I have noticed that some atheists are very indgnant about the issue of hell, and assert that God could have just created people who were going to be saved anyway, therefore negating the need for people going to hell.
I note that this was tackled in a recent podcast, and Dr Craig notes that may not be feasible because people (even atheists) have a role to play in bringing people closer to salvation, challenging others, presenting counter arguments etc.
The atheist may then introduce the idea of a philosophical zombie (convincing humanoid robot) who could do this work without the subject knowing, thus obviating the need for hell once again.
This got me thinking about the false premise upon which the argument is based, ie, that the best possible world is one where no souls existed in hell.
Although it seems counter intuitive, I don't think this is the same as saying that the best possible world is one in which all were saved (which would be true).
Taking the idea of the Potter (I think Rom 9:21 and 2 Tim 20) making some vessels for honour and some for dishonor, it would make sense that the chamber pot only has value while it is in use within the home. At some point in time, it will be cast aside, and its value will be gone. A similar analogy would be that we don't like the fact that food has spoiled and needs throwing away, but we don't really grieve for it once it has been disposed of. It is terrible that it went bad, but of no consequence once it has been thrown away. It no longer has value.
The objection to a soul with value existing in hell would seem to be based on the incorrect assumption that man can reject God, yet retain his intrinsic value.
Clearly this touches on the apparent dichotomy between election and free will, but I'm willing to accept on that the two can work together in a world where God wills all to come to salvation, yet chooses the ones who do (that's a theological argument, and slightly off topic) .
I would be interested to know your thoughts.
fn: I have noticed that some atheists are very indgnant about the issue of hell, and assert that God could have just created people who were going to be saved anyway, therefore negating the need for people going to hell.
jc: The concept of hell was always intended to frighten “spiritual infants,” who were unable to respond to the threat of actual hell. The trouble is the hell that is real is something these lower souls crave, so a concept they would perceive as more threatening was devised. In general the concept relies on them retaining their current body and being tormented in it. This gives an image of suffering they can understand, whereas consequences outside the body are far beyond the ability of their minds to conceive.
fn: I note that this was tackled in a recent podcast, and Dr Craig notes that may not be feasible because people (even atheists) have a role to play in bringing people closer to salvation, challenging others, presenting counter arguments etc.
jc: Such thinking relies on the premise the Christian attempts to save are efficacious, which is false. These are merely “herding” activities, where the real route to salvation was never declared in any religion. Humans don’t have the power to save themselves or each other, especially not with the halfhearted and cognitively improbable Bible theories.
fn: The atheist may then introduce the idea of a philosophical zombie (convincing humanoid robot) who could do this work without the subject knowing, thus obviating the need for hell once again.
jc: Atheists and theists are just two sides of the same coin, that God flips randomly. The theists are not justified in their beliefs because their ideas point them away from the living God. The atheists are not justified in throwing down theists because they don’t have the truth either. The theists can only be thrown down properly from a higher venue.
fn: This got me thinking about the false premise upon which the argument is based, ie, that the best possible world is one where no souls existed in hell.
jc: This is in fact our world, because hell is not perceived as torment by those who dwell there, only by those looking on it from above, understanding all of the lost opportunities. Importantly the human race is unable to consider it properly as a loss, instead secretly supposing it to be a gain, therefore the more horrific tales were concocted for their sakes.
fn: Although it seems counter intuitive, I don't think this is the same as saying that the best possible world is one in which all were saved (which would be true).
jc: Once you see the souls, you see that salvation of all is a literal impossibility, even in eternity. Chopping off points come, where God tires of the game of endless soul farming.
fn: Taking the idea of the Potter (I think Rom 9:21 and 2 Tim 20) making some vessels for honour and some for dishonor, it would make sense that the chamber pot only has value while it is in use within the home.
jc: This is indeed fitting, the pot used for excrement in ancient days used for an analogy to the sinful soul. Could they receive instruction and strive for improvement, they would have value. Instead as Jesus remarked, many are good only to be burnt, like dried wood.
fn: At some point in time, it will be cast aside, and its value will be gone.
jc: Such a sentiment fills the angelic heart with pathos, as they long to save all souls. Yet every approach of logic or love fails before the bitter ones who resent their own existence.
fn: A similar analogy would be that we don't like the fact that food has spoiled and needs throwing away, but we don't really grieve for it once it has been disposed of.
jc: Yes, the angels eventually kick up their heels with joy, though some men need be left. These men get what they wanted, and it wasn’t an eternity filled with fun with the angels.
fn: It is terrible that it went bad, but of no consequence once it has been thrown away. It no longer has value.
jc: Again, those who will strive have value, however it is not easy to enter by this door, as Jesus averred. Men cannot be made to walk straight towards the goal. They will only go by indirect, shuffling routes, where selfish drives are preserved. In general no one has objective value before entering a true “second birth,” and no man has entered it on Earth.
fn: The objection to a soul with value existing in hell would seem to be based on the incorrect assumption that man can reject God, yet retain his intrinsic value.
jc: This appears to be dancing around the same truth of which I speak, the sinners don’t rise to intrinsic value even when they strive. Importantly, the highest men, who can be identified since they were raised to prominence, reject God, although this also rejects them. It isn’t just before God. Such souls have no intrinsic value to the other souls either.
fn: Clearly this touches on the apparent dichotomy between election and free will, but I'm willing to accept on that the two can work together in a world where God wills all to come to salvation, yet chooses the ones who do (that's a theological argument, and slightly off topic) .
jc: The ruse of the religions is that men have a choice, when really their minds are unable to assess their status or their progress. The choices that were given only move them around slightly within their selfish drives, not pushing them out of themselves into higher zones acceptable to God (or other souls). The true religion will be opposition, which is to say the humans will strive to understand God opposes them in fundamental ways, almost everywhere they think or act. The current religion tries to drag God down to their ways.
fn: I would be interested to know your thoughts.
jc: If so you’d be first. Such courteous statements seldom have deep intent behind them.
