@sonship : on chains and other worlds

Clearly I have to start a thread on this to stand any chance of getting a response from you on this topic.

"In the shouting in the street" thread in one of you soliloquies defending eternal suffering, you said this regarding those cast into this perpetual torment:

"...But the lost will glorify Him with their endless woe. They will be hung out in chains of punishment as an example to deter other worlds."

Can you please explain what you mean by this description and who you think the beings on other worlds are, how they will get a view of those hung out in chains, and how people suffering "endless woe" will be a "glorification of God"?

Thanks

Like the Romans who crucified their victims and left them hanging
in full view at the main entrances to their cities...

This certainly glorified Ceaser.

Originally posted by CalJust
Like the Romans who crucified their victims and left them hanging
in full view at the main entrances to their cities...

This certainly glorified Ceaser.

What so you make of sonship's claims that "other worlds" will be warned by the eternal suffering of those "hung in chains"?

Originally posted by divegeester
What so you make of sonship's claims that "other worlds" will be warned by the eternal suffering of those "hung in chains"?

Like I said, this caricatures God as a megalomaniacal dictator.

I really haven't come across this doctrine before, it must be unique to sonship's Local Church sect. Certainly not (to my knowledge) mainline Christian teaching.

Originally posted by CalJust
Like I said, this caricatures God as a megalomaniacal dictator.

I really haven't come across this doctrine before, it must be unique to sonship's Local Church sect. Certainly not (to my knowledge) mainline Christian teaching.

Searching on the first phrase in quotes finds nothing, but not in quotes finds one Johann Gerhard, (October 17, 1582 – August 17, 1637) who was a Lutheran church leader and Lutheran Scholastic theologian during the period of Orthodoxy. (wikipedia)

A translation of one of his sermons is at:



http://www.cfwwalther.com/gerhard/Meditation%20XLIX.htm

It starts with: "MEDITATE, O devout soul, upon the awfulness of future punishment, and thou wilt easily overcome every base and sinful desire. Future torment will mean the presence of all that is base and sinful, and the entire absence of all that is good. What imaginable evil can be wanting to those who are being punished for sin, the greatest of all evils? And what possible good can they enjoy who are banished from the presence of God, the very highest good? There, in that world of woe, shall be the heat of fire and the rigor of cold; perpetual darkness, and the smoke of their torment arising forever; there scalding tears of sorrow shall unceasingly flow; there the awful sight of the demons of hell shall strike terror into the souls of the lost; there shall be weeping and wailing forever and ever; the torment of a perpetual and unquenchable thirst, sulphurous vapors, the worm that dieth not, a horrible fear, pains unspeakable, and shame and confusion of face as they stand with the black record of their sins unfolded before them; envy, hatred, sorrow, eternal exclusion from the beatific vision of God, with no ray of hope to cheer the awful gloom of that place of unending torment."

Originally posted by JS357
Searching on the first phrase in quotes finds nothing, but not in quotes finds one Johann Gerhard, (October 17, 1582 – August 17, 1637) who was a Lutheran church leader and Lutheran Scholastic theologian during the period of Orthodoxy. (wikipedia)

I notice sonship has declined to respond; I'm sure he meant what he said but I would imagine he's in damage limitation mode now and considering the nature of what he said I would imagine he is probably concerned with his general credibility among the Christians here.

Originally posted by divegeester
I notice sonship has declined to respond; I'm sure he meant what he said but I would imagine he's in damage limitation mode now and considering the nature of what he said I would imagine he is probably concerned with his general credibility among the Christians here.

Caljust suggested a sect.

I found this from The Missouri Synod of the Lutheran Church (LCMS).

Here is a quote from

http://cyclopedia.lcms.org/display.asp?t1=h&word=HEREAFTER

"Hell (Eternal Punishment). 1. The doctrine of eternal punishment, repugnant to natural man, has been repudiated by errorists (e.g., Origen,* Universalists*) but is clearly revealed in Scripture. To deny this doctrine is to reject the authority of Scripture."

So repugnance isn't a bug; it's a feature. "Natural man" is an interntional pejorative.

It goes on in detail about worms and fire.

The LCMS has 2.2 million members, mostly in the US midwest. The above doctrine is not necessarily unique to the LCMS.

Originally posted by divegeester
I notice sonship has declined to respond; I'm sure he meant what he said but I would imagine he's in damage limitation mode now and considering the nature of what he said I would imagine he is probably concerned with his general credibility among the Christians here.

Further on eternal punishment for sin being a sect idea: RCC: 1.2 billion members.

"The Holy Bible is quite explicit in teaching the eternity of the pains of hell. The torments of the damned shall last forever and ever (Revelation 14:11; 19:3; 20:10). They are everlasting just as are the joys of heaven (Matthew 25:46). Of Judas Christ says: "it were better for him, if that man had not been born" (Matthew 26:24). But this would not have been true if Judas was ever to be released from hell and admitted to eternal happiness. Again, God says of the damned: "Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched" (Isaiah 66:24; Mark 9:43, 45, 47). The fire of hell is repeatedly called eternal and unquenchable. The wrath of God abideth on the damned (John 3:36); they are vessels of Divine wrath (Romans 9:22); they shall not possess the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:10; Galatians 5:21), etc. The objections adduced from Scripture against this doctrine are so meaningless that they are not worth while discussing in detail. The teaching of the fathers is not less clear and decisive (cf. Patavius, "De Angelis", III, viii). We merely call to mind the testimony of the martyrs who often declared that they were glad to suffer pain of brief duration in order to escape eternal torments; e.g. "Martyrium Polycarpi", c. ii (cf. Atzberger, "Geschichte", II, 612 sqq.). It is true that Origen fell into error on this point; but precisely for this error he was condemned by the Church (Canones adv. Origenem ex Justiniani libro adv. Origen., can. ix; Hardouin, III, 279 E; Denz., n. 211). In vain attempts were made to undermine the authority of these canons (cf. Dickamp, "Die origenistischen Streitigkeiten", Münster, 1899, 137). Besides even in Origen we find the orthodox teaching on the eternity of the pains of hell; for in his words the faithful Christian was again and again victorious over the doubting philosopher. Gregory of Nyssa seems to have favoured the errors of Origen; many, however, believe that his statements can be shown to be in harmony with Catholic doctrine. But the suspicions that have been cast on some passages of Gregory of Nazianzus and Jerome are decidedly without justification (cf. Pesch, "Theologische Zeitfragen", 2nd series, 190 sqq.). The Church professes her faith in the eternity of the pains of hell in clear terms in the Athanasian Creed (Denz., nn. 40), in authentic doctrinal decisions (Denz, nn. 211, 410, 429, 807, 835, 915), and in countless passages of her liturgy; she never prays for the damned. Hence, beyond the possibility of doubt, the Church expressly teaches the eternity of the pains of hell as a truth of faith which no one can deny or call in question without manifest heresy.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

That's the Catholic Encyclopedia. It has the imprimatur of the archbishop of the jurisdiction under which it is published.

See I can do a pretty good Sonship.

Originally posted by JS357
Further on eternal punishment for sin being a sect idea: RCC: 1.2 billion members.

Good indeed...!

I'm interested in this being "hung out in chains" descriptor, and "as a warning to other worlds" philosophy. The former is certainly reminiscent of medieval religious rhetoric, whereas the the latter is more contemporary mystic cult I'd suggest.

Originally posted by divegeester
Good indeed...!

I'm interested in this being "hung out in chains" descriptor, and "as a warning to other worlds" philosophy. The former is certainly reminiscent of medieval religious rhetoric, whereas the the latter is more contemporary mystic cult I'd suggest.

Using some of those words like "endless woe" led to this. It is a universalist critique. "Woe has 29 hits, including several with "endless". It's not literally Biblical, but must have had wide usage it 1871.

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

Originally posted by JS357
Using some of those words like "endless woe" led to this. It is a universalist critique. "Woe has 29 hits, including several with "endless". It's not literally Biblical, but must have had wide usage it 1871.

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

What is curious to me as a Christian, is that none of the other Christians here challenge sonship on this most odd doctrine. In fact Suzianne recently described sonship's posting as:

"I find his 'style' to be carefully laying a foundation and then building on that. Yes, some people do not have the patience for that and so next they criticize the way he posts because they cannot criticize the cannot criticise the veracity of it...

She goes on:
I find his posts to be considerably more educated than most posts...

I don't see these latest revelations from sonship as either educated nor of having any veracity, and it is certainly not foundational.

Originally posted by divegeester
What is curious to me as a Christian, is that none of the other Christians here challenge sonship on this most odd doctrine. In fact Suzianne recently described sonship's posting as:

[i]"I find his 'style' to be carefully[b] laying a foundation and then building on that. Yes, some people do not have the patience for that and so next they criticize ...[text shortened]... educated nor of having any veracity, and it is certainly not foundational.[/b]

"I don't see these latest revelations from sonship as either educated nor of having any veracity, and it is certainly not foundational.[/b]"

Well there seems to be plenty of support in Christian literature for his views favoring eternal punishment although it is odd that he is absent from this conversation.

Originally posted by JS357
Well there seems to be plenty of support in Christian literature for his views favoring eternal punishment although it is odd that he is absent from this conversation.

The doctrine of eternal punishment has been around as a control mechanism for centuries; what is new is the medieval language that sonship uses to describe the motivation for his version of god to "hang out in chains" those doomed to this supposed eternal suffering and which seems to be directed at beings from "other worlds"; aliens one would presume, unless there are genetically connected humans on other planets.

Originally posted by divegeester
The doctrine of eternal punishment has been around as a control mechanism for centuries; what is new is the medieval language that sonship uses to describe the motivation for his version of god to [b]"hang out in chains" those doomed to this supposed eternal suffering and which seems to be directed at beings from "other worlds"; aliens one would presume, unless there are genetically connected humans on other planets.[/b]

I wonder if this is caused by him overthinking the nature of punishment and justice. Sonship has written at length about 'perfect justice' but I don't think he can rationalise it with the concept of eternal punishment, and particularly one involving torture.

Punishment is usually justified on the basis of:

1 Retribution
2 Incapacitation
3 Rehabilitation
4 Deterrence

These all fall down where eternal torture in hell is concerned.

Retribution must be proportionate, or it is not justice. Torture is not required for incapacitation. And, by definition, rehabilitation is not possible.

So what are you left with? If you believe that, come judgement day, that's it, job done, then deterrence is also a nonsense. So the idea of God being 'perfect justice' is a nonsense as well, as his system of justice and punishment does not meet any of the justifications for it.

However, if you can postulate 'other worlds', then deterrence is back in play. In a sick and twisted way, but back in play. When really it should be calling into question the whole idea of hell as a place of eternal torture.

Not that it works of course, because unless there are an infinite number of worlds, and an infinite number of new peoples, then at some point the deterrence factor will drop away. Yet the punishment in hell goes on for eternity for no reason.

I would like any of the 'hell and brimstone' gang to explain how this form of punishment meets any test of a just God. But they, like sonship, tend to go quiet, as they have no justification for it that doesn't reflect very badly on their God.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I wonder if this is caused by him overthinking the nature of punishment and justice. Sonship has written at length about 'perfect justice' but I don't think he can rationalise it with the concept of eternal punishment, and particularly one involving torture.

Punishment is usually justified on the basis of:

1 Retribution
2 Incapacitation
3 Reha ...[text shortened]... to go quiet, as they have no justification for it that doesn't reflect very badly on their God.

Nonetheless, from the above RCC citation, "Hence, beyond the possibility of doubt, the Church expressly teaches the eternity of the pains of hell as a truth of faith which no one can deny or call in question without manifest heresy." SO get over it, is the message.