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?

[Wootah]

[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.

So the law to not murder is designed to ensure murder? That doesn't make sense to you right?

[postroad]

[Replying to post 81 by Wootah]
No. But it did to Paul.

Romans 7:7-23New International Version (NIV)

The Law and Sin

7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sinful? Certainly not! Nevertheless, I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, You shall not covet.[a] 8 But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of coveting. For apart from the law, sin was dead. 9 Once I was alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death. 11 For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12 So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.

13 Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! Nevertheless, in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it used what is good to bring about my death, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do"this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in Gods law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.

[Divine Insight]

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.

I have shown repeatedly many times over why the story of Adam and Eve is a gross self-contradiction in multiple ways.

Just think about it. Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of good and evil because they hadn't yet eaten from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Therefore they could not have known that a serpent could beguile them. Why would they ever suspect that a serpent would lie if they had no knowledge of what it even means to lie?

Also, they couldn't have even understand that it would be "evil" or a "sin" to do something that God had told them not to do. How could they have known that not doing what God said would be considered to be evil or wrong? They didn't yet have the knowledge of good and evil.

You see, these ancient fables don't make any sense at all.

Not only that, but after Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they clearly chose to do GOOD. Eve confessed everything to God, even explaining that she had been beguiled by an evil serpent. Even totally confessed to her "sin" and testified against the guilty party. Therefore there would be no reason at all for this supposedly benevolent all-intelligent God to be mean to Adam and Eve. He should have recognized that they had been innocently beguiled right then.

In fact, why did this God allow an evil serpent to beguile Eve in the first place? I thought this was a God we are supposed to be able to TRUST to protect us from evil. Clearly he didn't protect Eve. So he's already an untrustworthy God.

There's just no way that this story makes any sense Wootah.

~~~~~~

And besides, what if it did make sense? What if there was no evil serpent in the story. What if the story had Adam and Eve secretly plotting to disobey God knowing full well that what they were about to do was wrong. And then after they had been caught by God they refused to cooperate and instead just screamed at God that they refuse to obey him and don't like him bossing them around?

That would at least have been a far more believable story without any contradictions,.

But what if that was the story? Why should we accept it today? Especially on pure faith? Why should we believe, on faith, that we are being held responsible for something two people had done thousands of years ago.

Even if the story made sense I still see no reason to automatically believe it.

Moreover, we know that death, disease, and all manner of horrible things existed in this world long before humans ever appeared on the planet. The idea that this Hebrew mythology is going to blame the ills of the world on us has no merit in reality.

Animals were eating each other long before humans ever evolved.

So why should I give this Hebrew Bible anymore merit than I would give to the stories of Greek mythology? Or the stories of ancient American Indian folklore, etc?

Please explain to me why I should believe that these Biblical stories are anything more than ancient superstitious tales.

[Divine Insight]

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.

In that case, can you please explain to me why it is that Christians proclaim that Jesus taught that the whole of the law is love, but if a person is loving, that is never enough?

It seems to me that if Jesus preached that the whole of the law is love, and a person supports love, then they should be recognized as being in harmony with Jesus.

Period amen.

[Elijah John]

You have quoted from a Satanic Bible. ............... All you are succeeding in doing is making Jesus out to be a hateful egotistical monster ....
........ so utterly disgusting and immoral.

Moderator Warning


Please....tone it down. You are free to criticize Christianity but surely there are less inflammatory words and phrases in your lexicon.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Claire Evans]

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?

Can one escape the possibility of hell in death as an unbeliever? I believe you can should you truly repent. Everyone needs to know the full truth before being judged.

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?

1.) Annihilation is the easy way out. What punishment is that? The body may die yet the soul doesn't and that is what is perpetually tormented.


The irony is that God doesn't send anyone to hell. It is their choice. Hell is the complete separation from God. Hell is being in a perpetuate state of torment because that person does not want to part with their evil. What is God to do with an unrepentant soul? Force them to be with Him?

I can't believe people preach that those who have never heard of the gospel get sent to hell. That is absolutely asinine. What about those born before Jesus? What about bushmen? Would not a fair and loving God take this into consideration?

We must ask ourselves why some people reject the gospels. Were they traumatized as a child by a priest and didn't want to know about it? Were they put off by hypocritical Christians? Did they convince themselves that Jesus is the Son of God because they just didn't like the idea of what it requires of them?

We should get a chance in death to know the full truth. If one looks upon the face of Jesus and still won't repent, they will go to hell because they will separate themselves from everything that is good.

Some atheists throw the baby out with the bath water and reject Christianity altogether, including rejecting a chance to have a saviour. Some may feel they like living the way they are and don't like the idea of abandoning their will to God. That's not an acceptable excuse. Ego is a sin.

[Claire Evans]

I have two questions primarily for Christians.

I'm no longer a Christian, but I was born and raised as a Christian into my late teens at which point I began to recognize self-contradictions with the religion. I also continued to study and re-visit the religion clear into my late 20's early 30's before I finally realized that the religion is neither salvageable nor deserving of being salvaged. In any case I'll answer your questions from my early Christian perspective.

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?

The particular church I grew up in did not believe that disbelief is grounds for damnation. They did however, believe that to recognize Christ as Lord and to accept him as your personal savior would guarantee a person eternal life via salvation through grace. But they did not believe that disbelief was automatic damnation. They simply didn't interpret John 3:18 to mean that. So I was personally never taught as a Christian that non-believers were automatically damned.

However, I do recognize that many Christian denominations do accept John 3:18 to mean what it says, as well as other scriptures in the Bible where it makes similar statements, such as in the Psalms and Romans.

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?

When I was a Christian I accepted that "God knows best". The idea was that if God had created an eternal hell there must be a good reason behind it because God would never do anything stupid, or out of a need to be sadistically mean or cruel.

I confess that in hindsight that's a pretty absurd view. Since that time I have concluded that such an absurd idea could never make sense. Nothing positive could ever come of it. The idea of "everlasting punishment'" as Jesus preached, can only be a superstition based on fear. Many Christians today even renounce the concept of an eternal hell and argue that Jesus was simply referring to death (i.e. annihilation) as being 'everlasting punishment. The need to "tone it down" seems to be gaining popularity among many modern day Christians.

To me, an eternity of suffering in Hell defies logic and any sense of compassion what-so-ever.

Today I totally agree with this. I can't see an eternity of suffering being justified for even the most despicable criminal. In fact, I'm also thinking that when we get down to extremely horrible criminals we're probably talking about some seriously mentally ill people anyway. And then there's the question of why they were so mentally ill in the first place?

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?

I think the fear tactic does indeed work very effectively. Especially on a subconscious level. I truly believe that many devout Christian who believe they have a great relationship with Jesus and their salvation is guaranteed trough Jesus are still being kept in this delusion via the subconscious thoughts that if they ever did renounce Jesus, even as mere disbelief, that would place them in jeopardy of being cast into hell.

In other words, Pascal's wager plays a major role in the minds of most Christians even if they never give it a thought. They have currently accepted Jesus and they are "Heaven Bound". Why risk losing that by now doubting that Jesus exists and potentially being case into eternal hell instead?

So I personally believe that the fear factor plays a major role in the minds of many Christians even though they may passionately deny this. They simply aren't aware that it truly is this subconscious fear factor that prevents them from ever considering that Jesus might not be real or the religion my be wrong. To doubt is to flirt with hell. Why take that path when you believe you are already on the highway to heaven? Especially when you have also convinced yourself that there is nothing wrong with continuing to believe as you do. These people have also been taught that you can never go wrong being on the side of Jesus and God. What could possibly be wrong with that? You and I can no doubt point out a lot of things wrong with that, but that's when they simply argue that they disagree.

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?

I agree. And I am certainly one who would do away with hell. Therefore, as you point out, I am necessarily more merciful than this God, and that's a contradiction. Thus providing clear evidence that this religious mythology cannot be true.

Moreover, since I have concluded that this religion is indeed false and I proclaim that Jesus cannot be the "Son of God", and I reject Yahweh's own choice to cast people into hell then according to this religion I must be damned to hell myself.

This would require that this God cast me into hell for being more compassionate and merciful than him. How utterly absurd is that?

Regarding John 3:28:

It appears as if "condemned" is how we are by default:

This word does not imply that the ground or reason of their condemnation is that they have not believed, or that they are condemned because they do not believe on him, for there are millions of sinners who have never heard of him; but the meaning is this: There is but one way by which men can be freed from condemnation. All people without the gospel are condemned. They who do not believe are still under this condemnation, not having embraced the only way by which they can be delivered from it. The verse may be thus paraphrased: "All people are by nature condemned. There is but one way of being delivered from this state by believing on the Son of God. They who do not believe or remain in that state are still condemned, for they have not embraced the only way in which they can be freed from it. Nevertheless, those to whom the gospel comes greatly heighten their guilt and condemnation by rejecting the offers of mercy, and trampling under foot the blood of the Son of God, Luke 12:47; Matthew 11:23; Hebrews 10:29; Proverbs 1:24-30. And there are thousands going to eternity under this "double" condemnation:

http://www.godvine.com/bible/john/3-18

Non belief here doesn't mean reject Christianity because they have no clue Jesus exists or not. A non believer in the Bible is one that has no interest in the Lord despite seeing the fruits of the Lord. An example is Jesus condemning Capernaum. They had no faith despite seeing the miracles of Jesus.

Israel was also cursed because the people saw Jesus' miracles yet rejected Him. So we know that John is not referring to non believers who have never experienced the truth of Christ.

There are Christian non believers for believing is trusting and obeying the Lord.

[Checkpoint]

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?

My "brand of religion" does teach that, but I do not teach it or believe it.

It is in no way a just punishment and is not what God will do.

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?

A fair question for those who believe and teach the traditional hell.

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.

A story that is partly metaphorical, such as "Abraham's bosom". It was probably one in vogue at the time, which Jesus adapts to make his end point.

The lake of fire is the second death, into which death and hades are cast. Revelation is full of metaphors.

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.

Agreed. It does defy logic and any sense of compassion.

No, it is not what the Bible teaches, but what the majority tell you it teaches.

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?

Much the same as you, even though I am an evangelical.

It is a kind of insanity and a kind of blasphemy; that is what I say.

[Divine Insight]

Non belief here doesn't mean reject Christianity because they have no clue Jesus exists or not. A non believer in the Bible is one that has no interest in the Lord despite seeing the fruits of the Lord.

In that case I can't qualify as a non-believer.

I have absolutely no clue whether Jesus ever existed or not. Especially as described per the Gospels.

I don't even have a clue whether some mortal man existed who was named Jesus and simply argued with the Jewish Chief Priests and ended up getting himself crucified. Although that would not be hard to believe.

So if a person can only be a non-believer if they have seen the fruits of the lord and are not interested, then I could never qualify as a non-believer.

[Wootah]

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.

In that case, can you please explain to me why it is that Christians proclaim that Jesus taught that the whole of the law is love, but if a person is loving, that is never enough?

It seems to me that if Jesus preached that the whole of the law is love, and a person supports love, then they should be recognized as being in harmony with Jesus.

Period amen.

The whole of the law is love because it shows how righteous God is and shows how sinful we are.

It is love in the way that telling your friend they are an alcoholic is love, or that their life choices are killing them.

God gave us the law out of love to reveal how far we fail the standard of God. And at the same as showing that standard it reveals a God that is righteous and good and worth having a relationship with.

A person being loving, is self deception. You are loving but it just doesn't make God's standard. Imagine how loving you are, which is amazingly loving, all your friends say it and appreciate the love you give but God's standard is higher. That's all. Imagine how much love God must have if your amazing amount of love is insufficient.