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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 217 by shnarkle]



[center]

A moral theory without compassion is disgusting[/center]

Yes some people do this but some are justified to do so, especially if they use sound reasoning in judging that.

Perhaps, but ultimately they're just blaming others for their misery

It's pretty sad for me to have to remind some people of what should be perfectly obvious that they miss. But since some people don't seem to understand the BASICS of morality, I suppose someone has to help these people out.

____________

Incredibly basic moral lesson, Morality PRE 101:


There are people who ARE victimized by other people, and SHOULD blame these people for their misery.

Please, there ARE TRUE VICTIMS in the world.
We should NOT blame the victims.

This is adding INSULT TO INJURY.
_____________


Some people's moral reasoning needs a bit of work.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 218 by shnarkle]





[center]There is no WE happening here, my friend.
Part Two: We seem to agree. Let's not presume to talk for everyone else[/center]

What we choose to do is to blame others for our misery.

What I chose to do is to ask people to speak for themselves.
People should NOT presume to put words in my mouth or to read my mind.

As completely DISGUSTING as it may be to our more modern sensibilities.

Thank you Shnarkle, I stand corrected.
Those two quotes seem to represent a contradiction.

What actually happened, was a mistake.

I should have not written "OUR". I was talking about us atheists who use more modern, secular morality. I think that at least SOME people have no problem with the morality commanded in the Bible. Apparently, in some circles, even SLAVERY seems to be a good thing.


You are quite right to correct me, that was a misstep.
Thank you.


[center]WE SHOULD NOT PRESUME TO SPEAK FOR EVERYONE ELSE[/center]


Do you agree?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 222 by Blastcat]

You are quite right to correct me, that was a misstep.
Thank you.

Kudos!

[ttruscott]

Not really. It just means that humanity's free will isn't what determines who God is going to choose.

This is pretty well opposite what I contend, much to Calvinistic for me.

I contend that humanity is enslaved to evil so has no free will. In our pre-human existence in a state of innocence we did have free will and made our decisions about YHWH. This resulted in some of us choosing to be sinners....one group become eternally evil when they totally rejected YHWH and HIS promise of salvation and others who accepted HIM as their GOD thereby coming under HIS promise of salvation chose to later to rebel and become evil. Both groups live together on earth so the sinful elect could repent and be redeemed.

Therefore we chose who would be saved by our free will decision to accept HIS promise of election and salvation and we chose who would suffer by our free will decision to be sinful. All of this earthly life is a result of and a perfect rendering of our own choices pre-earth.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 224 by ttruscott]




[center]ttruscott speaks for ALL humanity[/center]

I contend that humanity is enslaved to evil so has no free will.

What a stunning claim.


You speak for ALL OF HUMANITY.



Amazingly presumptuous, in my book.
ALAS, you do not speak for ME.

So, you speak for all of humanity MINUS ONE here, good buddy.

____________

If ttruscott spoke for himself:

It would be way safer to speak for yourself, and if you did that.. we would get:


"I contend that I am enslaved to evil so have no free will."


To which, I would say : "Wow.. you should really look into that."
____________



It's no good at all to project your secret thoughts on everyone else like that.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 220 by shnarkle]

Actually, I recently got a new computer. It was in sleep mode (screen dark) when I returned and I forgot that and thought I was turning it on but turned it off, thus losing what I had written. In your last post...

You said:
"I took it as a general hypothetical question, and as such it seemed appropriate to show that the first hypothetical question was invalid from what you gleaned from the text and the second one kind of illogical from the parameters of your question."

The first question was not hypothetical. It was a direct question:) But I don't understand what you're trying to say with: ..."the first hypothetical question was invalid from what you gleaned from the text..." The statement doesn't make sense. What text do you think I gleaned from? As for the first question, you will have to explain how it's invalid.

The second question may be illogical to some but you lost me again with: "from the parameters of your question." What parameters are those? Maybe I should have clarified that the second question was for those who do believe in an eternal hell. If given the opportunity and God's permission would they abolish Hell in favor of a less severe punishment, like annihilation? Of course, if they do not believe in an eternal hell the question does not apply to them.

Back to my original post I wrote:

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?

You replied:
"This is a fascinating question in that it seems to presuppose the existence of hell. I could be wrong here, but my impression is that your question presupposes that God has already created hell. Why?"

If I presupposed anything it is that there may be readers of this blog who believe that God created an eternal hell for the punishment of the condemned. With the "why?" you seem to be asking me why I asked the question.

I wrote:
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.

You replied:
"In your first example you are referring to a hell where a drop of water can quench one's thirst. This doesn't sound like hell to me. I need a whole lot more than a drop of water to quench my thirst here on earth."

I used the example of Lazarus and the rich man to try to validate that the Bible teaches that the unrepentant wicked when they die go to hell right away. I referred to the passages in Revelation to show that the Bible teaches that all those who went to the temporary hell where the rich man wound up will be cast into the eternal hell, the Lake of Fire, along with the condemned who are alive at the time of Christ's second coming and the final judgement.

You said:
"This doesn't sound like hell to me."

What about the part that says the rich man was being tormented in the flame? Being burned alive sure sounds like Hell to me. Some try to maneuver around this by saying that this is just a parable but in all of Jesus' parables he never mentioned a person's name, in this story he does. Many Bible scholars believe this is no parable. Why would Jesus use such an example if there were no truth to it? If the wicked die and go to the grave why would he tell a story about a man who died and right away found himself suffering in a fire? But even if it was a parable, a parable is a reflection of reality. If Jesus didn't really mean that this wretched soul was in a literal fire, he meant something just as horrible, or worse.


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

You replied:
How about a lifetime on earth filled with suffering? Does that have any logic to it? C.S. Lewis asks a similar question with regards to animals. Why do animals suffer? It isn't like they're out scheming to do harm to others, bear false witness, etc.

A lifetime of suffering on earth is completely logical if you believe what science has shown, that life came about by natural selection and gene mutation. Suffering is then understood to be the natural consequences of living on this planet among often hostile inhabitants of all kinds, including viruses and germs, not to mention violent weather, earthquakes, etc. But if one believes that God created us (making him responsible for us) and loves us and is full of compassion and kindness, then the terrible suffering of people including children and animals becomes a huge issue to try to justify.

Back to the last posts:

I had said:
I appreciate your remarks and it's interesting to read the opinions of opposing beliefs, but the questions weren't really meant for anyone with alternate views.

Thanks.
A

You said:
"The question stated "primarily". I was simply responding from a secondary perspective. More importantly, my response doesn't negate your question in that if an all just God punishes the damned in eternal torment, there is a just reason for it. Why? Because by definition a just God is ruling justly."

I didn't want to exclude anyone. Everyone was welcome to express their views but I guess I wasn't looking for a critique of the post itself from someone who to whom the post wasn't primarily for.
A

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 207 by ttruscott]

I see in your PCE Theology this statement: "We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth."

I'm curious - what authority do you base this belief on?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 207 by ttruscott]

I see in your PCE Theology this statement: "We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth."

I'm curious - what authority do you base this belief on?

My authority is the bible.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 228 by ttruscott]

What translation of the Bible, and what verses may I ask? I've studied the Bible quite a lot during my years as a Christian and I don't recall any scriptures that would support that claim. What have I missed?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 207 by ttruscott]

I see in your PCE Theology this statement: "We had an existence with a free will in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. Here we chose to be able to become holy or to be eternally evil in YHWH's sight. Then the physical universe was created and all sinners were sent to earth."

I'm curious - what authority do you base this belief on?

My authority is the bible.

The Bible neither states nor implies that Sheol existed "before the creation of the physical universe".