3 Comments
User's avatar
groddlo's avatar

> Many find it hard to reconcile the idea of a loving God with a God who would torture sinners for eternity.

And they are right. God doesn't torture sinners for eternity. He gives all intelligent creatures (humans and spirits) the choice between living with him or not. If one decides to live (for eternity) without God, God obliges and removes himself and all his grace. Turns out happiness is a consequence of grace. No grace - no happiness. Enter damnation.

God isn't torturing anyone. It's just a simple binary choice on the part of humans if they want God - all of God - or not - meaning no God at all. Nobody is being a dickhead, and nobody is certainly being self-contradictory.

Expand full comment
Fabius Minarchus's avatar

This is not what many preach. I was taught physical agony for eternity when young (high church Episcopalian).

Expand full comment
groddlo's avatar

Well, my previous Roman Catholic parish priest once likened Hell to "toothache, except there's no dentist". :) Yes, physical pain and agony can be expected as the resurrected body would be devoid of grace - devoid of anything good, anything that might be associated with the goodness of God. Such is the consequence of the decision to not spend eternity with God. Really, this is better for those people than to try to shove them into Heaven. If they were to be put into Heaven, they would necessarily be exposed to the very thing they decided they ultimately detest and reject - God. So their pain and suffering would be even worse in Heaven then in Hell.

What then of people that were never given the chance to knowingly choose for or against God? Well, there are two layers to this problem. The first layer is that most (all?) people that are alive sufficiently long get to know God and decide. They just don't all know God as "Triune God of the Chalcedonic Christians". :) Some know him as Allah. Others as Justice. For example, I'm pretty sure Christopher Hitchens knew God Allmighty under the title "Justice" and chose God under this banner and fought with all his might for God. I can't prove it though. So why would Hitchens know God under this name and not another? Because that would be the grace given to him. We could hypothesize: God chose to show himself to Hitchens in this way, perhaps because it was a Plan D save from previous three failures. Perhaps Plan A was to have him be a priest, but when that failed due to bad childrearing, Plan B was to have him just a normal Chirstian. But then Plan B failed because a school teacher messed up so then Plan C was to have him a Muslim scholar, but then that failed because of something that happened in Philipines in the seventies so God was forced by circumstances and rules of engagement he imposed on himself to have Hitchens be a fiery atheist. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Who's to know?

And the second layer is that there is ample evidence there exist kinds of existances for humans that aren't physical. For example, it's known that dead people can come back as ghosts. What if little unborn babies that get miscarried (or aborted) enter into this "Underworld" of sorts and there they get to know God and decide for or against him? There is plenty of Creation that is true but that the Bible keeps mum about. The Law of Gravity, for example. Perhaps also things relating to the fate of dead unborn?

Expand full comment