From: sdoe@nmsu.edu (Stephen Doe)
Subject: Re: Heaven/Hell (was: Re: Perfect Love)
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: world,public
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 11:58:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.201128.13131@dcs.warwick.ac.uk> simon@dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Simon Clippingdale) writes:

>
>I am finding Publius' continued interpretational contortions most fascinating,
>not to say faintly scary. He is obviously an intelligent person, as evidenced
>by the intellectual effort required to conceive and defend such a convoluted
>exegetical position as one in which, for example, `cast into eternal hellfire'
>doesn't involve eternal sufferering. The poor unfortunte is not as unfortunte
>as a naive reading might indicate, apparently, and can expect to be hauled out
>with barely a hair out of place and well before breaking into a sweat.
>
>But then Publius tells us that there *will* nevertheless be eternal suffering!
>
>But it's courtesy of Separation From God, now revealed to be the intended
>meaning of `The Eternal Fires Of Hell', rather than The Fires themselves.
>But for some reason the fires still exist, and eternally at that, yet not
>for the biblically stated purpose of frying the damned, but merely so that
>transgressors may suffer a little, by way of a warm-up, before suffering
>the *true* meaning of the phrase, which as we now know is Separation From God.
>
>He then offers an appallingly poor analogy in defence of the idea that this
>is True Suffering, and one which he must surely expect a person with not even
>one tenth of his own IQ to see through like a shot. Reason and logic turned on
>and off as though at the flick of a switch, as demanded of its defender by
>the agenda which Publius has the misfortune to find himself in bed with.
>This is the idea that yes, there *will* be suffering, and yes, it'll be
>eternal, and yes, it'll *really* *hurt*, but no, God isn't a nasty vicious
>bastard like those who torture others with hellfire, eternal or not. He's a
>loving father figure, and if you end up suffering then it's your fault not
>His, which dogma is rather blown out of the water by the eternal and
>intentional infliction of fiery torment, per the words on the page.
>
>*Whatever* exegesis is required to sustain this position, Publius can be
>expected to insist is correct, no matter how idiotic or inconsistent it is,
>because he will suspend reason itself if necessary, as it most assuredly is.

Well, to be fair to Publius, his position isn't the caricature you
paint above.  Not quite.  The images of physical punishment, as Calvin
maintained, could be metaphors for the mental state of anguish that
non-elect persons will be going through.  There's nothing unbiblical
in that, though I suspect that the images of hell consist of corporeal
punishment so that even the rank and file get the message that being
non-Christian is a Bad Idea.  Publius is also correct that there is
wiggle room concerning the 'eternal' bit--but not a lot, which is why
watching him dance around the issue is somewhat entertaining.  But the
parent:child::God:individual analogy, while emotionally appealing, is
really a poor one as I've pointed out before.  And whether the
images are to be taken literally, or as figures of the non-elect's
inner state after damnation, we still have the situation of a "loving"
God shedding crocodile tears over a situation he himself created.  

I wonder if Publius intends to continue this thread.  He seems much
more interested at present in debating with Paul Harvey over the correct
interpretation of the word "almah" in the alleged prophecy concerning
Christ in the book of Isaiah. . . 

SD

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Preach faith *till* you have it; and then, *because* you have it, you
*will* preach faith!"

     --Peter Bohler to John Wesley, on overcoming doubts about
Christianity. 
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc