I'm trying to come up with a reasonable theistic answer.

Could it be that when they say God is omnipresent, that means omnipresent in our universe? Since Hell is not in our universe, God could actually not be present there.

Reasonable theistic answer:  "Some things we simply cannot know..."

Reasonable answer in general: "Most things we cannot KNOW.. but we can postulate and act in accordance with those postulations."

Can't say I blame you.

I'm about to go eat, so I'll give away the punch line to the whole thread.

This thread goes with my "Simple Truths" thread.  The punch line is that there's no simple way to answer simple questions about god.

Any attempt to explain any of this leads to some hypothetical land of nihilism, which brings us back around to not knowing anything for sure about god...

Which leads us back to revelation...

Which leads us back to nihilism...

Which leads us to spinning around in circles until we vomit.

Because there are so many Christians in the US who claim to know for certain so many things about God.

Yes.

I don't mind if people want to be Christians. It's when they take their faith so seriously they start doing destructive things. Of course I do mind the irrational part, but I can tolerate it.

Of course it doesn't. People just ignore the lake of fire bit, just like they ignore all the other unpleasant bits of the bible, to make Christianity more palatable.

Here's an idea - Any play on words will help you dance around inherent contradictions like god's omniprescence and hell (among others).

rhad, I didn't admit that your descent into nihilism was inherently valid, I just said I wasn't going to go there because it's rather pointless to engage in the same debate again.  The nihilism defense by definition can't prove or disprove anything, and is only useful as a philosophical exercise, so I'm not interested in going there.

As far as whether or not hell is a real place or not, or whether god "runs it" or chooses not to be present, or whether hell is the absence of god or not... none of these are of particular interest to me, and I'm not going to get into semantic arguments or breaking down each and every fallacy in each of these theories.  My interest is in showing how extensive the mental gymnastics must be to come up with even a poor explanation.

There's a loop here that theists run in...

 1) atheist points out contradiction.

2) theist re-defines, explains away, or ignores contradiction

3) atheist points out that a good god would not make it so hard to believe in him if he truly loved his creation...

4) theist points out that without faith, belief is impossible, and that's the beauty of the whole system.

5) atheist points out that "faith" is illogical, and that this in itself rules out the religion.

6) theist exclaims vehemently that faith is not illogical, then tries to redefine logic such that faith is not illogical.

7) atheist points out that the theist had to use logic to realize that he needed to use logic to prove faith logical but not logical...

theist says that he uses faith, not logic...

9) atheist points out that this is a contradiction.

10) see step 2.

Many a theologian has described hell as the abscence of god's prescence, the bible notwithstanding.  Maybe all those who actually believe in hell should get together and settle on a final definition of hell, to avoid any further confusion.  

Please give me the bible verses where hell is actually defined. Not where it is mentioned, but where it is defined.

What? That's the best you can do? I ask you how you would define it, using the bible.

Hello. This is my first post on this forum, so please excuse any failed attempts at formatting my replies at this time. I am still getting used to the forum system here.

First and foremost I suggest that we casts to the side the overgeneralizations of Protestants, Theists, and the like. While you may have in fact been brought up under a Protestant Theology you were not in fact brought up under all Protestant Theology, or all of Theism, which does not all conveniently share these simplified views of a place called "Hell" or end time punishment by God. While I will in fact agree that this is the popularized version in modern Christianity (though I will be cautious and exempt Orthodoxy and newly Reformed theologies from this paradigm), this is certainly still not the case among us all.

And while you certainly have made available the option to explain what "Hell" is, it is not apparent within the first list of options out of the two given. I would say it creates a limitation in that it excludes any other views on Hell regarding the duration of it's existance as noted under Christian Conditionalists and Christian Universal Reconcliationists views. I think a third option should be in mind next time you decide to pose these questions.

With that little introduction I suppose I'll leave note of my own beliefs as well as a passage for reflection sake. I am on the fence at the moment between being a Conditionalists or a Universal Reconcilationists. How I came to these conclusions is a matter of a much longer discussion that I do not really want to get into full on this thread, else it may distract from the prime objection at hand (a critique of this particular theology), unless of course the Original Poster (OP) believes this to be the only view point, where then I might have a little more reason to object to such notions.

As for the passage:

Then a third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. (Revelations 14:9-10).

Of course, not all Christians. Specifically, the Roman Catholics hold to "hell is the absence of God's presence" doctrine (if I remember correctly).

There are also these "seeker" (i.e. unbelievers who are searching) churches in the US, and I would bet ready money you'll never hear them threatening seekers with hell if they don't convert.

I've also found it in my personal experience with evangelical Christians (Southern Baptists and Evangelical Free) in the US. They might hold the traditional beliefs about hell, but the Old Testament is hardly ever talked about (except a few books like Psalms, Daniel, Genesis). Even Jesus' difficult teachings are hardly mentioned.

I wouldn't be surprised if plenty of Catholics just go a long with the official doctrines. I'm not really knowledgeable about this though, so I'll leave it at that.

There's an element in evangelical Christianity that's very intellectual, and then there are those who aren't. There's wide diversity within the group. You have people as dumb (or maybe deceptive?) as Kent Hovind, and as intelligent as Francis A. Schaeffer.

I think that most of the people I used to attend church with would find Jesus Camp very disturbing.

They could say the same things about you. You remember the scene in Jesus Camp where the girl is talking about "dead churches?" So, let's not go there.

Anyway, I'm always interested in what non-evangelicals have to say. I look forward to hearing more from you.

Ahh, yes. Thank you for catching me on that generalization. I don't believe I intended it to be, but I will confess to it for the sake of other readers.  Schaeffer does come to mind, as well as Sire.

 And that is why I also didn't really wish to discuss who was truly not  a Christian or not. While I believe it is obvious for some I cannot casts condemnation on all, especially those in certain groups. I am capable of error obviously.

And I look forward to hearing more from you as well. Much care and a blessing from God. 

Although there are major divisions within Christianity, not all of it is about essential doctrines. Many of the splits where over church governance, e.g. the Anglican church.

I never stated we were of the same opinion. I was making a point by stating that pluralism does not make a good objection to a belief system or lack thereof.

 Everyone is going to have different opinions...and there will be those that agree with one another as well. 

w, so you choose option 1?

I did not cite a biblical source for saying that.  I cited protestant teaching, and then asked the question of theists.

Since hell is a fairy tale, I don't particularly care what people say about it.  The whole point of the post is to allow theists to fall all over their own doctrines, and I'd say so far it's been a good show.

So, anyway... your answer is that god is in hell.  I was hoping to keep a scorecard, but so far you're the only person who's answered definitively.

Don't be obtuse.

Do you really want me to compile a list of churches who teach that hell is the absence of god, just so you can feel like you've been scientific?  All I want is a simple answer to a simple question.

Why are you even concerned that I point out that some people teach that hell is the absence of god?  Can you not see that my post is a question?  Can you not see that I'm allowing you to prove your position? 

Once again you have completely ignored my request that you demonstrate for me the correctness of your position.  If the bible clearly says what hell is, then just give an answer.

Either:

1) God is in hell.

or

2) God is not in hell.

This is the question I'm asking.  Which is it?  If you simply choose 1 or 2, we can stop this quibbling.  I don't even care if you cite a scripture.  Just choose one of the options.

Answer (rational response):  I think that Dr. C. Matthews, in his book Hell's Terror, puts it succinctly, as well:

"The eternal locality of God's justice is called hell."

www.apuritansmind.com/Tracts%20and%20Writings/Hell'sTerror.htm

It is clear, then...Your question is not a refutation of God's Omnipresence. 

Answer (rational response): 

 Like, seriously, Dude!

At your suggestion, I went back and reviewed the thread and I found this quote.

By way of this above-mentioned quote, it is obvious, and easily discerned that , by the Hell question, you were attempting to demonstrate that Christianity is contradictory and illogical and thus ruled out (see steps 1 through 10 in your above-mentioned quote).

It is a clear attempt at refutation...not just the asking of a question for your general knowledge.

You failed. So now you are back-tracking...We understand. 

No problem whatsoever!

Thank you...Have a good one.