Why do some people think Hell isn't real?

[Fascinated With God]

Well, if you want to agree with He-Man's definition of Aidios, then I guess we'd have to say there weren't ANY verses pertaining to eternity. Such is the trouble with 'expert' advice concerning the things of God.

No, I definitely don't agree with He-man.

Why should "age of the ages" be a mystery and require interpretation?

It is not a mystery. While Homer used the word aion to mean lifespan, by Plato's time the usage had changed and he used it to mean forever. The early Latin translation was aeternum.

Is it not a biblical expression like many others like it? Consider the following; "King of kings and Lord of lords", "holy and most holy", "Song of songs," "Vanity of vanities", ect. ect. Do you have a problem understanding any of these expressions?

They refer to the infinite nature of God (except the vanity one, which I'm not familiar with).

It simply refers to the final and greatest age that God's plan is consummated in.

Ages of ages does not describe just two or three ages.

A more in depth answer would require reading a book such as I posted earlier and will "post again". He is an accepted biblical expert quoting his/my opinion. No doubt you have one supporting your 11 verse POV too...you just haven't backed your position with his credentials yet.

I don't know the names of the Bible translators, I just know the names given to the translations. Out of 18 translations on bible.cc only 2 say ages of ages.

Once again, here's mine...for what it is worth.
In his book God‘s Methods with Man, G. Campbell Morgan (scholar, associate of D.L. Moody, and a highly respected expositor of Scrip-ture), said: The strongest Scripture word used with refer-ence to the existence of God, is "unto the ages of the ages", which does not literally mean eternally.

Morgan was the father of the Fundamentalist movement. Not someone I would have a lot of respect for. And D. L. Moody never had higher than a 5th grade education.

 

[Fascinated With God]

If there is no hell of eternal torment, then it is unsettling to be told that God is going to torment people in hell forever. If someone told me that you were going to torture someone forever and ever and I knew that you weren't going to do that, I would stick up for and say "Hey, Norah is no torturer!" It's the same thing with God. It makes me angry when people say horrible things about Him. (Like, he set up a place where his enemies could be tortured forever.)

Why does it make you angry that God would punish Hitler forever?

 

[Timothew]

Why does it make you angry that God would punish Hitler forever?

God will punish Hitler forever, according to the bible the wages of sin is death, they will pay the penalty of eternal destruction. (Rom 6:23, 2 Thes 1:9). But to say that God torments people forever is saying that God is much worse than Hitler who only tormented people for a few years. I get angry (and control it well) when people say my God is worse than Hitler.

 

[Phantasman]

Kinda confused about that...

Can someone who doesn't believe in Hell give me a simple list of reasons why?

As you can see, there isn't a simple list.

Sorry to see you your question got hijacked, honey.

 

[he-man]

God will punish Hitler forever, according to the bible the wages of sin is death, they will pay the penalty of eternal destruction. (Rom 6:23, 2 Thes 1:9). But to say that God torments people forever is saying that God is much worse than Hitler who only tormented people for a few years. I get angry (and control it well) when people say my God is worse than Hitler.

I do not get angry I am simply astounded and it is God who is angry and Who will bring forth His wrath!

Col 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

 

[Timothew]

I do not get angry I am simply astounded and it is God who is angry and Who will bring forth His wrath!

Col 3:6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

Someone asked "why is the talk about eternal torture in hell unsettling to people who don't believe in hell?" I showed how it is unsettling. Then someone asked "Why are you angry if we say God tortures a certain person in hell?" So I explained. It isn't so much that I'm angry or unsettled. I'm baffled as to why people believe such horrible things of God WHEN THE Bible doesn't say that He is such and such a thing. I believe there is someone who wants people to think bad of God. He is a deceiver. According to Jesus Christ, he was a liar from the beginning. He wants to discredit God. How better than to say God is unjust and has set up an eternal torture chamber for his enemies. Setting up a torture chamber sounds more like something Satan would do (if he could), rather than God.

 

[Hillsage]

What about hell is unsettling to anyone that doesn't believe in it anyway?
Is there any disagreement between those who only want, and have let Jesus pay the price so that they will be in heaven?
If all are going to heaven sooner or later where is the discussion going?
Is it just a timeline difference?
There can't be 'right' fighting, if everyone is right.

It is probably important to me because we as Christians are all supposed to be 'becoming like God'. And those who think that he is going to be worse than Hitler, torturing people for eternity...and for absolutely no purpose, simply make Him the biggest sadist the universe has ever known.

Plus, believing in eternal hell, subliminally affects every believer holding to such a doctrine. For example, Bloody Queen Mary felt absolutely no remorse burning alive 'Christian heretics' at the stake. Her 'attitude' being because, as she stated, 'God was going to do the same thing and she was just giving them an early start.' Today, most (hopefully) Christians would even say that burning people alive because you disagree doctrinally is an atrocity. But, what they don't realize is that they are still falling prey to the subliminal reality of that message when it comes to God.

 

[Fascinated With God]

It is probably important to me because we as Christians are all supposed to be 'becoming like God'. And those who think that he is going to be worse than Hitler, torturing people for eternity...and for absolutely no purpose, simply make Him the biggest sadist the universe has ever known.

I don't see sending Hitler into the outer darkness as being in any way sadistic. He won't like it there, he will weep and gnash his teeth, but that hardly compares to what he did to people.

Plus, believing in eternal hell, subliminally affects every believer holding to such a doctrine. For example, Bloody Queen Mary felt absolutely no remorse burning alive 'Christian heretics' at the stake. Her 'attitude' being because, as she stated, 'God was going to do the same thing and she was just giving them an early start.' Today, most (hopefully) Christians would even say that burning people alive because you disagree doctrinally is an atrocity. But, what they don't realize is that they are still falling prey to the subliminal reality of that message when it comes to God.

Taking this to it's logical conclusion you would have to say that, because people have committed all sorts of unspeakable evil deeds in the name of God, then that must mean that God doesn't exist.

 

[Fascinated With God]

I believe there is someone who wants people to think bad of God. He is a deceiver. According to Jesus Christ, he was a liar from the beginning. He wants to discredit God. How better than to say God is unjust and has set up an eternal torture chamber for his enemies. Setting up a torture chamber sounds more like something Satan would do (if he could), rather than God.

This is one of my main beefs against Christianity, the fact that it is so common for Christians to assume that other's who disagree with them doctrinally are deceived by the Devil. I will only go to churchs where the clergy have a more humble attitude about doctrinal differences. I am still very found of Methodism for precisely this reason. The Catholics seem to me to be less judgemental than most in this regard too, but the Methodists are the best example.

 

[Hillsage]

It is not a mystery. While Homer used the word aion to mean lifespan, by Plato's time the usage had changed and he used it to mean forever. The early Latin translation was aeternum.

Scholars have determined that Plato's writings did not authoritatively dictate a changed definition in the days he lived, not even by his followers.

THE PLATONIC DERIVATIONS. ​

In his analysis of Plato's Cratylus,(8) Grote accurately observes of Plato's etymologies: "Though sometimes reasonable enough, they are in a far greater number of instances forced, arbitrary, and fanciful. The transitions of meaning imagined, and the structural transformations of words, are alike strange and violent. Such is the light in which these Platonic etymologies appear to a modern critic. But such was not the light in which they appeared either to the ancient Platonists or critics earlier than the last century. The Platonists even thought them full of mysterious and recondite wisdom. So complete has been the revolution of opinion that the Platonic etymologies are now treated by most critics as too absurd to have been seriously intended by Plato, even as conjectures. It is called 'a valuable discovery of modern times' (so Schleiermacher terms it) that Plato meant most of them as mere parody and caricature."

AIÓN -- AIÓNIOS

Morgan was the father of the Fundamentalist movement. Not someone I would have a lot of respect for. And D. L. Moody never had higher than a 5th grade education.

OK we'll try another spokesperson. But you'll have to read the page to know where I'm coming from.

https://www.tentmaker.org/FAQ/forever_eternity.html

This could be endless rhetorical rebuttal. If you truly are Facinated with God, then the essence of this discussion remains. You believe God holds you to a higher standard of forgiveness than He even holds.

MAR 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Concerning the OP question; WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF A HOPELESS ETERNAL TORTURE IN THE MODERN DAY CHURCH DEFINED HELL?

 

[Fascinated With God]

Scholars have determined that Plato's writings did not authoritatively dictate a changed definition in the days he lived, not even by his followers.

THE PLATONIC DERIVATIONS. ​

In his analysis of Plato's Cratylus,(8) Grote accurately observes of Plato's etymologies: "Though sometimes reasonable enough, they are in a far greater number of instances forced, arbitrary, and fanciful. The transitions of meaning imagined, and the structural transformations of words, are alike strange and violent. Such is the light in which these Platonic etymologies appear to a modern critic. But such was not the light in which they appeared either to the ancient Platonists or critics earlier than the last century. The Platonists even thought them full of mysterious and recondite wisdom. So complete has been the revolution of opinion that the Platonic etymologies are now treated by most critics as too absurd to have been seriously intended by Plato, even as conjectures. It is called 'a valuable discovery of modern times' (so Schleiermacher terms it) that Plato meant most of them as mere parody and caricature."

AIÓN -- AIÓNIOS

It is a little unconvincing that the only evidence that you can put forward is more than a century old. Grote wrote so long ago that he spelled the name, "Sokrates". Hanson's work that you give a link to is only a decade younger, from 1875.

I found a much more recent book on Platonic dialogs from 1996, "Being and Logos", that mentions the word "etymologies" 41 times, and "etymology" 33 times. In none of those instances does the author refer to Platonic etymologies as being widely held to be anything like, "too absurd to have been seriously intended".

Written more recently is, "Forgotten Paths: Etymology and the Allegorical Mindset", from 2007. It mentions Plato 36 times, and "platonic" 12 times. It does refer to critics of Platonic etymology, Timothy Baxter and Franco Cavazza, but their criticisms are of a very different nature, and even that is not widely accepted by modern scholars. After describing their criticisms of Platonic etymologies the author writes, "Recent shifts in the understanding of Platonic philosophy call arguments like these into question."

This could be endless rhetorical rebuttal. If you truly are Facinated with God, then the essence of this discussion remains.

Well, you guys have me thinking. The pastor at the church I grew up in virtually never mentioned hell, so I've never really given it this much thought before. I'm now more inclined to think there is no eternal fiery hell, but rather just eternity in the outer darkness.

You believe God holds you to a higher standard of forgiveness than He even holds.

How is that? It sounds like you are saying that I believe that God does not forgive Hitler, but I do.

MAR 11:26 But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.

Mark 3:29 uses an entirely different phrase for eternity: "ou echō aphesis", "never have forgiveness". Aphesis not only means forgiveness of sin, but also release from bondage or imprisonment.

 

[he-man]

Setting up a torture chamber sounds more like something Satan would do (if he could), rather than God.

(if he could), however it is God who is in control!

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The idea that there exists anything capable of setting itself up as God's opponent would be considered overly polytheistic—you are setting up the devil to be a god or demigod.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The word itself, the Hebrew saÆtaÆn, is simply an "adversary," or opponent and is so used in 1 Sam. 29:4; 2 Sam. 19:22; 1 Kings 5:4; 11:14, 23, 25; Num. 22:22, 32; Ps. 109:6. This original sense is still found in our Lord’s application of the name to St. Peter in Matt. 16:23. It is used as a proper name or title only four times in the Old Testament, viz. (with the article) in Job 1:6, 12; 2:1; Zech. 2:1, and (without the article) in 1 Chron. 21:1.Nelson's Electronic Bible; Smith Bible Dictionary[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The term devil is also derived from the same Indo-European root word for deva, which roughly translates as "angel."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is easy to see how false modern religions adapted the satan to mean "fallen angel". [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Only rationalists like Maimonides and Abraham ibn Ezra, clearly denied (devils) their existence. Their point of view eventually became the mainstream Jewish understanding. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Greek word daemon, daemon, appears in the works of Plato and many other ancient authors, without the evil connotations apparent in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible and in the Greek originals of the New Testament.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]HaSatan acts as a servant of God, not as an opponent or even disobediant child. Angels cannot sin, they cannot fall. (Soc.Culture.Jewish NewsgroupsFrequently Asked Questions and Answers)[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The idea that there is a God in heaven above who fights against a god of the underworld, or hell, is not monotheism, however, it is the same duality found in other pagan faiths. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Through His prophet Isaiah, God profoundly states, "I form light and create darkness, I make peace and CREATE evil; I am God, I do all these things" (Isaiah 45:7).Consider this: If there were such an opponent and foe of God (Satan) as false Christianity claims, don't you think God is capable of eliminating His created angel with a mere breath - or thought (anthropomorphically speaking)? If God spoke him (Satan) into existence; God could simply quit speaking and Satan would simply cease to exist.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](Abraham Joshua Heschel, The Prophets, Jewish Publication Society, 1962, Philip Birnbaum, Encyclopedia of Jewish Concepts, Hebrew Publishing Company, 1991, Aryeh Kaplan, Jewish Meditation, Schocken Books, 1985.).[/FONT]

 

[Timothew]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The idea that there is a God in heaven above who fights against a god of the underworld, or hell, is not monotheism, however, it is the same duality found in other pagan faiths. [/FONT]

Interesting, (the whole post is interesting).
Good points, worthy of consideration.

But why did Jesus talk about the devil as if he were an actual person?
(You belong to your father, the devil (διαβόλο&#965, and you want to carry out your father's desire.) John 8:44
STRONGS NT 1228: διάβολος

διάβολος, διάβολον (διαβάλλω which see), prone to slander, slanderous, accusing falsely, (Aristophanes, Andocides (), Plutarch, others): 1 Timothy 3:11; 2 Timothy 3:3; Titus 2:3; as a substantive, ὁ διάβολος, a calumniator, false accuser, slanderer, (see κατηγορέω, at the end) (Xenophon, Ages. 11, 5; (Aristotle, others)): the Sept. Esther 7:4; Esther 8:1. In the Bible and in ecclesiastical writings ὁ διάβολος (also διάβολος without the article; cf. Winers Grammar, 124 (118); Buttmann, 89 (78)) is applied κατ' ἐξοχήν to the one called in Hebrew הַשָּׂטָן, ὁ σατανᾶς (which see), viz., Satan, the prince of demons, the author of evil, persecuting good men (Job 1; Zechariah 3:1ff, cf. Revelation 12:10), estranging mankind from God and enticing them to sin, and afflicting them with diseases by means of demons who take possession of their bodies at his bidding; the malignant enemy of God and the Messiah: Matthew 4:1, 5,(); ; Luke 4:2,( R L, ); ; John 13:2; Acts 10:38; Ephesians 4:27; Ephesians 6:11; 1 Timothy 3:6; 2 Timothy 2:26; Hebrews 2:14; James 4:7; 1 Peter 5:8; Jude 1:9; Revelation 2:10; Revelation 12:9, 12; Revelation 20:2, 10; (Wis. 2:24; (cf. Psalm 108:6 (); 1 Chronicles 21:1)). Men who resemble the devil in mind and will are said εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ διαβόλου to be of the devil, properly, to derive their origin from the devil, tropically, to depend upon the devil in thought and action, to be prompted and governed by him: John 8:44; 1 John 3:8; the same are called τέκνα τοῦ διαβόλου, children of the devil, 1 John 3:10; υἱοί τοῦ διαβόλου, sons of the devil, Acts 13:10, cf. Matthew 13:38; John 8:38; 1 John 3:10. The name διάβολος is figuratively applied to a man who, by opposing the cause of God, may be said to act the part of the devil or to side with him: John 6:70, cf. Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33. (Cf. σαταν at the end.)

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What is the purpose of man?

 

[Timothew]

What is the purpose of man?

To sweep the kitchen floor and take out the trash. Occasionally to mow the lawn. Grilling meat.
Spider removal.

 

[seeingeyes]

To sweep the kitchen floor and take out the trash. Occasionally to mow the lawn. Grilling meat.
Spider removal.

You really are going to kill my keyboard. Tea everywhere. lol

 

[Timothew]

You really are going to kill my keyboard. Tea everywhere. lol

They say admitting you have a problem drinking is the first step to recovery. (or is it a drinking problem?)
You could put up a tea guard.

 

[seeingeyes]

I don't see sending Hitler into the outer darkness as being in any way sadistic. He won't like it there, he will weep and gnash his teeth, but that hardly compares to what he did to people.

How many billions of years in hell would be justice for Hitler?

Let's say he deserves a million years for every person who was killed by his orders. 10 million in death camps, and, say, 30 million from war (not sure of the precise number of Allies killed, but that's half the total deaths from the war.) So 40 million deaths times a million years = 40,000,000,000,000. Forty trillion years in hell would suffice then. But that will only be a drop in the bucket compared to what Hitler will receive.

And (according to the definition of hell that we are using here) Hitler will receive the same sentence that, say, the man who killed only one person. Or the man who didn't kill anyone but beat them until they were almost dead. And the man who only beat one person. And the man who kept his hands to himself but called his brother a fool.

All receive the same sentence.

Plus, believing in eternal hell, subliminally affects every believer holding to such a doctrine. For example, Bloody Queen Mary felt absolutely no remorse burning alive 'Christian heretics' at the stake. Her 'attitude' being because, as she stated, 'God was going to do the same thing and she was just giving them an early start.' Today, most (hopefully) Christians would even say that burning people alive because you disagree doctrinally is an atrocity. But, what they don't realize is that they are still falling prey to the subliminal reality of that message when it comes to God.

Taking this to it's logical conclusion you would have to say that, because people have committed all sorts of unspeakable evil deeds in the name of God, then that must mean that God doesn't exist.

That doesn't follow. If we are being transformed into His image, then who God is makes a big difference. The crimes of Christians past does not reflect on the veracity of God's word, but it does expound on who they thought God was.

 

[Fascinated With God]

How many billions of years in hell would be justice for Hitler?

Is the outer darkness hell? I was asking that in my last post, but it wasn't conveyed to you. What kind of suffering is involved in the outer darkness beyond the mere anxiety and angst that is described in the Bible?

And (according to the definition of hell that we are using here) Hitler will receive the same sentence that, say, the man who killed only one person. Or the man who didn't kill anyone but beat them until they were almost dead. And the man who only beat one person. And the man who kept his hands to himself but called his brother a fool.

All receive the same sentence.

You don't seem to understand that my last message was a concession to the 'no eternal hell' argument. Timothew in particular convinced me that the soul is destroyed in hell, and that the second death is of limited duration.

That doesn't follow. If we are being transformed into His image, then who God is makes a big difference. The crimes of Christians past does not reflect on the veracity of God's word, but it does expound on who they thought God was.

So it is OK for Hilsage to do it, but not for me? Hillsage said that Queen Mary's actions as a result of her views on hell were a reflection on how false belief in hell supposedly is. But by the very same logic one can conclude that not only hell is false, but God as well.

 

[seeingeyes]

Is the outer darkness hell? I was asking that in my last post, but it wasn't conveyed to you. What kind of suffering is involved in the outer darkness beyond the mere anxiety and angst that is described in the Bible?

You don't seem to understand that my last message was a concession to the 'no eternal hell' argument. Timothew in particular convinced me that the soul is destroyed in hell, and that the second death is of limited duration.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to play 'gotcha'. I was just examining the nature and purpose of the now-classic hell by jumping off of a statement you made. I guess I didn't read it closely enough. Please forgive.

So it is OK for Hilsage to do it, but not for me? Hillsage said that Queen Mary's actions as a result of her views on hell were a reflection on how false belief in hell supposedly is. But by the very same logic one can conclude that not only hell is false, but God as well.

The point about Queen Mary is not (to my mind) about whether her views on hell were false or not, but whether her actions were consistent with her views on hell and the character of God. It seems they were.

The question remains then (for people who have the same view of hell and the character of God) why their actions are not consistent with their views.

Or in other words: If God tells us to 'love our enemies', but He doesn't, isn't He then telling us to be 'gooder' than He is? Isn't He saying, in effect, "do as I say and not as I do"?