The Problem of Hell

[Penumbra]

nah they will be fine with Justice being served.

So the only people in heaven are those that condone torture?

-Lyn

 

[red77]

nah they will be fine with Justice being served.

One can only hope that that was supposed to be an attempt at irony....

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

I've noticed many christians do not believe in hell, possibly because the concept is unpleasant - they are keen to believe in a place of everlasting happiness but not a place of everlasting misery. We could argue that no sin, however horrible, deserved eternal torure. This is easy for us to say as we are sitting comfortably behind computers.

I do believe in hell - though many think that evil people simply cease to exist after death, I think that allowing an evil deed to go unpunished is itself evil.

There is a theory that those who are in hell are 'allowing' themselves to be there - that they can walk out at any time but do not because of their wicked characters (they are too proud to admit they are wrong for example). This however was a theory from C.S. Lewis' book The Great Divorce, and as far as I know is not in the Bible.

(P.S. For any atheists reading this - hypocritical christians do not get into heaven, so belief does not equal eternal life with God.)

 

[JGL53]

I've noticed many christians do not believe in hell, possibly because the concept is unpleasant - they are keen to believe in a place of everlasting happiness but not a place of everlasting misery. We could argue that no sin, however horrible, deserved eternal torure. This is easy for us to say as we are sitting comfortably behind computers.

I do believe in hell - though many think that evil people simply cease to exist after death, I think that allowing an evil deed to go unpunished is itself evil.

There is a theory that those who are in hell are 'allowing' themselves to be there - that they can walk out at any time but do not because of their wicked characters (they are too proud to admit they are wrong for example). This however was a theory from C.S. Lewis' book The Great Divorce, and as far as I know is not in the Bible.

(P.S. For any atheists reading this - hypocritical christians do not get into heaven, so belief does not equal eternal life with God.)

Wow - you're pretty tough-minded for an Anglican.

Are you a member of some breakaway group? Surely you are not a member of the main Anglican group.

My brother and his wife were Anglicans - Episcopalians - and I think they were pretty typical of their sect. They sneered at the concept of hell as primitive barbarianism.

My brother is dead now. I suppose, according to you, he is in hell - as punishment for his disbelief in it?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Wow - you're pretty tough-minded for an Anglican.

Are you a member of some breakaway group? Surely you are not a member of the main Anglican group.

My brother and his wife were Anglicans - Episcopalians - and I think they were pretty typical of their sect. They sneered at the concept of hell as primitive barbarianism.

My brother is dead now. I suppose, according to you, he is in hell - as punishment for his disbelief in it?

Nah, I'm not a typical Anglican. I'm not fond of the church of England at all. Before I answer your question, was your brother an atheist? (Sorry, I'm too lazy to read the whole thread.)

 

[JGL53]

Nah, I'm not a typical Anglican. I'm not fond of the church of England at all. Before I answer your question, was your brother an atheist? (Sorry, I'm too lazy to read the whole thread.)

I really never discussed religion in depth with my brother. Starting in his late 20s he was a regular attendee of the Episcopal Church and was a vestryman (is that the correct term?) for the majority of time. I think that is equivalent of a deacon in a Protestant sect.

Actually, my question to you was facetious since the hell concept seems mythological to me - like a extra horrible Grimm's Fairy Tale. So your opinion on this means squat to me.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Actually, my question to you was facetious since the hell concept seems mythological to me - like a extra horrible Grimm's Fairy Tale. So your opinion on this means squat to me.

So why did you ask:

My brother is dead now. I suppose, according to you, he is in hell - as punishment for his disbelief in it?

 

[keith99]

The issue is that most of those cannot be confirmed.

For instance, it says he's supposed to be born of a virgin, and then it's written that he's born of a virgin, but how does anyone know whether he's born of a virgin?

His genealogy is also a prophecy and claimed to be fulfilled, but how did they verify genealogy back then?

To me it's all hindsight. Jews don't even agree with how most of those prophecies are interpreted by Christians; Christians tell Jews how to interpret their scriptures. Not to mention, Jesus and the people who wrote about him had access to those prophecies and yet still didn't complete them all, and has to come back a second time to complete them (and that was never mentioned in the prophecies).

Except the word was not virgin. It was closer to maiden. Similar situations for many other prophecies. The term used before the fact is much less specific than the details of the fulfilment, yet followers talk as it the specifics were given in the prophecy.

 

[griggs1947]

Some try to make eternal Hell a just requirement in that as being the August One, He has to have punishment that reflects that level of being. No,that still does not overcome proportionality. No, wrong doing reflects its being wrong rather than to any god. Remember, Plato in the Euthyphro justified the independence of religion and morality and ethics.
And one cannot overwhelm that point by citing His just nature as that would beg the question.
Hell worsens the problem of Heaven.
Keith99, and those prophecies not only don't pertain at all to him but remain unfulfilled, are good guesses or could pertain to most any matter. And were they so, then they present the problem of His foreknowledge as implying no free will for us. We humans who follow morality find that we cannot stomach such punishment on Earth or in Heaven. We prefer being humane.
Nostrangeperson , hypocritical Christians and such monsters as Aquinas who wanted heretics killed, Calvin the murderer and Luther that super anti-Semite are or were true Christians. Please don't use the no true Scotsman fallacy! As long as one accepts Yeshua as her lord and master, one enters Heaven as many state.
Morality refuses that! Morality requires a better place for all us animals.That is the covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism. Hell blasphemes reason and humanity!

 

[griggs1947]

Some try to make eternal Hell a just requirement in that as being the August One, He has to have punishment that reflects that level of being. No,that still does not overcome proportionality. No, wrong doing reflects its being wrong rather than to any god. Remember, Plato in the Euthyphro justified the independence of religion and morality and ethics.
And one cannot overwhelm that point by citing His just nature as that would beg the question.
Hell worsens the problem of Heaven.
Keith99, and those prophecies not only don't pertain at all to him but remain unfulfilled, are good guesses or could pertain to most any matter. And were they so, then they present the problem of His foreknowledge as implying no free will for us. We humans who follow morality find that we cannot stomach such punishment on Earth or in Heaven. We prefer being humane.
Nostrangeperson , hypocritical Christians and such monsters as Aquinas who wanted heretics killed, Calvin the murderer and Luther that super anti-Semite are or were true Christians. Please don't use the no true Scotsman fallacy! As long as one accepts Yeshua as her lord and master, one enters Heaven as many state.
Morality refuses that! Morality requires a better place for all us animals.That is the covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism. Hell blasphemes reason and humanity!

 

[Inviolable]

Is infinite torture acceptable punishment for finite sin?


Some opponents of the doctrine of hell claim that the punishment is disproportionate to any crimes that could be committed, an overkill Humans apparently can commit only a finite amount of sin, yet hell is an infinite punishment. In this vein, Jorge Luis Borges suggests in his essay La duración del Infierno that no transgression can warrant an infinite punishment on the grounds that there is no such thing as an "infinite transgression".

Depends on how you classify sin.
If it's from a religious standpoint. Based on the Christian belief system.
Then according to the bible a person who doesn't accept Jesus Christ while alive, will never accept Jesus Christ and is bound to sin regardless.
So from the Christian perspective, there is a question that the bible answers more or less.
Will we stop sinning after death?
Answer: No.
Which means separation from God, who is sinless.
Which means a person is hell bound. Which is a place void of God.

From an atheistic standpoint. A sin might be classified as breaking some ethical code. Which can only happen within a persons life time because there is nothing else after death.

 

[Jig]

Is infinite torture acceptable punishment for finite sin?

Hell is eternal seperation from God. Heaven is being directly with God.

Hell is torture because there is no love. Heaven is bliss because God is love.

Hell is not a punishment for our sin, it is a consequence of our sin. If God is holy (clean) and if we remain unholy (dirty) we will never be able to be directly be with God.

Think of a dirty sock. If placed with a clean sock - what happens? The dirty sock will make the clean sock dirty. This is why we are find ourselves seperated from God. We are dirty, He is clean.

Our sin is not finite. Since we our immortal souls our sin will follow us for infinite if left unchecked.

Think of the dirty sock again. It will stay dirty until it is cleaned. If it never gets cleaned it will be dirty infinitely.

This is why Jesus came. To clean us. So we can once again be directly with God.

No one gets sent to Hell because they do not believe in God. The go to Hell because they never took the free washing God made available. It was their choice.

God doesn't send people to Hell, He rescues people from going to Hell. BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

 

[Gracchus]

[]

"Sin" may offend others, but it always offends the sinner. "Sin" is always self-mutilation. By "sin" the sinner cloisters himself in unhappiness.

God does not send the sinner to hell. The sinner builds his own hell, and then finds himself living in it.

A thief finds it easier to steal with each theft. After a while he will tell you everyone is a thief. Soon he really lives in a world where everyone is a thief. He has to steal in self-defense. He cannot stop stealing, but everything he steals is stolen from him. He is in the hell he has built for himself.

"Sin" is like an addictive drug. You need more and more to get the same effect and after a while you can't stop. You can save yourself from alcoholism. All you need to do is stop drinking. You can save yourself from hell. All you have to do is stop building yourself into it.

Lust, wrath, greed, envy, sloth, gluttony, pride, they all mutilate and cripple the sinner.

I don't believe Jesus came to save us from "sin" by atoning for the sins of the whole world. He came to teach us how to save ourselves. Others can tell you, and try to help you. But you have to do it yourself. Sorry folks, but you won't be saved by shouting, "Jesus is Lord!" You just have to stop mutilating yourselves. To accept Jesus is to follow his teaching. It doesn't matter whether you believe he is king, teacher, God, prophet, or angel. To have faith is to have the certainty that you can stop building your own hell, then build the kingdom of heaven.

The kingdom of heaven is found first within you. So is the kingdom of hell.

"I call heaven and earth to record this day against YOU, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:" --- KJV Deuteronomy 30:19


[/]

 

[SonicBOOM]

Is infinite torture acceptable punishment for finite sin?


Some opponents of the doctrine of hell claim that the punishment is disproportionate to any crimes that could be committed, an overkill Humans apparently can commit only a finite amount of sin, yet hell is an infinite punishment. In this vein, Jorge Luis Borges suggests in his essay La duración del Infierno that no transgression can warrant an infinite punishment on the grounds that there is no such thing as an "infinite transgression".

I'll be very honest here. Hell bothers me...... however the idea doesn't bother me nearly as much as the description..... here's what I mean:

Hell in it's most vague definition is a place of punishment [consider it God's jail if you will]..... this doesn't bother me because we all desire justice to some extent.

However.... the deep descriptions of hell is what really bothers me..... it honestly seems disproportionate at best.....

As a christian the only answer I can come up with is a cheesy "I trust God". I mean He's proven himself many times to be good and just...... so I dunno a deep settled confidence like this I think comes from relationship..... like I said I know this is cheesy..... but it's really the best I got

 

[awosan]

I don't have a problem with hell. If you reject Jesus that is where you are going.

I'm tired of all these atheists coming on here projecting their opinions on everything when their opinions are based on what? Who said there's a problem with hell? You? Who cares? The beliefs and opinions of non-believers are all relative anyway.

If you love Jesus, you're going to heaven. That's it. If you choose to go to hell then don't believe in Jesus.

And YES if you believe in Jesus even after committing the most heinous crime you could go to heaven. That is what Jesus died for, so that all men can be saved. If that man truly believes in Jesus and is TRULY sorry for what he did, I feel not an ounce bad about him making it into heaven. YES he must pay the consequences of his actions here on earth but that man, if truly sorry, can still make it into heaven. For the record, if a man commits a seriously heinous crime, I doubt very seriously that he would be truly remorseful for what he did anyway BUT that's my own judgment that I should probably throw away.

This is also something basic about our faith. Faith is not based on works so that no man can boast. We are all equal when it comes to believing in Jesus Christ. No man is better and no man is worse.

I don't care if people think I'm crazy or whatever you want to project. That's YOUR opinion and YOUR judgment.

 

[SonicBOOM]

I don't have a problem with hell. If you reject Jesus that is where you are going.

I'm tired of all these atheists coming on here projecting their opinions on everything when their opinions are based on what? Who said there's a problem with hell? You? Who cares? The beliefs and opinions of non-believers are all relative anyway.

If you love Jesus, you're going to heaven. That's it. If you choose to go to hell then don't believe in Jesus.

And YES if you believe in Jesus even after committing the most heinous crime you could go to heaven. That is what Jesus died for, so that all men can be saved. If that man truly believes in Jesus and is TRULY sorry for what he did, I feel not an ounce bad about him making it into heaven. YES he must pay the consequences of his actions here on earth but that man, if truly sorry, can still make it into heaven. For the record, if a man commits a seriously heinous crime, I doubt very seriously that he would be truly remorseful for what he did anyway BUT that's my own judgment that I should probably throw away.

This is also something basic about our faith. Faith is not based on works so that no man can boast. We are all equal when it comes to believing in Jesus Christ. No man is better and no man is worse.

I don't care if people think I'm crazy or whatever you want to project. That's YOUR opinion and YOUR judgment.

someone came on here and asked an honest question..... and we as Christians [according to Peter] have a very serious responsibility to give an answer to the best of our ability. Now I know some people troll..... but to try to discern the trolls from the legitimate askers is pretty easy if your level-headed about it.

 

[awosan]

someone came on here and asked an honest question..... and we as Christians [according to Peter] have a very serious responsibility to give an answer to the best of our ability. Now I know some people troll..... but to try to discern the trolls from the legitimate askers is pretty easy if your level-headed about it.

Yeah, it seems I replied in anger but as a human being I am so tired of being told I am crazy. It literally drives you crazy! Or at least drives you to be angry ... aaah, sorry for the hasty response

praying for forgiveness

 

[Inviolable]

Yeah, it seems I replied in anger but as a human being I am so tired of being told I am crazy. It literally drives you crazy! Or at least drives you to be angry ... aaah, sorry for the hasty response

praying for forgiveness

I like to think that the problem is in the tone most atheist have when they describe Christianity.
They say they're above it. That logic and reason prevents them from becoming religious. Which sounds self righteous and is.
All they're doing is putting their faith in man to find the answers we as Christians say we have in God.

You have two choices in this world.

One: Believe that God did it.
Or-
Two: Believe that science will find the answers.

If you take away one you have no reason to doubt the other.
That's what the 21st century intellect has taught us.
Basically, atheism has an agenda, thanks to people like Richard Dawkins.
Get rid of the ignorance that religion brings and you can bread out everything else that ignorance brings with it.
They want to teach you to be a better person by making you more like them.
Only problem is, they don't know any more then the next man.
Science doesn't have all the answers and it most likely won't for a very long time.
Like anything in science, evolution requires evidence. Let's say, evolution is a football field and the man who started it all "Darwin" gathered the first bit of evidence. Now if the football field were a dark room and the first bit of evidence was a flashlight, Darwin would have lit up 2 square inches of the football field. Probably less.
It wasn't evidence that kept evolution going. It was the idea.
Now we flash forward to the future "present day" and roughly 3 square feet has been lit up.
There's still a lot of darkness out there.
It doesn't take faith to understand evolution but it does take faith to keep pressing forward.

So don't let them fool you for a second.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I like to think that the problem is in the tone most atheist have when they describe Christianity.
They say they're above it. That logic and reason prevents them from becoming religious. Which sounds self righteous and is.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I can't remember the number of times that Christians have claimed to be so very far above atheism, that the Bible says that "atheists are fools", etc, etc, etc.

But I have to correct you on one thing. When we say that logic and reason prevent us from becoming religious, we really mean this as a pure statement of fact. It isn't presented as some proof of virtue. It is seriously meant to be taken without any hidden meanings or undertones. We simply can't force ourselves to believe in something that we find unpersuasive. This is not presented as a special power or virtue of atheists, but what we personally experience.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Inviolable]

Pot. Kettle. Black.
I can't remember the number of times that Christians have claimed to be so very far above atheism, that the Bible says that "atheists are fools", etc, etc, etc.

Atheist are fools, but that doesn't mean we put ourselves above you.
That's only how it's seen.
Probably because we believe you're fools. The thing to remember is, most Christians don't claim to have been Christians their entire lives and see the preChristian "them" as a fool as well.

But I have to correct you on one thing. When we say that logic and reason prevent us from becoming religious, we really mean this as a pure statement of fact. It isn't presented as some proof of virtue. It is seriously meant to be taken without any hidden meanings or undertones. We simply can't force ourselves to believe in something that we find unpersuasive. This is not presented as a special power or virtue of atheists, but what we personally experience.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It's a matter of personal bias. You only think you're right because you're you. It's like me calling you a fool because you're not Christian. Only some how to you it's more polite to be atheist.