What do you think of the book's solution to the problem of hell?

[Melisa Jane]

BOOK WEBSITE: https://ygodallowsevil.com


What do you think of the book's solution to the problem of hell?

The Problem of Hell Post.png (754.05 KiB) Viewed 2391 times

A SUMMARY OF THE BOOK'S SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF HELL APPEARS HERE: https://ygodallowsevil.com/hell-and-a-loving-god/

[Auth Allow]

The book’s solution to the problem of hell goes something like this: Man was created to enter into a timeless loving union with God himself (this is what heaven consists of). In order to experience timeless love with God, man himself must be made as a timeless being.

Hell consists of eternal, “timeless” separation from God. But if hell is real, and if God is all-loving, why would anyone end up there? The book’s answer is that love cannot occur in the absence of faith. More specifically, for love to occur between two individuals, each individual must first place faith in the other, trusting that the other individual will act in a kind and beneficent manner towards him.

If this is how all loving relationships work, then what happens when a completely faithless person dies and subsequently sees God face-to-face? At this point, according to the book, that person will know with total CERTAINTY that God not only exists, but also that he is perfectly loving. The faith that is required for love cannot be developed in the face of absolute certainty.

Because both faith and “timeless existence” are necessary prerequisites for the experience of timeless love with God, faithless individuals cease to have the ability to experience timeless love with God once they acquire certain knowledge of his existence and omnibenevolence. Because faithlessness undermines love, it cannot logically be regarded as “unloving” for God to forever banish faithless individuals from his presence.

Assuming the premises in the argument above are true, there doesn’t appear to be anything illogical about it. Thoughts?

[Elavarasi Charles]

The book's solution for validating the existence of hell proves to be logically satisfying from the man's perspective. If a man, before knowing the presence and omnibenevolence of God, decides to not have faith in God's timeless loving relationship, then on accounts of the author he naturally gets separated from God after the act of purification and re-establishment of timeless realm for godlike humans to exist alongside him. And that this separation from God is in coherence with his all-loving nature.

Even though only first humans are born directly from God and rest of the population originated because of the after-effects of the Original Sin, doesn't God's purpose and plans are extended to everyone alike? Wouldn't God allow the sinful man, who is separated into a timeless existence with no way of establishing communion with the God ever again, an opportunity for redemption? Jesus was sent into world to give awareness of God and his intentions of ending the 'timeless divine consequences' of the Original Sin. Did Jesus preach 'The Prodigal Son' outside the logic of God's all-loving nature above justice?

Even when we say that Jesus' preachings about the second chances to a sinner is a last call and bound only to the mortal world, granting an opportunity again is still under God's all-loving, all-powerful, and all-just nature and also the free will of sinners. Because them choosing the hell voluntarily even after knowing the presence of God would mean the true exercise of free will and not being bound to the hell before coming face-to-face with him. Letting fate rule over the power, love and justice would be undermining God's prevalence in his own created realm of space-timeless universe. Even after he gave away part of his power for man to exercise his free will. Because his limitations when exercising power are only bound to the ones he is sharing the loving relationship with. And offering to welcome them again would only increase the love that could bring the holy experience to all.

As suffering exists as an act of selfless pain-sharing out of love for each other, suffering of the immortal for the purpose of committing a mortal sin of rejecting God's love is not under the subjugation of the logic the author is aiming for. The context I would propose is for the sinners to end up in loops of iterations of entering and leaving the material world until the end goal, which is the holy purpose of experiencing and existing in loving relationship with God, is achieved. Also, the author suggests that 'after seeing what happens to sinners in hell, the purified faithful would never dare to do it again' which contradicts the purpose of free will. So, the existence of hell would only be illogical as it tends to deviate from the God's purpose of man's creation.

[Stella Wick]

God has given us the option to either be good or to be evil. To show his love, he told us about the consequences of doing evil so that it doesn't seem like we are unaware.

[Uchenna Precious]

From the holy book, the Bible, God has given us the freedom to choose between heaven and hell. People don't end up in hell just like that. Avoid sin, avoid hell.

[Isaac Chiso]

Hell is described in the book as a result of humanity turning its back on God, and eternal isolation from God as fitting since people could reject love.