The Great Hell Debate

[jordanriver]

Interesting view. God's beholden to actualize his thoughts?

I think He "actualized" the thought ...
...or in God's case, foreknowledge,
...before He created the ancestor of every human that was going to descend from Adam, ...before the foundation of the world.

...for all I know, your purpose is to try me, ...who says all trials have to be nature's 'Acts of God'...
Perhaps you're also an Act of God, for my benefit today

[whag]

I think He "actualized" the thought ...
...or in God's case, foreknowledge,
...before He created the ancestor of every human that was going to descend from Adam, ...before the foundation of the world.

...for all I know, your purpose is to try me, ...who says all trials have to be nature's 'Acts of God'...
Perhaps you're also an Act of God, for my benefit today

Am I trying you?

[jordanriver]

Am I trying you?

its my persecution.

im American so I was put here because God knows I cant take much

[KingsGambit]

its my persecution.

im American so I was put here because God knows I cant take much

So if I'm reading you right, God places Christians who are weak in the US where they won't face much persecution?

Are you a Molinist?

[Truthseeker]

After a discussion of some theodicy answers, Gordon H. Clark, who was a Calvinist, concluded by admitting that God created people like Kim, Hitler, Khan, . . . Why? It's a mystery, among several in Christianity.

[whag]

So if I'm reading you right, God places Christians who are weak in the US where they won't face much persecution?

Are you a Molinist?

Weak Christians would also fair well in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Personally, I think it's a strange belief to assume God puts those with strong constitution in countries were mad persecution takes place and those with weak constitution where there is no persecution. What a horribly inconsistent providence that is.

[Enjolras]

Weak Christians would also fair well in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Personally, I think it's a strange belief to assume God puts those with strong constitution in countries were mad persecution takes place and those with weak constitution where there is no persecution. What a horribly inconsistent providence that is.

Once you start down this path, it's difficult to limit the application. Why did God put such and such a child in the home of a rapist? Because he knew the child could 'take it'?!

[jordanriver]

Once you start down this path, it's difficult to limit the application. Why did God put such and such a child in the home of a rapist? Because he knew the child could 'take it'?!

No. Life is suffering no matter where you live .
I think the Bible has to do with salvation.

[whag]

No. Life is suffering no matter where you live .
I think the Bible has to do with salvation.

Suffering isn't uniform everywhere, you seemed to imply. Were you serious when you said God put you in the US because the low level of persecution is all that you can handle? If so, does that mean that God evaluates your "faith threshold" before deciding where to place you?

[jordanriver]

Suffering isn't uniform everywhere, you seemed to imply. Were you serious when you said God put you in the US because the low level of persecution is all that you can handle? If so, does that mean that God evaluates your "faith threshold" before deciding where to place you?

I don't know.
I thought I was clear enough since POST 26 when I thought I announced I would be guessing on these problems:

[QUOTE=jordanriver;139695]
........my favorite GUESS is , maybe God ......QUOTE]

but its as good a GUESS as any.

OTOH, I know some AMERICAN Christians who have had diabetes amputations , kids with leukemia, kids who committed suicide, mini strokes (every other Sunday they look like they been in a boxing match with the Klitschko brothers from landing on their face at home),

I think the Buddhists are right on this, life is suffering.

[jordanriver]

After a discussion of some theodicy answers, Gordon H. Clark, who was a Calvinist, concluded by admitting that God created people like Kim, Hitler, Khan, . . . Why? It's a mystery, among several in Christianity.

like I said earlier, its the same God who allows hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes,childhood cancer, and earthquakes. Why should the difficulties be ONLY nature natural disasters, why not also HUMAN disasters also.

its a fallen world.

[NormATive]

One of the best debates on Christian conceptions of Hell is the one with WLC and a philosopher named Raymond Bradley. I'm not familiar with Bradley, but his treatment of the topic in this debate is inspiring. The beginning is good, but cross-examination mode is particularly excellent as the discussion progresses to a discussion on categories and subclassifications of human beings to whom salvation is possible.

It's a fascinating deep dive into traditional evangelical sorteriology and highly recommended for skeptics and those Christians who struggle with embarrassment when discussing the topic while evangelizing.

http://youtu.be/oJdlO6esWr8

Thanks for posting this, Whag. It took me a while to get to watching the whole thing, and then reading the transcript (thanks square_peg).

What fascinates me most is the kinder-gentler God that is being portrayed. As a young child in the Baptist church, Hell was a common sermon topic. Not a Sunday went by without the question "where will YOU spend eternity?" punctuating the Altar Call at the end.

This used to scare the living • Edited by a Moderator • out of me!

All of a sudden, Hell is a metaphor?! When did that happen?

Moderated By: DesertBerean

Veiled profanity not allowed.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

I ultimately left the Christian faith BECAUSE of the doctrine of Hell. Now, this guy Craig says it's all a metaphor? What's the point? Why do you need salvation from a metaphor?

This is indeed an interesting subject.

NORM

[whag]

like I said earlier, its the same God who allows hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes,childhood cancer, and earthquakes. Why should the difficulties be ONLY nature natural disasters, why not also HUMAN disasters also.

its a fallen world.

The only thing I disagree with here is "it's a fallen world." There's nothing in tectonic uplift and tornadoes that indicates such. That human beings are primates whose closest relative is a species that rends the penises off opposing alpha males and wages war raids doesn't now require a fall.

This is where Christianity get ambiguous.

[jordanriver]

The only thing I disagree with here is "it's a fallen world." There's nothing in tectonic uplift and tornadoes that indicates such. That human beings are primates whose closest relative is a species that rends the penises off opposing alpha males and wages war raids doesn't now require a fall.

This is where Christianity get ambiguous.

I thought this was in the context of what it says in The Bible

[fm93]

I don't see why this wouldn't be 'feasible.' Why couldn't God just look ahead and only create people who would freely choose him? There's no logical contradiction here, as though we were asking God to create a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it.

Not definitively endorsing this particular line of reasoning myself, but I've heard it argued that there could be some people who would freely choose God only if they were ultimately led to God through interactions with other people, some of whom might be among those who would freely reject God. Thus, to bring about a world in which as many people as possible freely choose heaven, God may have to create some free moral agents who would choose otherwise.

Just putting that out there.

By this line of reasoning, 'free will' isn't really all that important after all, and heaven would essentially be filled with robots who have no choice but to worship their deity. Also, this seem to completely undermine any theodicy based on the necessity of giving humans free will.

This can probably be viewed as a reward of some sorts--people who freely choose God and struggle against the carnal flesh as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 7 will ultimately be relieved from their struggle.

I’ve heard this view expressed before in private conversation, and my BS detectors lit up. I’m thankful and quite puzzled that Craig—an erudite and articulate philosopher—actually expressed the view in public. It’s basically an admission that sin needed to be actualized to effect the ultimate environment, which makes all of God’s bellyaching about it in the OT and NT look rather ridiculous since it was inevitable and necessary.

I've heard of an answer to this one as well, although likewise with the above post, I'm not definitively endorsing it. As a well-known proverb goes, "Absence makes the heart grow fonder." If, as Augustine is said to have written, sin is essentially the absence of God, then actualizing sin could lead people to attain a better understanding of just how terrible evil is and by logical extension, just how great God is. It could lead to a deeper appreciation of the good, and allow qualities such as courage, redemption and forgiveness to flourish. A world in which sin never happened wouldn't present people with the opportunity to exercise redemption or forgiveness. (Courage could probably exist without sin, however.) And so after people realized the terrible nature of sin and the greatness of God, they would be compelled to avoid sin at all costs and strive for God with all their heart and soul and mind and strength and so on.

As for why God complained about sin if it was ultimately inevitable and necessary, I suppose an apologist could say it's simply a matter of extent/magnitude.