Not a very scripturally sound way to see it but my explanation would be "Since its not possible to and we did not get a choice in being created we get that choice after we are created. We all make our choices, some choose to live some to die". While we were yet baby Christians, which we still are I remember my wife saying "wish I was never created ..then I wouldn?t have to go through this struggle" of course her referring to the concept of a literal hell.
The same people who preach literal hell preach "free-will". How ironic? How can anything that has dire consequences as such of a literal-hell refer to the choice that one has to make as free-will? Its at best sadistic and blackmailing. Its like holding a man up at the ATM machine at gun point and telling him you can either draw your money and give it to me or get shot in the head ..you have "free-will". NO, free-will is having the choice to actually walking away from the hold up without having to give the money or loose life.
When growing in Christ this concept of hell posed a major stumbling block for me. I was close to renouncing the truth which was held in unrighteousness and go back to my atheistic ways. But just as a Father knows best, He brought me to the truth. I understood the grave for what it was. If I wanted hell I would have remained a hindu and worshipped idols, I don?t need Christianity for that. Like people haven?t suffered enough on earth that they have to go to a place owned by satan and his minions and be tortured day and night. The bible says abraham having received the promises in faith is dead and in the grave. But they preach abraham's bosom is alive and kicking which has a beautiful view of the abyss and hell where rich men are tormented in fire crying out dip your finger in water and touch our tongues. Sarcasm aside, the teaching of hellfire at most is disturbing and does more damage than it does good to the gospel.
I love my parents and fear them. There is a HUGE difference between fearing out of love and loving out of fear. The truth in the bible teaches fear out of love ..hellfire teaches love out of fear-"I love him because I don?t want to go to hell".

Quote: › love my parents and fear them. There is a HUGE difference between fearing out of love and loving out of fear. The truth in the bible teaches fear out of love

Nicely put

Arythmael wrote (View Post): › So when He says that the lake of fire is the second death, suffice it to say this is not where you or I want to be.

Isn't this from Revelations? You seem to be acting like this is a direct quote of God. Are you sure God said this and this is not a code phrase the author was using that had a different meaning?

Quote: › Having perhaps come to the conclusion that hell is simply a kind of boot camp that you just can't walk away from like you can in this life, if there is then the least[/you] temptation to tell ourselves that well, it really isn't such a big deal like we thought it was if you don't "get it right" on earth

I'm not sure whose concept you are referencing here. It looks a little like the idea I threw out that Hell was an asylum for the theologically insane. However, the changes are such that you have an entirely different concept and one that is not consistent with the asylum concept.

lucaspa

Quote: › the idea I threw out that Hell was an asylum for the theologically insane

HAHA , I like how you put that...

Though this isn't what Arythmael was reffering to, you'd have to read or reread the thread. The idea he was reffering to was mine, though since then I have considerably changed or re-worked how I think about it.

Quote: › Isn't this from Revelations? You seem to be acting like this is a direct quote of God. Are you sure God said this and this is not a code phrase the author was using that had a different meaning?

I know this question wasn't directed towards me, but since I feel it means the same, I'll give it a shot. Yes there is a good possibility that by second death its reffering to somethig else all together, however if it is, its being symbolized by DEATH, which is kind of a rather unique thing. Now pretty much you can lend us your opinion as to what else it "could" mean. I suppose it could be drawing parallels between death and X, perhaps the perminent state that it represents, perhaps the unconiousness that accompanies it, which the bible reffers to. However, other than taking it either at face value or as something that can only be symbolized by death, actualy "second" death, knowing there was a first, is there any other reason besides the fact that this is from a vision that you question its meaning?

See I think you are forgetting that the bible was intended to be understood, even the mysteries of revelation. Perhaps not understood perfectly, but we are speaking in general terms. There are even parts of Revelations that indicate that there is a code of sorts, such as the mark of the beast (which btw, offering my opinion on that (to get a possible new kick going) means an assumed divinity of mankind (3 = divinity, 6 = men), and it being on the foreheads and palms means the thoughts and works of an individual). I don't personaly think "second death" needs to be taken literaly to have the same implications as death, I mean it could very easily represent a ceasing to exist, which would be different from the first death, in which one could be ressurected from. But again, like previously in this thread, that would be putting limitations on God by implying He couldn't raise the dead, in this case after the second death, so...

I sort of lost where I was....

lqdtrinity wrote (View Post): › Now pretty much you can lend us your opinion as to what else it "could" mean. I suppose it could be drawing parallels between death and X, perhaps the perminent state that it represents, perhaps the unconiousness that accompanies it, which the bible reffers to. However, other than taking it either at face value or as something that can only be symbolized by death, actualy "second" death, knowing there was a first, is there any other reason besides the fact that this is from a vision that you question its meaning?

As I said, I don't guess or speculate about Revelations. It was written in a code so that the text could make it past the Roman censors. That code is lost to us. I don't even think it is a vision, but written that way to fool the censors -- they are more likely to pass the text if they think it the babblings of someone who had a vision. I think you would be better advised looking for clues within the sociological and political situation of the time. Revelations was written to bolster the morale of the Christian community during a time of trials and persecution. Thus, the "seven stars" probably refer to the seven churches.

Quote: › See I think you are forgetting that the bible was intended to be understood, even the mysteries of revelation.

The Bible first and foremost was meant to be understood by the people of the time. If it didn't do that, then it would not be preserved. Therefore, you need to figure out what it meant to them. Only after you have done that can you legitimately try to extract lessons for us in the 21st century.

Quote: › But again, like previously in this thread, that would be putting limitations on God by implying He couldn't raise the dead, in this case after the second death, so...

God does have limitations. Limitations He has imposed on Himself, if you will, but limitations. Using human language to communicate with humans is a limitation. God can't express ideas that the language of the time has no words for. Or rather, God can express the ideas, but since there are no words for them, the ideas will be incomprehensible to humans.

Do you think it coincidence that Jesus is born and Paul preaches in the height of the Roman Empire? The message is that God is not a tribal god but for everyone. Before that message can be understood you need an institution -- the Roman Empire -- that admits anyone to be a citizen, not simply those born in the Roman tribe.

I'd have to disagree that the bible is first and foremost a book meant to speak to the people at the time. I believe it to be much more of a timeless book. And that parts were not even meant for the people of the time, but for future generations, and even out present time. That is probably a big factor in each of our opinions on the matter.

I fail to see how God speaking to humans is putting a limitation on Himself. I find that a rather scewed idea of what a limitation is. Rather I see it as humans who are limited and God choosing to speak to us within the limitation, but not Himself limited.

Also, you raise a very good point about the timing of Pauls message that God is not a tribal God and the Roman empire being needed to bring that message. However I don't think I am thinking of it the same way you are. I would see this coralation and see the guidance of Gods hand in the structuring of human civilization to teach lessons to future generations. The fact that this is even our history I think speaks volumes about the power of God.

lqdtrinity wrote (View Post): › I'd have to disagree that the bible is first and foremost a book meant to speak to the people at the time. I believe it to be much more of a timeless book. And that parts were not even meant for the people of the time, but for future generations, and even out present time.

Then you have to explain why people would even preserve it. If the book doesn't make sense to them, then they are either 1) going to ignore it or 2) trash it. That's just human nature.

Now, there must also be timeless messages in it for later generations to continue to read it. But if it doesn't say something to the people of the time, it will never make it to later generations.

Think of all the playwrights contemporary with Shakespeare. We don't know much about them, do we? Many of them failed at the time because the plays were no good. Now, if Shakespeare's plays were not popular at the time, he would have joined them.

Quote: › I fail to see how God speaking to humans is putting a limitation on Himself. I find that a rather scewed idea of what a limitation is. Rather I see it as humans who are limited and God choosing to speak to us within the limitation, but not Himself limited.

We are saying much the same thing, but you seem to be offended that the limitation is on God.

Do you have young children? Have you ever had a 2 year old ask how a television works? I have. Or how a rainbow is formed? You are limited by the child's knowledge and vocabulary. You can't tell them about cathode ray tubes or the details of electricity or about radio waves. Instead, you have to give a very simplified and somewhat inaccurate answer, but an answer that fits their vocabulary and knowledge.

I run into the same problem all the time discussing science in the forum. You and I have done it with ad hoc hypothesis and testing hypotheses in bundles. Shoot, we've even done it on the words "theory" and "hypothesis" themselves!

Now, whether you want to say "our limitation" or a limitation under which God has to operate, it's pretty much the same. God cannot explain Creation in detail to the people of 500 BC. He can't explain that He created by evolution because the people simply don't have the words or knowledge to let Him do so. How does God explain Mendelian genetics? Or selection over generations and give them the mathematical equations (which are algebra and some calculus) when the people don't even know algebra?! How does God describe a singularity when that word isn't even in the vocabulary? Or "galaxy" or even that stars are suns just like earth but "light-years" away? The term "light-year" doesn't exist and the distances in miles are so huge that the Hebrews don't even have names for numbers that big!

So, Genesis gives us the theological messages about creation: who created, why He created, that no one else was involved in creation, that humans were created for their own sakes, etc. And the authors set these messages, especially in Genesis 1, in the best science of the time: Babylonian science. However, the theological messages work just as well in modern science as they do in Babylonian cosmology.

Quote: › Also, you raise a very good point about the timing of Pauls message that God is not a tribal God and the Roman empire being needed to bring that message. However I don't think I am thinking of it the same way you are. I would see this coralation and see the guidance of Gods hand in the structuring of human civilization to teach lessons to future generations. The fact that this is even our history I think speaks volumes about the power of God.

That God may have guided the history just reinforces the point I made: not until the Roman empire could people even get a vague grasp of the concept of a god that wasn't tribal! You are saying that God had to guide His children to a point where they could grasp the idea of a universal deity! So God could not have sent His Son any earlier, could He? The message would have not been understood!

Don't you see that you just undermined your whole idea that the Bible was written for people in the future and not the present? You have acknowledged that God had to guide humans to a point where they could understand the concept. Giving the concept earlier would not have worked.