Why Would God Send Good People To Hell?

[ellapenella]

Thyra touched on this by mentioning free will. Even though the wording (Roman Catholic emphasis) seems to say that GOD condemns us to Hell, it is actually us that condemn ourselves by making the choice to turn away. We all have an eternal spirit. So what happens to a spirit that has rejected GOD?

Briefly, let's talk about sin in general. We are sinful creatures. No matter how good any of us are, we will always sin. Jesus was trying to tell us to not be so hung up on sin when he stated that he did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it, meaning that he took on the responsibility of our sin upon himself. That also didn't mean that we are free to sin, just that sin has taken a back seat. The real focus is on Jesus and our eternal spirit. Under grace, all that is expected is that we try to live a righteous life. We will inevitably fail every time but to be completely sinless is no longer the criteria to enter Heaven. The only unpardonable sin is to die rejecting Christ.

So what happens to a spirit that *goes* to hell? Hell is always considered the opposite of Heaven. So here in the West if we think of this as a number line, then Heaven is on the positive side and Hell is on the negative side. But what if it is a bit different? Is cold the opposite of heat? Or is cold the absence of heat? Is darkness the opposite of light? Or is darkness the absence of light? Hell is simply the absence of GOD. So when we reject Jesus, we basically go off into our own little corner and shun GOD.

When you consider someone that is seriously physically handicapped, but you know that their mind is fully functional. It is hard for us to image the Hell that they go through being so aware from outside stimulus and yet unable to respond in any meaningful way. I see someone who has died rejecting Jesus in a similar situation. They refuse to come into the light and they are aware of the passage of time because they are trapped in this dimension. I think that when we die and are in Christ, we transcend the dimensions of space, time, and thought and appear at judgment day before the throne at the same *time* no matter when anyone died in this world's history.

Now with the physical death, their spirit is trapped. They can't transcend. And because they can't transcend, they are in Hell. When a child falls into a coma, the parent will sit bedside waiting for the child to recover. Nothing can pull them away. When the child recovers, they will know they are loved because it is their parent that they first see. In much the same way, Jesus sits at the bedside of the one that rejected him until the end time when the dead shall rise and those that fell asleep and trapped will awaken and see Jesus at their bed side. Most will embrace him. For those that still reject him, there will be another eternity (a new universe) to endure and Jesus will always be there when they awake.

This may not be in total agreement with Biblical understanding that we have now, but this fits my understanding of GOD's nature.

It's mentioned in the bible that God has many names .I understand that God is love.

When I consider other spiritual beliefs and stories, they may appear to be different , but they're pretty much the same . The sole purpose is enlightenment. The Christ within.

[bendigger0]

Would any loving father send his babies into Eternal Fire? Very doubtful. We don't, and can't (most of us) even know ourselves. Our thoughts, convictions, actions, are primarily the meaningless squalling of infants.

[Bluefinger]

Would any loving father send his babies into Eternal Fire? Very doubtful. We don't, and can't (most of us) even know ourselves. Our thoughts, convictions, actions, are primarily the meaningless squalling of infants.

I think that the idea of hell functions well only in legalistic theologies, such as Hebrew and Latin theologies. And it is so difficult to shake because everyone everywhere has an intuitive sense of justice. Wrongs MUST be made right. Evil people do not get away with injustice. If they die happy, the won't the next time (known as the second death.)

While I cannot say for certain as to whether or not a person can go to such a place, I am certain that the authority to condemn one to such a place is given to no man or woman here on earth.

But the most important thing to note is that if people were focused on the central teachings of Jesus Christ, such a place would never come to mind. I believe that people have a problem with hell because they truly don't want to worship God. If they loved God, why would they fear hell?

(Please note that I'm not defending Hebrew or Latin theology in this aspect.)

[White Crane Feather]

I reject christian elitism. Not god. There are plenty of people that can't Believe that Jesus was god. It's not because they are rejecting god, its because the story is wholly implausible and god gave them the ability to critically think. There is no plausible reason why someone should believe Jesus is what they say he is. Why would god give you a brain to know better than to entertain fantastic story's written 1800 years ago, then condemn you for using your brain.

[Frank Merton]

If they don't believe that Jesus came to Earth and paid for man's sins by giving his life on the cross, and invite him into their heart, then the answer would be yes.

It's hard for me to accept that there really are people who think like that.

[Bluefinger]

I reject christian elitism. Not god. There are plenty of people that can't Believe that Jesus was god. It's not because they are rejecting god, its because the story is wholly implausible and god gave them the ability to critically think. There is no plausible reason why someone should believe Jesus is what they say he is. Why would god give you a brain to know better than to entertain fantastic story's written 1800 years ago, then condemn you for using your brain.

That doesn't make sense. Jesus didn't come to condemn. He said that men condemn themselves (and he very well may have only been talking about the generation of Jews that were listening to him.)

If we are to use our brains critically, we shouldn't be so fast to assume that what men of the cloth say is absolutely the truth or that the story isn't worth investigating. And the stories of the Bible are theological in nature. That means that one must accept that God exists in order for them to accept anything else. So, if you say that God exists but none of the Bible is true because it is too spectacular, then you aren't being completely clear with the audience here about what you believe.

[Frank Merton]

Rationally, if one starts with the premises of a God who gets anything He wants and a God who wants everyone to be saved, then the conclusion that everyone will be saved is inescapable.

[Bluefinger]

Rationally, if one starts with the premises of a God who gets anything He wants and a God who wants everyone to be saved, then the conclusion that everyone will be saved is inescapable.

I agree.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Bluefinger

[+Paranoid Android]

I agree.

I also agree

[White Crane Feather]

That doesn't make sense. Jesus didn't come to condemn. He said that men condemn themselves (and he very well may have only been talking about the generation of Jews that were listening to him.)

If we are to use our brains critically, we shouldn't be so fast to assume that what men of the cloth say is absolutely the truth or that the story isn't worth investigating. And the stories of the Bible are theological in nature. That means that one must accept that God exists in order for them to accept anything else. So, if you say that God exists but none of the Bible is true because it is too spectacular, then you aren't being completely clear with the audience here about what you believe.

I think its pretty clear. I'm an agnostic theist. I believe some sort of god like higher consciousness exists. Middle eastern theology seems very unlikely and not at all a good candidate for the "truth". That doesn't even mean that I don't think parts of it might actually be spiritually inspired, I do in fact, but no more than parts of the bhagavagita, Koran, Homeric epics, Native American oral traditions, or even avatar the last air bender. I do believe an intense charismatic intelligent person existed 2,000 years ago and his name was something like Jesus, and I think the the loveing parts of his message are wholly worth listening to. But I feel the same about the bhudda, Gandhi, niel Donald walch, leanord suskind, steaven hawking, Tolken, and others. I don't believe that he resurected dead people unless maybe he knew some ancient samurai techniques that resemble CPR, that he was actually born of a virgin, that he is the divine spirit's only incarnation upon the earth, or that through accepting these matters of faith it is the only way to ensure your position in an afterlife.

Christian eleitism is simply dogma in my eyes. I see no reason what so ever for a reasonable person to accept it. Nor do in think a god whith half a brain or heart would give somone the ability to look at the facts and expect them to believe in a cool but ultimately totally implausible story to be eligible for salivation.

[Bluefinger]

I think its pretty clear. I'm an agnostic theist. I believe some sort of god like higher consciousness exists. Middle eastern theology seems very unlikely and not at all a good candidate for the "truth". That doesn't even mean that I don't think parts of it might actually be spiritually inspired, I do in fact, but no more than parts of the bhagavagita, Koran, Homeric epics, Native American oral traditions, or even avatar the last air bender. I do believe an intense charismatic intelligent person existed 2,000 years ago and his name was something like Jesus, and I think the the loveing parts of his message are wholly worth listening to. But I feel the same about the bhudda, Gandhi, niel Donald walch, leanord suskind, steaven hawking, Tolken, and others. I don't believe that he resurected dead people unless maybe he knew some ancient samurai techniques that resemble CPR, that he was actually born of a virgin, that he is the divine spirit's only incarnation upon the earth, or that through accepting these matters of faith it is the only way to ensure your position in an afterlife.

Then I think you need to specify clearly what your theology is because if it is just that some consciousness exists and it doesn't reallly do much to better people then you can call it whatever you want, but you cannot convince very many people that it is a god.

Christian eleitism is simply dogma in my eyes. I see no reason what so ever for a reasonable person to accept it. Nor do in think a god whith half a brain or heart would give somone the ability to look at the facts and expect them to believe in a cool but ultimately totally implausible story to be eligible for salivation.

The funny thing is: Your idea of salvation (as well as many theologians) seems to be different from the Biblical idea of salvation. And so you are stumbling on things that you have heard and read but never fully understood.

I think you might want to research more while putting your preconceptions aside. If we Christians are expected to do it, then I imagine nobody is excluded.

Edited January 23, 2014 by Bluefinger