The Doctrine of Hell

[Jester]

It came up in another topic that Christians are varied in our descriptions of Hell. I thought that this would make an excellent point of discussion. For the sake of clarity, here are the questions for discussion.

1. How literal are the descriptions of Hell in the Bible?
(a). If they are basically literal, what can we infer about the nature of Heaven, Hell and God as Christianity describes it?
(b). If they are basically figurative, what is their purpose in being included in the Bible and, again, what can we infer about the nature of Heaven, Hell and God?

2. What is the nature of Hell?/What makes Hell so bad? (i.e. physical torture, psychological torture, separation from God, etc.)

3. How does one avoid hell? That is to say, how does one receive forgiveness from God, and why is that necessary for forgiveness?

[Greatest I Am]

he Perfection of the beginning, it shows us that evil is to be tasted by all. Eve showed us the way to go. If not, God would have adjusted things in the beginning.
We must consider God's archetype to do the right thing. Lead us to the knowledge of who and what God is.
We should emulate both Eve and God.
Why else would God pit a supernatural snake against one who did not know of good and evil?

Regards
DL

[Goat]

[Jester]

[Jester]

It is the Jewish Oral tradition that says angels do not have free will (at least one source).

Thanks, I'll check that out.
Do you know if there is any scriptural source for it (even distantly), or is it purely oral tradition?

[Beto]

When did God start losing control of His creations and or systems?

I believe that God voluntarily relinquishes a limited amount of his control in the granting of free will.

A longer leash does not equal "free will". We may have the illusion of "free will" until we do something "God" doesn't want us to do. Thinking we have it, and having it, are very different things. "Salvation" and "Damnation" are incompatible with the concept of "free will". We are not free if we cannot deny a god with total impunity.

[Goat]

It is the Jewish Oral tradition that says angels do not have free will (at least one source).

Thanks, I'll check that out.
Do you know if there is any scriptural source for it (even distantly), or is it purely oral tradition?

I believe it is mainly oral tradition.. although the Talmud says that each angel will have as it's name it's mission (angel in Hebrew is "malachim' or messenger ) which is it's mission)

Most of Jewish 'angel lore' and 'demon lore' is in the Kabbalah, which is mainly 12th century. There is some minor references in the Talmud, but in general, Judaism doesn't really dwell on them.


Angels do play a bigger role in the Apocalyptic writing, and in the pseudographicla works in the 1st century bc to 1st century ad,, these really aren't accepted into cannon.

[Greatest I Am]

[Jester]

A longer leash does not equal "free will". We may have the illusion of "free will" until we do something "God" doesn't want us to do. Thinking we have it, and having it, are very different things. "Salvation" and "Damnation" are incompatible with the concept of "free will". We are not free if we cannot deny a god with total impunity.

I think you and I are using slightly different definitions of the term free will. I mean it as the ability to make choices for one's self (i.e. a lack of mind-control). So far as I can percieve, you seem to mean it as having both the ability to make choices, and be free of the consequences of said choices.

I certainly agree that there are always consequences for our decisions, but will argue that we are allowed to do things that God doesn't want us to do. The Bible (which is the basis for defining the Christian God) makes it abundantly clear that people can and do make choices that God does not like.

Moreover, I believe that salvation is entirely compatable with the concept of free will, even by your definition (as I understand it). Quite specifically, Christian salvation is based on the idea of humans being freed of the consequences of choices God dislikes.

Of course, as you point out, it does not seem to be total freedom in that one cannot completely deny God, and still enter heaven. I'm glad you mentioned this, in that it brings me back to my original concept of Hell.

I believe that the most accurate definition of Hell is the state of being compeltely without God. Essentially, when left apart from the love and purpose provided by his presence for an eternity, we fall in to psychological and spiritual torment. Heaven is just the opposite, of course, the state of being with God: having love and fulfilling our purpose. When the Bible speaks of those who reject God as going to Hell, then, we are not dealing with an angry punishment so much as those people getting what they asked for (to not be with God). I personally believe that hell is not necesarilly eternal (that one could repent even from there and come back to God). The point is that this is absolute freedom: to be with God or not is our choice. He does not make it for us, nor does he punish us; that is done by ourselves and by demons (acting with our and their free will to cause pain). He simply allows us to reject him, saying "you know that's a really bad idea".

[Jester]

Scripture indicates that He refrained from using His power??

Look again. If He refrained in the beginning then He certainly did not when He finally did make His adjustment at flood time. Here He adjusts millions with death instead of only one or two in the beginning. This would be senseless.
A creator of anything that needs adjustment will make it at the beginning of a project, Not wait till later and look like a genocidal maniac.

Yes, I believe that God clearly refrains from using his power at times. The best example of this in the Old Testament is Exodus. On Mt. Sinai, God says that he wants to destroy all the Isrealites for turning to an idol. Moses pleads with him, and God does nothing to punish them.

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ specifically refrains from using his power in the "tempted in the desert" passage. That is a direct reference if you happen to be a trinitarian. If not, it still indicates that it is Godly to show restraint of power. Coupled with the passage in Exodus, the Biblical position seems to be clear that God does restrain himself at times.

The reason why God would be willing to kill many people, rather than put two into a position in which they could not disobey seems to be precisely the matter of restraint for the sake of free will. First, killing is a harsh term when we consider that the God who caused the flood is simultaneously sustaining the existence of thier souls. One can't say that he's really trying to destroy them if he's actively keeping them in existence.

Second, it seems clear that God is far more willing to kill than to force people to follow him. This is true whether he intended for Adam and Eve to eat the apple or not. That makes sense if you consider the idea that he wants voluntary love. If we remove this idea, however, and try to argue that he does not (and wanted them to eat the apple after specifically telling them not to do so), we are faced with many contradictions. I'll try to put together a short list of the difficulties I see. (All appologies if this comes across a bit flippant - I'm not assuming that you don't have answers to these questions, but thought that this would be the best way to clarify our points of discussion.)

1. If we cannot do things unless God wants us to, why is he so angry when we sin?

2. If everything is working according to God's plan, why does he speak about setting things right in the end? Shouldn't things allready be right?

3. If God does not refrain from using his power, why do so many things that make him angry still exist? Shouldn't they have been utterly destroyed?

4. How do we account for the passages written above (as well as several others, such as Jesus Christ's comments to the churches in Revelation, in which he recommends that people obey his teachings, rather than force them)?

5. Does this theory make God out to be a liar and/or sadistic (telling us not to sin, and that we will face hardship until we follow him perfectly while wanting us to commit sinful acts)?

I suppose you get the point. I think those might be a great tangent for us to drift into, though we might end up having to start a new thread at some point. I'd love this to go on that long, actually, it's been an interesting discussion thus far.

[Beto]

A longer leash does not equal "free will". We may have the illusion of "free will" until we do something "God" doesn't want us to do. Thinking we have it, and having it, are very different things. "Salvation" and "Damnation" are incompatible with the concept of "free will". We are not free if we cannot deny a god with total impunity.

I think you and I are using slightly different definitions of the term free will. I mean it as the ability to make choices for one's self (i.e. a lack of mind-control). So far as I can perceive, you seem to mean it as having both the ability to make choices, and be free of the consequences of said choices.

Personally, I think "free will" must be as unconditional as "love". How can a creator grant absolute and unconditional free will to any intellect that evolves into being? By not interfering with the universe from the moment it's created or set in motion. This is the one instance when I can conceive of intelligent design of the universe, but it's hardly related to any notion of "god" as it's commonly understood. Creating a Hell or devising a second death to those who disagree with its point of view is just a bit too much interference for me. And nowhere near "free will". Suppose there were so many commandments and "instructions" that, theoretically, you couldn't do basically anything without going to Hell or disappearing. When does Humanity cease to have "free will", in your opinion?

Moreover, I believe that salvation is entirely compatable with the concept of free will, even by your definition (as I understand it).

Not by my definition. It must be unconditional or it's just a measure of control.

Quite specifically, Christian salvation is based on the idea of humans being freed of the consequences of choices God dislikes.

Well, the first choice this god disliked wasn't exactly fair, or do you think Adam and Eve should've known disobeying Yahweh was wrong before eating from the tree of knowledge between good and evil? Talk about entrapment...

Hell is the state of being completely without God(...)He does not make it for us, nor does he punish us; that is done by ourselves and by demons

Where are these demons? Where do they come from? Did Yahweh create them?Where do they "live", if Hell isn't a real place? Why should I believe they are any more real than the tooth fairy?