OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 02:54:03 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: are you "sent" to hell?  (Read 2764 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
erracht
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


OC.net


« on: July 13, 2004, 05:44:10 AM »

Many Orthodox writings, such as that oft-quoted article "The River of Fire/Is God Good? Did He Make Hell?", put forward the following idea: God does not punish you deliberately by throwing you into a place of torture called hell. Sinners put themselves into hell, because hell is a state of not being able to handle God's love. God's love will be felt by all people in the general resurrection and it will Paradise for the righteous and Hell for unrepented sinners. However, I have some questions about this:

1) If God doesn't deliberately punish sinners, but they place themselves in a state of hell by default, then why are the Gospels full of claims that suggest God condemns sinners to hell? Jesus says that they will be THROWN INTO THE OUTER DARKNESS, if I recall correctly. God is also referred to as a JUDGE, indicating that He is the one who says "so and so goes to hell for their sins". I recall reading a lot of this in and out of the Bible, including a statement that angels take sinners away etc. So if God doesn't force the sinner into hell but the sinner themselves, why all these quotes about God being a judge etc? Think - in Revelations, Jesus says "depart from me" to the sinners. That doesn't sound like sinners not being able to handle God's love - it sounds like God is denying His love to sinners!

2) If Paradise and hell are states, not places, why do Orthodox people who reportedly have had visions of the other world report that they were taken to concrete places etc (I'll give concrete examples if asked)?
Logged

NULL
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2004, 11:20:25 AM »

1. WRT God being a judge of the righteous and unrighteous, I think it's not so much "You have led an evil life, therefore I will send you to hell" but "You have led an evil life, and therefore have placed yourself in hell." It's using the word "judge" not in the sense of deliberately sending someone for punishment like a secular judge, but in the sense of distinguishing and sorting between different elements of a set, as in judging between two things.

2. There doesn't have to be a dichotomy between a place and a state. It could be that being in a certain place is an element of a state, or that God sorts people of different states into different places for some reason, or something else entirely. I'm happy to say that paradise and hell are both places and states, and leave it at that, lest I get dragged down into mapping out geographies of the world to come +á la Dante.
Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2004, 11:53:39 AM »

I'll start by saying I'm not a fan of "River of Fire".

The Holy Scriptures are quite clear, that God is a judge, and that He will separate the wheat from the chaff, and the sheep from the goats.  While we can say undoubtedly that judgement will be fair (indeed, far more lenient than is in any sense merited by sinners), and that those condemned will be condemned by their own dirtied consciences (thus, it is their sins, not anything arbitrary on God's part), the fact is that it's God Who is saying "ok, time's up" and Who is separating the justified from the children of wrath.

A similar imprecission often happens when some Orthodox now days discuss death.  It is true, that God did not consider death as a part of His plan for mankind in the sense that it is what He wanted for them - death entered the world through the envy of satan, and the sin of Adam.  But the fact of the matter is, it is God Who made sure the sinner Adam did not have access to the "Tree of Life" and Who banished our parents (and by extension us) from the blessedness of Paradise to a world reflecting our own sickeness.  In other words, while our sin is not God's will, to be plunged into a condition of suffering so long as we continue in sin is His will.

What perhaps needs carefuly underlining, and which does genuinely differ from some currents in later western Christian thought, is that in Orthodoxy the reason for our hardships related to sin is emphatically to give us every opportunity possible to be reformed.  This is why, even in the afterlife, it can be said of sinners that (in a sense) hell is the highest form of "salvation" that was possible for them, and even this will differ in degrees between sinners.  However, it is abundantly clear that they will be (and are being) separated from the saints forever.

Logged
erracht
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


OC.net


« Reply #3 on: July 13, 2004, 01:02:08 PM »


What perhaps needs carefuly underlining, and which does genuinely differ from some currents in later western Christian thought, is that in Orthodoxy the reason for our hardships related to sin is emphatically to give us every opportunity possible to be reformed.  This is why, even in the afterlife, it can be said of sinners that (in a sense) hell is the highest form of "salvation" that was possible for them, and even this will differ in degrees between sinners.  However, it is abundantly clear that they will be (and are being) separated from the saints forever.




Really? Horrendous eternal torment is the highest possible salvation for sinners? What a strange idea.

You'd think that since God can do ANYTHING, He could easily save sinners from hellfire by simply making the souls of those not fit to go to heaven NOT EXIST before they have a chance to enter hell. I wonder if the fact that God doesn't do this but allows sinners to suffer in hell means that He WANTS them to suffer in hell. Or am I missing something here?
« Last Edit: July 13, 2004, 01:02:54 PM by erracht » Logged

NULL
YankeeLady
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


OC.net


« Reply #4 on: July 13, 2004, 01:21:38 PM »

Erracht, I have often wondered about this myself.  It does seem more loving somehow that God would obliterate us rather than allow us to spend eternity tormenting ourselves (or being tormented against our will--let's face it, either way, neither prospect is at all appealing).

And if eternal life is really only having God's life in us, if the life humanity experiences (since the Fall) is really only a kind of extended dying and will actually lead to physical death in the end, why do our souls continue after that death if we should reject Christ and God's offer of salvation?  Isn't that really saying that we have some kind of immortality independent of a saving life in Christ, even if that unregenerated immortality would be unending torment?  

Does this make sense?  Has anyone (either layperson or theologion) adequately explained this?
Logged
gregory2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!


« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2004, 02:07:18 PM »

Father Tom Hopko said that God doesn't send anyone to hell -- people go their on their own when they willingly turn their backs on God.  Likewise, God will not save anyone against their will.  

It seems to me that our free will plays a very important role -- one either chooses to follow God, or one does not.
Logged

"Anything that is worth accomplishing cannot be accomplished in a lifetime." - the Holy Fathers
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,787


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2004, 02:26:55 PM »

Erracht, I have often wondered about this myself.  It does seem more loving somehow that God would obliterate us rather than allow us to spend eternity tormenting ourselves (or being tormented against our will--let's face it, either way, neither prospect is at all appealing).

How do you know it would be more loving for God to obliterate unrepentant sinners out of existence rather than keep them around for all eternity, albeit in a state of damnation?  It's easy for us to think this way because we have no idea what not existing is; the closest thing we have to compare it to is death, and even with that, 1) we have no idea what death is like, and 2) at least the dead exist.  

One of my old college professors, a Presbyterian minister, explained it to me as follows: if all people will in the end experience God's Love, but for the saved it will be eternal beatitude while for the unrepentant it will be eternal damnation, then at least to some extent, the damned are experiencing God's Love, something which those who do not exist do not experience.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Rho
Running from dead works to Christ.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #7 on: July 14, 2004, 10:11:36 AM »

Annihilating the unrepentant is not an acceptable option for three reasons.

1) It negates the justice of God.  These people have sinned against an infinitely holy God.  God's justice demands punishment.  Fortunately, for those for whom "God made Him Who had no sin to be sin for us so that through Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21), the punishment is laid on Christ.  For those who have only their works as propitiation, the punishment stands justly and wholly upon their shoulders.

2) As Mor started to say, comparing existence (however unpleasant) to non-existence is a category mistake.  They cannot be compared to each other.  And who are we to say that non-existence in any form is better/preferable to existence, however unpleasant?  

3) Finally, God has said in His inspired Scriptures that the unrepentant are "cast into the lake of fire."  It is clearly a separation and clearly an act of God Himself.
Logged

"I have taken my good deeds and my bad deeds and thrown them together in a heap. Then I have fled from both of them to Christ, and in Him I have peace." --David Dickson

Matthew 9:13 - Who is the sinner if not I?
erracht
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


OC.net


« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2004, 03:17:25 PM »

So:


2) As Mor started to say, comparing existence (however unpleasant) to non-existence is a category mistake.  They cannot be compared to each other.  And who are we to say that non-existence in any form is better/preferable to existence, however unpleasant?  

-Well, it seems basic logic that non-existence is preferable to existing and doing nothing but suffering (esp. suffering the unspeakable horrors that Orthodox literature describes is the part of the damned). If you didn't exist, you wouldn't be there to experience suffering, so nothing bad would happen to you. If you existed and were suffering in hell, you'd probably wish you were never born. For that matter, Christ Himself said that for such and such a sinner, it is better that they had never been born. Therefore it seems to me like God Himself would in some sense allow that it would be better for those in hell not to exist than to be there! Right?

Don't tell me, Mor, that if given the choice to either not exist or exist in eternal suffering, you'd sooner choose to exist in eternal suffering. I wouldn't think twice, I'd choose the former. If I don't exist, nothing can be bad with me and there are no consequences for me except for not being there, right? Think of it this way: though long past puberty, I have no kids, but biologically I could have had a few by now. And I'm an only child, but my parents could have had other kids. So all these kids that don't exist but could have - they're not any the worse for not existing, are they? No, specifically because THEY DON'T EXIST, and therefore cannot regret not existing! Ha!



Logged

NULL
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,787


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2004, 03:53:55 PM »

Quote
For that matter, Christ Himself said that for such and such a sinner, it is better that they had never been born. Therefore it seems to me like God Himself would in some sense allow that it would be better for those in hell not to exist than to be there! Right?

This is an interesting way of looking at it.  I'm not sure how the Church has interpreted this, however.  Perhaps from the perspective of pain, yes.  But in general?  Are we really prepared to say that it is better for someone not to exist and not to be loved by God than for them to exist and be loved by God, even if that means they suffer because they cannot handle that Love?      

Quote
Don't tell me, Mor, that if given the choice to either not exist or exist in eternal suffering, you'd sooner choose to exist in eternal suffering. I wouldn't think twice, I'd choose the former. If I don't exist, nothing can be bad with me and there are no consequences for me except for not being there, right?  Think of it this way: though long past puberty, I have no kids, but biologically I could have had a few by now. And I'm an only child, but my parents could have had other kids. So all these kids that don't exist but could have - they're not any the worse for not existing, are they? No, specifically because THEY DON'T EXIST, and therefore cannot regret not existing! Ha!

But this is precisely the point.  How do you know what not existing is like?    

I (and anyone else for that matter) may very well choose not to exist rather than to exist in a state of eternal suffering, but I make that choice knowing

  • what it is like to exist
  • what it is like to suffer
  • what time is like.
I DO NOT KNOW what it is like to NOT EXIST.  

Since the choice is to exist in eternal suffering or not exist, and I have no idea what NOT EXISTING is like, how could I possibly make a choice?  Sure, I can make a choice based on what I feel would be the best choice based on my experiences as an existing being, but without knowing what non-existence is, how could I be sure I was making a good decision?  I don't have full knowledge.

To go off on a related tangent, if I'm supposed to agree with you, Erracht, and believe that it is better for someone to not exist than to exist and suffer, does this mean that abortion, far from being a grievous sin, is actually an act of love?  After all, the child conceived in the womb has no idea what the world is like, what suffering is, etc., but we do: should we allow him/her to endure that?  In general, and especially when we know s/he will be born with birth defects or terrible diseases or something of that nature, is it not more loving to abort?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Donna Rose
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 937


« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2004, 04:56:38 PM »

Hmmm i know you guys are just sorta, philosphizing, which is enjoyable and engaging to witness. but when i give my serious attention to the question of "existence in eternal suffering" versus "non-existence" as you guys have posed them, and your reasons for your choices, if you had a choice b/w non-existence and existing in eternal suffering...hmm well maybe my mind cannot wrap itself around the situatuion fully, but is there such a thing as non-existence to consider as an option in the first place?
 
the fact that i asked "is" there such a thing as non-existence supplies the answer, since "is" implies being and as such cannot be used to decribe something that does not exist, that IS not. sure, in logical theory there are brothers and sisters of mine that my parents could have had but didnt...but are you implying that the SOULS of these non-existent people exist but God just hasn't decided at what point in time he will join those souls with corporeal bodies? i dont know if anyone can say that this is the case...how can we know how God creates, what his "method" is?  (and if that IS what you are implying, then clearly exsistence as a soul is not actually non-existence)

hmm i think i lost my point somewhere....

i guess my point is, while amusing, i think it on some level futile to "consider" non-existence as an option. the only time non-existence, ahem, EXISTED was before God created the angels, us and the world, but EVEN THEN He existed, and so it is viable to say that there is no such thing as non-existence.

i probably didnt get at what i intended. but just my feeble 2 cents. Smiley

as for Hell and whether it is a place or a state...i think the times in Scripture where a place is identified with Hell, it is the biblical writers using concepts and constructs that are comprehensible to those listening/reading - humans with only a human understanding of things eternal. even when God Himself uses language that seems to reveal Hell to be a place we will be sent, who is to say that God is not merely condescending in His love to use human concepts to instruct his creations, whom He loves so much to have created us? what does he care of what he hasnt created? what CAN he care of such things? He cant, because they dont exist, and He is the beginning and end of existence.

as for me...to not be loved enough to have been created into existence...that is just the most depressing idea fathomable, even though it isnt even fathomable.

i'll take my existence in whatever form, thank you very much. Smiley

besides, ever since i began existing, the fulfillment of my existence is to love Him, and even though we all fall sometimes in doing this, at the end of the day it isn't a bad deal if you ask me, and something we are all capable of. Wink so rather than negotiating and bargaining your way outta Hell by opting for non-existence instead, perhaps reflection on what the fulfillment of our very being is will direct your gaze upward in love, where it belongs, and in doing so you are guaranteed eternal happiness - we have been promised such, and if you doubt that promise, then that's a whole other discussion entirely. Smiley
« Last Edit: July 14, 2004, 04:57:46 PM by Donna Rose » Logged

hmmmm...
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2004, 03:39:01 AM »

I really believe that Scripture is clear on Hell - just a few examples:

Matthew Chapter 5:

26 Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.

27 You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery.

28 But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

29 And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than thy whole body be cast into hell.

30 And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body go into hell.

Matthew Chapter 13:

49 So shall it be at the end of the world. The angels shall go out, and shall separate the wicked from among the just.

50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew Chapter 25:

41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.

42 For I was hungry and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink.

43 I was a stranger and you took me not in: naked and you covered me not: sick and in prison and you did not visit me.

44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to thee?

45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen: I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.

46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.

There are many more verses in scripture about God judging us, and the unrepentant sinners being cast or thrown into the everlasting flames of hell. I have just given a few - I'd be glad to post them all.


« Last Edit: July 15, 2004, 03:44:41 AM by Ben » Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
erracht
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


OC.net


« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2004, 10:18:12 AM »

Yes, Donna - the above philosophizing is confusing! My example of my "unborn children/siblings" was not meant to suggest that their souls exist, simply that they could have existed but don't. And because they don't exist, no harm comes to them. Therefore, my argument was, it's illogical that non-existence could be worse than existence in suffering, because when you don't exist, you're not there to feel whether something is good or bad.

Religious literature shows pretty clearly that hell is really a horrendous experience, probably unimaginably horrendous. Let me tell you one story, I think this happened on Mount Athos or somewhere. There were two monks and one decided to return to the world which is apparently a grevious sin. The other tried to dissuade him but his brother refused to stay. He returned to the world and died. Then the monk who had stayed a monk got a vision of his brother, who was now suffering in hell. He said it was a million times worse than what is described in the Bible. The living brother asked if he could get an experience of hell. The dead one said he'd die if he did, and only allowed him to experience one thing: he lifted his clothes and let out the stench of hell. This stink was so foul that the monk fainted and stayed unconcious for three days. And then, the stench spread through the monastery which had to be evacuated for a month!!! And that' JUST ONE BIT OF SUFFERING in hell! After reading that and other things, I would gladly take non-existence over hell, and wonder why any person would have a dilemma.

As for non-existence itself, I'm sure such a state (or non-state because not even a state can exist in non-existence) never existed, at least to the extent that God always existed.

And no, I would never argue that abortion is merciful to the kid, because:

 -someone makes the choice for the kid that they will die, the kid has no say in it
 -I don't know in what state the kid's soul is when aborted, and if they could have had a
  good life etc.

And other reasons, BUT I might argue that it's merciful not to conceive a kid in the first place.

I wish there were more priests on these boards. We'd probably get clearer answers.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2004, 10:24:01 AM by erracht » Logged

NULL
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,787


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2004, 11:41:59 AM »

Yes, Donna - the above philosophizing is confusing! My example of my "unborn children/siblings" was not meant to suggest that their souls exist, simply that they could have existed but don't. And because they don't exist, no harm comes to them. Therefore, my argument was, it's illogical that non-existence could be worse than existence in suffering, because when you don't exist, you're not there to feel whether something is good or bad.

But you are considering this from the perspective of pain.  That is a very human perspective from which to view this, and I can understand why one would think of it in those terms.  But try thinking of it differently.  Which is better: to be loved by God, or not to be loved by God?  

I don't think it's "illogical" for non-existence to be worse than existence in suffering, although the idea certainly seems appealing.  

Quote
As for non-existence itself, I'm sure such a state (or non-state because not even a state can exist in non-existence) never existed, at least to the extent that God always existed.

Talk about philosophizing.  Smiley

God's existence is a completely different thing from our existence, because HE IS, while we are contingent.  So I suppose one could say that because God eternally exists, there is no non-existence.  But from another point of view, there certainly is non-existence: even the Church speaks of a God Who brought us from non-existence into being, as, for example, in the Anaphora of Saint John Chrysostom.  

Quote
And no, I would never argue that abortion is merciful to the kid, because:

 -someone makes the choice for the kid that they will die, the kid has no say in it

The kid can't say much of anything, not knowing what life is like.  But we know.

Since the kid's say is important to you, would you support the right of an individual to end his own life?    
 
Quote
-I don't know in what state the kid's soul is when aborted, and if they could have had a
  good life etc.

But isn't not having life at all better than taking the risk of having a bad life?  And what exactly is a bad life and a good life?  

Quote
And other reasons, BUT I might argue that it's merciful not to conceive a kid in the first place.

This, IMO, is a more consistent position, but it is disobedience.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
erracht
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


OC.net


« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2004, 09:38:36 AM »


But you are considering this from the perspective of pain.  That is a very human perspective from which to view this, and I can understand why one would think of it in those terms.  But try thinking of it differently.  Which is better: to be loved by God, or not to be loved by God?  

-Well if being loved by God terribly hurts the sinner, I guess they'd probably prefer not to be touched by God's love. But then again, what do I know?


Since the kid's say is important to you, would you support the right of an individual to end his own life?    

-That's a difficult question. I really don't know. Suicide is so extreme that I can't at present see a problem with emergency workers restraining a person from suicide, but I would not make it a crime (I.E. if you try to commit suicide, you go to jail).

    This, IMO, is a more consistent position, but it is disobedience.

-Not conceiving is disobedience if spouses use a condom, the pill etc. It is not if they do not have sex (or maybe if they do NFP?) nor is it disobedience if you're not married. Indeed, then it would be disobedience to conceive.
Logged

NULL
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,787


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2004, 03:03:14 PM »

-Well if being loved by God terribly hurts the sinner, I guess they'd probably prefer not to be touched by God's love. But then again, what do I know?

Yes, but this is subjective.  I intended to ask you an objective question: is it better to be loved by God or not loved by Him?  

Quote
-Not conceiving is disobedience if spouses use a condom, the pill etc. It is not if they do not have sex (or maybe if they do NFP?) nor is it disobedience if you're not married. Indeed, then it would be disobedience to conceive.

I meant disobedience in the sense that the first command God gave mankind was to be fruitful and multiply.  I'm sure He knew what was going to happen to mankind, starting with the Fall, and continuing even til now with our experiencing evil upon evil.  However, God still commands that we multiply.  Why?  To watch us suffer?  Or because in spite of it, there is something greater He would like to share with us?
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
erracht
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 313


OC.net


« Reply #16 on: July 17, 2004, 05:29:14 AM »

Yes, but this is subjective.  I intended to ask you an objective question: is it better to be loved by God or not loved by Him?

You think that is objective? What is BETTER sounds rather subjective to me unless you mean moral.

Quote
I meant disobedience in the sense that the first command God gave mankind was to be fruitful and multiply.  I'm sure He knew what was going to happen to mankind, starting with the Fall, and continuing even til now with our experiencing evil upon evil.  However, God still commands that we multiply.  Why?  To watch us suffer?  Or because in spite of it, there is something greater He would like to share with us?  

But is this as a blanket command for every human. Is it not only for those who marry and have sex? The point is not that God WANTS us to suffer, but that those not interested in working toward what God intended to share with us suffer by defautlt. Those folks might prefer a deal whereby they could somehow bail out. But from what I see they never get it. You either are obedient and are rewarded or are disobedient and are punished.

I only edited this to clean up the quotes.  MorE
« Last Edit: July 17, 2004, 01:50:42 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

NULL
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,787


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 17, 2004, 01:59:28 PM »

You think that is objective? What is BETTER sounds rather subjective to me unless you mean moral.

From an Orthodox perspective, I think it is rather objective.  Is it better to be loved by God than to not be loved by God?  Of course.  But if we are going to question the value of the love of God from the get go, then yes, I agree, what is better is a subjective matter.  

Quote
But is this as a blanket command for every human. Is it not only for those who marry and have sex?

The command to be fruitful and multiply is for the human race, and not necessarily for every member thereof.  However, the idea that it is more merciful to not conceive than to conceive, if people agreed with it and took it seriously, would lead to the death of mankind.  

Quote
The point is not that God WANTS us to suffer, but that those not interested in working toward what God intended to share with us suffer by defautlt. Those folks might prefer a deal whereby they could somehow bail out. But from what I see they never get it. You either are obedient and are rewarded or are disobedient and are punished.

I don't think we can be so black and white about the salvation of individual men and women.  Do we know for a fact that God is going to reward *only* the obedient, and the disobedient, no matter what their circumstances, are going to be damned?  I think many whom we would regard as "disobedient" may be saved, and many of the "obedient" will be damned.  Ultimately, judgement is the Lord's.  Our aim should not be speculating on the situation of others, but on working toward our salvation with fear and trembling.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
thomascothran
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


OC.net


« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2005, 10:05:44 PM »

Annihilating the unrepentant is not an acceptable option for three reasons.

1) It negates the justice of God. These people have sinned against an infinitely holy God. God's justice demands punishment. Fortunately, for those for whom "God made Him Who had no sin to be sin for us so that through Him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor 5:21), the punishment is laid on Christ. For those who have only their works as propitiation, the punishment stands justly and wholly upon their shoulders.

This is a very Roman Catholic way of looking at this question. I think that our idea of justice and God's is very different. God's nature is love, not justice as we use the term today. When we speak of justice, we use it in a vengeful sense: person A has injured person B, now person A must be injured. It sounds to me to be borderline blasphemy to ascribe to God that kind of behavior.

If salvation was just a matter of God forgiving us, why would His Son have to die? The Bible says that God wants everyone to be saved. If all he had to do was forgive an injury towards himself there would be no need for His son to die. One could say that someone had to die for our sins, but how is it just for one person to be punished for another's sin? Even if that person was willing to die, I know of no system of justice that would allow another person to bear the penalty for another's sin. Because it is not justice, at least how we think of justice. Likewise, forgiveness is also contrary to our justice. Justice gives people what they deserve, forgiveness absolves people of what they deserve.

I think it is much more accurate to think of God's justice in terms of his love. His punishes us because he loves us, in order to reform us, not to satisfy His own vindictiveness. Christ came not to satisfy original justice, but to destroy Satan.
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,441


« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2005, 10:22:27 PM »



This is a very Roman Catholic way of looking at this question. I think that our idea of justice and God's is very different. God's nature is love, not justice as we use the term today. When we speak of justice, we use it in a vengeful sense: person A has injured person B, now person A must be injured. It sounds to me to be borderline blasphemy to ascribe to God that kind of behavior.

If salvation was just a matter of God forgiving us, why would His Son have to die? The Bible says that God wants everyone to be saved. If all he had to do was forgive an injury towards himself there would be no need for His son to die. One could say that someone had to die for our sins, but how is it just for one person to be punished for another's sin? Even if that person was willing to die, I know of no system of justice that would allow another person to bear the penalty for another's sin. Because it is not justice, at least how we think of justice. Likewise, forgiveness is also contrary to our justice. Justice gives people what they deserve, forgiveness absolves people of what they deserve.

I think it is much more accurate to think of God's justice in terms of his love. His punishes us because he loves us, in order to reform us, not to satisfy His own vindictiveness. Christ came not to satisfy original justice, but to destroy Satan.


Thomas,
I think Rho was a Protestant and doesn't appear to have frequented this board for several months.
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2005, 03:00:09 AM »

Thomas,
I think Rho was a Protestant and doesn't appear to have frequented this board for several months.

This would explain why what he said was completely wrong.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Tags: salvation 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.095 seconds with 48 queries.