That is the theory that Stan is operating under. Or at least appears to be and I'm pretty sure it is, but since he doesn't answer direct questions directly, I could be mistaken. I believe that other conservative religionists (Craig and perhaps Marshal) disagree at least in part with that, but there again, it's hard to say. I think they ALL hold the theory that God will send most of humanity to hell. But any one of them can clarify if they do so directly and clearly and respectfully.
Before I go further, I'm not coming down on this side or that side of "Is this human theory/tradition a correct understanding of the Bible...?" I'm saying it's missing the point (and yes, of course, IF we only had the written text of the biblical passages to know and understand ANYTHING, then I'd come down on the side of Hell no, hell doesn't make biblical, rational or moral sense).
To Stan, I said and asked:
I could be mistaken, but I'd be willing to
bet that there is only ONE (or perhaps a handful) of places where a
passage offers words that COULD be taken to suggest that most people
will be condemned to eternal torture (uggh! What evil news, literally as
far apart as possible from actual Good News!).
I'd guess the main place that SOME might interpret that way would be from Matthew 7, the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says (in context):
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Now, I can certainly see how, if that last part was THE ONE AND ONLY INFORMATION that was told to you to be about God and an afterlife, that some might say, "well, wait, does that mean most people are heading towards "destruction..."? And if so, what does that mean?"
But it doesn't perforce demand a "hell" of eternal torture for most of humanity. There are many ways to be destroyed. A town may be destroyed and then rebuilt, after all. This could be more temporal and in this life, in intention. It could also be hyperbole, could it not? Also, keep in mind, the Greek word there might best be translated as Ruin or Loss or Perdition... or other words suggest the notion of "destroy" (of course, destruction/be destroyed). But that would raise another problem. A thing destroyed has ceased to exist. It is not kept alive in torment, it's gone.
Then again, consider the context. The verses right before it assure us that (or course) a Good God knows how to give good gifts and WILL give good gifts because that is the nature of a good human and a good God. Heck, the passage says, even "bad" people know to give good gifts.
Presumably then, the person who finds themselves in torment or torture may well ask for relief - it's a perfectly human thing to do, after all. AND, according to the text in this same proof text of yours, a good God stands ready and willing to give good gifts, to give relief to that torment.
Because, of course, that's what being perfectly good, perfectly loving and perfectly just beings do, right?
So even the ONE text that you're most likely to point to as "proof" of "most" people being tortured for an eternity undermines that theory. And, of course, does not insist upon that theory. That is reading INTO the text something it doesn't demand. Who says this is a text about an afterlife? Not the text. Who says this text is intended to be understood literally? Not the text.
I'd guess the main place that SOME might interpret that way would be from Matthew 7, the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says (in context):
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.
“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Now, I can certainly see how, if that last part was THE ONE AND ONLY INFORMATION that was told to you to be about God and an afterlife, that some might say, "well, wait, does that mean most people are heading towards "destruction..."? And if so, what does that mean?"
But it doesn't perforce demand a "hell" of eternal torture for most of humanity. There are many ways to be destroyed. A town may be destroyed and then rebuilt, after all. This could be more temporal and in this life, in intention. It could also be hyperbole, could it not? Also, keep in mind, the Greek word there might best be translated as Ruin or Loss or Perdition... or other words suggest the notion of "destroy" (of course, destruction/be destroyed). But that would raise another problem. A thing destroyed has ceased to exist. It is not kept alive in torment, it's gone.
Then again, consider the context. The verses right before it assure us that (or course) a Good God knows how to give good gifts and WILL give good gifts because that is the nature of a good human and a good God. Heck, the passage says, even "bad" people know to give good gifts.
Presumably then, the person who finds themselves in torment or torture may well ask for relief - it's a perfectly human thing to do, after all. AND, according to the text in this same proof text of yours, a good God stands ready and willing to give good gifts, to give relief to that torment.
Because, of course, that's what being perfectly good, perfectly loving and perfectly just beings do, right?
So even the ONE text that you're most likely to point to as "proof" of "most" people being tortured for an eternity undermines that theory. And, of course, does not insist upon that theory. That is reading INTO the text something it doesn't demand. Who says this is a text about an afterlife? Not the text. Who says this text is intended to be understood literally? Not the text.
So, beyond that one text which doesn't say directly at all what you think it says and which, in context, undermines the notion of a cruel and evil eternal torture for most people, what OTHER passages would you look to in order to even TRY to make a consistent, rational and biblical case for the theory that most of humanity will be tortured forever, per "god" and, indeed," that this "god" created most of humanity for the sole purpose of torturing them forever - AND, for the purpose of bringing "glory" to that little devilish imp-godling? (And God have mercy, what an awful, belittling way to speak of God. "god" as the Eternal Bully. I guess I just have a high view of God, that way!)
Here's what the conservatives at the Gospel Coalition offer as the ten most compelling ("foundational") passages for eternal torture...
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/ten-foundational-verses-for-eternal-punishment-in-hell/
Look at them with an objective eye. Can you see that they do not even begin to point to the notion that these passages insist upon the bad news of eternal torture... and certainly not for MOST of humanity? If not, can you at least see where decent rational people of good faith would object to these theories?
Each of these passages are built upon unspecified/vague claims that "the evil" ones or those who "worship the beast" or those who reject God... and none of them insist that this is the majority of humanity. That would be reading INTO the text something that isn't there. Right?
Is it the case that your one and only verse for theorizing that "most" of humanity will suffer the bad/evil news of eternal torture is the Matthew 7 one... which does not say that directly at all? Or, at the very least, can you see why reasonable people throughout church history have, in good faith, disagreed with that human theory?
And also, can you even acknowledge that this IS a human theory, not something God has told you? I'm pretty sure the answer is no, that it's a foregone conclusion and those who disagree with this human theory disagree with "god." But you all tell me.
Stan:
...completely ignore the vast numbers of verses regarding judgment and hell...
I know this "vast number of verses about hell" is accepted dogma amongst some conservatives, but have you counted that? Did you know Jesus seemed to address something like Hell about maybe, six or seven times in the gospels (not individual mentions, but passages - in Matthew 5, for instance, in the space of three or so verses he uses the word three times, but that's really one instance of teaching)? And really, it's probably closer to three to five separate, distinct instances/teachings.
FIVE entire times that Jesus brings it up... AND without clarifying if he meant it literally or figuratively or otherwise.
Perhaps it's not something Jesus concentrated on as much as you have been taught to believe? (I was certainly indoctrinated to believe that wholeheartedly until I read more closely.)
Poverty was spoken of (by Jesus) more like 20-30 times (at least - even more, when considering context), by way of comparison... and homosexuality, Zero times, by way of comparison).
And as to "Jesus speaking more of hell than heaven," that would depend upon interpretations, but I'd say you'd really have to stretch the meaning of the texts to reach that conclusion.
Jesus spoke endlessly of the realm of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, etc. These ARE passages of heaven, I'd say and that would equal way more than the five Hells that Jesus mentions. There are 31 distinct mentions of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew alone (and again, some of those are repeats of the word within one passage/teaching, but still).
Kingdom of God, on the other hand, shows up 54 times in the four gospels.
Jesus certainly did not talk more about hell than heaven and he barely spoke of hell. Just fyi.
10 comments:
My main question to these folks who believe as I was taught as a youngster is...
Can you at least see how many people of good faith read your words and it sounds like you're demonizing God? But that's another question I never get an answer to.
One thing I have heard them say in their defense of their human tradition is that "Well, the church has believed this for two millenia, we shouldn't just change our position because 21st century Dan has another opinion..." As if this was something that I'm making up from nowhere and there have been no others throughout church history to disagree with their opinions. Of course, there have been.
And just today, I came across a 1928 book of poetry from a Kentucky poet where his first poem speaks of this and how the religionists (my word, not his) "...blasphemes God as monster-autocrat, less merciful than the creature he begat..."
It's not just a modern concern. Of course.
Universal salvation has been argued many times from the earliest days of the Church because Christians believe in the eternal love of god and the reconciliation of all creation by Christ. “For God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile to Himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through His blood, shed on the cross."
In other places Paul seems to believe in annihilation not eternal hell. While Matthew retains an image of eternal hell.
Clement of Alexandria softly suggested a long punishment but not eternal. Origen. Theodore of Mopsuestia. The Cappadocian Fathers of the 4th century suggested that every soul would, metaphorically, have the rust of sin burnished off, some would need a longer time in the fire of justice. Isaac of Syria. John Scotus Eriugena. Julian of Norwich. Solomon of Akhlot.
And then, aside from the mushrooming post-Enlightenment modernizing of half of the Protestant side, young Catholic theologians at the turn of the century started a “resourcement” movement which re-elevated the earliest of Church theologians. Some of them returned to universal salvation found in the ancients. Hans Urs von Balthasar was one:
"Thomas Aquinas taught that 'one can hope for eternal life for the other as long as one is united with him through love,' and from which of our brothers would it be permissible to withhold this love?….
The certainty that a number of men, especially unbelievers, must end in hell we can leave to Islam, but we must likewise contrast Christian 'universality of redemption to Jewish salvation-particularism'. Hermann-Josef Lauter poses the uneasy question: 'Will it really be all men who allow themselves to be reconciled? No theology or prophecy can answer this question. But love hopes all things (I Cor. 13:7). It cannot do otherwise than to hope for the reconciliation of all men in Christ. Such unlimited hope is, from the Christian standpoint, not only permitted but commanded.'
All merciful love can thus descend to everyone. We believe that it does so. And now, can we assume that there are souls that remain perpetually closed to such love? As a possibility in principle, this cannot be rejected. In reality, it can become infinitely improbable—precisely through what preparatory grace is capable of effecting in the soul.[19]
And there is Edith Stein, the converted Jewish Carmelite saint:
“All-merciful love can thus descend to everyone. We believe that it does so. And now, can we assume that there are souls that remain perpetually closed to such love? As a possibility in principle, this cannot be rejected. In reality, it can become infinitely improbable—precisely through what preparatory grace is capable of effecting in the soul. It can do no more than knock at the door, and there are souls that already open themselves to it upon hearing this unobtrusive call. Others allow it to go unheeded. Then it can steal its way into souls and begin to spread itself out there more and more... If all the impulses opposed to the spirit have been expelled from the soul, then any free decision against this has become infinitely improbable.”
The need for an absolute hell serves only those who hate others so much they put themselves in the place of god. The high point of using hell was when Protestants and Catholics were burning each other.
The Thugs - Stan, the fake Scot, Marshal, Craig (and maybe Bubba?) still live in the hate of the murderous 16th and 17th centuries Christian against Christian.
God so loved the world that he sent his Son. The Thugs don’t think that - in eternity - that is enough. Because they don’t believe in the Son. They believe in law.
“But the Lord of hosts, him you shall regard as holy; let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he will become a sanctuary, and a stone of offense, and a rock of stumbling to both houses of Israel, a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many shall stumble thereon; they shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken.”
“Jesus said to them, ‘Have you never read in the scriptures:
“The very stone which the builders rejected
has become the head of the corner;
this was the Lord’s doing,
and it is marvelous in our eyes”?’”
“Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God’s sight chosen and precious; and like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For it stands in scripture:
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious,
and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.”
To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe,
“The very stone which the builders rejected
has become the head of the corner,” and
“A stone that will make men stumble,
a rock that will make them fall”;
for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.”
Your opinion is dumb, and you should feel bad about it.
[rolls eyes]
With all the advances in technology, you'd think they could create more intelligent trolls.
No one...none of us with whom you contend...speak of an "eternally angry god" (meaning "God"), or "'god' as the Eternal Bully". No one. Just you in your poor attempts to disregard the teachings of Scripture you find personally displeasing or inconvenient.
Jesus told a parable about a man in hell, pleading for a mere drop of water to quench his thirst. He also cried out to have his living friends and relatives warned so that they might avoid his fate. What does this teach us? Two things, that we are to repent of our evil ways, believe in Christ and do so before we die. There's no "redemption" after we die, there's no "knock and the door will be opened" after we've died.
The second thing it teaches is that punishment in the afterlife is a reality.
So the concept of punishment...particularly an eternal separation from God...is an unassailable certainty. It is part of the Good News Christ preached to the poor in spirit, who believed there was no hope for them due to their honest self-reflection of their sinfulness. The Good News is that there's a way to salvation, to be redeemed in the sight of God. What possible need for such is there if there is no suffering for not accepting Him? From what will He save us? To be separated from God, but not be uncomfortable in any way? Really? How does that make any sense?
As to the number of mentions, that, as always is wholly and unequivocally of no consequence as regards the importance of any Scriptural teaching. Indeed, it's unBiblical to suggest that one things is more important than another because its referenced in some way more than other things. By your self-serving standard, Thou Shalt Not Murder isn't all that important.
Jesus taught us to pluck out our eye if we lust and to give your coat to anyone who asks.
Marshal reads the Bible - I guess - and then forgets what he read when he wakes up. He’s a buffoon.
Total failure to connect any dots and make sense of Holy Scripture. Likely because he denies the Holy Spirit.
Marshal, answer the questions in bold, below. You say:
No one...none of us with whom you contend...speak of an "eternally angry god"
From Jonathan Edwards, whom most of you all likely affirm, if you're well-read enough to be familiar with him:
“The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood...”
"...They hear indeed that there are but few saved, and that the greater part of men that have died heretofore are gone to hell..."
Edwards taught what many modern "evangelicals" believe, including probably you, Marshal: That those who fail to repent (and in just the right ways) will be sent to a torturous eternity by a god whose anger at their sins will not relent.
Answer this, Marshal: Do YOU think that God's anger will burn an eternity at the lost, however you might phrase that? AND that God's anger is more powerful than any notion of love for those sinners... that God's love will not outweigh "god's" sense of vengeance and retribution?
Marshal:
[none of us believe in] "'god' as the Eternal Bully".
I'm not saying you use those words. I'm saying you believe in a theoretically perfectly loving and perfectly just god, but in your opinions, God's "justice" involves punishing the majority of humanity with an eternity of torture for the crime of being imperfect sinners. It is a graceless bully who won't let you get over being imperfect. In the schoolyard setting, the bully sees a kid in a wheelchair or with another disability and mocks him, calling that child names I won't say here. Not that it's their fault that they are imperfect and have some disability, but still, just mocks them the same.
The same can be said of a god who created imperfect humans, KNOWS they are imperfect and who, nonetheless, will choose to punish them with eternal torture for that crime of being imperfect.
While you might not use that language - you'd say they are punished for their sins, no matter who small, IF they don't "accept Christ..." right? - can you admit that this is what you theorize AND can you see that this is much worse than even the schoolyard bully?
Marshal:
Two things, that we are to repent of our evil ways, believe in Christ and do so before we die. There's no "redemption" after we die, there's no "knock and the door will be opened" after we've died.
The second thing it teaches is that punishment in the afterlife is a reality.
Well those certainly are the traditions and theories that humans like you have believed in. But are they reality? THAT is the question at hand. You can't merely state, "I believe it so it's a reality..." You're question begging. A logical flaw.
Answer the questions, please, if you'd like to comment.
Marshal:
So the concept of punishment...particularly an eternal separation from God...is an unassailable certainty.
No. That is a crazy and subjective opinion, or at least when you're theorizing about some kind of eternal torture. But you can't bring yourself to see that it's an opinion OR that it's a crazy horror-story theory. So, what to do?
Can you at least acknowledge the reality that to many rational adults, your idea of a loving just "god" torturing most of humanity for an eternity is evil-sounding in the extreme?
Also, Marshal, speaking of the "eternally angry god" that you objected to, here's what I said in context:
[Stan]'s been dealing with the theory/tradition about an eternally angry god who, by design, loves some humans and literally hates others and that, indeed, he creates MOST people for the purpose of sending them into eternal torture/torment for the sake of "glorifying" god's own self.
So, the elements that I'm speaking about that are part of Stan's tradition (according to Stan) and that you probably largely share:
1. "God" is angry at sin. "God" hates sin. "God" can not abide sin in their presence.
2. "God" detests sin so much that all those who aren't saved (and have their "sin" "covered" by "Jesus' blood") WILL go to hell where they will be in eternal torment (something so bad as to be compared to being burned alive forever!)
3. According to Stan and his fellow human theorists (and this MAY be a point of departure for you, you tell me),
a. Not all humans will be saved;
b. No humans are capable of being saved, apart from being "called" to be among "god's elect."
c. That this "god" only chooses a tiny minority of humanity to be saved.
d. That this "god" who hates sin so much, indeed created the vast majority of humanity for the purpose of torturing them for an eternity in "hell." Why? To "bring glory to god" they theorize.
e. [An aside: HOW? You tell me. It only serves to demonize their idea of a "god" who does NOT love most of humanity and who, indeed, hates them AND this "god" created them TO hate them and their sin and to eternally punish them for their "sins..." because God's wrath will NOT be turned away. They theorize.]
I may (MAY) be using language you wouldn't use, but is that NOT a fair description of what Stan theorizes and you probably largely agree with?
If so, then can you see how "eternally angry god" is fitting, because this "god" is going to be angry forever at these people he hates and their sin, right?
Post a Comment