hell

[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 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. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]