What is the Biblical view of hell?

[otseng]

The concept of Hell is one of the many unmarketable, embarrassingly unbelievable religious concepts that has been recently swept under the altar in the severely diluted quasi-belief system that passes for Christianity in certain circles.

In fact, I think this is why Christianity invented eternal punishment in hell. They started to realize that just plain dying wouldn't be compelling. So instead they invented the concept of "Everlasting Punishment" for those who refuse to comply.

Questions for debate:
What is the Biblical view of hell?
What concepts do we have of hell that are not in the Bible?

[nobspeople]

Absolutely. I try never to paint with too large of a brush and if it came across that way at times, I apologize as that's never my intent (unless I say specifically).
Christian or not, we're all capable of errors in judgement, except for me (I'm kidding of course!). Having said that, as this is a Christian based forum my comments tend to be geared in that direction.

I understand that of course. The sign on the door promises debate with Christians but one cannot trust signs on doors and as Christians here have pointed out, there is a specific door one finds upon entering the first door which say's "Keep Out! Christians debating with Christians ONLY!" which is understandably a let-down but also understandably in line with basic Christian behaviors - generally speaking in real-world terms...they are tricky to deal with....

We are somewhat led astray, but to be fairful, we should know by now as the data varifies it as predictable outcome when dealing with our Christian brethren...for brethren we all are...

For my part, I am simply here to instruct those who feel they can do with such as I offer...not only to intsruct but to be instructed - all by the data provided.

Data is 'god' if truth is to be found....

I tend towards generalizing Christians as looking and teaching somewhat like this meme...



I could be wrong but personal data of experience leans me that way...presently at least....

I too have used my personal experience as data I need to make my decision, yet many Christians here chastise me for that.
Yet, they use THEIR own personal experience to base their lives.
I guess their experience is 'more correct' than mine even though I was a practicing Christian for decades?
Ok....sure.

[otseng]

Moderator Intervention

A lot of interesting points have been raised, but they bear little relevance to the OP. Please create separate threads to discuss these tangent topics.


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[PinSeeker]

Better than wishing hell upon those who choose not to believe...

No Christian does this. Quite the opposite, actually.

These Christians revel the error of your claim:

Jonathan Edwards

The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. . .Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell. . . I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss.

["The Eternity of Hell Torments" (Sermon), April 1739 & Discourses on Various Important Subjects, 1738]

Thomas Aquinas

In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. . .So that they may be urged the more to praise God. . .The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens. . .to the damned. [Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV, "Of the Relations of the Saints Towards the Damned," First Article, "Whether the Blessed in Heaven Will See the Sufferings of the Damned. . ."]

Isaac Watts:

During America 's "Great Awakening" the popular hymn writer, Isaac Watts (1674-1748), even set Christians' feet to tapping with this crisp little verse:

What bliss will fill the ransomed souls,

When they in glory dwell,

To see the sinner as he rolls,

In quenchless flames of hell.

J.I. Packer

"...love and pity for hell's occupants will not enter our hearts." J.I. Packer in article "Hell's Final Enigma" in "Christianity Today Magazine, April 22,2002 ."

Bishop Newcomb

"The door of mercy will be shut and all bowels of compassion denied, by God, who will laugh at their destruction; by angels and saints, who will rejoice when they see the vengeance' by their fellow-suffer the devil and the damned rejoicing over their misery." Catechetical Sermons

Catholic Truth Society

What will it be like for a mother in heaven who sees her son burning in hell? She will glorify the justice of God. - Pamphlet from the late 1960s, part of a catechismal teaching [cited in an essay by the English poet, Stevie Smith, "Some Impediments to Christian Commitment"]

Tcg

Do you somehow see any of these folks as actually wishing hell on those who choose not to believe, Tcg? Because there's nothing in anything cited here that even intimates that. Nothing. Unless someone just wants to paint it that way by spinning comments in the say they want them to go so they can shoot them down. Putting words in people's mouths, we call it. If you want to read with some modicum of understanding and discernment:

• None of them are even talking about people in this life; every single one of them are talking about what will be true in the life to come. So there is absolutely no implication of anyone actually "wishing" hell on anyone else.

• All of them are talking about how things will be -- in the life to come -- from God's perspective. The final satisfaction of His perfect justice. From our perspective, the only thing we can really know about how we will -- again, in the life to come -- see things is what God says through the prophet Isaiah:
  
  • "For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth, and the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind." (Isaiah 65:17)

• We know from Scripture that even God doesn't "wish" or desire hell upon anyone, and in fact quite the opposite is true. God "desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," as we read in 1 Timothy 2:4.

• As Christians, we should desire what God desires. Like Paul, Christians' hearts desire and prayer to God for (unbelievers) is that they may be saved (Romans 10:1). And this is the very basis for evangelism, which we are called and commanded to by God.

So, thanks for proving my point by quoting these folks. Maybe your eyes are opened a bit, but I'm not holding my breath... As for me, the lack of understanding and discernment among unbelievers despite obvious admirable levels of intelligence just never ceases to amaze me. What it does show, though, with shocking clarity, is that intelligence or lack thereof is not the issue at all, it's -- in Biblical terms -- hardness of heart. And, quite frankly, it's heartbreaking.

Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

How does letting one make their own decisions on this lives equal hate (which it must if it's not love)?

Who doesn't let others make their own decisions, nobspeople? Who? And besides that, I really don't get where this question even came from. Who ever said "letting folks make their own decisions in this life equals hate?" or even intimated such? Nobody, Christian or otherwise, and certainly not me... And beyond that, I just said (multiple times, I think) that hate is not the opposite of love. My goodness.

Who are we to decide what's right for everyone else? What gives us that right?

Again, who's trying to "decide what's right" for everyone else? Nobody again, of course. Let me ask you, has there ever been a time in your life when you've been told something and have then accepted it as true and have then proceeded to, shall we say, advise others to accept that thing as true? Well of course you have. And you've probably used virtually the same verbiage as you seem to resent so much when it comes from Christians: "You should..." or "you ought to..." or "So-and-so says..." So, what this should do then is either make you say to yourself "I'm being hypocritical" (which really is not the case), or "I'm just not thinking about this correctly" (which does seem to be the case).

Nobody's "making" anybody follow (our) rules that (we) adopted for (our lives).

Seems like it to me if you can't let others live their lives.

Who tries to "make" anybody follow anybody's "rules" by "force," nobspeople?

Special interest groups (which include the religious) petition the legal system in the USA to adopt rules they agree with which others don't/ Religious groups try to interject creationism in to public school (many times) under the disguise of science.

LOL! Okay, let's take these one at a time:

• "Special interest groups (which include the religious) petition the legal system in the USA to adopt rules they agree with which others don't"
  Sir Isaac Newton, in his laws of physics, stated that every action has an opposite reaction (or some semblance thereof. Extrapolating that to the political realm, these great days we live in, for every special interest group, there's one, or two, or... fifty-seven... opposing special interest groups doing the same thing. With regard to "religious" special interest groups, the irony is they for the most part, they advocate for not being forced to (at worst) adopt or incorporate into their own lives, or (at best) condone the adoption or incorporation of "rules" that they don't agree with. So those shoes are really on the opposite party that you have obviously come to believe they are, proof of the old adage that if something is said long enough and loud enough, folks will come to believe it. That notwithstanding, why is this okay for "non-religious" special interest groups but not okay for "religious" special interest groups? Is that not at best a double standard, or at worst hypocrisy?

• "Religious groups try to interject creationism in to public school (many times) under the disguise of science"
  Ah, another talking point. First of all, no one is really arguing for "interjecting" creationism (which, I agree, is not science) into schools, but rather intelligent design. It might interest you to know, nobspeople, that the concept of intelligent design did not originate with any religious community, Christian or otherwise, but rather with the scientific community. As opposed to creationism (which is not a theory at all, but a belief, as denoted by the suffix "ism"), the theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a systems components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof, and such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion. That sounds a lot like science to me (and to any other right-thinking, rational person).
  
  Having said that, though, this is quite a different subject, but the point is the same. Any denial that an unborn fetus is just as much a human being at any point after conception is as startling -- no, astounding -- a denial of science (biology, to be specific) as there could possibly be. There are many points to be made here, but more than sufficient to carry the day should be the fact that the "fetus" has his/her own DNA apart from the mother from conception onward. An underdeveloped human being is in fact a human being. Dr. Seuss's character Horton was right: a person is a person no matter how small. But that doesn't stop abortion activist groups from advocating the legalization (or continued legalization) of murder (all under the guise of "freedom of choice"), does it? Which again is proof of the old adage that if something is said long enough and loud enough, folks will come to believe it. And, of course, there are "special interest groups" (non-religious ones, too, in addition to religious ones) that are forced to advocate the opposition of that legalization. So again, why is this okay for some special interest groups but not okay for others? Is that not at best a double standard, or at worst hypocrisy?

So again, we see that the shoes are on the feet of the opposite group(s) that you suppose them to be.

Those are two examples where one group tries to force their POV on to others.

Yeah, really, really bad ones.

You contradict yourself.

LOL! No... Your premise is wrong. Let me demonstrate. You say at the outset of your little "proof" here:

• "You say that by live and let live you're not loving (indifference - splitting hairs here really). Logic then dictates that not allowing live and let live equals love.
  • No, I said that by 'live and let live' on is not necessarily loving. In other words, it may be loving in the present sense to, like, allow someone to do something that you know is wrong, so that they then experience the consequence of their actions while holding on to the hope that by experiencing the consequence of their actions they will learn from the consequences and walk in that way no more. However, there is such a thing as "tough love," which is -- and you know this, surely -- what I meant by "pointing out the booger in another's nose." If I don't care enough about a person to seek his/her true interest (realized or not) in these ways, then I'm not really loving them. Again, "live and let live" can be loving; there are times when this is true. But, most assuredly, there are many instances where "live and let live" is not loving, and this is especially true regarding eternity.

Then you say no one is doing that.

Well, as explained above, no one is saying "live and let live" is never loving, as you postulate. So your line of reasoning is derailed from the beginning. Maybe a simple misunderstanding on your part, but still, your line of reasoning is off the rails from the start.

Here's the issue to address through all this back-n-forth...

Ah, the crux of the issue. Okay, let's hear it.

Are you OK with letting others live and let live (assuming, of course, their lives don't hamper your life and ability to worship)? If NO why or why not? I would assume NO because that's not love but I could have mis-understood your prior statements. Explain in detail why you answered this way and your reasoning.

Well, it seems I've already addressed those questions here. it depends on what you really mean by "live and let live;" the mantra can have different meanings, different contexts. Hopefully my explanations in this post are sufficient to clarify. But again, I'm not holding my breath.

Grace and peace to you.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #546]

Who doesn't let others make their own decisions, nobspeople?

I said we should live and let live. I was told that's not love. So I asked why? Why can't people be allowed to live their lives and that not be love? No answer was provided that I saw. Maybe you can point it out to me?

Again, who's trying to "decide what's right" for everyone else?

See previous responses.

Sir Isaac Newton, in his laws of physics, stated that every action has an opposite reaction (or some semblance thereof. Extrapolating that to the political realm...

Politics and physics aren't the same so the comparison isn't valid.

First of all, no one is really arguing for "interjecting" creationism (which, I agree, is not science) into schools, but rather intelligent design.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xp ... story.html
Yeah. No on - NO ONE - is really doing this. Not at all. Nope. No one ever. Anywhere.

Yeah, really, really bad ones.

I was asked for examples and provided them. Rather or not you like them is immaterial to me. Perhaps you should have asked for examples that you like?

No, I said that by 'live and let live' on is not necessarily loving.

So it is but not all the time. I find that Christian-silliness personally but let's go with it.
1) How and when do you make the differentiation of when it is or isn't loving? When is it 'not necessarily loving' and when is it?
2) Who gets to decide this definition of when it is and when it's not loving?

it seems I've already addressed those questions here.

Maybe in your own way. But it doesn't answer anything other than a series of wordy responses. Which, is actually very biblical so I congratulate you on that!

Thanks for your time anyway.

[PinSeeker]

I understand that of course.

Apparently not. But I can help...

The sign on the door promises debate with Christians...

Well, there's sure to be debate with Christians as well as non-Christians to be had on any forum, Christian or otherwisd

But one cannot trust signs on doors...

Not always, but it's clear that there's no "shutting out" of anyone on Debating Christianity and Religion," Christian or otherwise. Wow, I'm not even a moderator and I'm outwardly advertising DCAR. Hey, Otseng, I hope you're proud of me! You're welcome!

and as Christians here have pointed out, there is a specific door one finds upon entering the first door which say's "Keep Out! Christians debating with Christians ONLY!"

Well they don't "point that out" at all. Quite the opposite, actually. I think everyone in this particular sub-forum ("Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma") would readily say all are welcome, but the sub-forum rules, which were not made by any particular poster here and which everyone (most, anyway) follow, do state from the outset the following:

• "The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here."

And the clear implication is that there are appropriate sub-forums on DCAR where this rule does not apply, specifically, "Christianity and Apologetics." Everyone follows the rules. Everyone. Well, except for rule-breakers, and you apparently insist on being one.

...which is understandably a let-down but also understandably in line with basic Christian behaviors - generally speaking in real-world terms...they are tricky to deal with....

Yes, we all somewhat experience let-downs due to rules from time to time. They certainly can be tricky to deal with, but such is life. You know, in real-world terms.

We are somewhat led astray, but to be fairful, we should know by now as the data varifies it as predictable outcome when dealing with our Christian brethren...for brethren we all are... For my part, I am simply here to instruct those who feel they can do with such as I offer...not only to intsruct but to be instructed - all by the data provided.

Um, "fairful?" And "varifies?" LOL! Well, anyway, yes, we all have gone astray, each to our own way. This is the human condition. And in these last days, many do not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, having turned away from listening to the truth and thus wandering off into myths, as Paul (ultimately God) says. And he (He) goes on to say that we, as Christians are to remain sober-minded, enduring all to do the work of an evangelist, fulfilling our ministry. As I've said many times on this board here and elsewhere, my job is merely to proclaim... by God's Word, but surely also by all the data provided. So we're kind of on the same page, in a sense. Kind of... I would agree that brethren we all are. But Brethren (with a capital 'b')? Well, possibly, and possibly not, but if not, not for any lack of desire.

For my part, I am simply here to instruct those who feel they can do with such as I offer...not only to intsruct but to be instructed - all by the data provided. I tend towards generalizing Christians as looking and teaching somewhat like this meme... I could be wrong but personal data of experience leans me that way...presently at least....

Yeah, I'd rethink that if I were you. For me, it's more like:



Grace and peace to you. Neo.

[PinSeeker]

it seems I've already addressed those questions here.

Maybe in your own way. But it doesn't answer anything other than a series of wordy responses. Thanks for your time anyway.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I fully anticipated such a "response." So... yeah:



Or maybe this is better:



Both, I guess. Grace and peace to you, nobspeople.

[nobspeople]

it seems I've already addressed those questions here.

Maybe in your own way. But it doesn't answer anything other than a series of wordy responses. Thanks for your time anyway.

Yeah, that's what I thought. I fully anticipated such a "response." So... yeah:



Or maybe this is better:



Both, I guess. Grace and peace to you, nobspeople.

1) How and when do you make the differentiation of when it is or isn't loving? When is it 'not necessarily loving' and when is it?
2) Who gets to decide this definition of when it is and when it's not loving?

Can this be addressed or are you content with how you ended it?

Grace and peace run in my veins already.

[PinSeeker]

1) How and when do you make the differentiation of when it is or isn't loving? When is it 'not necessarily loving' and when is it?
2) Who gets to decide this definition of when it is and when it's not loving?

Oh, my. I mean, you obviously deemed "wordy" and thus skipped my last post. To these questions I would merely say see above.

Can this be addressed or are you content with how you ended it?

Well, it can, and really already has. Yes, I'm content with it to this point. "Ended?" Well, maybe, and maybe not.

Grace and peace run in my veins already.

Hmmm. Well, okay. In my experience, though -- and probably yours, too -- actions speak louder than words. But I'll take your word for it. Again, grace and peace to you.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #551]

you obviously deemed "wordy" and thus skipped my last post.

If one can't get to the point especially with simple questions.....

Well, maybe, and maybe not.

It's amazing: a hand full of words and nothing said. This is what I mean by 'wordy'. Will you explain?

In my experience, though -- and probably yours, too -- actions speak louder than words.

They do they do. But in a word only format, words is all we have.

But I'll take your word for it.

That's all we can do on here really I suppose.

grace and peace to you.

For the better part of 10 years now and counting!