Last edited:
Why Hell?
- Thread starter heart
- Start date
Tiassa,
Thank you for your reply! I guess I should have included hearing non-believers thoughts as well!
Seriously, a lot of your paragraphs began by apologizing for not being able to provide an answer from the Christian faith as you are an infidel-BUT then you followed with what you felt how some Christians might answer based upon your readings. Thank you for that and the resources. I have read some and have more to read but I do appreciate your post.
I have heard this from someone but when the Bible speaks of "eternal torment" how can one be eternally tormented if the soul ceases to exist?
I now wished I would have included hearing thoughts from non-believers as well! You've given thought out answers on how you feel some Christians might answer, If you'd like to add your own thoughts from your perspective I'd love to hear them.
I might be mistaken, but didn't Tiassa come from a Catholic upbringing. If so, he might be able to shine more light on this topic. Forgive if I'm wrong. It just seems to me that you once mentioned it.
Wow! While I mean you no disrespect at all, you're kind of going on that you know absolutely nobody at Sciforums can give a thoughtful response? *takes a step back away from you to avoid items being chucked at you by others*
Joking (about the stepping back part)
I have no beef with learning hard lessons in life. What I have a problem with is the idea that a loving God would create a hell for us. Would we do this to children? No! To our loved ones? No!
I've been on both sides of the fence
Would it be okay for a second if someone beat up your wife, child, grandchildren (if you have any, not sure you're old enough to so please do not take offense
) Then, too, if God is capable of anything then he is capable of finding a way without violence. I also think he sets a bad example period (violence, unnecessary killings, lying in order to win a war...This God looks more like Hitler than he does a loving God) Hey, that's cool. I get what you mean.
Yes, that is certainly a better option than eternal torment
:bugeye: that I once mentioned it or Tiassa once mentioned it?
Tiassa... I could be wrong. It just seems as though he mentioned that he went to Catholic school.
This and That
I was raised as a "holiday" Lutheran; that is, Christmas Eve, Easter, and so forth, but was not a regular churchgoer. I am confirmed to, I believe, the ELCA, and shortly thereafter went to a Jesuit high school—a desperate move to get away from a (public) school community I loathed.
It took years to "undo the damage" so that I didn't abjectly hate Christianity. You probably encountered part of that transition some years ago when we had our rounds about Measure 9, the Oregon Citizens' Alliance, and other such issues.
Oh, I'm just covering my ass on that point.
Thank you for your kind words, of course.
In truth, I have no idea. You might have been around during the period when I encountered that argument, though I might have you mistaken for someone else.
But, suffice to say, I'm pretty sure that if I dig around in the archives, I can find the post, and I'm pretty sure I know whose name is on it. (Definitely not you, I should note.)
As such, it might have been a response to questions similar to those you've asked in this thread.
(Oh, right, I would be remiss to fail noting Gmilam's response at #28, as that's a component of the explanation I recall.)
Thank you so kindly. As you can probably guess, I'm a bit judgmental about certain conundra of faith. This is largely because I hold the opinion that our beliefs can affect other people's lives.
For instance, I can say with comfort that I've known plenty of Quakers who would shrug and respond to your questions, "Well, that's part of the mystery of God, and our faith in Him." Those would not tell you that the questions are right or wrong; only that they defy specific answers.
And, in truth, that's the reply that unsettles me the least. I cannot account for Southern Baptists, Seventh-Day Adventists, nondenominational Christianity, televangelism, ad infinitum. And if I try, it often sounds sarcastic or embittered. For instance, the Catholics in school always offered answers that worked well enough if they stayed isolated in a rhetorical bubble, but didn't always work and play well with other points of faith when incorporated into a larger, functional scheme. So when I recite their answers, on such occasions that I can remember them precisely enough, it always sounds like my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek, or my head firmly fixed in my ass.
Bowser said:
I was raised as a "holiday" Lutheran; that is, Christmas Eve, Easter, and so forth, but was not a regular churchgoer. I am confirmed to, I believe, the ELCA, and shortly thereafter went to a Jesuit high school—a desperate move to get away from a (public) school community I loathed.
It took years to "undo the damage" so that I didn't abjectly hate Christianity. You probably encountered part of that transition some years ago when we had our rounds about Measure 9, the Oregon Citizens' Alliance, and other such issues.
• • •
Heart said:
Oh, I'm just covering my ass on that point.
Thank you for your kind words, of course.
In truth, I have no idea. You might have been around during the period when I encountered that argument, though I might have you mistaken for someone else.
But, suffice to say, I'm pretty sure that if I dig around in the archives, I can find the post, and I'm pretty sure I know whose name is on it. (Definitely not you, I should note.)
As such, it might have been a response to questions similar to those you've asked in this thread.
(Oh, right, I would be remiss to fail noting Gmilam's response at #28, as that's a component of the explanation I recall.)
Thank you so kindly. As you can probably guess, I'm a bit judgmental about certain conundra of faith. This is largely because I hold the opinion that our beliefs can affect other people's lives.
For instance, I can say with comfort that I've known plenty of Quakers who would shrug and respond to your questions, "Well, that's part of the mystery of God, and our faith in Him." Those would not tell you that the questions are right or wrong; only that they defy specific answers.
And, in truth, that's the reply that unsettles me the least. I cannot account for Southern Baptists, Seventh-Day Adventists, nondenominational Christianity, televangelism, ad infinitum. And if I try, it often sounds sarcastic or embittered. For instance, the Catholics in school always offered answers that worked well enough if they stayed isolated in a rhetorical bubble, but didn't always work and play well with other points of faith when incorporated into a larger, functional scheme. So when I recite their answers, on such occasions that I can remember them precisely enough, it always sounds like my tongue is firmly planted in my cheek, or my head firmly fixed in my ass.
A religious version of you?
He's actually pretty mild--doesn't preach or anything. I'm not certain where his convictions sit these days, but he was very much dedicated to it at one time.
These religion forums always seem to be lopsided and stagnant, because there's no counterpoint in the discussions. I want variety.
This implies Hell exists inside of normal spacetime, that it is a physical place. I think though it's meant to be a metaphysical place and "eternity" might be an entirely different thing there.
As for the body thing, I'm sure we'd find new ways of "sinning" however we were built. The seven deadly sins are not all about bodies though - Averice, pride, jealousy etc.
Is this not what Purgatory was meant to be for?
The bible suggests that Hell can be simply the absence of God. I could argue that we are already in such a place.
All authoritarian regimes have to stamp out all dissent or resistence quickly develops. A God cannot allow any challenges to his authority. That's why he sent Lucifer to hell in the first place.
If Gods' love was unconditional, he wouldn't need a Hell as he would be able to forgive unconditionally. This is not apparently the case however, and His love is certainly not unconditional.
An alternative would be a kind of spiritual university or college where "rough" souls would be cut and polished into shiny valuable ones.
Judge not, lest you be judged. Usually any kind of misbehaviour in my experience is a symptom of unhappiness, in basic terms. It's better to treat the cause than the symptom.
I don't. But in Biblical times Despots were often powerful people. Take Pharoh for example. He enslaved the Jews, but everybody took slaves back then. What made Pharoh so bad compared to the Romans who took slaves and made them fight each other to the death for fun, as gladiators?
If you were to live by the basic tenets of the bible, you should, on balance, live a good, healthy productive life compared to "Godless heathens". Many heathen societies were highly advanced however. The Greeks and the Romans were heathen by biblical standards until 2000 years or so ago.
in this regard, everyone is a sinner. so if what heart said in the op was true, we'd all end up in hell. the way i understand it, it's those of us who wish we weren't that get what we want...salvation. and as well those who are just fine with sin get to keep it.
i really just think that ultimately people get what they want. i want to be redeemed.
I'm not a Christian, but the doctrine of eternal damnation (and related issues) is something I have taken interest in.
There is reason to believe that the notion of eternal damnation (hell without end) is a later interpretation, a matter of how some words were translated.
See:
A study devoted entirely to the use of the words for eternity in classical and Christian texts:
What is perplexing to me is how come some people continue to believe in eternal damnation - how come they have such faith in the mainstream translations of the Bible and manistream Christian doctrines.
We must also add considerations for translations of the Bible.
The history of the Bible, from its beginnings until today, is loaded with numerous text-critical issues.
What the current popular translations of the Bible say is not necessarily what the original meant.
Good point. But who has taken the time to go back to those original works?
Some do. I quoted two references above.
Hell: Working Out the Bugs
Please, please, please don't make me actually quote Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man. Just pretend you read the book, and thus the counterpoint is perfectly obvious:
Zach Weiner, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, June 27, 2011
Just laugh. You know, it's supposed to be funny.
Never mnd.
Please, please, please don't make me actually quote Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man. Just pretend you read the book, and thus the counterpoint is perfectly obvious:
Zach Weiner, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal, June 27, 2011
Just laugh. You know, it's supposed to be funny.
Never mnd.
Let's face it, according to the nonreligious, you live your life and then you take a permanent "dirt nap" ... no second chances, no rewards, no "passing over". And believers and nonbelievers alike know that "you can't take it with you". Then religions come along and offer alternatives.
I've been a Christian now for many years, and it's no mystery to me that eternal salvation or damnation is not the ultimate goal of our belief in Christianity because, according to our faith, we are not the ones who control those things. The ultimate goal is actually to change our behavior here on earth ... behavior control. Not "behavior control" in the natural sense (ie, how "I" choose to act and say), but perhaps in the "supernatural" sense of allowing a perfect force external to ourselves (ie, the Holy Spirit) to work through us. Because, as our faith tells us, we are imperfect and we can do no thing perfectly. We must seek help outside of ourselves.
When you look at it from this world's perspective, after you've passed over, the only things of you that will remain of you are what you've said and done. So, if you know about the only truly "good" way to act, and if you haven't followed it, then ... oh well ... perhaps no better than a dirt nap. A dirt nap means you will not be conscious of anything; but hell means you will be conscious of your failure.
For nonbelievers, this should be their only concern about hell ... that Christianity means you won't take a dirt nap, you will feel remorse/regret (to say the least).
I've been a Christian now for many years, and it's no mystery to me that eternal salvation or damnation is not the ultimate goal of our belief in Christianity because, according to our faith, we are not the ones who control those things. The ultimate goal is actually to change our behavior here on earth ... behavior control. Not "behavior control" in the natural sense (ie, how "I" choose to act and say), but perhaps in the "supernatural" sense of allowing a perfect force external to ourselves (ie, the Holy Spirit) to work through us. Because, as our faith tells us, we are imperfect and we can do no thing perfectly. We must seek help outside of ourselves.
When you look at it from this world's perspective, after you've passed over, the only things of you that will remain of you are what you've said and done. So, if you know about the only truly "good" way to act, and if you haven't followed it, then ... oh well ... perhaps no better than a dirt nap. A dirt nap means you will not be conscious of anything; but hell means you will be conscious of your failure.
For nonbelievers, this should be their only concern about hell ... that Christianity means you won't take a dirt nap, you will feel remorse/regret (to say the least).