hell

[twoblacknines]

I am at a point in my life where I am not sure what I believe. It's a funny feeling, asking yourself what you truly believe, and only recieving an "I don't know" I have had points in my life where I felt christian, then points where I felt atheist, then agnostic (insert joke about nostics being atheist with no balls).

My main problem with Christianity is the idea of hell. The bible seems to teach forgiveness, but the idea of going to hell for eternity for doubting God seems very contradictory to this teaching.

After being in hell for 1 million years would God not find it in his heart to allow an atheist to repent and be accepted into heaven? I would really like to hear some believers answer to this.

Say a scientist has doubts about God and never truly believes, but creates a cure for HIV and saves literally millions of lives. He dies and is then sent to hell? What about the Christian who attends church every sunday without fail, but never saves 1 human life? He is given a VIP pass into heaven while the scientist burns eternally? This I cannot accept.

Maybe man just has God wrong. But if we are to look solely at the bible then we must take it as God's word, and cannot just say well everything is true except the whole hell part.

If my only options were to believe in:

1) God+our notion of hell or

2) No God

Then my logical side can only come to conclusion #2.

I have liked some of John's posts, and the idea of looking at the bible in metaphors. It at least makes some of the things in the bible make more sense. Some people say hell is simply an absence from God. This seems more acceptable than burning forever (literal interpretation). But even then I still think if God exists, that he would be RATIONAL and compromise on the whole sending good people to hell thing. I still feel that God may exists, but maybe he is not like the strict christian definition.

** Sorry for the long post. I have been wanting to make this for awhile and everything just kind of came out at once, so it may not be very well thought out or organized.

[CaseS87]

If you choose to omit certain parts of the Bible that you don't like, you may as well create your own religion.

I have come to the conclusion that the only reason people are trying to interpret the Bible metaphorically is because many things in the Bible are completely unreasonable. Because of human nature's upward trend in knowledge and increase in reason, some attempt to mold reason into the Bible. My point is that God didn't come down out of the clouds and tell us "Genesis is actually not true and was written to sort of metaphorically describe the big bang which actually happened 14 billion years ago." Applying reason to the Bible through means of alternate interpretation is entirely man made, making the Bible essentially useless.

[txag007]

One question and one comment:

First, what does the Bible actually say about hell?

and secondly,

[ QUOTE ]
What about the Christian who attends church every sunday without fail, but never saves 1 human life? He is given a VIP pass into heaven while the scientist burns eternally?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're wrong about the VIP part.

9For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. 10By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames. 1 Corinthians 3:9-13

[twoblacknines]

txag007,

but what about the scientist who cured HIV? Or an organ donor whose donation saves a kids life? I guess my basic question is:

good people, who have led moral lives and had a positive affect on humanity, but had doubts about God/Jesus - according to the bible they are going to hell.

But being that God would be more advanced then any human, and is supposed to love all creatures, what justification would there be than making good people stay in hell forever? I can't believe God would be so insecure as to exact revenge on people doubting his existence. Even if non-believers were given a punishment, say 1,000 years in hell and then allowed into heaven, wouldn't that make more sense. The bible preaches forgiveness, so shouldn't God be able to forgive humans, who are far from perfect?

[FortunaMaximus]

Try reading Dante. You might gain a broader view of the issue.

By any means, it's an interesting journey.

[dknightx]

read revelations, there will be a day that God will defeat the devil, etc, etc. not really sure what happens to people in hell after that.

secondly, you put too much emphasis on the value and importance of life. if you believe in an afterlife, death isn't as bad as it seems.

finally, if i kill someone who would have eventually killed 2 people, am i doing good?

[revots33]

My opinion is that the idea of hell is so bizarre that only man could have invented it. If you believe in god, and wish to continue doing so, I see no reason to disregard the notion of hell without a second thought if it is the only stumbling block.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
but the idea of going to hell for eternity for any reason seems very contradictory to this teaching.

[/ QUOTE ]

The doctrine of hell is pretty much the worst invention of humanity, at least in theory. In practice I think most people who believe in hell are too shortsighted or unimaginative to appreciate the magnitude of that. Simply by being alive, you're perpetually risking a fate worse than anyone has ever imagined. That makes a gun in your face seem like a bucket of fun.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
the idea of going to hell for eternity

[/ QUOTE ]

Chapter and verse, please.

[hashi92]

hell is like the boogie man. you use it to scare the little kids so that they will listen to you.

[twoblacknines]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but the idea of going to hell for eternity for any reason seems very contradictory to this teaching.

[/ QUOTE ]

The doctrine of hell is pretty much the worst invention of humanity, at least in theory. In practice I think most people who believe in hell are too shortsighted or unimaginative to appreciate the magnitude of that. Simply by being alive, you're perpetually risking a fate worse than anyone has ever imagined. That makes a gun in your face seem like a bucket of fun.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems very true. In fact, if God knew you were going to lead a life that led you to go to hell, then your only point in being alive was to be tormented forever after you die. But you did not have a say in being brought into this world. So you were forced to exist, and because of that you suffer eternal repercussions. Can a christian present some justification for this? I would really like some insight.

[twoblacknines]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the idea of going to hell for eternity

[/ QUOTE ]

Chapter and verse, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying hell is not eternal? I have been told my whole life that it is, I specifically remember hearing it that way in church. I will have to reread some of the bible and see if I can find it in there.

Can you explain your position more?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
hell is like the boogie man. you use it to scare the little kids so that they will listen to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, dude, it's everywhere. Later tonight I'll post verses.

[twoblacknines]

[ QUOTE ]
read revelations, there will be a day that God will defeat the devil, etc, etc. not really sure what happens to people in hell after that.

secondly, you put too much emphasis on the value and importance of life. if you believe in an afterlife, death isn't as bad as it seems.

finally, if i kill someone who would have eventually killed 2 people, am i doing good?

[/ QUOTE ]

Life becomes so much MORE important when you believe in an afterlife, because 1 mistake in your existence here (not believing in God) can haunt you for ETERNITY.

As to your example, you kill person "X" who was going to kill person "Z" 5 years from now. This saves Z's life. What if Z is a good christian and would of went to heaven the day X killed him. Now he doesn't die in 5 years and let's say 10 years from now he renounces Christianity and becomes an atheist. Because you killed his would be murderer, he is now doomed to go from heaven to hell due to circumstances beyond his control.

Wow this can get very complicated. I would say it is impoosible to know if you are doing good no matter the example.

[Duke]

Don't worry about hell, as nobody ever actually goes there. Even serial killers get saved at the last minute and get a pass into heaven.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the idea of going to hell for eternity

[/ QUOTE ]

Chapter and verse, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying hell is not eternal? I have been told my whole life that it is, I specifically remember hearing it that way in church. I will have to reread some of the bible and see if I can find it in there.

Can you explain your position more?

[/ QUOTE ]

The eternal BBQ is a non-Biblical concept from the Greeks. When interpreting any ancient writings, a proper understanding of cultural context and original sources (rather than mere translations) is essential.

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
read revelations, there will be a day that God will defeat the devil, etc, etc. not really sure what happens to people in hell after that.

secondly, you put too much emphasis on the value and importance of life. if you believe in an afterlife, death isn't as bad as it seems.

finally, if i kill someone who would have eventually killed 2 people, am i doing good?

[/ QUOTE ]

Life becomes so much MORE important when you believe in an afterlife, because 1 mistake in your existence here (not believing in God) can haunt you for ETERNITY.

As to your example, you kill person "X" who was going to kill person "Z" 5 years from now. This saves Z's life. What if Z is a good christian and would of went to heaven the day X killed him. Now he doesn't die in 5 years and let's say 10 years from now he renounces Christianity and becomes an atheist. Because you killed his would be murderer, he is now doomed to go from heaven to hell due to circumstances beyond his control.

Wow this can get very complicated. I would say it is impoosible to know if you are doing good no matter the example.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly, that is why deeds without faith is useless (but faith without deeds is also useless too). I would recommend reading the new testament YOURSELF and making your own decisions. you should not always trust what other people tell you. In this case, everything you've learned/heard about hell is probably (partially) wrong.

Edit: btw, i should add that "not believing in God" does not necessarily mean 100% you will go to hell ... at least that is my opinion (this is one of those hotly debated topics that atheists love to bring up)

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The eternal BBQ is a non-Biblical concept from the Greeks. When interpreting any ancient writings, a proper understanding of cultural context and original sources (rather than mere translations) is essential.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's absolutely absurd. The "fire" part is direct. The "eternal" part varies, but is expressed in various contexts over and over again. Here's (http://www.carm.org/uni/eternal_hell.htm) a brief bit from an apologetic site, but it really only scratches the surface. For example, the term "asbestos" (inextinguishable) isn't the only one used to describe hell - "awniou" and "aionion" (both mean neverending) are also used.

[m_the0ry]

If God does exist but not in the strict Christian definition, do you think it makes him happy to see people read the Bible and then subsequently commit hate crimes against homosexuals?

A metaphor is a rhetorical device. By definition a metaphor provokes thought in the reader by making him apply the hypothetical to his own life. The bible dictates how one applies the metaphores to one's life. You must pray. You must believe in Jesus. You must believe Jesus died for your sins. These are not metaphores. This is not to say that metaphores do not exist in the bible, but they are few and far between. Most can be simply replaced by the golden rule.

If we strip the bible of everything but its power as a metaphore, you're left with a completely dharmic religion. In my opinion, Christianity is the definition of dogma.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The eternal BBQ is a non-Biblical concept from the Greeks. When interpreting any ancient writings, a proper understanding of cultural context and original sources (rather than mere translations) is essential.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's absolutely absurd. The "fire" part is direct. The "eternal" part varies, but is expressed in various contexts over and over again. Here's (http://www.carm.org/uni/eternal_hell.htm) a brief bit from an apologetic site, but it really only scratches the surface. For example, the term "asbestos" (inextinguishable) isn't the only one used to describe hell - "awniou" and "aionion" (both mean neverending) are also used.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absurd? Well, that's your opinion.

Chapter and verse, if you don't mind. Not links.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
The eternal BBQ is a non-Biblical concept from the Greeks. When interpreting any ancient writings, a proper understanding of cultural context and original sources (rather than mere translations) is essential.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phew, glad to hear it! Guess I can sleep easy now. I only wish those priests and nuns who scared me to death as a child knew as much as you do!

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The eternal BBQ is a non-Biblical concept from the Greeks. When interpreting any ancient writings, a proper understanding of cultural context and original sources (rather than mere translations) is essential.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phew, glad to hear it! Guess I can sleep easy now. I only wish those priests and nuns who scared me to death as a child knew as much as you do!

[/ QUOTE ]

Non sequitur. Western culture adopted much from the Greek worldview.

So you can go back to believing everything they told you.

[bunny]

One priest I have spoken to in depth about this (or related anyhow) is that the most important commandment is to love God. Doing good things is not valued as highly by God. It relies on shrugging and saying "Who am I to argue? God knows best"

Personally, I could never reconcile hell with a benevolent God. It doesnt make any sense to me and the alternatives seemed to be drop belief in hell or drop a benevolent god (at least benevolent by human standards, which is all I can go by). It is possible that there is some overarching unknowable-to-humans reason why hell is the benevolent thing to do (perhaps its necessary for justice or something?) but if it is indeed unknowable, then there will never be a reason to accept it - you'll have to adopt it as an article of faith with the rest of them.

[dknightx]

here is my personal understanding of hell:

1. eternal? well although the bible references eternal suffering and seperation from God (2 Thes. 1:8-10, Jude 1:7, Luke 16:24, Matt. 25:30,46), i don't think ENTERNAL is to be taken literally. The reason is because one day God will destroy Satan, and then what happens to the people in hell? Maybe they are destroyed too, or maybe something else, i don't know.
2. suffering? well, it will be suffering, but a large part of that is because the absence of God (insert joke here). The gnashing of teeth, and the cries, etc, are because they are apart from God.
3. punishment? yes, there will be punishment, but the key here is that it will be BASED on their deeds as well as propotional to their deeds. See Acts 17:30-31,Rom. 2:1-11, Rev. 20:11-15 and Luke 12:47-49, Matt. 10:15, Matt. 11:24, Rev. 20:12-13. So whats my point ... basically that hell will be different for everyone. It could just be isolation, and time for you to reflect by yourself, dont really know.

so there you have it, lots of i dont knows, but mostly because there is not A LOT of scripture about hell. also, i should point out that i am in the belief that God will rightly judge everyone, and that exceptions are often made for those who have failed to accept Jesus Christ but have extenuating circumstances (youth, not having heard the Gospel, mental illness, etc.).

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Absurd? Well, that's your opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

An opinion with plenty of support.

[ QUOTE ]
Chapter and verse, if you don't mind. Not links.

[/ QUOTE ]

I shouldn't take the bait, but some examples.

"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire." Matt. 18:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=18&version=49)

"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;" Matt. 25:41 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=25&version=49) (also "eternal punishment" in verse 46)

"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire" Mark 9:43 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=48&chapter=9&version=49)

"These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" 2 Thess. 1:9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=60&chapter=1&version=49)

"just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Jude 7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=49#booklist) (and while we're on the subject, Matt. 11:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2011:22,%2024&version=49) helpfully clarified the severity of the punishment)

"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Rev. 20:10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=20&version=49)

Bear in mind that this list is by no means complete. There are dozens of such references. This should be sufficient.

Now, when you criticized translations and I went to the original language, you turned around and asked for chapter and verse. Now that I've provided that, I assume your first reaction will be to go back and criticize translation again.

I'm not going to bother getting into that huge debate, particularly since you didn't seem to care when I mentioned it before. I will say that the eternal life of heaven, the eternal reign of God, and his eternal justice are all described using the same words, which are the words used to represent "eternity" in Greek. That virtually all translations, Greek dictionaries, and contextual clues agree, that there's no indication the limited use of the term to describe "only" ages rather than eternity applies in any of these cases (much less all of them), that the occurences are frequently surrounded with vivid descriptions of the extreme severity of hell, and that the entirety of Christian religion would be upturned if God were temporal rather than eternal also serve to make it clear that the "eternal BBQ" is actually the most direct translation of the original texts (and historical evidence also suggests that this was the common interpretation from at least the time Biblical canon was selected in the first place).

Other interpretations indicative of hyperbole or metaphor may have existed from the start, but they were largely removed from any conception that is compatible with Christianity as we know it. The Gnostics, for example, believed that the God of the Bible was the creator of the Earth (the Demiurge), but many sects also believe he was the ultimate symbol of evil. That is one interpretation of God even I can accept.

Christianity is about eternal hell.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
there is not A LOT of scripture about hell

[/ QUOTE ]

And what scripture there is strictly emphasizes how awful the suffering will be and how it's eternal. Not to be taken literally? Perhaps. Please explain to me why Jesus needs to be a hyperbolic blowhard. Does he just want to scare people by grossly exaggerating the actuality of hell? And given that he refers to heaven in exactly the same terms, are we to take such a contingent interpretation there, as well?

[dknightx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there is not A LOT of scripture about hell

[/ QUOTE ]

And what scripture there is strictly emphasizes how awful the suffering will be and how it's eternal. Not to be taken literally? Perhaps. Please explain to me why Jesus needs to be a hyperbolic blowhard. Does he just want to scare people by grossly exaggerating the actuality of hell? And given that he refers to heaven in exactly the same terms, are we to take such a contingent interpretation there, as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

well, what word would you use for a very long, indefinite time period? eternal seems appropriate for both saying FOREVER, and FOREVER - x. Also the idea of hell (ie seperation from God) is definitely FOREVER for satan (as you see in the revelations verse you postd). Like i said, once satan is overthrown, im not sure what happens to humans.

[madnak]

Well, I suppose if you're going to stick to the Bible, it's best if you take an interpretation that doesn't include eternal hell. Still, I see it as an inaccurate and arbitrary reading, that also happens to be very convenient.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I will say that the eternal life of heaven, the eternal reign of God, and his eternal justice are all described using the same words, which are the words used to represent "eternity" in Greek.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll get to your citations. However, first this one point. Given that the wages of sin is death, if someone so dies (goes completely extinct, gone, finito), how long does that punishment last? That's right, for eternity. And fire is how they disposed of the bodies. No eternal barbecues here.

As for translations (and out of context interpretations), of course that's what I'm going to criticize. That's the whole point.

[madnak]

But it's the fire that's eternal in many passages, not the death.

[MidGe]

Too many steak and sausages to cook in one hit... You have to keep the bbq going.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
here is my personal understanding of hell:

1. eternal? well although the bible references eternal suffering and seperation from God (2 Thes. 1:8-10, Jude 1:7, Luke 16:24, Matt. 25:30,46), i don't think ENTERNAL is to be taken literally. The reason is because one day God will destroy Satan, and then what happens to the people in hell? Maybe they are destroyed too, or maybe something else, i don't know.
2. suffering? well, it will be suffering, but a large part of that is because the absence of God (insert joke here). The gnashing of teeth, and the cries, etc, are because they are apart from God.
3. punishment? yes, there will be punishment, but the key here is that it will be BASED on their deeds as well as propotional to their deeds. See Acts 17:30-31,Rom. 2:1-11, Rev. 20:11-15 and Luke 12:47-49, Matt. 10:15, Matt. 11:24, Rev. 20:12-13. So whats my point ... basically that hell will be different for everyone. It could just be isolation, and time for you to reflect by yourself, dont really know.

so there you have it, lots of i dont knows, but mostly because there is not A LOT of scripture about hell. also, i should point out that i am in the belief that God will rightly judge everyone, and that exceptions are often made for those who have failed to accept Jesus Christ but have extenuating circumstances (youth, not having heard the Gospel, mental illness, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]

Its really pretty irrelevant whether there is actual fire and torture or whether the gnashing of teeth and cries are because of seperation from God. The point remains the same: Infinite punishment.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
here is my personal understanding of hell:

1. eternal? well although the bible references eternal suffering and seperation from God (2 Thes. 1:8-10, Jude 1:7, Luke 16:24, Matt. 25:30,46), i don't think ENTERNAL is to be taken literally. The reason is because one day God will destroy Satan, and then what happens to the people in hell? Maybe they are destroyed too, or maybe something else, i don't know.
2. suffering? well, it will be suffering, but a large part of that is because the absence of God (insert joke here). The gnashing of teeth, and the cries, etc, are because they are apart from God.
3. punishment? yes, there will be punishment, but the key here is that it will be BASED on their deeds as well as propotional to their deeds. See Acts 17:30-31,Rom. 2:1-11, Rev. 20:11-15 and Luke 12:47-49, Matt. 10:15, Matt. 11:24, Rev. 20:12-13. So whats my point ... basically that hell will be different for everyone. It could just be isolation, and time for you to reflect by yourself, dont really know.

so there you have it, lots of i dont knows, but mostly because there is not A LOT of scripture about hell. also, i should point out that i am in the belief that God will rightly judge everyone, and that exceptions are often made for those who have failed to accept Jesus Christ but have extenuating circumstances (youth, not having heard the Gospel, mental illness, etc.).

[/ QUOTE ]

Its really pretty irrelevant whether there is actual fire and torture or whether the gnashing of teeth and cries are because of seperation from God. The point remains the same: Infinite punishment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the correct outlook on such a thing is a place where punishment can be administered indefinitely or the place exists eternally.

But, an individual's stay in such a place isn't necessarily eternal?

I fail to see how such an interpretation couldn't be improved given that we have a better knowledge of timespans with increased sophistication of the mathematics behind the infinite and a better appreciation for long spans of time.

Rare, brushed with olive oil and cayenne, if you please.

[Taraz]

OP,

You'd probably like Unitarian Christianity or something like the Baha'i Faith. As far as I understand them, I think their philosophy on the whole matter is similar to yours.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
But, an individual's stay in such a place isn't necessarily eternal?

I fail to see how such an interpretation couldn't be improved given that we have a better knowledge of timespans with increased sophistication of the mathematics behind the infinite and a better appreciation for long spans of time.


[/ QUOTE ]

There's the saying that the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. And I guess we could say that the opposite of life isn't death, but non-being. So it's not hard for me to make the leap and say the opposite of heaven isn't hell, but eternal non-existence. Although I think if we could look at eternal life as being a possibility and then seeing someone not choose it - it would appear as eternal hell or eternal damnation - a state of non-being you can't come back from.


I don't know, but non-existence seems pretty permanent. But I guess we can't ignore the possibility that time curves back on itself or the presence of a wormhole or two in hell. I figure if we have an out, we can always suck-out on satan. Eventually.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
So it's not hard for me to make the leap and say the opposite of heaven isn't hell, but eternal non-existence. Although I think if we could look at eternal life as being a possibility and then seeing someone not choose it - it would appear as eternal hell or eternal damnation - a state of non-being you can't come back from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-existence seems vastly preferable to eternally in the presence of a tyrant, and given what I see in the world, if it came about due to an intelligence, I am not able to judge that intelligence anything but tyrannical and worse, sadistic.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So it's not hard for me to make the leap and say the opposite of heaven isn't hell, but eternal non-existence. Although I think if we could look at eternal life as being a possibility and then seeing someone not choose it - it would appear as eternal hell or eternal damnation - a state of non-being you can't come back from.

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-existence seems vastly preferable to eternally in the presence of a tyrant, and given what I see in the world, if it came about due to an intelligence, I am not able to judge that intelligence anything but tyrannical and worse, sadistic.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt that "intelligence" is any more tyrannical and sadistic than the being you see when you look in the mirror. In fact I'd argue they're one and the same.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that "intelligence" is any more tyrannical and sadistic than the being you see when you look in the mirror. In fact I'd argue they're one and the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the more reason to choose non-existence, presuming the same applies to you and everyone else.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I doubt that "intelligence" is any more tyrannical and sadistic than the being you see when you look in the mirror. In fact I'd argue they're one and the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

All the more reason to choose non-existence, presuming the same applies to you and everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's as should be. I mean, if you set a criteria that would allow existence to be voluntary.

I agree for many people, infinite existence would end up being a sort of hell. That's not necessarily true of everybody.

A lot of people take solace in eternal life. I fail to see the logic where they're concerned. "But it's paradise! You get to do what you like forever..."

What if you get bored of it? <shrugs>

You should at the very least always have the option to switch yourself off or decide to step aside from existence for long sums of time. What's to say you wouldn't find the interest and motivation to continue in 10,000 years?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
You should at the very least always have the option to switch yourself off or decide to step aside from existence for long sums of time. What's to say you wouldn't find the interest and motivation to continue in 10,000 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, and I have, and hopefully will, and have posted on this subject before.

But 10,000 years of internet? Bleah! /images/graemlins/smile.gif ORLY? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You should at the very least always have the option to switch yourself off or decide to step aside from existence for long sums of time. What's to say you wouldn't find the interest and motivation to continue in 10,000 years?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, and I have, and hopefully will, and have posted on this subject before.

But 10,000 years of internet? Bleah! /images/graemlins/smile.gif ORLY? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

Much as it pains me to say, I really do think everything's been said and done.

You have to figure that suicide rates among immortals would be far higher than deaths by accident or murder.

A post-mortal future with jaded coroners who write "boredom" as the cause of death.

<shakes head> It's not quite that dark though, at least for me. I still get surprised occasionally. But those instances are becoming rarer.

It'd be somewhat a nod towards irony though, if you realize that in a Christian paradise, the very activities that stave off boredom would be the sins. Gluttony. Sex. Violence. People need drama. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[MidGe]

Got it! /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
All the more reason to choose non-existence...

[/ QUOTE ]
Madnak, can we get a Nietzschean analysis on this?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All the more reason to choose non-existence...

[/ QUOTE ]
Madnak, can we get a Nietzschean analysis on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose it is important for you to have a Nietzschean analysis. I wonder why, but my position has nothing to do with Nietzsche!

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
All the more reason to choose non-existence...

[/ QUOTE ]
Madnak, can we get a Nietzschean analysis on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose it is important for you to have a Nietzschean analysis. I wonder why, but my position has nothing to do with Nietzsche!

[/ QUOTE ]

It might seem a little ironic considering some of my recent posts, but I've probably related to Nietzsche more than anyone else other than Jesus. However, I do feel that when the question of, "choosing non-existence," comes up, it probably falls more into Nietzsche's cross-hairs than anyone else I can think of.

[madnak]

I don't know about Nietzsche, but to me eternal death would be ideal. An end to it all sounds very nice.

Nietzsche probably felt similarly, but he was also preoccupied with the idea of eternal recurrence. My interpretation is that Nietzsche wished he could embrace recurrence, but deep down he probably wanted an end to it all. I think he recognized an essential conflict there.

[oneeye13]

hell is for children

[Skidoo]

Like before, the "eternal destruction" of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 simply means a death (oblivion, non-existence) that lasts forever. Moving on, the use of Greek phraseology translated "eternal fire" occurs in three of your citations:

"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire." (Matthew 18:8)

"Then He will also say to those on His left, Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41)

"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)

The first week of Hermeneutics 101 will tell us that before we settle on an interpretation, it has to be consistent with all applications. Now, since we know Sodom and Gomorrah are not still burning, the Greek translated as "eternal fire" cannot mean that literally. The use of "aionion" here does not imply a combustion process that is of endless duration, but rather one of complete and permanent effect.

"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43)

In Mark 9:43, "Ghehennah" (translated "hell") was the name of the valley outside Jerusalem where garbage, dead animals and certain human bodies were incinerated, while "asbestos" (translated "unquenchable") refers to the "not extinguished" process whereby combustion goes to completion. In other words, the fate of sinners is to be cast into the city dump and burned with the garbage, not an eternity on a Weber with the hot dogs in some fantastical underworld.

[twoblacknines]

With all these possible interpretations why would God make it so difficult for us to know exactly what to believe? I thought he wanted to help us, not confuse us. How is someone living in 2007 supposed to know God's intent with the bible if we can't even be sure we are reading the correct translation.

It seems many christians have differing viewpoints of what they believe, and it then comes down to a personal choice. I guess there probably isn't any way to know the right answers, and it's all subjective.

I am assuming that you guys are saying the scientist who cured HIV, but wasn't sure about God would be thrown into the lake of fire, even if it may turn out to be a reduced sentence? I haven't recieved a straight answer on this yet.

[twoblacknines]

"In Mark 9:43, "Ghehennah" (translated "hell") was the name of the valley outside Jerusalem where garbage, dead animals and certain human bodies were incinerated, while "asbestos" (translated "unquenchable") refers to the "not extinguished" process whereby combustion goes to completion. In other words, the fate of sinners is to be cast into the city dump and burned with the garbage, not an eternity on a Weber with the hot dogs in some fantastical underworld."

Skidoo, do you even believe in an afterlife then, or are yous simply saying non-believers, upon death, simply cease to exist? While believers still go to heaven? This sounds better, but still doesn't seem fair that a non-believer would not be given a 2nd chance while believers recieve eternal bliss.

If you are saying the bible's translation of hell is wrong, then what about the translation of heaven? What about the translation of the Rapture, which seems to be a very brutal event?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

With all these possible interpretations why would God make it so difficult for us to know exactly what to believe?


[/ QUOTE ]

He didn't. We did. Adam rejected God's Word and decided he could obtain knowledge his own way. That's what we've been trying to do ever since.

[ QUOTE ]

I haven't recieved a straight answer on this yet.


[/ QUOTE ]

No one is saved by works. Salvation is by grace through faith. It isn't hard to understand, it isn't hidden. It's just very hard (impossible) for sinful human beings to accept.

Matthew 18:
1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
2And He called a child to Himself and set him before them,
3and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

It obviously doesn't take a sophisticated philosophy, a Ph.D. from the Ivy League, or a Nobel prize in math - just the faith of a child. Simple.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Like before, the "eternal destruction" of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 simply means a death (oblivion, non-existence) that lasts forever. Moving on, the use of Greek phraseology translated "eternal fire" occurs in three of your citations:

"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire." (Matthew 18:8)

"Then He will also say to those on His left, Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41)

"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)

The first week of Hermeneutics 101 will tell us that before we settle on an interpretation, it has to be consistent with all applications. Now, since we know Sodom and Gomorrah are not still burning, the Greek translated as "eternal fire" cannot mean that literally. The use of "aionion" here does not imply a combustion process that is of endless duration, but rather one of complete and permanent effect.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a stretch, as "aionion" is the Greek word typically used to denote eternity, and the syntax supports that. Unfortunately I'm no strong student of Greek, so going into detail would be difficult. However, the other uses of "aionion" usually referred to ages or extremely long periods of time, so I don't see how the word is consistent with your interpretation. Moreover, the phrase "aionas ton aionon" is used to describe hell, and that is much less ambiguous.

In terms of the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, in context I think it is clear that the object is the people of the cities, although the cities themselves are specified in the syntax. The fact that a "punishment" for Sodom and Gomorrah is referenced seems to indicate this - were the physical cities punished, or the nations of people? Furthermore, we don't know exactly what was supposed to happen to the physical cities - the aftereffects were never revealed and something like outright transportation to hell is hardly out of the question.

Finally, "aionion" is exactly the word used to describe eternal life, God's eternal reign, and the eternity of heaven. Therefore, if you insist on using a 100% consistent interpretation of the word (which seems silly given that the word's use was highly contextual), then you must apply that same temporal interpretation to God himself as well as hell.

[ QUOTE ]
"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43)

In Mark 9:43, "Ghehennah" (translated "hell") was the name of the valley outside Jerusalem where garbage, dead animals and certain human bodies were incinerated, while "asbestos" (translated "unquenchable") refers to the "not extinguished" process whereby combustion goes to completion. In other words, the fate of sinners is to be cast into the city dump and burned with the garbage, not an eternity on a Weber with the hot dogs in some fantastical underworld.

[/ QUOTE ]

I admit "asbestos" is more tenuous. However, I think the clear direct translation is still that of an eternal punishment. I'll again link (http://www.carm.org/uni/eternal_hell.htm) a fudamentalist perspective to indicate the ambiguity of the passages. The eternal interpretation is also correct according to Strong, modern Greek dictionaries, and mainstream apologist thought. I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this, because it is of course possible to interpret literally anything in a positive light. But to suggest the idea of eternal hell is "non-Biblical" is definitely reaching.

[twoblacknines]

NotReady,

are you diagreeing with Skidoo's translation then? I didn't research his claims yet, but he specifically says:

"Ghehennah" (translated "hell") was the name of the valley outside Jerusalem where garbage, dead animals and certain human bodies were incinerated"

and implies that hell is not what we think of it today as.

Perhaps God would not really care about an individuals exact definition of his words, and focus more on an individual's intent, even if we have a misunderstanding of what He intended?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

are you diagreeing with Skidoo's translation then?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm uncertain about the nature and duration of the unbeliever's final state. I have a lot of difficulty with the idea that any sentient being is tortured endlessly and I don't think it's necessary to conclude that from the Bible.

When I said "it's simple" I was referring to the most important concept for us - salvation. There are many things in the Bible that are hard to understand and the Bible itself says this. It also gives the reason - because we are fallen creatures. But the way of salvation is clear.

[madnak]

To expand on NotReady's explanation.

Christians (at least mainstream and orthodox Christians) believe that humans are (and have been since Adam) inherently sinful. According to our natures, we all deserve to burn in fire, by default, regardless of whether we commit crimes. This is our nature, we are sinful, prideful, and repulsive to God.

However, God has a thing called Grace, which in simplistic terms allows him to have mercy even on those who don't deserve mercy (in other words, us). The problem is that in order for Grace to work, we need to accept it and give ourselves to God. If we don't do that, then God must give us what we deserve (which is, for every one of us, hell).

For those who are saved... It's not that they're good people deserving of heaven. It's that they make a desperate escape from the flame they deserve because of the Grace of God. And it is our place to thank God for this Grace, because "by default" (and according to justice) we'd all be going to hell.

Personally I think this concept makes Christianity horrible. Especially since the sinful nature of man is first emphasized, and when the follower fully believes in that sinful nature of man (and in himself), then the idea of Grace is presented. Thus Grace becomes something to be thankful for, when, if the Christian hadn't been brainwashed in the first place into believing that humans are sinful, the idea of Grace would seem absurd.

My position is that nobody deserves eternal fire, in fact, that on the contrary human beings are inherently noble creatures. That in spite of our weaknesses, we all deserve heaven simply by virtue of our ability to experience, and that, far from it being just for all of us to reach hell, it's unjust for any of us to go there. Thus, while my view seems distorted and prideful to the Christians, their view seems distorted and horrific to me. This is largely the source of our passionate disagreement.

I contend that it's impossible to have faith in both man and God, so if you have faith in man, then I encourage you to explore a religion that grants man the glory due to him (and doesn't treat that glory as a mere reflection from God). Baha'i was mentioned, Buddhism and other Eastern religions are also worth exploring. Of course, I would recommend further that you become spiritual rather than religious. If you trust yourself, then you can find a source of contact with God within yourself. You don't need rules and rituals, you don't need authority or conformity. You can use your own imagination, which represents your true divine nature, as your path to God. And such a God, needless to say, has no need of any hell.

[twoblacknines]

madnak,

what you say makes a lot of sense. I have always been troubled by the belief that humans are something to be despised, and are inherently evil. Sure, there are some twisted, sick [censored] out in the world, who commit horrible atrocities, but I still like to have a faith in man.

I would challenge anyone with the viewpoint that we are born into sin to hold their newborn baby, and feel that their baby deserves to go to hell. My personal idea of God is that he would be saddened by such a thought. The human body is so complex, I would think he would want us to admire his work instead of despise it.

You make good points distinguishing spirituality from religion. I have always gotten hung up on the rules of religion, and this has led to many unanswered questions and a feeling of exasperation.

Perhaps all religions/spirituality are searching for the same thing, and the endless quibbling about what is right or wrong to believe is, in the end, futile.

Also, thank you for this:

"If you trust yourself, then you can find a source of contact with God within yourself. You don't need rules and rituals, you don't need authority or conformity. You can use your own imagination, which represents your true divine nature, as your path to God. And such a God, needless to say, has no need of any hell."

[dknightx]

there is a difference between inherently evil and inherently sinful. if you cant make that basic distinction, then most of christianity will make zero sense to you.

finally madnak, do you believe that people should be punished for breaking the law? do you believe in punshiment that is proportional to your (wrongful) deeds? it seems that you think finite punishment is ok, do you think infinite reward is ok?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
With all these possible interpretations why would God make it so difficult for us to know exactly what to believe?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would rather limit my comments here to what the Bible does and does not say about hell, and not second-guess God or get into critiques of doctrines.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess there probably isn't any way to know the right answers, and it's all subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Inconsistencies among translations are common when dealing with texts from ancient cultures. This does not mean "it's all subjective" at all.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
That's a stretch, as "aionion" is the Greek word typically used to denote eternity, and the syntax supports that. Unfortunately I'm no strong student of Greek, so going into detail would be difficult. However, the other uses of "aionion" usually referred to ages or extremely long periods of time, so I don't see how the word is consistent with your interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's not to see? The Greek word "aionion" is used to indicate eternity of effect or permanence of result, as in the oblivion of death and the consumption of cremation. The processes that lead to perpetual states do not themselves have to be ongoing ad infinitum. The fire continues for a short while, then a burned state results for eternity.

[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, the phrase "aionas ton aionon" is used to describe hell, and that is much less ambiguous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Citations, please. I'm glad to address the specifics you have in mind.

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, in context I think it is clear that the object is the people of the cities, although the cities themselves are specified in the syntax. The fact that a "punishment" for Sodom and Gomorrah is referenced seems to indicate this - were the physical cities punished, or the nations of people?

[/ QUOTE ]

As you say, the cities themselves are specified. The punishment was collective and citywide, as was the means: fire, thus precluding "eternal" as the translation most suitable to the original meaning.

[Brenner Hayes]

twoblacknines,

I realize that you are struggling with what the Bible has to say about this subject. I hope you take strong notice of the fact that you are not struggling whatsoever about what the Koran says or what a hundred other so-called sacred books that are now on history's discarded scrap pile say. If you lived in the days when people around you mistakenly gave credence to those books, you would be struggling with those. But you live among Christians, so you struggle with their popular fable.

If you lived in a more enlightened society (such as possibly might exist in the future), you might still find yourself wondering if there is a god or an afterlife. But you would never be struggling as to whether or not there was a loving god & eternal hell combo. This notion would be perceived by you and everyone around you as utterly silly. All these sacred books are made-up fables invented by humans. Once you come to complete grips with this truth, a tremendous weight of confusion will be lifted from your shoulders.

P.S. - God specifically instructed me to pass along this message to you. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]
There's the saying that the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. And I guess we could say that the opposite of life isn't death, but non-being. So it's not hard for me to make the leap and say the opposite of heaven isn't hell, but eternal non-existence. Although I think if we could look at eternal life as being a possibility and then seeing someone not choose it - it would appear as eternal hell or eternal damnation - a state of non-being you can't come back from.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is typical of most Christians. When their religion preaches something indefensible, they simply make up their own interpretation.

If we're inventing our own definitions, I'll just say hell is say, 20 years watching Hee-Haw reruns.

Saying that hell is simply "non-existence" is saying that hell doesn't exist at all. And since the bible and Jesus go through great pains to stress that hell DOES exist, I don't see how this could be correct.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
finally madnak, do you believe that people should be punished for breaking the law? do you believe in punshiment that is proportional to your (wrongful) deeds? it seems that you think finite punishment is ok, do you think infinite reward is ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think people "should" be punished at all. I think punishment is an unfortunate necessity in the real world as a deterrent, and I think containment strategies (also unfortunate necessities) are only incidentally "punishment." Ideally, if we lived in a world without our constraints, then there would be no punishment (there would be no criminals either, in such a world).

Regarding infinite "reward," I see no problem with it. Infinite suffering is bad, infinite happiness is good. How are you not understanding my position here? It's really not that complicated. It's a philosophy I call "benevolence," maybe your God should learn about it sometime.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
finally madnak, do you believe that people should be punished for breaking the law? do you believe in punshiment that is proportional to your (wrongful) deeds? it seems that you think finite punishment is ok, do you think infinite reward is ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think people "should" be punished at all. I think punishment is an unfortunate necessity in the real world as a deterrent, and I think containment strategies (also unfortunate necessities) are only incidentally "punishment." Ideally, if we lived in a world without our constraints, then there would be no punishment (there would be no criminals either, in such a world).

Regarding infinite "reward," I see no problem with it. Infinite suffering is bad, infinite happiness is good. How are you not understanding my position here? It's really not that complicated. It's a philosophy I call "benevolence," maybe your God should learn about it sometime.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it wouldn't be just. Infinite reward for finite good deeds (whether these good deeds are merely accepting Jesus Christ or actual, meaningful good deeds) are probably never DESERVING of infinite reward. It would be benevolent, but unjust, for God to give them to us, wouldn't it?

[madnak]

Unjust? Is it unjust for me to give someone a Christmas present? Since when does a person need to earn a gift before it becomes "just?"

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, the phrase "aionas ton aionon" is used to describe hell, and that is much less ambiguous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Citations, please. I'm glad to address the specifics you have in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." Rev. 14:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=14&version=49)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Unjust? Is it unjust for me to give someone a Christmas present? Since when does a person need to earn a gift before it becomes "just?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes? I mean, if you think that the work they do in making your life better, or whatever, justifies them getting a gift, thats one thing. But randomly giving a gift to one person and not another seems unjust. Also, giving people rewards that are far out of whack with what they merit seems also unjust. Unjust has a negative connotation but I don't think it needs to. Most definitions refer to being rightly awarded, deserved, in accordance with standards, equitable, etc.

Of course, you could just have the crazy notion that human beings, in and of themselves, DESERVE infinite reward. It seems like a wacky leap, to think that the entire species is somehow worthy of happiness and reward, just for being human, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

[madnak]

It does. And screw "justice," anyhow. The concept only has use based on the limitations of our existence here.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
It does. And screw "justice," anyhow. The concept only has use based on the limitations of our existence here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Same with so many personality traits used to describe a god. How can benevolence have any meaning if you are perfectly just?

[madnak]

It can't. Justice is a contingent human concept that can't even have a universal definition (because its definition depends on specific standards). A God who is perfectly just is not only perfectly contingent, but he can never be perfectly benevolent.

Arguably, the standards of benevolence vary as well, but mostly in terms of superficialities. The difference between pleasure and pain is clear enough, even if it's hard to describe.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, the phrase "aionas ton aionon" is used to describe hell, and that is much less ambiguous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Citations, please. I'm glad to address the specifics you have in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." Rev. 14:11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=73&chapter=14&version=49)

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, what is described in this verse is not the "hell" of the everyday sinner, but rather the fate of a particular set of people in a specific timeframe to be carried out on the surface of the earth, not underground. So already we're not talking about the famous eternal barbecue.

Second, this passage, like so many in Bible, uses the familiar figurative language of a contemporary genre. And it quotes the Old Testament.

"And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up forever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever." (Isaiah 34:9-10)

This passage by Isaiah refers to he destruction of Idumaea which now lies in ruins, and the fires are out. Again, not an eternal process, but a permanent result. Smoke going up "forever" means the combustion proceeded to completion and its consequences are irreversible.