From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Heaven/Hell (was: Re: Perfect Love)
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 02:51:36 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.210058.6561@engage.pko.dec.com> pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.001353.3965@nmsu.edu> sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe) writes:
>>
>>  ... To me, the words
>>"separation from God" have a neutral connotation--maybe no pleasure,
>>but no pain either.
>
>No pain?  You should talk to some of those little children who are, for
>one reason or another, separated from their parents.  Ask them if
>they feel pain in their hearts.  Or, are you one of those who believe
>only the corporeal punishment causes pain and suffering?

If I thought only corporeal punishment caused pain and suffering, I
wouldn't be posting my series on the psychological effects of
fundamentalist Christianity.

My objection to the phrase "separation from God" is that you are
soft-pedaling the condition unbelievers will exist in after Christ's
return.  It's like the military using the phrase "vertically deployed
anti-personnel devices" instead of "bomb."  Whether you believe the
descriptions of hell in the Bible are literal or figurative, you seem
to believe that suffering of some sort lies in wait for those who
reject your God.  Why use euphemisms for it?

In other words, "separation from God" could just as easily stand for a
concept like the Catholic notion of Limbo.  Unless you explicitly make
the connection between "separation from God," and "suffering" (which I
don't think was made in the original post that mentioned "separation
from God") then to talk of "separation from God" as the fate of the
unbeliever smacks of false advertising. . . 
			
BTW, nice analogy.  Guaranteed to tug at the heartstrings, unless one
has already heard it about a billion times already. . . To be a better
analogy, you should make so that the children have no knowledge of
Parents, except for some books or pamphlets left behind by previous
generations of children.  The pamphlets should contradict each other
and yet be vague enough that one can reconcile them if "interpreted"
correctly.  Each one, of course, describes the state that awaits those
children who choose to believe in the wrong sort of Parents or in no
Parents at all.

>> ...  I exist in a state of separation from God right
>>now, and it does not pain me.
>
>Because you are having too much fun in this age.  But just wait until
>when Jesus comes back ...

Actually, given the many references Christ makes to his "speedy
return," I find this admonition rather humorous.  I suppose we ought
to give Christ the benefit of the doubt though, since he elsewhere
states that *only* the Father knows the hour of Christ's return. . . 

>Look at those children on the play ground of a preschool.  They
>are having too much fun to even notice the absence of their parents.
>But when the day comes to a close, as some of them rejoice in the
>presence of their parents coming to pick them up, those who are still
>waiting will peek into the darkness outside and begin to wonder where
>their parents are, and some of them will probabily begin to sob ...

No, it's more like this:

When the Parents return, those who believed they would come, despite
having no evidence said Parents ever existed, will get to go home with
the Parents.  Those who did not think the Parents even existed, or
thought that other Parents existed, will get *pushed* into the
darkness, rejected by the so-called loving Parents.  They are rejected
not because they are worse than the other children, but because they
didn't believe in the Parents, despite the fact that the Parents were
less than forthcoming with unequivocal evidence for their existence. .
. 

>>  ... (And before you claim
>>that the punishment isn't eternal--what did Calvin mean by the phrase, 
>>"unhappy consciences find no rest from being troubled. . ."?)
>
>First of all, I never claim that the punishment isn't eternal.
>I only show that it can not be proved beyond reasonable
>doubt that the punishment is eternal.

Well, do you *think* the punishment is eternal?  Even if you're not
100% certain, what is your opinion on the matter?  
 
> Please read my posts more
>carefully.

I try, but I am sometimes bewildered by the lawyerly hair-splitting
you seem to enjoy. . .

>  Now, have you ever compare Calvin's description of
>the suffering of the wicked to that described by Dante?
>Calvin, consistent in his belief that the suffering of the wicked
>is the separation from God, chose to use the expressions like "unhappy
>consciences find no rest from being troubled ..." to express the
>suffering of the wicked.  This only highlights the difference between
>Calvin and the medieval scholastic dogmatism examplified by
>Thomas Aquinas.

Oh yes, I agree that Dante's version of hell pulls in a *lot* of
elements that are unbiblical.  It was kind of interesting, the first
time I read it, particularly to find that part of hell had already
frozen over.:)

You know, you really ought to be a lawyer.  Seriously; I admire the
kind of hair-splitting that lets you say things like "oh, eternal
refers to the fire, NOT the duration of the discipline."  That is
true, but why speak of people being thrown into an eternal fire,
without mentioning that people won't spend eternity in the fire?  As I
said before, that is really a disingenuous thing to do, if people are
going to get pulled out of the fire at some point.  It seems to me
that even when one takes the ambiguities you have pointed out into
account, the interpretation that the punishment is eternal is the more
likely one to make, provided one is interested in being biblically
authentic.  

And it seems to me that even Calvin, who you seem to admire so much,
did interpret "hell" or "separation from God" or whatever you've
decided to call it this week, as an eternal state of being.
Basically, I've come to the conclusion that I have no idea why you
called me "irresponsible" in the first place.  Whether you interpret
the images of hell literally or figuratively, it seems certain one is
to conclude that it involves suffering, and it seems quite probable
that one is to conlude that it goes on forever.

SD