If you are a Universalist, but also a Christian

[Mergath]

I liked your post a great deal, Mergath, because I find these questions so compelling. And I don't claim to have definitive answers by any means, but I love the discussion. I want to give you the thoughtful, insightful reply that you deserve, but I'm not sure that I'm capable! So please bear with me through this fumbling attempt.

 

I do not believe that mental illness (which just like any other disease is a *physical* ailment) would be enough to send someone to hell, because the physical things will be stripped away at our deaths. Like you, I think a lot of people who do not believe in God in this life, would/will be pleasantly surprised to encounter Him in the afterlife. And if they will be happy in His presence, then that's by definition heaven and not hell. I think it's really not as much about what goes on in our brains, as it is about the condition of our hearts and souls.

 

If God is love, then those who are filled with hate will find his presence unbearable. If God is merciful and forgiving, then those who refuse to either give or receive mercy and forgiveness will detest Him. If God is peace, then those who thrive on anger and conflict will find him contemptible. Again, there is the question of how much of that is brain chemistry, and how much of it is the condition of the soul, and I can't answer that. I like to believe that most of these are the product of our imperfect physical forms, and that our souls will rejoice in God then, even though our bodies don't right now. Christ said blessed are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, the merciful, those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, the peacemakers, the pure in heart. I think that if we're attempting to nurture those qualities in ourselves, however faltering our attempts may be, then we will find the presence of God to be heaven. But if we reject those things and deliberately pursue their opposites, then the presence of a God who exemplifies and values those things will be hell.

 

If you want a much longer and MUCH better answer, The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis is a work of fiction that illustrates why some people might, well, to put it bluntly, choose hell. I found it really interesting - it's probably my favorite work of Christian fiction, but I confess to not having read a great deal of Christian fiction.

 

I believe that you are Buddhist, and I was Buddhist myself for several years and I still have tremendous respect and admiration for the tradition. In Buddhism, there is a great deal of teaching about letting go of the ego, letting go of the self. I think there is something very similar in Christianity, especially of the Eastern Christian tradition, and you will hear phrases like 'dying to the self' in Orthodoxy. Not official Orthodox doctrine, but my own (over)simplification: if you love God more than you love yourself, that is heaven. If you love yourself more than you love God, that is hell.

 

I'm hesitant to even put this out there, because I'm sure I've gotten a great deal wrong. My hope is that this would be the beginning of further thought and discussion, and in no way taken as a "final answer" about anything.

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. (And to the others who answered, too.) I'm Buddhist with a hint of Paganism. :) it used to be Paganism with a hint of Buddhism, but beliefs never seem to stop evolving.

 

Do you think being filled with hate is a permanent condition? This is one thing I have trouble wrapping my brain around as a Buddhist, the ideas about permanence in Christianity. Because for Buddhists, nothing is ever permanent. For example, I never understood the point of Hell if it's eternal. Why punish people if they can't learn from it?

 

So if someone is filled with hate or anger, wouldn't being confronted with ultimate love in the afterlife change that, or at least begin to chip away at it? If someone is filled with hate during their lifetime is it a permanent state? Is it only permanent after death? I know several people who are very angry or have a lot of hate (or seem to) but I don't think they want to be like that.

 

Sorry, I'm way too analytical about this kind of stuff. ;)

[DawnM]

Dawn, I have read Heaven by R. Alcorn. Be aware, it's over 500 pages. Personally that book is very important to me and really helped my faith.

 

Randy Alcorn is defiantly not a universalist though

 

(http://www.epm.org/blog/2013/May/22/universalism)

 

Thanks.

 

I am not sure I am either.  I am just trying to work through some things in my beliefs.  He was recommended to me.  And he is not a Rob Bell (aka: heretic according to evangelicals.)

 

Sigh.  It all tires me out.

[Greta]

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. (And to the others who answered, too.) I'm Buddhist with a hint of Paganism. :) it used to be Paganism with a hint of Buddhism, but beliefs never seem to stop evolving.

 

Do you think being filled with hate is a permanent condition? This is one thing I have trouble wrapping my brain around as a Buddhist, the ideas about permanence in Christianity. Because for Buddhists, nothing is ever permanent. For example, I never understood the point of Hell if it's eternal. Why punish people if they can't learn from it?

 

So if someone is filled with hate or anger, wouldn't being confronted with ultimate love in the afterlife change that, or at least begin to chip away at it? If someone is filled with hate during their lifetime is it a permanent state? Is it only permanent after death? I know several people who are very angry or have a lot of hate (or seem to) but I don't think they want to be like that.

 

Sorry, I'm way too analytical about this kind of stuff. ;)

 

 

That is such a great question, and while I can't give you a thorough explanation, I personally believe it is not a permanent condition.  And I am parting ways with my church here, so I just want to be clear that this isn't Orthodox teaching.  But I think in this regard, I lean more toward the Roman Catholic teaching of purgatory as a way/place to continue to work out our salvation after death.  Because, if there is no way to continue to grow in love for God after death, if it is 100% dependent on what we do during this life, and if this life is lived in a fallen world that makes us prone to sin, then, well, that just doesn't seem consistent with a God of love and mercy.  In Orthodoxy, sin is often viewed as illness, and Christ as the physician of our souls.  Does He stop His healing work on us when we die?  I'd certainly like to think not.  So, perhaps I should put it more this way:  I hope it is not permanent.  And faith is all about hope, right?   :001_smile:

 

I had forgotten the hint of Paganism part!  I don't know all that much about Paganism, but I dabbled in Wicca a bit when I was a teen.  I like the reverence of nature and the observance of the changes of the season.  

[Greta]

Oops - double post. 

 

Edited January 5, 2017 by Greta

[mtomom]

Can you tell me why you think this?  Scriptural references?  Theological discussions?

 

I am genuinely interested.  This is more is line with my reasoning, but I have never heard it preached or taught.

 

I've been forming those thoughts over many years. So that is my “now†after lots of reading and reflection and prayer. I can list authors I read over the years. But some of my theology comes outside of Universalism, including what it means to be a Christian and atonement theory generally.

 

Most begin understanding hell by studying the etymology of words translated in scripture. There are words that have different connotations in the English translation than the Greek words had when written. And, unfortunately, some biblical translators let their extra-biblical theology and understandings inform their interpretations. Two of those words are hell and eternal, but there are other issues, even words added that aren't in the original Greek!

 

You can find extensive study on those words in the original Greek in online and book sources. I believe the two sites I linked in my first post will get into that. The Yale theologian one I linked is quite good, though more involved than the second. You can also get bibles which have more direct and accurate translation from Greek including the Concordant New Testament, which is the one I am most familiar with. I need scripture to support universal reconciliation to accept it. I need no scripture to oppose it to accept it. I needed that intellectually. And, properly translated, it's there. It's there anyway actually. But even clearer when you know Greek or at least you have an accurate translation of Greek.

 

Beyond that, there is early church history and a long line of Christians post early church who have held to this belief—it's orthodox. I can link some website with that information if it's important to you. Here is one for example that kind of hits the high points of how hell was taught throughout church history: http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/how_hell_became_eternal_vincent.htm.

 

There are scriptures which talk about refining that we will all go through and of course judgment. I can find sites with that information and teaching about the purpose of judgment, and it's in many books on the subject, but I'm having trouble finding it done succinctly online right now. It also comes down to correct translation in an intellectual sense. For me it also pulls into the character of God as shown in Christ. I can continue to look if you would like. Here is a bit from William Barclay: “The word for punishment is kolasis. The word was originally a gardening word, and its original meaning was pruning trees. In Greek there are two words for punishment, timoria and kolasis, and there is a quite definite distinction between them. (at this point he sites sources to support—I included just a couple here) Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis 4.24; 7.16) defines kolasis as pure discipline, and timoria as the return of evil for evil. Aulus Gellius says that kolasis is given that a man may be corrected; timoria is given that dignity and authority may be vindicated (The Attic Nights7.14). The difference is quite clear in Greek and it is always observed. Timoria is retributive punishment. Kolasis is always given to amend and to cure.†it looks like there is a more full quote and teaching on this site: http://www.epochalypsis.org/pruning-and-kolasis/

 

The links I put in my first post and this one talk about the word eternal and the word hell.

 

There are lots of scriptures I could go into, but the Yale theologian in the link in my first post http://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/ uses some of them and explains them pretty logically and relatively succinctly. He mirrors a lot of my rational thought on it, and I shared a bit of that above. I started this journey of exploring universal reconciliation because I could no longer understand God as good if he was who was as I was taught he was. This is a view of a good God who is going to heal humanity and make all things new and right—for he saw the results and the end and decided to create humans anyway and to come and die to heal us from the consequences of our sin. And it's biblical, while I no longer believe the eternal conscious torment is at all. It actually grieves me that so many see God through that lens; I think it's damaging to the cause of Christ.

 

My answer to your question, then, is this has been a long process with a long list of resources, not all universalism based. It's hard to put all that out in succinct form. Those two links I posted in my first post, while I actually found them just as I was posting to you, lay some of the theology and scripture out. But if you are interested, there are so many other resources online and in print. There are also forums where you can ask questions—including about specific scriptures that seem to be against it. http://evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/index.php and https://tentmaker.org/forum/ I'm not really sure which is better—it's been a long time since I've looked at either. I've kind of settled this thought in my mind and am exploring atonement and similar things right now.

 

Oh, my church denomination doesn't teach this stuff unfortunately.

 

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by mtomom

[Mergath]

I posted this in an edit in my previous post, but I thought I'd post it again for those who already read the pp because I just started thinking about it and I'm so curious to hear what people think. (Sorry for the rabbit trail.)

 

When Christians talk about Hell, a good number of them say that it's not a physical place with actual flames and such, but more of the non-believer's reaction to their proximity to God.

 

However, after thinking about it, I realized that half the time the argument is that Hell, for a non-believer, is being forced to be with God when you don't want to be.

 

The other half of the time people say that Hell is awful because it is eternal separation from God chosen by the non-believer.

 

It's interesting that some people think Hell is being forced to be with God, and some think it's being forced to be away from him. I wonder if it varies by denomination, or personality, or...?

Edited January 6, 2017 by Mergath

[Mergath]

They aren't necessarily opposite positions, but a statement of a paradox.  

 

The premise is in the prayer I posted elsewhere (and I'm losing myself in the rabbit trails, too!) that God is the Comforter, the spirit of Truth, everywhere present and filling all things; He's the treasury of blessings and giver of life.  That means God is everywhere present and fills all things...not pantheism, but God everywhere.  One can't really "get away" from God, not even in hell.  But when one tries to absence oneself from God, then one also is away from comfort, truth, blessings and life.  

 

I don't think it is "forced" to be one way or the other.  It is the choosing...but the choosing starts in this life.  

 

Maybe that is more muddy than before, but it's the best I can do at this moment.  :0)

 

(And I really like your new avatar pic.). (THAT's relevant, huh?)

 

Thank you for the response and the compliment. :D

[Scarlett]

I posted this in an edit in my previous post, but I thought I'd post it again for those who already read the pp because I just started thinking about it and I'm so curious to hear what people think. (Sorry for the rabbit trail.)

 

When Christians talk about Hell, a good number of them say that it's not a physical place with actual flames and such, but more of the non-believer's reaction to their proximity to God.

 

However, after thinking about it, I realized that half the time the argument is that Hell, for a non-believer, is being forced to be with God when you don't want to be.

 

The other half of the time people say that Hell is awful because it is eternal separation from God chosen by the non-believer.

 

It's interesting that some people think Hell is being forced to be with God, and some think it's being forced to be away from him. I wonder if it varies by denomination, or personality, or...?

 

 

Do you want to hear my belief?

[Mergath]

Do you want to hear my belief?

 

Sure!

[Scarlett]

Sure!

 

 

What God set before mankind was life or death.  Death is the absence of life.  One ceases to exist.  No eternal torment or hell fire.  

[Guest]

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. (And to the others who answered, too.) I'm Buddhist with a hint of Paganism. :) it used to be Paganism with a hint of Buddhism, but beliefs never seem to stop evolving.

 

Do you think being filled with hate is a permanent condition? This is one thing I have trouble wrapping my brain around as a Buddhist, the ideas about permanence in Christianity. Because for Buddhists, nothing is ever permanent. For example, I never understood the point of Hell if it's eternal. Why punish people if they can't learn from it?

 

So if someone is filled with hate or anger, wouldn't being confronted with ultimate love in the afterlife change that, or at least begin to chip away at it? If someone is filled with hate during their lifetime is it a permanent state? Is it only permanent after death? I know several people who are very angry or have a lot of hate (or seem to) but I don't think they want to be like that.

 

Sorry, I'm way too analytical about this kind of stuff. ;)

I really like everything you have to say, here.

 

One thing that began to bother me a lot about the Christian beliefs with which I was raised was this: I could see where a lot of bad behavior has organic roots or, at the least, is learned behavior from a horrible environment. I mean, it's not that surprising that I would be a generally "good" girl who grew up to make general good (pro-social) decisions about how to act and what to do. I have no brain damage or mental disabilities that make pro-social behavior unlikely; my environment has been ideal since birth for learning "good" behavior. Therefore, not unlikely that my behavior would be generally good.

 

Incidentally, I first started thinkg about this shortly after I had my first child, who was an extremely fussy infant. It was so noticeable that people would constantly say, "Is she a good baby?" What a weird choice of words! What am I going to answer, "No, she's a demon child! She cries for hours for no apparent reason"? It made me start to think about how, right from the start, some people are looking at behavior as good or bad, based on how convenient/inconvenient, easy/puzzling it was. It did not seem much of a leap that at least some portion of adults who had been labled "bad" by society surely have organic problems that have never been compassionately managed or never had the advantage of someone trying to understand why the undesirable behavior happens.

[Pam in CT]

Re: the bolded:  I just flashed on this:  Les Miserables works with this theme as well.  Javert is the law, "and the law is not mocked..."--he loves justice but has no concept of mercy.  He makes a career out of chasing Jean Valjean to bring him to justice...but when he catches him, the tables are turned, and Valjean has Javert at his mercy--and he spares Javert's life.  Javert is completely undone--he can't understand this world that overturns everything he has ever believed and stood for--and he refuses to do so.  He finds it repellent and takes his own life rather than admitting he'd gotten it wrong.  It is by his own hand, not by the hand of Valjean that he dies.  The irony is that it was an unjust act to take his own life.  

 

 

And... this is why everything I ever needed to know, I learned from Broadway musicals, lol.  Have you seen Wicked?  

[Wheres Toto]

We attend a Methodist church for sense of community, fellowship, meditation, and worship. We are very quiet about what we believe because it does not align with protestantism nor Roman Catholicism. There are no UU churches near us, and that would probably not be comfortable for us anyway.

 

So much legalism within evangelicalism that we have rejected, things not related specifically to this topic. Because we no longer toe the line on these issues, we simply fit no where. Absolutely no where.

 

I grew up UMC and my family joined a different congregation a couple years ago.  The pastor told us at our meeting with him before joining that it was not necessary to agree with everything in the official UMC doctrine, or even with everything he said.  It was find to take what works for you and go with that.  It's the only way I've been able to attend, although I do agree with most of what comes up in our church.  We are in a very liberal area so our congregation leans that way.

 

I would consider myself a Universalist, but I know a lot of people would not consider me a Christian.

[MercyA]

However, after thinking about it, I realized that half the time the argument is that Hell, for a non-believer, is being forced to be with God when you don't want to be.

 

The other half of the time people say that Hell is awful because it is eternal separation from God chosen by the non-believer.

 

It's interesting that some people think Hell is being forced to be with God, and some think it's being forced to be away from him. I wonder if it varies by denomination, or personality, or...?

 

It's an interesting question, but, honestly, I don't see direct support for either position in Scripture. (Not that you asked. ;) )Hell is mentioned quite a bit in the New Testament, but I don't recall any passages that mention God's proximity to it or distance from it.

 

That's not to say either position is necessarily wrong, just that (as far as I've seen) the Bible doesn't really speak to it. 

 

Hope you are feeling a little better tonight, Mergath. 

[Greta]

Wait, have I missed something important or misunderstood regarding the Orthodox view of whether a person can still attain salvation after death?  Because when I answered, I wasn't thinking about one critically important aspect of Orthodox belief:  that being separated from the body at death is a temporary state, and that eventually we will be physically resurrected.  So does that mean that at that time, after resurrection, a person can continue to work out their salvation?

[ktgrok]

This is one reason I stick with the idea that although the Bible is our best attempt at recording a relationship between mankind and God, it is still filtered through the understanding and limits of the very human people who wrote it down, transcribed it, etc. So I take things like descriptions of people possessed by demons or what not as the people's best understanding of what was happening. God spoke to them where they were,  as well,which also effects things. So I think that you are right, that so much is an organic problem, but I don't need the Bible to address that to know it is true. Not sure if that makes sense. Basically, i think of the Bible as our best guide in many ways, but not fool proof or literally accurate in all places or in all ways. 

I really like everything you have to say, here.

One thing that began to bother me a lot about the Christian beliefs with which I was raised was this: I could see where a lot of bad behavior has organic roots or, at the least, is learned behavior from a horrible environment. I mean, it's not that surprising that I would be a generally "good" girl who grew up to make general good (pro-social) decisions about how to act and what to do. I have no brain damage or mental disabilities that make pro-social behavior unlikely; my environment has been ideal since birth for learning "good" behavior. Therefore, not unlikely that my behavior would be generally good.

Incidentally, I first started thinkg about this shortly after I had my first child, who was an extremely fussy infant. It was so noticeable that people would constantly say, "Is she a good baby?" What a weird choice of words! What am I going to answer, "No, she's a demon child! She cries for hours for no apparent reason"? It made me start to think about how, right from the start, some people are looking at behavior as good or bad, based on how convenient/inconvenient, easy/puzzling it was. It did not seem much of a leap that at least some portion of adults who had been labled "bad" by society surely have organic problems that have never been compassionately managed or never had the advantage of someone trying to understand why the undesirable behavior happens.

 

[FaithManor]

Episcopal? Pretty much anything is okay to believe there.

Maybe. We are in a very rural area. The nearest Episcopal church is 35 minutes away, but maybe we should try it.

[Mergath]

I really like everything you have to say, here.

 

One thing that began to bother me a lot about the Christian beliefs with which I was raised was this: I could see where a lot of bad behavior has organic roots or, at the least, is learned behavior from a horrible environment. I mean, it's not that surprising that I would be a generally "good" girl who grew up to make general good (pro-social) decisions about how to act and what to do. I have no brain damage or mental disabilities that make pro-social behavior unlikely; my environment has been ideal since birth for learning "good" behavior. Therefore, not unlikely that my behavior would be generally good.

 

Incidentally, I first started thinkg about this shortly after I had my first child, who was an extremely fussy infant. It was so noticeable that people would constantly say, "Is she a good baby?" What a weird choice of words! What am I going to answer, "No, she's a demon child! She cries for hours for no apparent reason"? It made me start to think about how, right from the start, some people are looking at behavior as good or bad, based on how convenient/inconvenient, easy/puzzling it was. It did not seem much of a leap that at least some portion of adults who had been labled "bad" by society surely have organic problems that have never been compassionately managed or never had the advantage of someone trying to understand why the undesirable behavior happens.

Exactly! And, using imaging scans, scientists have found that some people even have brains more able to have religious experiences. (I'm not going to wade into whether their brains are receiving those experiences or creating them - suffice it to say the experiences are happening somehow.) It seems unfair for faith to be so important as a prerequisite to heaven when that part of the brain is more developed in some people. Is it fair to condemn a person to hell if the part of the brain that lights up during prayer and worship doesn't work right for them?

 

Knowing all this, I find it so hard to understand how Christians justify a position other than universalism. Yes, life isn't fair and not everyone is born with a perfect brain, but shouldn't God be fair?

[milovany]

...I'm not going to wade into whether their brains are receiving those experiences or creating them....

 

But in your argument, that really matters doesn't it?  If taking a step toward faith strengthens one's faith "muscle" as it were, and then lather-rinse-repeat strengthens it even more, that seems to matter quite a lot if one believes it's not fair of God to consider the change in the brain if it's happening randomly.  If the brain being changed in this way is not random, our decisions related to faith do matter when it comes to the fairness of God. 

 

Then again, maybe I wasn't fully understanding what you were saying and there's more to it than I gathered from the few sentences shared.  That wouldn't be a first!

 

And I really like your profile pic, too.  :)

 

NOTE:  Popping back in the next morning to quickly say "argument" isn't the best word to use above because I know you're not trying to argue here; is "premise" a better word maybe?  Maybe even just "thought." 

Edited January 6, 2017 by milovany

[strawberryjam]

Thanks.

 

I am not sure I am either.  I am just trying to work through some things in my beliefs.  He was recommended to me.  And he is not a Rob Bell (aka: heretic according to evangelicals.)

 

Sigh.  It all tires me out.

 

 

I hear ya. I'm working out the same things. Have you figured anything out? I've read that Randy Alcorn has become a Calvinist in recent years. I'm not sure if I'm a Universalist, but I'm quite sure I'm not a Calvinist. I've read his book on heaven and I'm not sure I agree with a lot of his ideas. "Why I'm not a Calvinist" is a book that's on my reading list. I think that will help me clarify where I stand on "the spectrum".

[DawnM]

I hear ya. I'm working out the same things. Have you figured anything out? I've read that Randy Alcorn has become a Calvinist in recent years. I'm not sure if I'm a Universalist, but I'm quite sure I'm not a Calvinist. I've read his book on heaven and I'm not sure I agree with a lot of his ideas. "Why I'm not a Calvinist" is a book that's on my reading list. I think that will help me clarify where I stand on "the spectrum".

 

I have read Why I am not a Calvinist AND Why I am Not an Arminian, because I wanted both sides.

 

I was not a Calvinist before I read either one and I am not now.   It didn't change any of my thinking, but I am glad I read them.

 

Now I have not figure anything out, not sure I ever will this side of heaven.  

[Carol in Cal.]

 

Knowing all this, I find it so hard to understand how Christians justify a position other than universalism. Yes, life isn't fair and not everyone is born with a perfect brain, but shouldn't God be fair?

 

OK, this is where the questions cross the line for me, because the whole premise of *God* is that He doesn't need to be anything in particular, because He is, well, above us, bigger than us, superior to us, omni-everything, and in a word, GOD.

 

So while I don't like believing in damnation, I don't think that I have a right to define whether God should or should not be fair or whether damnation is fair or anything like that.  I'm strong, but I'm not the Potter.  I'm the clay.  

 

I don't know a single Christian who believes in damnation and wallows in that belief or gloats about it or even particularly likes it.  (Not saying they don't exist.  Just that I have not personally seen this.)  And there is considerable evidence in Scripture that God wouldn't want that either.  I Tim. 2:4 says that God wants all to be saved and to know the truth, for instance.  But that doesn't mean that we sit in judgement of God for allowing it.

 

One formulation that I have heard for this outside of my own Christian tradition is that God embodies perfect justice and perfect mercy, and which one you will experience after death is dependent on factors from before it.

 

My own Christian tradition holds that Jesus died for all people, and that some reject this or get in the way of it reaching others.  So we can't choose for God but we can choose against Him.  That is the resolution of the teachings of the Bible and of the historic Church that makes the most sense to me, but I will admit that I don't understand it completely.  

 

Even that is not all that surprising.  We haven't been there yet.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

Now I have not figure anything out, not sure I ever will this side of heaven.  

I Cor. 13:

 

9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.

 

 

:)

[6packofun]

Exactly! And, using imaging scans, scientists have found that some people even have brains more able to have religious experiences. (I'm not going to wade into whether their brains are receiving those experiences or creating them - suffice it to say the experiences are happening somehow.) It seems unfair for faith to be so important as a prerequisite to heaven when that part of the brain is more developed in some people. Is it fair to condemn a person to hell if the part of the brain that lights up during prayer and worship doesn't work right for them?

 

Knowing all this, I find it so hard to understand how Christians justify a position other than universalism. Yes, life isn't fair and not everyone is born with a perfect brain, but shouldn't God be fair?

 

Is that settled science?  lol  I think it's interesting that you use the term "fair" and yet universalism has at its heart a skewed sense of justice that we wouldn't tolerate in the physical world so why would it make sense in the spiritual? 

 

I'm not sure why it's hard to understand how Christians justify a position other than universalism--quite a few of us prefer logical cohesion with our religion.  If everyone goes to heaven regardless of their actions here on earth, then sin or moral judgments mean nothing.  If one doesn't get "justice" in this life, one certainly won't see it in the next.  It would be like all the sex abusers being identified, *maybe* judged to be wrong?, and then given no consequence.  If there is no consequence for thumbing one's nose at one's Creator (or harming one's fellow man), why does Christianity include a Savior?  From what is anyone being saved?  Surely there can't really be sin then...and yet even non-believers haul out the term "evil" for all sorts of human beings who don't meet their moral requirements and they expect retribution.  If Jesus didn't need to die but just died as a result of human actions, why would God even send Him?  Or say that we are judged in some way but all get the same outcome.  You think that is fair?  Do you think that everyone will choose God given a "second chance"?  Not if free will is involved.  And if we get a second chance at everything, or are forced into His eternal presence after death anyway, why in the world would God bother asking anything of His creation? So, there goes most Christian doctrine and practice.  Hmmm, I wonder if that was the point of the argument after all?  lol

 

Having consequences in the afterlife doesn't have to lead to eternal torment, by the way, in my opinion.  But only Christians who believe in some degree of moral relativism and/or atheists think that God doesn't actually care about sin even though many would deny it.  Because that's what it comes down to.  Having the humility to believe that sin is an actual thing, that it offends a holy God--who is unlike us enough that we tend to think that makes Him less than perfect, less than worthy of worship, or even ultimately unable to exist--AND that this is a problem from which we cannot save ourselves.

[DawnM]

Is that settled science?  lol  I think it's interesting that you use the term "fair" and yet universalism has at its heart a skewed sense of justice that we wouldn't tolerate in the physical world so why would it make sense in the spiritual? 

 

I'm not sure why it's hard to understand how Christians justify a position other than universalism--quite a few of us prefer logical cohesion with our religion.  If everyone goes to heaven regardless of their actions here on earth, then sin or moral judgments mean nothing.  If one doesn't get "justice" in this life, one certainly won't see it in the next.  It would be like all the sex abusers being identified, *maybe* judged to be wrong?, and then given no consequence.  If there is no consequence for thumbing one's nose at one's Creator (or harming one's fellow man), why does Christianity include a Savior?  From what is anyone being saved?  Surely there can't really be sin then...and yet even non-believers haul out the term "evil" for all sorts of human beings who don't meet their moral requirements and they expect retribution.  If Jesus didn't need to die but just died as a result of human actions, why would God even send Him?  Or say that we are judged in some way but all get the same outcome.  You think that is fair?  Do you think that everyone will choose God given a "second chance"?  Not if free will is involved.  And if we get a second chance at everything, or are forced into His eternal presence after death anyway, why in the world would God bother asking anything of His creation? So, there goes most Christian doctrine and practice.  Hmmm, I wonder if that was the point of the argument after all?  lol

 

Having consequences in the afterlife doesn't have to lead to eternal torment, by the way, in my opinion.  But only Christians who believe in some degree of moral relativism and/or atheists think that God doesn't actually care about sin even though many would deny it.  Because that's what it comes down to.  Having the humility to believe that sin is an actual thing, that it offends a holy God--who is unlike us enough that we tend to think that makes Him less than perfect, less than worthy of worship, or even ultimately unable to exist--AND that this is a problem from which we cannot save ourselves.

 

Yeah, I still very much believe we need a savior.  

[Mergath]

Is that settled science?  lol  I think it's interesting that you use the term "fair" and yet universalism has at its heart a skewed sense of justice that we wouldn't tolerate in the physical world so why would it make sense in the spiritual? 

 

I'm not sure why it's hard to understand how Christians justify a position other than universalism--quite a few of us prefer logical cohesion with our religion.  If everyone goes to heaven regardless of their actions here on earth, then sin or moral judgments mean nothing.  If one doesn't get "justice" in this life, one certainly won't see it in the next.  It would be like all the sex abusers being identified, *maybe* judged to be wrong?, and then given no consequence.  If there is no consequence for thumbing one's nose at one's Creator (or harming one's fellow man), why does Christianity include a Savior?  From what is anyone being saved?  Surely there can't really be sin then...and yet even non-believers haul out the term "evil" for all sorts of human beings who don't meet their moral requirements and they expect retribution.  If Jesus didn't need to die but just died as a result of human actions, why would God even send Him?  Or say that we are judged in some way but all get the same outcome.  You think that is fair?  Do you think that everyone will choose God given a "second chance"?  Not if free will is involved.  And if we get a second chance at everything, or are forced into His eternal presence after death anyway, why in the world would God bother asking anything of His creation? So, there goes most Christian doctrine and practice.  Hmmm, I wonder if that was the point of the argument after all?  lol

 

Having consequences in the afterlife doesn't have to lead to eternal torment, by the way, in my opinion.  But only Christians who believe in some degree of moral relativism and/or atheists think that God doesn't actually care about sin even though many would deny it.  Because that's what it comes down to.  Having the humility to believe that sin is an actual thing, that it offends a holy God--who is unlike us enough that we tend to think that makes Him less than perfect, less than worthy of worship, or even ultimately unable to exist--AND that this is a problem from which we cannot save ourselves.

 

Sorry, but this discussion is almost a year old and I just don't have the time to read through it all over again in order to jump back in.

[EmseB]

You don't think G-d must be just?

 

.. if G-d is not just (and, for that matter, loving), then what is there of holiness or that is worthy of worship? (And I ask that as a devoutly religious Jew. My faith not only allows for challenging G-d to be just, but holds that is an unconscionable failure not to do so.)

 

How is strength or elevation or superiority a virtue? ..and is that, what sounds to me like, arrogance, really to be emulated? (Or is emulation of the traits of G-d not a value we share? Perhaps I am making unjustified assumptions)

 

I am completely bewildered by this argument.

 

I believe we have the right and the obligation to question G-d, to challenge injustice, to expect justice, and, for that matter, to strive to bring more justice to the world and thus to be G-d partners...

 

While the Potter and clay metaphor has some resonance for me, the context in which I have encountered it most often is in a list of pairings that gives a range for our relationship with G-d... and, yes, there are ways in which we are clay, we did not shape ourselves, nor have we chosen our core attributes and personality... but if clay is all we are, then for what do we exist? By that reasoning, we could have no free will and there would be nothing we could contribute to the world.

 

I keep thinking I've gotten a handle on how differently your faith, in its many variants, sees things, but then I'm hit with a fresh bout of culture shock.

 

Could you explain?

 

 

 

Not Carol, but I'll give an answer.

 

If God created the universe, the He is love, He is justice, He defines those things by nature of creating all of them. They are not defined by our feelings or emotions or actions, and as created beings with limited senses we cannot fully understand the eternal nature of these things or the entire nature of God.

 

He is the author of all things and is sovereign over all things.

 

ETA: this is not to say that we aren't to reason and think about these things, just to say that God must embody and be love and justice by the nature of being the creator and we don't/can't reson our way to fully understanding all of what that means because we aren't God.

Edited December 4, 2017 by EmseB

[Laurie4b]

This is much of what I have come to conclude in my searching and praying and trying to understand God more.

 

But it is *almost* heretical to my evangelical friends.  ALL of my church experience has been evangelical.  And since college (Christian college) I have felt that we didn't have it 100% right.  I just keep thinking that, although I do believe in a sinners' prayer of sorts, I think the evangelical have it wrong.  It isn't the ONLY prayer, said a certain way,  that will *save* us.

 

 

Evangelicals seem to think it all needs to look exactly the same or it doesn't count.  I grew up that way.  You MUST accept Jesus into your heart (where is that in scripture?)  Private baptism doesn't count, infant baptism doesn't count, and if at all possible, you must be dunked as a believer.

 

The "prayer of salvation"  is not in Scripture, either. Scripture simply says those who " believe."  Some places it says believe and repent.  The "prayer of salvation" may express the state of belief, but it's the state of belief that Scripture speaks of. 

[livetoread]

When I was searching and struggling with these concepts too, I finally came to the conclusion that the authors of the Bible had differing perspectives on it, and part of the reason there are many views now is because there were different views presented. I was raised thinking there is one correct view, and that the Bible, properly understood, was consistent. That view ended up tying me in theological pretzels though, and it was very stressful.

 

I believe people end up believing things about their deity based on many factors. Tell me about your theology - what you believe the nature of God to be and how he behaves - and I know more about you than I do about God. If you are going to be wrong about what your deity is like, best to err on the side of thinking God is more loving and more kind. It makes you a better person, and if God actually exists and actually is loving and kind, he’ll understand. If not, then I’d have to quibble with the whole “loving and kind†thing. I believe our concepts of what is loving and kind have changed from the time the Bible was written, and there are concepts, like an ever burning hell, that sounded right to some of the authors then, but in retrospect are pretty appalling, IMO. Of course, there are also Biblical concepts of love that have stood the test of time, so there’s that.

 

(Full disclosure - I am no longer a believer, but thinking along these lines helped me when I still was, so I offer them in that spirit.)

[Learning fun]

So this is my .02 :).

 

First, guilt is to the soul as pain is to the body. Second, all of our souls are perfect beings of light and good.

 

After we die all that we had said, thought and did, that had fallen short of the perfect light and goodness of our soul will manifest itself as guilt. This guilt is not heaped upon us by our loving Father but is the natural reaction we have from not living up to ourselves. This is why we need a savior, because really don't we all fall short of perfection every minute of every day? Jesus has taken our guilt from us.

 

Now this is where my beliefs differ from universal salvation. Doesn't a person need to at least try to receive this gift? Doesn't a person need to love the good and peaceable and light? Shouldn't a person strive to reject the ugly, small mindedness, greedy, and harmfulness of this world. I say yes. And I believe it's less about what you believe and more about who you are and are becoming. So the Atheist, Buddhist, Pagan, or Christian who is doing good, embracing love, bringing light in this world and becoming closer to who they really are is receiving Jesus' gift. The ones who embrace hate, who hurt, who trample on the weak, those who love evil, they are rejecting Jesus' gift. They will be the ones who will feel the full force of their guilt and that is hell.

 

As to how long they will experience this hell of their own choosing I haven't the foggiest. I like to think that they will eventually work through it and find the peace and love and light that comes by turning towards Jesus.

 

Edited because of so may typos

Edited to create paragraphs.

Edited December 4, 2017 by Learning fun

[Greta]

You don't think G-d must be just? 

 

.. if G-d is not just (and, for that matter, loving), then what is there of holiness or that is worthy of worship?   

 

 

 

 

I'm certainly no theologian, but it would seem to me that any sort of "supreme" being that is not loving and just must surely be a devil, not God.  And that being would have my opposition, however little it might accomplish and however much it might cost me, not my worship.

[6packofun]

I think this article is instructive for this conversation.  It's not long, please read it.  I can't imagine anyone feeling outrage at the injustices in this world, and seeing that outrage as JUST, believing that a loving God could exist without His own perfect outrage...especially given His goal of reconciliation and redemption, of putting things right in the end.

 

A Wrath-less God Has Victims

[Laurie4b]

Have you read the Chronicles of Narnia? In the scene from the Last Battle when Narnia is disintegrating, some humans and animals faced Aslan and turned away into blackness. Others ran to him and past him into the new Narnia.  The dwarves OTOH were physically in the new Narnia but hated it. The food that tasted delicious to the others tasted nasty to them, etc. It was as if they were there in the location but the experience was different for them. My understanding is that this is a pretty good literary depiction of beliefs that are similar to Eastern Orthodox. (EO ladies correct me if I am wrong about that.) 

 

Another way I think of it is to think of the different effect that light has: If one is a germ, light may be deadly. The same light would be welcome to plants, other animals, and humans. The light didn't change, but the nature of what it was shining on determined its effect. 

[Greta]

I think this article is instructive for this conversation.  It's not long, please read it.  I can't imagine anyone feeling outrage at the injustices in this world, and seeing that outrage as JUST, believing that a loving God could exist without His own perfect outrage...especially given His goal of reconciliation and redemption, of putting things right in the end.

 

A Wrath-less God Has Victims

 

I'm not arguing any particular theological stance, because I'm too uncertain of anything to even have a stance right now.  But I certainly don't think that Universalists are saying that God is apathetic toward injustice or that God doesn't plan to put things right.  I think the difference in perspective is in how God is going to put things right, or what "right" means exactly.  I believe, please anyone jump in and correct me if I'm wrong, that to a traditionalist, this necessitates punishment.  While to a Universalist, it necessitates healing.  You spoke of reconciliation and redemption, but my understanding of the traditional view is that it is only some people who get reconciliation and redemption, while the Universalist would say that's incomplete and imperfect and therefore can't be God's plan.  God's plan is for everyone to receive reconciliation and redemption.  Right . . . ?

 

 

Have you read the Chronicles of Narnia? In the scene from the Last Battle when Narnia is disintegrating, some humans and animals faced Aslan and turned away into blackness. Others ran to him and past him into the new Narnia.  The dwarves OTOH were physically in the new Narnia but hated it. The food that tasted delicious to the others tasted nasty to them, etc. It was as if they were there in the location but the experience was different for them. My understanding is that this is a pretty good literary depiction of beliefs that are similar to Eastern Orthodox. (EO ladies correct me if I am wrong about that.) 

 

Another way I think of it is to think of the different effect that light has: If one is a germ, light may be deadly. The same light would be welcome to plants, other animals, and humans. The light didn't change, but the nature of what it was shining on determined its effect. 

 

 

Those are interesting analogies.  

[DawnM]

Have you read the Chronicles of Narnia? In the scene from the Last Battle when Narnia is disintegrating, some humans and animals faced Aslan and turned away into blackness. Others ran to him and past him into the new Narnia.  The dwarves OTOH were physically in the new Narnia but hated it. The food that tasted delicious to the others tasted nasty to them, etc. It was as if they were there in the location but the experience was different for them. My understanding is that this is a pretty good literary depiction of beliefs that are similar to Eastern Orthodox. (EO ladies correct me if I am wrong about that.) 

 

Another way I think of it is to think of the different effect that light has: If one is a germ, light may be deadly. The same light would be welcome to plants, other animals, and humans. The light didn't change, but the nature of what it was shining on determined its effect. 

 

I have often thought of the end of the Chronicles of Narnia.

 

What is the EO stance on Hell?  Who goes?

[abba12]

I haven't read the previous posts so I don't know what's already been said. I just wanted to say, I struggled greatly with the same thing. I was absolutely convinced universalism was not the right way, the only way to the father is through the son, etc. But eternal damnation never sat right with me even as a child. Eventually I landed here, with a type of annihalationism

 

I don't endorse ANYTHING else on this website. But he happens to also have the most comprehensive, biblically referenced argument I've ever found for the topic, so I reluctantly continue to use this link lol

http://biblelight.net/hell.htm

 

This is a more moderate comparison by some guy, in 4 parts

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/02/is-annihilation-an-evangelical-option/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/02/biblical-support-for-annihilation/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/02/biblical-arguments-for-eternal-conscious-torment/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/02/my-terminal-blog-on-the-terminal-punishment-of-hell/

 

I can sit happily with this view. In this view it is not that everyone should go to heaven and then some people go to eternal torment, fairly or not (one of the motivating factors was my refusal to believe that people in non-christian nations could be sent to eternal torment for not having the chance to hear of God). Plus, God said eternal life was for the saved, not for everyone and some just got a good one while others got a bad one. 

 

Rather, in this viewpoint, everyone dies, no torture and suffering, just plain old death, not so bad, and then those who have devoted themselves to Jesus and been saved will go to heaven and have eternal life, but, still, those who don't just die, it's not a punishment, it's just the default state of humanity that some are blessed to be saved from, rather than heaven being the default and hell being a 'punishment'. Whether there is some suffering before the death relative to the wrongdoings of the sinner is up for debate, I personally think the bible speaks of hell and judgement being 'worse' for some than others often enough to accept there is probably something more involved before death, but we don't have details except that it will be worse for some. 

Edited December 4, 2017 by abba12

[eternalsummer]

But if a person doesn't believe in God, in the way that I suspect no one on this thread believes in the divinity or existence of Poseidon, how can they be choosing to obey, love, and trust something else instead of God?  If, after death, the reality of God is undeniable (in the way that it is not undeniable in this plane, obviously), and God is Good, do you think some people will still refuse to love and obey him?  Do you think there are people now who believe God exists and is good but reject him anyway?  I have personally never known anyone like this - everyone I have ever known or read about who believes God exists (that is, who believes that the Christian God exists) is, in one form or another, Christian.  

 

Maybe I just don't know enough people :)

 

I do think the CS Lewis Narnia fictionalization is interesting, but I have trouble basing theological or philosophical beliefs on imaginary beings that someone had to make up (with made up characteristics that, as far as we know, have never existed) in order to explain the logic of a theological position.  

Edited December 5, 2017 by eternalsummer

[livetoread]

I don’t think traditional Christianity offers justice anyway, since people are not judged in the end by their good or bad behaviors but by whether they accepted Jesus as their savior. I thought the whole point was that people could never be good enough on their own, but Jesus, through his life and death, offers salvation to anyone who accepts it, sinner though they may be.

 

If Hitler accepted Jesus in his bunker, he’d be saved. There is no justice in that. Someone who led a terrible life could go to heaven, while someone who didn’t murder millions wouldn’t. God does not met out reward or punishment based on how good people are, according to my understanding of salvation, so where’s the justice? For all have sinned and fallen short, you know? It actually flips the idea of justice on its head and says we are not given rewards or punishments based on merit.

 

Not to mention, the reward/punishment is binary - heaven or hell (with maybe three options if you are Catholic). Even if behavior is what mattered, there is a continuum from perfect to pure evil, but a binary solution. Imagine if you were so close to getting the heaven option, but oops, you were just not quite good enough. Eternal hell for you, while the person who was just barely better than you gets heaven. It doesn’t add up.

[Suzanne in ABQ]

I am following this conversation.  I have skimmed through the posts, but I'm too sleepy to focus tonight.  I will come back tomorrow because this topic is near and dear to my heart.

 

I will sum up my overall belief shortly, then perhaps elaborate after I've had a chance to read the words of all these wise women (and men?)

 

I believe that God is Love.  I believe that His glory shines from Him continually.  I believe that this glory has the power to change corruptible into incorruptible.  I believe that it also has the power to destroy sin.  Indeed, I believe that sin cannot exist in the presence of God.  And, I believe that we are given the free will to choose whether to be apart from God or to allow Him to dwell within us and change us into His image.  I believe that if we choose to live independent of God and his life giving and sustaining glory, then we choose to die apart from Him.

 

So, how does this translate into my belief about hell and eternal life?  I believe that when God comes, His glory will destroy sin.  The old things will pass away and He will create a new heaven and a new earth.  Earth will be made new and without the mark of sin and death.  At the same time, that same glory will give life to those who are drawn to it, and to Him.

 

Those who are alive when He comes will see him.  If they have been seeking Love, they will recognize Him when they see Him.  No matter where they were looking, or whether they ever found it on earth during their life time.  If they were truly seeking, they will know Him and they will desire Him.  I believe that some of these people will be Christians, but many will come from other walks.  God will know them, and they will know Him.

 

Those who don't recognize him or don't want him will be eternally destroyed by His glory.  These will include many who call themselves Christians.  These will be separated from Him and his life sustaining power forever.  They will cease to exist.  

 

I use biblical words to describe my beliefs because that is what I know.  I spent my first 20 years as a Catholic, then almost 30 years as a Seventh-day Adventist.  I left that church about five years ago because my view of God got bigger than the box they want to keep Him in.  Indeed, my understanding of God grew bigger than the Bible can hold.  He is big enough to know each of us, where we've come from, and where we are.  He knows the hurts we've suffered that may have turned us away from religion.  He knows us if we are seeking Him through any of the hundreds of religious systems in the world.  He knows us if we're not part of any religious system.  He knows if we are seeking Him, even if we're looking in all the wrong places.  He will guide us to Him, and will accept us if we die before we find Him on this broken planet.  

 

I haven't found a church that believes like I do.  I probably won't.  I am sure I have some things wrong, but I've grown out of the arrogance that would let me think I know all truth.  I can only know that there is Truth, and He is Love.  I can seek, and learn, and grow.  I can allow Him to lead my path and guide me to Truth.  

[J-rap]

I am following this conversation.  I have skimmed through the posts, but I'm too sleepy to focus tonight.  I will come back tomorrow because this topic is near and dear to my heart.

 

I will sum up my overall belief shortly, then perhaps elaborate after I've had a chance to read the words of all these wise women (and men?)

 

I believe that God is Love.  I believe that His glory shines from Him continually.  I believe that this glory has the power to change corruptible into incorruptible.  I believe that it also has the power to destroy sin.  Indeed, I believe that sin cannot exist in the presence of God.  And, I believe that we are given the free will to choose whether to be apart from God or to allow Him to dwell within us and change us into His image.  I believe that if we choose to live independent of God and his life giving and sustaining glory, then we choose to die apart from Him.

 

So, how does this translate into my belief about hell and eternal life?  I believe that when God comes, His glory will destroy sin.  The old things will pass away and He will create a new heaven and a new earth.  Earth will be made new and without the mark of sin and death.  At the same time, that same glory will give life to those who are drawn to it, and to Him.

 

Those who are alive when He comes will see him.  If they have been seeking Love, they will recognize Him when they see Him.  No matter where they were looking, or whether they ever found it on earth during their life time.  If they were truly seeking, they will know Him and they will desire Him.  I believe that some of these people will be Christians, but many will come from other walks.  God will know them, and they will know Him.

 

Those who don't recognize him or don't want him will be eternally destroyed by His glory.  These will include many who call themselves Christians.  These will be separated from Him and his life sustaining power forever.  They will cease to exist.  

 

I use biblical words to describe my beliefs because that is what I know.  I spent my first 20 years as a Catholic, then almost 30 years as a Seventh-day Adventist.  I left that church about five years ago because my view of God got bigger than the box they want to keep Him in.  Indeed, my understanding of God grew bigger than the Bible can hold.  He is big enough to know each of us, where we've come from, and where we are.  He knows the hurts we've suffered that may have turned us away from religion.  He knows us if we are seeking Him through any of the hundreds of religious systems in the world.  He knows us if we're not part of any religious system.  He knows if we are seeking Him, even if we're looking in all the wrong places.  He will guide us to Him, and will accept us if we die before we find Him on this broken planet.  

 

I haven't found a church that believes like I do.  I probably won't.  I am sure I have some things wrong, but I've grown out of the arrogance that would let me think I know all truth.  I can only know that there is Truth, and He is Love.  I can seek, and learn, and grow.  I can allow Him to lead my path and guide me to Truth.  

Beautifully said, Suzanne.  I'll have to say, based on what I believe to be Scriptural and also being a committed Christian, this is pretty much what I've come to believe too.

Edited December 5, 2017 by J-rap

[6packofun]

I don’t think traditional Christianity offers justice anyway, since people are not judged in the end by their good or bad behaviors but by whether they accepted Jesus as their savior. I thought the whole point was that people could never be good enough on their own, but Jesus, through his life and death, offers salvation to anyone who accepts it, sinner though they may be.

 

 

People ARE judged in the end by their behavior...and they all are judged sinners in need of a Savior.  It's not either or, it's BOTH, and you stated as much in the very next sentence.  Every single person, Christian or not, must account for their life at God's judgment.  We don't escape it! But then, yes, before the "verdict" is in, God does take into account our faith/fidelity to Christ status.  Imagine how much more lovely God's grace will be experienced by those who have to confront the sin in their lives first and then get that wonderful reprieve, God's gift of Jesus?!  THIS is the confidence that Christians have.  Not that we're better than anyone else but that we do not have to fear God's righteous judgment of us at the end and that while we live here on Earth, our hope is in Him and He has been changing us to be more like Jesus, even little by little, so that we will be able to bless others until that day.

[Greta]

I haven't read the previous posts so I don't know what's already been said. I just wanted to say, I struggled greatly with the same thing. I was absolutely convinced universalism was not the right way, the only way to the father is through the son, etc. But eternal damnation never sat right with me even as a child. Eventually I landed here, with a type of annihalationism

 

I don't endorse ANYTHING else on this website. But he happens to also have the most comprehensive, biblically referenced argument I've ever found for the topic, so I reluctantly continue to use this link lol

http://biblelight.net/hell.htm

 

This is a more moderate comparison by some guy, in 4 parts

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/02/is-annihilation-an-evangelical-option/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/02/biblical-support-for-annihilation/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/02/biblical-arguments-for-eternal-conscious-torment/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/02/my-terminal-blog-on-the-terminal-punishment-of-hell/

 

I can sit happily with this view. In this view it is not that everyone should go to heaven and then some people go to eternal torment, fairly or not (one of the motivating factors was my refusal to believe that people in non-christian nations could be sent to eternal torment for not having the chance to hear of God). Plus, God said eternal life was for the saved, not for everyone and some just got a good one while others got a bad one. 

 

Rather, in this viewpoint, everyone dies, no torture and suffering, just plain old death, not so bad, and then those who have devoted themselves to Jesus and been saved will go to heaven and have eternal life, but, still, those who don't just die, it's not a punishment, it's just the default state of humanity that some are blessed to be saved from, rather than heaven being the default and hell being a 'punishment'. Whether there is some suffering before the death relative to the wrongdoings of the sinner is up for debate, I personally think the bible speaks of hell and judgement being 'worse' for some than others often enough to accept there is probably something more involved before death, but we don't have details except that it will be worse for some. 

 

 

I finally got the chance to read the links you provided, and wanted to thank you for posting this.  I was familiar with some of these points, but some were new, and all of it was interesting.  

[justasque]

...If everyone goes to heaven regardless of their actions here on earth, then sin or moral judgments mean nothing. ... If there is no consequence for thumbing one's nose at one's Creator (or harming one's fellow man), why does Christianity include a Savior?  From what is anyone being saved?  Surely there can't really be sin then...and yet even non-believers haul out the term "evil" for all sorts of human beings who don't meet their moral requirements and they expect retribution.  If Jesus didn't need to die but just died as a result of human actions, why would God even send Him?  Or say that we are judged in some way but all get the same outcome.  You think that is fair?  Do you think that everyone will choose God given a "second chance"?  Not if free will is involved.  And if we get a second chance at everything, or are forced into His eternal presence after death anyway, why in the world would God bother asking anything of His creation? So, there goes most Christian doctrine and practice.  Hmmm, I wonder if that was the point of the argument after all?  lol...

 

This post is the most contrary to my beliefs on this thread.  I believe that striving to walk a good/right path through life is its own reward, and that one who does so should not expect an additional external reward from man or God.  I believe (most, healthy) people know in their hearts when they are choosing the bad/wrong path, and choosing to go against their conscience will come with its own punishment/torment, in one form or another, if not from man or God then from ones' self.  I don't strive to do good out of fear of the consequences if I don't.  Indeed, there are often negative earthly consequences for choosing the good/right path (think of those who defied the Nazis and suffered for it), and of course sometimes bad/negative things happen in life to people who have always walked the right path (think of those good people who suffer the pain of losing a child).  I strive to do good because it's the right thing to do, whether there is an external reward at the end of it or not.  The goodness, itself, is the reward.   

Edited December 5, 2017 by justasque