Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
came across this quote once here in the forum, as the topic is again discussed I wanted to contribute my thoughts on that statement:
Quote:
I just know that hell is real, and we have a choice as to whether or not we go there. What would really be cruel is for there NOT to be a choice.
I hope the poster is not offended, if he will read that I used this quote.
Think about these words, would it be cruel if there were no choice between everlasting bliss and everlasting suffering? Why would it be cruel? Who would choose everlasting torment rather than everlasting bliss, if he had actually a choice?
I will show where this argument lacks, both rational and scriptural:
They say, who refuses to believe in Jesus chooses willfully hell, and with hell they mean a place or state of everlasting conscious torment.
This argument might halfway, though not at all fit on professed atheists, antichrists, Satanists but it doesn't fit e.g. on Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics and members of other religions.
Sincere Jews and Muslims might live a more pious life than many who profess to be Christians; they might love "their god" more than many Christians love God. According to mainstream Evangelical doctrine they will be sent to hell together with the Satanists.
The Muslim did not choose hell, he thought he would go to paradise and get 70 virgins, and if there were such a big choice, why should God at least not grant him the 70 virgins? According to the bible a woman can be bitterer than death (Ecclesiastes 7:26), then how much more 70 women? (Please forgive my cynicism). The Jew as well did not choose hell, he thought he would spend eternity with the God of his fathers, with the prophets and with Abraham, but they say he willfully choose hell, but did he? – For me the answer is clear.
Concerning agnostics, esoterics or humanists, some of them just do not believe in a God at all, at least not in a personal god, but some secular people or esoterics believe in an afterlife, they hope to see their relatives after death etc.; you can't (willfully) choose hell, when you do not believe in hell or in a god who is going to send people there. The humanist who tried to live a moral life according to his own moral conscience did not choose to suffer everlastingly hereafter. People who commit suicide did not choose to suffer hereafter without end - even worse than they did here.
To claim people willfully choose to suffer everlastingly is ridiculous and insane, well there might be Satanists and masochists who actually would willfully choose hell, but here comes the question, why should God grant their wish? Would God keep Satanists everlastingly alive suffering according to their wish while they blaspheme Him throughout all eternity?
These thoughts and claims, when thought to the end are grotesque, blasphemous and devilish.
And why the choice between heaven and hell and not between live and death?
Those who call themselves Christians often contrast heaven and hell, but the bible does this very rarely, not more than a handful of verses and only sheol and heaven.
Job 11:8 is the only verse where heaven and sheol are directly contrasted:
It is as the heights of heaven; what wilt thou do? deeper than Sheol; what canst thou know?
But sheol is not the type of hell as modern Christianity says:
1 Samuel 2:6
Jehovah killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down to Sheol, and bringeth up.
Scripture more often contrasts heaven and earth, life and death.
Deuteronomy 30:15-19
See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil, in that I command thee this day to love Jehovah thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, that thou mayest live and multiply, and that Jehovah thy God may bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thy heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and thou shalt bow down to other gods and serve them; I denounce unto you this day that ye shall surely perish; ye shall not prolong your days upon the land whereunto thou passest over the Jordan to possess it. I call heaven and earth to witness this day against you: life and death have I set before you, blessing and cursing: choose then life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed.
Now if there would actually be a choice, why not the choice between life and death?
The bible does not teach the inherent immortality of men's soul or spirit, if God would grant men their choices why should He not grant them the choice of death if they want, why only the choice between heaven and hell, why not the choice between heaven, hell and death (i.e. annihilation) ?
Why should the possibility to choose cease with death? If God respects the will of men, why no longer after death, if men can choose and God grants their wish, why should the people in heaven afterwards not have the choice to choose hell, if they see all their friends have chosen hell, why should the people in hell no longer have the choice to choose heaven?; to have a fair choice, you need to know all possibilities; and why should the people both in heaven and hell not have the choice to choose death, if they don’t like both?
I think I have shown that the idea that people choose hell is preposterous, if there would be a choice, the choice would be life and death according to God's words in the Torah.
If there is actually a choice would be another topic; "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,…" (John 15:16).
I just know that hell is real, and we have a choice as to whether or not we go there. What would really be cruel is for there NOT to be a choice.
I am sure of the sincerity of the poster but this is not scriptural and even if God didn't give us a choice which I don't see in salvation then He is justified in His sovereignty.
Alot of Americans or Christians who live in a free country have a problem wrapping their mind about not having a choice. Christians who live under totalitarian regimes don't have this problem. Salavtion is not a democracy
came across this quote once here in the forum, as the topic is again discussed I wanted to contribute my thoughts on that statement:
I hope the poster is not offended, if he will read that I used this quote.
Think about these words, would it be cruel if there were no choice between everlasting bliss and everlasting suffering? Why would it be cruel? Who would choose everlasting torment rather than everlasting bliss, if he had actually a choice?
I will show where this argument lacks, both rational and scriptural:
They say, who refuses to believe in Jesus chooses willfully hell, and with hell they mean a place or state of everlasting conscious torment.
This argument might halfway, though not at all fit on professed atheists, antichrists, Satanists but it doesn't fit e.g. on Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Agnostics and members of other religions.
Sincere Jews and Muslims might live a more pious life than many who profess to be Christians; they might love "their god" more than many Christians love God. According to mainstream Evangelical doctrine they will be sent to hell together with the Satanists.
The Muslim did not choose hell, he thought he would go to paradise and get 70 virgins, and if there were such a big choice, why should God at least not grant him the 70 virgins? According to the bible a woman can be bitterer than death (Ecclesiastes 7:26), then how much more 70 women? (Please forgive my cynicism). The Jew as well did not choose hell, he thought he would spend eternity with the God of his fathers, with the prophets and with Abraham, but they say he willfully choose hell, but did he? – For me the answer is clear.
Concerning agnostics, esoterics or humanists, some of them just do not believe in a God at all, at least not in a personal god, but some secular people or esoterics believe in an afterlife, they hope to see their relatives after death etc.; you can't (willfully) choose hell, when you do not believe in hell or in a god who is going to send people there. The humanist who tried to live a moral life according to his own moral conscience did not choose to suffer everlastingly hereafter. People who commit suicide did not choose to suffer hereafter without end - even worse than they did here.
To claim people willfully choose to suffer everlastingly is ridiculous and insane, well there might be Satanists and masochists who actually would willfully choose hell, but here comes the question, why should God grant their wish? Would God keep Satanists everlastingly alive suffering according to their wish while they blaspheme Him throughout all eternity?
These thoughts and claims, when thought to the end are grotesque, blasphemous and devilish.
And why the choice between heaven and hell and not between live and death?
Those who call themselves Christians often contrast heaven and hell, but the bible does this very rarely, not more than a handful of verses and only sheol and heaven.
Job 11:8 is the only verse where heaven and sheol are directly contrasted:
It is as the heights of heaven; what wilt thou do? deeper than Sheol; what canst thou know?
But sheol is not the type of hell as modern Christianity says:
1 Samuel 2:6
Jehovah killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down to Sheol, and bringeth up.
Scripture more often contrasts heaven and earth, life and death.
Deuteronomy 30:15-19
See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil, in that I command thee this day to love Jehovah thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, that thou mayest live and multiply, and that Jehovah thy God may bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thy heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and thou shalt bow down to other gods and serve them; I denounce unto you this day that ye shall surely perish; ye shall not prolong your days upon the land whereunto thou passest over the Jordan to possess it. I call heaven and earth to witness this day against you: life and death have I set before you, blessing and cursing: choose then life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed.
Now if there would actually be a choice, why not the choice between life and death?
The bible does not teach the inherent immortality of men's soul or spirit, if God would grant men their choices why should He not grant them the choice of death if they want, why only the choice between heaven and hell, why not the choice between heaven, hell and death (i.e. annihilation) ?
Why should the possibility to choose cease with death? If God respects the will of men, why no longer after death, if men can choose and God grants their wish, why should the people in heaven afterwards not have the choice to choose hell, if they see all their friends have chosen hell, why should the people in hell no longer have the choice to choose heaven?; to have a fair choice, you need to know all possibilities; and why should the people both in heaven and hell not have the choice to choose death, if they don’t like both?
I think I have shown that the idea that people choose hell is preposterous, if there would be a choice, the choice would be life and death according to God's words in the Torah.
If there is actually a choice would be another topic; "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,…" (John 15:16).
The choice was given to the Israelites and what did God show by it? - they they couldn't choose Him. Therefore, the New Covenant is about God choosing us.
I have come to the conclusion that people do make choices, but there choices are caused.
Whoever was the original cause would therefore decide everything thereafter.
To explain this better, say you choose to drop a bowling ball on your foot. Now why did you choose to do that? Well, because various causes eventually led you to make that decision.
Next we must ask, could you have chosen differently? The answer must be no. Since God knows the beginning from the end, and not the beginning from the many possible ends.
This then leads us to throw out the concept of free will, since a free will is an uncaused will, a will that is not influenced, but is free to do as it wishes.
In actually our will is in bondage. We can only do the things that we are caused to do.
However, we do not know the future. So incorrectly assuming that we should now do nothing since we can't choose to do what we wish freely, is an immature interpretation of the doctrine.
You do chose technically, but your choice is is caused by God if followed far enough back.
There are also times when God intervenes directly, instead of simply predestining something to happen.
I have come to the conclusion that people do make choices, but there choices are caused.
Whoever was the original cause would therefore decide everything thereafter.
To explain this better, say you choose to drop a bowling ball on your foot. Now why did you choose to do that? Well, because various causes eventually led you to make that decision.
Next we must ask, could you have chosen differently? The answer must be no. Since God knows the beginning from the end, and not the beginning from the many possible ends.
This then leads us to throw out the concept of free will, since a free will is an uncaused will, a will that is not influenced, but is free to do as it wishes.
In actually our will is in bondage. We can only do the things that we are caused to do.
However, we do not know the future. So incorrectly assuming that we should now do nothing since we can't choose to do what we wish freely, is an immature interpretation of the doctrine.
You do chose technically, but your choice is is caused by God if followed far enough back.
There are also times when God intervenes directly, instead of simply predestining something to happen.
Our choices are exercised in the Framework that God gives us.
Our choices are exercised in the Framework that God gives us.
That doesn't line up with the conclusion of these two facts:
God is omniscient.
God was the first cause.
Therefore God predestined.
predestined - to destine beforehand
Or are you saying that God has all of the big things covered, but he doesn't know what is going to happen with the little things?
Isn't that rather ridiculous? It seems more like a desperate attempt to hold on to just a bit of free will, even if it doesn't decide anything important.
Our wills will no longer be caused when we are no longer in time. That is when we will be free. Until then God is working everything according to his will that he should lose none and that all should know him. But once the end of the ages come and God is all in all, we will no longer be caused.
First of all, there are already millions of people who have lived and died who never even heard about Christianity. They had no choice at all, but are condemned to be tortured forever according the commonly accepted doctrine of Hell.
Secondly, if the "choice" amounts to "Love me or I will torture you," then it's really not a choice at all! Heaven, if we can call it that, would be populated only by people who "chose" to be there under duress! It's a really bad way for God to figure out who his "true followers" are.
Thirdly, even if God is a combination of a Cosmic Nazi/Stalker, which is what is implied by the doctrine of Hell, then it offers little comfort to those who think they're going to be OK, by submitting to such a deity. The fact is, if there's a Hell, there can be no Heaven.
I've actually written an entire book on this topic--"Hell? No! Why You Can Be Certain There's No Such Place As Hell," (for anyone interested, you can get a free ecopy of my book at my website: Your Page Title Goes Here), but if I may, I'd like to share with you one of the many points I make in it to explain why.
Let's say you end up in Heaven trying to sing endless praises to a God who is, simultaneously, torturing billions of others. Unless you are given a de facto lobotomy (in which case, YOU would no longer be YOU, so you might as well have not had a soul to begin with), you would have to begin wondering, "When am I next?" and the joy of Heaven would be lost, replaced by gloom and foreboding! Why? Because you could never rely on a God who is so mean to be honest about making any exceptions.
After all, which is more difficult? For God to actively cause so much immense pain, for so many, for so long, or to go back on whatever promises he made to a few others that he would not put them in Hell too at some point?
It would be like accepting an invitation to live as a guest with one of these maniacal men we've been hearing about lately who kidnap, imprison, rape and torture young girls in secret basements. Can you imagine such a guy, simultaneously, having some other young lady as his dinner date, and treating her with respect and care? And even if he did for a while, wouldn't his true nature unleash itself upon her at some point in time, as it has on so many others? Of course!
So this "gospel" turns out to be pretty bad news after all!
Thankfully, there is real good news, assuming Jesus was correct about God's true nature in his original teachings. He certainly did not believe in Hell; he couldn't have!
If one is willing to look, there's substantial evidence contained in the gospels to show that Jesus opposed the idea of Hell. For example, in Luke 9:51-56, is a story about his great disappointment with his disciples when they actually suggested imploring God to rain FIRE on a village just because they had rejected him. His response: "You don't know what spirit is inspiring this kind of talk!" Presumably, it was NOT the Holy Spirit. He went on, trying to explain how he had come to save, heal and relieve suffering, not be the CAUSE of it.
So it only stands to reason that this same Jesus, who was appalled at the very idea of burning a few people, for a few horrific minutes until they were dead, could never, ever burn BILLIONS of people for an ETERNITY!
True, there are a few statements that made their way into the copies of copies of copies of the gospel texts which place “Hell” on Jesus’ lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.
Bear in mind that the historical Protestant doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures applies only to the original autographs, not the copies. But sadly, the interpolations that made their way into those copies have provided a convenient excuse for a lot of people to get around following Jesus’ real message.
I am sure of the sincerity of the poster but this is not scriptural and even if God didn't give us a choice which I don't see in salvation then He is justified in His sovereignty.
Alot of Americans or Christians who live in a free country have a problem wrapping their mind about not having a choice. Christians who live under totalitarian regimes don't have this problem. Salavtion is not a democracy
First of all, there are already millions of people who have lived and died who never even heard about Christianity. They had no choice at all, but are condemned to be tortured forever according the commonly accepted doctrine of Hell.
According to Paul, they knew enough about God to avoid idolatry, but they chose to embrace idolatry instead.
Quote:
Secondly, if the "choice" amounts to "Love me or I will torture you," then it's really not a choice at all! Heaven, if we can call it that, would be populated only by people who "chose" to be there under duress! It's a really bad way for God to figure out who his "true followers" are.
If that's all there was to it, then you might be right, but there is more, much more, to it. God regenerates people so that they have a new nature that yearns to please God, loves holiness, and desires to obey him--not merely to avoid punishment but also to glorify the God they now love. Because of regeneration, they hate sin as sin, not simply because of its punishment.
Quote:
Let's say you end up in Heaven trying to sing endless praises to a God who is, simultaneously, torturing billions of others. Unless you are given a de facto lobotomy (in which case, YOU would no longer be YOU, so you might as well have not had a soul to begin with), you would have to begin wondering, "When am I next?" and the joy of Heaven would be lost, replaced by gloom and foreboding! Why? Because you could never rely on a God who is so mean to be honest about making any exceptions.
There would be no such question or wondering in their minds because Christ has redeemed them. Therein lies their certainty that they will never come under condemnation.
Quote:
True, there are a few statements that made their way into the copies of copies of copies of the gospel texts which place “Hell” on Jesus’ lips, but these adulterations came along many decades after his death, most likely due to the Church filling up with Greeks who imported their belief in Hades with them when they converted.
Quote:
Bear in mind that the historical Protestant doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures applies only to the original autographs, not the copies. But sadly, the interpolations that made their way into those copies have provided a convenient excuse for a lot of people to get around following Jesus’ real message.
If this is true, then it must apply to the Scriptures you quoted above as well, in which case, why did you even bother to quote them?
This topic has been discussed at length here: The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment (LONG), and the doctrine of eternal punishment has been logically proven from the Scriptures. Of course, if you find the New Testament documents spurious and unreliable, then that discussion won't matter to you, but that would also mean that all you'd have left to go on is your own finite reasoning. In that case, you'd be just one voice out of a million sounding off his own personal opinion and assertions.
That doesn't line up with the conclusion of these two facts:
God is omniscient.
God was the first cause.
Therefore God predestined.
predestined - to destine beforehand
Or are you saying that God has all of the big things covered, but he doesn't know what is going to happen with the little things?
Isn't that rather ridiculous? It seems more like a desperate attempt to hold on to just a bit of free will, even if it doesn't decide anything important.
Our wills will no longer be caused when we are no longer in time. That is when we will be free. Until then God is working everything according to his will that he should lose none and that all should know him. But once the end of the ages come and God is all in all, we will no longer be caused.
I think you should read On Grace and Free Will by "Saint" Augustine of Hippo.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Choice" Implies No Duress
Good post 
