Hell is love

[Wootah]

The existence of hell is one of the best indications that God is loving.

His willingness to love his children by keeping them separate from the Devil's children demonstrates that love.

The eternity of hell is explained to my mind by the fact God is a God of life. We were created to live forever. Many other religions believe their God has the right to destroy even his children. But what security is there in that?

We all practise hell all the time. Aren't there people that you don't like or don't want to associate with? Don't we all cast people out of our lives?

Would you ever let a paedophile near your child? If yes then you don't love your child. If no then you are loving and you practise hell.

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

Rebuttals?

[Wootah]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #21]

I think what you call the New Way is the old, old way and is satanic. There is no Bible support for it. Please protect your children.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Mithrae in post #20]

It's noteworthy that even many eternal suffering advocates nevertheless still reject or 'reinterpret' the fiery torment and try to water it down into the suffering of separation from God (as if that were any less cruel).

Thanks Mithrae, I do think annihilationism and other forms are trying to water down God to make God more palatable. Someone we can put in a box.

If it is any solace we will build up to looking at God's active role in hell. I am not decided on this yet so it will be interesting to examine. My shortcut of it is that: Non-Christians will be revealed to hate God and hell is where they will go and when in hell they will hate their enemy and He will hate you. I'll be in heaven. But I don't lock that in yet. I never lock anything in. I certainly don't want to be a Christian that shies away from scripture. Time will tell .

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #21]

I think what you call the New Way is the old, old way and is satanic. There is no Bible support for it. Please protect your children.

There's no Bible support for forgiving everyone, loving everyone, and refusing to judge others? I can easily extrpolate the message of turning the other cheek to giving the paedophile my other child if he's already raped one. Or what, was I only supposed to forgive little stuff?

[Wootah]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #21]

I think what you call the New Way is the old, old way and is satanic. There is no Bible support for it. Please protect your children.

There's no Bible support for forgiving everyone, loving everyone, and refusing to judge others? I can easily extrpolate the message of turning the other cheek to giving the paedophile my other child if he's already raped one. Or what, was I only supposed to forgive little stuff?

If that is where you are at in life, please just listen to me - don't do it.

If you love someone you tell them the truth.

[tam]

Peace to you Mithrae!

Funny, you beat me to it. I was going to address your post about hell (the 'traditional' doctrine of torment) being scriptural... with a post about how it only appears that way to some because of the way different words are translated, and because of the way that some interpret parables and the like. (erring pen of the scribes and false teachers) I decided to let it go instead, though, and leave the various threads already on the topic speak for themselves.

What I was going to post (from a couple of links):

The word being rendered as "hell" is translated from at least three other (greek or hebrew) words.


"Hell" translated from "Sheol" or "Hades" refers to the world of the dead. Where the dead go to await the (second) resurrection. It is not a place of eternal torment; there is no concept of such a thing in the OT. (nor in the NT except for misunderstandings).

Job longed to go there to ESCAPE his suffering. It was expected that the dead - great and small; good and bad - went there when they died, to await the resurrection of the dead (the second resurrection). For the most part, that was the resurrection that most of Israel was looking forward to (before Christ offered something more to those in Him). See John 11:24 and Rev 20:12 and Rev 20: 13, where Hades gives up the dead IN it.


"Hell" translated from "Gehenna" is a reference to destruction (by fire). This then would be equivalent to the lake of fire (meaning the second and eternal death) from Revelation. And we can KNOW that this lake of fire is not "Hades" (or Sheol, the world of the dead) - because Hades is cast into the lake of fire as well, and destroyed.


("Hell" as "Tartarus", also referred to as a pit of dense darkness, is the holding place for some sinful spirit beings who have been bound there until the Judgment.)

viewtopic.php?p=1028604#p1028604 (there is more in that link, including other links to the same topic)

viewtopic.php?p=844007#p844007

(re: rich man and hades): viewtopic.php?p=1027020#p1027020 and viewtopic.php?p=1027448#p1027448 and viewtopic.php?p=1027255#p1027255

1 - As stated on previous threads, "hell" (the word translated from sheol/hades) is simply the world of the dead, where the dead (all who have died except for those in Christ) await the resurrection of the dead (and subsequent Judgment). At that time 'hell' (Hades/Sheol) is EMPTIED OUT of the dead in it, great and small. Such ones then receive the resurrection of LIFE or the resurrection of judgment and the second death. Rev 20:11-15; John 5:28, 29

viewtopic.php?p=1045039#p1045039

Not quite: In the New Testament, the KJV misleadingly translates three different words mostly as "hell," namely hades ('hell' 10 times and 'grave' once), gehenna ('hell' 9 times and 'hell fire' thrice) and on one occasion tartarus (or tartaroo 'cast down to hell').

Yes, see above.

"In Greek mythology, Tartarus (/ˈtɑːrtərəs/; Ancient Greek: Τάρταρος, Tártaros) is the deep abyss that is used as a dungeon of torment and suffering for the wicked and as the prison for the Titans." Fitting that the author of 2 Peter would use it as a term for the imprisonment of rebellious angels.

I would suggest the greeks added to the meaning (as people tend to do), but yes (again see above).

Hades seems to be the NT equivalent of sheol, which as you note is (mostly) described in the Tanakh and translated in other versions as simply 'the grave,' with neither suffering nor enjoyment, although it's worth noting that in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus even Hades is described as a place of suffering for the wicked (Luke 16:23) and respite for the righteous. All other references seem to be consistent with Hades being basically just 'the grave' however, and as you've noted the author of Revelation claims that Hades will be cast into the lake of fire.

Yes (see links for Rich man and lazarus).

Gehenna is not a Greek word, it's the Aramaic name for the Valley of Hinnom (Gehinnom) in which the kings of Judah sacrificed their children by fire (Jer. 7:31, 19:2-6). Unsurprisingly, as a theological concept Gehenna is a place of eternal fire and punishment, presumably the lake of fire and eternal torment described by Revelation, and likely eased into Jewish/Christian mythology by the claimed fate of "everlasting shame and contempt" found in Daniel:

• "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt" (Daniel 12:2)
  
  "it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into hell, where their worm never dies, and the fire is never quenched" (Mark 9:47-48)
  
  "it is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and to be thrown into the hell of fire" (Matthew 18:9)
  
  "The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell" (James 3:6)
  
  "they will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever" (Revelation 13:10-11)
  
  "Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels' . . . . And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (Matthew 25:41 & 46)

If one seriously wanted to cling to the notion of biblical inerrancy and 'harmonize' all the divergent passages, I'd say it's much easier to interpret the references to destruction of the soul, eternal life vs. second death etc. as shorthand/metaphors for the general nastiness of hell, rather than trying to change explicit references to eternal fiery suffering into some kind of temporary suffering or annihilation.

I'm not concerned with biblical inerrancy (I mean, the fact that three words were translated into the one word should be at least somewhat of an indication of the 'erring pen of the scribes', from Jeremiah 8:8).... but the key word I see in what you have written would be DESTRUCTION (of the soul, or spirit). Something that is destroyed (such as with Sodom and Gomorrah, which we are told serve as an example for those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire; Jude 1:7) does not live to continue to suffer. Sodom and Gomorrah are not still burning, its inhabitants are not suffering in that fire; the place is destroyed, having been reduced to ash; and is no more.

(and if death is the punishment, then eternal punishment is simply eternal death)



Peace again to you, and good to hear from you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Mithrae]

[Replying to Mithrae in post #20]

It's noteworthy that even many eternal suffering advocates nevertheless still reject or 'reinterpret' the fiery torment and try to water it down into the suffering of separation from God (as if that were any less cruel).

Thanks Mithrae, I do think annihilationism and other forms are trying to water down God to make God more palatable. Someone we can put in a box.

No, it's watering down their supposedly infallible canon. That you equate your Book with your 'God' is a peculiarity which many Christians don't share, and I would suggest that in fact it is you and other bible-believers who are trying to put God in a box or down on paper with all her thoughts and plans neatly laid out for you in black and white.

If it is any solace we will build up to looking at God's active role in hell. I am not decided on this yet so it will be interesting to examine.

Sure, your 'God' is something that can be looked at and examined. But your deity is not loving, that much is clear.

If we assume that there is a real God, a genuine creator of a universe far greater and older and more complex than anything the iron-age biblical authors could have imagined - greater than anything we can imagine too, for that matter - then it's alternately either laughable or terrifying to see people who think that they understand God and have the right to speak for him. Back in the real world, the simple fact is that neither you nor I nor anyone else really knows what (if anything) happens after we die: But the ideas developed through folk like Daniel and Mark and John of Patmos portray a deity more vindictive and cruel than even the likes of Hitler or Stalin could have dreamed up for their worst enemies.

We don't know what God and the afterlife are like - not if we're being honest with ourselves - so the best we can do is note the direction in which various ideas are going, and that notion of a deity inflicting eternal hell on anyone (let alone average folk cursed by him with a 'sinful nature') is quite literally the closest thing to pure evil we can possibly imagine.

[tam]

Peace to you.

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #21]

I think what you call the New Way is the old, old way and is satanic. There is no Bible support for it. Please protect your children.

There's no Bible support for forgiving everyone, loving everyone, and refusing to judge others? I can easily extrpolate the message of turning the other cheek to giving the paedophile my other child if he's already raped one. Or what, was I only supposed to forgive little stuff?

But how would that be showing love for your child(ren)?

You don't have to judge the child rapist (there are courts for that in this world, and in the next, that is up to God), and you can forgive him, but that doesn't mean that you let him rape your child.


Peace again to you.

[Purple Knight]

But how would that be showing love for your child(ren)?

If I can do to the paedophile what I would if I hated him, without hating him, then so too with the child. I don't have to want the rape to happen, I can be sad that it happens, but I can still not stop it because I'm turning the other child.

You don't have to judge the child rapist (there are courts for that in this world, and in the next, that is up to God), and you can forgive him, but that doesn't mean that you let him rape your child.

Let's see what happens when I apply this to turning the other cheek. I don't have to judge the guy who hit me (there are courts for this in the world, and in the next world) and I can forgive him, but that doesn't mean I let him hit me. Look at that: If I use your interpretation, we get that Jesus is simply wrong; I shouldn't turn the other cheek after all.

Look, this is really, really simple. Someone is beating me up. Or raping my child. I can fight back, or I can turn the other cheek.

I'm absolutely convinced I shouldn't fight back. Jesus didn't say, pull your head away so he can't hit you again. Jesus said to let him hit you again.

If that is where you are at in life, please just listen to me - don't do it.

If you love someone you tell them the truth.

Then I love the paedophile and I tell him the truth. I would be very sad if you raped my child, but I will love you no matter what you decide. If that's not the ultimate perfect correct answer then you should provide some reason it isn't.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Mithrae in post #27]

Emotional but not logical or debatable. Maybe go back to post 1 and steelman in for yourself?

https://constantrenewal.com/steel-man/

[Mithrae]

If I can do to the paedophile what I would if I hated him, without hating him, then so too with the child. I don't have to want the rape to happen, I can be sad that it happens, but I can still not stop it because I'm turning the other child.

It's not you being abused in that scenario. It's worrying that you apparently see no moral distinction between your decision to offer your own body to someone's abuse, and your decision to offer them someone else's body.