Obviously, I would have the stance that if one is in heaven, and another is in hell, then it would make sense in a final judgment, changing your mind is too late. It's final for all eternity after all.

A slight tangent here (feel free to ignore it until the initial question has been discussed, if you like), but I've always thought that infinite punishment for a finite crime is unjust.  Hell is supposed to be the worst possible torture ever.  One second worse than a lifetime of the worst punishment you can think of on earth.  And it last for all time.  Is there any crime so heinous that deserves such a punishment?  If any earthly government tried to introduce one second stays in hell as punishment, they'd be accused of human rights violations.  Why would a "loving" and "just" god ever subject anyone to such a thing?

It's a choice. God allows you free will.

Do you get to choose to leave?  Do you have free will once you're in Hell?

Also, I would disagree that it's a choice.  At least if "it" means believing in Jesus (which is what most protestants say is needed to avoid hell).  You can choose your actions, but what you believe is an unconcious action.  You can't make yourself believe something just because you want to (or at least I can't).

Further, what if the person doesn't know about hell?  Is it an informed choice if they don't know what they are getting into?

Lastly, why did God create hell?  Why make a place so horrible?  Why force people to make such a "choice" in the first place?  Most of the time when someone says "Do X, or I'll do something really horrible to you," it's called coercion.  Calling it a choice seems to deflect any blame from the one who forced the choice in the first place.

I tend to lean towards the LDS view myself.  The best way I've heard it described is imagine as you get closer to God, you feel your sins magnified.  They make you feel ashamed, afraid, angry, sad.  I'm sure we can all understand the feeling of remorse one has when you hurt someone who cares about you.  Magnify that a million times over.

So people have a choice, either they can somehow get their sins cleansed and embrace God, or they can run away and avoid the (temporary but severe) pain of self-criticism.

So it's not that God is actively enforcing this, He is simply letting us suffer the natural results of our actions.  If we cannot ask forgiveness and humble ourselves, we simply won't survive in His presence.


I also wonder if the idea of 'your soul goes to heaven or hell' isn't as literal as it sounds.  No where in the bible does it say (although it is implied) that we will remain conscious, distinct entities after death.  It is possible that a good soul becomes part of God or a part of heaven (rather than a resident of heaven) and a bad soul deteriorates and rots, "natural" processes maintained by a God who we've always assumed is like an old man who knows everything, but is ultimately an alien (in that He is beyond our understanding) intelligence.

Sorry, but can you give me the reference again?

I agree with both Tycho and Katisara above.  Punishment from God is not really punishment per se.  Either you shrink away from God and remain in your sins...dirty and unable to be with God...or you repent, enjoy the blessing of forgiveness while the sin is vindicated (i.e. the punishment must be sufficient to change your being enough so that you will not repeat it...a "change of heart").  The visions of heaven and hell are just metaphorical.  I'm not aware of them being so literal until after Christianity swept through the Roman empire and started adopting its beliefs.

Luke 16:19-31

(Some bit about a begger named Lazarus and a rich guy.  They both croak.)



(And some bit about how the rich guy's brothers will believe in God if they're warned by a spirit of Christma... no wait, sorry.  A spirit of the dead, but Moses says no, if they didn't believe the prophets, they won't believe a ghost rattling chains in their living room and taking them through time to examine their past sins.)

Okay, so you have a rich guy being terrible to the beggar and the beggar suffering through life, but then when they die, justice takes effect on the rich man and the beggar has been made good through his struggles.

My interpretation is that this has a couple meanings to convey:  1)  our actions in life are important, since we only live once, 2) evil and dirty things cannot enter into the kingdom of God, whereas good things also do not pass this "gulf" to enter into dirty areas to become themselves soiled, and 3) we continue to persist as sentient beings after death.

Since this is only a parable, it is something we should be careful not to take too far.  We could read into it many things that were not meant, but it takes advantage of familiar Jewish symbolisms and images to make the point.

I did see this, which I thought interesting:

Interesting, yes, but it seems a little fallacious (at least assuming your explanation works).

Specifically, as in your interpretation, the two people represent not humans, but personifications of good and evil.  It isn't that rich men can't go to heaven, or a soul in hell can't gain forgiveness, but rather that goodness cannot be in hell and wickedness cannot be in heaven.  A person can go from hell to heaven if he leaves behind the rich man and becomes the beggar.

However we then have a conflict because Jesus' teaching is "wrong" - in the parable there's a man who cannot under any circumstances go to heaven, but we accept that God is always ready to forgive.  Hence we believe that Jesus example was factually wrong for the sake of having a valuable message.  There's nothing new here.  Jesus is God, and God has given us information that is factually wrong, but metaphorically impeccable (see also: 7 days of creation).

So we're left with the fact that Jesus does not necessarily say things labeled "parable" as fact.  There may not have been a land-owner whose son was killed by tenants seeking not to have to pay their dues.  But that's okay, we follow Jesus Christ, not Dan Rather.

So if we accept that Lazarus and the rich man are personifications of abstract ideas, there is no reason to assume that their personification is somehow representative of our being cognizant after death.

Of course, if you believe that this story literally happened, and that once you're in hell it is impossible to gain forgiveness and impossible to enter heaven, you are, of course, able to say with confidence that people will be cognizant after death.  However, as Tycho has pointed out, the question then becomes one of how a "fair" God can condemn a person to an eternity of suffering for a finite period of sinfulness, regardless as to the post-mortem repentance.

I disagree.  Jesus said "man" and I think that's what he meant...especially since he was teaching to people and giving them their own warning.

Not sure I agree with this either. I agree to the point, I guess.  It's just that he is talking specifically about the good or bad in people, not good or bad as concepts.

But I think the point is that he's talking about after final judgment, where the man had the chance but did not repent.  He's also not talking about repentance at all here, just the gulf between wickedness and goodness.  To start injecting talk of forgiveness is to go beyond the parable.


Except that he was talking about specific people with good or bad in them, not personifications.  Also, Jesus would be confusing people if he started talking about people with intelligences after they died when there really was no such thing.  So I don't buy that interpretation.

But it's not about it literally happening as much as that it can happen to a person, which is the point for the people to get their act together.  If he's talking about concepts, there's not as much point to it.

You choose to not accept God's free gift. You chose to go your own route. God let you live with your choice. Since it is for eternity, I don't see how you can change your mind so that it changes eternity. The choice isn't about being perfect, the choice is accepting God, or choosing against God. Your choice.


The choice is accepting Jesus as your savior, that he paid the price you were supposed to pay, for all your sins, not just some of them. And that you are going to follow Jesus.

But really, if you're asking God, God is saying He doesn't want you there either. He's doing everything He can to keep you out.

That means I am choosing that anyone that says God is not there is completely wrong. I accep this, as it's my choice. I can easily choose to stop following God. I would think that foolish, but I could choose to do that.

God says we all know in our hearts who He is.


Hell was created foo the devil, and the demons that rebelled with the devil. Why make it horrible? I would think it is a punishment for the actions of those demons.

Why force the choice? Really, it's because God wants you in heaven. He's doing everything He can so that you will choose what's best for you. However, many people seem to want to send themselves away from God. God doesn't want that.

while God and other christians would like to force you to Heaven, only the devil wants you to choose for you not to go there.

If you show me a man that can never ask for forgiveness, I will agree.  But the statement is clear - nothing you (the rich man) can do will let him enter heaven.  If he is human, then that flies in the face of your idea that a human is still transient after death.  If he's not human, but the "bad in people" (which is not a person), then the man is a personification, a metaphor.



The 'good in a person' is closer to 'good' in general than to a person.  Again, if you find a person who can only be described as "good" or "evil" and who cannot go from one to the other, I will agree that the parable is referring truly to people and not concepts.



How can you suppose that?  The man speaks of his living brothers.  It's not final judgment if people are still alive.



Again, I disagree.  The question is simply, can a person go from Hell to Heaven.  If the answer is no, then that means no, regardless of whether the person is repentant, Elvis or given special (albeit late) dispensation from Jesus himself.

Saying forgiveness isn't relevant is like saying if I tell a parable about a house, the fact that it has walls and keeps the weather out isn't relevant.  The whole point of this discussion is transience, and if asking forgiveness through Jesus is a method of transience, it is wholly relevant.



Then why can't the rich man go to heaven?



Are you somehow suggesting nothing Jesus said is confusing????

Jesus is not a news reporter.  That is not his job!!  Jesus (and God's) job is to teach us what we need to do to get to heaven, that is all.  Everything else is trivialities, it's irrelevant.

You don't see any problem with God forcing a choice with an eternity of consequences that you might later regret having made?



Okay, but what about belief?   Before you can accept Jesus as your savior, you have to believe that he is God, and can actually be your savior.  What you believe is not a concious choice.  If you don't believe me, try it.  Try to actually convince yourself that everything you believe about God is false.  That none of it's actually true.  Since it's a concious choice, you can just switch back to believing a few seconds later.  Maybe you are capable of that kind of thing, but I'm simply not able to do so.  I can't believe in something just because I want it to be true.


Yes, you can choose to stop following God, because following or not following are actions.  I totally agree that we can all choose are actions.  I could totally choose to go to church, pray all day, where a crucifix and whatever else, but that isn't believing.  Just as you say, you could choose to stop following God, but you would think that foolish.  Because you'd still believe in him.  You can follow him or not, but you can't turn your belief that He exists on or off at will.



Convienient, isn't it?  Because the bible tells you everyone knows God in their hearts, you never have to consider the case of people who don't believe God, or have never heard of christianity.  As far as the bible is concerned, there are no atheist.  Everyone actually does believe in God, some people just pretend like they don't to be difficult.  And everyone knows God, even if they've never heard the word Jesus, never seen a bible, and never met a christian in their life.  They've got no excuse because they know in their heart about God.  If they don't accept Jesus, they're off to Hell too.



Okay, if hell is for the devil and the demons, why send humans there?  Why not make a less horrible place for humans that haven't done anything nearly as bad as the Devil?  Why punish humans the same amount as the devil?


Again...why force a choice that last an eternity?  If God is really doing everything He can keep people out of hell (and actually...since he can do anything, doesn't the fact that some people go to hell prove that He isn't doing everything he can to prevent it), why not give them a chance to change ther mind once they've seen hell?  Why tell people who have seen the error of their ways too late, "well, you had your chance?"


None of this really addresses the issue I brought up, though.  Why does God force you to choose between heaven and hell, for all eternity?  Why do the finite actions you take in this world result in infinite punishment or infinite reward?  Why are these the only two options available?

Think of it this way:  I can hold a gun to your head and say "believe that tycho is God!"  I can tell you, "it's your own choice.  I don't want to force you to believe in me.  You have to do it yourself.  I want you to believe in me.  It's just the devil and evil people that want you to get shot.  I want you to live!  Make your choice!"  And you might say, "But I don't actually think that you are God.  I can say it, but I won't really mean it.  I just can't convince myself that you're a God."  And I might say, "Ah, but in your heart you do know it.  That's no excuse.  I wrote it in my book right here.  You really do believe that I'm God, even if you say you don't."  I think if I did anything like that, you consider me a very horrible person.  You wouldn't call me good or just or loving.  And with good reason!  Doing that wouldn't be good, or just, or loving at all.  But that's pretty much exactly what you say God is doing.  Except that he's not just shooting you, he sentancing you to an eternity of stuff much worse than being shot.  And he doesn't even do you the service of standing in front of yout with a gun, so that you at least know he exists.  He does it through human beings.  And to complicate things, there are plenty of other human beings running around saying more or less the same thing about other gods at the same time.  It's very hard for me to accept, and even harder for me to approve of.

I'm so glad someone else thought the same thing I did when they read that! ;)

While this centres on love rather than faith it's some of the same thing. If you could choose what was in your heart, then faith would be a choice. You can possibly choose to refuse any outside influence, but I don't think you can choose to listen to the "voice of God" inside you. Seems to me it's touch and go whether you get saved or not. (Basically, did someone get to you at just the right stage in your life to convince you.)

Jesus apparently didn't get far enough into the story to tell us one way or the other about the rich man, so that point's not relevant to the story.

Tycho, FYI rogue and I have very different views about heaven and hell (as discussed some in the thread Hell in a Handbasket), but I won't butt into your conversation to add a third perspective.

LOL, I was just looking at the hell thread and discovered this that I had posted and totally forgot about:

If we're going with that version of things, then I would postulate Jesus didn't get far enough into the story to tell us he was just kidding :P

In truth though, I find it hard to swallow that God would allow the Bible to cut a story short so that the real message of the story is completely hidden from view.

I do agree with your last requote of yourself.  It's just a parable, a metaphor.  Clearly if the rich man went to a fiery hell, was trapped there forever, but his brothers are still alive, either the story is COMPLETELY literal - upon death we go straight to heaven or hell and stay there FOREVER - or COMPLETELY figurative - we can't read the story expecting to find factual information of the afterlife any more than we can read Genesis 1 about the factual creation of the universe, but there is a critical message for us to understand.

If you take it from the point of view that it's kind of factual, people do die and go straight to the fiery pits of hell, but also figurative, we run into so many problems explaining little details that we might as well ask if we can be certain about ANYTHING we read in the bible.

But that's the point.  The moral of the story is that your actions on earth are important and based on what you have been given on this earth.  It's not a story about repentance or forgiveness.  That's why I'm saying we shouldn't take it too far.

To that I agree.  Our status on earth has no bearing on our status afterwards, there is only one measure which is relevant.  The parable has nothing to say on the transcience of the soul or of our cognitive abilities after death, only how to win or lose our place with God.

God's doing everything He can short of taking away your freewill so that you'll choose the right answer. As it is, God knows best, and I understand that His plan does mean that some people will chose not to follow Him till later in life.

Billy Graham spoke of a really good analogy similar to this. If a doctor prescribed a medication that would cure your illness, and you don't take the medication, who's at fault for not being cured, the doctor, or you?

I used to choose to not believe God, and that the bible was false. I have since chosen to follow God. Realitically, here's what I say for those who are not certain about trusting in God, and following Him. Try God, and seriously pray for help in following Him, reading the bible, and going to church. If it doesn't work out, Satan will always take you back.

When I first was a Christian, I did not trust God fully. It required time, and prayer. A relationship is built over time. God will give His all, but unfortunately, many give God only a little. They are getting what they put in.



One of my favorite sayings is that God doesn't believe in atheists. It's a little funny, but realistically, it reminds people of another common phrase, that in a foxhole, there are no athiests. When you are down, and feeling out, you want to draw on God for strength. This is very common, as we are built and designed as creations of God, and have a spiritual side of us that is in conflict with our sinful physical body. Though we want to have that spiritual relationship, our physical side draws away to sin. Many people see this when they want to do the right thing, but are tempted to do bad. Many people have that sense, and have difficulty understanding that side if they are knowing god, or the role He plays.

God isn't sending these people to hell, the people are sending themselves to Hell. It's their choice.

Freewill, and letting them have their choice.

It's the people's choice, and I am not talking about awards here. :) but in seriousness, we deserve hell. We're really not all that good. We're sinners, and many enjoy their sins.

The other option is to accept, and live in the best environment forever. Where sins will no longer be an issue, and suffering will not occur.

Think of Jesus as a birthday gift. It's there in your living room, sitting on the table waiting to be opened. You can choose to accept the gift, and open it, or you can leave wrapped and not accept. Jesus is your gift any time you want to accept Him. He's trying to show you what that means. He will show you what that means, and all you need do is open and accept the gift.

Except that the doctor can change the physical laws of the universe unwrap contradictions and reform reality as we know it, and all he gives us is a lousy pill :P

An important question if you're going with the "God has to do it this way because God wants to allow free will" is simply, what is more powerful, God or abstract concepts?

In other words, do we accept that God cannot have His cake and eat it too?  Should we assume that free will is a hindrance to God that He cannot otherwise overcome, but rather must give us hell as retribution for misreading the metaphorical prescription bottle?

(in regards to why Hell is permanent):


So what if the person, after death, decides he really doesn't like hell any more and would like to come back to heaven, and is willing to do whatever is necessary to do that?  Or does free will end the moment the physical body dies?

Except that in this case, it's the doctor who gave you the illness in the first part.  You keep ignoring the critical point that God set things up so that this whole choice is necessary.


Well, if this is the case, I guess you have more control over your belief than me.  I simply can't believe things just because I want them to be true.  I can't turn my belief on and off at will.  It'd be great if I could, but I'm simply not capable.

As for the "just try it" advice, that's how cults work, so I think I'll pass.  I have been to church many, many times, and I've read the bible more than most christians, I'd guess.  I can't "seriously" pray to a being I don't actually believe exists, though.


One my favorite sayings is "anyone who tells you that has never been in a foxhole."  Kurt Vonnegut said that, and he survived the firebombing of Dresdon.  I think war-time situations like fox holes probably convert more people to atheism than the other way around.


That's like saying "don't move or I'll shoot!" and then trying to claim you didn't shoot people who moved, they shot themselves.  God created the choice.  He intentionally set up the situation where people have to make the decision.  And even if their choice, it is still God who does the sending.



So you're saying that by giving people a chance to change their minds, you would take away their free will?


An eternity of torture?  We deserve this?  We're sinners, and not all that good, but I wouldn't wish an eternity of torture on the worst person ever.  Torture for short periods of time is revolting, and completely unjustified.  Torture for eternity even more so.  Infinitely more so!  We consider places that cut off your hand for stealing to be cruel and draconian.  This is far, far worse.  Infinitely worse!


Except that it's an invisible birthday gift that you can't actually see, feel, smell, taste, or hear.  And if you don't believe it's there, you get tortured for eternity.

God doesn't want us to go to Hell. I think your question is a logic issue more than anything. It's similar to saying God cannot create a rock so big, that He can't lift it.

God gave us freewill. It's our choice to make. God's choice is that we should be with Him in heaven. If you choose not to do that, it's not His choice, but yours.


Here's what I found in scripture.
Matthew 25:46
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

I'm not sure how to say anything else but that eternal means forever.

Adam and Eve chose to sin. You have chosen to sin, and I have chosen to sin. I have since then decided that I no longer want to sin. We deserve our unishment. However, God will pay that price for you. God loves us so much, He made it so easy for us. He had Jesus pay our price for our sins in full. God did everything he could, and now it's our choice to accept, and choose what God knows is best for us, even if we don't know it is best for us.

I'm sure I would have said the same thing. However, I don't think it a coincidence you're chatting with people about God.

You can seriously pray. It's what many people have done when they hit their low point. You obviously haven't hit that point for a really radical about face. I'm still praying for you. I know that there is always hope.

People are going to die. Our bodies will only last for a number of decades, hopefully. Some may be called home sooner. Billy Graham has made an interesting point. So Do you believe in right and wrong? Is it wrong to abuse children? Should we expect God to judge them? I would think God should punish those people who chose to sin. Hitler should be judged for his sins.

Ultimately though, we now have a choice, and that choice has been made very easy for us, in that Jesus paid our price of our sins completely in full, so that our sins are fully forgiven. We don't need to earn our way out of our sins, as nothing is enough to earn a way into heaven. Jesus' sacrifice would have been in vain, if we could earn our way.


God gave several chances already. God gave us laws that would show us right and wrong. Then God gave us Jesus so that our sins were paid for in full. So I think you're actually saying that you want yet another chance, right?

Ok. That answer may be a bit biased considering that you would rather not accept Jesus, and do it on your own. However, God knows what He's doing, as He's perfect.

I might have said that at one time too. I realize now it could have been for a variety of reasons, one of those reasons would have been because I didn't want to know Him.

The problem is, according to the bible, it is impossible NOT to sin.  So this isn't a thing like "hey, if you do this, I'll shoot you".  It's, as Tycho pointed out, "if you don't do this, I'll shoot you."  Not only that, our sins, no matter how bad they are, are not bad enough to warrant ETERNAL TORTURE.

Alright, perhaps, without God, we aren't worth anything.  Perhaps we don't deserve heaven.  That's fine.  But that means that, without God, we're at the zero mark.  No credits to the account, but no penalties either.  I cannot think of any crime we are able to commit that should move us from "no balance - go to boring purgatory/oblivion" to "pull out your toenails, set your body on fire, rape you with wild boars, from now until forever."


You included a quote about eternal punishment, but to draw on what Heath has been saying, there is nothing in that that says eternal punishment is a lake of fire.  It could be that eternal punishment is you never get chocolate ice cream.  It's a punishment and it's eternal.  Alternatively, it could mean that the punishment is eternal (i.e. - hell continues to be there forever), but you may return from it at some point - your stay is not eternal.  So the Matthew quote you put up does not tell me clearly that if I dont' believe in Jesus I'm going to burn forever, it just tells me there is something bad going on forever that I will be a part of.  Presumably, God being both Just and Merciful, will make the punishment fit the crime.  If I have shunned God, I won't have his company and that'll make me sad.  If I was mean to people, people will be mean to me.  If I set people on fire, well then maybe I get the lake of fire.

I agree with all this.  I'd say most people no longer want to sin (though they may disagree on what constitutes sin).


I have no problem with people deserving some punishment.  I don't agree at all that everyone deserves torture, even for a small amount of time, let alone eternity.


Again, this is all great, except for the fact that he's "Saving" us from his own dilemma.  He's not stopping someone else from shooting us, he's stopping himself from shooting us.  He's not just prevent us from going to hell, He's deciding not to send us there.  I doubt you would consider it all that gracious of me to say, "Just accept me as your savior, and I won't hit you with this baseball bat."  No matter how much I talk about free will, or wanting you to do the right thing, or knowing what's best for you, I'd still just be a bully with a baseball bat.  "Do what I say or suffer" is coercion.



Are you saying you no longer say these things?  Are you saying that you can, in fact, turn your belief on or off at will?  Try this for me:  stop believing in God for 5 minutes, and instead believe in the flying spaghetti monster.  Can you honestly tell me that you are capable of doing this?

As for why I chat with people about God, a very large portion of the US is made up of people with views similar to yours.  People whose views seem very strange to me, but whose views radically affect their life, and the lives of people around them.  I'm very curious to know why they believe what they do.  I'd also like to know what makes more moderate christians believe what they do.



Can you seriously pray to the flying spaghetti monster?  This isn't a rhetorical question.  Could you honestly, and sincerely pray to something you don't believe exists?  I can say "Dear God, help me out," with my eyes closed and hands folded, but if I don't actually believe in God, is it really a prayer?

Another issue with the "just try it," idea:  Are you willing to "just try" Islam for a little while?  What about Hare Krishna?  Heaven's Gate?  Are you willing to just give them a chance?  If you don't like it, God will always take you back, right?  I'm guessing you're not willing to give these religions a try.  Do you see how others might also be unwilling to give your religion a try as well?


Yes, I believe in right and wrong (though I believe they are not intrinsic, but rather are human constructions to help us survive together).  Yes, I believe it's wrong to abuse children.  Should God judge them?  I assume you mean child abusers, and I would have no problem with God judging them.  But I would have a problem with eternally torturing them for what they did.  We don't even do that here on earth.  Punishing people for doing wrong is fine by me.  Eternally torturing them is not a just punishment, however.  I agree that it'd be great if Hitler paid for all the wrong he did.  However, what if Hitler right before he died, accept Jesus as his savior?  Would you be happy to see Hitler in heaven, and the nicest, most charitable, moral, and just atheist in Hell for ever?




Yes, I'm saying just that.  And if an eternity of torture is on the line, I think you should be giving people every possible chance to avoid it.  Two chances?  Ten?  A million?  Yes, and more.  If you're going to torture someone for eternity there should be every opportunity to say, "okay, I messed up."  Especially if you're supposed to make the choice without proof.  It's not like people are actually deciding, "ya know, an eternity of torture doesn't actually sound so bad.  I think I'll go with that."  People don't decide not to accept Jesus, they just don't believe in him.  They don't say, "No thanks Jesus, I'd rather not take your free gift."  They simply don't believe that there is a gift to take.  To punish someone for that with an eternity of torture, with no chance later chances to accept the gift once they realize it's there is absurd.  Why in the world would you not want to give more chances?


Again, It's not that I'd rather not accept Jesus.  If I believed he exists, I'd be first in line to accept him.  I'd love for the Jesus story to be true.  But I just don't think it is.


I think perhaps you were a different sort of atheist than I am, then.  I would like very much to know Him.  I wish he were real.  But I don't believe that he is.

Certainly, you must accept that you stating our sins aren't bad enough is coming from your bias that your sins couldn't be, as you are a better person than a murderer. Likely I would suggest you aren't a murderer. However, saying you're not as bad as someone more bad, doesn't make you good. Certainly a murderer should be judged, yes? Your actions do warrant the punishment of not being with God. All of us deserve that punishment of not being with God. We didn't earn any right to be there, and we are not good enough to be there. God has given us the gift in Jesus. We're going to die, right, we all die physically. So at this point, if you take comfort in that death being the end, as you don't want to be with God forever and ever as He would like, ultimately, that belief stems partially because you don't want to be judged for your sins. No one would to be judged. But God is the perfect judge, and it is His view of Justice that is served, not ours.

God doesn't want us to go to hell. It was not created for us. We don't have to go there. Why would you want to? God has provided a very simple map to Him. Anyone can do it, as it's not by our actions that we earn our way to Him, it is by His actions that we can come to Him.


Well, I was specifically addressing the forever part, and how one cannot change their mind once in hell.

Let's go back to what Jesus said in Matthew. 18:8
8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

I still think you're using the sense of just as in if you are more good than bad, then you have earned your way into heaven. But being better than you are bad is not good enough. How good does one have to be to get into heaven? You have to be perfect. We can never be good enough, even one sin is too much to be in the presence of God.

However, God provided a way to remove that stain of sin from us. Jesus took the price of our sin, and Jesus paid our price. We don't have to earn our way into Heaven. Jesus did not pay the price for some of our sins, and we have to earn the rest of it. Jesus paid the price in full.
John 3:16
6"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

He's doing everything He can so that doesn't happen to us. God even took the pain of that price. As a creation of God, we were designed with a purpose. Some people don't want to fulfill, but we still have our purpose even if we don't want it. You and I discussing this isn't a coincidence.

This isn't about belief, this is about choice. Essentially, I'd say the majority of the world believe there is a God. That either makes you crazy, or all of them. Understandably, you don't want to feel you are crazy. It is a difficult and frustrating thing when you think you can see clearly, so why is the majority of the world thinking differently than yourself. That's a tough question to swallow, and I understand why one doesn't want to change their views. Changing normal views is difficult enough, but one that is life changing is even more so.

Out of curiosity, why did you stop being a christian?

No one is confusing the flying spaghetti monster with God. Even when I wasn't christian, but searching for God, I wasn't fooled by no flying spaghetti monster.

The simple truth, God wants you to find Him.

Actually, I researched many religions before accepting the bible as true, and proven. I did search out numerous, and conflicting religions.

Obviously, I have great confidence in the truth of the bible. For good reason.

I understand you have a level of justice that is partially affect by how you see yourself. It's a bit bias to hold the view of justice by the defintion you use. You're not the best judge, and have a biased view of what is right and wrong.

That is possible, however, as pointed out earlier, it is not because we are good that gets us into Heaven. It should be pointed out, if you were to get to heaven, you'll probably be wondering how that person made it into heaven. Meanwhile, they'll all be thinking how you ended up there. Irony, no? Really, it is not our sense of justice, but God, who does know right from wrong. While you may think your moral, and just, think of it from God's perspective. You're keeping your sin, and want nothing to do with what is good.

That sounds like you're saying that you didn't know God left us some clues.

But let's not forgot you don't have to choose hell. You can chose otherwise, or not. It's your choice. God will be helping you chose what is right, and He seems to give open book tests on the matter. ;)

You're choosing how to live.
I can't remember who it was that said it is better to live life as if God exists, and find out He doesn't than it would to live as if He doesn't and find out He does exist.

Possibly. I was a very angry athiest. In your face kind of stuff,and couldn't wait to put down someone who was a believer in God.

No, my statement is that the punishment should fit the crime.  This is the same law God gave us to follow (an eye for an eye, followed by turn the other cheek).  So if I do not accept God, God should, AT MOST, not accept me.  Even that is debatable, since I am the lesser party.  A lesser party should not accept me.  That would be a "just" punishment by God's own law.  I cannot think of any justification for eternal physical suffering being a "just" punishment.  I don't need comparisons.  Say I'm Hitler if you want.  I'm the worst man alive and I hate God.  What have I done that is AS BAD AS putting someone, forever, in a lake of fire?




I agree, but your statement misses the point - if we don't accept God we shouldn't be tortured forever.  We should continue to have a zero or slightly negative balance.  Go to Purgatory.  Go to oblivion (I think many people would consider oblivion worse than hell, but it would still be fitting, I think.)  This doesn't preclude being judged, it's just applying an appropriate punishment.




No, I'm not.  I have never once said that someone who does not accept God should be allowed into heaven.

Are you suggesting there's a literaly lake of fire?  I would strongly debate against that, with much historical authority cited.  Typically, "Gehenna" was used by Jesus, which refers to a hot valley and has taken on other meanings, as well as the cites I quoted in the Hell thread.

I disagree that this isn't about belief.  I think it is entirely about belief, and very little about choice.  The fact that most of the world believe there is a God doesn't make them (or me) crazy necessarily.  Just means they (or I) are wrong.  You can be wrong without being crazy.  And since no one religion can claim a majority of the people on the planet, everyone, theist or atheist, faces the same problem: either I'm wrong, or most of the people in the world are wrong.  Most of the people on the planet don't believe Jesus was the son of God.  Does that make you think you are wrong?  I'm guessing not.  Likewise, the fact that most of the world isn't atheist doesn't make me assume I'm wrong.


I realized that I only believed in God because my parents told me He existed.  I had trusted that my parents knew everything (as most children do), and wouldn't tell me anything that wasn't factually true.  Once I realized they actually didn't know everything, and in fact did say things that were factually true (as all people do from time to time, I'm not singling my parents out for this), I started thinking more critically about things I had taken for granted before.  I realized I had never seen any evidence of God, or any reason to believe in Christianity over any other religion besides the fact that my parents were Christians.  This was around middle school, early high school.  I still kept going to church, going through motions, acting like I believed it all because I didn't want to hurt my parents or any of my christian friends, or get into arguements about it.  In college I finally started telling people that I didn't actually believe in God, which earned me a number of "get down on your knees and pray for forgiveness or you'll end up in hell!" emails from some of my friends' parents.  My parents were disappointed, but assumed it was just a "phase" I would grow out of.  The college I went to was a Lutheran school, so I had to take a few religion classes there.  Learning about the bible from a biblical scholar's perspective, made me see that a lot of the things that I had been taught about the bible as a kid were rather over simplified, or at times simply not true.


Okay, that's what I would have guessed.  For me, God is the same way.  I'm not "fooled" by that either.  Just as you simply don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster, no matter how hard you might try, I don't believe in God.  It's not that I don't "want" to, it's just that I don't.  Put another way, I can't pick up a pencil, hold it in front of me, and convince myself that when I let go of it it won't fall to the ground.  I simply can't will myself to believe that it won't fall.  No matter how hard I try, I won't be surprised if it falls.  Likewise with religion.  I actually just don't believe it.  Not because I don't think it'd be great it it were true, but because everything I've seen in my life seems to say otherwise.


Research is great, and I'm all for it.  I have no problem researching religions.  But "trying" a religion is different from researching it.  You suggested I just try christianity.  Pray, and see what happens.  That's different from researching christianity.  Just as, I assume, you'd have hard time praying to muhammed seriously, I have a hard time praying to Jesus seriously.  And when people tell me to "just try it," I get a bit suspicious.  Because that's precisely how cults work.  They get people to "try" something they don't actually believe, until they've done it enough times they actually believe it.  That's largely what's meant by brainwashing.  I don't want any part of a religion which asks me to pretend like I believe before I actually do.


What is your good reason?


Don't disagree with you there.  Though the fact that I'm not the best judge isn't going to convince me that a thousands-of-years-old book is the best judge.  I'm not saying I'm a better judge than God.  I'm saying I don't believe God exists, so I'm the best judge I have at the moment, and I'll just have to make due.


As I've said before, it's not that I want nothing to do with God.  It's that I don't think he's real.  And the idea that a just God would torture anyone for eternity for not being perfect doesn't make it sound any more believable to me. In fact, it sounds entirely unbelievable.  It just doesn't make any sense to call a being that would do that "good" or "just" or "merciful" or anything like that.


I don't know that God left us some clues, actually.  I know christians say He did, but none of them look like clues to me.  They all look like man-made attempts at clues for God.  Or natural occurances that people say are clues.


Again, it's not the choice that the problem.  It's the belief that there is even a choice to be made.


I think you're thinking of Pascal's wager.  The trouble, though, is that it doesn't work.  Living my life as if God exists doesn't actually get me into heaven, just as you said.  Belief is necessary, and pretending like I believe isn't going to fool God, is it?  Also, you can just as easily use Pascal's wager for any religion:  It's better to life as if Allah exists, and find out he doesn't than to live as though he doesn't and find out he does.  Or Krishna, or Vishnu, or Odin, or Zeus, or they flying spaghetti monster, or any other deity.


I don't consider myself angry, and am not looking to put anyone down.  I admit I don't like it when people try to push their religion into places it doesn't belong (public schools being the big one, other people's private lives being another), but if I get angry at that, it's anger at the action, not the belief.

Really, I meant the bias that it can't be that bad, as you are comparing just by your own values, which differ from God's, none of us have the same sense of justice, and perfection God has. Just because you can't justify that course, doesn't mean God won't do as He says.  I understand that you feel it is not ok, but I am going with what the bible says, not what I say.  God is the one who says being away from God is very bad. I'll take it at face value, and accept that I will not be able to understand everything that God does. But I also accept that what He does is the best for me. He's God and not limited in the same manner I am. He's God.


I understand the catholic belief needs a purgatory. It's what the tradition says. However, the bible says that Jesus paid the price of our sin in full, and that we no longer have to pay the price of our sin. If we continue to not want to be with God, then our choice is made. God is letting you have your choice. To me it's a non issue. Why would you choose hell? Just choose Jesus. Then you don't have to worry about hell at all.

Of note, it should be said our good actions here on Earth do not equate us to deserving eternal bliss. But indeed it is Eternal. Not many argue the unfairness of this reqard, only the punishment. To me, it's a non issue. God has given us so much, and He has given us a way to Him. There literally seems so little in need to focus on something that need not happen unless that is what you want to do.

Blaming God for making up the rules aren't fair to the way you would do things if you were making the rules doesn't follow. God knows best, and we don't.


I believe the context I was going with was burning forever.


If you want an actual lake of fire, it speak of this in Revelation.
Revelation 21:8
8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."
This is also referring to the second death. the first death, a physical one where your body dies, and the second one, where your soul, the spirit of you, is now dead eternally.

And remember back when I wrote what Jesus said in Matthew 25:46?
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

The punishment is eternal, just as the reward is eternal.

Then what do you mean by being being just if you have a view that doesn't take into consideration that good actions do not make you good.

It speaks of burning fires, and fiery lake of sulfur in the bible.

But really, it's a non issue. Being away from God is clearly very bad, and clearly not enjoyable.

Overall, the bible suggests torment, and fire. I understand the LDS does not follow such scripture when it leads that way.

Alright, but at least we see it from the other persons eyes now. Though I imagine we both already knew this. I wasn't always a christian after all.

I've heard similar styles of this before. Devout as a youth, lost as a young adult in college or university. Not sure why this happens so often. It was the reverse for me. Able to think on my own, and discover, I went against my atheist upbringing, and became christian.

How can one have evidence against God?

I didn't intend trying a religion. I intended that one learn more, and do things you probably already have likely done. I think many people have prayed to God for help, or direction.

History, and prophecy, and experience.



And you're sure God didn't use people to do this? You have evidence God would not use this manner?




It's a double standard. Who are you to say I can't have God explained in school. We're there to learn. To clarify, in order to have my way, an atheist view is squashed. In order to have an atheist view, the christian view is squashed.

Tycho, the very nature of opposing positions is that one cannot be had at the same time as another. We cannot have prayer in school, and not prayer in school at the same time.

Christian are just doing the same thing as you.

Well, many Judeo-Christian religions do not believe in such burning fires, and the historical and contextual use of the words in scripture also does not suggest anything literal.

I'm not sure how you can say it's not fire, when the words are translated as fire.

translated is your key there.

Also, if I say I feel like a million bucks or this headache is killing me, someone 2000 years in the future may take it more literally than I mean it.  If they translate it into Japanese, it would sound like "I touch a million US dollars."

I thought I'd check that angle of translation, and I have to say the literal meanings, and the context in hebrew or greek suggests the same thing.

I assume you are referring to other books as your guide in this matter?

You didn't give me a reference, so I had to go with my general knowledge.

I refer you to "Fire in the Bible":  http://www.tentmaker.org/BreakingBread/1.html

It discusses the many cultural uses of "fire" in the Bible...not literal.

and

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/GatesOfHell.html


That one also discusses the errancy of the translations of words such as "Sheol" (the place of the dead) to "Hell."

And one of the best ones, that I quoted in the Hell thread--this one is definitely required reading for understanding the usage of the many words translated as "Hell":  http://www.tentmaker.org/artic...steachingonhell.html

ANd if you do believe, despite the evidence, that the Bible writers meant there to be a literal hell, then you have to answer the many inconsistencies, as presented in:  http://www.what-the-hell-is-he...ellsEternalDeath.htm

FYI, none of these are LDS sources.  I am not bringing LDS beliefs into this discussion, only the beliefs of the ancient Jews and early Christians.

Ahh, I see. However, in all the references I used in this thread were from the NT, and involved eternal punishment, burning, and fiery lake of sulfur.

So my first idea off the top of my head, is that the eternal punishment is still mentioned in fire, and burning, and seems applied to other concepts such as sheol.

That's just a guess at the moment. There could be more to the issue. For the moment though, I think eternal punishment, and fiery lake as the punishment seems to still in context of the bible.

It's more a lack of evidence for God, than evidence against Him.  I haven't seen anything that can't be explained by natural processes.  I haven't seen or heard God.  I've heard lots of people who claim to talk to some deity or another, I know that at least some of them aren't correct (because they contradict each other), so I know that I shouldn't believe everyone who says they've experienced God first hand.  This isn't to say I think they're lying.  Many of them seem completely sincere in their belief that they've experienced God first hand.  I don't think they're lying, so much as mistaken.  Though others certainly are lying.  Whatever the case, I'll need far more evidence than someone's word to convince me of truth behind any religion.



No, I can't be completely certain that God didn't use people to do this.  But I know for certain that some people who claim to have "clues" don't actually have clues.  I don't have evidence that God would not use this manner, because I that would imply I had evidence that God exists.  But I also don't have any evidence that he would use this manner, other than the people claiming to be using this manner in the first place.  It also seems to me that if God really wanted people to believe in Him, and worship Him, he wouldn't have gone to such lengths to make it look like he doesn't exist.


I disagree entirely on this.  I'm not proposing that atheism be promoted or taught in public schools.  I'm not requesting that all students say "there is no God" before each class.  I'm not asking christians to take any actions contrary to their beliefs.  All that I'm requesting is that people keep their religion to themselves, and not try to push it on people who don't share that religion while they're at public school.  Everyone's religion should be their own business, and a public school should not promote any religion over any other.  The purpose of public schools is education, not religious indoctrination.  No one is saying you can't teach your kids your religion in sunday school, at your church, and in your home.  They're just saying that it's your job to do so, not the public school's.

Rogue4jc, do you consider this an atheist/theist issue, or a christian/non-christian issue?  Do you think every religion should be allowed to promote itself and recruit members at public schools, or just christianity?  Are there any religious groups that you would oppose leading prayers in your child's school?  Are you saying that all religions should be able to promote themselves at public schools, or is christianity a special case?

Okay, I wasn't following all your posts with Tycho.  However, the NT is even less trustworty on the Hell issue than the OT.  Also, "eternal" applies to the quality of the punishment, not the applicable timeframe.  So an eternal god gives eternal punishment to expiate the sin and move one towards eternal happiness.  I think I discussed that awhile back too.

There is talk of miracles, such as Jesus rising from death 3 days later. This can only be done if someone is a lair, or it is real. The people who professed it as truth died for this. If they knew it was a lie, then they died for a lie. Not something people would do if they knew it a lie. Prophecy in the bible is sometimes quite specific, as you are aware of. Once or twice, maybe three times is lucky, but dozens of times can't be coincidence. Not everything can be explained by natural process.

God didn't go to any effort to hide him. God left the bible for us. It has an excellent history. I understand not being certain, but assuming all must be wrong is based on wanting other things to be true. Certainly, it's not scientific to ignore all other evidence so that non spiritual reasons must come first. Really, it takes faith on that matter. Faith in atheism.

The school is made up by the public, which means the public should have a say what is taught. It's the publics dollars being spent after all. Saying only non religious matter should be taught is an atheist stand point. You would be saying that people should not have a say of what is being taught in their school. I'm saying they should.

I consider it a God/satan issue. A spiritual war against the devil, and demons. Should every religion be given equal chance? No. In this case, it's a majority here. I do not think it is ok that a wiccan should have that faith influence the 75% christian population. (In Canada, it's supposed to be around the 75% mark).

As for myself, I do not support other faiths. Obvious reason is that I would not want undue influence, such as secularism and the large impact it has right now on faith. Certainly bias, but I'm christian.

Saying NT is less reliable than OT isn't making much sense. Could you explain why the words are less trustworthy? Do you mean that because it disagrees with other sources such as LDS scripture, that the NT is unreliable?

I don't think I follow quality of eternal. Eternal not meaning forever? Could you explain that further?

It is less trustworthy because the word translated as "hell" comes from several sources, and has to be then translated through Greek...so it could have been written as Gehenna or Hades or something else that has connotations we now attach to it but which wasn't meant that way when spoken...i.e. less trustworthy because things get lost in translation.

Again, not an LDS thing at all, just trying to figure out how it was meant when it was first said...such as the Gehenna reference I quoted in the Hell thread showing that no one in Jesus' time would have taken Gehenna to be a burning hell like we might picture it.

In other words, if it's written "Hades" then suddenly we get this Roman inspired view of Hell when it's just a problem with the image brought up by the word.

Add to that the Doctrine of Reserve brought about in the early Christian church...
This message was last edited by the GM at 21:12, Sat 09 Dec 2006.

They could be lying, it could be real, or they could be mistaken.  And as far as I know, the way we know that people died for claiming this, is from people same people telling us the original story anyway.  But even if they did die for it, people have died for other religions as well.

As for prophecies, we've discussed this before, and we clearly view them differently.  I think you consider the prophecies about the messiah to be most impressive, while I consider them most of them to have been added after the fact.  Such as Mathew claiming that mary was a virgin, due to an incorrect translation of the original prophecy that said young woman.  Likewise the whole story about them being from bethleham, which John never mentions.  I think the gospels, Mathew in particular, have had things added to the story in order to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies.  Other prophecies don't include a date for them to happen, so can never be shown to be wrong.  They've either been fulfilled, or "still will be sometime in the future," which makes them not very impressive to me either.  One of the few prophecies I know of in the bible that does include a time frame was when Jesus said the second coming would occur before the generation of the disciples was over.


I'm not assuming everything in the bible is wrong.  But words in a thousand of year old book aren't sufficient to make me believe the supernatural stuff.  I don't believe the stories of Zeus or Odin either, even though we have books that tell stories about them.  I don't believe anyone who makes an outrageous claim just because they say so and I can't disprove it.  If I said "I talked to God in a chatroom yesterday," you wouldn't believe me.  You'd think I was either lying, or simply was fooled.  But when Moses tells people, "I talked to God in a burning bush when no one else was around!" you think that seems like good evidence.


We might need a new topic for this, since it's getting a lot of discussion lately.

Saying people can't promote their religion in public school isn't an atheist view point.  It's an everyone-who's-not-in-the-majority view point.  Because according to you, whichever religion is in the majority should get to indoctrinate other people's children in public schools.  An atheist view point would be teaching that there is no God.  That's not what I'm suggesting, and it's not what people who don't want prayer in school are suggesting.  What you're asking for is not equal treatment, but for special privileges.


If a whole bunch of Wiccans move to your town, and suddenly become the majority, will you be perfectly okay with them promoting Wicca in the school?  If not, your majority arguement is a distraction.  What you really want is for christians, and no one else, to be able to promote their religion in school.  You're asking to get special privileges that you don't want others to have.


It's good that you realize you're biased.  But it doesn't do much good if you don't use that knowledge to try an overcome your bias.  Here is some general advice that applies to this situation, and many others as well:  If you are asking for privileges that you don't want other people to have, you're probably not being fair or reasonable.  If you're saying "we should get X because we're in the majority," but you wouldn't want other groups to get X if they were in the majority, you're probably being unreasonable.  We live in a society with different ideas, view points, and opinions.  If we want that to continue, we can't try to force everyone to agree with the majority.  The majority has a responsibility to not abuse the power it gets from being the majority.  A good check on that power is to ask yourself if you would support what you're proposing if you weren't in the majority.  If it was the other groups that would get the benefit instead of you.

You seem to realize that you want Christianity, and just chistianity, in schools.  Ask yourself how you'd feel if another religion was the majority, and were trying to force their religion into the school, and teach your kids their religion, while you had no chance to promote Christianity in the school.  Honestly, think about that for a moment.  Imagine it.  That's how non-christians feel when people try to promote christianity in their schools.  They think, "why do these people have the right to push their religion on my child?  Why is what my child believes their business?"

My own values?  So are you saying that how an eternity of burning your skin off with no chance of redemption or repentance is equal to not converting when you had the chance is a divine mystery?  That if only we had the knowledge and understanding of God, that somehow the two would come into perspective and we see how not accepting Jesus is just as morally wrong as setting someone on fire until the end of time?



However, as heath has been pointing out, some of these readings may be meant to be taken at more than just face value.  In many cases it's mistranslations.  Sometimes the story is misapplied.  I understand that if you can accept the world was created in 7 days, that the idea of punishing heathens with an eternity of torture makes sense, but I don't, and the thought of such thuggery is repugnant to me.

God shouldn't have to threaten us with a hammer to make us "love" Him, and torturing us unnecessarily for a crime long past is gratuitous violence.  The simplest solution is, if we don't accept God, God doesn't accept us, and we simply slip into oblivion (perhaps after some time in the cleansing fires).  As I said before, anything more wicked than that is simply thuggery.  It's God with-holding mercy and dispensing false and wicked justice, neither of which applies to the God I know.  I don't know that I could love anyone who allowed such a wicked thing to continue.



That I can accept (and have not disputed).



1)  No, but I think good actions are a sign of your having accepted Jesus.  Jesus was a peacemaker.  If you commit genocide, or lead an unjust war for personal profit, you haven't accepted Jesus, and as long as you continue to allow it to continue, when you are able to stop it, Jesus is not acting in your life.

2)  I would argue that we don't deserve eternal bliss.  We deserve nothing, not heaven, not hell, just nothing.  However, if God insists we have eternal bliss, I'm not about to argue.  I'll question it :)  And perhaps a thread about what is heaven (since there seem to be disagreements and contradictions) would be interesting, but it certainly isn't "deserved".



But some truths are so self-evident that I, as a rational creature (rational because God made me so), applying the rules God has given me, balk at it.  Of course, there is the possibility that after death God messes around with the rules of the game so suddenly a minor infraction really DOES deserve that sort of thing.  I mean, He can make hot cold and 0 equal 1, so I won't disregard him being able to make unjust judgements just.

I am also of the opinion that God wants us to use our rational minds to seek and know Him better.  That is what I am doing.  Again, my rational mind tells me that this sort of behavior, perpetrated by a warlord dictator, a fallen angel, or the creator of all, is cruel and unjust.  Because of this, I feel obligated to question and understand the truth of this.  How can this be just?  And if it isn't just, what is the real message?  I agree with Heath that the real message has been corrupted by human error, and each of us has to work to uncover what it really was.  God has always made it so that we have to struggle to get closer to God, that there are many false roads, false temptations.  I would question anyone who, in any field, says "ah!  I have the answer!" and stops questioning.  It would seem to be contrary to the nature of what God intends with us.



Revelations was a dream and is, without question, the most metaphorical part of the bible.  It's full of strange creatures and monsters rising out of the sea that cannot exist on earth.  Even the most fundamentalist of Christians have interpreted it almost wholly as metaphor to be interpreted, not literal.




The best actions we can commit do not justify an eternity of bliss, just as the worst we commit do not justify an eternity of torment.  Honestly, considering how our brains are wired, the most "just" reward, good or bad, would be something akin to reincarnation.  If you're bad, you get reincarnated in a bad place, and you get taken advantage of (or helped) by people better than you.  If you're good, you get reincarnated as a person with more power and more luxuries.  You continue in the loop until you're ready to go.  Except in this case, you'd carry over more memories, so you can learn better from your mistakes and the person who was alive before doesn't die (since if your previous life disappears and everything is lost, it's as though you died).  Eventually you would seek oblivion and receive it.  Alternatively, death is simply oblivion, full stop.  These things reward temporal goodness with temporal goodness, or reward a life that ultimately can't be easily measured one way or the other with exactly what came before it.  All debts are settled because all debts disappear.  Neither right nor wronged maintain their positions in oblivion.

None of the situations presented to us in the bible are just.  Eternal bliss is merciful, eternal torment is cruel.  It's only by the grace and mercy of God that we are allowed the gift of the former.  This is why it makes me question why the justice of God is supposed to condemn us to the latter.

On the topic of what you two are discussing, we are mortals born into weak and mortal bodies.  We have carnality and many inclination driving us to take actions which are contrary to the nature of God, many destructive, many just very wasteful.  God didn't create us to "be perfect" or "earn heaven."  That's just not the purpose of our being here.

But it is our purpose to try to have our spirits overcome those natures within us that are contrary to God.  Not only will we be stronger and better because of the conflict, but we will appreciate the good that much more when it comes (like a sick person appreciating health when it finally returns).  So one purpose is to do all we can to follow God.  In the LDS church, there is a saying that:  "God saves us after all we can do."  Just as our children don't really earn most of what we get, we just want them to try their best and we carry them the rest of the way.  No one's suggesting we earn our way into heaven, but merely that we try our best to conform our spirits to what God would have them be, and He (seeing our faith and desire to be with Him manifested) will reward us even though we really don't deserve it.

The other purpose is for our spirits to gain physical bodies so we can be resurrected as part of spiritual progression--everyone on earth gets that automatically.  So even the worst people on earth get one step up in their spiritual progression.  For God to give you a physical body and then subject it to the physical torments of a hell just doesn't make sense to me.  Being unworthy and unwilling due to your proclivities to accept God's set standards and covenant with him is what creates a "hell" after resurrection...i.e. eternal separation from God.

BUMP.
Another discussion about Heaven and Hell.