Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I'm talking about burning in hell for not believing in the right god.
-
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!
If Hell is a place of eternal torment
- Thread starter Meow Mix
- Start date
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
We can't let you into our special club due to arbitrary rules, so the only option is to douse you in gasoline and immolate you.
Why would a god gift people with the ability to reason only to expect them to forgo its use?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
People try to anthropomorphize the concept by applying human emotions, ego, etc. to an omni-etcetera being, resulting in goofy cartoon characters that say far more about the cultures from which they originated than they do about any actual deity.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
I have no expectations, nor recommendations, regarding what you should or should not believe. There are some things we each have to figure out for ourselves, though we can always look to others for guidance.
I'm not suggesting you look to me for results or demonstrations of anything btw.
BrightShadow
Member
I believe details about Hell in most religion is simply metaphorical. No one without actually witnessing "Hell" firsthand can describe it to us correctly. Furthermore no one even if he/she has witnessed Hell can describe it to us unless they can compare it to something else that already exists on earth.
For example - if you grow up on the moon or some isolated underground shelter and only eaten tasteless canned food all your life and never seen any fruits or tasted anything sweet then you cannot describe the taste of a Mango or a Grape to anyone just by looking at a Mango or a Grape because there wont be anything to compare to. Similarly no prophet or holy folks can describe "Hell" to us (in my opinion).
I personally think "Hell" is simple separation or rejection from God. Let us for argument's sake say there is only one God - and the God is a huge light of pure energy. And this God created us for a specific purpose. The purpose would be to believe in its total authority etc. If our soul passes the test and is accepted back to join this light because we led a good life and believed in Him (and his one God concept etc etc) then that is "Heaven" and if we believed in multiple gods or no god at all and led a dishonest life and thus failed the test then our soul is rejected from the light and that could be "Hell".
When we build a plane - its most important purpose is to be able to fly. if it doesn't fly at all then it can be rejected and it can find a resting spot at the scrap pit. If some of the main purposes of God behind creating us were to believe in His sole existence and leading a good and honest life etc etc then failing to do so will mean we are useless to Him just like the plane that doesn't fly is scrap metal. Thus rejected souls can find themselves in scrap pit (Hell). However I personally believe most will be salvaged somehow at some point unless a total lost cause.
For example - if you grow up on the moon or some isolated underground shelter and only eaten tasteless canned food all your life and never seen any fruits or tasted anything sweet then you cannot describe the taste of a Mango or a Grape to anyone just by looking at a Mango or a Grape because there wont be anything to compare to. Similarly no prophet or holy folks can describe "Hell" to us (in my opinion).
I personally think "Hell" is simple separation or rejection from God. Let us for argument's sake say there is only one God - and the God is a huge light of pure energy. And this God created us for a specific purpose. The purpose would be to believe in its total authority etc. If our soul passes the test and is accepted back to join this light because we led a good life and believed in Him (and his one God concept etc etc) then that is "Heaven" and if we believed in multiple gods or no god at all and led a dishonest life and thus failed the test then our soul is rejected from the light and that could be "Hell".
When we build a plane - its most important purpose is to be able to fly. if it doesn't fly at all then it can be rejected and it can find a resting spot at the scrap pit. If some of the main purposes of God behind creating us were to believe in His sole existence and leading a good and honest life etc etc then failing to do so will mean we are useless to Him just like the plane that doesn't fly is scrap metal. Thus rejected souls can find themselves in scrap pit (Hell). However I personally believe most will be salvaged somehow at some point unless a total lost cause.
Good thought-provoking set of questions, Meow.
I personally can't stand the idea that folks should suffer eternally for finite crimes, although - granted - 'time' has no applicability, per se, to the afterlife states conceived of in traditional Catholic doctrine.
In my church today, "Hell" is not a place of damnation but rather the incapacity of a soul to apprehend the saving love of God, because it has totally excluded itself from it by its manner of living and being: "This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."" (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1033). It is simply a possibility, whereby one is "separated from God forever by their own free choice".
To this end, the idea of 'hell' as innately some kind of fiery retribution arising from divine justice is not what it consists of at heart for us. If I quote cite something Pope John Paul II said in a general address back in 1999:
28 July 1999 | John Paul II (vatican.va)
God is the infinitely good and merciful Father. But man, called to respond to him freely, can unfortunately choose to reject his love and forgiveness once and for all, thus separating himself for ever from joyful communion with him. It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation or hell.
It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life “hell”.
The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. 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.
“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person...God’s judgement ratifies this state.
It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life. The very dimension of unhappiness which this obscure condition brings can in a certain way be sensed in the light of some of the terrible experiences we have suffered which, as is commonly said, make life “hell”.
The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. 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.
“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person...God’s judgement ratifies this state.
My church does not affirm that anyone is actually 'in' this eternal state or condition after death (we cannot know this), it merely teaches that on account of human freewill we cannot "deny" that it is a possible choice before every one of us. The church has only canonized 'saints' in heaven - it has not defined whether anyone is in hell. Indeed hell may be 'empty', as the most famous Catholic theologian of the 20th century Hans Urs Von Balthasar speculated.
Likewise, the church doesn't state definitively that anyone is in mortal sin. She merely identifies certain acts as constituting 'grave matter' in the objective sense - without casting any judgment upon the 'heart', knowledge, intention or whatever of the objectively sinning person.
St. Catherine of Genoa (1447-1510) thus stated: "The separated soul goes naturally to its own state. The soul in the state of sin, finding no place more suitable, throws itself of its own accord into hell. And the soul which is not yet ready for divine union, casts itself voluntarily into purgatory. Heaven has no gates. Whoever will can enter there, because God is all goodness. But the divine essence is so pure that the soul, finding in itself obstacles, prefers to enter purgatory, and there to find in mercy the removal of the impediment…” (The Doctrine of Catherine of Genoa).
As to the nature of this possible 'spiritual state of being' after death - hell - the Church Father Saint Isaac the Syrian (a 7th century father) contended that heaven and hell are both postmortem encounters with the Love of God, albeit experienced differently as a result of the different conditions of souls:
‘Those who are tormented in hell are tormented by the invasion of love. What is there more bitter and more violent than the pains of love? Those who feel they have sinned against love bear in themselves a damnation much heavier than the most dreaded punishments. The suffering with which sinning against love afflicts the heart is more keenly felt than any other torment.
It is absurd to suppose that sinners in hell are deprived of God’s love.
Love.. is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways. It torments sinners, as happens here on earth when we are tormented by a friend to whom we have been unfaithful. And it gives joy to those who have been faithful. That is what the torment of hell is – remorse.’
It is absurd to suppose that sinners in hell are deprived of God’s love.
Love.. is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways. It torments sinners, as happens here on earth when we are tormented by a friend to whom we have been unfaithful. And it gives joy to those who have been faithful. That is what the torment of hell is – remorse.’
[St. Isaac of Nineveh, ‘Ascetic Treatises’, p 326]
His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI expressed the same point in his 2007 encyclical Spe Salvi:
Spe salvi (November 30, 2007) | BENEDICT XVI
The fire of Purgatory which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away…
It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming “moment” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart’s time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ. The judgement of God is hope, both because it is justice and because it is grace…
46. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves....On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are.
46. Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul.
This process of purification is called purgatory for it is a purgation, a cleansing, of the soul.
We speak of the pain of the fire of Purgatory because Saint Paul tells us we will be saved, “but only as through fire” (I Corinthians 3:15). What is this fire, if not the fire of divine love?
Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms us and frees us, allowing us to become fully ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives becomes evident to us, there lies salvation.
46. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves....On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are.
46. Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life. For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God. In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul.
This process of purification is called purgatory for it is a purgation, a cleansing, of the soul.
We speak of the pain of the fire of Purgatory because Saint Paul tells us we will be saved, “but only as through fire” (I Corinthians 3:15). What is this fire, if not the fire of divine love?
Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms us and frees us, allowing us to become fully ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives becomes evident to us, there lies salvation.
My answer to this one is much simpler, @Meow Mix
I reject this idea utterly, as does my church.
In 1713 Pope Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull "Unigenitus" the proposition of the Jansenist Quesnel that "no grace is given outside the Church" just as Pope Alexander VIII had already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld: "Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ".
Even back in the old pre-Vatican II days, there was the medieval doctrine of "baptism by implicit desire", explained by even Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863) as follows: “...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion [non-believers], if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men...and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.”
Cardinal Juan De Lugo (a. d. 1583-1660), Spaniard, post-Reformation Roman Catholic, Jesuit, Theological Professor, and a Cardinal writing in Rome under the eyes of Pope Urban VIII, had noted this a lot earlier:
“…the members of the various Christian sects, of the Jewish and Mohammedan communions, and of the non-Christian philosophies, who achieved and achieve their salvation, did and do so in general simply by God’s grace aiding their good faith instinctively to concentrate itself upon, and to practise, those elements in the cultus and teaching of their respective sect, communion or philosophy, which are true and good and originally revealed by God…”
(Cardinal Juan De Lugo (a. d. 1583-1660), De Fide, Disputations)
Atheists, too, were explicitly stated to be encompassed within this bracket in the Vatican II constitution Lumen Gentium in 1964:
Lumen gentium
Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.
Pope St. Paul VI said the following with regards to atheists in his 1964 encyclical:
Ecclesiam Suam (August 6, 1964) | Paul VI
"...The Church can regard no one as excluded from its motherly embrace, no one as outside the scope of its motherly care. It has no enemies except those who wish to make themselves such. Its catholicity is no idle boast. It was not for nothing that it received its mission to foster love, unity and peace among men...
Though We speak firmly and clearly in defence of religion, and of those human, spiritual values which it proclaims and cherishes, Our pastoral solicitude nevertheless prompts Us to probe into the mind of the modern atheist, in an effort to understand the reasons...
Though We speak firmly and clearly in defence of religion, and of those human, spiritual values which it proclaims and cherishes, Our pastoral solicitude nevertheless prompts Us to probe into the mind of the modern atheist, in an effort to understand the reasons...
They are obviously many and complex...They sometimes spring from the demand for a more profound and purer presentation of religious truth, and an objection to forms of language and worship which somehow fall short of the ideal. We see these men serving a demanding and often a noble cause, fired with enthusiasm and idealism, dreaming of justice and progress and striving for a social order which they conceive of as the ultimate of perfection, and all but divine.
This, for them, is the Absolute and the Necessary...Again we see these men taking pains to work out scientific explanation of the universe by human reasoning, and they are often quite ingenuously enthusiastic about this.
It is an enquiry which is all the less reprehensible in that it follows rules of logic very similar to those which are taught in the best schools of philosophy...They are sometimes men of great breadth of mind, impatient with the mediocrity and self-seeking which infects so much of modern society. They are quick to make use of sentiments and expressions found in our Gospel, referring to the brotherhood of man, mutual aid, and human compassion...We do not therefore give up hope of the eventual possibility of a dialogue between these men and the Church..."
The current pontiff, Pope Francis, has gone even further:
Pope Francis Meets With Muslim, Jewish Leaders, Praises Atheists as ‘Precious Allies’
Francis also extended a welcome to atheists and those who ascribe to no particular religion.
“I feel close to all men and women who, although not claiming to belong to any religious tradition, still feel themselves to be in search of truth, goodness and beauty,” he said. “[Atheists and nones] are our precious allies in the effort to defend human dignity, in building a peaceful coexistence between peoples, and in carefully protecting creation.”
Or as the Second Vatican Council's pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes (1965) put it:
Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern Word-Gaudium et Spes
"Atheism results not rarely from a protest against the evil in this world...
For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism.
To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion..."
For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism.
To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion..."
Last edited:
MASS_debater
New Member
My dad and his girlfriend say he’ll isn’t real. They asked me if was fafraid of different kinds of hell like what other religions have but I don’t know anything about them so I said no. I don’t think if there was a god he would want to send anyone to hell I think gods supposed to love everyone which would probably make him a girl because guys are mean to each other sometimes and girls are smarter than guys. I think that god would be a monster if he put people in hell wouldn’t that like make him the devil. Maybe their the same person and it’s really a girl in charge but we don’t know it.
Mark Twain said: "go to heaven for the climate and go to hell for the company."
What kind of God would torture someone for eternity, especially for a minor crime of not worshiping them?
"dogmatic bull"....don't step in the atomic piles (this is why I avoid Steppenwolf).
Bible tells hell is a place where soul and body are destroyed and eternal life is only promised for righteous.
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matt. 10:28
These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23
I think that is good, because I think, if the unrighteous would live forever, they would make life eternal suffering for all.
Thanks for both of these responses!
We Never Know
No Slack
I saw it. Wasn't going to bring it up but since you did, if god is a spirit void of image, then what image did he use?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Funny, I think the same could be said of sanctimonious lickspittles.
Yes, I was aware of that.
I just wanted to highlight that those who teach such nonsense, also believe it’s ok to kill their brothers during conflicts.
Hermit Philosopher
Selflessly here for you
Dear Meow Mix
There are of course “living hells” too, but if we stick to Hell as a state of being in an afterlife, I’d begin by looking at the term “eternal”.
Eternal relates to our physical concept of “time” and thus, points to the lack of physical movement/change. Unless one believes in a physical afterlife; all post-life states of being will be seen as “eternal” in that particular sense.
Then, I’d address the idea of Hell as a “place”. Places are physical positions, also only meaningful - in context of the question in this thread - to those who believe in a physical afterlife.
Back to the concept of Hell now - almost.
If one is not referring to our “living hells”, but to Hell as a state beyond life, and one does not believe that states beyond life are physical, then, something else must be pointed out before attempting to reply to the question in your OP:
Words are worldly.
We do not have words for unworldly concept, but when we try to speak of such, we must do so through words regardless.
This means that the words we use to express unworldly concepts (spiritual ones, for instance) are in fact always slightly off and categorically incorrect.
In a spiritual sense “eternal” does not mean forever, “place” does not mean location, etc.
If one does not want to not understand spiritual scripture/ideas/talk, one must learn to look beyond the words. It sucks, but there is no other way to not misunderstand it.
All that said, here is what would be my answer to the question in your OP:
I believe in a spiritual preexistence and in a spiritual afterlife because (I believe that) I have experienced both those states of being.
In the spiritual afterlife that I believe in, Hell is a tormented state of being, that occurs when one’s regaining of what I call the “God perspective” (an overall “view” of the whole “picture”), leads one to understand one’s role in the suffering of others and self. It is like an awakening that, if it occurs in life, leads to a phase of “living hell” that can lead to change, but when it occurs in afterlife, cannot be improved or altered.
I believe that all of this (and everything else) occurs in God. God is the “place” and the “state” in which all is. Whether or not that is “monstrous” is a question that I do not truly understand.
Humbly
Hermit
DNB
Christian
As a Christian, and one who believes that hell is literally a place of eternal punishment, but also believes that God is wise, just and compassionate, reconciles this seemingly paradox with the notion that hell is a mental torment inflicted by the guilty party themselves i.e. a conscious unable to forgive oneself of their contempt towards God, and their refusal to accept such a gracious and righteous proposition from God. That is, all they needed to do was simply say 'sorry' (repentance), and 'thank you' (faith). Nothing more was required of them, and their was absolutely no reason for them to reject or show disdain for God's righteous son.
It is as Paul said, '..do not treat evil with evil, but deal with a wicked person in goodness, for by doing so you will heap burning coals on his head...' (Romans 12:20). The analogies of fire and burning used by both Paul and Jesus, to me, reflect the effects of the conscious, not flesh - God does not inflict corporeal punishment for crimes of the heart. And, again, it is not God who exacts the actual punishment of regret and frustration onto those who willing and uncoerced showed their defiance towards him, but it is the forlorn and ostracized themselves who can't accept their fate that they chose by their own volition.
I must admit though that the idea of eternality of their demise is a little disturbing, to the point that I can see the principle of annihilation for the condemned as being more merciful. I just don't feel that the latter doctrine is exegetically correct
DNB
Christian
I'm not sure if I accept the oxymoron 'honest skeptic'. That is, I think that the evidence for God's existence is rather axiomatic - in short, if He exists, it would be impossible to hide that fact, by either the material world, or the spirit of man. Is one being 'honest' when they claim that there is no perceivable way to induce the existence of God?
Therefore, the chances to repent during one's lifetime, are abundant. Outside of the obvious, creation itself, what occurs in one's life - how God attempts to intervene - should be sufficient. If one choses to remain unrepentant up to their death bed, I'm not sure what other catalyst would persuade them?
As far as being remorseful during one's lifetime, I think that that would be contingent upon what moral standard that one adheres to? Without God as the parameter, a sin to one person may not be as egregious to another? Thus, what I consider to be the most condemning sentiment for all humans, is that they don't love their neighbours as themselves, nor love God with all their heart, minds and soul. The former does not require faith in God to see the hypocrisy and injustice behind that. Yet, does the atheist or skeptic acknowledge their guilt on this fact?