• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

As a Christian do you believe in an honest-to-god punishing Hell?

Thanda

Well-Known Member
Mark 16:15:

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.


Ah... so it's only the people who aren't convinced by your preaching who are damned.

If so, then evangelism is the most evil act a person can commit.

Indeed how evil it is to offer people heaven and to exclude them from it when they refuse. You just don't get more heartless than that!
 

Sultan Of Swing

Well-Known Member
Yet Christian DO judge god to be good.

Thing is, there is no place in the Bible where god says he's good, NONE! Only verses where others are quoted as judging to be good. And there's nothing in the Bible indicating they have more of a right to judge him than anyone else. So, if they can judge god to be good, I and anyone else have an equal right to judge him however we wish.
Jesus says no one is good but God. (Jesus is God)
Problem is, he not only sends to hell those that reject him, but those, who through no fault of their own, are unbelievers; those who through their ignorance never had a chance to reject him. All of which is spelled out quite clearly in Mark 16:16 (KJ)

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
Note that there's no qualification whatsoever regarding those who "believeth not". No extenuating circumstances that might get a guy a lighter sentence. It's an across the board sentencing. "Don't believe? The reason doesn't matter. Get in the Go-To-Hell line, Charley."

So, is god good? Not by any definition of the word I ever came across.
Regardless of whether or not a person has heard the Gospel, knowledge of God is still evident enough for Him to be rejected (and for them to do bad things and sin), and as such the just punishment still stands. Those who are saved, are saved by God's grace, it is a marvel that any are saved at all in the light of His holiness. Before the very embodiment and standard of perfect goodness, all fall short.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Jesus says no one is good but God. (Jesus is God)
So, you're saying that Jesus is actually saying, "No one is good but me." Unfortunately, by specifically referring to god Jesus is making a clear distinction between god and himself.

Mark 10:18
"And Jesus said unto him, Why call me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."
Can't get much clearer than this. So, it isn't god who is saying he is good, but, again, someone else.

Regardless of whether or not a person has heard the Gospel, knowledge of God is still evident enough for Him to be rejected (and for them to do bad things and sin), and as such the just punishment still stands. Those who are saved, are saved by God's grace, it is a marvel that any are saved at all in the light of His holiness. Before the very embodiment and standard of perfect goodness, all fall short.
????
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
Isaiah 46:13 (KJV)
13 I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.

80.png

That's what you're looking for.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Jesus says no one is good but God. (Jesus is God)

Regardless of whether or not a person has heard the Gospel, knowledge of God is still evident enough for Him to be rejected (and for them to do bad things and sin), and as such the just punishment still stands.
How could an infinite punishment for a finite crime ever be just?

Those who are saved, are saved by God's grace, it is a marvel that any are saved at all in the light of His holiness. Before the very embodiment and standard of perfect goodness, all fall short.
You make it sound like we were set up to fail.

... and if you were right earlier when you said that it's just of God to punish sinners, it's unjust not to punish the "saved". How do you reconcile injustice with your supposedly perfect God?
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
That's what you're looking for.
If you're suggesting that "righteousness" in Isaiah 46:13 means "good" then I suggest you educate yourself. צְדָקָה (tsĕdaqah) means to be right or just, neither of which necessarily embodies good.
 
Last edited:

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
The idea of consciously torturing any living being for eternity for sins that have only caused a limited amount of suffering has always bothered me. It also doesn't make sense to me to say that sinners willfully choose to go to Hell: you can't choose to go to a place that you don't believe exists.
 
But how can a small slap on the wrist be fine when you continue to reject God. Let's put it this way: you'll continue getting slaps on the wrist for as long as you reject God: does that sound better to you?

Why is it so important that we believe certain things about God? I don't think non-belief warrants any punishment at all, not in a world where God has NOT made himself clear to us.

God is NOT revealed though nature, 'rendering us without excuse' or whatever nonsense it says in Romans. If anything modern science has diminished God's role in the universe, making him less and less apparent. If he wanted to make himself known to us, this is the best he can do? A mush mash collection of writings full of obvious forgeries, contradictions, mistranslations, legends and hearsay, which Christians had to argue and argue over how it would be canonized.

I'm inclined think that someone with Gods attributes, if he really wanted to save people from his own wrath, could have done a better job of communicating his plan. Instead he has stayed so far in the background that we have good reason to think he might not be there at all.

So no, I don't believe that a person like this has grounds tontorture us for eternity for not belivleving in him.
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
If you're suggesting that "righteousness" in Isaiah 46:13 means "good" then I suggest you educate yourself. צְדָקָה (tsĕdaqah) means to be right or just, neither of which necessarily embodies good.

I understand your intent.. But, they're synonymous.

Righteousness
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I understand your intent.. But, they're synonymous.

Righteousness
And your Righteousness here is suppose to prove their synonymy in Isaiah 46:13? Try again.

And FYI, here are several commentaries on the verse.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
I bring near my righteousness - The word 'righteousness' here evidently denotes his truth; the fulfillment of his promises.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
I bring near my righteousness, it shall not be far off,.... Meaning either the faithfulness of God, in fulfilling his promises; or the justice of God displayed, in redemption by Christ;

Geneva Study Bible
I bring {m} near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not delay: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 13. - I bring near my righteousness; i.e. "my righteous judgment is approaching - that judgment which involves vengeance on my enemies, mercy and deliverance to my people." This latter is the salvation that shall not tarry.
Nothing indicating "righteousness" as used here is synonymous with "good."
 
Last edited:

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
And your Righteousness here is suppose to prove their synonymy in Isaiah 46:13? Try again.

And FYI, here are several commentaries on the verse.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible
I bring near my righteousness - The word 'righteousness' here evidently denotes his truth; the fulfillment of his promises.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
I bring near my righteousness, it shall not be far off,.... Meaning either the faithfulness of God, in fulfilling his promises; or the justice of God displayed, in redemption by Christ;

Geneva Study Bible
I bring {m} near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not delay: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.

Pulpit Commentary
Verse 13. - I bring near my righteousness; i.e. "my righteous judgment is approaching - that judgment which involves vengeance on my enemies, mercy and deliverance to my people." This latter is the salvation that shall not tarry.
Nothing indicating "righteousness" as used here is synonymous with "good."

"Try again?" Relax. No need for hostility. I'll clarify further for you.

"...the name ẓaddik, "righteous man" (pl. ẓaddikim), is found throughout rabbinic literature denoting the good man..."

Righteousness

A third characteristic of God is goodness. If God weren't moral, ethical monotheism would be an oxymoron: A God who is not good cannot demand goodness. Unlike all other gods believed in prior to monotheism, the biblical God rules by moral standards. Thus, in the Babylonian version of the flood story, the gods, led by Enlil, sent a flood to destroy mankind, saving only Utnapishtim and his wife - because Enlil personally liked Utnapishtim. It is an act of caprice, not morality. In the biblical story, God also sends a flood, saving only Noah and his wife and family. The stories are almost identical except for one overwhelming difference: The entire Hebrew story is animated by ethical/moral concerns. God brings the flood solely because people treat one another, not God, badly, and God saves Noah solely because he was "the most righteous person in his generation."

Ethical Monotheism | Jewish Virtual Library

If that doesn't suffice, so be it. I tried.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
"Try again?" Relax. No need for hostility. I'll clarify further for you.

"...the name ẓaddik, "righteous man" (pl. ẓaddikim), is found throughout rabbinic literature denoting the good man..."

Righteousness
So what? We're talking about what god said in one particular verse: Isaiah 46:13. Get back on track.

A third characteristic of God is goodness. If God weren't moral, ethical monotheism would be an oxymoron: A God who is not good cannot demand goodness. Unlike all other gods believed in prior to monotheism, the biblical God rules by moral standards. Thus, in the Babylonian version of the flood story, the gods, led by Enlil, sent a flood to destroy mankind, saving only Utnapishtim and his wife - because Enlil personally liked Utnapishtim. It is an act of caprice, not morality. In the biblical story, God also sends a flood, saving only Noah and his wife and family. The stories are almost identical except for one overwhelming difference: The entire Hebrew story is animated by ethical/moral concerns. God brings the flood solely because people treat one another, not God, badly, and God saves Noah solely because he was "the most righteous person in his generation."

Ethical Monotheism | Jewish Virtual Library

If that doesn't suffice, so be it. I tried.
It doesn't suffice because we're talking about what god says, not what others may have said about him. And in your case with Isaiah 46:13, how "righteousness" was used doesn't qualify. Review my listed commentaries if you have to.
 

Sleeppy

Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.
It doesn't suffice because we're talking about what god says, not what others may have said about him.

So you'll rely on Christian commentaries.. Ok. In any case, the commentaries you've cited refer to specific manifestations of God's goodness/righteouness, as interpreted by the respective Christian commentators.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
So you'll rely on Christian commentaries..
Are there other relevant commentaries?

Ok. In any case, the commentaries you've cited refer to specific manifestations of God's goodness/righteouness, as interpreted by the respective Christian commentators.
Yup, and they stick to your Isaiah 46:13. The verse you presented as evidence that god says he's good.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
The idea of consciously torturing any living being for eternity for sins that have only caused a limited amount of suffering has always bothered me. It also doesn't make sense to me to say that sinners willfully choose to go to Hell: you can't choose to go to a place that you don't believe exists.
I don't believe this idea that God tortures living beings for eternity is scripturally accurate. For one thing, the Bible does not use the word torture in reference to those who do not spend eternity in God's presence. The word is torment and I believe this is actually a self-induced torment brought about by an acute awareness by the individual of the state they chose in rejecting and being apart from God who is the only source of all good, beauty, light, peace, and joy. To be in a such a state separated from God will be tormenting, but it not torture by God.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
I don't believe this idea that God tortures living beings for eternity is scripturally accurate. For one thing, the Bible does not use the word torture in reference to those who do not spend eternity in God's presence. The word is torment and I believe this is actually a self-induced torment brought about by an acute awareness by the individual of the state they chose in rejecting and being apart from God who is the only source of all good, beauty, light, peace, and joy. To be in a such a state separated from God will be tormenting, but it not torture by God.
I'm undecided about what the Bible really teaches about Hell anyway. I'm just pointing out that the classical Protestant interpretation (which I was brought up under) doesn't add up to me.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
I don't believe this idea that God tortures living beings for eternity is scripturally accurate. For one thing, the Bible does not use the word torture in reference to those who do not spend eternity in God's presence. The word is torment and I believe this is actually a self-induced torment brought about by an acute awareness by the individual of the state they chose in rejecting and being apart from God who is the only source of all good, beauty, light, peace, and joy. To be in a such a state separated from God will be tormenting, but it not torture by God.
Is it really necessary to use the word "torture" to described the fate of those who end up in Hell when we have the following reports of it?

Matthew 13:42
42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

firelong.gif


Matthew 25:41
41 "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

firelong.gif


Mark 9:43

43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

firelong.gif


II Thessalonians 1:9
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power

firelong.gif


Revelation 21:8
8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death"

firelong.gif

Boy, if this doesn't amount to torture I don't know what does.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Is it really necessary to use the word "torture" to described the fate of those who end up in Hell when we have the following reports of it?
Boy, if this doesn't amount to torture I don't know what does.

I suggest, rather than remain in a confused, biblically illiterate state by copying and beliving stuff off websites which sole purpose is to be antagonistic toward the God, that you read and pray for insight into what scriptures actually say if you want to know. Of course that is a big...if.

"How could physical torment distinguish between the sins of a Hitler and those of a petty thief? How could physical pain, no matter how excruciating, contribute to the tormenting agony of soul and spirit and conscience laid bare before the wrath of a Holy God against sin? Would the soul and spirit, or the flesh, cry out in agony from physical fire?


May I bring to bear further reason on this subject?


  1. God says, "Come now, and let us reason together (Isaiah:1:18); and Peter says, "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you... (1 Peter:3:15)." Paul continually reasoned from the Scriptures: Acts:17:2; 18:4, 19, etc. Rebuking me for reasoning from Scripture, one of the above critics declares, "It's not up to us to try to figure out how these things work. We can be assured that God knows how to make it work." In other words, "Never mind that physical fire could only inflict physical pain that cannot touch soul and spirit; we're not supposed to reason about Scripture. It says 'fire' so it's got to be physical or it wouldn't be real; so God must make that work no matter how unreasonable it is."

    Let us continue to reason.
  2. Was the water real that Jesus offered to the woman at the well (John:4:14)? Of course, or His offer would have been a fraud. Was the water physical? No. Then, say some, it couldn't have been real. Have they not made a grave mistake?
  3. Paul says, "Fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is" (1 Corinthians:3:13). Please tell me how physical fire could reveal "what sort" of works we have done? Isn't that a moral judgment, weighing motives as well as deeds? Does not this fire, which cannot be physical yet is real, give us further insight into the nature of the fires of hell?
  4. No physical body could survive the lake of fire for a moment. It would instantly be consumed -- so God would have to continually, moment by moment, reconstitute the physical bodies so He could continue to torment the damned. As I pointed out in the article, this is what Muslims believe about their hell and Catholics about purgatory. Neither belief is biblical. What conviction of conscience would be effected through tormenting physical bodies in physical flames?

    "But what about the burning bush that was not consumed? If God can keep physical fire from consuming a bush, surely He could keep it from consuming a physical body in the lake of fire." Of course He could, but what would be the point? Why would God choose to use physical fire to torment the damned even though it didn't consume them? Shouldn't they instead be tormented by the flaming fire of an overwhelming sense of the exceeding sinfulness of the sins they have committed (Romans:7:13) and the horror of what it means to rebel against the only true God, Creator of heaven and earth? Wouldn't this burning of the conscience be far worse than burning in physical flames?

    Those who are "cast into the lake of fire" have just been judged at the "great white throne...according to their works" (Revelation:20:11-12
    ). They must be terrified by the judgment they know they deserve for the sins with which they have been confronted by the One on the throne "from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away...." Every self-justifying excuse has been stripped away, leaving the stark reality of the extreme wickedness of their sin. They will be forever tormented by a conscience that can no longer hide from God or justify itself, and by an eternally burning thirst for the Living Water Christ offered, and which they despised.

    They will for eternity mourn the folly of their irrevocable decision. Imagine the pain of such a fire burning in the soul of one in the lake of fire who has in God's presence suddenly met with the full realization of one's eternal state, with the "blood" of Jesus on one's "hands." Would not the burning pain and anguish these souls and spirits will suffer be far worse than physical flames could inflict upon physical bodies?
  5. Finally, physical torment could not affect the conscience or effect any understanding of the horror of sin and the justice of the punishment God is meting out upon sinners. Excruciating physical torment would surely distract the conscience instead of assist in the conviction just burned into it at the great white throne.

I understand the strength of the tradition that the flames of hell must be physical fire torturing bodies. In my opinion, that idea trivializes God's just punishment, has led to much misunderstanding, and instead of glorifying God for His uncompromising justice, breeds bewilderment, resentment, and even hatred of the God whom they now view as their tormentor instead of their just judge."


Dave Hunt Addresses the 'Fire of Hell' Controversy | thebereancall.org
 
Top