NY Times makes “A Case For Hell”

[TotalVictory]

Reaction to Rob Bell’s “Love Wins” continues. The New York Times weighs in yesterday
nytimes.com/2011/04/25/opini … uthat.html
where Ross Douthat argues that for there to be seriousness about life and meaning and sin and freedom, there must also be Hell as most commonly perceived. That is, ECT.

He says in part (my comments in Brackets ])

Doing away with hell, then, is a natural way for pastors and theologians to make their God seem more humane. The problem is that this move also threatens to make human life less fully human.

[Hmmm… we need Hell to be human? as in ect hell? If we’re made in the image of God, and GOd is love, doesn’t ect hell make us less human?? Oh well!]

Atheists have license to scoff at damnation, but to believe in God and not in hell is ultimately to disbelieve in the reality of human choices. If there’s no possibility of saying no to paradise then none of our no’s have any real meaning either. They’re like home runs or strikeouts in a children’s game where nobody’s keeping score.

[Amazing: we must have someone actually burning in hell for the reality of human choice to be real?? Can’t the choice still be real, but in actuality it has been emptied also by choice?]

In this sense, a doctrine of universal salvation turns out to be as deterministic as the more strident forms of scientific materialism. Instead of making us prisoners of our glands and genes, it makes us prisoners of God himself. We can check out any time we want, but we can never really leave.

[Songsandhymns.org says that “Make Me a Captive, Lord” lists a series of paradoxes. George Matheson wrote it as an interpretation of Ephesians 3:1, where Paul speaks of being the prisoner of Jesus Christ. Originally titled “Christian Freedom,” the hymn lists a series of paradoxes. The first phrase, [b]“Make me a captive, Lord, and then I shall be free” is related to the beginning of a historic Church of England prayer, “O God . . . whose service is perfect freedom . . . .” This thought is common throughout Christianity, …]

The doctrine of hell, by contrast, assumes that our choices are real, and, indeed, that we are the choices that we make. The miser can become his greed, the murderer can lose himself inside his violence, and their freedom to turn and be forgiven is inseparable from their freedom not to do so.

[But the opposite must also then be true: we are in heaven because we chose to be. Mercy and Grace merely makes the option viable…]

As Anthony Esolen writes, in the introduction to his translation of Dante’s “Inferno,” the idea of hell is crucial to Western humanism. It’s a way of asserting that “things have meaning” — that earthly life is more than just a series of unimportant events, and that “the use of one man’s free will, at one moment, can mean life or death … salvation or damnation.”

[If only heaven is populated at the end, then there is no meaning? Really?? Wow…]

TotalVictory
Bobx3

[revdrew61]

Another article by someone who hasn’t read the book properly and doesn’t understand the issues. Still could lead some people to do some googling and maybe find their way here for instance.

[amy]

[If only heaven is populated at the end, then there is no meaning? Really?? Wow…]

I agree, wow! That’s like saying if hospitals were able to make everyone well then there was no meaning to them. Um, I thought that was their goal? Usually ones with the better percentages are looked at as more beneficial, not less. The same should be true of God. His goal is to save us so if he can reach his goal to have us all reconciled why would that make Him less meaningul? It’d make Him the most relevant, I’d think!

[JasonPratt]

I wonder how many non-universalists will hop up and down on this article for its blatant anthropocentricism in what counts as “meaning”…

(I could hop up and down on it myself more, but I need food and must depart… sigh…)

[Lefein]

Doing away with hell, then, is a natural way for pastors and theologians to make their God seem more humane. The problem is that this move also threatens to make human life less fully human.

We wouldn’t have to if pastors and theologians hadn’t added it in the first place to make God thoroughly inhumane.

Atheists have license to scoff at damnation

Atheists have license to scoff? What an odd way of saying “as long as you don’t believe in God, even though he exists, you’re more than welcome to blaspheme his brand of justice” - especially poignant given that they interpret God’s justice as the very sort that is ceaseless and horrible for those who have scoffed at God, and his “justice”.

This sentence alone betrays so much of their true mindset.

but to believe in God and not in hell is ultimately to disbelieve in the reality of human choices.

Ah yes, because only an Atheist is allowed to scoff at what is obviously inhumane, inhumane enough that pastors and theologians “naturally” must be rid of it in order to make their God seem more humane, its not like he’s supposed to be omnibenevolent after all. To believe in God, and not in “Eternal Damnation” is to believe in the power and reality of God’s choices, above the choices of frail men.

Again, this betrays so much of their true mindset. If one pries off the surface one finds a great deal of inconsistency.

If there’s no possibility of saying no to paradise then none of our no’s have any real meaning either. They’re like home runs or strikeouts in a children’s game where nobody’s keeping score.

Because saying “no” to drugs is so important that we should let cartels run amuck in our streets offering crack for “favours” at our local school yards. After all, what good is saying “no” to drugs, if we make our dwelling places safe for our children and perfectly drug free? Good grief, its like strike outs and home runs in a children’s game where nobody is keeping score!

You just can’t have a proper livable city (gated community more like it) without the almost assured chance of a drug-dealer abusing a little girl for some of his “candy” right outside. Now apply this to how many are supposed to be going to an Eternal Hell, that’s an awful lot of little girls and little boys! Metaphorically speaking.

I could go on…I choose not to. There are too many real-world examples of what Hell on Earth is like to bring them up any further than I already have pushed it here.

In this sense, a doctrine of universal salvation turns out to be as deterministic as the more strident forms of scientific materialism. Instead of making us prisoners of our glands and genes, it makes us prisoners of God himself. We can check out any time we want, but we can never really leave.

Nothing like being a Prisoner of Hope, Love, Truth, Life, Perfection, Joy, Happiness, Goodness, Righteousness, Blessedness, and Freedom to make one’s stomach just twist itself in a fit of knots…

I mean, God forbid we should ever be perpetually joyful, and hopeful, and free; and never want to go back to Sin, Death, Pain, Suffering, and the Hell-hole that was once our carnal lives.

As if “Evil” is really such a good optional alternative.

Afterall, a doctrine of Eternal Damnation turns out to be as deterministic as the more strident forms of scientific materialism. Instead of making us prisoners to our glands and genes, it makes us prisonders of Sin and Death without hope of ever rising above the vicious, carnal, wicked, self-centered, greedy, raping, hacking, killing, burning, breaking, torturing, baby-skinning nature that is our sinful self; we can’t check out any time we want, we are (By God apparently) sealed to our fate, and we can never, ever, ever leave.

So much for that.

The doctrine of hell, by contrast, assumes that our choices are real, and, indeed, that we are the choices that we make. The miser can become his greed, the murderer can lose himself inside his violence, and their freedom to turn and be forgiven is inseparable from their freedom not to do so.

The Bible shows clearly that Evil restricts choice. Adam had the choice of every good tree in the Garden, except one tree - and that was before he even knew what Evil was. After choosing Evil, he lost every good tree, he lost the whole garden, he had to bring up food from the ground by the sweat of his brow, bringing up thorns and thistles (some choice…).

Freedom is not about ultimately about making a choice between “good and evil” - but perfect freedom is that any choice we make is good, and therefore we may choose anything, from every tree in the garden.

Once “Evil” is removed as a choice, having been burned out of a person and Creation as an option; having been overcome - we are in perfect freedom to do literally what ever we want. Because what ever we want to do is perfect good by default.

As Anthony Esolen writes, in the introduction to his translation of Dante’s “Inferno,” the idea of hell is crucial to Western humanism. It’s a way of asserting that “things have meaning” — that earthly life is more than just a series of unimportant events, and that “the use of one man’s free will, at one moment, can mean life or death … salvation or damnation.”

It doesn’t take Eternal Damnation in a fiery Hell to know that you shouldn’t put your hand in a bucket full of liquid nitrogen. It doesn’t take Eternal Damnation in a fiery Hell to realise that throwing the baseball in the house? …wasn’t such a good idea afterall.