Why does the devil torture sinners in hell?

Originally posted by whodey
The question as to whether one can be loving, on the one hand, and punitive, on the other hand, has plagued many a theologan. I am no theologan, but I have my own ideas. If you look at sin from the perspective of God, it is a destructive force. Therefore, if he is a loving God, it would behoove him to do away with this destructive force so that suffering i ...[text shortened]... dealt with in similar fashion. This destructive force will one day be extinguished completely.

Both your responses were well stated. (I especially like the Hosea quote: thanks for finding that one).

My point was not that “the God of love” is not found in the OT, but simply that if God is love, then all of God’s actions would have to flow out of that. The therapeutic (healing) question that you mention is one that seems to come up not often in these discussions; people tend to take a more game-rule view—do/believe thus and so and you are rewarded, don’t and you’re punished.

A hermeneutical question that lies behind all this is: which passages from the scriptures can be reasonably used to interpret/modify others? I always thought it was erroneous to use statements about God’s justness or wrath to diminish John’s essential claim. (Again, I think the question of God’s therapeo could be one key to resolving that.) For example, since I have never been a biblical literalist, I can (looking through the NT lens) see John’s definition as taking a stand on the conflicting images of God in the OT, and essentially saying: “If you see a God who you cannot say is love, then you are not seeing the true God, no matter what is presented in the OT stories.” This seems to be what Christos Yanneras (an Orthodox theologian) is saying as well.

(BTW, since I used this passage in another context, 1 John 1:9 gives an interesting definition of God’s justness that might also apply to this question.)

Originally posted by damage79
I have a BSc, honors and PhD in geology....

Do you find the Genesis account of the flood to be consistent with your understanding of geology?

How about the Biblical timeline of the creation of the earth?

Originally posted by vistesd
“If you see a God who you cannot say is love, then you are not seeing the true God, no matter what is presented in the OT stories.”

That presumes you can understand the God that you see.

Just because a five-year old child cannot reconcile the idea of a loving father with his dad who does not allow him chocolate every time he asks for it does not mean his dad is not a loving father.

EDIT: I know, too many negatives in that sentence. 😛

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That presumes you can understand the God that you see.

Just because a five-year old child cannot reconcile the idea of a loving father with his dad who does not allow him chocolate every time he asks for it does not mean his dad is not a loving father.

EDIT: I know, too many negatives in that sentence. 😛

That presumes you can understand the God that you see.

And that itself is a core theological question. (You did realize that I was not using “see” literally, yes?)

EDIT: I agree with your analogy, of course.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]That presumes you can understand the God that you see.

And that itself is a core theological question. (You did realize that I was not using “see” literally, yes?)

EDIT: I agree with your analogy, of course.[/b]

I guess that's where faith comes in. You use reason (and revelation) to get to a position where you believe that God is love; then when He does something you don't understand, you just trust Him based on the bits you do.

Originally posted by whodey
The question as to whether one can be loving, on the one hand, and punitive, on the other hand, has plagued many a theologan. I am no theologan, but I have my own ideas. If you look at sin from the perspective of God, it is a destructive force. Therefore, if he is a loving God, it would behoove him to do away with this destructive force so that suffering i ...[text shortened]... dealt with in similar fashion. This destructive force will one day be extinguished completely.

Why did God bother creating, or permitting to exist, the destructive force in the first place, if His goal is to get rid of eventually anyhow?

Is this how HE amuses Himself throughout eternity, by adding a spot of imperfection somewhere so He can wipe it out later?

Too bad the imperfection is sentient.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Why did God bother creating, or permitting to exist, the destructive force in the first place, if His goal is to get rid of eventually anyhow?

Is this how HE amuses Himself throughout eternity, by adding a spot of imperfection somewhere so He can wipe it out later?

Too bad the imperfection is sentient.

God did not create sin/evil. It does not in and of itself exist. The same can be said for coldness. It in and of itself does not exist. Coldness is merely defining the absence of heat. Every object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero is the total absence of heat. All matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Therefore, cold does not exist. Darkeness also does not exist. Darkness is merely a term to denote the absence of light. Light we can study but darkness we cannot. Newtons prism breaks white light into many colors and we can study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot measure darkness, however. Likewise, evil does not in and of itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart.

As far as why God permits evil to exist, it is because he is a God of love and love demands the choice to love one back. You cannot force one to love you. If you do force them, you cannot call it love. Therefore, God affords us the ability to reject his loving ways and go our own way. At this point, however, we incur the absence of that love in our heart when we reject its source. Evil is then the result.

Originally posted by whodey
God did not create sin/evil. It does not in and of itself exist. The same can be said for coldness. It in and of itself does not exist. Coldness is merely defining the absence of heat. Every object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero is the total absence ...[text shortened]... ncur the absence of that love in our heart when we reject its source. Evil is then the result.

this trickery assigned to the 'chirstian god' - if you don't believe you're going to hell, if you don't profess your love to me you're going to hell, etc, makes me puke.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you find the Genesis account of the flood to be consistent with your understanding of geology?

How about the Biblical timeline of the creation of the earth?

To the first question

Honestly, I am still wrestling with this... the flood is an interesting one, on the surface, yyou would say that as the earth is effectively a closed system, there would not be enough water to flood the whole earth. This line of thought uses uniformitarianism (processes occurring today are what were occurring in the past).
Looking more closely at the biblical description, (acknowledging that it is not a scientific book, that was not it's purpose) there is mention of waters coming from the heavens, and from the bowels of the earth. So, if the pre-flood environment was decidely different from post-flood, then uniformatiarianism is a misleading assumption.

If the atmosphere had a dramatically higher water content, then this would effect the water levels on the surface, but it does not all have to accounted for by rainfall.
Also, large amounts of water can be stored within the rocks of the earth, (a small percentage conpared with current volumes of sea water), but again, we cannot know for sure what the percentages were pre-flood.

Now, I am not endorsing either flood scenario from a scientific point of view, I am still researching it in my (very limited) spare time. As I explained in earlier posts in this thread, my approach also includes giving God the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. My experience leads me to believe that God is real, and therefore, I value His Word

Now, I am fairly sure that this point of view will elicit a few responses, feel free to present evidence, I will take it on board and search it out for myself... but please refrain from rediculing my stance if you wish me to respond

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Do you find the Genesis account of the flood to be consistent with your understanding of geology?

How about the Biblical timeline of the creation of the earth?

To the second question

This is tougher for me to reconcile, and I have not given much time it at present. My doctorate was specifically a super-continent reconstruction of east Gondwana, and as part of this I did quite alot of geochronology on zircons (U-Pb dating on an ion-probe aka SHRIMP), so I do have experience, and a handle on the theory behind the technique, and the assumptions contained within it.

I have not got any scientific evidence at this point that contradicts the old earth scenario... but, I have dedicated 8 years of tertiary study in geology full time, and have not spent that much time looking into the assumptions themselves, and the potential ramifications of their being incorrect.

So, my stance is... the old earth model is the best answer with the evidence that is available, and is continuing to be refined and more defined are more research occurs.... BUT..... I also believe that God is real (from the evidence / experience that I have for myself), and that His Word holds truth.

In geochronology, the assumption that the earth is old affects the way the data is processed, and therby affects the "age" of the dated mineral

In God, I am holding the assumption (by faith) that His Word is true, and this affects the way I view the world

Science is the "best" answer from the information (data) we have,
I believe that God is real from my experience

This is an incomplete answer by a long stretch, but as I said, I need to given myself to more study of the topic, while giving GOd the benfit of the doubt (because I believe He deserves it, for I have seen His faithfulness to me)