164 replies to this topic

[MikePetersSucks]

Well no. Sin is passed on through descendants like genetics to babies. At least, that's how I always understood it.

What? That's totally unjust. So if I murder someone, my kids still have to carry it as if they were the murderer? That's about the greatest injustice I can imagine. Sin is apparently related to the soul anyway, not the body.

You can't compare God to a human being. Stalin had no idea what was right for his people. He couldn't possibly know what's in their mind and their hearts. God does.

And yet if a human did the things God did, they'd still be considered a monster. God may know what's in our minds, but he doesn't seem to act like it.

Well, if the Bible says that there was wickedness in everyone except for Noah's family, then that's that. It sounds harsh, but again. He's God. You can oppose him if you like, but it may not be smart.

So what did the infants all over the world do that warranted their immediate drowning?

As to why God didn't just send all the wicked to hell, think about it this way. The Flood was very theatrical and showy. It's the perfect picture to paint someone to warn them that this is what happens to you when you defy God. And it was painted to Noah and his family.

Fair enough, though I'm sure like 99% of the world just vanishing into thin air would be just as impressive.

It's part of the great plan to give more glory to God. God allows the world to fall, so through him it could be redeemed to show human beings that he deserves the glory.

That sounds really self-centered. He allows literally all the suffering in the world just to prove how great he is? A perfect being wouldn't do something so horrible for something so trivial. Infact, that's something I'd expect his evil counterpart to do.

Look, the nature of God will never be understood. I don't understand it myself, but my faith helps me believe in God, that he is good. I know to [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of people his actions are questionable, but it's going to be impossible for you to understand his methods. But that's not why we're here. We're not here to say, "Well, God is a bastard because he did this or this." or "God is good because he did this or this." We're here to redeem ourselves through Christ and join God in heaven, or to not join God.

That sounds like a lazy excuse for God to still get praise without needing to justify his actions; the same excuse human tyrants used.

However, he didn't stop there. Satan had his failed war to prove he was better (or, at least, as good as God), and then gets kicked out of Heaven. What does he do? Does he go to God and try to make amends? Does he think about and regret his actions? No. He decides to give God the finger and tries to totally wreck God's shit. He introduces Sin to mankind to separate them, eternally, from God.

Let me repeat that: because he was a sore loser, Satan has, since his fall, has tried to consign the entire human race to damnation. I do not see how that cannot be called anything but evil.

I don't see any passages about God offering Lucifer a chance to amend; from the way people describe it, it seems the war ended and God threw the sucker in the fryer without another word. After something like that, I'd like any will to make amends too. Furthermore, I don't see God doing a single thing to STOP Satan once he tried to damn people. He pretty much lets him do whatever he wants and then counts anyone tempted as an acceptable loss.

[Poore]

I don't see any passages about God offering Lucifer a chance to amend; from the way people describe it, it seems the war ended and God threw the sucker in the fryer without another word. After something like that, I'd like any will to make amends too. Furthermore, I don't see God doing a single thing to STOP Satan once he tried to damn people. He pretty much lets him do whatever he wants and then counts anyone tempted as an acceptable loss.

First things first: Satan has dominion over the Earth, and roams freely until Judgement Day. The lake of fire punishment does not happen until the end times, after Christ's Second Coming. He is not suffering right now - he's thriving. However, take into account that Satan knows scripture - he demonstrated this during Christ's temptation in the desert - so he knows his punishment is coming. However, if he was truly repentant for his actions, don't you think he would ask forgiveness since, given his knowledge of the Bible, he already knows what his punishment is? It's like a murderer who knows beforehand he'll get the death penalty, then goes ahead and commits murder without remorse for as long as he can get away with it without getting caught.

The reason God doesn't stop Satan is because he allows human beings free will. He wants everyone to turn to him, but he doesn't want to force them to turn to him. He gives Satan free reign because he wants only those who truly believe, who are willing, of their own accord, to follow. Otherwise, all he'd have was a bunch of perfectly subservient robots, who had to praise him. We would be incapable of NOT praising him, and thus, our praise would be meaningless.

[Green Goblin]

honestly, I often find the only ones left ARE the mindless sheep bots praising because that's what they've been brought up to do. I'd personally PREFER someone who occasionally differed on me with certain things. Keeps for a more interesting relationship.

[Goose]

That completely depends on the people around that call themselves Christians. I've never met a more interesting bunch than at my church. We debate and aruge and theorise all the time. People from all cultures around the world sharing their stories. Its a very multicultural Church. Never Boring, always something going on.

Dont blame God for boring Christians, blame boring Christians for boring Christians.

[spunky-monkey]

Wouldn't it be a little dumb in the first place to even fight against the Almighty? He's God. He's all powerful and all knowing. That's not really someone you should pick your fights with.

If God was omniscient, then he's already seen the beginning and end of reality an infinite number of times. So what's disputable now is whether or not he's a good God because don't you think he'd be a little more -patient- towards disobedience by now? The Bible makes no attempt to avoid this awkward issue, clearly stating throughout Old and New Testament alike how wrathful and vengeful he can truly be.

In the Bible though man is stuck under a God who predetermined both good and evil, he created Satan, for his own amusement. Although what I find repugnant is how people are always quick to defend this tyrannical deity.

Romans 9:20-21
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

If God is really that arbitrary and capricious towards temporal beings, then... I'd rather not exist in the same reality as him, and pity those who want to. He creates us, fashions us from nothing, (we never choose to be born), throws us into a world without his presence, sets us up for inevitable failure and eternal damnation, but then has the -unmitigated gal- to wash his hands of us that day - claiming it was our own fault for being predestined to destruction to start with!

Verses 19-21
Depart from me, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity

Huh. I owe nothing, nor want anything to do with that sort of self-righteous unchallengeable sovereignty. Let him have his despicable way with this creation. At least I have small comfort in the knowledge that if we (the damned) were completely to cease to be, he cannot harm us anymore.

Well no. Sin is passed on through descendants like genetics to babies. At least, that's how I always understood it.

If that belief holds ground then there is no such thing as sin, but the flawed natural design of man; genetics determine who we are so how can a mentally unstable race born with obvious/less obvious disabilities be held accountable for our own actions?

Well, if the Bible says that there was wickedness in everyone except for Noah's family, then that's that. It sounds harsh, but again. He's God. You can oppose him if you like, but it may not be smart.

At least it's right. I thought that was what life was all about, doing the right thing. And God's all-powerful, so one click of his fingers (or whatever he has) can change people's natures in an instant, so why do we seldom see such mercy? The only solution to this insolvable equation is that God simply enjoys our suffering, and us resisting him is selfishly spoiling his fun, -how dare we-.

It's part of the great plan to give more glory to God. God allows the world to fall, so through him it could be redeemed to show human beings that he deserves the glory.

So because I refuse this 'salvation', my destruction gives glory to a monstrous God? That's akin to a violent child stamping on an ant then proceeding to laugh at its ruined frame.

Look, the nature of God will never be understood.

It's the Christians I don't understand AvengerButton; the Bible has painted a picture of this creator, one that they insist on associating with human emotions such as love and so on. Should their beliefs come under fire from heavy criticism, they resort to ridiculous arguments such as "God only hurts us because he loves us".

Pride, on an individual level, is not harmful. But Satan's pride, and why he is 'evil', affects more than just himself. If you follow the logical train of his thought, Satan equated himself with God. Which means he thought he could do better than God.

Fair enough, but then why did a third of all Heaven join him in rebellion? They didn't have to, yet all suffered the same end without pardon. Were they oppressed in this paradise or something?

However, he didn't stop there. Satan had his failed war to prove he was better (or, at least, as good as God), and then gets kicked out of Heaven. What does he do? Does he go to God and try to make amends? Does he think about and regret his actions? No. He decides to give God the finger and tries to totally wreck God's shit. He introduces Sin to mankind to separate them, eternally, from God.

God never forgave Satan.

Ex 33:19 (NIV) ..."I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion."

The reason God doesn't stop Satan is because he allows human beings free will. He wants everyone to turn to him, but he doesn't want to force them to turn to him.

He tolerates evil in order to establish an illusion of free will? Predestination is still in affect: God already determined before the dawn of time who’d be saved and lost. If you believe the Bible then personal choices are rendered irrelevant in the final hours.

This lack of empathy from God, is probably why Satan went rogue, at some point he realised what role and fate God had planned for him and Christ before the beginning of time; therefore Satan represents disobedience, not evil.

[Goose]

If God is really that arbitrary and capricious towards temporal beings, then... I'd rather not exist in the same reality as him, and pity those who want to. He creates us, fashions us from nothing, (we never choose to be born), throws us into a world without his presence, sets us up for inevitable failure and eternal damnation, but then has the -unmitigated gal- to wash his hands of us that day - claiming it was our own fault for being predestined to destruction to start with!

Verses 19-21
Depart from me, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity

Huh. I owe nothing, nor want anything to do with that sort of self-righteous unchallengeable sovereignty. Let him have his despicable way with this creation. At least I have small comfort in the knowledge that if we (the damned) were completely to cease to be, he cannot harm us anymore.

This lack of empathy from God, is probably why Satan went rogue, at some point he realised what role and fate God had planned for him and Christ before the beginning of time; therefore Satan represents disobedience, not evil.

If that was what God was, I could understand wanting to wash your hands of him. Quite happily. I'd probably do the same.

But, I need a right of reply, to see if I can show you the true nature of God, not that image which you presented. The following is my beliefs, and I'm not forcing them on you, but merely trying to present another point of view.

It does get preachy though, so I'll spoiler it.

You claimed that he created us, fashioned us, and threw us into a world without his presence. I agree with the first two, but not the third. Gods presence is in this world. It surrounds us. The Bible calls it the holy spirit, and it does exist, and its more than just empty words and a warm feeling.

He didn't set us up for eternal failure, infact, he gave what would've hurt the most in order that we wouldn't fail. He gave up the life of his only son. When you read the old testament, you see of how vengful God was on people, even for just touching the arc of the covenent. When I read it, it stunned me. God loves us, but he'd strike a man down with lighting for touching an arc?

It didn't make sense. If he loved us, why would he do such thing? The problem, and this is where Satan steps in, is that When Satan did rebel, the most beaufitul and loved angel, he introduced Sin, a pandora's box of evil, something so corrupt that it destroys man kind, and makes us diseased. It twists things that should be good, like pride, and turns it and skews it into something entirely wrong.

So God had this problem, because Satan introduced Sin, we became corrupted and twisted, but rather than abandon us, God loves us so much, that he sent his Son, Jesus, to die, to conquer the sin that Satan introduced, so that we could be free from it, and not have to carry that burden and disese that spreads hate and war among people.

The best way to look at it, is if you dont mind my geekiness, is to look at the lord of the rings.

Satan = Sauron
The One Ring = Sin

Sauron introduced the one ring, in his search for power, and it corupted man kind, kings became shadows of themselves wandering the earth doing his bidding. It took the actions of a hobbit to destory teh ring and set things right.

But even Frodo wouldn't destroy the ring. The power of it was so strong that he said it was his, and Gollum had to bite it off his finger. The very nature of Sin is corupting. Satan introduced it to what was a beatiful creation, becaus he was so obsessed with himself and power. He wanted to be number 1, which is what the bad kind of pride is, what you'll do to get there.

When Gollum did fall into the volcano, and took the ring with him, it set things right, and sin was Destroyed and what was skewed became right again. When Jesus died, Sin/ the ring, was destroyed. Conquered.

The world was set right again.

God didn't create the world for us to fail, God created the world with free will, so that we could love him with genuine love, and not of robotic BORG nature. Satan chose to put himself before God, and not love him back, and twisted something that was a thing of beauty and intended for us to run around and have heaps of fun, and enjoy life. into something corrupt.

Satan twisted that, because of his choice to put himself first, and try to gain utimate power. That is why he's considered so evil. Because of Damien - Satan, Sin was introduced into the world, and it turned things the wrong was around.

Jesus came and died for us, and defeated the power of Sin, so that things could be put right, and Aragorn and Arwen could make elf human babies.

Edited by Goose, 06 December 2008 - 08:44 AM.

[spunky-monkey]

Goose, your theories on God are 'cute', but not realistic, considering the Bible you refer to does not support what you claim to be right. No, I do not, nor ever will, believe God is benevolent, looking at the dinosaur's remains the truth I hazard is far from benevolent indeed. I want nothing to do with the creator – despite the fact I'm a part of creation, same as you. If creation (or part of creation) hates God, what does that say about God?

Also the renegade Sauron is not the motivator of disorder from J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium, Morgoth is. All that that evil force is stems entirely from the very thoughts of Eru Ilúvatar (God) who wanted "depth and sorrow" to contrast his own beautiful works. Within the realm of fantasy, Evil is often portrayed as just another tool/means to an end deity/deities can utilize.

[TheAvengerLever]

honestly, I often find the only ones left ARE the mindless sheep bots praising because that's what they've been brought up to do. I'd personally PREFER someone who occasionally differed on me with certain things. Keeps for a more interesting relationship.

Actually, I was one of those people until a couple of years ago. But then I had quite a test of faith, and it was the fault of this forum.

A few years ago when I first joined because of some discussions on the contro forum I began to question my faith, and everything I believed in, and it really wasn't a good time for me. That was around the time when I was depressed, as I had moved schools.

I almost slipped into athiesm. And it was crushing me, because I thought that my God was as good as I always thought he was.

But, now I'm here. I'm not trying to convince anyone of his goodness, but I am putting my beliefs forward for you all to consider.

Having these kinds of beliefs is getting harder and harder to deal with. And especially on a forum such as this where it's actually intelligent people who know what they're talking about who are saying that they don't believe in God and actually present evidence to his non existence.

And nowadays, when I'm in contro, I'm just trying to give answers to questions and offer my opinion on arguements and such, and now I'm offering my beliefs, like I do sometimes. And it just seems that sometimes people are just like, "Well that's wrong, and you're an idiot and a blind follower." But, meh. Sorry. This is a rant.

Edited by TheAvengerButton, 06 December 2008 - 02:37 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

First things first: Satan has dominion over the Earth, and roams freely until Judgement Day. The lake of fire punishment does not happen until the end times, after Christ's Second Coming. He is not suffering right now - he's thriving. However, take into account that Satan knows scripture - he demonstrated this during Christ's temptation in the desert - so he knows his punishment is coming. However, if he was truly repentant for his actions, don't you think he would ask forgiveness since, given his knowledge of the Bible, he already knows what his punishment is? It's like a murderer who knows beforehand he'll get the death penalty, then goes ahead and commits murder without remorse for as long as he can get away with it without getting caught.

The reason God doesn't stop Satan is because he allows human beings free will. He wants everyone to turn to him, but he doesn't want to force them to turn to him. He gives Satan free reign because he wants only those who truly believe, who are willing, of their own accord, to follow. Otherwise, all he'd have was a bunch of perfectly subservient robots, who had to praise him. We would be incapable of NOT praising him, and thus, our praise would be meaningless.

I can think of PLENTY of ways to respect humanity's free will and ability to choose between good and evil without needing to resort to Satan running free or the millions of years of suffering mankind has to deal with. Not skirting around the problem makes God irresponsible, cruel, or lazy, if a mere mortal can think of a better answer in his free time.

He didn't set us up for eternal failure, infact, he gave what would've hurt the most in order that we wouldn't fail. He gave up the life of his only son.

Oh, yea, some sacrifice. He gave his life, knowing he'd then pretty much instantly ressurected and ascended to a plane of eternal happiness and bliss to rule over all of creation. My god, I can't understand the DEPTHS of his sacrifice.

Typically, a sacrifice has to mean something. Christ gave NOTHING, except for a few hours of suffering, nowhere near equivalent to all the suffering man has ever suffered thanks to sin. Besides, either way, the message here is that God's mindset is "I'll forgive you, but SOMEONE has to suffer, here. Who'll it be?"

When you read the old testament, you see of how vengful God was on people, even for just touching the arc of the covenent. When I read it, it stunned me. God loves us, but he'd strike a man down with lighting for touching an arc?

It didn't make sense. If he loved us, why would he do such thing? The problem, and this is where Satan steps in, is that When Satan did rebel, the most beaufitul and loved angel, he introduced Sin, a pandora's box of evil, something so corrupt that it destroys man kind, and makes us diseased. It twists things that should be good, like pride, and turns it and skews it into something entirely wrong.

So God had this problem, because Satan introduced Sin, we became corrupted and twisted, but rather than abandon us, God loves us so much, that he sent his Son, Jesus, to die, to conquer the sin that Satan introduced, so that we could be free from it, and not have to carry that burden and disese that spreads hate and war among people.

You totally didn't answer your own good question. What does Satan have to do with God burning a guy that touched his shit?

When Gollum did fall into the volcano, and took the ring with him, it set things right, and sin was Destroyed and what was skewed became right again. When Jesus died, Sin/ the ring, was destroyed. Conquered.

The world was set right again.

Yea, but Gollum didn't come back to life, he did it out of selfishness, and even with Jesus' sacrifice, people still sin. He hasn't really changed anything except give us an escape clause. One that's unnecessarily narrow.

[Goose]

Satan was the cause of all that. Sin is evil, and God cannot allow it to touch him. Think of it this way, Sin i like leprosy, and Satan gave it to us, and God new that we were uclean. When Jesus came down, he was the cure.

Gollum represents how Sin overcomes your life. Sin had to be destroyed in order for things to be set right. As Frodo told Sam, it is not your burden to carry. We were not designed to carry Sin. It is not our burden to bear.

You're right, the escape rout is narrow. But it is there.

[Green Goblin]

when did we reach LOTR comparisons?

also, what is sin? the dictionary says it's anything that goes against divine law. Well what sets the standards of divine law? Are the laws divine because God wants them to be? Or are they divine by themselves. If they are the former, than that makes God a control freak IMO. And if they aren't, then that limits his power to some other form of law.

[Selena]

Well what sets the standards of divine law? Are the laws divine because God wants them to be? Or are they divine by themselves. If they are the former, than that makes God a control freak IMO. And if they aren't, then that limits his power to some other form of law.

It's my understanding that God is the 'divine' personified, so there's really no separating divine law from God's wishes or rules. What he says is automatically divine, and without him there would be no divine law whatsoever. I also don't see much point in trying to separate them, myself.

This notion of Satan trying to purposefully lure people away from God with specific malicious, rebellious intent is an interesting one, however. If Satan and God have been rivals since the dawn of time, then why did God give Satan the okay to torture one of his most devout followers (Job)? The man was as righteous as most people got, but God just let Satan have his way with him rather than do anything at all to help protect him. And Satan followed God's ground rules. Following the rules established by your arch nemesis doesn't seem like something a true bad guy would do. Yes, his actions were bad, but again, it wasn't Satan maliciously going out of his way to steal a man's soul. It was God who gave him the all clear.

So in the Old Testament, at least, Satan seems to be a kind of agent of God. Like what Steve mentioned. He does less than pleasant things, and wanders the earth instead of heaven, but he still follows rules. So did Satan's fall conveniently come between the Old and New Testament?

[TheAvengerLever]

God gave the AOK to torture Job to see if Job would keep the faith or would he crack under Satan's pressure.

In the Book of Job it refers to Satan by saying that the "sons of God came before God", and "Satan was among them" almost implying that he didn't belong in the heavenly courts to begin with and was just kind of an interloper.

Reading the passage:

7 And 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.
8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.
12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

God and Satan are quite confrontational. Whenever I read verse 8 it's almost as if God is kind of taunting Satan with Job's near perfectness. So to prove Satan wrong, God allows him to do what HE (Satan) wants, not what God wants Satan to do, short of hurting Job himself. t's like when a child asks his mom if he could stay for five more minutes on the playground and mom gives the okay, not exactly God commissioning Satan to hurt Job in God's name.

[Selena]

I don't think it really hints as Satan never belonging to the heavenly realm - just that his duties are on earth rather than in heaven. Which makes a decent amount of sense, put a few angels and agents in the field rather than just have them watch from above. I believe the Hebrew translation for "Satan" is "accuser" or something of that nature, which would make sense for someone who's job it is to go around testing the devotion of man. In the case of Job, Satan assumed (lines 9 through 11) that Job only remained loyal to God due to the blessings bestowed upon him rather than due to some deep commitment. And if God took those away, Job would forsake him. God didn't think that was true, so they both watched and waited to see as Satan tortured him. Less like an adversary and more like a grinchy type fellow who goes maybe a little too far in trying to make sure everyone is worshiping God properly. It doesn't seem confrontational at all, really. At least not to me, and I wouldn't care much if Satan was a completely evil genuine rival or not.

t's like when a child asks his mom if he could stay for five more minutes on the playground and mom gives the okay, not exactly God commissioning Satan to hurt Job in God's name.

Maybe not torturing specifically in God's name, no. But a better analogy would be if your somebody came to you and asked if your children really loved you, and if they would still love you even if all their cool stuff and good health was taken away. Sure that your kids do love you, you essentially let this person take away all the stuff your kids have earned and watch as they are inflicted with some form of disease or another. A real guardian and parent wouldn't ever let that happen. It essentially sounds like no matter how much you love God, he won't do anything to save you from harm directly caused by Satan so long as he gets his point proven right.

From a literary standpoint, it's fairly easy to see that Job is a symbol for why bad things happen to good people. That that whole story is an explanation for something like that. But if the Bible's to be taken as the complete truth, I don't know if I'd feel too safe under the protection of such a God. To be that devout, only to be turned into a human guinea pig to see how long it takes someone to swear off religion. That different from just deciding not to be religious of your own free will, or randomly falling onto hard times that aren't induced by the Devil. That's specifically getting tortured by the force of all evil (supposedly) and your creator just sitting by and watching, simply to be able to say "I told you so" to Satan.

Mere mortals in the eyes of the divine or not, something like that should raise some red flags of morality. Job's insignificant in the grand scheme of things, at least to them, but that makes it seem like it's just two divine entities tossing a living thing around as if it meant nothing. Two humans do something like that to a dog or rabbit (a lesser 'insignificant' creature), and they get called insane and sadistic.

[CID Farwin]

Satan said that Job only loved God because of his riches, and that Job would hate God if they were taken away. There were no "to see if"s from God, being Omniscient. He knew that Job was faithful, and that no matter what happened, he would remain faithful, which is why he let Satan do anything he would, ultimately short of taking Job's life, because nothing Satan did could take away Job's faith.

It's a type and a symbol, like Selena said, for why bad things happen to good people. That doesn't mean, though, that anytime someone is righteous, that God abandons them to Satan, because as it says in 1 Corinthians 10:

13 There hath no temptation ^ataken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be ^btempted above that ye are able; but will with the _ctemptation also make a way to ^descape, that ye may be able to ^ebear it.

Edited by CID Farwin, 07 December 2008 - 12:44 AM.

[Poore]

Quick side note: Jesus' suffering was not due to his death, or even to his torture. He wasn't afraid of dying, as he knew he would be resurrected.

What he feared, what he didn't want to do, is become sin. In order for his death to have meaning, he had to take all the sins of the world (past, present, and future) into himself, and become the one thing that he hates most. That's why it's the ultimate sacrifice, and why it was such a difficult sacrifice to make. For God, he had to watch his own Son become the one thing that he cannot tolerate, in order to save a people whom he gave the free will to tell him he was dick, that they hated him, that he didn't exist, etc., etc., etc.

I like this story as a basic analogy, but I'll spoiler it since it's secondary/tertiary to the greater discussion at hand:

There was a boy by the name of Steve who was attending school in Utah. Brother Christianson taught at this particular school. He had an open-door policy and would take in any student that had been thrown out of another class as long as they would abide by his rules. Steve had been kicked out of his sixth period and no other teacher wanted him, so he went into Brother Christianson's class.

Steve was told that he could not be late, so he arrived just seconds before the bell rang and he would sit in the very back of the room. He would also be the first to leave after the class was over.

One day, Brother Christianson asked Steve to stay after class so he could talk with him. After class, Bro. Christianson pulled Steve aside and said, "You think you're pretty tough, don't you?"

Steve's answer was, "Yeah, I do."

Then Brother Christianson asked, "How many push-ups can you do?"

Steve said, "I do about 200 every night."

"200? That's pretty good, Steve," Brother Christianson said. "Do you think you could do 300?"

Steve replied, "I don't know... I've never done 300 at a time."

"Do you think you could?" Again asked Brother Christianson.

"Well, I can try," said Steve.

"Can you do 300 in sets of 10? I need you to do 300 in sets of ten for this to work. Can you do it? I need you to tell me you can do it," Brother Christianson said.

Steve said, "Well... I think I can... yeah, I can do it."

Brother Christianson said, "Good! I need you to do this on Friday."

Friday came and Steve got to class early and sat in the front of the room. When class started, Brother Christianson pulled out a big box of donuts. Now these weren't the normal kinds of donuts, they were the extra fancy BIG kind, with cream centers and frosting swirls. Everyone was pretty excited - it was Friday, the last class of the day, and they were going to get an early start on the weekend.

Bro. Christianson went to the first girl in the first row and asked, "Cynthia, do you want a donut?"

Cynthia said, "Yes."

Bro. Christianson then turned to Steve and asked, "Steve, would you do ten push-ups so that Cynthia can have a donut?"

Steve said, "Sure," and jumped down from his desk to do a quick ten.

Then Steve again sat in his desk. Bro. Christianson put a donut on Cynthia's desk.

Bro. Christianson then went to Joe, the next person, and asked, "Joe do you want a donut?"

Joe said, "Yes." Bro. Christianson asked, "Steve would you do ten push-ups so Joe can have a donut?" Steve did ten push-ups, Joe got a donut.

And so it went, down the first aisle, Steve did ten pushups for every person before they got their donut. And down the second aisle, till Bro. Christianson came to Scott.

Scott was captain of the football team and center of the basketball team. He was very popular and never lacking for female companionship. When Bro. Christianson asked, "Scott do you want a donut?"

Scott's reply was, "Well, can I do my own pushups?"

Bro. Christianson said, "No, Steve has to do them."

Then Scott said, "Well, I don't want one then."

Bro. Christianson then turned to Steve and asked, "Steve, would you do ten pushups so Scott can have a donut he doesn't want?"

Steve started to do ten pushups. Scott said, "HEY! I said I didn't want one!"

Bro. Christianson said, "Look, this is my classroom, my class, my desks, and my donuts. Just leave it on the desk if you don't want it." And he put a donut on Scott's desk.

Now by this time, Steve had begun to slow down a little. He just stayed on the floor between sets because it took too much effort to be getting up and down. You could start to see a little perspiration coming out around his brow. Bro. Christianson started down the third row. Now the students were beginning to get a little angry.

Bro. Christianson asked Jenny, "Jenny, do you want a donut?"

Jenny said, "No."

Then Bro. Christianson asked Steve, "Steve, would you do ten pushups so Jenny can have a donut that she doesn't want?" Steve did ten, Jenny got a donut.

By now, the students were beginning to say "No" and there were all these uneaten donuts on the desks. Steve was also having to really put forth a lot of effort to get these pushups done for each donut. There began to be a small pool of sweat on the floor beneath his face, his arms and brow were beginning to get red because of the physical effort involved.

Bro. Christianson asked Robert to watch Steve to make sure he did ten pushups in a set because he couldn't bear to watch all of Steve's work for all of those uneaten donuts. So Robert began to watch Steve closely. Bro Christianson started down the fourth row.

During his class, however, some students had wandered in and sat along the heaters along the sides of the room. When Bro. Christianson realized this; he did a quick count and saw 34 students in the room. He started to worry if Steve would be able to make it.

Bro. Christianson went on to the next person and the next and the next. Near the end of that row, Steve was really having a rough time. He was taking a lot more time to complete each set.

Steve asked Bro. Christianson, "Do I have to make my nose touch on each one?"

Bro. Christianson thought for a moment, "Well, they're your pushups. You can do them any way that you want." And Bro. Christianson went on.

A few moments later, Jason came to the room and was about to come in when all the students yelled, "NO! Don't come in! Stay out!"

Jason didn't know what was going on. Steve picked up his head and said, "No, let him come."

Bro. Christianson said, "You realize that if Jason comes in you will have to do ten pushups for him."

Steve said, "Yes, let him come in."

Bro. Christianson said, "Okay, I'll let you get Jason's out of the way right now. Jason, do you want a donut?"

"Yes."

"Steve, will you do ten pushups so that Jason can have a donut?" Steve did ten pushups very slowly and with great effort. Jason, bewildered, was handed a donut and sat down.

Bro. Christianson finished the fourth row, then started on those seated on the heaters. Steve's arms were now shaking with each pushup in a struggle to lift himself against the force of gravity. Sweat was dropping off of his face and, by this time, there was not a dry eye in the room.

The very last two girls in the room were cheerleaders and very popular. Bro. Christianson went to Linda, the second to last, and asked, "Linda, do you want a doughnut?

Linda said, very sadly, "No, thank you."

Bro. Christianson asked Steve, "Steve, would you do ten pushups so that Linda can have a donut she doesn't want?"

Grunting from the effort, Steve did ten very slow pushups for Linda. Then Bro. Christianson turned to the last girl, Susan. "Susan, do you want a donut?"

Susan, with tears flowing down her face, asked, "Bro. Christianson, can I help him?"

Bro. Christianson, with tears of his own, said, "No, he has to do it alone, Steve, would you do ten pushups so Susan can have a donut?"

As Steve very slowly finished his last pushup, with the understanding that he had accomplished all that was required of him, having done 350 pushups, his arms buckled beneath him and he fell to the floor.

Brother Christianson turned to the room and said. "And so it was, that our Savior, Jesus Christ, pleaded to the Father, "Into thy hands I commend my spirit." With the understanding that He had done everything that was required of Him, he collapsed on the cross and died. And like some of those in this room, many of us leave the gift on the desk, uneaten."

However, since we're trying to ascribe human characteristics (i.e. being a dick, being 'evil', etc., etc.) to God and Satan and the divine, I propose this thought exercise:

Suppose you are God. You know everything. You know all the events that will transpire after you create the Universe (i.e. the fall, man's corruption, etc.), and you know that a large number of your children - mankind - will be lost, but that a small number will find salvation and attain paradise. Do you abandon all of existence? Do you hope you're wrong and do it anyway? Do you do it for those few who can be saved? What is your solution to this problem?

But what this really brings to light is another issue. If God is all-powerful AND all-knowing, can he use his power to change something that He knows will happen? Or is he hidebound by the foreknowledge He has of what is going to happen? Perhaps He sees all possible courses the Universe can take and, given the nature of free will that He wishes to allow all beings (angels, demons, humans, what have you), the path he is chosen is the path that allows the greatest portion of his creation to be saved?

Look at it this way: we describe God as all-knowing and all-powerful, but we cannot grasp the concept of the infinite. Instead of taking omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent as being absolute definitions of infinite as we try to understand it within human experience, why not assume that is language begin used by human authors to try to describe a being who is beyond our realm of comprehension. After all, trying to describe the nature of the divine using only the language of the mundane is, by nature, quite impossible. By extension, to claim that God, by his very nature of existing beyond the confines and rules of our own Universe, can be understood in His motives, His actions, and His decisions by our mere examination of a human record (even if divinely inspired) of Him is foolish.

Hell, we can't even fully understand the actions of other human beings most of the time.

[Selena]

There were no "to see if"s from God, being Omniscient. He knew that Job was faithful, and that no matter what happened, he would remain faithful, which is why he let Satan do anything he would, ultimately short of taking Job's life, because nothing Satan did could take away Job's faith.

That's almost more sadistic, isn't it? Then it's torture for an answer he already knew. Then you could say it was to prove it to Satan, but why entertain the questions of a being that's already been cast down for insolence? If Job were only a metaphor for suffering, that would be one thing. But most take the Bible to be a true retelling of various events throughout history, which makes this story all the more troubling. Nothing may have taken away Job's faith, but the fact still remains that God let all that horrible stuff happen to one of his most devout followers just to prove a point to Satan. And even in that passage, it's God that first points out Job as an example, not Satan. God's the one essentially painting the target.

By extension, to claim that God, by his very nature of existing beyond the confines and rules of our own Universe, can be understood in His motives, His actions, and His decisions by our mere examination of a human record (even if divinely inspired) of Him is foolish.

It seems even more foolish to hand your soul to something without ever evaluating his actions on the basis that he's impossible to comprehend with human thought. The ultimate price to pay for never questioning would be to die and find out that the Bible, a document written by mortal men who can be easily swayed in any direction, was just the grandest deception ever made by Satan to lure people away from a true, now hidden God that's been long forgotten. It's a completely out there sort of situation, but that would be the beauty of the trick. And because people thought it was foolish to try and understand God, it became all the easier to pull off.

[Poore]

It seems even more foolish to hand your soul to something without ever evaluating his actions on the basis that he's impossible to comprehend with human thought. The ultimate price to pay for never questioning would be to die and find out that the Bible, a document written by mortal men who can be easily swayed in any direction, was just the grandest deception ever made by Satan to lure people away from a true, now hidden God that's been long forgotten. It's a completely out there sort of situation, but that would be the beauty of the trick. And because people thought it was foolish to try and understand God, it became all the easier to pull off.

I'm not saying that trying to understand God is bad. I'm saying that acting like you do fully understand him and using that as justification for your belief that He doesn't exist or, if He does, that he's cruel, is faulty logic. In other words, "If God does exist, then He's an asshole. Obviously He only lets people suffer because He hates us, or He's cruel, and I can't beleive in a God like that. Therefore, he doesn't exist."

Why not the alternative: "If bad things happen, perhaps they happen for a reason that I can't understand because I am unable to view how it affects the whole of existence." Some people would say that that's equally faulty, but considering we're dealing with purely philosophical and spiritual questions here, the only thing I have to evaluate these two mindsets against is my own personal experience.

From my own personal experience, it is only through suffering that true joy can be understood. I wouldn't want to live in a world without it. That might seem strange, but without pain, without failure, without sadness, accomplishments mean nothing. If everyone who ran the race got a first place medal, first place means nothing. Everyone who worked hard, who agonized through hours and hours of training, were wasting their time. The joy that one experiences from having their hard work pay off would disappear. No activity is rewarding without the possibility for failure that actually has consequences.

A world without failure stagnates. A life without pain is trivial, boring, and meaningless.

[MikePetersSucks]

Suppose you are God. You know everything. You know all the events that will transpire after you create the Universe (i.e. the fall, man's corruption, etc.), and you know that a large number of your children - mankind - will be lost, but that a small number will find salvation and attain paradise. Do you abandon all of existence? Do you hope you're wrong and do it anyway? Do you do it for those few who can be saved? What is your solution to this problem?

I've got an even better answer: Construct a world that won't be corrupted, but won't cost the free will of the people in it. Or, better yet, don't make it a sin for them to not worship you; make it totally optional, with each choice having different, but equal benefits. Free will is preserved, everyone is saved, and the people who will truly love you will love you.

I'm not saying that trying to understand God is bad. I'm saying that acting like you do fully understand him and using that as justification for your belief that He doesn't exist or, if He does, that he's cruel, is faulty logic. In other words, "If God does exist, then He's an asshole. Obviously He only lets people suffer because He hates us, or He's cruel, and I can't beleive in a God like that. Therefore, he doesn't exist."

No one's claiming he's doing it out of hatred, but his actions can be interpreted as cruel and abhorrent, the same with an abusive parent that still "loves" their children. My parents loved me, but if CPS knew what I was going through, I'd have been moved into a foster home.

Why not the alternative: "If bad things happen, perhaps they happen for a reason that I can't understand because I am unable to view how it affects the whole of existence." Some people would say that that's equally faulty, but considering we're dealing with purely philosophical and spiritual questions here, the only thing I have to evaluate these two mindsets against is my own personal experience.

I don't see what good can possibly derived from the atrocities happening right now in Darfur.

From my own personal experience, it is only through suffering that true joy can be understood. I wouldn't want to live in a world without it.

How unfortunate for you.

That might seem strange, but without pain, without failure, without sadness, accomplishments mean nothing. If everyone who ran the race got a first place medal, first place means nothing. Everyone who worked hard, who agonized through hours and hours of training, were wasting their time. The joy that one experiences from having their hard work pay off would disappear. No activity is rewarding without the possibility for failure that actually has consequences.

All those examples are leagues different from eternal suffering and damnation. If God equates the eternal loss of one of his children to a mundane accomplishment like first place in a race, he's an even bigger monster.

A world without failure stagnates. A life without pain is trivial, boring, and meaningless.

I disagree.

[Selena]

There's no sense of accomplishment without first suffering through some degree of hardship. I agree with Poore on that (and obviously strongly disagree with MPS). Adventures are no fun if they're easy. You don't appreciate the value of thing as much if you don't work hard for them. I do think suffering and hardship is a vital part of the world. It gives you something to strive against, to show what you're really made of, and to try and never let it happen again.

I don't like the idea of paradise. I'd grow spoiled and lazy. That's also why I never want to be too rich.

That said, however, God's actions are not simply letting bad things happen as they would naturally occur. God has, on occasion, directly intervened to do harm, like killing the first born babes of Egypt. They were innocents in the issue, after all. But as this thread is about Satan, that ties back into their relationship. It still seems like it's only in the later texts that they're polar opposites - God is love, Satan is evil incarnate. In the foundation of the religion, it seems like they're both on the same side, and neither of them are completely good or completely evil. God is capable of atrocities. Satan, at least in Job, still follows God's rules and orders. And it was still God who pointed out Job as a perfect worshiper. It wasn't Satan trying to fight for his soul out of nowhere. It was hardly Satan trying to fight for his soul at all - it was more like trying to prove to God that humans are only fair weather worshipers. An agent of God, if a grim one.

This is not out of the question for the beliefs of that place and era - many Levant and Middle Eastern gods are both creators and destroyers. God fits perfectly into that context. But with the passage of time, God kept getting portrayed as only good, only love. And it was Satan that started carrying all the cruelty. Looking back from a literary perspective, it looks like there was an unnatural shift in their characterization as time marched on. Everything became a battle of good versus evil. Satan was no longer an agent of God, or just the "accuser," he was directly responsible for every bad thing man did.

But again, that's only an observation on how Satan's persona seems to have shifted over time. I'm not arguing the importance of life's negatives. No light without darkness, and all those cliches. I just go about it in a very different fashion.

[Poore]

I've got an even better answer: Construct a world that won't be corrupted, but won't cost the free will of the people in it. Or, better yet, don't make it a sin for them to not worship you; make it totally optional, with each choice having different, but equal benefits. Free will is preserved, everyone is saved, and the people who will truly love you will love you.

It's my free will choice to corrupt your perfect little world. Your move.

You see the problem now? With free will, you have to allow those whose will it is to corrupt to exist. Otherwise, it's not "free" will. It's constricted will. Also, not worshiping God is not a sin. If you can truly live a life completely free of any sin, you do not have to accept the free gift of salvation that Christ created for you. However, if you do sin (which, considering the nature of humans and their free will, you probably will), all you have to do is say to God, "Hey, I accept that free gift of salvation," and if you mean it, you're forgiven. Period.

God doesn't send anyone to Hell. Humanity, through hubris, rejects the free invitation to go to Heaven, and thus damn themselves.

PURE SPECULATION (Do not take this as dogma): It is my personal belief that the "age of accountability" the Bible mentions refers to a specific point in every person's life where they will be offered a choice by God, whether consciously or unconsciously, to accept or reject this free gift. If they reject it, that's their own choice, and they will have to live with the consequences.

[Green Goblin]

A world without failure stagnates. A life without pain is trivial, boring, and meaningless.

HAVE to quote this. If that's the case, why the hell would anyone want to go to heaven??

[MikePetersSucks]

There's no sense of accomplishment without first suffering through some degree of hardship. I agree with Poore on that (and obviously strongly disagree with MPS). Adventures are no fun if they're easy. You don't appreciate the value of thing as much if you don't work hard for them. I do think suffering and hardship is a vital part of the world. It gives you something to strive against, to show what you're really made of, and to try and never let it happen again.

I never said otherwise. I don't believe things have to be one way or another. A superior being should have third options.

It's my free will choice to corrupt your perfect little world. Your move.

Ah, yes, but WHY do you want to do so? No one ever does this things without a motive. What do you gain?

You see the problem now? With free will, you have to allow those whose will it is to corrupt to exist. Otherwise, it's not "free" will. It's constricted will. Also, not worshiping God is not a sin. If you can truly live a life completely free of any sin, you do not have to accept the free gift of salvation that Christ created for you. However, if you do sin (which, considering the nature of humans and their free will, you probably will), all you have to do is say to God, "Hey, I accept that free gift of salvation," and if you mean it, you're forgiven. Period.

No, I don't. Even in the biblical model, there was a supernatural being who corrupted the world out of malice, and did so via trickery,and HE did it out of personal vendetta. I'm not going to stop such people from existing, I'll just not give them a motive to do so, and I won't punish them for making a negative choice or hide myself from view.

God doesn't send anyone to Hell. Humanity, through hubris, rejects the free invitation to go to Heaven, and thus damn themselves.

Bullshit. God's the one who created Hell and decided that those who don't accept him go there. That's like saying you hurt yourself because you pissed me off enough to break your legs.

HAVE to quote this. If that's the case, why the hell would anyone want to go to heaven??

Good question.

[Goose]

Hell isn't an actual place. Hell is separation from God for Eterninity. I figure if you aint a Christian, you dont care either way.

[wisp]

Hell isn't an actual place. Hell is separation from God for Eterninity. I figure if you aint a Christian, you dont care either way.

I don't remember exactly what the Bible says about this, since it's been a while since I've read it (not a Christian, but I still think it's an interesting book and I count it among my favourites list), so perhaps you could refresh me if you remember any specific references, but I seem to remember it being described as a lake of fire where people are destroyed... Now, I used to take this literally, then I moved to a figurative interpretation before I later ceased to believe in Hell. But yeah. Would you mind explaining your position in more detail?

[MikePetersSucks]

Yea, if Hell isn't a place, then where do the "damned" people go?

Regardless, it's still an existence of eternal suffering, and God technically created it by making it the fate of those separated from him.

[Goose]

Here is an essay I found from Bible.org. It explains things in more understandable way. I learnt a thing or two.

Hell: Spiritual or Physical or Both?
By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio)

Also available in:

This piece is a specific response to the question of whether hell is simply spiritual separation from God or is a place of conscious physical torment.

Looked at one way, the question is about whether we should interpret the Bible literally in places which discuss hell. Cf. especially Rev 20:10 (“lake of fire”). The book of Revelation speaks more about hell than virtually any other book, yet the language of this very book is rather symbolic. Sometimes an interpretation is given by an angel: when this happens, we should seek no other interpretation. But this is not the case here. Nevertheless, in interpreting the symbolism of Revelation and of the Bible as a whole we must keep in mind one key factor: the figure symbolizes something. Thus, for example, one cannot simply take the 1000-year kingdom and the seven-year tribulation and say they both refer to a long time. Further nuancing is required.

On the one hand, I would emphatically insist that the fundamental nature of hell is separation from God and his goodness. Second Thessalonians 1:9 refers to it as “exclusion from the face of God.” It is as if God turned his back on non-believers. Just as we only know about God on earth by what he reveals, hell makes a theological statement: only the justice of God is revealed there. That is its fundamental nature.

But this does not answer the question of how that nature is displayed. We have one very real and tangible display of hell (though only partially perceived) recorded in Scripture. When Jesus was hanging on the cross he was, for the three hours of darkness, in hell. He was separated from God, receiving only God’s justice. When he cried out, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me,” it was the only time he ever referred to God merely as God. His normal term was “Father.” It is evident in this quotation from Psalm 22:1 that Jesus was viewing God as his judge. What do we see in this concrete portrayal of hell? We certainly see physical suffering. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. The deeper suffering came spiritually. The Trinity was ripped apart while Christ lay hanging in our place. We can only imagine what suffering he endured! Hence, although the torment was very much on a physical level, that was only a window into the soul of Christ. To argue, then, that hell is only spiritual separation from God misses the point about the nature of hell. It is certainly spiritual separation from God. But, as in the case of the Son of God, this not only does not deny physical suffering, it is also more severe than physical suffering.

Let’s suppose that Christ’s experience is not archetypal for non-believers. In some ways this is true—for example, his was a temporary suffering. We should turn to other passages that specifically deal with hell for humans. The key text is Rev 20:10, where the lake of fire is described. What do we see about the lake of fire? Revelation 20:10 says: “the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet also were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” Several key points can be made here: (1) the lake of fire is obviously a place that envelops the individual (“into the lake”); (2) it is a place from which he cannot escape; (3) the imagery of fire and sulphur is intended to show extreme pain and suffering that extends to all the senses (even smell); (3) the punishment is evidently eternal, continual, and conscious (“tormented day and night for ever and ever”); (4) human beings will be there (“the beast and false prophet” are humans). This is confirmed by vv 13-14: “Death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them . . . Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.” John does not need to describe the nature of suffering for humans at this point, since he had already described the lake of fire in v 10. There is no reason to believe that their suffering will be substantially different from that of the beast and false prophet mentioned in v 10.

Now, is this necessarily physical? If we had this verse alone, I do not think we could conclude such. We could conclude, however, that it is sensual. Modern science knows that pain centers are in the brain; hence, it is theoretically possible that one’s body could be annihilated and yet he could feel pain. So whether the torment is physical or not is inconsequential; it will certainly feel that way.

But the Scriptures are clear on other fronts. The Jewish-Christian view of humanity is consistently that we all have an eternal soul and an eternal body. The notion of the immortality of the soul (without an accompanying body) is of gentile origin, not Jewish. Daniel 12:1-2 speaks to the issue: (1) .” . . but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book. (2) And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” The point here is that both the wicked and the righteous will be reunited with their bodies in resurrection and as such (i.e., as whole persons, body and soul) will either go to heaven or hell.

Matthew 10:28 is also significant along these lines: “Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” What is important to note here is that the place of the destruction of the body is hell. If the body were dead before the soul goes to hell, Jesus could not have said this.

Matt 25:46: “The [wicked] will go into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.” The parallel (as well as the discourse up until this point) leads us to only one conclusion: the place of torment parallels the place of blessing in its eternal nature. Further, there is no hint of distinction between the righteous and the wicked in terms of body-soul combination. If the righteous go to heaven in body and soul (what else could the resurrection mean?), then the wicked go to hell in body and soul.

2 Cor 5:1-10: Paul discusses the prospects of dying and being in the presence of the Lord, awaiting the reunification with his body (that will be raised at the rapture--cf. 1 Thess 4:13-18).

The consistent message of the Bible is that the resurrection is an essential part of salvation because our bodies cannot be permanently separated from our souls (cf. 1 Cor 15:13-14). This does not mean, of course, that our new bodies are identical, molecule for molecule, with our old bodies (again, cf. 1 Cor 15). The whole thing is a mystery, but we do know that the resurrected body is not a phantom (cf. John 21). Further, there is no shred of evidence (that I am aware of) to suggest that the resurrection of the unbeliever is radically different. That is to say, the body of unbelievers must be reunited with their souls as well (Dan 12:1-2; John 5:28-29). The notion either that disembodied spirits will permanently occupy heaven or hell is not founded on Scripture, but has its roots in Greek philosophy (cf. Acts 17).

In sum, although it is an intriguing notion to think that hell is a place merely of spiritual separation from God, we must reckon with the biblical teaching that this is the fundamental nature of hell, but that such a description does not account for all the particulars. Further, one has to answer the question: Why, then, are non-believers resurrected if hell is only spiritual? The whole point of the resurrection is to reunite body and soul. God could easily send souls directly to hell. But he does not. He raises all people from the dead and then sends that person to hell.

There is another issue at stake I believe: to separate body from soul is both a part of hedonism and stoicism (in its extreme forms). One philosophy said that we should indulge the body since it is evil and we can’t conquer it; the other said that we should deprive the body since it is evil and we can conquer it. But the biblical teaching is that the body is inherently no more evil than the mind: both have been tainted with sin through and through at the Fall. But with the Incarnation, we have a paradigm of perfect man, body and soul. The separation of body from soul when it comes to eternal punishment results, ultimately, in a schizophrenic view of man, leading either to hedonism or extreme stoicism.1

[wisp]

I can't remember where it was, and I don't have my Bible with me at the moment but I remember some verse somewhere in the NT that referenced people simply being destroyed, or dying, in Hell. Not that it's necessarily an eternal existence where one suffers, but one simply ceases to exist, possibly after a period of suffering after death. What's your opinion on this? (I do like to discuss this sort of thing from time to time, just to challenge my own ideas and make sure I can justify my opinions to myself, and if I can't, then I revise them just as I did when I left my old faith...)

[Goose]

I havn't really heard that view point, and it is interesting. A final death as such. You might be thinking of purgetory, which is the waiting room where God is the Doctor. However, this was only thought of in the Catholic Church, and the latest pope ditched it. I dont think its in the NT, as I know that one pretty well. From what I know, and this is going on what most if not all Christian Churches agree on, is that hell is a place seperate from God for eternity.

John, the guy who wrote Revelation, who was the youngest apostle, and related to Jesus (Cousin) was a great writer, and known as the apostle of love. He used the imagery of a lake of fire to demonstrate how painful it would be to be separate from God for all eternity.

I think I see it from his perspective. I havn't been a Christian all my life. I was babtised as a baby, but that didn't mean much. Everyone in my family gets baptised. But I discovered the love of God when I was seventeen. My family thinks I'm a nutcase. For me, the worst thing that could ever happen, is to be seperate from the love of God. Thats What Hell is.

If, as described in the literature, God is love, Then Hell is seperate from all Love. All Kindness. All Laughter. Hell is devoid of everything that makes life worth living. Hell is separate from God. So when you hear somebody like me saying that Hell is just seperate from God, that would be worse than anything imagineable.

Imagine not being able to see the laughter of a 3 week old baby just learning how to fart and the joy of it doing while surrounded by people, or the moments of bliss while watching the sun set on the bus, on the way home from work. Hell is devoid of emotion. Hell is devoid of life.

I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

[Arturo]

I havn't really heard that view point, and it is interesting. A final death as such. You might be thinking of purgetory, which is the waiting room where God is the Doctor. However, this was only thought of in the Catholic Church, and the latest pope ditched it. I dont think its in the NT, as I know that one pretty well.

Purgatory has not been "ditched", it's still one of the beliefs of Catholicism, and it has a biblical base, as far as I know, it's primarily absed on the second book of maccabeans, which most protestanst regard as apocriphal, but Catholics and Orthodox do not (and they are the majority of Christianity).

You might be thinking of the Limbo, which was never an official Catholic belief, but a theological speculation taht's been partially abandoned.