tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2760289317522978483..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Laws of utility and laws of moralityRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44757286046319462712009-10-12T23:40:07.073-04:002009-10-12T23:40:07.073-04:00John said...
"Types like MacArthur and Mohle...John said...<br /><br />"Types like MacArthur and Mohler are pretty respected. So I thought."<br /><br />Respected popularizers. <br /><br />Major commentators on the books you cited include:<br /><br />Matthew: France, Hagner, Keener, Nolland.<br /><br />Luke: Bock, C. F. Evans, Fitzmyer, Marshall, Nolland, Stein.<br /><br />Jude: Bauckham, Davids, Gene Green.<br /><br />Revelation: Aune, Beale,stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-3061277621666871642009-10-12T22:29:53.181-04:002009-10-12T22:29:53.181-04:00"A popularizer"?
Sorry, I'm a laype..."A popularizer"?<br /><br />Sorry, I'm a layperson, not a theologian. Can you give me an example of what you're looking for?<br /><br />Types like MacArthur and Mohler are pretty respected. So I thought.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04361879638625626574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80726246059707993722009-10-12T17:52:56.978-04:002009-10-12T17:52:56.978-04:00MacArthur is a popularizer. Try again.MacArthur is a popularizer. Try again.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7305042078723665872009-10-12T17:46:34.601-04:002009-10-12T17:46:34.601-04:00"How would this view of hell affect your ques..."How would this view of hell affect your questions?"<br /><br />Quite a bit: these are critical distinctions.<br /><br />I brought up the essay "River of Fire" which is closer to my own thoughts, although it was written by an Orthodox priest. One's perception of things can make the good look and feel hideous, and vice versa.<br /><br />Steve writes: "Name some major commentators who take the fiery imagery at face value"<br /><br />Well, I'm not sure if you consider John MacArthur a scholar, but you might check this out: http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg2304.htmUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04361879638625626574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54095474585058930912009-10-12T15:39:06.304-04:002009-10-12T15:39:06.304-04:00John said:
---
However, if we assert that there is...John said:<br />---<br />However, if we assert that there is no punishment too severe for the damned...<br />---<br /><br />But who says that? As far as I know, Christians have always maintained that the punishment of hell would be exactly proportional to the sin of the sinner. Indeed, Jesus Himself said it would be more bearable for those who died in towns like Soddom and Tyre than it would be for Capernum, indicating that not all punishment is equal in hell.<br /><br />But part of the problem in your approach here is found when you said: "(personally, I cannot think of any pain more excruciating than being burned)." You view this as primarily physical pain, but that's not what the Scripture indicates.<br /><br />Indeed, there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth, that is to be sure. But that hardly implies physical pain.<br /><br />Imagine that you intensely hate someone with every ounce of your being. But that person throws a great feast and invites you, indeed he forces you to go. Everyone else is having fun, but you hate the host with such passion that his food tastes like ash, his entertainment grates your nerves, you want nothing but to leave. Yet there you are. Forever.<br /><br />Why would the host need to torture you for you to experience hell? Just being there sufficies for that, and he has done nothing but offer you what everyone else recognizes as good things.<br /><br />Say he knows this would be your response, so instead of inviting you he tells you to stay away. He doesn't want you bothering the other guests who would enjoy him.<br /><br />The Bible says that God cuts off the wicked and they are cast out into darkness (which, by the way, means it cannot be fire). People were created, designed to be in a relationship with Him. How would it affect you to be forever cut off from what you were designed for? And it's not like your hatred for God would change by being removed from His presence.<br /><br />So there you would be, raging against God, for eternity. God doesn't have to do anything whatsoever. You are already in hell.<br /><br />So God could put you in heaven or leave you cast out; your location wouldn't matter, because your hatred of God would remain the same. No matter where you are, you will weep and gnash your teeth in your rage against Him.<br /><br />God doesn't torture you at all; you torture yourself. And it's eternal not because God makes it eternal, but because you will never love him.<br /><br />So let me ask, John. How would this view of hell affect your questions?Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75711396478198397622009-10-12T14:09:34.366-04:002009-10-12T14:09:34.366-04:00After reading these comments, I stop and slump in ...After reading these comments, I stop and slump in my easy chair, thinking, "wooosh" and then shutter to think some want me to be responsible for some part of getting out of here to there, .... God's paradise!<br /><br />Are you an idiot?<br /><br />Ah, why, yes, yes you are! :(Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22199272791202909712009-10-11T21:30:24.176-04:002009-10-11T21:30:24.176-04:00JOHN SAID:
“Scholars have argued for years whethe...JOHN SAID:<br /><br />“Scholars have argued for years whether these passages of Scripture are metaphorical or not in terms of whether Hell is indeed a place of fire.”<br /><br />Name some major commentators who take the fiery imagery at face value.<br /><br />“(Personally, I cannot think of any pain more excruciating than being burned).”<br /><br />Of course, therein lies the paradox. If the fire is literal, then the damned would be incinerated–in which case their punishment would not be everlasting. Indeed, it would only take a few minutes.<br /><br />If, on the other hand, the damned are fireproof, then they wouldn’t feel a thing<br /><br />“However, if we assert that there is no punishment too severe for the damned, I'd like to know why we reject certain varieties of punishment in this life as being cruel and unusual (such as the ones I mentioned).”<br /><br />There’s no internal relation between pain and punishment. A field medic may have to operate on a wounded soldier without sedation. That’s excruciating. Yet it’s not as if the field medic is punishing the soldier.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-15251243111756610712009-10-11T21:02:30.269-04:002009-10-11T21:02:30.269-04:00Peter:
Revelation 20:10
Matthew 25:41
Luke 16:22-...Peter:<br /><br />Revelation 20:10<br />Matthew 25:41<br />Luke 16:22-24<br />Jude 1:7-8<br /><br />Scholars have argued for years whether these passages of Scripture are metaphorical or not in terms of whether Hell is indeed a place of fire (personally, I cannot think of any pain more excruciating than being burned).<br /><br />I wouldn't presume to have an answer.<br /><br />However, if we assert that there is no punishment <i>too severe</i> for the damned, I'd like to know why we reject certain varieties of punishment in this life as being cruel and unusual (such as the ones I mentioned). <br /><br />Is it because of the nature of the punishment itself, or is it because we as humans cannot perfectly implement such forms of punishment without grave risk to our own moral sensibilities?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04361879638625626574noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-88189971956236033232009-10-11T17:37:40.946-04:002009-10-11T17:37:40.946-04:00Aside from Dante, what makes you think any of thos...Aside from Dante, what makes you think any of those <i>kinds</i> of punishments would occur in hell?Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53486719743666989382009-10-11T11:52:49.459-04:002009-10-11T11:52:49.459-04:00"As a practical matter, we couldn’t inflict a..."As a practical matter, we couldn’t inflict a hellish punishment on any offender, no matter how heinous the offense. <br /><br />I understand the notion of the eternal aspect of punishment since what is required for the punishment to cease (redemption) may not even be desired by the person being punished. Fair enough.<br /><br />However, we keep coming back to the notion that the punishment of Hell is neither "too long" <i>nor</i> too severe, not matter how unimagineable it may be.<br /><br />At the same time, we reject certain types of civil punishment in reality as being just that. We <i>could</i> keep someone alive for quite some time under horrific circumstances: find new and ever-increasing painful methods of torture that never end up killing them. I don't know: pull out their fingernails, burn them, whip them with spiked cat 'o nine tails, break their bones or smash their heads with rocks or flay the skin from their bodies.<br /><br />However, most of us reject such punishments as vile, inhumane and even evil.<br /><br />Why, though, if such things are within the realm of morality (and may even bear a moral mandate)? Is it because we are weak and decadent and simply don't have the stomach for it? Is it because we lack sufficient moral character to inflict such suffering and remain untainted by evil? (Is it even possible to inflict such things and remain unscathed?)<br /><br />My point is that in life, we refrain from inflicting certain <i>kinds</i> of suffering (even upon the most heinous of criminals) as being in themselves intrinsically evil.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04361879638625626574noreply@blogger.com