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 314 by shnarkle]



[center]If I'm trying to convince someone, and I don't, that's my failure, not the other guy's.[/center]

baseless assertions are not arguments.

He didn't make a baseless assertion because he knows his own mind. You just didn't make the sale this time.

Maybe knock on another door.
He didn't buy what you are selling today.

Now you seem to FAIL to understand convincing him that your case has merit was YOUR job, my friend.

Not his.

He made the claim that I failed without presenting an argument to prove this assertion.

You have FAILED to convince him.
It's not up to him to make your case for you.

That would be up to YOU ... if you care to close the deal.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 314 by shnarkle]



[center]If I'm trying to convince someone, and I don't, that's my failure, not the other guy's.[/center]

baseless assertions are not arguments.

He didn't make a baseless assertion because he knows his own mind. You just didn't make the sale this time.

Maybe knock on another door.
He didn't buy what you are selling today.

Now you seem to FAIL to understand convincing him that your case has merit was YOUR job, my friend.

Not his.

He made the claim that I failed without presenting an argument to prove this assertion.

You have FAILED to convince him.
It's not up to him to make your case for you.

That would be up to YOU ... if you care to close the deal.

What you fail to understand is that I presented an argument. When people are engaging in debate, arguments that are presented need to be addressed and then refuted. He did neither. Even though he wasn't convinced of my argument, he conceded the point. If he had said, that my argument failed and then followed this up with some reason, he would have then put the ball back into my court. Given that he didn't do this , I have nothing to respond to in the first place.

Here's a brief recap: His argument was that no one would turn down eternity in heaven when presented with an eternity in hell. I responded to this argument with a number of arguments which he attempted to address by pointing out that other people disagree. I pointed out that simply disagreeing with my argument doesn't negate my argument.

I also followed this up with the parable of the wedding feast with no guests, and how the invitation went out to anyone they could find. People simply refused to come to a free feast. They had better things to do. Jesus is pointing out that what he's selling isn't anything anyone wants in the first place, and even when someone does show up, they're kicked out because they really have no idea what they're doing there in the first place.

We can all agree that this doesn't make sense, but the fact is that the gospel of the kingdom isn't popular with most people. Even most Christians have a problem with a number of aspects of it. So there should be no dispute that the kingdom isn't popular. This is in direct opposition to what the OP is stating. I'm not denying that the OP is pointing out that there are going to be a lot of people who are going to end up in hell. The OP thinks that this wouldn't be the case if people were allowed to get rid of hell altogether, but all this does is eliminate one's freedom of choice. If people in Jesus' parable are sending in their RSVP that they can't make it, then I"ve just pointed out at least one example of where people are choosing to do something else instead. Jesus points out that the alternative is "wailing and gnashing of teeth". This is right from the text itself!

His response: I failed by not citing where this parable is in the gospel narrative. Sorry, but this doesn't address what I posted at all. He's just making up some arbitrary rule for debate as if this was necessary. I don't even have to prove anything if he doesn't refute it. I could have made it all up, and I'd still win the argument. He then points out that he knows the greater context which again only shows that there really is no need to provide the page number anyways. This is his idea of an argument; it isn't.

Guess what, I'm not convinced either. So by your standard he has also failed. The problem is that he hasn't provided me with an argument to even address in the first place, much less a refutation of what I posted.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 320 by shnarkle]



[center]I had it upside down.
Sorry[/center]

Guess what, I'm not convinced either.

When I posted I was assuming that you made the initial claim.
If he did, then he had the burden of the proof.

If he didn't choose to back his claim UP in any way.. you are right.
He automatically lost the case.

I should not have assumed that it was YOUR case.. .but in here.. it's usually the theist making the claims. I got caught assuming. Sorry for the confusion.

He made a case, it's up to him to prove it to YOU.
I had it upside down.

Bit of an oopsie on my part.

So by your standard he has also failed.

Actually, it's worse than that.. there is no "also"... he just plain right out failed.

HE was trying to pitch you a curve ball.
You were right not to swing.

The problem is that he hasn't provided me with an argument to even address in the first place, much less a refutation of what I posted.

Ok.
I had it upside down.

In that case, you are correct.

That doesn't necessarily mean that any of YOUR points are correct, but that he FAILED to convince you of his.

If he made a claim, then he has the burden to support it with some evidence.
If he was the one who made the INITIAL claim, ( and it looks like it, by what you just wrote ) then he ALONE has the burden of the proof.

But you also have to be careful because sometimes people don't reply simply because they aren't around or don't notice our stunning rebuttals.

So... therefore.....

You made THIS case.
He has the burden of the proof.. not you.

If he doesn't support his claim ... it fails.
If he doesn't convince you ... no sale.

[amortalman]

He is the one who is working under the impression that the biblical God is fictional. I'm just pointing out the inconsistency in his thinking.

There is no inconsistency in my thinking. Frankly, I don't understand why you think so. The fact that I was a former Christian has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked of certain Christians.

I was commenting on the fact that YOU are passing judgement on a fictional character as if this god had some sort of influence over nature in the real world. You gave the example of Atticus Finch, and using your example it would be no different than if you concluded that more people should use Atticus Finch to represent him since he's such a good lawyer. I would then point out once again that Atticus Finch is a fictional character, and not going to be representing anyone in the real world.

I was pointing out that JUST AS people can have legitimate debates or discussions about fictional characters (book clubs do it all the time) people can also have legitimate debates or discussions about biblical characters, even if they believe they are fictional.

He pointed out that he was once a believer, but left and now believes that the bible is a work of fiction. He's asking a question of believers, but also pointing out that he no longer takes this as factual or real.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing, except when you start blaming natural disasters on fictional characters.

No, what I'm saying is that the God some Christians believe in is responsible for the natural disasters that cause so much suffering. My aim in this particular case is to show that in my opinion, the God of the Bible is unnecessarily cruel. Let me but it another way, I don't believe in a God. Therefore, I do not believe that a God causes natural disasters. But some people do. In context, I'm pointing out that the biblical God they believe in is cruel to allow so much suffering.

You seem to be having a lot of trouble understanding that it is completely legitimate for me to argue against what Christians believe. That somehow, I have to be a Christian to take a position against Christianity. It makes no difference whether or not I believe the Bible. I can make my case that what they're believing is ridiculous, and I can make it using examples like natural disasters.

Just because someone doesn't believe the bible is true, isn't really all that different from those who believe,

Of course, they are! They have diametrically opposed beliefs.

Not necessarily.

Yes, necessarily. If someone believes the Bible is untrue and another person believes it is true they have opposing views.

You have rejected a doctrine loosely based on scripture, but more accurately based on ignorance. Based upon this, you have rejected not just the false doctrine, but the text from which it is based, even though it is an interpretation that is blatantly false.[/quote]

You are correct in that I've rejected certain doctrines in the Bible, just as you have. But you're the one who wants to argue about what the Bible teaches and argue against certain beliefs. Having been a Bible student myself I took issue with your interpretation BUT ONLY BECAUSE my position is also the position of the Christians to whom I asked the questions in the OP. Your position is that your interpretation is the only correct one, otherwise, you wouldn't use terms like "blatanly false" to describe what others believe. And you wouldn't describe them as "ignorant."
You never use terms like "in my opinion" or "according to." All your statements are dogmatic. You're saying "this is the way it is and that's it." There's a name for someone like that but I'm not going to resort to name-calling like you have.

It isn't diametrically opposed for the same reason that believers can have vastly divergent positions on numerous subjects.[/quote]

Your argument actually supports my statement because some of those positions can be diametrically opposed to one another.


We can both agree that their interpretation makes no sense. However, I can answer your question by pointing out that even if God does what seems extraordinarily wicked, this is of no consequence to someone who is significantly inferior to an omniscient, omnipotent and all wise deity. To think that you or I can make better decisions than this kind of deity is ridiculous.[/quote]

If God does what seems extraordinarily wicked it definitely does have consequences on us poor, inferior beings. We get the short end of the stick. The fact that he claims to be omniscient, omnipotent and all-wise should lead us to question his existence especially in light of other claims about him, that he is compassionate and loving, ect.

The fact that this deity is fictional is really irrelevant. It's a given that this deity is righteous, and wise.[/quote]

So what you're saying is that this deity is fictional but that doesn't matter because this deity is righteous and wise. Huh?

Given that he is also transcendent makes it doubly ridiculous to suppose that our morality could ever be superior.[/quote]

Transcendent means exceeding usual limits, extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience, being beyond comprehension. How does this show that such a being has superior morality?

especially in the case of this OP. He's presenting an interpretation that many Christians don't believe in the first place.

[ quote]Do ALL Christians have to believe it in order to ask the question of those who do? Of course not. [/quote]

Huh? The Christians that don't are going to be the one's asking the question of those who do, not the one's who agree with them.

But what if there were only 100 Christians who believe that way? Wouldn't I still have the right to ask those 100 the question I posed?

I'm not questioning your right to ask the question regardless of how many believe or don't believe.

In case you may have missed it, I answered your question from not only their perspective (which I don't even agree with in the first place). I also answered it from your perspective (as a work of fiction). In either case, I don't really think you can refute my position.

Just to recap, this fictional deity is presented as omniscient, omnipotent, all wise, and transcendent. He is basically above reproach for whatever he chooses to do, or whatever he causes to happen. Given that he is a fictional character, there really is no standard for right and wrong anyways, but within the context of this story there is. It is rather ironic to pass judgement on a fictional deity who gives the ultimate standard of righteousness, and objective morality, and then to turn right around and think that you can come up with a better one while admitting that there is no such thing as God in the first place. There is no standard of morality, so there is no standard by which to judge anyone especially fictional characters. The authors set their own rules so if you're going to comment on the morality of these fictional characters, the least you could do is to acknowledge the system by which the author's cosmology operates.

You're free to disagree with it, but as I already pointed out what we're really dealing with is legalities; private property rights which most people don't have a problem with in their own lives, so what possible problem could one have with how a deity deals with his private property?

The problem arises when people start to confuse fiction with reality. To confuse a world that cannot admit to an ultimate standard of morality with one that has one is even more confusing to say the least. How one can think to impose a standard of morality that doesn't even exist onto a system that presents one makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]

[amptramp]

Response to the OP's Question 1:

We have gone 33 pages without any mention of the concept of karma. The doctrine of karma says that people live, they die but they continue to exist in an afterlife, they get reincarnated back to life again (known in Revelations as the second death), they die again, lather, rinse repeat. There has been some debate on this in this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=25666

Karma works like this: what one does in life determines the circumstances of any future life. If you do evil, evil will be done to you. If you do good, good will be done to you. If you are a gun-runner selling guns into the Congo, you may be born there in the next life where your life will be bad until you step on a mine and then it gets worse. But if you do pro-bono work for the poor, you may get equivalent recompense in a future life.

You may be reborn in any country, race, gender and economic condition without regard to what you are now.

I do not believe in an eternal hell. You cannot reconcile a loving God with a psychopath who would provide infinite punishment for finite sins. This implies a go/no-go gauge of how you have lived your life with either heaven or hell at the end, which makes no sense. Karma implies a situation where your actions define your future and it is a linear response where the results of every action are taken into account. Your life becomes heaven or hell depending on what you have done. There are also "first victims" who have done nothing to warrant the evil that has happened to them so you cannot use circumstances to determine whether people have been evil. And there are accidents such as the collapse of the tower of Siloam that cost lives - Jesus assured his followers that these victims were no worse than other people (from Luke 13:1-5).

In mediaeval times, there was a theological "arms race" where churches competed to see who could describe the most hellacious hell. Most people have the attitude that their church is a place to go for "fire insurance" to avoid going to hell, so these descriptions of hell have been both successful and lucrative with the most followers going to the churches that invented the worst hell. The idea of heaven is nowhere near as compelling.

Response to the OP's Question 2:

This sort of writes itself - there is no need to have God give me the power to change hell because the only hell needed is karma, not some invention that came about from a parable.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to amptramp]

The doctrine of karma says that people live, they die but they continue to exist in an afterlife, they get reincarnated back to life again (known in Revelations as the second death), they die again, lather, rinse repeat.

Nice theory, but it is not reality.

When we die we do not continue to exist in an afterlife. That is the common claim of religion, but God says otherwise. The word die means what it says rather than what the traditional doublespeak says.

Karma works like this: what one does in life determines the circumstances of any future life.

Yes, but it works this way.

Galatians 6:

7 Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

[Benoni]

I have been not posting for a long time but I will post here. Hell is a manmade lie and the Lake of fire is spiritual not literal according to God's Word. The word hell is not even in the original language of the Bible; it is a total mistranslation. The words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna have no root or meaning in the word hell. The word hell came from an Angle Saxon word meaning to bury. You go to the UK today and you can hel your potatoes.

She-ol (eol) [[Heb shaal , to dig]] a place in the depths of the earth conceived of as the dwelling of the dead Note: translated in KJV about haft of scriptures as hell, the other haft as grave
Ha-des(hadez) [[Gr Haides ]] 1 Gr. Myth. a) the home of the dead, beneath the earth b) the god of the underworld 2 Bible the state or resting place of the dead: name used in some modern translations of the New Testament
Yes there is a Tar-ta-rus (tart rs) [[ Gr Tartaros ]] Gr. Myth. 1 an infernal abyss below Hades, where Zeus hurls the rebel Titans, later a place of punishment for the demons and devils not people. (mentioned only once in the Bible)
Those who go to Gehenna are not sinners of the world; but are sinners of Gods people. (how precious is this a type of purification outside of Gods holy city. All things that are not of God will be purified by Gods holy judgment.

Jesus was not speaking to the world/pagan people/sinners; he was speaking to the Jews (believers during His time He walked o n this earth); when ever He used this Greek word Gehenna. The Teutonic pagan word Hell Gehenna is not physical flames, even though Gehenna is the garbage dump outside the city of Jerusalem. Gehenna Judgment is actually spiritual in nature; it is the reaping of what Israel had sown by killing the prophets and their children in the fire to Molech and Baal at Topheth and in the Valley of Ben Hiddom (later called Gehenna). God warned that those who go to Gehenna are not sinners of the world; but are sinners of Gods people. (how precious is this a type of purification outside of Gods holy city. All things that are not of God will be purified by Gods holy judgment. This word is used not for sinner, murders or liars; it is used with the word BROTHER.
Gehenna is not physical flames, even though Gehenna is the garbage dump outside the city of Jerusalem. Gehenna Judgment is actually spiritual in nature, it is the reaping of what Isreal had sown by killing the prophets and their children in the fire to Molech and Baal at Topheth and in the Valley of Ben Hiddom (later called Gehenna). God warned that He is the only God, there is no other like Him.

Matthew 5:22

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell (Gehenna) fire.

[amortalman]

[Replying to post 320 by shnarkle]

I guess that technically I lost this debate on the grounds that I failed to reply. So be it. I saved my sanity in the process. We had beat this horse to death. Somehow, we never could understand each other's point of view. As the Sheriff told cool hand Luke: "What we have here is a failure to communicate."

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 1 by amortalman]

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?

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

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?

A God who would roast somebody in a fire forever with no hope for them of it ever ending would be a God of maniacal and sadistic traits. The furthest thing from love. Would you really think that you would be grateful for being allowed to live only to be in utter agony for every second of your existence? Prison and "hell" cannot be compared together. The idea of a fiery hell involves insanity, and is downright blasphemous against God.

It is necessary to separate the good from the bad. This idea does not necessitate torturing someone for an eternity.

Our security is to know that as long as we remain lovers of God and of righteousness, we are securely in His arms. I don't see how hell-fire gives anyone any sense of security.

[ttruscott]

I do not believe in an eternal hell. You cannot reconcile a loving God with a psychopath who would provide infinite punishment for finite sins.

You don't have to do any such reconciliation - Christians sure don't since there is no such thing as a finite sin. Any and all sin has an equal and infinite disvalue in GOD's sight and must be eradicated, either by being cured, redeemed and made righteous or be banished from HIS created reality.

The sin that changes people from being innocent to eternally evil was to decide by a free will that you are staking all your hopes and dreams for a long prosperous future on the idea that YHWH is a liar and a false god and as the first to make such a claim, then HE is the most evil. So committed were they to this opposition to YHWH being divine that they were willing to go to hell if HE were to ever prove HIS divinity and power. So committed were they, they even refused to take the escape from hell that was provided and used successfully by the sinful elect, that is, to accept HIS claims for the time being to come under HIS promise of salvation from any rebelliousness and only then to go their own way against HIM. By rejecting HIS promise of help to redeem them from their sin, they have effectively and permanently cut themselves off from the only power that can save them...they can only be banished.

Only such a terrible commitment to opposition to HIM could cause them to reject YHWH's help eternally in curing their enslavement to sin and paying the consequences themselves, with eternal banishment. And if our free will is to mean anything, it must mean it is sacrosanct and cannot be changed by GOD just because HE does not like it.