The Existence Of Hell

[Godspell]

Well let's put it this way... You step on an ant, no big deal right? You kill a frog, that is a little more cruel. Kill a dog, it is very cruel and illegal. Kill a human, what is wrong with you!

I hope you see that our sin is in proportion to who or what we sin against. We know that every sin we commit is ultimately towards God. Who is infinitely greater than everything.

So if we die in our sin, God, who is just, will have no choice but to punish our souls eternally.

That is fine. The theology your purport though is based on the legalistic view of the Faith. Here is God as the final judge, and if you have not qualified yourself for heaven you are condemned to hell, suffer eternal conscientious torment with no hope of relief.

You can hold that theology, but don't hide it behind scripture. A lot of faithful traditions which have been around much longer do not view it through the legalistic theology.

IMO understanding God as consistent and unchanging is more important than understanding the nature of punishment. As I see it, this consistency is best achieved by emphasizing that hell is not prepared by God as a place to punish sins, it is a place prepared by sinners for whom humility would be more painful than hellfire.

The analogy I like is that of someone who has an infection and refuses to take medicine for it. Now, who is really punishing the person? The one refusing the medicine, or the one offering it?

Scripture that speaks to God punishing, as I see it, is an understanding that God, ultimately created the disease also. But, fully comprehending God is impossible because He is, at times, paradoxical. So, you are going to understand God differently than I do, and ultimately we are both wrong, but each has certain truths that the other does not have.

What I don't like is people holding up the Bible as if my theology does not come from it. No in fact it does, but neither of us is 100% right.

 

[KingJ]

Does it matter what people think or even believe if the word of God says otherwise? Either the word of God is true or it isn't. If it isn't then why bother with anything written? If it isn't all true but some is, how can anyone know which is true? Why is it then that we even call ourselves Christian if it were not for the word of God?

I do not disagree with you. But I want to propose that we need to look at what 'scripture is not saying' / what is going on behind the scenes.

1. God has not tortured any of His enemies. Death by sulfur / plagues of harassment > death by chemical attack / radiation / ebola virus (Adam's sin).
2. He instructs us to love our enemies because that is who He is. We assume He won't / doesn't? He won't lead by example?
3. He spoke respectfuly to the devil and fallen angels on earth. He honored the fallen angels request to be cast into pigs. He even showed the devil dignity when He cast him out of heaven (allowing an ant to throw a temper tantrum). Now He does a 180 degree turn ignoring and hating them for eternity?
4. All judged according to deeds Rev 20:13 + God is impartial in judgment 1 Pet 1:17 = not equal punishments for thieves and murderers. Perhaps saying ''there is weeping and gnashing of teeth'' Luke 13:28 = ''some'' are weeping and gnashing teeth?
5. Rev 20:10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
a. All sinners are tormented right now by sin. They have no inner peace. This torment related to them grasping their sin must surely quadruple when they leave the flesh. Torment brought upon themselves. Could this not be the sole torment in hell?
b. Could there not be different parts to the lake of sulfur? When I think of lake of fire, I think of molten lava. Couldn't hell be like an island with a volcano on it. Everyone goes to the hottest part to serve out their temporary punishment for their sins. Then let out once its done? One week for murderers. Two days for thieves. Is differing punishments not the way God has dealt with all sin in the OT? Even in the NT, Paul isolates mortal sins in 1 Cor 6:9-13. God instructs the OT prophets to treat sinners differently (stone, burn, chop off hands, ex-communicate).
6. Psalm 136:1 is clear that God's love and mercy endures forever. Yet we believe it ends when we who are saved fall from grace and go to an eternity in hell. Surely, it continues. God does not lie. Surely, the fact that God is tolerating the existence of a hell for eternity should tell us that God still loves and ''maybe'' has plans for the wicked? We / The Geneva convention treat prisoners better then God?

Conclusion: Scripture is not crystal clear on hell. We can be forgiven for expecting those who hate God to live a good life apart from Him. That points to true free will and good God for any sane mind. An undisputable fact is that God is more sane, loving and humble then anyone of us. A good God keeps those who hate Him alive, to respect their free will to hate Him. A good God does not torture His creation, ever. A good God tries to help His creation from the torture they are bringing upon themselves. God has done all this. I believe we ''assume'' too much on hell. The wise fear hell because the wise love God and do not want eternal separation. Not ''torture''. Perhaps if there was scriputre of where God actually tortured an enemy, I would more easily believe hell = eternal torture by God.

 

[KingJ]

So if we die in our sin, God, who is just, will have no choice but to punish our souls eternally.

It is good that you are defending God. But I do not believe we need to do that without common sense. Eternal torture is NOT fair punishment for any sinner. That is a fact.

If you are right and hell is as you think it is....I will bring those in hell water. Will God stop me? Or can I hold God to scripture that He GAVE me....?

Matt 5:44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. That all changes when we in heaven? o_O

 

[Cosmicwaffle]

Well here are the options,

1. People go to hell, and are given a second chance to come to heaven.
2. People stay in hell for a certain amount of time, but not eternally.
3. People stay in hell eternally.
4. People don't go to hell at all, but instead are saved at judgement day.
5. People go to hell, but can leave whenever they want.
6. Their souls vanish in hell, never to be seen again.

What does God's word say? I am asking you guys.

 

[Cosmicwaffle]

Also consider this... God's Love for people in hell will not suddenly disappear, but instead his justice will be displayed in them, because they have ultimately rejected him.

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

Well here are the options,

1. People go to hell, and are given a second chance to come to heaven.
2. People stay in hell for a certain amount of time, but not eternally.
3. People stay in hell eternally.
4. People don't go to hell at all, but instead are saved at judgement day.
5. People go to hell, but can leave whenever they want.
6. Their souls vanish in hell, never to be seen again.

What does God's word say? I am asking you guys.

I am never comfortable presuming to know God's will, but the first question I would ask is, is the idea to punish us or correct us? What purpose does eternal punishment serve?

 

[KingJ]

Well here are the options,

1. People go to hell, and are given a second chance to come to heaven.
2. People stay in hell for a certain amount of time, but not eternally.
3. People stay in hell eternally.
4. People don't go to hell at all, but instead are saved at judgement day.
5. People go to hell, but can leave whenever they want.
6. Their souls vanish in hell, never to be seen again.

What does God's word say? I am asking you guys.

1. God does not make mistakes. If they have any hope of being in heaven, they would be in heaven or at least 'purgatory'.
2. Scripture is clear that its eternal separation.
3. Yes .
4. Fallen angels, Stalin, Ted Bundy, Nero....hate God and us. God loves them. Putting them with us would be God hating them and us.
5. Perhaps. If the other destinations have no good being / thing they can harm / abuse as the verdict is that they love darkness John 3:19.
6. That would be unfair of God. God is not unfair in dishing out punishments 1 Pet 1:17. Impartial = impartial. Good = free will. Free will = being able to live with your decision.

Conclusion: God is not evil. God is good. Apply that rule to every point and the truth should become clearer.

 

[Cosmicwaffle]

I am never comfortable presuming to know God's will, but the first question I would ask is, is the idea to punish us or correct us? What purpose does eternal punishment serve?

You jump off a cliff trying to deny the law of gravity, and you get killed. Laws have consequences. And when you break your relationship with God, you feel the consequences eternally.

That is my thinking at least.

 

[KingJ]

I am never comfortable presuming to know God's will, but the first question I would ask is, is the idea to punish us or correct us? What purpose does eternal punishment serve?

Something to think about is the fact that God's IQ is a million (plus much more) times greater then ours. God sees intentions of our minds and hearts on a scale we can't. As a result, I do not believe God would ever send someone to hell if there was hope of them accepting Him / repenting of sin. Hell is eternal and God is good....so hell is a home for the wicked.

 

[KingJ]

You jump off a cliff trying to deny the law of gravity, and you get killed. Laws have consequences. And when you break your relationship with God, you feel the consequences eternally.

That is my thinking at least.

Great way to look at it.

 

[Godspell]

Well here are the options,

1. People go to hell, and are given a second chance to come to heaven.
2. People stay in hell for a certain amount of time, but not eternally.
3. People stay in hell eternally.
4. People don't go to hell at all, but instead are saved at judgement day.
5. People go to hell, but can leave whenever they want.
6. Their souls vanish in hell, never to be seen again.

What does God's word say? I am asking you guys.

If one so desired, one could find verses to support any of these suppositions. Of course it can only be one. However, there are a few issues:

1. Scripture as we know it is translated. Translators are not necessarily protected from error. In good faith, they can produce a trustworthy translation, but your only going to get the full richness of the scripture through the original language. For instance, we loose most of the puns because of translation. When we think of the name "Peter" for instance, we don't think of the word Rock, but indeed at the time Christ called Simon, "Peter", that was the only time it was ever used as a name. Jesus, meaning "savior" also gets lost in translation, as in, "You shall call him "savior" for He will save your people."

The poetry in the psalms and songs too loose their potency because literal translations rarely maintain literary or poetic techniques (i.e. rhyme, alliteration, allusion, pun, etc.).

2. In defining doctrine, we look at the totality of scripture, not individual scripture. Anything can be pulled out of its context and used to support something that is not true. As has been done to disparage black people, women and more recently homosexuals.

What I read from the Bible is that God is Love, and that verse stands out to me because it speaks to my heart. Now, a lot of people for some reason say that its somehow lesser for a person to only focus on the loving aspects of God when there's plenty of passages that speak about His wrath and hate. I think that is completely unfair. If I have to choose between my brain and my heart, I'm going to choose my heart. I can hardly think of a situation in which someone sincerely trusting in his heart would be condemned for it. I can however think of plenty of instances where someone used their brain to reason themselves into a position of great moral depravity. Abortion, slavery, and eugenics to name a few.

 

[Big Moose]

Respectfully, that might be enough to go by if you are a Bible-only Christian, but many of us are not.

If you use other sources along with the Bible, how do you determine what is correct, good, holy and Christ-like (Christian), as opposed to wrong, bad, unholy and anti-christian? How can God correct your attitude, as we all need at times, when your emotions and mental evaluations of right and wrong cloud your judgement? What is it you can rely on?

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

If you use other sources along with the Bible, how do you determine what is correct, good, holy and Christ-like (Christian), as opposed to wrong, bad, unholy and anti-christian? How can God correct your attitude, as we all need at times, when your emotions and mental evaluations of right and wrong cloud your judgement? What is it you can rely on?

Let me turn the question around and ask you why you chose to discard the sacred traditions and teachings of the early church to instead focus solely on the Bible, and on whose authority did you do so?
God doesn't need to correct my attitude - my attitude is BASED on God, it has nothing to do with my own emotions and mental evaluations.

 

[Godspell]

If you use other sources along with the Bible, how do you determine what is correct, good, holy and Christ-like (Christian), as opposed to wrong, bad, unholy and anti-christian? How can God correct your attitude, as we all need at times, when your emotions and mental evaluations of right and wrong cloud your judgement? What is it you can rely on?

The Christian Faith, Big Moose, predates the Bible. If something is wholly incompatible with scripture, yes we reject it, but there are plenty of moral standards that are not strictly found in the Bible. For instance pedophilia.

The Bible is not a law book, it is a sacred text of Faith. We get into this debate all the time, and it never ceases to amaze me that people simply will not admit that (1) they do not practice everything written in the Bible or (2) they in fact practice things that are NOT written in the Bible.

Sola Scriptura in fact, is nowhere in the Bible. It is "read into". But regardless, this is not the point. I believe that not only are all the essential articles of faith in the Bible, but they are in fact in just the four Gospels. The Epistles simply focus on particular theological aspects. But yes, all doctrine must ultimately line up with scriptural truths. But it is simply untrue to outright reject something that is not explicitly stated in the Bible.

 

[Big Moose]

The Christian Faith, Big Moose, predates the Bible. If something is wholly incompatible with scripture, yes we reject it, but there are plenty of moral standards that are not strictly found in the Bible. For instance pedophilia.

The Bible is not a law book, it is a sacred text of Faith. We get into this debate all the time, and it never ceases to amaze me that people simply will not admit that (1) they do not practice everything written in the Bible or (2) they in fact practice things that are NOT written in the Bible.

Sola Scriptura in fact, is nowhere in the Bible. It is "read into". But regardless, this is not the point. I believe that not only are all the essential articles of faith in the Bible, but they are in fact in just the four Gospels. The Epistles simply focus on particular theological aspects. But yes, all doctrine must ultimately line up with scriptural truths. But it is simply untrue to outright reject something that is not explicitly stated in the Bible.

I agree with that. Not sure what gave the impression I didn't. I was talking about using other sources and holding politically correct opinions which outright disagree with the Bible for any purpose, including avoiding being labeled as phobic, as it is attached to any issue nowadays in an attempt to elevate ones self.

 

[Abdicate]

Y'all can believe whatever you want. We'll all know the truth when we're dead or asleep depending on your status in God's eyes even though His word (if you count it as His word) says otherwise.

 

[Abdicate]

I feel like in my post I gave you a sincere apology for where the universalist school of thought comes from, even from scriptural and patristic tradition, yet your only response is to simply say that it goes against the word of God?

This is what is so frustrating about literalists, you have no respect for how the Bible has been traditionally used in Christian doctrine. You hide your doctrine behind Biblical infallibility, and you simply just don't believe that you can ever be wrong. That is not how it was used in the early Church.

I have said it before, and I will say it again, these schools of thought DO NOT believe contrary to the Bible, they believe something contrary to YOUR interpretation of the Bible. And since you've rejected doctrinal arbitration by the magestrium, you have to respect that any doctrine grounded in Biblical and traditional authority is just as valid as your own.

Ok... well... the only thing that comes to mind is: are we going to debate over the meaning what 'is' is? That's what you're saying right? If the word of God says "everlasting fire" I'm just supposed to believe that that's not what it means? Which word is subjective? Everlasting or fire? Please, I know it's easy to read emotions into text, but I'm just trying to be sincere. If we have no sure foundation, then we can believe anything. I'm not trying to force any agenda or even a belief, just the plain text of the word of God. Nothing more. But you're free to believe YOUR way as YOU see fit in YOUR eyes.

 

[Big Moose]

Let me turn the question around and ask you why you chose to discard the sacred traditions and teachings of the early church to instead focus solely on the Bible, and on whose authority did you do so?
God doesn't need to correct my attitude - my attitude is BASED on God, it has nothing to do with my own emotions and mental evaluations.

To answer your turnaround, because the Bible does not change based on the values of the prevailing governing culture or based on the latest, loudest and pushiest groups demanding to have their way. There is nothing sacred about men and their traditions. Measure and prove all things. The Pharisees had all the rituals and laws and traditions and authority, and Jesus called them the worst of sinners because they harmed others' salvation by teaching them to follow man made laws and traditions.

Jesus showed that at least some of the laws God allowed to be given to the Israelites were for their need and survival because their hearts were hardened. But He showed that the most important thing to follow was to love God and follow His ways and what He intended for us. And like it, to love each other in ways that please Him.
The Bible is the guide book for life. The only early church fathers I will take direction from are contained therein. The early fathers from the next few centuries set up traditions that were easily skewed to usher in minor changes in the middle ages which allowed for charging for indulgences and masses for the dead to take advantage of those who had no access to a Bible. I know, you don't agree with what they did then, but it happened because they relied on man's traditions.
My high horse needs to go back to the stable now.

 

[THALLON]

to me hell is just a tormenting dark hot place
where you wait for about a thousand years till the judgment day,
then you get out of hell for judgement,
then they cast you into the lake of fire,
and I haven't decided yet whether the lake of fire is total destruction of your very essence or eternal torment of your soul.

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

To answer your turnaround, because the Bible does not change based on the values of the prevailing governing culture or based on the latest, loudest and pushiest groups demanding to have their way. There is nothing sacred about men and their traditions. Measure and prove all things. The Pharisees had all the rituals and laws and traditions and authority, and Jesus called them the worst of sinners because they harmed others' salvation by teaching them to follow man made laws and traditions.

Jesus showed that at least some of the laws God allowed to be given to the Israelites were for their need and survival because their hearts were hardened. But He showed that the most important thing to follow was to love God and follow His ways and what He intended for us. And like it, to love each other in ways that please Him.
The Bible is the guide book for life. The only early church fathers I will take direction from are contained therein. The early fathers from the next few centuries set up traditions that were easily skewed to usher in minor changes in the middle ages which allowed for charging for indulgences and masses for the dead to take advantage of those who had no access to a Bible. I know, you don't agree with what they did then, but it happened because they relied on man's traditions.
My high horse needs to go back to the stable now.

I'm curious, you say that "There is nothing sacred about men and their traditions" - may I ask, then, what it is about the Bible that makes you say it's not just as man-made as everything else? Do you think the Bible fell from the sky one day in a leather-bound KJV edition? And speaking of editions, why are there so many? Which one is God's true and intended words?

Also, how do you know the laws and traditions and rituals are opposed by God? You don't - you've been told that by human beings who claim to speak on God's authority. Should you not examine those rituals, traditions, etc. to see what their purpose is, to see what they to do honor God and uphold His teachings before discarding them as "man-made"?

This isn't to say corruption didn't set in - of course that is going to happen when churches get too big and too powerful and even become ruling entities. I could draw parallels to today's modern fundamentalists doing the same thing though - Jerry Falwell asking his viewers to send him money otherwise God will "call him home". As for people having no access to a Bible, that's partly because of the lack of ability to make any kind of books freely available prior to things like the printing press, and partly because of the attitude that making it freely available without appropriate people to instruct from it would result in many people interpreting it their own way, and I don't have to tell you that we have over 40,000 Christian denominations these days. Oops.