Hell

[Monotheist 101]

what benefit would He gain other than a sadistic glee?

Would that be considered anthropomorphizing God?

 

[Monotheist 101]

God is omniscience and can see past and present. So for this deity to judge us would be irrelevant as it would have no free will with its own actions and could not possibly care about our actions. Our actions do not affect it whatsoever. The loving empathetic emotions we have are thanks to our brain and we know this as a fact now. God is not a human being and does not think of us as a human does.

Does having knowledge of the future take away our free will?

 

[Monotheist 101]

I

B) the existence of hell (as traditionally taught) is contradictory to the nature of God

How can we be absolutely certain about the nature of God?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Does having knowledge of the future take away our free will?

Yes it does. I recommend you learn what free will is.
Your actions are already decided as they are already known.

 

[I.S.L.A.M617]

Your actions are already decided as they are already known.

That's debatable.

 

[Monotheist 101]

Yes it does. I recommend you learn what free will is.
Your actions are already decided as they are already known.

Lol.. I know what free will is..:faint:

I have a different way of looking at the whole omniscience thing tho..

i.e I can choose to eat pancakes with chocolate syrup or maple syrup on it tomorrow.. If a fortune teller could predict what syrup I use..does that take away my free will? I could choose either tomorrow..or not eat pancakes at all.

IMO omniscience as a quality of God (his knowledge of the future)does not take away our free will. I can choose to walk to work or drive..does Gods knowledge of the future take away my free-will in the sense that I am no longer able to change my decision and drive or have maple syrup on my pancake? I think not.

The difference between the fortune teller and God is that the fortune teller gives us a prediction that we can test the outcome against.. God hasn't shared any of his knowledge with us (regarding the future), so we cant really test it, but if he would have then it would be binding..because God cannot be wrong..thus taking away our free will.

We have different ways of looking at it I guess..I dont know if I explained it in a way which makes sense.. but Ill re state God's unshared knowledge of the future does not take away my free will to do whatever I want tomorrow.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In my view, heaven and hell are just internal archetypes.

 

[Taahir]

I agree with Monotheist_101, just because God knows what we're going to do doesn't mean we don't necessarily have a choice in it.

 

[Philomath]

I don't believe in Hell but even one does exist I'll gladly throw myself in it...I'd rather burn eternally than worship a tyrant.

 

[james2ko]

They will "simply cease to exist"? This, to me, makes no sense whatsoever and has no basis in scripture. To begin with, why would God even bother resurrecting them at all if He's going to turn right around and cause them to cease to exist? If He never bothered to resurrect them in the first place, wouldn't the end effect be the same? There has got to be some logical reason why He'd resurrect them and then do away with them.

There is. Shortly after the millennium (Rev 20:5), every man, woman, and child who did not receive an unencumbered opportunity to know Christ, in this age, will be resurrected back to physical life and be given a period of time (Isa 65:20), with the veil of deception removed (Isa 25:7) to accept or reject Him. Those who reject Him will be cast into the lake of fire and die the second death and simply cease to exist. If there is a second death, logic would dictate there had to be a first, right?

 

[chinu]

Physical body dies after physical death so no physical hell can torture a soul hence I don't believe in physical hell.

Of-course you don't take your body along with you in your dreams. Can't you be tortured in your dreams ? just think about.

 

[captainbryce]

With the exception of the last passage you mentioned (which can actually be interpreted in more ways than one), I see absolutely no indication that the wicked will simply "cease to exist."

For instance, the passage in Daniel says that some will rise "to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting disgrace." How on earth can "non-existence" be equated to everlasting disgrace?

How can it NOT?

Let's put it a different way, shall we:

[Hebrew - word for word translation]
and·many-ones from·sleepers-of ground-of soil they-shall-awake these to·lives-of eon and·these to·the·reproaches to·repulsion-of eon

John 3:16
For God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

2 Thessalonians 1:9
They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power.

Revelation 20:14-15
14 Then death and the grave were thrown into the lake of fire. This lake of fire is the second death. 15 And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.

A common theme throughout scripture is the fact that it continually contrasts "eternal life" with "eternal death". Once again, there are only two states of existence (death being the opposite of life). The only way to achieve eternal life is by accepting the Son as the savior. Anything else leads to eternal death. Life is the only state of consciousness. Therefore, there can be no such thing as "eternal life in hell" because that wouldn't make any sense. People that are not saved from death are destroyed FOREVER. For all intents and purposes, this means that they cease to exist.

I agree 100% with all of these passages. I just don't interpret them the same way as the Jehovah's Witnesses do. And trust me, I know Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine when I see it, even when it's presented by people who don't self-identify as Jehovah's Witnesses.

Well then this is apparently one area where Jehovas Witnesses would be correct. If you interpret the scriptures differently that's fine, but I still haven't heard YOUR interpretation of them. To me, the plain reading of the text is clear. I personally see no other reasonable interpretation that is consistent with scripture, but by all means "share" if you think something else makes more sense.

 

[captainbryce]

How can we be absolutely certain about the nature of God?

Because the bible tells us his nature. He is an eternal spiritual being who is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, all-loving, all-merciful, who judges in righteousness. He cannot lie, he cannot deceive, and he cannot ever change. He is the only truly "good" being in this universe.

Mark 10:18
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone.

Psalms 25:8
The Lord is good and does what is right; he shows the proper path to those who go astray.

Psalms 86:15
But you, O Lord, are a God of compassion and mercy, slow to get angry and filled with unfailing love and faithfulness.

Joel 2:13
"....Return to the Lord your God, for he is merciful and compassionate, slow to get angry and filled with unfailing love. He is eager to relent and not punish."

1 John 4:8
Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

Ephesians 2:4-5
4 But God is so rich in mercy, and he loved us so much, 5 that even though we were dead because of our sins, he gave us life when he raised Christ from the dead. (It is only by God’s grace that you have been saved!)

2 Corinthians 1:3
All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is our merciful Father and the source of all comfort.

James 5:11
We give great honor to those who endure under suffering. For instance, you know about Job, a man of great endurance. You can see how the Lord was kind to him at the end, for the Lord is full of tenderness and mercy

A being that fits these criteria couldn't create an evil place of eternal torment because that would be contradictory and inconsistent with his character as the bible describes him. Therefore, if this hell exists (as traditionally taught) then it means that God has LIED to all of humanity about his own nature.

 

[Katzpur]

There is. Shortly after the millennium (Rev 20:5), every man, woman, and child who did not receive an unencumbered opportunity to know Christ, in this age, will be resurrected back to physical life and be given a period of time (Isa 65:20), with the veil of deception removed (Isa 25:7) to accept or reject Him. Those who reject Him will be cast into the lake of fire and die the second death and simply cease to exist. If there is a second death, logic would dictate there had to be a first, right?

We've had this discussion before, James, and it didn't end well. You and I understand the timeline of these events completely differently. We're poles apart on how we interpret the exact same scriptures.

 

[Katzpur]

How can it NOT?

Non-existence would definitely imply lack of consciousness. And one can feel no disgrace if one is unconscious.

Well then this is apparently one area where Jehovas Witnesses would be correct.

Yeah, funny on how how closely aligned you are with them on so many significant doctrines.

If you interpret the scriptures differently that's fine, but I still haven't heard YOUR interpretation of them. To me, the plain reading of the text is clear. I personally see no other reasonable interpretation that is consistent with scripture, but by all means "share" if you think something else makes more sense.

Oh, so now you want to hear my brainwashed version, the one I couldn't possibly have derived from the scriptures, but had drummed into my head by Mormonism? I don't have time this morning to get into it with you. I'd be happy to this evening, but I honestly think it would be pointless. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses may both deny the Nicene Creed, but apart from that, we have little in common. Your mind is made up and nothing I could possibly say is going to change it. I already had this same conversation with James and it led absolutely nowhere. The problem is that we completely disagree about what happens at the moment of death. And from there, the divergence just gets more complicated.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

For those of us here (especially those who believe in a God/Higher Power/A Source) who do not believe in a physical Hell, do you ever think if this is because you genuinely don't, or because you don't want to, because the thought of going to such a place for a long time or eternity is too frightening and too much to bear?

Because I don't. I considered it even though I didn't want to, and I'm pretty sure my wants don't control my beliefs.

 

[captainbryce]

Non-existence would definitely imply lack of consciousness. And one can feel no disgrace if one is unconscious.

Read the scripture again. This time, from the King James version (which is closer to the word-for-word Hebrew).

Daniel 12:2
Many of those whose bodies lie dead and buried will rise up, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting disgrace.

Daniel 12:2
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

This state of existence applies AFTER a person has been resurrected, but before they are thrown into the lake of fire. They WILL be alive and at that point they will experience shame. The "everlasting contempt" part expresses God's judgement, not the person's feelings! The judgement is that they are in contempt and the punishment for such contempt is the Lake of Fire.

Yeah, funny on how how closely aligned you are with them on so many significant doctrines.

Why is that "funny". I am no doubt aligned with many various Christian denominations on many significant doctrines (including the most significant). Just as I disagree with many denominations on various issues. How is this relevant? What are you getting at here?

Oh, so now you want to hear my brainwashed version, the one I couldn't possibly have derived from the scriptures, but had drummed into my head by Mormonism?

Would I have asked if I didn't?

I don't have time this morning to get into it with you.

Well get back to me when you have time.

I'd be happy to this evening, but I honestly think it would be pointless.

Well if you think it'd be a waste of time, why tell me?

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses may both deny the Nicene Creed, but apart from that, we have little in common. Your mind is made up and nothing I could possibly say is going to change it. I already had this same conversation with James and it led absolutely nowhere. The problem is that we completely disagree about what happens at the moment of death. And from there, the divergence just gets more complicated.

A) I am not James.

B) I am not a Jehovah witness.

C) My mind is about as "made up" as yours is. That doesn't mean you have to withhold your interpretation.

D) I do not know the believes of LDS on this issue. If you want to share them and discuss your interpretation, fine. If not, then I can resume discussing it with other people. What's your pleasure?

 

[kjw47]

When one gets to know the true God of the bible, this is reality:

Deuteronomy 32:4-- All of Gods ways are justice( mean he applies the same justice to every single dealing.) He clearly taught us that justice = an eye for an eye = a balanced set of scales.

Lets apply that to a place of eternal torment.

On one side of the scales- 70-90 years of unrepented sin------- on the other side of the scale-- trillions x trillions x trillions, etc,etc of never ending years of punishment.

See any balance on those scales? No.

thus the teaching of a literal place of eternal torment is a sadistic lie taught by teachers of darkness, they do not know God or his son in reality.

 

[InChrist]

In the NT, Jesus Christ first used the term "hell fire" (Matt. 5:22), and it was Jesus Christ who said in Matthew 25:41, ". . . Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." It was Jesus who warned that... “it is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched” (Mark 9:43)

I don’t think God looks at sin as some slight trivial, temporal, infraction as humans do. I believe since God is an Eternal and Holy Being and humans are made as eternal beings in His image the impact and consequences of sinning against a Holy God and His creation are serious and eternal.


I don’t see annihilation as true because the Bible uses such terms as "shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan. 12:2) and "torment . . . forever" (Rev. 14:11). Shame and torment are states of being that are experienced by a conscious, living being, not an annihilated corpse. Also, in the scriptures Jesus and the other writers make such a point of the importance of being saved from such a destination of torment. If annihilation was all that occurred after death I don’t think there would be the emphasis on being saved since it wouldn’t matter after death anyway, without consciousness.


i see a variety of terms used in the scriptures to describe different aspects of eternal damnation, all of which indicate it is a place to be avoided and be saved from. Jesus spoke more on this subject than anyone in the NT and I believe that is because He is the Savior who came to rescue anyone who desires to avoid such a destination.


The link below gives a few more scripture references and thoughts on the subject for anyone interested:


“Their combined effect describes a hell that is worse than death, darker than darkness, and deeper than any abyss. Hell is a place with more wailing and gnashing of teeth than any single descriptor could ever portray. Its symbolic descriptors bring us to a place beyond the limits of our language—to a place far worse than we could ever imagine.”

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/fire-and-brimstone.html#ixzz2b8XF4SJ4

 

[captainbryce]

In the NT, Jesus Christ first used the term "hell fire" (Matt. 5:22), and it was Jesus Christ who said in Matthew 25:41, ". . . Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

Yes, he did say that. But nobody here is disputing that! Revelation 20:15 (which I already quoted) clearly reinforces this passage.

Revelation 20:15
And anyone whose name was not found recorded in the Book of Life was thrown into the lake of fire.

The issue isn't whether the wicked are punished with fire. The issue is the nature of the punishment itself, and whether it represents destruction or some eternal, living, conscious state of suffering. And neither one of those passages suggest that it represents the latter.

It was Jesus who warned that... “it is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched” (Mark 9:43)

Again correct. However, in addition to what I just said concerning the nature of the punishment (which is also not described here), this statement is also not literal. It is a symbolic representation of removing the sinful influences from your life, rather than suffering the consequence of sin (which is death). Jesus is not literally asking people to cut their hands off here! Do you really think that Jesus expects his followers to amputate body parts whenever they are tempted by sin? Of course not! The "hell" in this context is gehenna (which was a real place in Israel of everlasting fire). It is used here to represent the second death (lake of fire). But none of that suggests the eternal, conscious state of torment.

I don’t think God looks at sin as some slight trivial, temporal, infraction as humans do.

Sin is sin! The definition of sin is going against God! So there is really one one way to look at it. The issue is, what does the bible says is the punishment for sin? The answer is death, not a conscious state of eternal torment.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

Another passage that highlights the contrast between the only two states of existence, LIFE and DEATH.

I believe since God is an Eternal and Holy Being and humans are made as eternal beings in His image the impact and consequences of sinning against a Holy God and His creation are serious and eternal.

Well first of all, Humans WERE made in God's image, but humans also sinned and became imperfect. The consequence of original sin was that we were NOT eternal. Adam was banished from the Garden of Eden and cut off from the tree of life so that he would die. At that point, humanity ceased being "eternal beings" because the wages of sin is death! The only way to achieve eternal life is through salvation in Christ.

John 14:6
Jesus told him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me.

Secondly, the "impact" of sin without redemption IS eternal. That impact being eternal death, not eternal life in "hell". Hell itself isn't even eternal! It is eventually destroyed by the lake of fire.

Revelation 20:14 (King James Version)
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

However, the destruction that one faces if sent to the lake of fire IS eternal, because there is no hope of redemption, resurrection or salvation at that point.

2 Thessalonians 1:9
They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power.

I don’t see annihilation as true because the Bible uses such terms as "shame and everlasting contempt" (Dan. 12:2) and "torment . . . forever" (Rev. 14:11).

That's because you're only looking at it from an English language perspective without taking into consideration what such terms are translated from, and what they mean in the original Greek. The Greek word-for-word translation is "THEY-SHALL-BE-BEING-ORDEALizED OF-DAY AND OF-NIGHT INTO THE eons OF-THE eons". This passage could be interpreted MANY possible ways (made further true by the fact that Revelation is a prophetic dream told largely in metaphor, not a literal account). The scripture as written simply implies that these three factions will be "dealt with" and will never again have an impact in God's kingdom. Revelation 14:11 is not a declaration of what happens to any sinner on Earth. It is speaking specifically about the "Devil/Dragon", the "Beast", and the "False Prophet" (which most theologians consider to be symbolic concepts, and not specifically individuals). The Beast is actually a governmental system that will control an alliance of nations, which will exist for a short time just before Christ's return. How can a governmental system (a concept) literally be "tormented"? That's why you can't just take the English translation of it at face value (otherwise it makes no sense).

Also, the bible uses terms such as PERISH, DEATH and DESTRUCTION to describe the fate of unrepentent sinners during final judgement. All of these terms imply a finality, not some continued existence.

Shame and torment are states of being that are experienced by a conscious, living being, not an annihilated corpse.

First of all, you are combining two different, unrelated scriptures, talking about different entities. There is no scripture that says people will be resurrected to "eternal shame and torment"! Daniel 2:12 says "and some to
shame [and] everlasting contempt". The "shame" is temporary (until the second death). Everlasting contempt means that they have no hope of life again because their contempt is everlasting. This is one of the reasons why the hell doctrine as traditionally taught is such a convoluted concept. It depends on twisting the meaning of scripture, taking it out of context, and mixing unrelated scriptures in order to create a doctrine that basically goes against what Christ and the Apostles actually taught about death being the wages of sin, and eternal life through salvation in Christ.

Also, in the scriptures Jesus and the other writers make such a point of the importance of being saved from such a destination of torment.

Outside of the book of Revelation (which we know is allegorical) show me some place in the bible where Jesus or any of his Apostles ever state that sinners will be "tormented eternally".

If annihilation was all that occurred after death

You make that sound like a light punishment! :sarcastic

Anyways, it doesn't occur after the first death, but at the second.

I don’t think there would be the emphasis on being saved since it wouldn’t matter after death anyway, without consciousness.

Of course it would matter! God's plan is for all us to be saved from death. That's why he sent his son to die on the cross for us. Why do you think it wouldn't matter to God whether we live forever or die?

i see a variety of terms used in the scriptures to describe different aspects of eternal damnation, all of which indicate it is a place to be avoided and be saved from.

I agree. But NONE of them imply it is a literal place of eternal life in torment. And that's the only point I'm making.

The link below gives a few more scripture references and thoughts on the subject for anyone interested:

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't read links. I listen to individual arguments based on scripture. Anyone can find a link that supports any position they want to endorse. But that doesn't change what the bible actually says!