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?

[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:)

Your first question began with "If", which could be construed as a hypothetical question. If my brand of Christianity believed such and such etc., I probably should have clarified that when they choose to go to hell, then God would judge them and cast them into hell. It actually fits right in with what you're asking, and makes sense. It may not make sense that people would want to suffer forever, but I've covered that aspect already. My bad, I didn't cover that with you. People do insane things all the time. They want to do these things, and if they do these things their entire lives then why would they all of a sudden change their minds and do what makes perfect sense? They wouldn't if they could so there's no reason to suppose that when they die they will all of a sudden want to avoid being miserable for eternity. They wanted to be miserable for their entire earthly life so it stands to reason that this is what they will want to do for eternity. I used to know a lot of people that were like that. They enjoyed being miserable. It was what they were accustomed to. It was what was familiar to them. They weren't interested in learning to behave in totally unfamiliar and uncomfortable ways.

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.

My bad. I should have said, "what they gleaned from the text", i.e. hell, lake of fire, eternity.

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.

You got me again. I should have looked more closely at what you were saying. For some reason the note you inserted after the second question got linked in my mind with the second question. So what I found illogical about it was that a drop of water could quench someone's thirst in hell. The word "hell" in this instance is the Greek word "Hades" which to the Greek mind may have this idea of an underworld, but to the author's mind was equivalent to the Hebrew "Sheol" which means "the grave".

The story isn't meant to be read as if this rich man actually was in some place of torment; it's meant to be seen as a story to convict the Pharisees of their squandering their opportunity to share the oracles of God; or rather coveting and hoarding the oracles of God for themselves. In other words, what some interpret to be pointing to what happens when people die, is really about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.

The story makes no sense because the rich man asks that his brothers be notified. How could the rich man be in eternal torment when his brothers are still alive? How can the rich man be judged and his brothers are still living as if the judgement hadn't happened at all? Do you see the problem? If the rich man hasn't been judged to eternal damnation, then what's really going on here? Judgement would be considerably anticlimactic if he's already in eternal torment, no? For a second I thought maybe one could make an argument for the rich man being in Purgatory, but this doesn't work either.

The Jewish mind didn't see death as some place one went to await judgement. The person just died and that was it; they're dead. Then on Judgement day they're resurrected and face their Maker. However, the Pharisees did have some strange ideas that they learned while they were in captivity in Babylon. One was that people are coupled together in life, and in eternity as well. Jesus was speaking to them on their own playing field within the context of their own ideas. This is one of the reasons some scholars look at Jesus as being a Pharisee himself. I don't agree with that idea, but I digress.

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.

Not so much why you asked the question, but why would God give someone the opportunity to do away with hell. God creates hell, and then decides to ask you if you'd like to just get rid of hell altogether. This is why I find this question fascinating. The God of the universe creates everything even hell, and then one day He decides, Hey, I think I'll let you decide what to do with hell". I then proceeded to point out some possible assumptions about just what kind of God are we dealing with here.

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.

This admission on your part kinda validates what I was saying about the text, as well as the fact that this is what YOU gleaned from it. I already addressed this point above with my comments about the hoarding of the Pharisees, etc..

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.

And I pointed out that it makes no sense to be judged to eternal torment, and then on judgement day to face God who then judges him to eternal torment. It's anticlimactic to say the least, it's also anachronistic.

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.

And hell is something that happens AFTER the judgement. The rich man was not waiting for the judgement, he had already been judged. None of it makes any sense from this perspective. It can't be about what happens after one dies. There was no question what happens after one dies. Jesus would have looked like some sort of lunatic teaching what happens after someone dies. This would be like him teaching an adult how to tie sandals, or how to draw water from a well. The Pharisees are the authorities on morality and ethical behavior. They, as well as everyone else in that society; knew what happened when someone died. Their body went into the ground and the spirit that gave that body life went straight back to their God. That soul that died ceased to know anything from that point on. This was not something that Jesus would be teaching about in the first place. His concern was with what happened AT the judgement; not what happened between death and the judgement. He's not teaching the Pharisees what happens after they die, he's teaching them that they are hypocrites.

As far as being in hell goes, it makes no sense to say that a drop of water will cool much of anything. It's not meant to be taken literally. People will often cite this parable to show that being rich will land you in hell while being poor will automatically land you in heaven; again this makes no sense whatsoever.

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.

There is nothing in the definition or usage of the figure Parable that requires names be used or excluded from the figure. This is a non sequitur. If you were to look at this story within the greater context of Luke's narrative you would find that there is a collection of parables (including this one) that correspond with the Miracles of 11:14-13:9. This is part of the structure of Introversion and Alternations. It forms a huge chiasma which proves that it is included as one of the rest of the parables. It just simply doesn't fit as anything else.

Many Bible scholars believe this is no parable. Why would Jesus use such an example if there were no truth to it?

It isn't that there is no truth to it, it just isn't true that people are in torment awaiting judgement day, drops of water don't quench thirst, people in eternal torment can't be in eternal torment when anyone is still alive. Everyone faces judgment on judgement day.

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.

Yep, he meant that God was going to turn his favor from Israel and turn to the gentiles to offer them the gospel.

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.

I find this a bit biased to say the least. When there is no god to create everything, it's suddenly perfectly acceptable and reasonable that suffering exist, but if there is a god, then he must be a monster? If suffering makes sense without a god, why must a god do anything any different? What's so different about natural selection and gene mutation and a god that "elects" those who he decides are more suitable for life? Perhaps he uses the exact same mechanism to decide which would make your accusations seem a bit unwarranted. Why not just say that this whole process is unjustified without some god? This is interesting to me for a number of reasons, but it's really no different than the abortion issue. This isn't meant to derail your question into some tangeant, but to show that a woman has the right to abort her baby for any reason whatsoever. She doesn't need a reason to begin with. It's no different with the god of the bible. This is His world. He created it, and He's free to do with it as He likes. I'm not saying that's what he's doing though. All of the arguments that are used to justify a woman's right can be just as easily used for God and his right to justly deal with his creation as he see's fit. Given that he's a just deity, his reasons will be much better than a woman getting an abortion.

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

Actually, my response wasn't as secondary as I first thought. After reading this post of yours I can see that I did respond to the question you asked, especially with that last point. If God is just, then you aren't if you disagree with what he does, no matter how bad or evil it may look to you.

If we're dealing with an infinitely just, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, wise deity here, then a perfect human being who does one thing wrong, even if it's forgetting to say 'hello' to someone in passing is practically as evil as a Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot in relation to God. In other words, you're in no position to pass judgment on a God like that. it would be like telling us that you completely understood quantum physics and string theory when you were four years old.

[shnarkle]

I should have not written "OUR". I was talking about us atheists who use more modern, secular morality.

You're still speaking for more people than agree with your position. Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean that you can speak for more than yourself. I know plenty of atheists that would be embarrassed to no end if anyone were to think that they believed that rot.

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.

Especially today with this modern, secular morality. You do know that in those biblical narratives a society, tribe, or culture that was overpowered by their neighbors had practically no chance of survival on their own, right? Do you really think that for them to be forced to work against their will was immoral?

[shnarkle]

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.

I'm not blaming the victims here, so that only leaves you. By the way, you're back to using the third person plural as if we all agree with your false assumptions. Therefore it should come as no surprise that some people are not only having trouble with moral reasoning, they're having trouble with their grammar as well.

[Claire Evans]

First time posting on this thread 'cause I don't like thinking about hell. A wise guide once told me ' don't think about Satan or you will find him".

The only hell , is the hell we create for ourselves. God doesn't want anyone to go to hell, that' why God has worked so tirelessly to save us, God is all about benevolence toward us. Hell is something like being trapped in our own mind. While there is a great big mind outside, that we don't know about. Hell is like a routine , recurring thoughts memories and regrets keep circling around. That's what I think anyway. Been there , done that , not there anymore.

Satan will find people whether they think of him or not.

[Monta]

First time posting on this thread 'cause I don't like thinking about hell. A wise guide once told me ' don't think about Satan or you will find him".

The only hell , is the hell we create for ourselves. God doesn't want anyone to go to hell, that' why God has worked so tirelessly to save us, God is all about benevolence toward us. Hell is something like being trapped in our own mind. While there is a great big mind outside, that we don't know about. Hell is like a routine , recurring thoughts memories and regrets keep circling around. That's what I think anyway. Been there , done that , not there anymore.

Satan will find people whether they think of him or not.

As Dio said, hell is like routine, ruccuring thoughts, memories, and regrets keep circling around; great that you rid y/self of it.

[ttruscott]

[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?

For 4000 years + of -, the intellectuals of religion have accepted and support the idea we are created on earth at our conception or at birth, rejecting the idea we were created all together in Sheol before the creation of the physical universe. This has the effect that our earthly creation is not a theory anymore but an accepted fact and is the only possibility ever suggested in religious commentary, with all controversy being about HOW this happens, not IF.

IOW, consider that the orthodox version of reality has had 4000 years of being accepted. Details changed but the the basic premise of our being created on earth never did. That means that 1. if you read a verse I use in support, you will have to be able to hold 4000 year of doctrine in abeyance just to understand my position, and 2. If pce is true then every orthodox commentator will have a perfectly acceptable but wrong interpretation for how this verse fits the 'created on earth doctrine'.

The upshot of this situation is that verses can be interpreted to support our pre-existence, though many, are passed over with no consideration of that possibility at all, not because the possibility doesn't exist but because they can't even see it to form a question about it.

It is funny that people say "it is not in the scriptures" when they really mean "I was never taught an understanding of the scriptures in this way."

Some of the work covering a lot of the bible support for PCE can be found at viewtopic.php?t=30413&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 but must not be discussed there as that forum is closed to discussion. It is long, cumbersome and cannot be understood with one light or quick reading. More is at viewtopic.php?t=31357&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Then too there is my list of useful verses:

These are the verses and their interpretations I tend to use to support and defend my PCE. Where should we start?

Revelation 22:18,19

Elephants
John 16:12
Philippians 4:13
Luke 10:21
Proverbs 8:11, 34-36; Isaiah 43:27,28;Hosea 4:6; John 4:23; and 1 Timothy 4:16.
Genesis 1:1 to 5:1

genesis
Genesis 2:18 and 2:25
Genesis 3:21
Genesis 2:20
2 Peter 2:4
Genesis 2:15,16
Genesis 2:23
Numbers 22-24
Genesis 3:12

gen 2
Genesis 3:7
Genesis 3:10
Genesis 3:11
Revelation 3:4
2 Kings 3:21
Revelation 3:17,18

gen 3
Genesis 3:14
Genesis 3:15
Malachi 3:18
Hebrews 12:26
Acts 17:30
Isaiah 34:11
Jeremiah 4:23

going back
Job 1:21
Psalm 9:17
Psalm 23:6
Ecclesiastes 12:7
John 3:12
John 3:13
1 Peter 1:3 2:25
2 Peter 2:4,9
Revelation 3:12
Acts 7:44
Ecclesiastes 5:13-16
2 Corinthians 12:2-4
John 3:3
Deuteronomy 32:5,6
2 Peter 2:4,9

jn begin
1 John 1:1
1 John 2:7
Isaiah 40:21
1 John 2:14
1 John 2:24
1 John 3:8
1 John 3:11
1 John 3:23

JDGMNT PSTPND
Genesis 15:16
Joshua 6:21; 8:26,27; 10:40
Matthew 13:28
Matthew 23:37
Matthew 25:34
Romans 9:22
Romans 9:23
1 Peter 4:5
2 Peter 3:11
Revelation 6:9
Revelation 10:6
Matthew 10:34-37
Joshua 6:21
Joshua 8:26,27
Joshua 10:40
Romans 1:20
Revelation 6:10
Matthew 7:29

Know.1
Psalm 9:17
Isaiah 40:21, John 3:18, and Romans1:18-32
Psalms 9:17
John 1:9

Know.2
Romans 1:18-20, 28, 32
Romans 2:6-8
Romans 1:16
Genesis 1:3 to 31 32
1 Corinthians 13:12
Colossians 1:21-23
1 John 2:14
Romans 10:14

MISFITS.1
Genesis 3:21 Genesis 3:19
Genesis 3:7-14 3:21
Matthew 7:21
Revelation 3:17-20
Job 10:9-12 10:13a
Ecclesiastes 12:7
Genesis 4:10
Job 38:4
The Wisdom of Solomon 8:20 10:1
Ephesians 4:24 and 5:27
Revelation 3:17
Matthew 7:21, 22:11
1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:9; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5 and Revelation 21:8
Luke 12:48

MISFITS.2
John 3:4
Romans 5:8
Romans 8:29
Revelation 20:15
Romans 9:1
2 Timothy 1:9
1 Timothy 5:21
Genesis 25:22
Hebrews 2:14 Hebrews 2:6,7,9,17
Hebrews 11:13-16
John 11:50,51
See John 9:1-7

New Rev
Luke 24:27
Isaiah 11:9
Jeremiah 23:20
Jeremiah 32:36 to 33:26
Genesis 17
Luke 10:21
John 16:12

New - 2
Daniel 12:7-10
Zechariah 5:2-5

New -3
John 14:26
John 16:12-13
John 9:4
16:25
1 Corinthians 13:9-12
Exodus 33:11; Deuteronomy 34:10 Genesis 32:20 and Isaiah 52:8
1 John 3:2
Hebrews 12:26
John 16:29
John 16:26
John 14:5-11
Exodus 33:11
Genesis 32:30
Isaiah 52:8
Haggai 2:6

New Book of rev
Revelation 2:17
Revelation 3:12
Revelation 5:1
Revelation 10:2-4,8
Amos 3:7,8
Revelation 10:7
Psalm 29:3
Revelation 14:6
Revelation 22:18,19
Psalm 78:25
Exodus 16:15

I can guarantee you can read every verse on this list and not find one reference to PCE ...because all your understanding is tied so firmly to orthodoxy it can see no possibility of any other interpretation.

I though, can articulate why I find PCE in these verses and how they relate to doctrine.

Actually this whole conversation with theStudent is useful for anyone interested in the interpretations of Scripture that support our pre-conception existence.

NOW, for those who believe that PCE cannot possible be real, here is your chance to produce even ONE VERSE which says or merely implies that PCE is impossible within YHWH's system of reality in the bible.

[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.

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

IF Sheol is the place of the dead, that is spirits without bodies and
IF we were indeed created altogether before the creation of the physical universe,
THEN what would you call the place they were all 'in' after their creation?

[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".

IF Sheol is the place of the dead, that is spirits without bodies and
IF we were indeed created altogether before the creation of the physical universe,
THEN what would you call the place they were all 'in' after their creation?

Your answer consists of two ifs and a then or therefore.

Both ifs are questionable, to say the least, so the then thus requires no answer.

[ttruscott]

IF Sheol is the place of the dead, that is spirits without bodies and
IF we were indeed created altogether before the creation of the physical universe,
THEN what would you call the place they were all 'in' after their creation?

Your answer consists of two ifs and a then or therefore.

Both ifs are questionable, to say the least, so the then thus requires no answer.

IF was used as a separator, not an unknown... And what questions surround these assertions or do I smell smoke blowing?

Psalm 9:17 The wicked shall return to Sheol ...
Kiel - Delitzsch(#16): Yea, back to Hades must the wicked return....
The spirits of the dead RETURN to Sheol where they came from, no matter what the JW interpretation is. Even Job in Job 1:2 And Job said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb and naked shall I return thither. saying he was returning at death. Does it sound like he is saying he will be returning to annihilation, since that is what it would mean if he had no existence before the womb.

As for our being created before the physical universe, it is tied into the creation story in Job 38: 1-7 in which verse Job 38:7 ...while the morning stars sang together and all the sons of GOD shouted for joy? in which we learn people were there and saw the creation of the physical universe and every knee did bow and every voice did sing HIS praise! Rom 1:20 also tells us that everyone saw the proof of HIS divinity and power by what was made so that NONE (no one was left out of this witness, that is the crowd of the morning stars and all the sons of GOD included every person every created) has an excuse.

So yes, since these things are true, then that place where this all happened and where the spirits of the dead will return too is Sheol. No answer expected...

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 236 by ttruscott]

You wrote:
"I can guarantee you can read every verse on this list and not find one reference to PCE ...because all your understanding is tied so firmly to orthodoxy it can see no possibility of any other interpretation.

"I though, can articulate why I find PCE in these verses and how they relate to doctrine."

There is no doubt that you can make a case for your beliefs. The question is, is your interpretation the correct one? Anyone anywhere can read just about anything into the Bible they want it to say and they often do. Your's is no different. That's one reason I abandoned religion. If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipotent as the Bible writers claim then one would think he would have left his all-important message to humanity in such a way that it couldn't be wrongly interpreted.

I looked up about eight or ten of your Biblical references. I'm very familiar with all of them. Like the saying goes in business, location, location, location, here it is interpretation, interpretation, interpretation!

"In this postmodern age, bizarre interpretations are accepted because people believe they have the right to decide for themselves what a passage means. In other words, meaning is in the eye of the beholder, so you can decide truth for yourself." - Answers in Genesis.

There is a process by which those who love the scriptures and are tasked with correct interpretation use. It's called hermeneutics - "the branch of theology that focuses on identifying and applying sound principles of biblical interpretation." - Answers in Genesis. In my opinion you, my friend, are not using sound principles of biblical interpretation. If you were, you wouldn't believe all this odd PCE stuff.
Hermeneutics is the only reliable, intelligent, tested and trusted method of biblical interpretation that makes sense. Otherwise, we are swimming around in confusion and a bunch of crazy ideas. My problem is not with the method of interpretation, it's the validity of what is written. So I'm not defending the Bible, I'm defending the method of translation and interpretation.

There's a reason people are "tied so firmly to orthodoxy". It makes more sense to them.