megasamurai Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 "Separation from God" is a phrase often used to define hell, yet it does not quite have a clear definition. The idea seems straightforward at first, separation from God is being away from God, but why is it agonizing. Some say that the fires of hell are purely a metaphor for separation from God, and others say that hell is a lake of fire and separation from God. My church believed hell was agonizing because "God is love," but how can God be an abstract concept. Does "God is love" mean that God loves us very much, or is he literally love? Is the phrase "I God you, Mom" coherent or "Love sent Jesus to die on the cross" make sense? I've heard the latter. People In hell are in agony because they are eternally separated from love and unable to feel it. How is separation from God more humane than fire if it's an eternity of emotional agony? Why is separation from God never mentioned in the Bible? What is the history of the doctrine of separation from God? I would love to understand this doctrine better because it hurts my brain.
dangitbobby83 Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Don't bother trying. It doesn't make sense. How can you be separated from a being who is supposed to be everywhere at all times? This means god is indeed in hell as well. Does he "shield his presence" from those in hell so they feel separated? If so...then it blows the argument that god doesn't purposely torture anyone - but if it's that separation that causes the pain, then he is an active part of it. The idea of "separation" from god comes from churches who can't accept the idea that god would/could torture someone for infinity. Instead, god "separates" himself - or the act happens due to location - so that god isn't really around those people because...evil and stuff. He can't stand evil, so he removes himself from that "location" and "evil people" (everyone, remember is evil according to the bible) who aren't saved choose to go there. But we must remember: - God, being an infinite creator, is the one who set the rules and defined what is evil and what is good. - God then, ultimately decides who goes to heaven and hell. - Those who accept Jesus is supposedly renewed so when God the Father see's them, he see's purity or some shit like that. - Those who don't are judged by both thoughts and actions...based on the rules set by God. - Except that God doesn't even play by his own rules. Murder is wrong - unless he does it. Turning the other cheek is right...except he doesn't have to. - Children don't go to hell though, because...something? Apparently original sin doesn't "kick in" until you're old enough. Jesus covers those who are too young, too disabled to understand their actions...but won't cover those who are old enough and never heard the gospel at all, so those fuckers just get shat on. Except some churches believes Jesus DOES cover those who haven't heard the gospel...which of course totally invalidates the entire need for missionaries. As far as the history of the doctrine, a lot of cultures have the idea of some sort of cosmic justice. Bad people suffer in the afterlife if they don't now...karma will get you...bad people go to hell. Influences are from Greek and Roman ideas of Sheol/Hades and Tartarus. Someone better versed in history and theology can answer that question better. 2
megasamurai Posted January 15, 2016 Author Posted January 15, 2016 The problem is, if you don't believe in God, doesn't that mean that you don't believe in separation from God? How can you say non-Christians choose separation? Even if this were true, do non-believers really know that separation from God is an agonizing experience? Most non-believers think it's possible to feel love without God's presence. If these people believe something that's wrong, how is it fair to honor people's wish to be separated if that wish is based on ignorance? It seems bizarre that some churches think fire is barbaric and immoral but their version of hell is a just place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. The separation from God hell is significantly more confusing than the burning hell. Why not just stick with fire and brimstone?
Geezer Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Seems to me everyone is separated from God now. Those who claim to be "with" God now are only with God in their minds. They have been convinced the Spirit of God exists/lives within them. By being indoctrinated they develop a mental relationship with a non-existent life form. They actually believe they have an invisible "buddy" that controls their destiny, without interfering with their free will. I would assume being separated from God would mean this indwelling Spirit leaves them, or at least they believe "it" leaves them so they are forced to depend on themselves then, and that apparently scares the hell out of them.
dangitbobby83 Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Mega, I think the arguments of separation from god is usually accompanied with arguments that a true "atheist" doesn't exist. Atheists are just people who are actively in rebellion against god, as all people inherently know god exists. Thus, if someone claims to be an atheist, they are doing so to deny god in their life and rebel against him, thus when they die, they have chosen hell. It's a bullshit argument to be sure - but that's usually what Christians say.
Guest Furball Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Seems to me everyone is separated from God now. Those who claim to be "with" God now are only with God in their minds. They have been convinced the Spirit of God exists/lives within them. By being indoctrinated they develop a mental relationship with a non-existent life form. They actually believe they have an invisible "buddy" that controls their destiny, without interfering with their free will. I would assume being separated from God would mean this indwelling Spirit leaves them, or at least they believe "it" leaves them so they are forced to depend on themselves then, and that apparently scares the hell out of them. This^^^^ Excellent post Geezer, as usual you are right on the mark.
sdelsolray Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Mega, I think the arguments of separation from god is usually accompanied with arguments that a true "atheist" doesn't exist. Atheists are just people who are actively in rebellion against god, as all people inherently know god exists. Thus, if someone claims to be an atheist, they are doing so to deny god in their life and rebel against him, thus when they die, they have chosen hell. It's a bullshit argument to be sure - but that's usually what Christians say. Tribalism at its best, aka my way or the highway.
mymistake Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 What dangitbobby83 said. Theology doesn't add up and doesn't make sense. That is why blind faith is required to believe the nonsense.
BarbarousBill Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 If God is love.... does that mean God is sex? If that's true.... there's a lotta implications coming from that. 1
disillusioned Posted January 17, 2016 Posted January 17, 2016 If God is love.... does that mean God is sex? If that's true.... there's a lotta implications coming from that. No, it just means that having sex is making God. This is why the atheist objection "well, then who made God?" is asinine. The answer is, of course, me, with your mother, last night. 3
megasamurai Posted January 18, 2016 Author Posted January 18, 2016 What's confusing is how do you say that Muslims want to be separated from God? They pray to him five times a day.
dangitbobby83 Posted January 19, 2016 Posted January 19, 2016 What's confusing is how do you say that Muslims want to be separated from God? They pray to him five times a day. Wrong god...errr...version of...Abrahamic god... Muslim's have been lied to by the devil, duh!
megasamurai Posted January 19, 2016 Author Posted January 19, 2016 How is Muslim heaven, Nirvana, reincarnation, or any other afterlife the same thing as hell? If you choose any of those things, you choose hell.
LifeCycle Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 You cannot be separated from God if he's Omni-Present. It's one or the other, not both. 2
Storm Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Psalm 139:7-8 (NKJV) "7Where can I go from Your Spirit?Or where can I flee from Your presence?8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there;If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there." 3
LifeCycle Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Psalm 139:7-8 (NKJV) "7Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? 8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there." This too!
megasamurai Posted January 20, 2016 Author Posted January 20, 2016 I wonder how the belief in separation from God has perpetuated if the Bible never mentions separation from God?
dangitbobby83 Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 I wonder how the belief in separation from God has perpetuated if the Bible never mentions separation from God? Because people like to make stuff up, especially if they have a hard time accepting certain doctrines "as is". Hell - "Well God doesn't PURPOSELY torture people...it's the separation from God that is painful!" Someone then tells that to someone else who goes "Oh that makes sense", and they tell it to someone else and someone else...soon you have armchair theologians looking for Biblical justification for it - they find a verse or two that if you twist just enough, you can make it fit. Repeat it and the justification long enough and suddenly it goes from someone's side explanation of what hell really is to full on major doctrine. This is simply how religion - and the interpretations of religious texts - work. 1
dangitbobby83 Posted January 22, 2016 Posted January 22, 2016 I mean - there are a ton of major religious doctrines that have developed that have no basis in the bible but developed along a path similar to what I posted above. Look at the idea of the rapture. No where in the bible is the word "rapture" mentioned. Nowhere in the bible is the theology of the rapture defined. There is only a single verse that MIGHT suggest, with some twisting, that it means the full meaning of today's "rapture" as Christians understand it - 1 Thess. 16-17. A single verse to support the entire doctrine of the rapture, all (supposedly) backed by the crazy ramblings of the book of revelation (so say the believers of the rapture).
FlowerDemon Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 I mean - there are a ton of major religious doctrines that have developed that have no basis in the bible but developed along a path similar to what I posted above. Look at the idea of the rapture. No where in the bible is the word "rapture" mentioned. Nowhere in the bible is the theology of the rapture defined. There is only a single verse that MIGHT suggest, with some twisting, that it means the full meaning of today's "rapture" as Christians understand it - 1 Thess. 16-17. A single verse to support the entire doctrine of the rapture, all (supposedly) backed by the crazy ramblings of the book of revelation (so say the believers of the rapture). Wow...I actually never knew that. I remember hearing my grandmother mention the rapture one time...talking about the war between the angels and demons, believers being transported into heaven while all the non believers pretty much left for dead... and all this weird crap. it sounds like a poorly budgeted zombie apocalypse movie with a religious twist. I was a Christian at the time and I wondered where in the Bible it talked about that. i never even understood what the rapture fully meant. i still don't. well it doesn't apply to me anymore because I'm smart enough to realize this: If God really wanted to reveal himself to mankind through a book, then why has he made it so people are mistranslating it and believing in a rapture that isn't even mentioned in the Bible? Why has he made it blatantly contradictory? Why has he allowed people to create separating denominations and have different beliefs from the same source? Why doesnt he make himself obvious enough to actually persuade people on Ex-Christian.Net to leave the site? Answer: because he's not real 1
◊ Citsonga ◊ Posted January 25, 2016 Posted January 25, 2016 Psalm 139:7-8 (NKJV) "7Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? 8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there; If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there." This is a great passage to point out. Of course, "hell" there really isn't referring to the "hell" in Christian doctrine (that concept came along after this Psalm was written), but that doesn't keep Christians from pointing to "hell" in the KJV OT as if it really is referring to what they think of as "hell," which makes this passage a good rebuttal to their claim that God isn't in "hell." I wonder how the belief in separation from God has perpetuated if the Bible never mentions separation from God? Because people like to make stuff up, especially if they have a hard time accepting certain doctrines "as is". Hell - "Well God doesn't PURPOSELY torture people...it's the separation from God that is painful!" Someone then tells that to someone else who goes "Oh that makes sense", and they tell it to someone else and someone else...soon you have armchair theologians looking for Biblical justification for it - they find a verse or two that if you twist just enough, you can make it fit. Repeat it and the justification long enough and suddenly it goes from someone's side explanation of what hell really is to full on major doctrine. This is simply how religion - and the interpretations of religious texts - work. I mean - there are a ton of major religious doctrines that have developed that have no basis in the bible but developed along a path similar to what I posted above. Look at the idea of the rapture. No where in the bible is the word "rapture" mentioned. Nowhere in the bible is the theology of the rapture defined. There is only a single verse that MIGHT suggest, with some twisting, that it means the full meaning of today's "rapture" as Christians understand it - 1 Thess. 16-17. A single verse to support the entire doctrine of the rapture, all (supposedly) backed by the crazy ramblings of the book of revelation (so say the believers of the rapture). The example that quickly popped in my mind is the doctrine that Satan is a fallen angel named Lucifer. That comes from taking Isaiah 14:12 completely out of context. Satan is not mentioned anywhere in the passage. All one has to do is read from the beginning of the chapter and it becomes abundantly clear that the author was actually talking about the king of Babylon. Another example is the doctrine that the serpent in the garden was Satan and that he lied to Eve. Genesis 3 says nothing of the sort about the serpent, and what the serpent told Eve would happen is <gasp> exactly what happens in the story. The serpent is simply said to be cunning (not a manifestation of Satan), and the serpent actually told the truth. Christians claim to be following the Bible, yet a lot of what they believe is not really what the Bible says, but rather what someone else told them the Bible says and/or means. 1
megasamurai Posted January 25, 2016 Author Posted January 25, 2016 Separation from God is agonizing, but it isn't torture. I guess if I threw someone into a place of pain and agony, I can blame the place rather than myself.
Recommended Posts