For The Sake Of Argument

[mortify]

I feel like it's the same idea with hell. I know the analogy isn't perfect, but hang with me.  We cannot possibly know truly what eternal damnation means. Yes, it's separation for God. But because we also don't fully fathom what eternal paradise is like, we can't make a completely informed decision.  Would an all-loving God send someone to hell who has "chosen" that path even though that person could never fully comprehend that choice?

 

I share your concerns over the idea of eternal damnation. To me even if one concsciously committed a heinous act at some point one's suffering in hell would satisfy for the crime. To say the punishment would continue forever goes contrary not only to Divine mercy but also to Divine justice. I'm personally leaning towards a complete annihilation of the damned soul after due punishment. Let me begin by pointing out that references to eternal damnation are not unilaterally found through scripture. The Gospel of John for example renders the division between perishing and possessing Eternal Life, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16.) There is no mention of a concious eternal damnation. Likewise St Paul has the dichotomy between salvation and destruction, and the one passage mentioning a punishment by fire describes it as a temporary ordeal to which those who go through it are ultimately saved. There is one particular Old Testament passage I find interesting because it is associated with a saying of Jesus:

 

²² “For as the new heavens and the new earth
that I make shall remain before me, says the Lord,
so shall your offspring and your name remain.r
²³ From new moon to new moon,
and from Sabbath to Sabbath,
all flesh shall come to worship before me,
declares the Lord.

²⁴ “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

(Isaiah 66:22-24)

 

This is connected with Mark 9:47-49, what's interesting is that in the case of the OT passage, the rebellious dead remain dead. Their eternal punishment is loss of eternal life and disdain met by their corrupting bodies to forever rott.

Another interesting though equally controversial opinion is the transmigration of a soul from one body to another. Some interesting passages in the bible about that, and Origen himself was a poponent of it, but ultimately all we can say is God knows best. We hope with God that all will be saved, including ourselves.
 

[4588686]

I share your concerns over the idea of eternal damnation. To me even if one concsciously committed a heinous act at some point one's suffering in hell would satisfy for the crime. To say the punishment would continue forever goes contrary not only to Divine mercy but also to Divine justice. I'm personally leaning towards a complete annihilation of the damned soul after due punishment. Let me begin by pointing out that references to eternal damnation are not unilaterally found through scripture. The Gospel of John for example renders the division between perishing and possessing Eternal Life, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16.) There is no mention of a concious eternal damnation. Likewise St Paul has the dichotomy between salvation and destruction, and the one passage mentioning a punishment by fire describes it as a temporary ordeal to which those who go through it are ultimately saved. There is one particular Old Testament passage I find interesting because it is associated with a saying of Jesus:

 

²² “For as the new heavens and the new earth
that I make shall remain before me, says the Lord,
so shall your offspring and your name remain.r
²³ From new moon to new moon,
and from Sabbath to Sabbath,
all flesh shall come to worship before me,
declares the Lord.

²⁴ “And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

(Isaiah 66:22-24)

 

This is connected with Mark 9:47-49, what's interesting is that in the case of the OT passage, the rebellious dead remain dead. Their eternal punishment is loss of eternal life and disdain met by their corrupting bodies to forever rott.

Another interesting though equally controversial opinion is the transmigration of a soul from one body to another. Some interesting passages in the bible about that, and Origen himself was a poponent of it, but ultimately all we can say is God knows best. We hope with God that all will be saved, including ourselves.
 

 

Annihilation the soul after punishment would also be unjustifiably cruel.  If annihilation is the end then why punish before that?  

And you're ignoring the Church's teaching on sin and mercy. 

 

What points am I ignoring?  

[Winchester]

Annihilation the soul after punishment would also be unjustifiably cruel.  If annihilation is the end then why punish before that?  

 

What points am I ignoring?  

 

Go home, Hasan. You are drunk.

[4588686]

Go home, Hasan. You are drunk.

 

My kittens are sexy.  

[mortify]

Annihilation the soul after punishment would also be unjustifiably cruel.  If annihilation is the end then why punish before that?  

 

Satisfaction for wrongs done

[4588686]

Satisfaction for wrongs done

 

Unnecessary 

[mortify]

Unnecessary 

 

It's not merely legalistic, there is a restoration in the process that gives back what was taken.

[4588686]

It's not merely legalistic, there is a restoration in the process that gives back what was taken.

 

What?

[Tally Marx]

Lets start with the premise that God is indeed infinitely above our ways and understanding, as we usually say when we come up against something we don't understand — "Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways!" (Romans 11:33)

 

I have been troubled by the idea that we are said to have free will to choose either heaven or hell, yet we could never fully understand what either choice would entail because we cannot fathom God completely.

 

For example — if you locked child in a room with his favorite food. For the sake of argument, let us say the child is old enough to understand behavioral choices and consequence, and you tell the child that if he doesn't eat the food for the time he stays in the room, he will be rewarded with a large meal with all his favorite foods.  On the flip side, if he does eat it, he will be sent away to die of starvation.

 

If you leave the child in the room long enough, he will eventually eat the food out of hunger. Why? Because the child cannot possibly understand what it means to actually die of starvation. He knows of hunger pangs and has the drive to satisfy it, but cannot be expected to fathom starvation.

 

Would you still send the child to die of starvation knowing that he couldn't possibly make a completely informed decision?

 

I feel like it's the same idea with hell. I know the analogy isn't perfect, but hang with me.  We cannot possibly know truly what eternal damnation means. Yes, it's separation for God. But because we also don't fully fathom what eternal paradise is like, we can't make a completely informed decision.  Would an all-loving God send someone to hell who has "chosen" that path even though that person could never fully comprehend that choice?

 

We do not need to comprehend all the intricacies of something, or have personal experience of it, to make an informed decision.

You cannot possibly know what it is like to have lung cancer.  Yet you know that cigarettes can cause lung cancer.  If you were to smoke one, would you not consider yourself as having been well informed?  Do you have to personally get in a car accident to understand the risk you are taking when you drive?  We make "informed decisions" all the time based on a feeble knowledge of a much greater, more impacting possibility.

 

We can also have a good idea of what something is about by experiencing it on a smaller level.  Every human being has, in a way, experienced hell.  We all, at some point, go through the Dark Night of the Senses.  We feel that loneliness that comes with not being in communion with God.  We feel the emptiness, the desperation, the knowledge that there is something more.  We know that hell is complete separation from God.  So, if we are told that hell is this feeling x1000, don't we have some idea of what hell is?

If you took a hungry twelve year old and told them, "Starvation is like being a million times hungrier than you are now.  It is literally being so hungry you die."  They would have some idea of what it is like to starve, even if it is only there as "something way worse than what I have now".  They still have some understanding.

 

Feeble examples perhaps, but I hope I still get my point across.

 

Also, if we knew--absolutely knew, 100% understood every detail--what hell is and what it is like, would we have free will?  Would we make a real decision?  I don't think so.  We instictively--not volutarily--move toward self preservation.  Do we really decide to flinch away from a hot pot, a flying hammer, or a close, honking car?  Not really. 

If you hold a child, tressed, above a pot of oil, and he can feel the heat licking his toes, and has just seen all his friends die this way...if you told him, "Now, say you love me, or you die, too!"...would he really love you even if he said so?  That is not free will.

If we knew what hell was, it would be impossible to go there.  It would be impossible for us to say "no" to God.  And if it is impossible to say no, do we have free will?  What does our yes mean if we cannot say no?

 

I've always thought of it this way:

We know enough to make an informed decision, but not enough to make a forced one.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Tally Marx

[Apotheoun]

According to the Church Fathers faith is a form of knowledge (or better "experience") that transcends intellectual comprehension, and that is why St. Gregory of Nyssa said that one must "unknow" (i.e., intellectually) God in order to really "know" (i.e., experience) Him (see St. Gregory's Commentaries on the Canticle of Canticles).

[4588686]

Also, if we knew--absolutely knew, 100% understood every detail--what hell is and what it is like, would we have free will?  Would we make a real decision?  I don't think so.  We instictively--not volutarily--move toward self preservation.  Do we really decide to flinch away from a hot pot, a flying hammer, or a close, honking car?  Not really. 

If you hold a child, tressed, above a pot of oil, and he can feel the heat licking his toes, and has just seen all his friends die this way...if you told him, "Now, say you love me, or you die, too!"...would he really love you even if he said so?  That is not free will.

 

 

 

If we knew what hell was, it would be impossible to go there.  It would be impossible for us to say "no" to God.  And if it is impossible to say no, do we have free will?  What does our yes mean if we cannot say no?

 

I've always thought of it this way:

We know enough to make an informed decision, but not enough to make a forced one.

 

This makes no sense.  Nobody would chooce to do 'x' does not meant that anyone is unfree to choose 'x.' 

[4588686]

If nobody would ever choose option 'x' with full knowledge then that just goes against you.  'Nobody would ever choose option 'x' if they fully understood what 'x' entailed.  So to make the choice free we'll give them an imperfect understanding of 'x'"  That doesn't make them more free.  It just makes eternal punishment for choosing 'x' all the more aweful. 

[Tally Marx]

This makes no sense. Nobody would chooce to do 'x' does not meant that anyone is unfree to choose 'x.'

I made the assertion that an involuntary, instinctual act of self preservation born of fear forces one into a decision; therefore, it was not a decision freely made. Do you consider such decisions to be freely made? I consider them to be coerced.

I admit that the last part of my post (the part you quoted) would sound odd...if one had not read the first part of my post as well.

[4588686]

I made the assertion that an involuntary, instinctual act of self preservation born of fear forces one into a decision; therefore, it was not a decision freely made. Do you consider such decisions to be freely made? I consider them to be coerced.

I admit that the last part of my post (the part you quoted) would sound odd...if one had not read the first part of my post as well.

 

 

Sure.  There is a coercive element.  Which is why the idea of heaven and hell are so bad.  But what makes them coercive isn't perfect knowledge but how aweful the consequences of choosing wrongly actually are.  Your argument really leads to the fact that choosing to be holy isn't a really free choice because hell exists and we know about it. 

[Tally Marx]

Sure. There is a coercive element. Which is why the idea of heaven and hell are so bad. But what makes them coercive isn't perfect knowledge but how aweful the consequences of choosing wrongly actually are. Your argument really leads to the fact that choosing to be holy isn't a really free choice because hell exists and we know about it.

Yet "choosing heaven" means to choose to Love God. And Love excludes such selfish reasoning; it is a free gift of self. Choosing heaven by definition is making a free choice. If it were not free, you wouldn't make it to heaven.
So hell can't scare you into heaven. It cannot force you to be holy.

One reason I find the question of the original post--and a full knowledge of hell--somewhat superfluous. Asking if getting frightened into heaven (or not getting frightened) undermines free will, is odd, because it is impossible to get frightened into heaven. The focus is all wrong. If anything, it should be, "How can we be expected to Love God if we cannot fully know Him?" Edited January 2, 2013 by Tally Marx