Does Cho deserve to go to be punished eternally?

[Guest]

Well, another massacre and I'm sure you all heard the news. It's very disturbing but I sometimes wonder that if a person like him can still go to heaven after to what he had done then it is ok to do things like that of course I'm making a philosophical statement.

Do you guys think he deserve to go to heaven?

[Guest]

Hi PAULESPINO,

I said yes, however I wanted to clarify my position.

If by "eternal punishment" you meant to say eternally tormented in hell, I would then so no. However, all evidence seems to indicate that Cho was not a Christian and will receive eternal punishment.

Thank you,

Robin

[Guest]

Hi Robin,

Yes, we will leave it as punished eternally and no more.

[_Paidion]

What any particular person "deserves" is a tricky matter. What does "deserve" mean? It seems to directly relate to a person's actions and behaviour. If this is the case, perhaps all people "deserve" hell.

However, with God, being cast into hell is not a matter of "desert", but a matter of correction. He is not a God of vengeance; He is a God who will do all that is possible for every individual with consideration of their free will.

I didn't feel that I could meaningfully answer this question.

[Guest]

Well, another massacre and I'm sure you all heard the news. It's very disturbing but I sometimes wonder that if a person like him can still go to heaven after to what he had done then it is ok to do things like that of course I'm making a philosophical statement.



I don't know whether or not every last person should ultimately go to heaven or not. And i certainly agree what he did was horribly evil but i believe eternal punishment is insane. When i became a believer 6 years ago i knew Christ was Lord and i was told that hell was eternal but it never seemed just to me from the first moment i heard it and never for one moment since then has it seemed just to me.

[_Paidion]

Do you know why it doesn't seem just to you, Steve? Because it isn't.

[Guest]

paidion/steve7150--

i am curious as to how certain you are of your universal reconciliation views. On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being absolutely certain), where do you fall?

i ask this because if it turns out that the traditional view of a hell of eternal torment is correct, i wonder if you will be able to "enjoy" God, always wondering how He could do such a horrible thing.

you seem to imply that only an evil being would punish someone by torturing them eternally. i, on the other hand, can accept that if the eternal torment view is correct, then obviously it is not evil since God is not evil. what other choice do i have? perhaps I am incredibly naive.

I guess what i am saying is that by being so adamant about a universal reconciliation view, arent you possibly setting yourself up for a major disenchantment? i can certainly HOPE that this view is correct, but i am a little sheepish about DEMANDING that it be correct.

TK

[Guest]

I guess what i am saying is that by being so adamant about a universal reconciliation view, arent you possibly setting yourself up for a major disenchantment? i can certainly HOPE that this view is correct, but i am a little sheepish about DEMANDING that it be correct.


Hi TK, I'm not adament , it's just my opinion which has changed from time to time. My certainty level is about 8 and i would'nt view God as evil if i'm wrong , i would take it that He knows infinetely more then i do.
When you say we are "demanding" just speaking for myself , who am i to demand anything? I just honestly see the LOF as redemptive based on my understanding of scripture.
I have a question for you, i often hear the phrase "i certainly hope this view is correct" from traditional believers in hell. Do you think they really mean it?

[Guest]

Hi Steve--

when i said "demand," i meant "insist." of course we cant demand the way God does something, but we can insist that our view is correct. i agree with you, that if something turns out contrary to the way we believe that it should, then we have to trust God that He knows (of course) what he is doing.

Regarding your question whether people who say they "hope" universal reconciliation is true actually mean it, i am not too sure. But that is only because many people simply think that the UR view has a very low chance of being accurate. in other words, why put a strong hope in something that you honestly dont believe to be true? from my standpoint, i have learned enough about the three primary views of hell that i am far less skeptical about conditional immortality and UR than i used to be. so perhaps i can be a little more hopeful than some, who know little or nothing about the alternative views of hell.

that being said, i believe there are many christians who would be somewhat offended if the UR view is correct, simply because they would not think it is fair that people who snubbed their nose at God while living will ultimately be "saved" in the end. boiled down to essentials, the argument would be "why live a holy life if i can party like its 1999 and still get to heaven?" now. we have discussed the problem with this way of thinking ad nauseum elsewhere on this forum. but that is how many people would think.

i honestly believe that the great majority of christians have no idea what the UR or conditional immortality views even are. i have asked numerous people who have been christians for years and none of them (except my pastor) could explain either concept.

TK

[_Paidion]

am curious as to how certain you are of your universal reconciliation views. On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being absolutely certain), where do you fall?

I am 100% certain. On your scale, a 10.

i ask this because if it turns out that the traditional view of a hell of eternal torment is correct, i wonder if you will be able to "enjoy" God, always wondering how He could do such a horrible thing.

I don't deal with hypothetics. It's a bit like asking whether you could "enjoy" God, if it turns out that you will be tormented in hell forever. Or asking, "What if your belief in God turns out to be a delusion, and that atheistic evolutionism is the truth?"

you seem to imply that only an evil being would punish someone by torturing them eternally.

I not only imply it. I affirm it.

i, on the other hand, can accept that if the eternal torment view is correct, then obviously it is not evil since God is not evil. what other choice do i have? perhaps I am incredibly naive.

I don't think you are naïve; I think you have been heavily influenced by the evil doctrine which Augustine spread in the church of the fourth century. Again you are making a hypothetical statement in which the protasis is an imaginary state of affairs. To me, he statement, "If the eternal torment view is correct, and God causes the torment, then He is not evil, because we know He is good" belongs to the same category as the statement "If this circle is a square, then it is not round, because we know squares are not round."

I guess what i am saying is that by being so adamant about a universal reconciliation view, arent you possibly setting yourself up for a major disenchantment?

Belonging to the same category "By being so adamant that God exists, aren't you possibly setting yourself up for a major disillusionment?"

I guess this could be true only if you were one of those atheists who believes your spirit survives death. It would be a bit different if you ceased to exist at death. You'd never know.

i can certainly HOPE that this view is correct, but i am a little sheepish about DEMANDING that it be correct.

I don't understand this sentence. If I KNOW that sentence S is true, how can I DEMAND that it be true? I have heard of demands, but I've never heard of demanding that something be true. If sentence S is false, one can never make it true by making ever so many demands.