Posted on 12/10/2011 4:25:46 PM PST by GiovannaNicoletta
The question has been asked so many times that has morphed from a question into a challenge; "How can a merciful and loving God condemn people to eternal torments in hell?"
The question is not just posed by atheists and skeptics, but also by some sincere, but woefully uneducated Christians. The argument has some merit on the surface. God is love. All men are created with a sin nature.
Since, by definition and design, all men are sinners and our Creator God is love, it logically follows that a loving God who created sinners would be unjust in condemning them to hell for being what they are.
God is the Righteous Judge. If He is so righteous, it seems logical that He would take into account the mitigating circumstances.
Especially since the chief mitigation is the fact it was the Righteous Judge that created the unrighteous sinner and that unrighteousness is the default condition of man. That cannot be stressed strongly enough.
The default condition of mankind is that of utter depravity. People are not born good and then learn bad things. It is precisely the opposite.
There is a common canard in our society that dictates that racism, for example, is learned behavior. A 'learned behavior' is something that has been taught to someone, or a way of thinking that they did not come up with themselves.
The prevailing worldview is that children who grow up to be racists are taught to be racist as a child. In this view, unless a child is taught to be racist, he will grow up to be 'color-blind' so to speak.
An article posted on the American Psychiatric Association's website attempted to argue against racism as a 'mental illness', claiming that racism "is mainly a product of learned behavior," and "a majority of explicitly racist persons do not have any psychopathology."
I don't know if racism is a mental illness, but I know that racism is not something that children are taught. It is something that they must be 'untaught'.
Children are racist by nature. Studies conducted that put one black pre-schooler into a classroom full of white pre-schoolers showed the white pre-schoolers abused, ostracized and teased the black kid corporately, that is to say, they did so as a group.
Reversing the situation produced the same results; the black kids abused, ostracized and teased the white kid, again corporately. Were all these pre-schoolers taught to be racists?
Moreover, who taught them to be abusive? Who taught them the principles of boycott, or ostracization?
These are fairly advanced principles for pre-schoolers -- it took Jesse Jackson a lifetime of effort to fine-tune them into the social weapons they are today. Where did these kids learn to be racist?
Any school teacher will confirm that children are not only racist, they are mean. Kids are really small terrorists without advanced weaponry or a cause. And we were all kids.
If we reach back far enough into our memories, it is fairly obvious that the cruelest people we ever met were our own classmates.
Everyone remembers that one kid who was taunted unmercifully, (maybe it was you) because of their skin color, their religion, their social status, or some other characteristic that made that kid different. (I remember a kid we all teased because he was ugly.)
I was teased unmercifully because I had no hand-to-eye coordination. When we would choose up sides to play baseball, the two team captains would choose their players until they got to me. Then they'd fight over who got 'stuck' with me -- as if I wasn't there.
My nicknames were alternatively, "Easy Out" and "Butterfingers" -- two terms that make me cringe to this day.
Children have to be taught not to hit each other, bite each other, they have to be taught not to steal, to show respect, not to lie, etc.
Prisons are full of folks who blame their upbringing for their shortcomings. That's a cop out. Children needn't be taught bad values because 'bad' is their default state.
Prisons, as rehabilitation centers, attempt to teach 'good' values -- or the word 'rehabilitation' is meaningless.
A long example to prove a short principle; We are born sinners. Evil is our default condition. It is goodness that is the learned behavior.
To return to our original premise, if a loving God created us without a spark of goodness, then how could He then condemn us to an eternity of torment for being what He made us to be -- and still call that 'perfect justice'?
It is worth noting that the only inherently evil creation in the corporeal (physical) world is humanity. Animals aren't evil by nature. They do what comes naturally.
Sin isn't a learned behavior. It is something that must be unlearned. The degree to which a human being 'unlearns' selfishness, cruelty and sadism becomes the measure of his goodness. Provide the right set of circumstances, say, New Orleans after Katrina, and humanity reverts to type.
Doctors murder patients to save themselves. People with no criminal record become looters. The strong prey on the weak. Right and wrong, as social concepts, essentially evaporate.
Man was created in God's image. He was created with the ability to discern between right and wrong, and was also created with the ability to choose which path to take.
This planet is the only place in God's creation where evil is permitted unfettered operation. Theologians call it the 'cosmos diabolicus'. It is enclosed by an atmosphere which keeps evil from escaping out into the universe.
When Satan came to present himself before the Lord, "the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it." (Job 1:7)
It is Satan's domain. When Satan tempted Jesus in the wilderness, he offered the Creator of the Universe a bargain:
"the devil taketh Him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto Him, All these things will I give thee, if Thou wilt fall down and worship me." (Matthew 4:8-9)
Although Jesus is the Creator (and Satan knew it) the 'cosmos diabolicus' was Satan's to offer.
So, again we return to the central question: "How could a loving God condemn us to eternal torment for being what He made us to be?"
A lion who hunts down and kills an injured wildebeest that can't keep up with the herd isn't doing evil because he selected the weakest and most vulnerable prey. That's what he was created to do. He has no other choice.
And THAT is where God's perfect justice comes in. We DO have a choice. We were created specifically to that single purpose. So that, when given the choice, we could then choose God.
God's perfect justice demands that there be some provision of salvation for those who choose Him -- or He could impose no penalty for those who choose to reject Him.
Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Therefore, man has a choice between 'good' (God) and man's default nature of evil (self). Jesus Christ represents God's perfect justice.
Having defeated the sin nature by living a perfect life, He was uniquely qualified to pay the penalty perfect justice demands, because no created being could earn the currency necessary to pay the price on their own behalf.
Each of us is acutely aware of our sin nature. We spend a lifetime seeking to overcome it, and in so doing, learn that it is impossible. We then are confronted with a choice.
We can choose Heaven by humbly accepting the offer of Pardon extended to us, knowing it is not something we earned, cannot earn, and cannot buy or steal.
Or we can choose hell, the place prepared as the eternal repository for sin after this cosmos diabolicus is destroyed at the end of human history.
The earth will have served its purpose as a confinement area for sin, and having served that purpose, "shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat." (2nd Peter 3:12)
After Satan is banished to hell and sin is contained, the cosmos diabolicus gives way to "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness." (2nd Peter 3:13)
God doesn't condemn us to hell. He condemns sin. But in His mercy, He provides a way for us to shed our sin nature through the regeneration of salvation.
But we are the ones who make the final choice. It is indeed perfect justice that the condemned be given the choice -- while still in their sins -- of where they will spend eternity.
Having expressly provided the choices to us, it would be utterly unjust of God to ignore the choice we make.
God is just, so He honors the choice we make.
“God is just, so He honors the choice we make.”
According to Rick Perry’s pastor and a host of other so-called Christians because I’m a Mormon, I’m going straight to hell with all the Catholics and Jews.
It’s not that simple, FReeper.
Oh, and for the record, Jesus Christ is my Savior and Advocate with the Father, and the Holy Ghost has sealed this in my heart.
Then why are you a Mormon?
Or we can choose hell, the place prepared as the eternal repository for sin
I cannot conceive of anyone, when the choice is clear and stark, choosing hell. He is just proposing yet another mystery.
“Then why are you a Mormon?”
I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints because I love the Savior and am eternally grateful for His Atoning Sacrifice for me.
Do you believe that human beings eventually become "gods"?
Do you believe in the Trinity, that God is the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, one God in three Persons?
It most certainly is. Believe that Jesus is God in the flesh and came to pay for our sins as the only perfect sacrifice. We have been given the choice and the consequences of that choice and God will honor that choice.
Sometimes, idiot me wonders what God makes of all our sectarian and theological disputes.
I left organized religion a long time ago, mostly because the “sect” of my youth changed into something I couldn’t recognize. (Church of England/Episcopalian, if anyone is curious)
I rely only on the Bible, the ten commandments, and the words of Jesus. But, I stand on the shoulders of the early church, and worry endlessly about the translations, what was included, what was excluded, and all the schisms.
I have serious doubts about Morman teachings, but would never presume to cast aspersions on anyone who has found a home there. The few Mormans I have known are honorable people.
What I do know about God is that we mere mortals make a common mistake of trying to define Him, and what we ::think:: are His rules for us - leading to all kinds of wickedness in the way we behave toward one another, when our human traditions/beliefs are in conflict.
Why is it so hard for us humans to comprehend that none of us can know the mind go God? I think it must be “original sin” - hubris, or something like that.
I think of it like a bulls eye. Divine Jesus stands in the center explaining why he came to Earth and why he allowed himself to be murdered (for our salvation). That is not debatable and everyone who accepts that core teaching is my brother or sister in Christ. Moving out from the center things are less certain and more debatable.
Of course it isn't that simple. That is why many additional sentences precede the one you have cited.
I don't know God's mind. The judgment of what each of us has done in our hearts regarding the sacrifice He made on the cross and His deity while doing so is for God alone to judge.
I wrestled from time to time over the existence of many different religions. Flawed as it may be, my explanation follows.
If the claims of scripture are accurate, then one must arrive at the conclusion that Jesus is God, and that He lived a sinless life in human form, and died a tortured death on a cross, to pay the price for one's sin against God.
While not essential for salvation, the background on Satan and his rule of this world are also presented in scripture. Satan's efforts are to thwart the salvation of humanity. Given the first statement, it is logical to conclude that Satan's efforts are toward preventing as many people as possible from trusting Jesus Christ, God the Son, for their salvation.
Some people are understandably easy targets. For various reasons they hate God. Atheists, agnostics, Satan worshipers; there are all kinds of variations to select from. Islam is interesting, given the history, and seems to serve as not only an alternative but specifically as an adversary, just as God said.. Buddhism and Hinduism seem to be cultural religions in parts of the globe. But what to do about those individuals who are raised with biblical knowledge? What about people who have been taught morals and personal discipline wish to maintain them? Would not the goal be to get as close to biblically accurate theology as is necessary, just so long as the key means of salvation is denied? JW and LDS are a couple of choices that meet this need; there is an alternative designed for everyone.
I believe that Satan is willing to allow anyone to join any church, any group, any religion - just so long as one doesn't come to salvation thru God the Son, Jesus Christ.
The differences between key Mormon and Christian doctrine are foundational and substantial. And while I have spent time learning about the basic tenants of various religions, I am in no position to judge anyone's heart; I have enough trouble properly evaluating my own. But I think it is fair to conclude that if someone is taught falsehoods as truth and sincerely believes them, that person has a problem. I don't doubt the person’s sincerity, but the person remains sincerely wrong.
If it is any assistance, a web site called "The Blue Letter Bible" is a wonderful resource allowing study of the Hebrew and Greek behind the "alphabet soup" of translations we have.
Confused by mormonic phrasing? Want to know the meaning of words from those who post while wearing magic underwear? Now, you can use the MORMONIC TRANSLATION APP!
... "I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints"
TRANSLATION: I belong to the Mormon Cult that uses the name of Jesus Christ in an attempt to portray itself as Christian, but actually means an entirely different, created spirit being when it uses the name of Jesus Christ.... "because I love the Savior"
TRANSLATION: I love the the Mormon Jesus who can't save because he was created and had only a temporal life when he died..."and am eternally grateful for His Atoning Sacrifice for me"
TRANSLATION: I am eternally grateful that though this mormonic, created spirit being "atoned" for me, though it is practically meaningless, since every mormon has to prove themselves "worthy" in order to be saved. Hopefully, this means I will get into the highest level of heaven and be eternally pregnant in order to populate my god-husband's new planet!"
It is your choice to lie about who Perry's pastor is
But it was a choice you made SD - God didn't force you to become a mormon. You chose to reject the true revelation of God - you chose to face the consequences.
How could a loving God send people to hell?
1. God does not "send" people to hell; he simply honors their personal decision. When we choose to sin, rather than repent, we seal our fate.
2. God does not send "people" to hell, he sends sinners. Using the word 'people' is an attempt to imply they are innocent, and they are not.
So in summary....
God does not send people to hell, he simply honors the choice of sinners.
...the sight of hell's torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. It will not only make them more sensible of the greatness and freeness of the grace of God in their happiness, but it will really make their happiness the greater, as it will make them more sensible of their own happiness. It will give them a more lively relish of it: it will make them prize it more. When they see others, who were of the same nature and born under the same circumstances, plunged in such misery, and they so distinguished, O it will make them sensible how happy they are. A sense of the opposite misery, in all cases, greatly increases the relish of any joy or pleasure.
May I ask that you answer directly.....do you agree with Edwards?? When you are in heaven, will you take pleasure in observing the torments of the damned in hell??
Children are racist by nature. Studies conducted that put one black pre-schooler into a classroom full of white pre-schoolers showed the white pre-schoolers abused, ostracized and teased the black kid corporately, that is to say, they did so as a group.
Reversing the situation produced the same results; the black kids abused, ostracized and teased the white kid, again corporately. Were all these pre-schoolers taught to be racists?
Subsequently the author states:
Everyone remembers that one kid who was taunted unmercifully, (maybe it was you) because of their skin color, their religion, their social status, or some other characteristic that made that kid different.
The later statement undermines the statement that kids are racist by nature. The abuse, ostracism and teasing occured due to "some...characteristic that made that kid different", said characteristic just happening to have been race, but it could have been some other characteristic. If abuse, ostracism and teasing can stem from one of a number of differences, the fact that race is one of those differences doesn't per se make for racism.
The author states:
This planet is the only place in God's creation where evil is permitted unfettered operation. Theologians call it the 'cosmos diabolicus'. It is enclosed by an atmosphere which keeps evil from escaping out into the universe.
How did this effect the astronauts who went to the moon?
I find other logical disconnects in this piece. That's not necessarily bad as we are discussing matters of faith.
I'm not disagreeing with the author's conclusions, but I see the path he took in this piece to lead others to those conclusions is insufficient for the task.
I do know that "racism", which is a clever invention of the Soviet propagandists of the 1940s and 50s as a tool to condemn the imperialists, colonialists, and get a foothold in the Third World, as well as to seduce the blacks in the United States into the CPUSA (see if a 100 year old English dictionary has the word defined), an idea that has caught on across the planet, has become a mental obsession across the political spectrum like an epidemic of illness. Try 'ethnocentrism' for a change, which has been present in every human society since the beginning, and will never go away.
God does not send people to hell, he simply honors the choice of sinners.
Wow. I don't know where you came up with that theory, but it is light years away from the Gospel.
For starters, the statement completely denies the well established doctrines of Original Sin, and thoroughly corrupts the Doctrines of Soteriology and Redemption
The short version. A&E created without sin and having no knowledge of sin. Otherwise explain their cognizance after eating of the Tree of Knowledge. Because of their disobedience, and because Adam represented all of Creation, all of Creation fell. (Ro 8:18-22) That alone condemned all humans and all of Creation to futility and Death. You can stop right there because the penalty of sin is Death. In Adam, all have sinned. Because of Adam's sin, all Die. We all, regardless of any other thing, deserve Hell.
There is no alleged "choice" because the carnal mind is enmity against God, isn't subject to the Law nor indeed can be. (Ro 8:6-7; Jer 13:23; 1 Cor 2:14; 2 Peter 2:14) Since the mind can't be subject to God and since the natural man utterly hates God, can't understand the Gospel and considers the things of God as foolishness, there is no Choice. Any statement to the contrary is anathema.
If anyone escapes Damnation, it is only because the Father, in eternity past, chose those individuals, according to His Pleasure, to be subject to His Grace and Mercy, and then executed the full counsel of His Will and Purpose to regenerate those individuals, in God's time, to salvation and sanctification. All to God's own exclusive Glory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.