The Problem of Hell

Pop,I thank you very much for this debate. It has made me feel much stronger in the accuracy of the Church’s teachings on Hell.I agree with you that annihilationism is a side issue to this debate and I will be glad to set it aside and focus on the resolution directly and your three contentions.You will see those contentions are resolved.The Resolution:I think we see that Hell only has a problem if a person places their subjective definition on words and limits these words needlessly.The only problem of Hell would be the person’s apparent understanding of the teaching of Hell vs. the teaching of a perfectly loving God. We have seen that they are not in conflict when fully understood.Like what my opponent feels would be blissful and what my opponent feels is morally right or wrong.Both of my opponent’s feelings have been shown to disagree with my feelings on what is “blissfull “or what is morally right or wrong.I applaud his feelings and pursuit of what is morally right or wrong. I through a different and efficacious approach have come to a set of moral values that are not subjective as my opponent’s personal feelings are.The resolution is negated for this debate. The Justice Argument: We see here that my opponent has not offered a good argument to validate his viewpoint that a Judge commits an immoral act by causing a guilty person pain.hTis seems to be merely asserting that a judge is immoral for causing pain.1) A guilty person who commits the crime of eternal torture caused to someone else (for example murder) must be punished with an eternal torture. 2) A judge is well within his moral rights to exact a satisfactory punishment equal to the crime. Eternal pain caused to a victim of murder should beget eternal pain to the one guilty of murder. 3) My opponent merely claims that the reason a person gets tossed into Hell is a finite reason. We have already seen a temporal or momentary act can have eternal and permanent consequences. 4) We are not saying that Aunt Mable is tossed into Hell for not choosing Jesus. That would be a recent protestant viewpoint. Historically even up to Martin Luther, John Wesley etc believed in the intermediate place for those who did not commit “Mortal” sins. The UMC states though they are silent on the intermediate state, John Welsey believed in it for example:[1]We are clearly discussing the traditional view of Hell against the Traditional view of God. We are not discussing the possible different views of Hell outside of the Traditional view. 5) A finite sin or a “venial” sin does not get you thrown into Hell. You go to Abraham’s bosom for such. As John Wesley states concerning the differences of status between someone rejecting Christ’s saving work vs. those who were not immediately Holy in this life like Elijah and Enoch: “an intermediate state between death and the final judgment, where those who rejected Christ would be aware of their coming doom (not yet pronounced), and believers would share in the 'bosom of Abraham' or 'paradise', even continuing to grow in holiness there”[1] 6) My opponent states things like “It certainly seems sadistic to cause pain for no discernible reason.” This type of reasoning seems troublesome to me. - Would we release all people from prison because “any given person” feels a criminal’s punishment is sadistic because he is unable to discern the reason they are being caused pain?- Of course not! We have a justice system that makes those decisions, with Jury’s of peers and Judges etc.. We have an expectation that they understand the situation fully and we trust in that system.- Just because you may not understand the justice system as an ordinary person, this does not mean the prisoners should be released.- At most, it indicates that you should find out “why” the criminal is so punished.I can easily discern why a criminal is undergoing his current sentence of pain, because I have an understanding of the justice system that is punishing him. 7) My opponent states: ”Again, I'm not claiming that eternal punishment simpliciter is something immoral. I'm claiming the eternal punishment as eternal torture is immoral.”- If a murderer caused eternal torture to his victims how is it immoral to Justly punish him with the satisfactory fitting eternal torture?- Clearly, if a murder murdered your sister, God of course will not murder the “murderer’s” sister in a tit for tat system of Justice. The murderers sister committed no eternal crime, but the punishment will be a personal pain to the murderer. It will be eternal and efficacious for retribution.8) My opponent states:”it's not for any reforming purpose. What is it for?”- If Jesus is the way in which reform comes to the criminal and the criminal rejects that reforming process what is left but pure, selfless “Just” retribution? Why is this God’s fault if a person chooses to reject the reforming process that Jesus Christ came to offer the world? - Do not criminals in our justice system continue to reject efforts to reform them? Do we blame the judges for sentencing them when they reject the process of reformation offered to them? The eternal bliss problem: My opponent’s definition seems to be merely a personal preference. He would be “blissful” if God did not punish people appropriately.I however feel that God punishing everyone according to his or her deeds would only enhance my bliss. I cannot say I loose sleep even now as Hitler’s chosen destiny is likely Hell. I however would be greatly concerned if an evil and unrepentant Hitler was not punished to the utmost for his crimes, much less releasing an unrepentant evil Hitler loose upon heaven.The only way I would be full of bliss would be that his crimes are punished to the maximum.If a Hell bound person, indeed did not choose to reconcile with God and repent/reform, then their eternal crime should merit eternal punishment. For those that commit only venial sins or finite sins then they are justly sentenced to purgatory until satisfaction and holiness is achieved. The reconciliation problem: - My opponent’s entire contention is merely a problem of interpretation and understanding of Greek word usage.- Here I cited Thayer’s Lexicon to show that indeed the word “pas” or “all” in greek does not have the meaning my opponent is suggesting, but a categorical sense is very much in view, not just a universal. [Ibid]- We see that indeed many places in the Bible “all” does not mean “all” universal, but rather it means a complete category, or everything in a category.- We have seen proof that the Biblical authors have indeed used “all” in a purely categorical sense and not a universal sense.- We see that this is only a categorical reconciliation as both Paul and all other Biblical authors show that God will not reconcile unbelievers. We see the traditional view of scripture is that indeed God will reconcile all people who choose to be reconciled. This is not a universal statement from Paul but a categorical one. We see this contention is resolved as there is clearly people who are not reconciled (whether through annihilation or eternal punishment). But all who choose to be reconciled will be completely reconciled. Paul is clearly stating that not one of those who choose God will be lost. All who choose will be reconciled.- We use such language today. “Children pick up the whole house now!” We know this would not mean the children are indeed expected to fulfill the exact demand. Both pick up, whole house and now are used in a distinct frame of reference and categorically. We see that the Biblical authors use language in a similar way all of the time. This contention stands negated. The resolution stands negated with an understanding of a Justice System that is a perfectly loving system of Justice. [1] http://www.umc.org...