. The laws relating to responsibility of hosts at a party. Responsibility for property damage by youth.
As this relates to sin and hell.

This cannot be accepted as an argument in that it uses a characteristic of our culture by which to judge the actions of a deity, who is, by definition, a better judge of ethics than culture. For this argument to become valid, we would have to first establish either that this cultural belief is true in spite of what God believes (an impossible task), that God agrees with it (a scriptural argument), or that the Christian God does not exist (in which case, the point is moot). Thus, scripture is the only valid source of evidence regarding this particular argument.

God creates our souls. He allows this soul to follow it's God given nature till death. He must take responsibility then for the action's of this soul.

I believe this to be an arbitrary statement. On what ethical grounds is God responsible for the actions of all others? If we accept (even hypothetically) the existence of God, then do we automatically have to accept that the divine caused misdeeds by ‘programming’ humans to do them? I would say that this is outside of the Christian definition of God. Rather, human beings were given the ability to reprogram themselves, and do. One may argue that this God does not exist, but one cannot hypothetically accept his existence, then argue under assumptions that are outside of the original definition.

Jesus died to show us that sin was forgiven. This obvious condition existed before the crucifixion and therefore the Crucifixion was only a confirmation of an existing condition of innocence on the part of the soul. God knew His responsibility, we just forgot it and Jesus was the reminder.

This is true from a certain perspective. I will address my disagreement shortly.

From this point of view we bear no responsibility for sin because the penalty we never had, as reenforced by Jesus and the Crucifixion.

This is where we are stepping outside of Christian theology. The forgiveness of God, reinforced by the Crucifixion allows all people the opportunity to come to union with God (heaven) or separation from God (Hell). Each has an individual choice, and the Bible clearly teaches that the spiritual ‘territory’ that is not filled with God is full of deep suffering, and that (while the road to God is difficult and often painful) the presence of the divine is ultimately and completely fulfilling. Thus, you are correct to say that we do not have responsibility for what we have done (that is the doctrine of forgiveness), but it does not logically follow that we do not have the power to make the correct (or incorrect) choice (the doctrine of free will). God will let any given individual reject him, and face the consequences, if that is what he/she chooses.

Things are as they should be.

I think people of all (or at least nearly all) religions and philosophies can agree that this is not the case.

It is ridiculous to think that God would loose part of his universe to a place called hell where God does not rule. The existence of hell would be a blight on a universe that is perfect except for that little area were God has no power. Ridiculous.

Hell is not a physical part of the universe; it is a spiritual (or psychological, to use the scientific term) state of being. Again, if we are discussing the Christian definition of Hell, God does have power there (illustrated by the symbolic reference: Christ possessing the keys of Hell). He specifically chooses not to use that power in order to force people to accept him against their wishes. His power is used to keep anyone out of hell who wishes him to do so.

[Jester]

They are innocent until they touch themselves then it is the devil's playground Mack.

LOL

[Greatest I Am]

Hi, Jester

The Bible does not address directly the issue of parents paying for the misdeeds of children. It does give a direction for thought.

Matthew 7:11 (Read all of Matthew 7)
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Matthew 12:27 (Read all of Matthew 12)
And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

Corinthians 7:14 (Read all of 1 Corinthians 7)
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children
unclean; but now are they holy.

2 Corinthians 12:14 (Read all of 2 Corinthians 12)
Behold, the third time I am ready to come to you; and I will not be burdensome to you: for I seek not yours, but you: for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.

The above show that children can be holy here on earth, that they will judge us, that it is good to give them gifts and it is to parents to lay up for the children.

History also tells us that in a patriarchal system as existed then, the patriarch was the one to speak to when dealing with such maters. A claimant did not abuse the child in those days for fear of retribution.
This would have been a given to the writers of the Bible which may explain why so little of the Bible speaks to children..

Further, would not all men stand for their children as the need arises.

As my creator, I expect that God would have made me perfectly suited for the function that I was created for. Therefore if I were to do something evil, the responsibility lies with God.
If I build a perfect car and sell it to you, and you get ten miles and the car falls apart, who is to blame. The car or me. I must take the blame.
I believe that the world is in balance in terms of good and evil. If someone does something evil, and they do, then I expect that there is enough good being done elsewhere to compensate. I still do not like seeing the evil and in no way am I saying that we can sin without penalty because there is one.

The Bible is the best road-map to God. Jesus is our best example of the character of God.

“but it does not logically follow that we do not have the power to make the correct (or incorrect) choice (the doctrine of free will). God will let any given individual reject him, and face the consequences, if that is what he/she chooses. “.

You are correct but how you read any disagreement by me to this statement you would need to explain.

Greatest I Am wrote:
Things are as they should be.

I think people of all (or at least nearly all) religions and philosophies can agree that this is not the case.
We were told to go and reproduce and to climb the tree. We have a population that is growing and the numbers seeking a God increase as well. God has provided a Perfect environment for these things to happen. The fact of no major intervention on God’s part means that things are progressing as His will dictates.
Any philosophy of God or Church that does not include Perfection as an attribute to God is a false prophet.

Your description of hell and your “ Christ possessing the keys of Hell). He specifically chooses not to use that power in order to force people to accept him against their wishes. His power is used to keep anyone out of hell who wishes him to do so.” I will ignore except to note.

Who do you know would want Christ to keep them in hell. Who will sit there burning and not ask for forgiveness. Really.

If you see Jesus as standing over someone in hell with a spiritual or physical club, it would be unfortunate.

This would mean a failure on His part in explaining a philosophy that is the best. Failure for God is not allowed. God would not be seen as sitting on His throne looking down on all of the failures that man has laid at His feet.

Regards
DL

[joer]

Howdy Jester. Thanks for the courteous reply. You wrote:

I must give a bit of an apology. I misspoke (or miswrote, actually) with the term ‘choice’. The possibility of unconscious choice is there, but you are right to say that it is not clear. What I should have written (the way it was meant in spite of my poor communication) was that there is a clear possibility of choice (though it would certainly be unconscious in nature). I hope that strikes you as a more reasonable statement.

I would have to disagree that a baby sins by making an unconscious choice. I believe that most would agree that "choice" is a conscious action. In addition Sin would also take a conscious action. You don’t unconsciously sin.

It’s(sin) wrong you are cognitive of it being wrong and you do it anyway. That’s sin IMHO. There’s no indication in the following definition of “Choice” of it being an unconscious decision. So I cannot accept your tenet of the “possibility of choice (though it would certainly be unconscious in nature).”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice

Choice consists of that mental process of thinking involved with the process of judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one for action. Simple examples can involve deciding whether to get up in the morning or go back to sleep, or selecting a given route to make a journey across a country.
Most people generally regard having choices as a good thing. But a severely limited or artificially restricted choice can lead to discomfort with choosing or even to unsatisfactory outcomes. On the contrary, unlimited choice may lead to confusion, regret of the alternatives not taken, and indifference in an unstructured existence; and the illusion that choosing an object or a course leads necessarily to control of that object or course can cause psychological problems.

So I still maintain until the baby can “choose to do wrong”, it is incapable of Sin.

I also recognize truths outside of those contained in biblical scriptures. As in the Constitution of the US where it is said, “we hold these truths to be self evident” even though it’s not biblical I do hold the truths of Human rights contained there in as self evident. Of course at the time the American Revolutionaries were quite in the minority with their opinions as stated in the Constitution. But today I would say the majority of the educated civilized world would agree with those truths of human rights.

Anyway Jester, Thanks for the reply. God Bless my brother or sister. 

[Jester]

The above show that children can be holy here on earth, that they will judge us, that it is good to give them gifts and it is to parents to lay up for the children.

History also tells us that in a patriarchal system as existed then, the patriarch was the one to speak to when dealing with such maters. A claimant did not abuse the child in those days for fear of retribution.

This true thus far, though I would add that love for children is considered to be the desirable motivation (though I’d assume you’d agree on that one)

This would have been a given to the writers of the Bible which may explain why so little of the Bible speaks to children..

Further, would not all men stand for their children as the need arises.

This is true, and a valid personal question. The quick theological answer is that God does stand for his children. I know that there is much more to be discussed along these lines, but feel that this is a defendable claim.

As my creator, I expect that God would have made me perfectly suited for the function that I was created for. Therefore if I were to do something evil, the responsibility lies with God.
If I build a perfect car and sell it to you, and you get ten miles and the car falls apart, who is to blame. The car or me. I must take the blame.

I can see your issue here, but do not believe that this necessarily follows. There is a difficulty here in that this argument does not address the possibility of free choice.
Essentially, the idea that one’s evil actions are God’s doing rests on the concept that no human being is able to act in any way contrary to our genetic and social programming. Though this is an existing theory, I find it to be drastically oversimplified. If one is able to make choices as a matter of will, rather than purely as a response to biological and external pressures, then one is responsible for said choices. For the responsibility to be placed on another, it must first be shown that humans are not capable of acting outside their own nature.

I believe that the world is in balance in terms of good and evil. If someone does something evil, and they do, then I expect that there is enough good being done elsewhere to compensate. I still do not like seeing the evil and in no way am I saying that we can sin without penalty because there is one.

I appreciate this philosophy; in particular, I completely agree that evil is not something to be desired. Personally, I’ve never personally considered good and evil a spectrum that could be balanced, I’ve always believed “the more the good, and the less the evil, the better”.

Things are as they should be.

I think people of all (or at least nearly all) religions and philosophies can agree that this is not the case.

We were told to go and reproduce and to climb the tree. We have a population that is growing and the numbers seeking a God increase as well. God has provided a Perfect environment for these things to happen. The fact of no major intervention on God’s part means that things are progressing as His will dictates.
Any philosophy of God or Church that does not include Perfection as an attribute to God is a false prophet.

I agree that God is perfect, but I see nothing in the Bible that indicates that God is being perfectly followed (quite the opposite, in fact). It seems to be clear, then, that the Bible is of the opinion that people are able to disobey God’s intention for their lives.

Your description of hell and your “ Christ possessing the keys of Hell). He specifically chooses not to use that power in order to force people to accept him against their wishes. His power is used to keep anyone out of hell who wishes him to do so.” I will ignore except to note.

Who do you know would want Christ to keep them in hell. Who will sit there burning and not ask for forgiveness. Really.

Anyone who remains convinced that God is not what he/she wants. Hell, by this definition, would not be a pit of fire, but a state of being completely separated from God or anything that resembles his purposes. That is to say that the further one gets from God, the more selfish one becomes. This selfishness is rooted in a belief that one knows what is best for his or herself, and seeks those things rather than seeking God. It is a state of self delusion which leaves one with the firm belief that God is not the answer.
A severe drug addiction is an excellent example: It is characterized by the certainty that one can be happy with enough dope, and a willingness to sacrifice deeply to get it (if deep enough, anything will be sacrificed). Telling such a person that sobriety (which would include facing the problems that he/she had been hiding from in drugs) is the road to ease his/her suffering will not be met with glee. It may be the truth, but the self-delusional state of the person will keep him/her from seeing it.
Anything one bases one’s happiness and self-worth on would become a similar addiction. It is easy to envision a person being willing to sacrifice God for the sake of pursuing something else- if he/she were convinced that it was the way to happiness.

This would mean a failure on His part in explaining a philosophy that is the best. Failure for God is not allowed. God would not be seen as sitting on His throne looking down on all of the failures that man has laid at His feet.

Failure is not overlooked, but failure is forgiven. I believe that no objective judge would ever have terms like “close enough”. Perfection or nothing really needs to be the standard. But, as no one is perfect, forgiveness would have to be necessary.
That is the best summation I have thus far.

[Jester]

I loved your response, it was both kind and insightful.
As for my thoughts, here we go:

I would have to disagree that a baby sins by making an unconscious choice. I believe that most would agree that "choice" is a conscious action. In addition Sin would also take a conscious action. You don’t unconsciously sin.

In my understanding, there is no clear answer to this issue spelled out in scripture. I would argue, however, that the Bible (the New Testament in particular) discusses spirituality an internal condition of the heart rather than as an external code of action. When one considers the implications of this, one is led to the idea that sin (as the opposite of spirituality) is equally an internal condition. Of course, both these conditions have profound impacts on our actions, but we cannot be led to believe that God looks at our actions, rather than our hearts. At the very least, we need not worry over the issue of the word choice; it is a matter of the spiritual state of our hearts that is the issue. I am inclined to believe that a fetus begins with a positive state of heart, but feel that this is pure conjecture. The underlying point is that (while the two are usually very closely related) it is the condition of the heart, rather than a conscious moment of choice, that is God’s primary concern.

I believe that should clarify my position a bit further. I must admit that it was a mistake to have used the term choice. It was misleading, to say the very least.

Anyway Jester, Thanks for the reply. God Bless my brother or sister. 

God bless you as well. I greatly appreciate your comments and insights.

[Greatest I Am]

Hi Jester Thanks for the thanks.

You said
“biological and external pressures, then one is responsible for said choices. For the responsibility to be placed on another, it must first be shown that humans are not capable of acting outside their own nature.”

It is not possible for a person to act outside of his nature unless coursed or helped. We are physically hampered, we cannot fly, a physical limitation. Our environment is completely supplied by God, a mental limitation.. If God supplies a hateful father for a child who then runs away from abuse to a life of prostitution, Is he or she responsible for sin. God is controlling all. We have been forgiven, not forgiven, exonerated might be a better word, right from the beginning.
No original sin. The only reason that “sin” if we then can call it that, is to help us in our climb. This is why judgment is mine says the Lord. He is the only one to know all the detail surrounding a “sinful” situation.

You said
“I agree that God is perfect, but I see nothing in the Bible that indicates that God is being perfectly followed (quite the opposite, in fact). It seems to be clear, then, that the Bible is of the opinion that people are able to disobey God’s intention for their lives. “

Where is it written that “followed perfectly” is a requirement for God’s world. If He wanted it to be it would be. I am not always sure of how God balances the world, I trust His judgment on this and agree with you on increasing the amount of good..

Being completely separated from God is impossible. The Holy Ghost makes it’s connection at the moment of conception and does not ever separate. No choice.

“Self delusion”
An interesting concept. I place such possibilities with subconscious mind, the id, the super-consciousness etc. Just which mind do we blame. I believe we have only one consciousness. We can have only one master. ” A hose divided against itself cannot stand“.
It might be fun to listen in on the conversation of one who is trying to self delude. Yes, No, Slap, Yes, NO.


“Failure is not overlooked, but failure is forgiven. I believe that no objective judge would ever have terms like “close enough”. Perfection or nothing really needs to be the standard. But, as no one is perfect, forgiveness would have to be necessary.
That is the best summation I have thus far.

If no one is perfect then we must date the loss, on God’s part, to create Perfection. No such date. Borne Perfect , Perfect we remain. We have no choice.

We all have been told from birth that our soul somehow automatically has a spot of sin on it.
How this particular bit of stupidity started I do not know but this belief "as far as I'm concern has caused more grief for us than any other message from the Bible. I wish I could scrap this stupid notion from the Bible.

Regards
DL

[ManBearPig]

He specifically chooses not to use that power in order to force people to accept him against their wishes. His power is used to keep anyone out of hell who wishes him to do so...

...A severe drug addiction is an excellent example: It is characterized by the certainty that one can be happy with enough dope, and a willingness to sacrifice deeply to get it (if deep enough, anything will be sacrificed). Telling such a person that sobriety (which would include facing the problems that he/she had been hiding from in drugs) is the road to ease his/her suffering will not be met with glee. It may be the truth, but the self-delusional state of the person will keep him/her from seeing it.

Ugh, you make me nauseous, Jester. I mean that in the nicest way possible . Honestly, doesn't this strike you as ridiculous???

So I'll continue with your analogy, since you picked it. You have a son who becomes addicted to drugs. He no longer has any interest in you whatsoever, but cares only about feeding his addiction. In fact, he rejects you. And of course as he does this, he continues on this path of self-destruction which will inevitably lead to his death.

You love him deeply, so naturally you don't intervene. You realize, "hey, I told him drugs were bad, but he's made his choice! He had his chance, he didn't choose me, and I must respect his wishes!"

This is God as you describe Him, yes? Where have I gone wrong with my (your) analogy?

[Jester]

It is not possible for a person to act outside of his nature unless coursed or helped. We are physically hampered, we cannot fly, a physical limitation. Our environment is completely supplied by God, a mental limitation.. If God supplies a hateful father for a child who then runs away from abuse to a life of prostitution, Is he or she responsible for sin. God is controlling all. We have been forgiven, not forgiven, exonerated might be a better word, right from the beginning.

I personally believe that we are in control of developing our wills. That is to say that, while a negative action in response to a negative action is understandable, it is not good. Even the laws of most countries in the world do not defend revenge killing as a viable excuse for murder (holding the killer responsible in spite of the preceding circumstances). I would say that the more intense the situation, the greater the moral fiber required to do the right thing (which is why the moral character of one person cannot be easily compared to the next based on simple external actions). While I agree that a person cannot fly, I do not personally believe that it logically follows that we cannot act outside of our biological and social programming.

No original sin. The only reason that “sin” if we then can call it that, is to help us in our climb. This is why judgment is mine says the Lord. He is the only one to know all the detail surrounding a “sinful” situation.

I heartily agree with the basic statement here. We cannot pretend to know the hearts of others, and must not judge.

“I agree that God is perfect, but I see nothing in the Bible that indicates that God is being perfectly followed (quite the opposite, in fact). It seems to be clear, then, that the Bible is of the opinion that people are able to disobey God’s intention for their lives. “

Where is it written that “followed perfectly” is a requirement for God’s world. If He wanted it to be it would be. I am not always sure of how God balances the world, I trust His judgment on this and agree with you on increasing the amount of good..

One could argue that it is written in the Bible. He could force people to behave in a certain way, but does not. Instead, he commands it, asking that what he wants will be followed voluntarily. That is to say that not everything he wants will come (i.e. “Love your neighbor as yourself”, “Do not steal”, if you are a Trinitarian, even Christ’s lack of desire to be Crucified is his not getting what he wanted. I believe that the Bible presents God as one who is willing to not get what he wants if it means that we are allowed to do things our way.

Being completely separated from God is impossible. The Holy Ghost makes it’s connection at the moment of conception and does not ever separate. No choice.

I’m not aware of a scriptural support for this.

“Self delusion”
An interesting concept. I place such possibilities with subconscious mind, the id, the super-consciousness etc. Just which mind do we blame. I believe we have only one consciousness. We can have only one master. ” A hose divided against itself cannot stand“.
It might be fun to listen in on the conversation of one who is trying to self delude. Yes, No, Slap, Yes, NO.

According to psychology (and, I would say, the Bible) all people are at least slightly self delusional. The goal is to work on lessening this as much as possible.

If no one is perfect then we must date the loss, on God’s part, to create Perfection. No such date. Borne Perfect , Perfect we remain. We have no choice.

I would definitely argue that this runs counter to the Bible. It would infer that God purposely created Satan to be evil (otherwise, he would have had no choice but to be good). At this point, I still do not believe that we have ruled out the possibility that we humans, who were originally morally spotless, “dirtied” ourselves along the way.

We all have been told from birth that our soul somehow automatically has a spot of sin on it.

This is true, but I don’t personally believe it. I believe that we start off clean, but each start making compromises with our morals very early on.

How this particular bit of stupidity started I do not know but this belief "as far as I'm concern has caused more grief for us than any other message from the Bible. I wish I could scrap this stupid notion from the Bible.

I don’t think it really is in the Bible, just one interpretation of it.