Have Any Of You Changed Your Stance On ...

I think you're all right and all wrong.

Depending on what verse you use, the Bible can make it seem like the afterlife is horrendously unpleasant for some people, or it can talk about destruction and death. Semantic gymnastics are necessary for either conclusion.

I'll cheer for the guy fighting against the concept of Hell though. I think the idea of it is sadistic, and by thinking it up, it represents the worst in people.

-Lyn

In Judaism (the precursor to, and foundation of, later Christian thought), the destination of the dead is called sheol, and everyone goes there. The Greek counterpart is hades: rather than being a place of eternal punishment, it is where the dead go to be judged (the place of eternal punishment was called tartarus).

In the Bible, 'Hell' is the English translation of the words sheol and hades (indeed, hades is the Greek translation of sheol). So when the Bible speaks of Hell, it is not referring to eternal punishment: both Jewish and Greek authors would have used the words sheol and hades not as places of eternal punishment, but the immediate destination of the dead (both good and bad).

Now, the Jewish and Greek terms for eternal punishment are gehenna and tartarus. Tartarus is found only once in the Bible, and is the place where God threw the rebelling angels (2 Peter 2:4). Gehenna is derived from ge-hinnom, a real place where human sacrifices were carried out.

So when the Bible talks about Hell, it can be referring to either sheol/hades or gehenna/tartarus, and the distinction is important. For example, in luke 16:19-31, a rich man dies and is sent to hell (hades) and is in torment, but he is only in torment as compared to a dead begger who goes to heaven.

But isn't that the point? It's meant to be sadistic and cruel.

Yes, yes, I've taken a few classes on religion and know of Gehenna and such. The OT hardly has any references about a negative afterlife save for one in Daniel.

It's not just the words they use, though. It's the metaphors. Tying a millstone around someone's neck and drowning them. Binding someone hand and foot and throwing them out of a party and leaving them there. Cutting them out of a garden like weeds. Rip out your eye and cut off a body part so that you enter heaven missing those things instead of going to hell. Lake of Fire. Then there's Revelations, talking about people suffering in the presence of the lamb and their smoke of agony going up forever and ever, or whatever the exact wording was.

Interesting way of looking at it.

From the descriptions used throughout the Bible, it seems people believed it was more than just that, though.

Well, yeah, I think it's the most sadistic and cruel thing humanity has ever come up with.

I mean, eternal torture? I wonder how people with this type of belief sleep at night.

From an atheistic point of view, sure. But from a believer's point of view (they who came up with it in the first place), it makes perfect sense. Obviously the non-believer is tortured forever and ever.


Safe in the knowledge that they aren't the ones who'll have to endure such torment .

Have any of you changed your stance on mainstream Christianity's teaching on the concept of hell - i.e. literal unending torment for the lost - since coming to this forum? If so, what is your viewpoint now and do you feel somewhat estranged from your home church which still clings to this belief? If not, is your main reason for continuing to believe in literal eternal suffering for the lost because of not wanting to disagree with your home church? Whatever your stance, does the idea of literal eternal torment for those whose only punishable sin was 'not believing' go against your moral grain?

Please be open and honest.

Hence why I think the (Abrahamic conception of the) afterlife isn't one of suffering.


I consider these to support my argument: a True Christian™ would rather endure eternal torment than spend eternity without God (or rather, eternity without God is eternal torment for the True Christian™). Throwing someone out of a party? Removing body parts just to get into Heaven? Believers really want to be with God for eternity, and would do anything to avoid the alternative.

But for non-believers, the alternative isn't as bad.


I'm more of a 'later Jews/Christians/Muslims got it wrong'.


From an atheistic point of view, sure. But from a believer's point of view (they who came up with it in the first place), it makes perfect sense. Obviously the non-believer is tortured forever and ever.


Safe in the knowledge that they aren't the ones who'll have to endure such torment .

It's not just the words they use, though. It's the metaphors. Tying a millstone around someone's neck and drowning them.

Then there's Revelations, talking about people suffering in the presence of the lamb and their smoke of agony going up forever and ever, or whatever the exact wording was.

It doesn't say people, it says the devil and his angels.

After the church got taken over in name and went down the wrong path, a lot of christians have been trying to get "christianity" back on track (or at least their name). We've got a long way to go, and a lot of baggage to remove, like almost two thousands years worth. Eternal torture is just some of that baggage. A lot of christians though are searching scripture and figuring it out as God leads them.

After the church got taken over in name and went down the wrong path, a lot of christians have been trying to get "christianity" back on track (or at least their name). We've got a long way to go, and a lot of baggage to remove, like almost two thousands years worth. Eternal torture is just some of that baggage. A lot of christians though are searching scripture and figuring it out as God leads them.

Does this movement have a name for itself?
Also, what do you do when God leads you in different directions?