As far as Lot offering his daughters to seemingly protect the angels don't forget that when a guest crossed your threshold they were esteemed higher than the family. The family was there to serve/protect the guest called the Threshold Covenant, there is another convenant called the Salt Covenant shared between friends.

Old Testament saints were sent to Hades when they died because salvation was not yet fulfilled through Jesus. Jesus shared the story of Lazarus where both the rich man was tormented & Lazarus was on the other side in what was called Paradise, Hades is he proper Greek term for this place. Jesus went to Hades between his death & ressurection & took the keys of death from satan & freed the spirits of the God believing old testament saints so their spirits could be in heaven. They were taken care of just not in our time realm.

BigYtownRed;745291 wrote:As far as Lot offering his daughters to seemingly protect the angels don't forget that when a guest crossed your threshold they were esteemed higher than the family. The family was there to serve/protect the guest called the Threshold Covenant, there is another convenant called the Salt Covenant shared between friends.

Such were cultural, though. Doesn't make them ethical by any stretch.

BigYtownRed;745291 wrote:Old Testament saints were sent to Hades when they died because salvation was not yet fulfilled through Jesus. Jesus shared the story of Lazarus where both the rich man was tormented & Lazarus was on the other side in what was called Paradise, Hades is he proper Greek term for this place. Jesus went to Hades between his death & ressurection & took the keys of death from satan & freed the spirits of the God believing old testament saints so their spirits could be in heaven. They were taken care of just not in our time realm.

Citation? I'm assuming you're referring to Sheol, but the term isn't really translated to mean more than "the grave."

Hades was first coined by the Greeks.

Paradise drew roots from the ancient Persian gardens, known for their beauty, leading one to believe that when the word "paradise" (or "paradeisos") was a descriptive word to mean "the most beautiful place."

BigYtownRed;745283 wrote:Below sums up the original question about as simply as one could put it.

How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
Dr. J. Vernon McGee
The Bible doesn't say that a loving God sends anyone to hell, and yet they do go to hell. But they don't go there because God sends them; it's the only place for those who have rejected Jesus Christ and have no capacity for God whatsoever.

When you say that He's a loving God, you've only described one part of God. God also is righteous and just and holy. And if you think that you can violate all the different attributes of God and then depend on His love to save you, you're entirely wrong. You cannot insult and blaspheme God. He's told us that we're sinners and cannot come into His presence, if we are not seeking after God, we are alienating ourselves from Him.

Do you think He's going to bring you into His presence when you have ignored Him and turned your back upon Him? No, He is a holy God. He had to give His Son to die on the cross for our sins, and if you're going to reject the only way He could work out your salvation then you must understand that this is the place for you.

Don't say that a loving God sends people to hell. Say that there is a holy God, and when you do not meet His standard you cannot go into His heaven where He is. That ought to be very obvious to you. In your home I'm sure that you have a standard and there are certain people that you would not let come in. God does the same thing. You have to meet His standard if you're going to heaven.

There's only one place for the lost who have rejected the Lord Jesus Christ and that's with the devil and his demons. Don't say that a loving God is going to send you to hell - He's not. The thing that's going to send you to hell is that you're a sinner and you don't want to admit it. That's the problem with the human family. It's a self will, a desire to want to go their way. Yet God has provided a way for you to come. And any time you want to make the turn, a loving God will save you.

The idea of God "having" to do anything is hilarious. Is he omnipotent or not?

The very presence of extreme human suffering and injustice go against the idea of an all-loving God. If He knew that specific people would create mass suffering, and said people would also suffer forever in Hell-fire in accordance with the Christian doctrines, then why would He make these people at all? Wouldn’t this action alone, regardless of the idea that people have Free Will, be an action in which no one benefited?

Y-Town Steelhound;745641 wrote:The very presence of extreme human suffering and injustice go against the idea of an all-loving God. If He knew that specific people would create mass suffering, and said people would also suffer forever in Hell-fire in accordance with the Christian doctrines, then why would He make these people at all? Wouldn’t this action alone, regardless of the idea that people have Free Will, be an action in which no one benefited?

If benevolence intervenes in any instance in which pain results, we essentially become nothing more than play things. In a nutshell, while I think God can interact with his creation, he's a lot more hands-off when it comes to taking exception to the natural laws that are in place already.

And as was mentioned before, to assume that allowing humanity to suffer is not benevolent is to assume that humanity as a whole doesn't deserve to suffer. If one reasons that humanity DOES deserve to suffer, and God allows them to suffer, is not that lack of intervention simply an allowance of justice? Can not justice be benevolent, even if it isn't always enjoyed?

Y-Town Steelhound;745641 wrote:The very presence of extreme human suffering and injustice go against the idea of an all-loving God. If He knew that specific people would create mass suffering, and said people would also suffer forever in Hell-fire in accordance with the Christian doctrines, then why would He make these people at all? Wouldn’t this action alone, regardless of the idea that people have Free Will, be an action in which no one benefited?

Extreme human suffering and injustice is similar to the "good" reasoning that O-Trap commented on earlier:

O-Trap;745172 wrote:Whose definition of "good" are we using, and how "good" is "good enough?"

Exactly what is "extreme human suffering and injustice?" I know it may sound insincere and harsh, but sometimes what we think is "suffering" isn't actually suffering. Sometimes what we think is "injustice" isn't exactly injustice. Just like the "good" spectrum, there would be a "suffering" and "justice" spectrum.

Without suffering, we wouldn't know exactly what "good" is. If there's a good, there's has to be a bad. If there's a winner, odds are there is a loser. If there's pain, then there's also joy/pleasure.

O-Trap;745644 wrote:If benevolence intervenes in any instance in which pain results, we essentially become nothing more than play things. In a nutshell, while I think God can interact with his creation, he's a lot more hands-off when it comes to taking exception to the natural laws that are in place already.

And as was mentioned before, to assume that allowing humanity to suffer is not benevolent is to assume that humanity as a whole doesn't deserve to suffer. If one reasons that humanity DOES deserve to suffer, and God allows them to suffer, is not that lack of intervention simply an allowance of justice? Can not justice be benevolent, even if it isn't always enjoyed?

Well put. Though I struggle to comprehend why God would create a humanity that deserves to suffer. Seems a bit "kid with a magnifying glass on an ant farm" to me.

I Wear Pants;745656 wrote:Well put. Though I struggle to comprehend why God would create a humanity that deserves to suffer. Seems a bit "kid with a magnifying glass on an ant farm" to me.

If God had created agents that were not able to choose whether or not to engage in actions that brought about the consequences we experience today, it would seem that we would be little more than incredibly elaborate wind-up robots, not able to act as independent agents, but beings which act in accordance with a compulsion that does not allow them to choose anything but what God permits.

As it stands, I think God created beings which bear a unique capability to opt for imperfection ... things being the way they ought not be. By giving them this ability, God enabled us to choose him instead of being forced to follow his plan for humanity out of pre-programmed compulsion.

So it isn't really that God created a humanity that deserved to suffer (though I don't doubt that he considered it as a likely result), I don't think. I'd suggest he created independent agents who are able to continuously make choices to engage in actions which, in and of themselves, are either perfect or imperfect. As we gather those actions into a life, we come to realize that every life is comprised of actions, many of which are imperfect, and thus, qualify it for deserving to suffer.

More succinctly, he didn't create us as deserving to suffer, but he created us with the ability to choose the option of deserving to suffer ... and it is this option we seem to have chosen.

In reality, a benevolent, just God could still allow humanity to simply live with the consequences of choices we've made, even though we've often not fully understood those consequences when making the choices. It is additional benevolence, I would say, that he offers to rescue even a single one, when it would be perfectly just not to do so.

O-Trap;745664 wrote:If God had created agents that were not able to choose whether or not to engage in actions that brought about the consequences we experience today, it would seem that we would be little more than incredibly elaborate wind-up robots, not able to act as independent agents, but beings which act in accordance with a compulsion that does not allow them to choose anything but what God permits.

As it stands, I think God created beings which bear a unique capability to opt for imperfection ... things being the way they ought not be. By giving them this ability, God enabled us to choose him instead of being forced to follow his plan for humanity out of pre-programmed compulsion.

So it isn't really that God created a humanity that deserved to suffer (though I don't doubt that he considered it as a likely result), I don't think. I'd suggest he created independent agents who are able to continuously make choices to engage in actions which, in and of themselves, are either perfect or imperfect. As we gather those actions into a life, we come to realize that every life is comprised of actions, many of which are imperfect, and thus, qualify it for deserving to suffer.

More succinctly, he didn't create us as deserving to suffer, but he created us with the ability to choose the option of deserving to suffer ... and it is this option we seem to have chosen.

In reality, a benevolent, just God could still allow humanity to simply live with the consequences of choices we've made, even though we've often not fully understood those consequences when making the choices. It is additional benevolence, I would say, that he offers to rescue even a single one, when it would be perfectly just not to do so.

How does what you said jive with the concept of original sin?

And no one wants to hang out alone in a kick ass house.

I Wear Pants;745667 wrote:How does what you said jive with the concept of original sin?

The idea of original sin is that we now have a nature that is preconditioned to sin (I hate using the word "sin" ... it's so archaic) as of the Adam and Eve story (however much of it you want to take literally ... I don't think it matters as of today, though). The fact that we live lives not even close to perfect is the evidence that our nature is, at its core, imperfect.

Whatever the truth about original sin, it was sort of the catalyst for the human nature to forever on be predisposed to desire things that are against the life that a human was originally intended to have, per their Creator.

The continual imperfections we experience are reflections of that, and I think they serve as damning evidence against each and every person, establishing that that person has a propensity toward imperfection. In essence, I would say this legitimizes our state of being in light of original sin, whatever that is.

I Wear Pants;745667 wrote:And no one wants to hang out alone in a kick ass house.

Hell no. If I ever sweeten up my house, OCers are welcome for cervezas and cigars. We can sip scotch, smoke cigars, and talk about the character of God ... just like Dr. C. S. Lewis and his friend J. R. R. Tolkien used to do!

I may be misinterpreting what you said as not getting it but what I meant was that I can't imagine God wanting to hang out in heaven by himself. Although if we think of God like a person and he created us then he'd be hanging out with imaginary friends. But I guess imaginary friends are better than no friends. Hell, that was a main plot point of "Cast Away".

I Wear Pants;745671 wrote:I may be misinterpreting what you said as not getting it but what I meant was that I can't imagine God wanting to hang out in heaven by himself. Although if we think of God like a person and he created us then he'd be hanging out with imaginary friends. But I guess imaginary friends are better than no friends. Hell, that was a main plot point of "Cast Away".

I suppose we have a difference here between us and God. We have to settle for imaginary friends. He can make real beings with which to have community.

Plus, I bet God would sit with us and talk over a tumbler and maybe a cigar.

In all seriousness, he does seem to desire harmonious community in the Bible, but in order for it to be harmonious, there cannot be that outstanding debt.

If God doesn't enjoy a good beer then I think I might want to hang out with Satan anyway.

I Wear Pants;745673 wrote:If God doesn't enjoy a good beer then I think I might want to hang out with Satan anyway.

Given that Jesus made "the good stuff" out of water at an open-bar wedding party, I think he'd enjoy it.

Good beer = another part of God's redemptive work in his world. Much to the chagrin of some ...

Honestly, can someone explain to me why hell is the way it is? I mean can't the devil have a kick-ass pad too?

Tobias Fünke;745681 wrote:Honestly, can someone explain to me why hell is the way it is? I mean can't the devil have a kick-ass pad too?

Given that the two states of being are essentially dichotomies, and opposites of one another, that the eternal destinations would follow. One is the epitome of good (both sensate and otherwise). The other is the complete absence of good.

"Such were cultural, though. Doesn't make them ethical by any stretch."

It makes it very ethical. It was ethical for the times & their culture. A guest was placed in higher esteem than the family. You look at it in our context of today but if you were raised the exact same way you would practice it the same. Blowing your nose in public in Japan is highly offensive from what I have heard. Is it offensive to us? Not really, although, I was taught not to do it at the dinner table & I don't do it as an adult.

"Citation? I'm assuming you're referring to Sheol, but the term isn't really translated to mean more than "the grave."

That isn't what Jesus taught when referring to it in the narrative about Lazarus & the Rich man. Both were physically dead & the rich man who was in torment communicated with Abraham to have Lazarus who was not in torment assist him with a simple drink of a drop of water from his fingertip (how terrible was that torment?). Hades has two parts seperated by a great gulf & no one can pass from one to the other.

I Wear Pants;745324 wrote:The idea of God "having" to do anything is hilarious. Is he omnipotent or not?

You are 100% correct, he will have nothing to do with it. He has a standard & we must meet that standard which is accepting his free gift of Jesus Christ, his son, as your savior. Displace yourself on the throne of your heart & put him on it.

BigYtownRed;749069 wrote:It makes it very ethical. It was ethical for the times & their culture.

There is a distinction between perceived ethics and actual morality. While one can contend that the specificity of morality can change, but it won't fly in the face of itself, unless you believe that morality can somehow do a complete 180-degree turn (or any turn at all, for that matter).

BigYtownRed;749069 wrote:A guest was placed in higher esteem than the family.

Yes, but a culture's perception of social esteem is not equitable to ethics. I'm familiar with the ancient Hebrew culture, but I can also see that much of the culture depicted in the Scriptures is either amoral or even immoral. Just because the Bible says Lot did something does not mean the Bible endorses it.

BigYtownRed;749069 wrote:You look at it in our context of today but if you were raised the exact same way you would practice it the same.

I'm no less looking at it in ancient Semitic terms than you. Culture != morality. He was doing something that was culturally acceptable. Doesn't make it excusable. Sexual immorality was condemned pre-Noahic Covenant. Lot giving his daughters over to men for much the same interaction that caused pre-Noahic struggle between God and man was an immoral thing to do, regardless of cultural pressures.

Not saying I don't sympathize, but I also don't rationalize his actions, either.

BigYtownRed;749069 wrote:Blowing your nose in public in Japan is highly offensive from what I have heard. Is it offensive to us? Not really, although, I was taught not to do it at the dinner table & I don't do it as an adult.

Once again, there needs be no ambiguation between cultural norms and morality. One might make a case that it would be immoral to know it is offensive and do it anyway, but the action of blowing one's nose in public, in and of itself, is not immoral.

BigYtownRed;749069 wrote:That isn't what Jesus taught when referring to it in the narrative about Lazarus & the Rich man. Both were physically dead & the rich man who was in torment communicated with Abraham to have Lazarus who was not in torment assist him with a simple drink of a drop of water from his fingertip (how terrible was that torment?). Hades has two parts seperated by a great gulf & no one can pass from one to the other.

Jesus never stipulates that the two places on either side of the chasm are both Hades/Sheol. In fact, I would contend that there is credence given in the story to the contrary.

It happened that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. In Hades, he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far off, and Lazarus at his bosom. He cried and said, "Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame."

But Abraham said, "Son, remember that you, in your lifetime, received your good things, and Lazarus, in the same way, bad things. But now here he is comforted and you are in anguish. Besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that those who want to pass from here to you are not able, and that none may cross over from there to us."

He said, "I ask you therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house; for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, so they won't also come into this place of torment."

But Abraham said to him, "They have Moses and the prophets. Let them listen to them."

He said, "No, father Abraham, but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent."

He said to him, "If they don't listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if one rises from the dead."

The story makes a dichotomy statement between Hades and "Abraham's bosom," indicating that the two are opposites, and that one does not exist in another. It makes mention of each person's location very specifically. The rich man is said to have been in Hades. Lazarus is said to have been in Abraham's bosom.

Ultimately, this argument is missing the point, though, because in the final focus of the story, he emphasizes that miraculous resurrection was not enough to save the rich man's siblings ... a telling bit of foreshadowing, and the point of the story. Jesus was teaching about how unwilling many are/would be to accept the salvation offered, and he was simply using the concepts readily understood by the Jews of that time to do it. If you look at the progression of afterlife theology amongh Jews during the post-First Temple and Second Temple periods, the reason for the story being told the way it was makes perfect sense.

Kudos to those involved here, as this is a very interesting discussion. Just genuinely curious: what about children (who die) who are too young to understand and subsequently "believe" in God -- what happens to them in heaven?

So is Ghandi in Hell?

BigAppleBuckeye;749447 wrote:Kudos to those involved here, as this is a very interesting discussion. Just genuinely curious: what about children (who die) who are too young to understand and subsequently "believe" in God -- what happens to them in heaven?

I've never come across a clear answer to this. Many will have speculations, and there can be cases built, but when push comes to shove, we don't know.

I'd like to think of babies as innocent. It comes down, then, to the issue of a "nature" predisposition. When I'm honest with myself, I'd like to hope that God sees an innocence in children, but I cannot say for sure. Whatever the case, there is a justice to it.

Y-Town Steelhound;749452 wrote:So is Ghandi in Hell?

Great question, and at this point, I hope he's not, but I think he probably is. As much as that sucks, it still comes down to the issue of what people deserve. The breaking point of perfection being far above anyone's threshold of morality would suggest that the just thing would be for him to be where he deserves, regardless of what his peers think of him.

The idea that someone deserves to go to what we think of as hell because they aren't a Christian is ridiculous to me.

As far as the God/Heaven thing, if you want to you can make an argument that anyone or anything is undeserving of heaven from what is written in the Bible. However if I'm assuming that God/Heaven exists as described in the Bible I'm also going to assume that he didn't create heaven for no one to get in.

I Wear Pants;749769 wrote:The idea that someone deserves to go to what we think of as hell because they aren't a Christian is ridiculous to me.

That's just the thing. Nobody deserves it. Not Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Taoists, etc. Nobody.

It's not an issue of who does and doesn't deserve it. It's an issue of who accepts someone else's paying your way in. Once again, it's a matter of mercy that maintains justice.

I Wear Pants;749769 wrote:As far as the God/Heaven thing, if you want to you can make an argument that anyone or anything is undeserving of heaven from what is written in the Bible. However if I'm assuming that God/Heaven exists as described in the Bible I'm also going to assume that he didn't create heaven for no one to get in.

Naturally. I believe that was mentioned earlier in this thread. The original plan for humanity, earth, and the rest of the universe was that it be perfect. As such, the same justice that won't allow anyone to unjustly enter heaven would have allowed any and all to interact and commune with God.

It ultimately wasn't created that way. It's just how things have played out. Thankfully, there still exists a way for justice and mercy to coexist harmoniously, which really seems more loving than the creation of preprogrammed robots, devoid of having the option to exercise a will that is truly free to make choices pertaining to morality.

So you're saying God, who is omnipotent and perfect, had a plan for humanity, earth, etc to be perfect but messed it up?