Jump to content
IGNORED

A Philosophical Look at Hell


Recommended Posts

You have pointed out an obvious flaw in the premise that any sin deserves infinite/eternal punishment. The more logical premise is that the only sin which deserves infinite/eternal punishment is that of enmity with God and is the sin which places people into the Lake of Fire with all other sins bringing judgment and temporal punishment at the Great White Throne.

In saying enmity I suggest this is disbelief and/or rebellion.

I think your entire perspective Ninhao, is where the only flaw is. And that flaw is that you seem to operate on the premise, that what you beleive to be logical, determines how things are. Gods revelation trumps human logic. Apart from that, you say enmity with with God is the sin that gains one a place in the lake of fire. Then you go on to say: "I suggest this is disbelief and/or rebellion".

Any intentional sin (and we all do them) IS rebellion. That being the case, any intentional sin of commision or omission, is rebellion and earns us the Lake of Fire, at least that is how I see it, using 'Logic', lol. By the way, to you have a verse of passage that you beleive actually indicates any temporal punisment?

Hebrews 10

26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

I think that sort of indicates the Bible perspective of who qualifies as enemies of God - those who sin intentionally, and who have not received God's grace through faith.

Just my opinion(s)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  6,178
  • Topics Per Day:  0.88
  • Content Count:  43,784
  • Content Per Day:  6.23
  • Reputation:   11,227
  • Days Won:  58
  • Joined:  01/03/2005
  • Status:  Offline

Our notion of hell is based on the retributive theory of punishment. This view holds that punishment is not based on rehabilitation of the offender or its ability to deter future crimes i.e., sins. Rather, God punishes sinners to hell because they deserve it. Essential to this theory of punishment is the idea that the punishment must fit the crime. Hence the OT law - eye for an eye, tooth for tooth notion of what constitutes justice served. Byfaithalone has identified the irony though that when it comes to hell - the punishment does not seem to fit the crime in that finite sins merit infinite punishment. Even when one considers sinning against an infinite being, it does not necessarily follow that all crimes against him are infinitely bad. If I send the President a threatening letter, the secret service will come knocking on my door and I may or may not end up in jail. If I do the President bodily harm, I most certainly will end up in jail and the length of my incarceration will likely correspond to the degree of bodily harm that is inflicted. Therefore the gravity of the offense is not only determined by the status of the one offended but also by the nature of the offense. In hell however, all sins irregardless of their degree of seriousness or gravity merit the same eternal punishment. Most notably, the early church did not face this dilemma as we do because for the first five centuries after Christ, the eternal torment of sinners was not a widely held view as it is today.

What you miss is that a sin, no matter how small or how short in time it may seem to be to the eyes of the world/man, sin is an eternal offense to God, one that can only be paid for with a price. Since man cannot redeem himself, God did it for man. With the caveat that man must willingly accept that redemptive act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact I can justify killing the fly doesn't change the fact it is prejudiced.

and just becuase it is prejudiced, does not mean the bias is in error

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thoughts?

Maybe. You might be able to tell from my other posts tonight, that my thinking is a bit muddy, I am very tired, not capable of deep thought. I will try to get around to looking at it fresh, hopefully tomorrow, and see if I have any thoughts. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  322
  • Content Per Day:  0.08
  • Reputation:   30
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  03/18/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Our notion of hell is based on the retributive theory of punishment. This view holds that punishment is not based on rehabilitation of the offender or its ability to deter future crimes i.e., sins. Rather, God punishes sinners to hell because they deserve it. Essential to this theory of punishment is the idea that the punishment must fit the crime. Hence the OT law - eye for an eye, tooth for tooth notion of what constitutes justice served. Byfaithalone has identified the irony though that when it comes to hell - the punishment does not seem to fit the crime in that finite sins merit infinite punishment. Even when one considers sinning against an infinite being, it does not necessarily follow that all crimes against him are infinitely bad. If I send the President a threatening letter, the secret service will come knocking on my door and I may or may not end up in jail. If I do the President bodily harm, I most certainly will end up in jail and the length of my incarceration will likely correspond to the degree of bodily harm that is inflicted. Therefore the gravity of the offense is not only determined by the status of the one offended but also by the nature of the offense. In hell however, all sins irregardless of their degree of seriousness or gravity merit the same eternal punishment. Most notably, the early church did not face this dilemma as we do because for the first five centuries after Christ, the eternal torment of sinners was not a widely held view as it is today.

What you miss is that a sin, no matter how small or how short in time it may seem to be to the eyes of the world/man, sin is an eternal offense to God, one that can only be paid for with a price. Since man cannot redeem himself, God did it for man. With the caveat that man must willingly accept that redemptive act.

Can you explain why sin is an eternal offense to God. It certainly sounds nice but I find no inherent logic in it. Yes God is eternal but why do you say the punishment has to be eternal? Since God is omniscient and omnipotent can he simply not deem the punishment for any sin against him to be any length he desires - as he sees fit? And yes God did take it upon himself to redeem man but that is irrelevant to the punishment. The bottom line is does the whole of Scripture teach eternal punishment. I submit that it does not as the word for eternal is mistranslated in the vast majority of our Bible translations but that is another topic in itself.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ninhao

I think your entire perspective Ninhao, is where the only flaw is. And that flaw is that you seem to operate on the premise, that what you beleive to be logical, determines how things are. Gods revelation trumps human logic. Apart from that, you say enmity with with God is the sin that gains one a place in the lake of fire. Then you go on to say: "I suggest this is disbelief and/or rebellion".

Any intentional sin (and we all do them) IS rebellion. That being the case, any intentional sin of commision or omission, is rebellion and earns us the Lake of Fire, at least that is how I see it, using 'Logic', lol. By the way, to you have a verse of passage that you beleive actually indicates any temporal punisment?

Hebrews 10

26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

I think that sort of indicates the Bible perspective of who qualifies as enemies of God - those who sin intentionally, and who have not received God's grace through faith.

Just my opinion(s)

The flaw is in the eye of the beholder it seems, Omegaman.

Here you have stated the flaw in your own perspective and I will explain it further. I agree intentional sin ( and intentional is also a debatable point ) is rebellion; but what discriminates between the "intentional" sin of the unbeliever and the believer ? Of course the only thing that is different is the faith or enmity they hold for God. This then logically follows that it isn't the sin that sends the person to the Lake of Fire, but the position of belief/enmity. If you disagree then may you explain to me why you or I won't join the heated dwelling since we both have committed "intentional" sin before and after our current position of faith. You may choose to offer the amount or the unrepentance of the "intentional" sin and set yourself as the judge of these matters.

Your last sentence validates my position. Those who have not received God's grace are unsaved, lack faith, and are in rebellion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ninhao

and just becuase it is prejudiced, does not mean the bias is in error

Correct !

To be clear Omegaman it isn't the length of sentence I am disputing with you it's the premise offered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  44
  • Topic Count:  6,178
  • Topics Per Day:  0.88
  • Content Count:  43,784
  • Content Per Day:  6.23
  • Reputation:   11,227
  • Days Won:  58
  • Joined:  01/03/2005
  • Status:  Offline

The bottom line is does the whole of Scripture teach eternal punishment.

Yes, scripture does teach an eternal punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  322
  • Content Per Day:  0.08
  • Reputation:   30
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  03/18/2013
  • Status:  Offline

The bottom line is does the whole of Scripture teach eternal punishment.

Yes, scripture does teach an eternal punishment.

How so may I ask?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flaw is in the eye of the beholder it seems, Omegaman.

This then logically follows that it isn't the sin that sends the person to the Lake of Fire, but the position of

belief/enmity. If you disagree then may you explain to me why you or I won't join the heated dwelling since we both

have committed "intentional" sin before and after our current position of faith.

I am not sure how well I will be able to respond to this one Ninhao, because I am not sure I understand it really,

sorry, but I will give it a shot.

You really like that word logic. I consider myself a reasonably logical person, but I try not to depend on my

logic, to answer spiritual questions, because I know that my ways are not Gods ways my thoughts are not His thoughts,

and vice versa. I cannot reason my way to how God thinks or works, it makes little to no sense, for me to think that I can make sense of it, apart from Gods revelation. Odd example, but if God says bananas are purple, then He is right and I am wrong, the best I can do is to try to fathom why I am wrong, and if I cannot, then just agree with God.

Logic is not the best tool, revelation is.

I can understand that since the difference between the unbeliever and the believer is that grace we receive through faith, that one could conclude then that it is that difference, that sends one to Hell and the other to safety. I think though, that this is not quite accurate. The difference is subtle, but not insignificant. The sin sends us to Hell, both the believer and the unbeliever deserve as much, and would get it, apart from that faith. The difference, that sin purchases us Hell (the wages of sin is death), but God bails us out, rescues us from out just deserts. Sin condemns, Jesus saves.

We deserve Hell for our sins, but God gives us eternal life.

I hope I made the distinction clear, I do not feel like I did, To alter your statement to equal what I am trying to say:

instead of "it isn't the sin that sends the person to the Lake of Fire, but the position of belief/enmity"

I believe it woulds be correct if modified to read:

"it is the sin that sends a person to the Lake of Fire, but grace through belief, rescues one"

The reason that the believer does not join the unbeliever in the "heated dwelling", is not dependent on repentance or

failure to repent. The sin is done, and it cannot be undone. It can however, be forgiven. It is a divine act of grace, we did nothing and cannot do anything to undo our sin, but God grants us forgiveness, imparts Jesus innocence to us, as a free gift to believers.

Before the mind goes off and concludes that we earned salvation by believing that is it granted in response to our faith, let me state that that is not an accurate picture of grace. First off, we do not believe of our own doing, faith it self, is a gift of God, God works in us, to have faith, it is His work, not ours, and He did it in eternity, before we even were born to commit a sin. It is the gift of God, lest any man should boast.

You may choose to offer the amount or the unrepentance of the "intentional" sin and set yourself as the judge of

these matters.

Not sure I understand what you are getting at here. Only God judges these matters, but repentance and unrepentance are not the things that qualify one for one destiny or the other. First off no one repents completely. Repentance does not undo a past sin anyway, so if you have sinned, and turn from your evil ways and never sin again, you are still damned, apart from the salvation the God gives to some. We do not need repentance to gain salvation, salvation is a

gift. When we are saved, God gives us a new nature, and that nature desires to serve and obey God, and repentance is the fruit of that new nature.

If God has renewed our hearts, repentance and good works are the result of that nature, and subsequent to the new birth, not the cause of it.

Your last sentence validates my position. Those who have not received God's grace are unsaved, lack faith, and are in rebellion.

You totally lost me there, in what way does that validate your position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...