Denise Dee wrote:
It doesn't matter how many words for love there are in the original Greek of the Bible, they're all irrelevant except for the one Greek word that John used, and with a little googling I see that word is 'agape', and that it's the same word in the Sermon on the Mount:
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love (agapēseis) your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love (agapāte) your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".
Agape is not
philia, nor is it
eros.
The point is that "love" exists in several different senses and you have to understand exactly what is meant in order to understand it's implications.
Quote:
So it's not something that's beyond human understanding because Jesus told us to 'love' with the same word as John used to say 'God is love'. It requires some sort of Orwellian doublethink to believe that 'God is love' simultaneously with believing that 'the vast majority of those who will ever be born will not be redeemed, but suffer eternal torment...'.
She never said anything of the sort. You've simply invented a strawman argument to pound on.
And you're also in serious error fundamentally regarding Redemption. The Bible is clear that the Redemption is offered to
ALL.
All have been Redeemed, but that in no way follows that all will be saved.
Quote:
Schopenhauer said: 'According to this doctrine, then, God created out of nothing a weak race prone to sin, in order to give them over to endless torment.
And Schoppenhauer seems to not know what he's talking about.
Quote:
...And, as a last characteristic, we are told that this God, who prescribes forbearance and forgiveness of every fault, exercises none himself, but does the exact opposite; for a punishment which comes at the end of all things, when the world is over and done with, cannot have for its object either to improve or deter, and is therefore pure vengeance.'
I can't see how these two opposite beliefs can be reconciled. So I'm more inclined here to agree with Light of the East who has enlightened me on this.
No doubt you can't reconcile them because you don't even have a proper grasp of the problem. Your fundamental axioms are wrong. You're completely misconstruing God, human free will, and the intrinsic relationship between sin and punishment.
This is indicated in your assumed idea that the punishment of hell "cannot have for it's object to either imrove or deter". You apparently haven't conceived of the idea that the person would rather have the punishment of hell in order to have the sin they love. That they don't want "improvement" or to be deterred. And that their alienation from God is as much a consequence of their own desire as it is God's judgement.
Thus the "object" of hell, if there is such a thing, is to give the reprobate exactly what they want. Of course they won't even be able to have that since sin of it's very nature is void of any real substance and it is inherently dissipatory, so even the apparent "goods" that the reprobate believed they'd find fulfilled in sin will be shown to be illusory, thus all they will have left of the object of their love is the punishment that they gave all for.
"To force the man to give us everything that we want and to give him nothing in return....
that is what really gladdens our father's heart."
- Screwtape