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

[Skwim]

Just so we know how hell is commonly regarded:

Catholic

"A state involving definitive self-exclusion from communion with God:"
Source: Pope John Paul II; Catechism of the Catholic Church.

"Hell is the place and state of eternal punishment for the fallen angels and human beings who die deliberately estranged from the love of God. The existence of hell, as the everlasting abode of the devils and those human beings who have died in the state of mortal sin, is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church"
Source: (Baker, "Fundamentals of Catholicism" (1983), volume 3, p. 371).

"God made hell to punish the devils or bad angels, and all who die in mortal sin. No one can come out of Hell, for out of Hell there is no redemption"
Source: Crawford & Rossiter, "Reasons for Living: Education and Young People's Search for Meaning" (2006). p. 192.​

Protestant

"According to the Alliance Commission on Unity & Truth among Evangelicals (ACUTE) the majority of Protestants have held that hell will be a place of unending conscious torment, both physical and spiritual."
Source:Evangelical Alliance Commission on Unity and Truth among Evangelicals (2000). The Nature of Hell. Acute, Paternoster

". . . the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.
source:Westminster Confession (1646):

"A minority of Protestants believe in the doctrine of conditional immortality, which teaches that those sent to hell will not experience eternal conscious punishment, but instead will be extinguished or annihilated after a period of "limited conscious punishment".
Source: "The Nature of Hell. Conclusions and Recommendations". Evangelical Alliance. 2000.

"Christian Science defines "hell" as follows: "Mortal belief; error; lust; remorse; hatred; revenge; sin; sickness; death; suffering and self-destruction; self-imposed agony; effects of sin; that which 'worketh abomination or maketh a lie. "
Source: Science and Health with Key to the Scripture by Mary Baker Eddy, 588: 1-4.
​

If you do, don't you think this is a bit extreme and unfair?

​

 

[Scott C.]

From the LDS website:

HELL
See also Damnation; Death, Spiritual; Devil; Sons of Perdition
Latter-day revelation speaks of hell in at least two senses. First, it is the temporary abode in the spirit world for those who were disobedient in mortality. In this sense, hell has an end. The spirits there will be taught the gospel, and sometime following their repentance they will be resurrected to a degree of glory of which they are worthy. Those who will not repent, but are nevertheless not sons of perdition, will remain in hell throughout the Millennium. After these thousand years of torment, they will be resurrected to a telestial glory (D&C 76:81–86; 88:100–101).

Second, it is the permanent location of those who are not redeemed by the atonement of Jesus Christ. In this sense, hell is permanent. It is for those who are found “filthy still” (D&C 88:35, 102). This is the place where Satan, his angels, and the sons of perdition—those who have denied the Son after the Father has revealed him—will dwell eternally (D&C 76:43–46).

I believe in hell as described here. Yes, God is just, fair, and merciful. Almost every soul will eventually be redeemed from hell through the atonement of Christ. Personally. I believe hell is a place or state of being where people learn humility and love and prepare for their redemption through Christ.

 

[Glaurung]

If you do, don't you think this is a bit extreme and unfair?

Nope. You cannot obtain beatific vision if you determinately refuse redemption from sin, it's really that simple, and actually quite reasonable as the means of redemption from sin is readily available.

 

[psychoslice]

I personally feel that the concept of God punishment and hell to be nothing more than a scare tactic, which to me is sick, what a horrible way to think.

 

[Kolibri]

As per the thread title, no.

There are 3 words in Hebrew and Greek that got translated as hell or hellfire in the KJV along with a number of other misleading expressions. But transliterated they are Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna. Not confusing Hades with how it is used in Greek mythology, it is the exact equivalent of Sheol - that is the common Grave of mankind. There is no pain and no consciousness for those there, but it is a state of temporary nonexistence. All those sleeping there will wake up one day.

Gehenna, or Valley of Hinnom, was a historical garbage dump outside of Jerusalem where, among other things, the corpses of those not considered fit for burial were thrown. The continual fires kept there would prevent any retrieval of the garbage. Jesus used it as a symbol of death whereby there would be no retrieval - permanent nonexistence.

Because the Greek word for "torment" can also mean "to jail", "torment" is not literal. It just means that the things there are confined.

Like Gehenna, the "lake of fire" has fire that does not go out. It is called the second death. So these expressions both refer to the same thing. Like in the Grave, those that sleep there are in a state of nonexistence. But this nonexistence is permanent.



Hades, or the Grave, is said to be emptied and then it itself will be thrown into the second death, permanently being put out of existence. If someone holds to the view that Hell is a place of torment, how does it get emptied and then thrown into itself? (The answer is they are not one and the same.)

"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."
- Re 20:13,14 (King James Version)

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If you do, don't you think this is a bit extreme and unfair?

No. To do so would be a misunderstanding of who God is, an underestimation of His holiness and purity, and His absolute commitment to justice.

God is good. That is the underlying premise which makes unbelievers uncomfortable, even angry. Why? Because if He is good, what will He do with bad people?

God is infinitely worthy, He is holy and pure. Sin will not stand before His sight. When we are before Him, we will be well aware of our own unworthiness, of the sin that plagues us and the wrongdoing that afflicts us.

In the sight of His majesty, in the face of His holiness, there will be no need for a court of appeal, for a voice of objection. Those who are sentenced to Hell will know they are deserving of it, for their sins will be laid bare, they will be held accountable, and their punishment will be fitting.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

I personally feel that the concept of God punishment and hell to be nothing more than a scare tactic, which to me is sick, what a horrible way to think.

Similarly, it could be said the denial of God is nothing more than an attempt to shirk responsibility and accountability, to live one's life as one wishes and to avoid any thought of divine justice.

I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, but your own attempt to find an underlying agenda, e.g. a "scare tactic", can be just as easily turned around for non-belief.

 

[psychoslice]

Similarly, it could be said the denial of God is nothing more than an attempt to shirk responsibility and accountability, to live one's life as one wishes and to avoid any thought of divine justice.

I'm not saying that's necessarily the case, but your own attempt to find an underlying agenda, e.g. a "scare tactic", can be just as easily turned around for non-belief.

No!!, any one or any god that threatens us in any way is a criminal to our freedom, you can dress this god up in anyway you like, but he will always be a cunning wicket *******.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

No!!, any one or any god that threatens us in any way is a criminal to our freedom, you can dress this god up in anyway you like, but he will always be a cunning wicket *******.

What is a "criminal"? Someone who has broken a law. We have broken God's law, we have breached the justice of this universe. The very word "criminal" you used implies some sort of moral system that we can impose upon God, to the point we can call Him a criminal. But God can't call us criminals? Is that too unseemly, too offensive? How come we can judge God, but God can't judge us? We are beyond accountability and responsibility, are we?

God does not threaten us with Hell, rather He will give criminals, a word you used yourself, their due sentence.

 

[DoubtingNate]

this sums it up pretty well for me..

 

[DoubtingNate]

But you can't call God 'good' and say that he would allow someone to be tortured for eternity. This is now how a loving parent would punish their child. If we say that God is 'good' or some ultimate standard for goodness, yet he does these things, the word becomes meaningless to the point we can't really know what 'good' is, based on God's words and actions as revealed in Scripture. Or if we say that God is some model for fatherhood, but does no father could ever do to their own child.. the attributes we ascribe to God are meaningless if he does not live up to them.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Don't give me that bull****, your god is nothing but crap, and all you are doing is trying to give him some sort ofgod's authority, but it just won't work, I'm not that stupid.

I acknowledge the end of our discussion with the customary renouncement of any reasoned response and the resorting to name-calling by the opposition.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

But you can't call God 'good' and say that he would allow someone to be tortured for eternity. This is now how a loving parent would punish their child. If we say that God is 'good' or some ultimate standard for goodness, yet he does these things, the word becomes meaningless to the point we can't really know what 'good' is, based on God's words and actions as revealed in Scripture. Or if we say that God is some model for fatherhood, but does no father could ever do to their own child.. the attributes we ascribe to God are meaningless if he does not live up to them.

God is good, and He punishes wrongdoers. He is committed absolutely to justice. It would also be important to note that those sentenced to Hell cannot really be called God's 'children', having been born in rebellion and choosing to remain in such a state, God adopts undeserving men and women into His family, it isn't a default state at birth. You claim goodness becomes meaningless by the way in which He has chosen to do so, but I don't see why. We have no objective standard ourselves, we are not in a position to judge God. He who is infinitely holy, and worthy, and desirable, He gives those who reject Him the only fitting punishment.

 

[DoubtingNate]

If God creates human beings, are they not his "children?" And would a good person even punish someone else's children the same way?

If you have no standard by which to judge God, on what basis can you claim that his punishments are just?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

If God creates human beings, are they not his "children?"

Why?

And would a good person even punish someone else's children the same way?

Someone else's children? Are we no longer responsible adults who can be held accountable for our wrongdoing? We cry for independence on so many other issues, but when it comes to being held to account for our actions, we are now someone else's children, as if that gives us some kind of sentimental immunity?

If you have no standard by which to judge God, on what basis can you claim that his punishments are just?

It is a matter of trust. I have no objective standard, but in the light of His glory and holiness, in the light of His Gospel and the lengths to which He goes to save sinners, I trust that He is who He says He is.

 

[DoubtingNate]

children or not, the point is the same regardless of what metaphor you choose to describe the relationship. what kind of just king or judge would punish his subjects this way? shouldn't the pubishment fit the crime? What does open and willfull rebellion against God really look like, and how can all of humanity be guilty of this when most of them have no idea??

And you've said we have no standard to judge God's justice.. So again, on what basis can you know that it is a good idea to trust this God, rather than some other God or no God at all?

 

[DoubtingNate]

Why take such a convoluted route to 'save' us from a situation that he has created? Why is it he has to punish us in the first place, if he doesn't really want to?

How can it be that the only possible solution is so send his son to Earth to be crucified, but in such a way that most people don't get the message?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

children or not, the point is the same regardless of what metaphor you choose to describe the relationship. what kind of just king or judge would punish his subjects this way? shouldn't the pubishment fit the crime? What does open and willfull rebellion against God really look like, and how can all of humanity be guilty of this when most of them have no idea??

The punishment does fit the crime, it is rebellion and rejection of an infinitely worthy God, bringing an infinite punishment in the light of His holiness.

And you've said we have no standard to judge God's justice.. So again, on what basis can you know that it is a good idea to trust this God, rather than some other God or no God at all?

There is no basis if one does not already have God as the basis. It is a presuppositional problem, and we are presented with a reality in which God rules and has revealed Himself as a judge, rescuer and king. Common justice and law necessitates such an objective presuppositional foundation, and I trust that when God in His glory and holiness tells us He is that standard, He is telling the truth.

Why take such a convoluted route to 'save' us from a situation that he has created? Why is it he has to punish us in the first place, if he doesn't really want to?

How can it be that the only possible solution is so send his son to Earth to be crucified, but in such a way that most people don't get the message?

God created this world perfect, and we rebelled against Him. The fitting judgement is our eternal punishment, that is what divine justice necessitates, God does not arbitrarily choose what justice is or is not, it is within His nature, and as the judge He will dole out justice.

It is not a convoluted route, it is part of a glorious and perfect plan for this world. And God saves all whom He intends to save, the message has been preached and is being preached to all of His people.

 

[Glaurung]

But you can't call God 'good' and say that he would allow someone to be tortured for eternity.

The trouble is that you are imposing your idea of 'good' to mean benevolent to the utter neglect of justice. No, that's not what we mean by good. God is good in that he is pure to the point that he cannot grant any concession to evil whatsoever. God is benevolent, but you must on your part do your best to renounce sin. You cannot on the one hand, live a life of deliberate sin and expect God to bend over to comprise himself to meet you on your terms, if you have steadfastly refused to make the attempt to meet God on his. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

shouldn't the pubishment fit the crime? What does open and willfull rebellion against God really look like, and how can all of humanity be guilty of this when most of them have no idea??

It's not any one particular thing that you do that leads you to Hell. All sins can be forgiven if repented of. Hell is the consequence of an irrevocable rejection of any reconciliation with God. The reason Hell is eternal, is not because people 'deserve' eternal punishment per se, but that those in Hell have refused all avenues of escape from that condition. They do not want mercy. They have freely chosen it because they refuse to acknowledge God's moral authority. And God thus gives them what they want, separation from him to dwell in the consequences of their own sin.

 

[DoubtingNate]

There is no basis if one does not already have God as the basis. It is a presuppositional problem, and we are presented with a reality in which God rules and has revealed Himself as a judge, rescuer and king. Common justice and law necessitates such an objective presuppositional foundation, and I trust that when God in His glory and holiness tells us He is that standard, He is telling the truth.

There is no basis if one does not already have God as the basis. It is a presuppositional problem, and we are presented with a reality in which God rules and has revealed Himself as a judge, rescuer and king. Common justice and law necessitates such an objective presuppositional foundation, and I trust that when God in His glory and holiness tells us He is that standard, He is telling the truth.

You can't use your conclusion as evidence for the thing you're trying to establish.

This so-called reality is not self evident.. presuppositional apologetics does not solve this problem. It is merely circular reasoning with big words. 'God exists because if you presupposed he exists it would be self evident to you.' That is utter gibberish. What is it that you calling 'common justice and law' that necessitates such a reality?