Rob Bell wrote and interesting book entitled "Love Win" He adresses and issue that has given me lots of problems. Why would a God who just, mighty and loves us condemn most of us to burn in hell forever if we don't believe a certain way. Does mass murderer Henry Lee Lucas who repented before his death get a free ride to heaven while courageous, gentle justice-seeking Mahatma Ghandi is punished forever. Bell suggests believing the latter is absurd and justifies his premise with scripture.
Romans 2: 13-15 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) It is not for me to judge Gandhi. But God's judgment, whatever it is, will be righteous. But it just seems strange to me that Gandhi is repeatedly put forward as the prime example of the pure-hearted primitive. It seems to me we could find a better example than a racist pervert who abandoned his wife and children and who harbored an endless fascination with enemas and bowel movements.
Colecanth -- I don't know much about Ghandi beyond newspaper articles and the Movie. I think the adjectives I applied to him are valid, but I'm no scholar on the subject.
There's not really a solid scriptual basis for the "burning in hell forever" , but it's a good message for control freaks in positions of power in the church. Bell said "Forever" is not an adequate translation of words Jesus, as a Hebrew, would have used. Certainly Bell believes in hell, a separation of God of our own choosing.
Somehow I don't think anyone on either side of the argument will be too shocked that you weren't persuaded by a bible passage, Dionysus. I, on the other hand, am persuaded by the bible. Now, I wonder: What is the difference between you and me that allows me to be persuaded and prevents you from being persuaded? Is it a difference in intelligence? Is it lack of critical distance for one or the other of us? Or is it a difference in pride? Or something else?
"I don't know about you but I'm a father and I'd never throw my child in the flames. Just because he has done wrong or he's a little different.. you know a father loves his children all the same." - The Pear Ratz "Jesus Loves Bad Boys Like Me". To me, truer words are rarely spoken. Hellfire and brimstone is a great way to scare tithing butts into seats at church but that's the only purpose it serves. .
Coelacanth, at bottom I suspect it comes down to the fact some people just want to believe the story. Others are indoctrinated/educated into it at an early age and fear the threatened consequences of apostasy. It’s not about intelligence or pride. Maybe there’s an inborn yearning for the father figure and the supernatural and such—I think even an instinct for self-loathing in many people (not suggesting this applies in your case) that plays right into the anti-human doctrines of the church. Freud captured a good bit of the psychology of all this in The Future of an Illusion (1927). Here he’s talking about the child’s relation to the mother and father figures.
Pluralists contend that no one religion can know the fullness of spiritual truth, therefore all religions are valid. But while it is good to acknowledge our limitations, this statement is itself a strong assertion about the nature of spiritual truth. A common analogy is cited--the blind men trying to describe an elephant. One feels the tail and reports that an elephant is thin and flexible. Another feel a leg and claims the animal is thick as a tree. Another touches its side and reports the elephant is like a wall. This is supposed to represent how the various religions only understand part of God, while no one can truly see the whole picture. To claim full knowledge of God, pluralists contend, is arrogance. I occasionally tell this parable, and I can almost see the people nodding their heads in agreement. But then I remind them, "The only way this parable makes any sense, however, is if you've seen a whole elephant. Therefore, the minute you say, 'All religions only see part of the truth,' you are claiming the very knowledge you say no one else has. And you are demonstrating the same spiritual arrogance you accuse Christians of. - Tim Keller
it seems Rob Bell is trying to obfuscate an issue that is not terribly complicated in Scripture. If we have a problem with Hell (and I do) then we have a problem with Jesus (which means at some level I do I guess). Hell is upsetting to me as well. I wouldn't want my worst enemy spending a second there. I don't want Mao Tse Tung or Adolph Hitler going there. But Jesus speaks of Hell more than anyone and he talks about it in fairly clear terms. We have other writers of the New Testament speak of it (although no personality, whether author or personality being written about, speaks of hell more than Jesus.) and its eternal nature is fairly easy to establish. i have not read Bell's book, although I am considering it because it is having such influence, but I believe that he is heading down a path that is a dangerous one and which mainstream Christians in the U.S. headed down about 70 or 80 years ago. I think I may read Francis Chan's book as well (Erasing Hell): Francis Chan Promo
Bell's book is an easy read, but it does basically look at every time the concept of hell comes up in the New Testament. There's no willful obfuscation in it. A lot of our concept of hell comes from literary sources other than the Bible.
How hard is this to understand? Revelation 20 10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. 14-15This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
I am with you Monahorns. I think Bell is making an issue that isn't terribly complicated (linguistically or otherwise) and trying to make it complicated. The real issue is that God's justice oftentimes offends our own notions of justice (mine included), but at the end of the day, who are we going to trust to get justice right?
Pluralists contend that no one religion can know the fullness of spiritual truth, therefore all religions are valid. I really don't think that's what pluralists say. There's nothing inherent in pluralism that requires a conclusion that all religions are valid.
Perham1, What are your thoughts on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Dresden and other such places during the Second World War? In particular I'm wondering how you feel about all the innocents who were killed in those attacks, and whether those deaths render the attacks immoral?
My thoughts on bombing during wartime and civilians being killed? What is there to think? It doesn't really matter if I, or anyone else, find those specific attacks to be moral or immoral. One can precisely define (or attempt to, anyway) what is ok or not during wartime, but it's all a fool's errand. I define something and you find a loophole, or vice versa. There have been poor suckers in the wrong place at the wrong time since the beginning of time. Just because it happens during our lifetime or due to some kind of "super bomb" doesn't really change the dynamics of it, imo. Now, being of Deutsch descent, and liking most things German, I wish that those German cities had not been bombed. But hey, with Hitler you get (egg) rolled it seems. So this becomes yet another example of the universe being unfair. But to answer your specific question, I'd have to say no, I don't find the death of an innocent to render those attacks immoral. I guess the death of one innocent (much less 100,000s) person would be enough to constitute the attack immoral for some, right? If not, where do we draw the line? 100? 10,000? And, since there will ALWAYS be innocent/civilian deaths in EVERY war my conclusions as I see it are to say that all wars are immoral or that innocent/civilian deaths (as collateral damage, mostly) just have no bearing or impact on the moral nature of the conflict. War is what it is: killing people and destroying property. If you want to call war immoral b/c some innocents die, then fine, I won't necessarily disagree, but where does it get you? Nowhere, imo.
Even if you were correct about that comment being an expression of my will (which I don't think you are), how would it be inconsistent, exactly?
But you are willing to suggest that God’s actions are unjust, or immoral—or at least that the idea of a “loving God” is invalid—because of the killing of innocents in the Old Testament. Yes. Because God is not man. But I like the way you're thinking, knocking the Godster down a peg and treating him more like a man than a god. We can say that god does or doesn't exist and you can create explanations or even excuses for either position. Again, a fool's errand.
The God of the Old Testament, if he exists at all, must be far beyond us—infinitely beyond us—in his capacity to perceive the total effect of an action; and therefore we are constitutionally unqualified to condemn his actions, since we are not privy to clear knowledge about the total effect of his actions. You may be "consitutionally" unqualified. I, however, am not. Your conclusion doesn't really follow. Inconsistent? Or more likely a foolish consistency.
