Happy About Hell?

-
I am astonished at some on the internet who accuse me of being happy / glad / satisfied / gleeful that God would send some people to hell. From Ray Comfort’s blog:


Do you think "happy" would be the right word to use to describe that state of mind of those who were saved in the lifeboats of the Titanic as their loved ones and others were being swallowed into an icy grave? No doubt they were unspeakably grateful that they are saved, but it would be entirely inappropriate to use the word "happy" to describe their circumstance.

There’s not a day that goes by that I’m not horrified at what’s in store for those who die in their sins…


Ray says it well.

Comments

Steve Martin said…
Of course we are not happy about the prospect of some people goping to hell.

We deserve to go to hell, also!

But by His grace, we are redeemed!

I do see this glee at the fate of others, though, in some people. I think it is terrible, and I would hate to think what the Lord thinks about it.

"Judge not, lest you be judged." (comes to mind)
January 06, 2010
Anonymous said…
Born to be tortured one of the most disgusting views I have ever encountered in my life.

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com/some_violent_heartless_believing_hell.htm

"The twelfth-century theologian Peter Lombard had the same attitude. "The elect will come forth to behold the torments of the ungodly," he taught, "and at this spectacle they will not be smitten with sorrow; on the contrary, while they see the unspeakable sufferings of the ungodly, they, intoxicated with joy, will thank God for their own salvation."

Saint Thomas Aquinas, one of the most influential Catholic theologians of all time, likewise declared that "in order that nothing may be wanting to the happiness of the blessed in Heaven, a perfect view is granted them of the tortures of the damned."

The popular eighteenth-century Puritan clergyman Jonathan Edwards added, "The sight of hell's torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever." He also proclaimed: "Can the believing husband in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving wife in Hell? Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell? Can the loving wife in Heaven be happy with her unbelieving husband in Hell? I tell you, yea! Such will be their sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish their bliss." "
January 06, 2010
J. K. Jones said…
The people you reference not only believed in hell, they also believed in the use of physical coercion to convert others. It is not possible to do that in the first place. In the second, it is wrong to do so based on Christ's teachings.

I affirm the seperation of church and state. Your argument simply does not apply to me.
January 10, 2010
Anonymous said…
"The people you reference not only believed in hell, they also believed in the use of physical coercion to convert others. It is not possible to do that in the first place. In the second, it is wrong to do so based on Christ's teachings."

You're right I forgot that you are a worshipper of a splinter sect of mainstream christianity and are then free to make up whatever beliefs that you want. (No True Scottsman)

"I affirm the seperation of church and state. Your argument simply does not apply to me."

Of course an argument of Church v State doesn't apply to you, I wasn't making one.
January 14, 2010
J. K. Jones said…
I have not made up any new beliefs on my own. But, either way, you cannot legitimately criticize me for beliefs I do not hold, no matter what kind of names you apply. "No True Scottsman" indeed.

Church vs. State is the only way your objection holds.
January 15, 2010
J. K. Jones said…
Steve Martin,

Right on.

JK
January 15, 2010
Anonymous said…
Whatever wacky tabacy bible floats your boat.

Church V State: There's no argument there. When I raise objection that applies to it, I'll let you know.
January 18, 2010
J. K. Jones said…
Every one of the examples given on the web site you pointed me to was of a person who affirmed the use of coercion to convert others. That is closely linked to a state church of some form, and each of the examples was a supporter of a church which attempted or achieved establishment.


How is it that church vs. state does not apply?
January 19, 2010
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Face of Terror

-
Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in. First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head. Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists . To tell a story I have told here before : Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder on...
Read more

The Canons of Dort

-
I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort. [This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.] Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than ...
Read more

Intelligent Design

-
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement makes much of the argument from irreducible complexity. Dr. Michael Behe has become famous for a simple example, the mousetrap. He points out that the mousetrap will not perform its function without all of its parts. The wooden base, the metal hammer, a spring, a catch and a metal bar to hold back the hammer are all necessary parts. One component by itself will not catch a mouse. Mainstream evolutionary science has a counter-argument. To paraphrase Dr. Kenneth Miller, if you disassemble the mousetrap, each component can serve as something useful on its own. If we take away the catch and metal bar, we have something left that can serve as a paper clip. The spring could make a simple two-section key chain. The wooden base makes a paperweight. Evolutionary processes like random mutation and natural selection can combine and retain the useful parts as the complicated evolves to perform the complex function. The useful parts are combined into the mousetr...
Read more