Eternal Hell

[amortalman]

I have two questions primarily for Christians.

1) If your brand of religion teaches that unbelievers will be judged by God and cast into Hell and the Lake of Fire for eternity to suffer there with no possibility of death or escape, is this action by God a just punishment, and why?

2) The second question is purely hypothetical and reaches way out there. If your God gave you permission to do as you please concerning eternal Hell, to keep it, or to abolish it in favor of, say, annihilation, would you keep it or do away with it?

NOTE: In regards to question number one I'm thinking about the story told by Jesus of the rich man and Lazarus found in Luke chapter 16. The Lake of Fire is mentioned in Revelation 20:10-15 and 21:8.

To me, an eternity of suffering in Hell defies logic and any sense of compassion what-so-ever. During my years as a Christian in an evangelical church, I've heard many preachers preface a sermon on Hell by saying they don't like to talk about it and don't like the concept of it but they must preach it because that's what the Bible teaches. I was once a part of a Biblical teaching program for children 2nd through 6th grade. I can only imagine the nightmares some of them had after being told that without Jesus they would go to Hell forever. Someone might argue that it's better that than to go to Hell. But does the fear tactic really work, and if it does, is that the best way, to scare the hell out of them?

In my understanding of the Bible, and what is being taught to millions of people in evangelical churches around the world, there are two kinds of people who will be cast into Hell. Those who have never heard the gospel and those how have rejected the gospel after having heard it. According to that teaching, there are countless millions of poor souls being tormented in Hell right now because they never had an opportunity to hear about Christ. Furthermore, there are hundreds if not thousands that are dying every day and going to Hell for lack of an opportunity to decide. Is that just?

Finally, I'm hopeful that the second question will cut to the Christians heart concerning the doctrine of Hell and reveal the insanity of it. To me, someone who would keep Hell if given the chance to abolish it is a Sadist of the worse kind. But then again, if a Christian says that he would do away with Hell is he demonstrating that he is more merciful than God?

What say you?

[ttruscott]

If the wages of sin is everlasting torture in the lake of fire, then Jesus did not pay the wages for our sins!

That's right - He did not pay the wages for the sins of the reprobate demons but only for the sinful elect who were under His promise of salvation called election.

But calling it torture is like a criminal calling his sentence torture. It is earned suffering with no intent to torture.

[tam]

But how can a person actively reject a King (and/or His law - which is love) and still expect that they can and should be invited into His Kingdom?

Jesus himself tells you that you can do this in John 12:48.

There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.


Where in that verse does it state that one can reject Christ and enter into the Kingdom?


Disagreement between us on this particular matter might be over the meaning of the word, reject, and over what it is we are speaking OF. When you say "reject" what does that mean to you?


I am seeing the sheep and the goats (people of the nations) standing before Christ, and those being invited in saying, 'Yo, I am entering the kingdom, but I reject you as my King'.


How does that person expect that they are going to be permitted into the Kingdom OF that King?

These people have no need of any King to rule over them, nor is there any need to decree a "law" that they must obey. Love to them is not a mandate, but instead it's just their nature.

Yes, there are such people, and I have not argued otherwise (as to the bold).

Paul refers to such people as well.

You seem to be wanting to place Jesus above love. That is an abomination to love itself. If love is the "whole of the law" as you seem to believe, then there is no need for any lawyer, or King.

In fact, if love was nothing more than a law that is being dictated to us, that would cheapen it and basically destroy it. Love that needs to be forced by authority is no love at all.

If I said love is the law of the universe, would you have the same problem with it as me saying love is the law of God?


And as for making onself the servant of the one we love... Christ did that also, with His Father. Not out of fear, not from being forced to do so, but out of love FOR His Father. Serving God and others out of LOVE.

There is no oppression in that. If one is forced to serve, then there is oppression. If one wants and chooses to serve, out of love, then there is no oppression.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Divine Insight]

But how can a person actively reject a King (and/or His law - which is love) and still expect that they can and should be invited into His Kingdom?

Jesus himself tells you that you can do this in John 12:48.

There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.


Where in that verse does it state that one can reject Christ and enter into the Kingdom?


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

You have quoted from a Satanic Bible.

The original King James Bible doesn't say that these people will be condemned. It simply says they will be judged, and it even states what they will be judged by:

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

There's no claim that they will be "condemned". It simply says that they will be judged, and that they will be judged by the words that Jesus has spoken.

So the Bible you quoted from already contains a corrupt translation of the original Bible. The scribes who translated the Bible you are using have hatefully swapped out the word "Judged" for the word "Condemned". But who are they to make that change?

This is a prime example of what Jesus himself accused the scribes of doing. They take his words and hatefully twist them into things he never said.

Moreover, we can know for certain that the Bible you are using is corrupt, because Jesus explains in Luke 6:37 precisely how you can obtain your own salvation without him. So you won't be condemned if you reject him and his words. Your Bible is false.

So there can be no question that the Bible you are using is corrupt.

Besides, if you claim that Jesus preached that the whole of the law is LOVE, then why are you preaching that people must worship Jesus as King?

Shouldn't preaching love like Jesus did be sufficient?

I just don't understand Christians who aren't happy unless they are condemning people for not worship Jesus as King. That's ridiculous, and certainly has nothing at all to do with love or anything that could even remotely be associated with love.

In fact, IMHO, it appears to be an extremely hateful thing to do. All you are succeeding in doing is making Jesus out to be a hateful egotistical monster who will condemn anyone who doesn't worship him. Never mind love. Love would be LOST on Jesus entirely. You are demanding that Jesus is a hateful fascist dictator who will even condemn loving people who refuse to bow down and worship him.

In fact, this is one aspect of Christendom that makes it so utterly disgusting and immoral.

[tam]

[Replying to post 73 by Divine Insight]

Judged or condemned, DI, where in that verse does it say that one can reject Christ and enter into the Kingdom?


The rest of your post seems to be a rant of some sort serving only to reveal (to me) that you did not read (and/or understand and/or care in the least about the content of) my post.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 74 by tam]

You may not have understood the rest of my post, but I'm basically asking why Christians who proclaim that Jesus stood for love seem to always seek out and support the most hateful condemning dogma they can find to represent him.

I would think they would choose to find the most uplifting loving scriptures they can possibly find and use those as a model for their marionette Jesus doll.

As you know, I'm not a Christian and I have no need to hold Jesus up for idol worship. But if I were a Christian I would certainly try to support the most loving picture of Jesus I could muster.

Why Christians are so hell-bent on using Jesus as a weapon of condemnation and hatred is beyond me. I just don't see the point to it. It seems to be an abomination of what Jesus himself supposedly stood for.

Christians seem to me to absolutely disdain the idea of an truly loving Jesus.

For example, you don't seem to be satisfied unless Jesus is condemning anyone who refuses to worship him as King.

But what does that have to do with love?

Absolutely nothing.

Moreover, as I have clearly demonstrated, a positive uplifting picture of Jesus is possible by simply selecting the most positive verses and interpretation them in the most positive way.

You appear to have chosen to do precisely the opposite.

Why? Why is it important to you to make Jesus out to be an unforgiving hateful monster of damnation?

I'm seriously curious. You could obviously choose to do otherwise, but you go out of your way to even renounce any efforts that others, like myself, offer toward that end.

Why do Christians so hate the idea of a genuinely loving and forgiving Jesus?

[Wootah]

A Christian or any person arguing against hell is no different to a criminal arguing against prison.

No, its no different from arguing against torture in prison.

Not even that, since even if one argues someone should be tortured in prison, that would only last for as long as their life, sooner or later they would die and the torture would stop.

If I am not mistaken it's no different from arguing against keeping someone eternally alive for the sole purpose of watching them suffer. No hope that the suffering will lead to reform or repentance, no chance that the suffering will end, just keeping them alive to be tortured. Keeping Something or someone alive for the sole purpose of making them feel pain is the behavior of a psychopath.

Eternal torture is not necessary to keep someone away from the innocent or ensure that the wicked be punished, the bible confirms God can destroy both body and soul. And since nobody has been wicked eternally, (everyone except the Almighty had a beginning) eternal torture is by definition, excessive.



Further reading: The Lie That Made God Cruel
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... ruel-hell/

Fortunately you are mistaken .

You are making an emotional point but it is defeated by logic. I don't think we have to accuse God of torture. God is good, all good. Therefore not God is bad, all bad. If hell is the place where God isn't then it will be all bad.

Eternal torture is not necessary to keep someone away from the innocent or ensure that the wicked be punished, the bible confirms God can destroy both body and soul. And since nobody has been wicked eternally, (everyone except the Almighty had a beginning) eternal torture is by definition, excessive.

But crimes aren't dependent on the criminal. If you are driving along and crash lightly into an old lemon then there is a good chance the other driver will be happy with an apology. If you crash into a middle class car there is a good chance your insurance will cover it or you will have the cash to pay but if you crash into an expensive car then you might not be even able to pay for the dent. The cost is not related to how much damage you did but to what you damaged.

Now you can understand how our sins against an infinite God make it impossible to get out of jail without the payment of an infinite saviour.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 74 by tam]

You may not have understood the rest of my post, but I'm basically asking why Christians who proclaim that Jesus stood for love seem to always seek out and support the most hateful condemning dogma they can find to represent him.

I would think they would choose to find the most uplifting loving scriptures they can possibly find and use those as a model for their marionette Jesus doll.

As you know, I'm not a Christian and I have no need to hold Jesus up for idol worship. But if I were a Christian I would certainly try to support the most loving picture of Jesus I could muster.

Why Christians are so hell-bent on using Jesus as a weapon of condemnation and hatred is beyond me. I just don't see the point to it. It seems to be an abomination of what Jesus himself supposedly stood for.

Christians seem to me to absolutely disdain the idea of an truly loving Jesus.

For example, you don't seem to be satisfied unless Jesus is condemning anyone who refuses to worship him as King.

But what does that have to do with love?

Absolutely nothing.

Moreover, as I have clearly demonstrated, a positive uplifting picture of Jesus is possible by simply selecting the most positive verses and interpretation them in the most positive way.

You appear to have chosen to do precisely the opposite.

Why? Why is it important to you to make Jesus out to be an unforgiving hateful monster of damnation?

I'm seriously curious. You could obviously choose to do otherwise, but you go out of your way to even renounce any efforts that others, like myself, offer toward that end.

Why do Christians so hate the idea of a genuinely loving and forgiving Jesus?

DI you are simply logically mistaken. That is why your conclusions seem true for you but are not true in reality. Take the time in your posts to remove the rants and stick to the logic and it will become more apparent.

I also suspect that is why you often devolve into writing rants and spiteful words and phrases such as, "hateful condemning dogma" and "Christians are so hell-bent on using Jesus as a weapon of condemnation and hatred is beyond me". These phrases have no place in a debating forum. (Aside: Of course in real life demonising and shouting opponents down is a very successful tactic, however we aim and wish for better here.)

This is just an fyi. I try to help you less these days but today is one of those days I am overcoming my apathy.

[Wootah]

So what parts of what I said can you agree with? Take my first sentence. Would we call a parent loving to put their child with a pedophile or a Shepard to put a lamb with the wolf. Can you see how normal it is and loving it is in the everyday to try to separate good from bad?

But your apology here fails miserably. This God has already put us into a world polluted with pedophiles, wolves, and all manner of evil people.

So for your argument to hold then we (i.e. decent people who aren't criminals and sickos) shouldn't even be in this world at all.

Because we sinned in the garden of eden and broke the relationship with God then God could have righteously abandoned us totally but instead he issued several judgements that changed the nature of reality. In essence God stepped back from us and so the world broke in various ways (ie:death in all its forms).

The thing is I know you know the Bible so why not attack the Bible and not your version of it.

[postroad]

[Replying to post 78 by Wootah]
But God must have wanted Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge. The commandment not to eat of it was designed to ensure disobedience and guilt.

[ttruscott]

Now you can understand how our sins against an infinite God make it impossible to get out of jail without the payment of an infinite saviour.

As well, all sins are of ultimate disvalue to GOD as the smallest sin in the world's eyes puts the sinner in hell from GOD's pov unless he is an elect when it puts Christ on the cross. All sin is absolute in disvalue.