The specifics of burning in hell for all eternity

The specifics of burning in hell for all eternity
Just to make sure we deal with some of the potentially-seen-as-milder positions also, I'd like to mention that I've encountered a number of Christians online who do not believe in the burning or take it metaphorically. What they have told me is that one is perpetually NOT in the presence of God and this causes the soul a great deal of suffering.

In the long run - and since in this case we are dealing with the longest run possible - I am not sure this is any milder.

As a purgatory, OK. But an eternity of suffering.......
 
Yes. Some so-called religious doctrines are spiritual rape, psychological rape.
And what about the rapist in this instance; a primitive urge to satisfy their what? their joie de vivre? Who is the rapist? God? Or the pulpit?
 
Just to make sure we deal with some of the potentially-seen-as-milder positions also, I'd like to mention that I've encountered a number of Christians online who do not believe in the burning or take it metaphorically. What they have told me is that one is perpetually NOT in the presence of God and this causes the soul a great deal of suffering.

In the long run - and since in this case we are dealing with the longest run possible - I am not sure this is any milder.

As a purgatory, OK. But an eternity of suffering.......

How do they explain that the soul is not in the presence of God?


I've also heard the version that those who hate God are then forced to look at him for all eternity, and this is hell for them.



Other than that - isn't it strange that Christians haven't contributed much to this thread?
There are several posters here who often send people off to the "eternal lake of fire" - but it's not clear what is meant by that, or how suffering takes place there ...

Which makes me wonder:
One - What is their idea of hell and suffering and how come they don't explain it anymore?
Two - How come threats of eternal hellfire are effective even on people who do not know the specifics?
 
Which makes me wonder:
One - What is their idea of hell and suffering and how come they don't explain it anymore?
Two - How come threats of eternal hellfire are effective even on people who do not know the specifics?

To begin to answer your question, it must be stated that there is no congruous "they" when referring to Christians. Each denomination, each minister/priest/preacher, and each self-proclaimed Christian has their own idea of God and the principles of Christ's teaching as outlined in the Gospels. This lack of coherence might used as a point of mockery or cynicism by some and perhaps it is well warranted. I see it as an open door to take artistic license. What else can you do with a book centered around a Christ that speaks primarily in metaphors?

Your first question: The idea of hell and suffering is usually understood to be just that, hell and suffering. Some Christians do believe that all references to Hell and Hades in the Bible are describing the same place. Some differentiate the Old Testament Hades, or Sheol, with the New Testament Hell. Hades is more like a Purgatory for pre-rapture souls that will be judged on the day of reckoning. These theories are all mere conjecture, because most accounts of Hell are allegorical, as evident in the following story of the rich man and Lazarus:
Luke 16:19-24 said:
There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' (source: NIV)
You can look it up at your leisure if you are interested in how it ends, but I think you get the idea.

Number two: I think you overestimate the potency of fire-and-brimstone damnation tactics, at least in this age. Most successful churches that I've attended, Catholic and Protestant alike, preach of a loving God that bestows earthly rewards upon loyal followers. A sort of superficial, misconstrued karmic doctrine that comes from piecing together eight different scriptures from the Old and New Testament and is usually followed by a sermon on the importance of tithing.
 
How do they explain that the soul is not in the presence of God?
I'm sorry. I did a search in the forum and could not find the posts. I do not think this was explained. My impression was that afterlife is spatial with God in one area and the naughty souls in another.
I've also heard the version that those who hate God are then forced to look at him for all eternity, and this is hell for them.
Yes, I have heard that too. If I was an all powerful deity I would not want people staring at me for eternity and feeling bad, and, having the power to fix that, I would do something about it. But that's just me. So far no one has appointed me and I seem to be lacking in some of the power and omniscience areas.

Other than that - isn't it strange that Christians haven't contributed much to this thread?
There are several posters here who often send people off to the "eternal lake of fire" - but it's not clear what is meant by that, or how suffering takes place there ...
Don't know if you care for him, but Kurt Cobain on the Nirvana unplugged album does versions of Lake of Fire and Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam. The songs do not resolve these issues - present a resolution - but it is powerful to hear a tortured person sing about these issues.

Two - How come threats of eternal hellfire are effective even on people who do not know the specifics?[
A good torturer knows that delay, anticipation, confusion all add to the torture. Walk toward the person from behind. Let them hear the instrument of torture but not see it. Keep the exact moment of torture unknown until it comes. Mix in kindness. Offer what seems like a way out and they pull it away. The materialist torturers know this about us and so it seems do the spiritual ones.
 
To begin to answer your question, it must be stated that there is no congruous "they" when referring to Christians. Each denomination, each minister/priest/preacher, and each self-proclaimed Christian has their own idea of God and the principles of Christ's teaching as outlined in the Gospels. This lack of coherence might used as a point of mockery or cynicism by some and perhaps it is well warranted. I see it as an open door to take artistic license. What else can you do with a book centered around a Christ that speaks primarily in metaphors?

But what kind of religion is that then, if "artistic license" is allowed to play an important part in it??

I would have some respectful understanding for such license, were it not that this licence usually goes hand in hand with threats of eternal hellfire. This is where such a license cannot be taken lightly anymore.


Your first question: The idea of hell and suffering is usually understood to be just that, hell and suffering. Some Christians do believe that all references to Hell and Hades in the Bible are describing the same place. Some differentiate the Old Testament Hades, or Sheol, with the New Testament Hell. Hades is more like a Purgatory for pre-rapture souls that will be judged on the day of reckoning. These theories are all mere conjecture, because most accounts of Hell are allegorical, as evident in the following story of the rich man and Lazarus:

You can look it up at your leisure if you are interested in how it ends, but I think you get the idea.

My point is that various Christian ideas of hell and suffering seem so abstract to me - see my OP.


Number two: I think you overestimate the potency of fire-and-brimstone damnation tactics, at least in this age.

Not on myself, though. I was already afraid of burning in hell for all eternity before I was even old enough to spell my name, and have remained so to this day. For some reason, those "damnation tactics" had the desired effect on me. But I am not the only one with such an experience - some people really are afraid of burning in hell for all eternity.
 
Last edited:
Yes many people I know as well. My father included. It is a very odd belief to consider and conclude. People who want to commit suicide is a good example of their belief in burning for eternity. Involving "risk" (it gets pretty deep that's why I stay out of a lot of this stuff)...
 
I'm sorry. I did a search in the forum and could not find the posts. I do not think this was explained. My impression was that afterlife is spatial with God in one area and the naughty souls in another.

My experience so far has been that it is not explained. One is just supposed to "grasp it" or something.


Don't know if you care for him, but Kurt Cobain on the Nirvana unplugged album does versions of Lake of Fire and Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam. The songs do not resolve these issues - present a resolution - but it is powerful to hear a tortured person sing about these issues.

I know ... I used to be a Nirvana fan. For some time, their music captured my plight completely.


A good torturer knows that delay, anticipation, confusion all add to the torture. Walk toward the person from behind. Let them hear the instrument of torture but not see it. Keep the exact moment of torture unknown until it comes. Mix in kindness. Offer what seems like a way out and they pull it away. The materialist torturers know this about us and so it seems do the spiritual ones.

How come the same could be true for materialist torturers as well as spiritual torturers? If it is, then this implies that the spiritual and the material are basically the same or function by basically the same principles. - I find there are severe problems with such an understanding of the spiritual, a materialist understanding of the spiritual is not spiritual.

I'm not aiming this at you. I'm just trying to find the principle behind how come people can be hurt by "spiritual torture" - what it must be about a person, what a person must be like in order to be susceptible to "spiritual torture". It seems that the person having a materialist understanding of spirituality (which is a given in the material world anyway, at least at first) is what makes the person susceptible to "spiritual torture". (Unless of course God and his creatures are actually evil or insane, but in such a case, we can forget about rational discussion.)


To conclude - my hypothesis is currently this:

1. Living in the material world, people generally have a materialist understanding of spirituality, in the beginning and at least for some time.
2. Fire and brimstone preachers have such a materialist understanding of spirituality too.
3. Fire and brimstone preachers attack people.
4. People, because of 1, are susceptible to "spiritual torture".
5. Fire and brimstone preachers are effective.
6. Because fire and brimstone preachers are effective, the conclusion is made that they speak and act in line with the truth.

No. 6 is of course problematic: I think there certainly is a truth revealed by the effectiveness of fire and brimstone preachers - namely, the truth that when people have a materialist understanding of spirituality, they can be hurt in the name of spirituality while materialist means (such as manipulation, confusion, threats etc.) were used to cause this hurt. But to give this truth the status of the Absolute Truth - that seems too much, too simplistic.

Even though fire and brimstone preachers actually do just that: they claim that if a person is hurt by their preaching, it means that they, the preachers, are making a valid point, as the only reason (according to them) that the person could feel hurt by the fire and brimstone preachers is if the person opposes the Absolute Truth - no opposing the Absolute Truth, no feelings of hurt when accused of wilful rebellion against God and threatend with eternal hellfire.

It must be noted though that their formula is basically correct - ie. "no opposing the Absolute Truth means no feelings of hurt" -, but some of the factors they put into this formula or extend it with are suspicious of being materially contaminated.

I put "spiritual torture" in no. 4 in quotation marks. True spiritual torture would only be possible if suffering would be possible also in the spiritual world, not only in the material world. In my hypothesis, I presume this is not the case, and that there is no suffering in the spiritual world.
There is, however, material torture performed and experienced in the name of spirituality.
 
Last edited:
And what about the rapist in this instance; a primitive urge to satisfy their what? their joie de vivre? Who is the rapist? God? Or the pulpit?

Good questions.
I've started to reflect on them yesterday, came up with a reply but wasn't satisfied with it, so I didn't post it. In the meantime, Simon Anders' reply came in and that triggered me to consider some factors I haven't considered before.


To your questions:
The direct rapists would be the people who employ those abusive doctrines.
The "eventual beneficiary" of the spiritual rape would be (their version of) God, while they are "indirect beneficiaries".
These statements hold true if the material and the spiritual are basically the same or function by the same principles; or when either of or both parties in the "spiritual rape" or "spiritual torture" have a materialist understanding of spirituality.


The solution and inoculation against "spiritual torture" seems simple then: Develop a proper, non-materialist understanding of the spiritual, and one will not be susceptible to "spiritual torture" anymore.
The foundations of this understanding seem to be: 1. "I am not my body, my emotions, my thoughts, my possessions, or my relationships" and 2. "There is no suffering in the spiritual realm."
 
This is something I don't understand about the common Christian notion of burning in hell for all eternity: How exactly does suffering take place there? It is said that after we die, we get spiritual bodies, whether we go to heaven or hell. If souls suffer in hell for all eternity, this would then imply that their spiritual bodies are such that they are conducive to eternal suffering, no? Or can a soul suffer directly or in-and-of-itself somehow?

There are a couple of things that spring to mind from Christian (specifically Roman Catholic) theology. Firstly, that the dogma is that the damned will have physical bodies, and secondly that the main suffering of the damned is said to be emotional - "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Firstly, the physical. Consider the Apostle's Creed:
I believe in ...
... the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
"The resurrection of the body" is quite literal. It means that come Judgement Day, all the dead will be restored to life, souls reunited to physical bodies.

Then comes judgement, of course, with the righteous winning glorified incorruptible bodies and eternal life, and the damned... well, apparently "On the wicked he will rain fiery coals and burning sulfur; a scorching wind will be their lot." ... "I will tread them in mine anger, and will trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment." Among other things. Cue the preacher.

A brief interlude, to present an ancient shaggy-dog story...

A preacher is in full swing before an enraptured congregation, shocking and awing them with lurid accounts of the dreadful fates awaiting sinners on the last day:
"...their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind! As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so the Son of Man will send out his angels to weed out of his kingdom all who do evil. They will hurl the sinners into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth!"
At this point, he is interrupted by an old lady in the front row who cries out, "Oh, but Father! I... I don't have any teeth to gnash!"
"No teeth!" cries the preacher, glaring down at the would-be damned soul, "Teeth shall be provided!"


But, hell is generally considered to be much worse than physical torment. (Varda and Michael, you are woefully uninformed of the philosophy you deride.) Advanced considerations of hell tend to focus on regret, sorrow, and despair. Eternal sadness, rather than eternal physical punishment. The word-picture presented to me by my mother (a Roman Catholic, well-educated in theology, philosophy, and the sciences) was distasteful, but enlightening (I've embellished it a little):
Hell is like going to a party... the best party ever. You've been looking forward to it for so long, you've thought about nothing else for ages, and now it's here! Everyone will be there, everyone will be happy, and there will be every kind of fun thing to do.
But when you get there and step through the door, just as your heart is swelling up with so much happiness that you think you might just pop... you look down and realize that you are naked and covered in your own filth. Shit from head to toe, in your hair, your fingernails, between your teeth... everywhere!
Horrified, you can only think of getting away, hiding away where no one can see you while you clean up. So, you dive through a convenient door on your left, and begin searching for cleaning facilities... but there are none to be found. You keep trying to get clean, but make no progress. You can hear the party going on, and sometimes even see it, but you always flee when you do because being seen by the gloriously happy people at the party is unthinkable. You spend the entire party this way... hiding, weeping with frustration, shame, and regret... and the party goes forever.

To spell out that parable:
The party is both heaven and hell. The filth is sin. The basic idea is that being in the unfiltered presence of God is incredible bliss if you repent your sins and accept the forgiveness of God through Christ, and unbearable shame otherwise. This is a common idea, with minor subtleties and nuances (eg the nature of eternity - infinite time vs timelessness) proposed by various theologians.​

More along those lines:

John Donne (Found in an interesting and readable sermon on this very topic: Fire and Brimstone):
When all is done, the hell of hells, the torment of torments, is the everlasting absence of God, and the everlasting impossibility of returning to his presence...to fall out of the hands of the living God, is a horror beyond our expression, beyond our imagination.... What Tophet is not Paradise, what Brimstone is not Amber, what gnashing is not a comfort, what gnawing of the worme is not a tickling, what torment is not a marriage bed to this damnation, to be secluded eternally, eternally, eternally from the sight of God?
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1033:
To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
Pope John Paul II:
Rather than a place, Hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy
(The previous two links were gleaned from Wikipedia, Hell in Christian Beliefs)

On a side note, there is a common theme of moving from a hell that is a punishment inflicted by God to a hell that is a state wilfully chosen by the sinner. This theme is explored in some depth by...

C.S. Lewis writes a great story, and his works addressing Hell are no exception. The Great Divorce and The Screwtape Letters are a great read. Short, entertaining, and enlightening at least regarding Lewis's thoughts on hell, and perhaps Christianity's in general.

Long post. Sorry.
Hope it's readable!
 
Last edited:
My experience so far has been that it is not explained. One is just supposed to "grasp it" or something.
I've been trained in hypnosis, not that I use it. Vagueness is hypnotic.

I know ... I used to be a Nirvana fan. For some time, their music captured my plight completely.
Ah, good. I don't listen to them much anymore either. But I could connect to that homeless boy torn up scream for a good while.

How come the same could be true for materialist torturers as well as spiritual torturers? If it is, then this implies that the spiritual and the material are basically the same or function by basically the same principles. - I find there are severe problems with such an understanding of the spiritual, a materialist understanding of the spiritual is not spiritual.
as above, so below

Anyway, I believe that the material mirrors the spiritual and the problems in the material arose in the spiritual. And then I think solutions can and are also trickling down, finally.

I'm not aiming this at you. I'm just trying to find the principle behind how come people can be hurt by "spiritual torture" - what it must be about a person, what a person must be like in order to be susceptible to "spiritual torture".
they pay attention. notice their feelings. yearn not simply to comply but that in complying real yearnings are satisfied, pain is ended, horrors are no longer horrors.

It seems that the person having a materialist understanding of spirituality (which is a given in the material world anyway, at least at first) is what makes the person susceptible to "spiritual torture". (Unless of course God and his creatures are actually evil or insane, but in such a case, we can forget about rational discussion.)
I don't want to limit my understanding of the spiritual to the physical. I'd prefer to say I see parallel patterns.


To conclude - my hypothesis is currently this:

1. Living in the material world, people generally have a materialist understanding of spirituality, in the beginning and at least for some time.
2. Fire and brimstone preachers have such a materialist understanding of spirituality too.
3. Fire and brimstone preachers attack people.
4. People, because of 1, are susceptible to "spiritual torture".
5. Fire and brimstone preachers are effective.
6. Because fire and brimstone preachers are effective, the conclusion is made that they speak and act in line with the truth.
To me the fire and brimstone preachers are fairly transparent bullies - we each have our vulnerable points. I am not so susceptible to their threats, judgments and bullying. The lack of love that hides in a variety of traditions, New Age philosophy, and coming from those who think they are superior because they do not feel very much....that bullying has taken more time to extricate myself from.

No. 6 is of course problematic: I think there certainly is a truth revealed by the effectiveness of fire and brimstone preachers - namely, the truth that when people have a materialist understanding of spirituality, they can be hurt in the name of spirituality while materialist means (such as manipulation, confusion, threats etc.) were used to cause this hurt. But to give this truth the status of the Absolute Truth - that seems too much, too simplistic.
I do not see the spiritual realm as static. I see it as evolving.

Even though fire and brimstone preachers actually do just that: they claim that if a person is hurt by their preaching, it means that they, the preachers, are making a valid point, as the only reason (according to them) that the person could feel hurt by the fire and brimstone preachers is if the person opposes the Absolute Truth - no opposing the Absolute Truth, no feelings of hurt when accused of wilful rebellion against God and threatend with eternal hellfire.
Yes.

It must be noted though that their formula is basically correct - ie. "no opposing the Absolute Truth means no feelings of hurt" -, but some of the factors they put into this formula or extend it with are suspicious of being materially contaminated.
They are fascists who do not love life.
I put "spiritual torture" in no. 4 in quotation marks. True spiritual torture would only be possible if suffering would be possible also in the spiritual world, not only in the material world. In my hypothesis, I presume this is not the case, and that there is no suffering in the spiritual world.
This is where we disagree. And again, I do not see this as a permanent problem, but I think 'heaven' has been fucked up also.
 
All this is premised on the concept of free will. Science seems to be telling us that our actions are more related to our genetic coding than free will or that seems to be the findings thus far. Certianly our gentics play a signficant roll in our behavior. Psychopaths may have a genetic predisposition for the condition. Should they be punished in hell for being what God created them to be?
 
I'd like to think not.
Ezekiel 18:20 said:
The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be on him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be on him.
Interesting thought, though I think you would find difficulty finding biblical evidence that God creates every man and woman. Sin and death are passed on to us from the created one.
Romans 5:12 said:
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men.



But what kind of religion is that then, if "artistic license" is allowed to play an important part in it??

I would have some respectful understanding for such license, were it not that this licence usually goes hand in hand with threats of eternal hellfire. This is where such a license cannot be taken lightly anymore.

We all have our horror stories from childhood, from 'spare the rod, spoil the child' to threats of burning in the lake of fire. The fear of the wrath of God certainly is used against impressionable people. However, we must not hold 'religion' to a higher standard. It is an institution of man and susceptible to hypocrisy and folly.

In reference to your OP, I ask you to define what you mean by soul. Many confuse the philosophical conception of the soul with the biblical soul. In the Bible, the soul is synonymous with life.
Romans 6:23 said:
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Ezekiel 18:20 said:
The soul that sins, it shall die.
 
All this is premised on the concept of free will.

I don't believe that there is such a thing. And interestingly, the remainder of your post seems to "prove" that thought.

.... Psychopaths may have a genetic predisposition for the condition. Should they be punished in hell for being what God created them to be?

Can you tell me why god would want psychopaths in heaven? Think of hell as similar to Gitmo prison ...and place to put undesirables! :D

Baron Max
 
A fellow was getting a tour of heaven and hell.

Hell, the room on the left, had a scrumptious feast and every one was sitting at it, but their arms were constructed so that they couldn't feed themselves. Over and over they tried but to no avail.

Heaven, the room on the right was exactly the same and the people were exactly the same. The only difference was in this room every one was feeding each other.

But of all the tales of heaven and hell, there is only one which I give any credit to...

A samari was so troubled by questions of heaven and hell he went to a zen master for help. Instead of answering his questions the master began insulting the poor fellow until he was so angry he grabbed his sword and began to draw it. "Here lie the gates of hell," said the master. Grasping the master's intent the samari controlled his anger and bowed in thanks for the instruction. "Here lie the gates of heaven."
 
You don't believe in free will?

Nope. From the time we're just tiny babies, we're taught all kinds of things and experience all kinds of things. Those teachings and experiences are what shape our will in everything for the rest of our lives.

When faced with a new and different situation, we call upon all of those previous teachings and experiences in order to make a decision. Thus, what you decide has been influenced by your parents, schools, friends, coworkers, novels, history books, wife, girlfriend,......., the list goes on. It's not YOUR will, it's the collective "will" of all of those others.

Baron Max
 
In reference to your OP, I ask you to define what you mean by soul. Many confuse the philosophical conception of the soul with the biblical soul. In the Bible, the soul is synonymous with life.

The definition of "soul" is partly implied in the OP - that the soul is that which is not the body (or mind, emotions, possessions, relationships).
But as said in the OP, I am not sure whether this is the Christian understanding - hence my questions about the specifics of burning in hell for all eternity.

It seems that the doctrines about burning in hell for all eternity operate with a specific understanding of what the soul is, and I seek to find out what that understanding is.
 
Back
Top