Guest Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 At least we should call the shooting evil. Further, admit that the shooter embraced evil. Redemption is still possible. However, to repent, the evil must be acknowledged. If the shooting was done out of "sickness in the head," then the shooter gets to bypass responsibility. Therein lies the horror of post-modernism--if there is no evil, there is not repentance--and no salvation.You're talking now about the shooter more than you were before--you seemed to be talking more about the President before. But no matter. The shooter is dead. Does he care what you and I call it (sickness or evil)? And how did he bypass responsibility--isn't that between him and God? I'm still left unable at the moment to wrap my brain around why it matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) I believe that in general the concept of Hell as defined by Traditional Christians contains more pagan doctrine it does the basic doctrine or gospel (good news) of Christ. I have come to believe that Hell is not necessarily punishment where evil gets it just rewards. Hell is simply a place that is not under G-d protection where those that have so chosen can do whatever that pleases them - which happens to be evil. Hell is for those that enjoy evil and in scripture terms love darkness more than light. Or as in other terms - love sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. That would rather lie than tell the truth. That believe that if they desire something more than someone (from Gardens of the Galaxy) that they have every right to take it. And so on and so on. For such Heaven would be the place of punishment and eternal torment.That is a fascinating way to look at it. :) I might add that what you've shared seems to dovetail with the writing of C.S. Lewis which I cited earlier and which I also find fascinating. Edited October 6, 2015 by UT.starscoper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted October 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Which leads to questions that don't have to be LDS asked and answered. In historic Christian understanding then: what is the point of punishment? In a temporal sphere punishment makes a lot of sense. But in an eternal sphere (as typically considered by non-LDS) what sense does it make to punish (whomever) over and over and over non-stop forever and ever? This is where I park on my understanding of God's nature. He is good and just. Therefore, if scripture declares hell to be eternal punishment, then that eternal punishment is good and just. We grossly underestimate the gravity of our sin and rebellion. The purpose of punishment is to respond to an offense. It's not rehabilitation--it is justice. If hell really is eternal, then the act of those rebels in hell was tantamount to an eternal repudiation of God (who is goodness and love). Thus, the separation from God must needs also be eternal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 This is where I park on my understanding of God's nature. He is good and just. Therefore, if scripture declares hell to be eternal punishment, then that eternal punishment is good and just. We grossly underestimate the gravity of our sin and rebellion. The purpose of punishment is to respond to an offense. It's not rehabilitation--it is justice. If hell really is eternal, then the act of those rebels in hell was tantamount to an eternal repudiation of God (who is goodness and love). Thus, the separation from God must needs also be eternal.That's a good answer, and I also appreciate that one feels compelled sometimes to just park and rely. And although every answer leads (for me) to another question, I will rest. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted October 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 You're talking now about the shooter more than you were before--you seemed to be talking more about the President before. But no matter. The shooter is dead. Does he care what you and I call it (sickness or evil)? And how did he bypass responsibility--isn't that between him and God? I'm still left unable at the moment to wrap my brain around why it matters. You caught me on an important detail. I was not thinking of the shooter being dead. Perhaps this is why it seemed I was talking about the President. Traditional Christian teaching is that the shooter's fate is now sealed. It is between him and God. The importance of calling murder evil is for us living, not for the dead. We are accountable for what we do. However, if we deny good vs. evil as absolute, and embrace the post-modern belief that truth is relative, and it is up to the individual to discover his/her personal truth, then personal responsibility is largely lost. Further, if we respond to each act of horror with questions like, "Why did he do this? Was he mentally ill? Was he abused as a child? Was there a nutritional or chemical imbalance in him? etc." then there is no accounting. Without the recognition of evil and sin, hell makes no sense. We're back to my OP--the accusations against God, in relation to the doctrine of hell, originate in post-modern thinking. To recognize evil is to recognize our need for God. To deny objective evil is to remove the need for repentance, as well as the justice of hell. mordorbund 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 You caught me on an important detail. I was not thinking of the shooter being dead. Perhaps this is why it seemed I was talking about the President. Traditional Christian teaching is that the shooter's fate is now sealed. It is between him and God. The importance of calling murder evil is for us living, not for the dead. We are accountable for what we do. However, if we deny good vs. evil as absolute, and embrace the post-modern belief that truth is relative, and it is up to the individual to discover his/her personal truth, then personal responsibility is largely lost. Further, if we respond to each act of horror with questions like, "Why did he do this? Was he mentally ill? Was he abused as a child? Was there a nutritional or chemical imbalance in him? etc." then there is no accounting. Without the recognition of evil and sin, hell makes no sense. We're back to my OP--the accusations against God, in relation to the doctrine of hell, originate in post-modern thinking. To recognize evil is to recognize our need for God. To deny objective evil is to remove the need for repentance, as well as the justice of hell.So what you are really saying is that (I) should not excuse (myself) by trying to deny (my) sins or that I commit evil acts. Because if I do deny, then I will fail to repent and I will not escape the Hell, (God's Justice). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 Hell, (God's Justice). I assume you didn't mean this...but it is a mistake to equate God's justice with "hell". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted October 6, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 I assume you didn't mean this...but it is a mistake to equate God's justice with "hell". If God created hell, why would it not be God's justice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 If God created hell, why would it not be God's justice? You misunderstand me. Hell is part of God's justice. That is different than God's justice = hell. (bum bum bummm). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 PC - let me clarify a bit why I even responded in what might seem a bit of a needlessly argumentative way to this. In the LDS world, at least, there seems to be a broad characterization of what justice is. It is often phrased and discussed as if justice is in oppositoin to mercy. Justice is the uncaring rule side of God (meanness) and mercy is the loving, forgiving side of God (kindness). But this is entirely mistaken. I think it stems from the lds scripture that mercy cannot rob justice. This concept is valid and doesn't teach that they are opposing forces. But it is understandable how it comes to be viewed that way. Rather, if we look at justice outside of religion, would anyone equate justice with a bad thing? Justice was served. He got justice. The judge was just. These are good things. Justice is, perhaps, the core characteristic of God. He is just. This means He is perfectly fair, perfectly honest, perfectly trustworthy, perfectly honorable. His justice is paramount to His character. The application of mercy by God, available because of Jesus Christ's sacrifice for sin, is Gods way of allowing mercy within justice, not in opposition to it. Literally, that is what mercy cannot rob justice means. Mercy doesn't rob justice, because it is a part of it. God doesn't give up justice to satisfy mercy. He satisfies both justice (something He will always do) and mercy. Mercy is the ability given to us to have more than we deserve. It is not the removal of being given less than we deserve. Hence, I worried that an implication (which I fairly mentioned I may have been misreading) that God's justice is equated only with hell (meaning God's punishment and/or "mean" side) needed to be corrected and/or clarified. prisonchaplain and mordorbund 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 6, 2015 Report Share Posted October 6, 2015 (edited) I assume you didn't mean this...but it is a mistake to equate God's justice with "hell".I think this is an inconsequential detail. I don't think the sentence equates God's justice with hell. I think PrisonChaplain's post #33 demonstrates that he took my meaning as it was intended in the context of our conversation. But I'll take your subsequent explanation in the spirit you seem to have offered it. Edited October 6, 2015 by UT.starscoper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auzylee Posted October 8, 2015 Report Share Posted October 8, 2015 Sorry to kinda jump back on the conversation but with the topic of hell I think it's well described in Mormon 9, hell may not be so much a place of fire but rather symbolic fire of the torment we will receive to realize our guilt and wrong doings before the Lord in the last day. So much that we would feel more comfortable among the souls of hell, so that is where we will go, just my two cent :) 3 Then will ye longer deny the Christ, or can ye behold the Lamb of God? Do ye suppose that ye shall dwell with him under a consciousness of your guilt? Do ye suppose that ye could be happy to dwell with that holy Being, when your souls are racked with a consciousness of guilt that ye have ever abused his laws?4 Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell.5 For behold, when ye shall be brought to see your nakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and the holiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you. Traveler 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.