Tha Nature of Hell

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Many Christians define hell as an absence of God's presence (I know you atheists much prefer the concept of a torture chamber). Heaven, on the contrary, is to be in God's presence.

It is not unreasonable or contradictory, therefore, to argue that we either end up in God's presence (heaven) or out of His presence (hell).

The isn't really the issue. What hell is in terms of the presence of God is in an interesting theological debate (a good question would be how can anywhere in reality be absent of God?) But the issue is what the absence of God's presence is experienced like. This, like all of the rest of reality, is defined by God. God could have decided that humans would experience the absence of his presence as a mild tingling sensation. Instead he decided it would be like being in a lake of fire experiencing unending torture (if the Bible is to be believed).

The question is why, given that God is generally understood to not wish for humans to end up in hell, even if they have sinned and are judged guilty. So why would God make hell some where God wouldn't want to send someone.

PDN wrote: »

There is no contradiction between a God who desires for everyone to be saved and to come into His presence, and a God who allowed for the possibility that people might want to remain outside of His presence.

Correct, but as I've explained to you many times previous that isn't the issue. The issue is not the existence of some area or reality where a person can go and be completely absent from God. The issue is the decision to make such an experience unending suffering.

PDN wrote: »

Your problem, once again, is that you want to cling to your concept of a medieval torture chamber. Therefore you are not positing a contradiction in the Christian position per se, but simply a contradiction among those Christians who subscribe to the view of a medieval torture chamber.

Hell is described in the Bible as an experience equivalent to suffering in a lake of fire. While I have no issue that there isn't a literal fire (ie oxygen reacting with heat causing skin to burn), the idea is pretty clear. It is a place where those present experience suffering and torture as punishment for their wickedness.

If you disagree with that assessment, if you think hell isn't that bad or some how neutral, you are free to do so but that is a very non-Biblical notion of hell.I would also wonder why you think it isn't a place of suffering and torture, is it perhaps that you yourself do not believe your loving god would throw someone into such a place as a punishment?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

The isn't really the issue. What hell is in terms of the presence of God is in an interesting theological debate (a good question would be how can anywhere in reality be absent of God?) But the issue is what the absence of God's presence is experienced like. This, like all of the rest of reality, is defined by God. God could have decided that humans would experience the absence of his presence as a mild tingling sensation. Instead he decided it would be like being in a lake of fire experiencing unending torture (if the Bible is to be believed).

The question is why, given that God is generally understood to not wish for humans to end up in hell, even if they have sinned and are judged guilty. So why would God make hell some where God wouldn't want to send someone.



Correct, but as I've explained to you many times previous that isn't the issue. The issue is not the existence of some area or reality where a person can go and be completely absent from God. The issue is the decision to make such an experience unending suffering.

And, I've explained to you many times previously, it's entirely possible that it will be the people in hell who determine what it is like, not God.

Put everyone in a beautiful garden, and then give them exacyly what they've asked for - the freedom to do whatever they want without nasty religions dictating morality to them. Pretty soon you get Auschwitz.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

And, I've explained to you many times previously, it's entirely possible that it will be the people in hell who determine what it is like, not God.

Entirely possible in the context of what Biblical passages?

Do you have any Biblical support for such an idea, or is that just wishful thinking?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Entirely possible in the context of what Biblical passages?

Do you have any Biblical support for such an idea, or is that just wishful thinking?

Entirely possible in the absence of any passages to the contrary, and it is consistent with Jewish (rather than Greek) concepts of death and the afterlife. Semitic cultures were (and often still are) much more motivated by the concept of shame than that of physical suffering. Therefore hell, as described by Jesus, is to be cast into outer darkness, excluded from the party which is the Kingdom of God.

'I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 8:11)

Most biblical commentators believe the references to outer darkness and 'gnashing of teeth' (which often crops up when Jesus refers to outer darkness) refers to the rubbish tip outside Jerusalem - the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna). This was where dogs and other small animals would fight over scraps of rotting meat and other food, their teeth clashing.

So the picture is of a great party taking place inside the Holy City, where those who accepted their invitations feast in the presence of God. And outside those who rejected the invitation live in shame, squabbling like little animals.

Now, why do they behave like little animals? Is it because God has ordained it to be so? Or is it because that's what they've become by their choices, and when not restrained by the Spirit of God, they exercise their freedom to revert to type?

And, getting back to the OP, this is the kind of idea that CS Lewis advanced about people choosing to stay in hell. In his fantasy novel 'The Great Divorce' he described how a group of people from hell went on a day trip to view heaven. Most of them couldn't wait to get back to hell - because their sinful choices during their lifetimes had so eroded their humanity that they preferred an environment that matched their shadowy existence. Heaven was too colourful, too beautiful, too real for them - it hurt them because it contrasted so greatly with what they had become.

This idea of shame is very Hebraic, and I think Morbert is asking some very reflective questions that would make for a great discussion. Unfortunately, as usual, that discussion gets lost in the general and predictable noise of those who want to argue entrenched positions (from both sides of the fence) rather than engage in actual discussion of Christian issues.

Btw, I understand a film of The Great Divorce is in the pipeline, due for release in 2013.

Even more btw, lol at the irony of you accusing me of wishful thinking because I am trying to engage seriously with the teaching of Scripture as it would have been understood by Jesus and his original hearers rather than the anachronistic medieval image of a torture chamber staffed by little imps with pitchforks.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Entirely possible in the absence of any passages to the contrary, and it is consistent with Jewish (rather than Greek) concepts of death and the afterlife.

It is not though consistent with how the Bible describes hell. It is referred in the New Testament to as a place of fire prepared for the wicked that people are thrown into to suffer.

If the only argument to support your position is that the Bible doesn't directly say the suffering isn't self inflicted, well frankly that if an atheist was using such an argument you would tear them to pieces.

PDN wrote: »

'I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 8:11)

Most biblical commentators believe the references to outer darkness and 'gnashing of teeth' (which often crops up when Jesus refers to outer darkness) refers to the rubbish tip outside Jerusalem - the Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna). This was where dogs and other small animals would fight over scraps of rotting meat and other food, their teeth clashing.

No they don't. That idea has been largely rejected due to lack of evidence for it.

http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/was-gehenna-a-smoldering-garbage-dump/
http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2011/04/fires-of-gehenna-views-of-scholars.html

But even if that was true it was the burning of rubbish at this point that was considered the significant concept in the argument that dates back to the 13th century. The (now discredited) idea was that this was where rubbish was sent to be burnt and destroyed. The point of the analogy was the fire, not being outside of the walls. Where the heck did you get that interpretation from?

PDN wrote: »

So the picture is of a great party taking place inside the Holy City, where those who accepted their invitations feast in the presence of God. And outside those who rejected the invitation live in shame, squabbling like little animals.

Er, the picture from what exactly? You have said that the darkness references a physical place in Jerusalem, that has animals and then jumped completely to the idea that those in hell live in shame like animals.

This ignores that gnashing of teeth is also used in passages that refer directly to a burning furnace. So we live in shame squabbling like little animals while in a lake of fire

Or are you saying that the darkness outside is different to the burning furnace?

PDN wrote: »

Now, why do they behave like little animals? Is it because God has ordained it to be so? Or is it because that's what they've become by their choices, and when not restrained by the Spirit of God, they exercise their freedom to revert to type?

That question is irrelevant because you haven't presented an argument that hell isn't a place of inflicted suffering. You have just said we might act like animals there because we'll be gnashing our teeth which is something animals do, but is equally something humans do.

The gnashing of teeth is commonly interpreted as either a response the pain suffered in hell or to the guilt as a result of sin.

I've never seen anyone argue that it is because we are acting like animals. But even if it was, that is not an argument in support of the idea that the suffering in hell is inflicted by those in hell on others.

PDN wrote: »

And, getting back to the OP, this is the kind of idea that CS Lewis advanced about people choosing to stay in hell. In his fantasy novel 'The Great Divorce' he described how a group of people from hell went on a day trip to view heaven. Most of them couldn't wait to get back to hell - because their sinful choices during their lifetimes had so eroded their humanity that they preferred an environment that matched their shadowy existence. Heaven was too colourful, too beautiful, too real for them - it hurt them because it contrasted so greatly with what they had become.

Needless to say C.S Lewis' views on the matter are irrelevant to whether you can support your argument Biblically or not. Which seems to be a resounding no I can't.

PDN wrote: »

Even more btw, lol at the irony of you accusing me of wishful thinking because I am trying to engage seriously with the teaching of Scripture as it would have been understood by Jesus and his original hearers rather than the anachronistic medieval image of a torture chamber staffed by little imps with pitchforks.

I asked you can you support your position Biblically and your response basically boils down to saying the Bible doesn't say otherwise (despite the fact that it actually does).

If an atheist came on to this forum making such a weak argument you would tear him apart.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

It is not though consistent with how the Bible describes hell. It is referred in the New Testament to as a place of fire prepared for the wicked that people are thrown into to suffer.

If the only argument to support your position is that the Bible doesn't directly say the suffering isn't self inflicted, well frankly that if an atheist was using such an argument you would tear them to pieces.

That wasn't my only argument - but there's not much point taking about it if you're going to play your usual games.

My other argument was that it was consistent with the imagery used by Jesus and with the Hebraic understanding of the afterlife and the role of shame.

No they don't. That idea has been largely rejected due to lack of evidence for it.

http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress...-garbage-dump/
http://blog.bibleplaces.com/2011/04/...-scholars.html

But even if that was true it was the burning of rubbish at this point that was considered the significant concept in the argument that dates back to the 13th century. The (now discredited) idea was that this was where rubbish was sent to be burnt and destroyed. The point of the analogy was the fire, not being outside of the walls. Where the heck did you get that interpretation from?

You link to a couple of blogs which state that some scholars have cast doubt on the theory. That does not mean it is "largely rejected".

This ignores that gnashing of teeth is also used in passages that refer directly to a burning furnace. So we live in shame squabbling like little animals while in a lake of fire

Or are you saying that the darkness outside is different to the burning furnace?

The lake of fire is referred to 4 times in the Bible, all in Revelation, never in connection with gnashing of teeth.

It is pretty obvious that the language used about hell is figurative (eg 'darkness' and 'fire').

Needless to say C.S Lewis' views on the matter are irrelevant to whether you can support your argument Biblically or not. Which seems to be a resounding no I can't.

CS Lewis' views are relevant to the OP, which was asking for the views of Christians as to whether people choose to stay in hell or not.

Granted they are probably irrelevant to your attempt to turn the thread into something else.

I asked you can you support your position Biblically and your response basically boils down to saying the Bible doesn't say otherwise (despite the fact that it actually does).

No it doesn't, but hey, why break the habit by engaging honestly with what I post?

If an atheist came on to this forum making such a weak argument you would tear him apart.

Actually I wouldn't. If an atheist said, "I think this might be one viable interpretation worth considering along with others" then I would discuss it and may well say that I disagree. That's the kind of thread this started out as being - and I don't see anyone trying to tear Morbert apart. But maybe that's because he was tryinmg to engage in actual discussion rather than ride a hobby horse.

Atheists get torn apart when they insist that their interpretation is the only vaild one, that every other possible interpretation is wrong, and then use it to claim some kind of contradiction.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That wasn't my only argument - but there's not much point taking about it if you're going to play your usual games.

My other argument was that it was consistent with the imagery used by Jesus and with the Hebraic understanding of the afterlife and the role of shame.

It was your only Biblical argument. I asked you can you support what you claimed Biblically. Saying it is Hebraic tradition is not supporting something Biblically. Neither is saying it is consistent with "imagery" used by Jesus (which isn't even true, but that is another point).

PDN wrote: »

You link to a couple of blogs which state that some scholars have cast doubt on the theory. That does not mean it is "largely rejected".

Read the blog posts. They reference a ton of Biblical scholars and gives the reasons why it is rejected.

Not that this particularly matters since you are misrepresenting the Gehenna in the first place. The link with Gehenna was the burning of rubbish as a metaphor for the burning of sinners.

PDN wrote: »

The lake of fire is referred to 4 times in the Bible, all in Revelation, never in connection with gnashing of teeth.

The "burning furnace" is used in connection with gnashing of teeth.

PDN wrote: »

It is pretty obvious that the language used about hell is figurative (eg 'darkness' and 'fire').

I've never argued otherwise. The issue is not if it is a literal fire, it is whether the suffering is inflicted upon those in hell by God, rather than the suffering being a result of interactions between those in hell.

PDN wrote: »

CS Lewis' views are relevant to the OP, which was asking for the views of Christians as to whether people choose to stay in hell or not.

And? They aren't relevant to the question I asked you, which was can you support your argument Biblically.

Do you want me to start quoting Richard Dawkins to demonstrate that God ordered people to be raped in the Old Testament?

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

It was your only Biblical argument. I asked you can you support what you claimed Biblically. Saying it is Hebraic tradition is not supporting something Biblically. Neither is saying it is consistent with "imagery" used by Jesus (which isn't even true, but that is another point).

I didn't mention Hebraic tradition. I referred to the Hebraic understanding, which is based on the Old Testament (part of the Bible)..

The imagery used by Jesus is that which is recorded in the Gospels (also part of the Bible).

Read the blog posts. They reference a ton of Biblical scholars and gives the reasons why it is rejected.

Hardly a ton. They mention some scholars (in some cases the same ones). That's how theology works. You get different viewpoints and scholars argue for one view or the other. But, based on years of reading up on this subject, the Gehenna theory would still be more supported.

Not that this particularly matters since you are misrepresenting the Gehenna in the first place. The link with Gehenna was the burning of rubbish as a metaphor for the burning of sinners.

No, that isn't true. The idea of being 'outside the camp' is a biblical concept of shame and rejection. That is as much, if not more, the idea of Gehenna. Fire is part of it - but certainly not the only, or even the main, part.

Do you want me to start quoting Richard Dawkins to demonstrate that God ordered people to be raped in the Old Testament?

I would understand it if you did, since your previous efforts in another thread to support that assertion were singularly unconvincing.

But, given the OP, CS Lewis is much more relevant in a thread that was (pre-hijack) about how Christians view hell.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, that isn't true. The idea of being 'outside the camp' is a biblical concept of shame and rejection. That is as much, if not more, the idea of Gehenna. Fire is part of it - but certainly not the only, or even the main, part.

Groan. :rolleyes:

No one is disputing that those in hell do not feel shame, or that the Bible doesn't say that they will (what is it with you with arguing the safe ground that no one is actually disputing while ignoring the actual issue)

You are arguing though that their suffering is self inflicted, or inflicted on them by others in hell, not a punishment from God, despite the consistent references to fire as an punishment.

Again can you support this Biblically with anything other than your interpretation of Hebraic "understanding".

Or put it another way, does it say anywhere in the Bible that the "fire" that tourments sinners in hell is not a creation of God.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

You are arguing though that their suffering is self inflicted, or inflicted on them by others in hell, not a punishment from God, despite the consistent references to fire as an punishment.

No, I'm arguing that is one possible view. Just as there are other possible views. I think the difference here is that you are trying to win a fight for ideological reasons (hence your hurried, and bungled, googling to try to prove a consensus about Gehenna), whereas I am having a discussion of what Christians believe about hell, as per the OP.

I do realise that being open-minded is frustrating - but sometimes you have to be open to discuss different views or interpretations without acting as if you're in a fight.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, I'm arguing that is one possible view. Just as there are other possible views. I think the difference here is that you are trying to win a fight for ideological reasons (hence your hurried, and bungled, googling to try to prove a consensus about Gehenna), whereas I am having a discussion of what Christians believe about hell, as per the OP.

Er no PDN. You will notice I wasn't even talking to you until you replied to me to tell me that I was wrong, that no contradiction exists.

If what you meant was no contradiction exists if you accept your peculiar interpretation of the Bible which doesn't seem all that common in Christianity, I've no issue with that. There seems to be no Biblical support for such a position, and it contradicts what is actually in the Bible, but sure when has that ever stopped a Christian believing something about their religion? You can believe any version of Christianity you want. Likewise there is no contradition between homosexual marriage and the Bible if you subscribe to an interpretation where homosexual relationships are ok. There is no contradition between pre-marital sex and the Bible if you subscribe to an interpretation where pre-marital sex is ok. There is no contradiction between raping your wife and the Bible if you subscribe to an interpretation where raping your wife is ok. And so on and so on.

PDN wrote: »

I do realise that being open-minded is frustrating - but sometimes you have to be open to discuss different views or interpretations without acting as if you're in a fight.

Says the person who jumped into a discussion between myself and Phil in order to inform me I was wrong while proceeding to explain to me what my "problem" was :rolleyes:

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

Inspired by the video in another thread. I'm curious as to what understanding of Hell most Christians hold. The three options above are the concepts I am most familiar with.

I don't think anybody knows the answer, and those three options are really limited Morbert for such a vast and hugely important thing, place, status - we can only guess at what Hell is like, or try to picture, draw, explain etc. etc. but nobody can say for sure except perhaps those who have experienced the closest thing to hell on earth where nothing makes sense and men ruled by egotism and evil reign.

Personally, I think Hell is being stuck outside, knowing yourself finally and fully, with yourself for company.

Lots of Athiests seem to assume that 'Religions' tool is Hell to keep people in check, to rule the ignoramus etc. - I believe that without Hell that and fear of its reality for the human condition, that man would not have been freed from all kinds of slavery...It certainly was not Love alone that set the slaves free, but fear of a foul soul - That's why 'Fear of God' is a gift, a difficult to understand one, but nonetheless a gift.

Hell is often symbolised by chains or a frozen state, quite simply the state of a persons soul even if they were made for Heaven in the beginning, which all men are given free choice and conscience - whereas Heaven is symbolised by wings, one is no movement, the other is fully free.

No matter the circumstance God is not only a fearsome judge but a just one, and he understands everybodies circumstances, choices that they made to search, to ridicule or to understand...

I think actually thinking about Hell is a good way of keeping ourselves out of it. It's the lack of God imo, and that's a terrible state.

Ken bryan

Description of hell

• 
• 
• 

Sign-up for mejList, the FREE Medjugorje Newsletter

Only four of the six visionaries saw hell. Our Lady gave Mirjana and Ivanka the choice whether or not to see hell and they chose against it. Ivan and Marija both saw a vision of hell and all that Ivan will state is that he prefers not to discuss it. Vicka and Jakov were physically taken to hell by Our Lady. The following, through several interviews of the visionaries, is a detailed description of hell.

Vicka: “We saw many people in hell. Many are there already, and many more will go there when they die…The Blessed Mother says that those people who are in hell are there because they chose to go there. They wanted to go to hell…We all know that there are persons on this earth who simply don’t admit that God exists, even though He helps them, gives them life and sun and rain and food. He always tries to nudge them onto the path of holiness. They just say they don’t believe, and they deny Him. They deny Him, even when it is time to die. And they continue to deny Him, after they are dead. It is their choice. It is their will that they go to hell. They choose hell.
Question: “Describe hell as you remember it.
Vicka: “In the center of this place is a great fire, like an ocean of raging flames. We could see people before they went into the fire, and then we could see them coming out of the fire. Before they go into the fire, they look like normal people. The more they are against God’s will, the deeper they enter into the fire, and the deeper they go, the more they rage against Him. When they come out of the fire, they don’t have human shape anymore; they are more like grotesque animals, but unlike anything on earth. It’s as if they were never human beings before…They were horrible. Ugly. Angry. And each was different; no two looked alike…When they came out, they were raging and smashing everything around and hissing and gnashing and screeching.
Question: “Has seeing hell changed how you pray?
Vicka: “”Oh, yes! Now I pray for the conversion of sinners! I know what awaits them if they refuse to convert.”1
Vicka: “People turn away from God by choices they make. In this way they choose to enter the fire of hell where they burn away all connection to God. That’s why they can never get back to God. It takes God’s mercy to get back to Him. In hell, they no longer have access to God’s mercy…They choose to destroy their beauty and goodness. They choose to be ugly and horrible. People do this all the time. Each choice that is against God, God’s Commandments, God’s Will, singes God’s image in us…They become one with hell even while they have their body. At death they go on as they were when they had a body.”2

The following is what Marija has shared about hell:

Question: “Marija, have you ever seen hell?
Marija: “Yes, it’s a large space with a big sea of fire in the middle. There are many people there. I particularly noticed a beautiful young girl. But when she came near the fire, she was no longer beautiful. She came out of the fire like an animal; she was no longer human. The Blessed Mother told me that God gives us all choices. Everyone responds to these choices. Everyone can choose if he wants to go to hell or not. Anyone who goes to hell chooses hell.
Question: “Marija, how and why does a soul choose hell for himself for all eternity?
Marija: “In the moment of death, God gives us the light to see ourselves as we really are. God gives freedom of choice to everybody during his life on earth. The one who lives in sin on earth can see what he has done and recognize himself as he really is. When he sees himself and his life, the only possible place for him is hell. He chooses hell, because that is what he is. That is where he fits. It is his own wish. God does not make the choice. God condemns no one. We condemn ourselves. Every individual has free choice. God gave us freedom.
Question: “Marija, what about people who grow up spiritually deceived, people who have been told that God does not exist, that there is no God?
Marija: “People, as they grow up, can think. Everyone knows and can recognize what is good and what is bad by the time they grow up. God gives us freedom of choice. We can choose good or bad. Everybody chooses here in this life whether he goes to Heaven or hell.


Question: “How do we choose Heaven or hell or Purgatory for ourselves?

Marija: “At the moment of death, God gives everyone the grace to see his whole life, to see what he has done, to recognize the results of his choices on earth. And
each person, when he sees himself in the divine light of reality, chooses for himself where he belongs. Every individual chooses for himself what he personally deserves for all eternity.3

Jakov:

Question: “Jakov, did you see hell?
Jakov: “Yes.
Question: “Can you tell us about it?
Jakov: “Very seldom do I talk about hell…I choose not to think about hell. The self-chosen suffering there is beyond your ability to comprehend.

Question: “Does it cause you pain?

Jakov: “More than you can understand…Because no one needs to go to hell. It is the ultimate waste.

Question: “What can people do to keep from going to hell?
Jakov: “Believe in God, no matter what happens in a lifetime

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

Judging isn't the issue. Judging is simply deciding that what you did was right or wrong.

The issue is the punishment that follows the judgement. You can see this even in our court system, where the first thing decided is whether a person is guilty or not and then, sometimes days later, the person is sentences.

You're essentially saying that the punishment isn't deserved. That's where I would disagree with you firmly. The position that we're in is that we've rebelled against God and His standards. That's a state, either I am doing so, or I am not.

Zombrex wrote: »

The issue is God punishing people with eternal torture as punishment for what they did within a finite time on Earth.

I don't see why that is an issue. While people are on this earth, they will determine their path for eternity. Those who have been familiar with the Gospel have been warned, hopefully in a loving, caring and considerate manner that their actions will have ultimate consequences in the hereafter.

Zombrex wrote: »

There is a contradiction between a God who would decide to construct an eternal torture realm where he sends people to be punished for sinning and a God who would desire so much that we didn't go there and go to great lengths to help us avoid going there by sending his son to die on the cross for us.

Not at all. God is just, and God is merciful simultaneously. If God is truly just, God must punish for wrongdoing. If God is merciful, God must offer forgiveness. Christianity is the only world religion that I know of that satisfies both criteria insofar as even in the case of those who have been forgiven, God's wrath has been satisfied by Jesus' death on the cross, and His resurrection. Jesus, the righteous, died for the unrighteous in order to bring us to God (1 Peter 3:18).

There are two options. Either we seek God's forgiveness, or we take the punishment upon ourselves. Not really much of a contradiction, God is just, and God is merciful. Therefore He acts appropriately.

Zombrex wrote: »

The problem Christians seem to have with not understanding this point is that you guys all seem to just assume hell is what it is, that it is a give it is as it is, rather than something God decided would be as it is.

Do we?

Last time I answered your question. I answered that it was both.

God makes His standards clear, and judges on that basis. God has also sent His Son Jesus in order to save us from the penalty of sin. Hell exists, because a holy and righteous God cannot tolerate evil as good, and demands that all evil be separated from Him. Christianity is a transformational experience in the believer, bit by bit, one grows in God's ways, and we live and speak for Him, and ultimately when we stand before Him thanks to Jesus, we will be blameless in His sight. A God who would applaud evil rather than making it clear that He opposes it, and indeed that it is best that we oppose it also, is not truly God at all.

God judges us, and at that judgement God will condemn those who live in contempt of His standard. Simultaneously, the individual still by their life decisions determines their direction.

This question could lead us into a very interesting discussion about free-will and determinism, but ultimately it is right that hell should exist.

Zombrex wrote: »

Why would God construct hell in the first place if he didn't want anyone to go there (something he demonstrates through Jesus)?

See above.

Zombrex wrote: »

It can't be that he has to send people to hell, God doesn't have to do anything. Remember judgement is separate to punishment. Even if we assume God has to judge people for sin, it doesn't follow that he has to select hell as the punishment, even if he judges your guilty of sin, particularly when he doesn't want to select hell as punishment.

He doesn't have to I agree, but a just God would. A merciful God would also give us a way to repent and come before Him. God has done both.

Judgement and punishment go hand in hand. I believe the punishment that God gives at the end of time, is a righteous one. You seem to think that it is an unrighteous one.

Zombrex wrote: »

And it can't be that if he doesn't send people to hell he has to let them into heaven either. That is simply limited thinking, assuming that because there is a hell and heaven there can only be a hell and heaven. Again God can make what ever he likes, there is no requirement that this is the only way it can be.

Your whole post assumes that I am meant to think that it is wrong that God could condemn people to hell. However, it is abundantly right that God does this if He is truly just.

A better angle to come at this from a Christian POV is to look at why Jesus had to die. Nullifying hell from a Christian perspective, also nullifies Jesus saving death on the cross for mankind. It also nullifies any ultimate responsibility for moral wrongdoing, and indeed nullifies any notion of a God who is profoundly angry at evil. Not much of God is actually left if we ignore the idea of hell.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Er no PDN. You will notice I wasn't even talking to you until you replied to me to tell me that I was wrong, that no contradiction exists. ......
Says the person who jumped into a discussion between myself and Phil in order to inform me I was wrong while proceeding to explain to me what my "problem" was

That is untrue

The comment of yours to which I responded said,
"The problem Christians seem to have with not understanding this point is that you guys all seem to just assume hell is what it is, that it is a give it is as it is, rather than something God decided would be as it is."

You made a blanket statement about Christians in general, and that invites a response from Christians. I am one of those included in the "you guys all".

Now, if you want to have a private conversation with philologos in which you make assertions about other Christians, but to which other Christians are not allowed to respond, then I suggest you utilise the PM function.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

I think this (along with philologos's post) merely reiterates a postion, rather than showing how it is consistent with God, as portrayed in the Bible.

Could you clarify further?

At it's simplest level, a person having choice is consistent with God as portrayed in the Bible. Not choice without limit, nor choice without consequence .. but certainly choice.

The person in Hell is still a human being, presumably still capable of emotions like regret, fear, love

Is that safe to assume: that a person is still a human being?

Look at it from another angle: a human being is capable of sin yet I won't be capable of sin 'in heaven'. Neither will I have a conscience, since a conscience is that which informs me as to what is right and wrong (what is in line with God's character or contra God's character). Given there won't be any wrong in the heavenly environment - such as to tickle a conscience into action - the conscience is rendered redundant.

The being in hell would undergo similar modification, I'm inclined to suppose. But rather than having an ability and propensity towards evildoing stripped away (like those in heaven), the person in hell would have the image of God in which they were made stripped away. And since it is our being made in His image which enables us to love, to enjoy, to relate selflessly, to create....

Without that equipping, without that connection to God, the person in hell can't love. Nor can they regret - in the non selfish sense.

The hellbound would be all that is the very worst in themselves (for we all have horrible aspects) but stripped of the redeeming features that made them still lovely, still valuable whilst on earth.

It's a reason, I think, why those in heaven won't be frantic about the idea of loved one's in hell. There are no human beings in hell since there is nothing loveable left within them - stripped as they are of that which make them lovable, the image of God in which they were made.

The full extent of a persons earthly choice is that far reaching.

A God who leaves a human being in a state of Hell, against their will, is not the God portrayed in the Bible.

The person is in hell because of own will. The will that would subsequently want to escape it is (and must be) subservient to the exercise of will that got the person there in the first place.

In order for a persons choice to remain a choice, they must have the consequences their choice obtained for them. That they would wish to reverse their choice once exposed to the fullest of consequences of it is a separate, and impossible to resolve, matter.

Andrewf20

The disciple Thomas doubted in Jesus's resurrection. He was lucky enough to see proof. Why would a benevolent God not offer similar evidence to doubters among us today, considering whats at stake?

PDN

Andrewf20 wrote: »

The disciple Thomas doubted in Jesus's resurrection. He was lucky enough to see proof. Why would a benevolent God not offer similar evidence to doubters among us today, considering whats at stake?

The physical evidence of the resuurection was given to the apostles to strengthen them for a life of proclaiming the Gospel which was going to culminate in martyrdom.

Thomas had already placed his faith in Christ at an earlier date. So the resuurection appearence of Jesus to him was hardly some way of saving him from hell.

Still, Andrew, if you're seriously considering following Jesus in a way that you're prepared to suffer for him, be arrested and be executed etc, then by all means pray that God will give you similar evidence. You might just be surprised to find that He does that kind of thing for genuine seekers.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote:

Could you clarify further?

antiskeptic wrote: »

the person in hell would have the image of God in which they were made stripped away.

The hellbound would be all that is the very worst in themselves (for we all have horrible aspects) but stripped of the redeeming features that made them still lovely, still valuable whilst on earth.

It's a reason, I think, why those in heaven won't be frantic about the idea of loved one's in hell. There are no human beings in hell since there is nothing loveable left within them - stripped as they are of that which make them lovable, the image of God in which they were made.

The person is in hell because of own will. The will that would subsequently want to escape it is (and must be) subservient to the exercise of will that got the person there in the first place.

In order for a persons choice to remain a choice, they must have the consequences their choice obtained for them. That they would wish to reverse their choice once exposed to the fullest of consequences of it is a separate, and impossible to resolve, matter.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
— John 3:16

I can't square John 3:16 with what you have said above. I find the bits in red to be particularly interesting.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
— John 3:16

I can't square John 3:16 with what you have said above. I find the bits in red to be particularly interesting.

John 3:16 talks of God's attempt at preventing people perishing - with perishing being the fate of those who don't 'believeth in him'.

Since there isn't any in-verse talk of how a person comes to believeth (or not) nor what perishing entails, I don't see how what I've said about perishing requires squaring.

Could you perhaps pick something specific and elaborate on what interests you or where the squaring is required? For instance, you've highlighted my use of the word 'stripped'. This in the sense of those in hell being stripped of the image of God in which they were made... and on which so much of what we experience depends (love, creativity, relationship, empathy, etc). If not perishing results in a person going to be with God and the consequences of that means being stripped of all within us that is contra the image of God then it stands to reason that the opposite is true. Perishing merely entails an existance without God, the consequences being that all traces of God's image are removed from us.

Begin to magine there is no image of God in you and consider what you would be then. That is my understanding of the hell environment. Existing with such a self. And which such other selves. Hellfire is only imagery. But it does convey an as bad as bad can be situation.

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

John 3:16 talks of God's attempt at preventing people perishing - with perishing being the fate of those who don't 'believeth in him'.

Since there isn't any in-verse talk of how a person comes to believeth (or not) nor what perishing entails, I don't see how what I've said about perishing requires squaring.

Could you perhaps pick something specific and elaborate on what interests you or where the squaring is required? For instance, you've highlighted my use of the word 'stripped'. This in the sense of those in hell being stripped of the image of God in which they were made... and on which so much of what we experience depends (love, creativity, relationship, empathy, etc). If not perishing results in a person going to be with God and the consequences of that means being stripped of all within us that is contra the image of God then it stands to reason that the opposite is true. Perishing merely entails an existance without God, the consequences being that all traces of God's image are removed from us.

Begin to magine there is no image of God in you and consider what you would be then. That is my understanding of the hell environment. Existing with such a self. And which such other selves. Hellfire is only imagery. But it does convey an as bad as bad can be situation.

(Puts on amateur theology hat)

1) The notion of a person being stripped of all that makes them good sounds wholly unChristian to me. Christianity rejects dualist notions of good and evil. Evil, according to Christianity, is not a substance or an entity, but an imperfection. It is "missing the mark". A purely "evil" creature cannot exist, because pure imperfection is an incoherent idea. I hope we agree so far.

2) The message behind John 3:16, a message that I believe is supposed to trump any "choices have consequences" lessons in the bible, is that God does not abandon anyone who wants to repent, and to be saved, no matter how many bad choices they make.

3) Hell, as you agree, is not a location, but a state of being, an absence of God.

From 1) 2) and 3), I think it follows that the only way a state of Hell can be a part of Christianity is if those in Hell want to be there. This is not to imply that it is in a pleasant state, but that they are so enveloped by spite/rebellion/hate Etc. that they do not repent.

HamletOrHecuba

Morbert wrote: »

3) Hell, as you agree, is not a location, but a state of being, an absence of God.
.

An absence of God would be also an absence of being full stop would it not?

I wonder where this idea of defining hell by God's absence came from.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

(Puts on amateur theology hat)

I was going to ask was it conical in shape until I realised that my own theology is .. my own. Ever searching..

1) The notion of a person being stripped of all that makes them good sounds wholly unChristian to me. Christianity rejects dualist notions of good and evil. Evil, according to Christianity, is not a substance or an entity, but an imperfection. It is "missing the mark". A purely "evil" creature cannot exist, because pure imperfection is an incoherent idea. I hope we agree so far.

Let's see if we do:

UnChristian.

Very often the love of God is cited as a basis of objection to the likes of Hell. What is repeatedly ignored is the manifest wrath of God against evil in all it's forms. His wrath is as well (if not more) described and documented as is his love. And Christianity (as opposed to a sentimental, "it'll be all right on the night - shure, isn't God Love" view of Christianity) has no problem with both aspects of God's character having their fullest expression.


Being stripped of his image is in effect, God respecting our choice: since it is our choice which precedes and determines his stripping us. If our choice is considered of paramount importance to him (over say; ensuring our comfort 'no matter what', or, his saving us 'no matter what') then I see nothing unChristian in his stripping us so.

Anything less than our choice being respected diminishes us as persons and this I believe, sits uppermost in God's list of priorities concerning us. Higher than our merely being saved - no matter what.

The desire of a creature in hell desiring to escape misery isn't a choice as such, it's something pressed out of them by their horrible predicament. What reason would God have in granting that desire - given that it overrides the choice made when the creature was a person?


Good and Evil.

Evil is an expression of the will which falls outside the boundaries set by God - with range of choices within his boundaries being as wide and deep as the extent of God's own character. And some would suppose being bored in heaven!

Since the will is the centrepoint of our personhoods, a will expressing evil - once stripped of the ability to express good - isn't anything other than evil (that I can see). It might well be that there are degrees in the scale of the evil of those in hell (depending on what they've carved out for themselves in life). But whatever about scale and depth: black is black and there is no white. Perfect evil it is.

Am I correct in understanding dualism as suggesting good and evil as equal if opposing forces? This Christianity rejects - it sees evil as permitted and utilised by God but conquerable and conquered. Christianity does see evil as opposing forces within the one entity (the person) however. And it does see a clear dividing line between light and darkness - such that the Christian can look forward to the death of his mortal flesh - the locus of his sin.

2) The message behind John 3:16, a message that I believe is supposed to trump any "choices have consequences" lessons in the bible, is that God does not abandon anyone who wants to repent, and to be saved, no matter how many bad choices they make.

I'd agree that salvation isn't dependent on the quantity of sin you sin. It can be that 100 kg of sins is what it takes to bring one person to their knees. And a 100 kg of sins for another person to utterly harden their heart to the point where it is so stone-cold and dead that God gives up trying to draw the person to himself - and so they are as good as lost.

Put another way: it's not a matter of how much and how depraved the sin. It's what you do with the pressure that sin is designed to build up in you (guilt, shame, unhappiness, pain, discomfort, anguish). We all run and hide and try all manner of things to suppress this pain. But will we run 'til the day we die and are lost? Or will we fold before it's too late and permit the pain of our lifelong sin to push us to our knees? The thief on the cross indicates the way open until our final breath. But not beyond that.

Your sin will either save you or it will condemn you. The choice too is yours

3) Hell, as you agree, is not a location, but a state of being, an absence of God.

I think it is both (although I haven't thought it through fully). In the same way that 'heaven' will actually be a place where we have bodies somewhat like the bodies we are familiar with, I think hell will involve physicality. We were created that way: physical, emotional, psychological, spiritual. I can't think of any reason to throw away the basic design.

And I don't see a reason to strip of other than that which we are allowed to ultimately reject: God.

From 1) 2) and 3), I think it follows that the only way a state of Hell can be a part of Christianity is if those in Hell want to be there. This is not to imply that it is in a pleasant state, but that they are so enveloped by spite/rebellion/hate Etc. that they do not repent.

I've taken a different stance above - perhaps clarifying why I don't agree with your conclusion. But to be specific here:

As elsewhere in life, the fullest consequences of our choices might not be fully known at the time of choosing - they might only be revealed once the choice is made. That we often can't fully know all consequences doesn't diminish our choices being genuine choices - nor does it diminish our responsibility for bearing the full consequences that follow. I would argue that we are offered a fair, balanced choice wrt God's offer of salvation. The fullest consequences of both sets of consequences being equally veiled to us.

And so, whilst the creature in hell might desire to escape that environment - say by annihilation - their desire isn't of concern anymore (if I might sound cold hearted for a moment). The choice they made when that choice was being presented in balanced fashion to them as persons here on Earth is only respectful to that person when the consequences of the choice are fully delivered on. That the person is now a creature (since a stripping of their humanity is one consequence of their choice) only copperfastens their fate. Persons are in a position to make choices, not creatures.

antiskeptic

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

I wonder where this idea of defining hell by God's absence came from.

The Bye Bill some would say. Then again, lot's of conflicting ideas come from there.

HamletOrHecuba

antiskeptic wrote: »

The Bye Bill some would say. Then again, lot's of conflicting ideas come from there.

The Bible can seem contradictory at face value, but it isnt when you sit down and think about what it is actually trying saying to say.

antiskeptic

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

The Bible can seem contradictory at face value, but it isnt when you sit down and think about what it is actually trying saying to say.

I agree. The "contradictory ideas" stem from different people sitting down and thinking "about what it is actually trying to say" .. and coming to different conclusions.



Some suppose literal hellfire, some suppose God's absence (give me literal hellfire anyday), some suppose annihilation. All would say they get their notions from the Bible.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

(Puts on amateur theology hat)

1) The notion of a person being stripped of all that makes them good sounds wholly unChristian to me. Christianity rejects dualist notions of good and evil. Evil, according to Christianity, is not a substance or an entity, but an imperfection. It is "missing the mark". A purely "evil" creature cannot exist, because pure imperfection is an incoherent idea. I hope we agree so far.

2) The message behind John 3:16, a message that I believe is supposed to trump any "choices have consequences" lessons in the bible, is that God does not abandon anyone who wants to repent, and to be saved, no matter how many bad choices they make.

3) Hell, as you agree, is not a location, but a state of being, an absence of God.

From 1) 2) and 3), I think it follows that the only way a state of Hell can be a part of Christianity is if those in Hell want to be there. This is not to imply that it is in a pleasant state, but that they are so enveloped by spite/rebellion/hate Etc. that they do not repent.

Morbert, since the Bible uses stories and illustrations as much as it uses straightforward prose, let's try looking at this in a different way.

I presume you are, to some extent at least, familiar with Tolkien's character Gollum? The human-like hobbit, Sméagol, has become a loathsome reptilian creature, debased in spirit, mind and body. This degeneration has occurred through his obsession with the destructive power of his 'precious' - the ring.

Now, you could, on one level, argue that his loathsome condition is a punishment for his behaviour - but it would be equally as accurate to say that it is the consequence of the choices that he made by flirting with something that he should have steered well clear of.

Tolkien did not write his fiction as a consciious allegory, but as a thoughtful and committed Christian he inevitable explored themes that were current in theology and philosophy.

So think of a human being as a Sméagol, whose life-long obsession with sin gradually de-humanises them until they become a Gollum. Eventually they end up living in a world of darkness, shrinking from anything that is light or wholesome.

Is it unreasonable to suggest that such a creature, reaping the consequences of previous choices, no longer possesses the capability to change? In such a case it is not so much that Gollum chooses to stay in darkness - but rather that he has so debased himself as to lose the faculty of choice. He is what he is. He is what he chose to become.

PS - This line of thought is much more consistent with Biblical Christianity than is a narrow focus on salvation as simply being about where you go when you die. Living life God's way now, with the help of His Holy Spirit, helps you become a different kind of person in a positive direction. Living life selfishly and sinfully causes you to become a different kind of 'person' in a negative direction.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

So think of a human being as a Sméagol, whose life-long obsession with sin gradually de-humanises them until they become a Gollum. Eventually they end up living in a world of darkness, shrinking from anything that is light or wholesome.

Would you agree that whilst this might occur in the case of some folk in real world, most will end their days just as they lived them: living a mixture of light and darkness?

And that there will be a final telling at Judgement when the ability to live in the light will be removed from them?

Is it unreasonable to suggest that such a creature, reaping the consequences of previous choices, no longer possesses the capability to change? In such a case it is not so much that Gollum chooses to stay in darkness - but rather that he has so debased himself as to lose the faculty of choice. He is what he is. He is what he chose to become.

..and so, following on from the point above, would you agree that the faculty of choice regarding light and darkness, extended by God for a time, is taken away by God?

In other words, the faculty is lost by the persons choices alright - but in the sense that their unwillingness to turn from darkness means the light they had turns from them.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote:

A purely "evil" creature cannot exist, because pure imperfection is an incoherent idea.

I'm wondering whether we can talk of evil in hell anymore.

If evil involves and requires an expression of will - but the creature in hell is completely locked up even to the point of being unable to express will anymore - could they be said to be evil?

Vile perhaps, but maybe not evil.

They might experience self-loathing for instance, since they are objectively loathsome. They might experience selfish regret and be kicking themselves for their folly. They could look on others in the same environment and be repulsed by the depths others have plunged to. But if this occurs by being held captive and having no option but to observe both self and others then there is no expression of will (in the sense of having options). Only a state of being.

Perhaps in addition to the image of God being stripped from them, the creature in hell is exposed to the utter holiness of God. And that holiness is a measure against which the creature has no option but to evaluate himself. And against that standard he finds himself utterly contemptable.

In this life we are permitted a multitude of ways to suppress and look away from the fact that we fall short of the glorious standard of God. I don't suppose there will be eyelids in Hell.

PDN

antiskeptic wrote: »

Would you agree that whilst this might occur in the case of some folk in real world, most will end their days just as they lived them: living a mixture of light and darkness?

Absolutely, if by 'end their days' you mean this present life. But I would see their downward spiral continuing in the next life.

And that there will be a final telling at Judgement when the ability to live in the light will be removed from them?

..and so, following on from the point above, would you agree that the faculty of choice regarding light and darkness, extended by God for a time, is taken away by God?

In other words, the faculty is lost by the persons choices alright - but in the sense that their unwillingness to turn from darkness means the light they had turns from them.

That raises an interesting concept.

A number of Christians subscribe to the view that in our present world the Holy Spirit acts as a restrainer - mollifying the wickedness of even those who reject God. Now imagine a world where there is no more Christian teaching or influence, no more William Wilberforces or Martin Luther Kings, and no more restraining activity of the Holy Spirit. It is quite possible that nothing we have seen so far in history, not even the Holocaust, comes close to human wickedness and cruelty when it is truly free and unrestrained.

How would this work in practice. Would those shut out from God's presence instantly become as evil as they can possibly be? Or, as I think more likely, would this be a gradual process?

I'm also reminded of Pharoah in the Exodus story - how he hardened his own heart several times, but then we read that 'God hardened his heart'. God does not strive with men forever - so after a while it may be that He says, "Ok, if it's a hard hard you want, then here you are!"

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

Absolutely, if by 'end their days' you mean this present life. But I would see their downward spiral continuing in the next life.

A spiraling downwards further away from light as is being done in this life (which would mean they still have light in the next life - which strikes me as problematic)?

Or the light turned off in the start of the next life and their spiraling downwards from one degree of lightlessness to another? Oh, I see you've answered this..

A number of Christians subscribe to the view that in our present world the Holy Spirit acts as a restrainer - mollifying the wickedness of even those who reject God. Now imagine a world where there is no more Christian teaching or influence, no more William Wilberforces or Martin Luther Kings, and no more restraining activity of the Holy Spirit. It is quite possible that nothing we have seen so far in history, not even the Holocaust, comes close to human wickedness and cruelty when it is truly free and unrestrained.

What do you hold to yourself?

This strikes me as a possibility. Just as we plumb newer depths of darkness even whilst under restraint by light, it must be possible to plumb the depths in the same way once unrestrained. A sort of freefall into depravity.

My only issue with this is that evil will exist (if evil involves wills being permitted to express themselves). Whereas the will utterly bound renders evil eradicated whilst still permitting an existence brought upon by oneself.

How would this work in practice. Would those shut out from God's presence instantly become as evil as they can possibly be? Or, as I think more likely, would this be a gradual process?

That might be based on (y)our experience of the stepwise nature of decline whilst under God's restraint. I wouldn't be so sure things wouldn't go exponential. We have a penchant for that...

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

Morbert, since the Bible uses stories and illustrations as much as it uses straightforward prose, let's try looking at this in a different way.

I presume you are, to some extent at least, familiar with Tolkien's character Gollum? The human-like hobbit, Sméagol, has become a loathsome reptilian creature, debased in spirit, mind and body. This degeneration has occurred through his obsession with the destructive power of his 'precious' - the ring.

Now, you could, on one level, argue that his loathsome condition is a punishment for his behaviour - but it would be equally as accurate to say that it is the consequence of the choices that he made by flirting with something that he should have steered well clear of.

Tolkien did not write his fiction as a consciious allegory, but as a thoughtful and committed Christian he inevitable explored themes that were current in theology and philosophy.

So think of a human being as a Sméagol, whose life-long obsession with sin gradually de-humanises them until they become a Gollum. Eventually they end up living in a world of darkness, shrinking from anything that is light or wholesome.

Is it unreasonable to suggest that such a creature, reaping the consequences of previous choices, no longer possesses the capability to change? In such a case it is not so much that Gollum chooses to stay in darkness - but rather that he has so debased himself as to lose the faculty of choice. He is what he is. He is what he chose to become.

PS - This line of thought is much more consistent with Biblical Christianity than is a narrow focus on salvation as simply being about where you go when you die. Living life God's way now, with the help of His Holy Spirit, helps you become a different kind of person in a positive direction. Living life selfishly and sinfully causes you to become a different kind of 'person' in a negative direction.

This sounds like the (apparently) less common but more consistent understanding of Hell tendered by N.T. Wright, and corresponding to option 2 in my poll. Gollum doesn't enjoy the darkness, and he is not actively "choosing" to stay in the darkness, but he also does not want to leave it.

lmaopml

PDN's explanation of Smeagol becoming Gollum is very similar to a talk I once heard, in fact it called it to mind - I had forgotton, so thanks PDN, great post. Tolkien is among my favourite authors....

The speaker was explaining about what we choose to love in life can and will bind us to it, and how it's important to recognise what that is exactly in each persons life on self reflection. Sometimes we don't own the things we are attached to or love but they end up owning us slowly but surely.

skoomi

As an atheist I think Hell sounds like a great place.

I know it sounds cliched but if Hell was real I would end up with the greatest rock stars, scientists, free-thinkers, counter-culture heroes etc etc... and basically the other 65% of the human population that aren't Christian, including any yet-to-be-discovered Amazonian tribes.

It actually sounds like a fantastic experience. If it lasts for eternity then that's even better.

Run_to_da_hills

Calling a spade a spade with scripture references.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZSLgSTQIew

kelly1

To me Hell is a realm of separation from God with the degree of punishment corresponding to how we much/grievously we have sinned. It is a "realm" of eternal torment and remorse without love of any kind. Going to Hell (or Heaven) involves a personal choice to love God who is (the source of) all good or follow our selfish wills, biting the hand the feeds us in Love, putting self above God, who created us in Love.

My 2c!

snafuk35

It makes no sense to me that if a kid steals a chocolate bar from a shop runs out the door and gets walloped stone dead (before he has time to repent) by a car he goes to hell and gets the same punishment as Adolf Hitler (if one presumes he didn't see the light and pray to God for forgiveness before he shot himself). Hell is hell so its the same punishment - eternal damnation in the lake of burning sulfur. That's hard to believe quite frankly.

snafuk35

kelly1 wrote: »

To me Hell is a realm of separation from God with the degree of punishment corresponding to how we much/grievously we have sinned. It is a "realm" of eternal torment and remorse without love of any kind. Going to Hell (or Heaven) involves a personal choice to love God who is (the source of) all good or follow our selfish wills, biting the hand the feeds us in Love, putting self above God, who created us in Love.

My 2c!

There is no scriptural basis for that at all.
Hell is hell and the bible mentions nothing about degrees of hell.
If a teenage girl has sex with her boyfriend and then drops dead of a heart attack she gets the same punishment in hell as a death camp commandant who gassed thousands and thousands of people.
The Book of Revelation makes it quite clear that hell is a lake of burning sulfur.
I don't believe that myself but the theology is quite clear about it.

Run_to_da_hills

snafuk35 wrote: »

It makes no sense to me that if a kid steals a chocolate bar from a shop runs out the door and gets walloped stone dead (before he has time to repent) by a car he goes to hell and gets the same punishment as Adolf Hitler (if one presumes he didn't see the light and pray to God for forgiveness before he shot himself). Hell is hell so its the same punishment - eternal damnation in the lake of burning sulfur. That's hard to believe quite frankly.

If the kid knew well what he was at and deliberately rejected Christ, I could see it no different to anyone else that has also rejected the call for salvation irrespective of their crimes. God also warns us in Luke 12 19 20 not to take life for granted and to be prepared for a calling at any time.

2 Thessalonians 1:8. Puts it quite clear: "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ"

Doc Farrell

snafuk35 wrote: »

There is no scriptural basis for that at all.
Hell is hell and the bible mentions nothing about degrees of hell.
If a teenage girl has sex with her boyfriend and then drops dead of a heart attack she gets the same punishment in hell as a death camp commandant who gassed thousands and thousands of people.
The Book of Revelation makes it quite clear that hell is a lake of burning sulfur.
I don't believe that myself but the theology is quite clear about it.

In order to accept your view one would have to read Revelations literally. Take a quick look at the Book and tell me if that's possible. Look at the Lion of Judah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

What about the rest of the imagery in the Bible. The lake of fire would also have to be located in the valley of Gehenna. Page 2 of the Bible has a second version of the beginning of the world. Which one is literally true?
You don't have to read all imagery in the Bible as literal in order to be a Christian.

PDN

snafuk35 wrote: »

There is no scriptural basis for that at all.
Hell is hell and the bible mentions nothing about degrees of hell.
If a teenage girl has sex with her boyfriend and then drops dead of a heart attack she gets the same punishment in hell as a death camp commandant who gassed thousands and thousands of people.
The Book of Revelation makes it quite clear that hell is a lake of burning sulfur.
I don't believe that myself but the theology is quite clear about it.

Absolute tripe.

Is this another case of a non-Christian crazily misinterpreting Scripture and then trying to tell believers that we should accept their ignorance and misunderstanding?

Jesus indicated that there are degrees of judgement, worse for some than for others (Matthew 11:20-24).

Benny_Cake

snafuk35 wrote: »

There is no scriptural basis for that at all.
Hell is hell and the bible mentions nothing about degrees of hell.
If a teenage girl has sex with her boyfriend and then drops dead of a heart attack she gets the same punishment in hell as a death camp commandant who gassed thousands and thousands of people.
The Book of Revelation makes it quite clear that hell is a lake of burning sulfur.
I don't believe that myself but the theology is quite clear about it.

Actually, "the theology", by which I assume you mean the Bible is far from clear about it. Which is why Christians over the centuries have held positions ranging from eternal torment of the damned, to annihilationism, to various degrees of universalism. And, to be honest, that is why we're having this discussion.