The Doctrine of Eternal Torture in Hell

[Radrook]

Hell was used by religious authorities to keep people in line with the state which paid for their churches.

Similar to placing a gun at their temples and making demands or else.

 

[Wunderlust]

Hell is a great manipulative tool.

Hell taps into a feeling of inferiority. You can then make spiritual threats or threaten people from within their religious community.

 

[Radrook]

Hell is a great manipulative tool.

Hell taps into a feeling of inferiority. You can then make spiritual threats or threaten people from within their religious community.

We used to receive regular visits from this lady who tried to intimidate my parents into church attendance via shouting threats of hell. What really impressed me was the furious anger she displayed as she spoke about us being roasted alive forever unless we attended services. For some reason my child mind just couldn't reconcile that display as representative of a loving God.

 

[Wunderlust]

We used to receive regular visits from this lady who tried to intimidate my parents into church attendance via shouting threats of hell. What really impressed me was the furious anger she displayed as she spoke about us being roasted alive forever unless we attended services. For some reason my child mind just couldn't reconcile that display as representative of a loving God.

Well, now that you are an adult, you understand that you must pick the right particular flavor of the right religion, of which God gives no solid evidence. I imagine God just gets really upset that you ignored all these contradicting loons telling us we'd go to hell unless I bought their particular brand of snake oil and dedicated my life to it.

 

[Radrook]

Well, now that you are an adult, you understand that you must pick the right particular flavor of the right religion, of which God gives no solid evidence. I imagine God just gets really upset that you ignored all these contradicting loons telling us we'd go to hell unless I bought their particular brand of snake oil and dedicated my life to it.

Well, I am non-denominational.
So I guess ultimately, or in the long run, I didn't buy any particular denominational message at all. About God getting upset? I really don't imagine the creator so obsessed with every minute behavior of each particular human as some people imagine him to be. I imagine him as having many other far more fascinating things to do besides constantly concentrating on me. I mean, are we obsessed with our kids to the exclusion of everything else in our lives? We do what we have to in order to assure they have a good chance for happiness-true. But we definitely have other interests as well.

 

[Gentlemantech48]

In this thread I will suggest that the doctrine of eternal torture in hell is a real doctrine and is actually taught in the Bible. I will also suggest that it is totally just and that those that go away into eternal torture are actually getting what they deserve. I will suggest that opponents of this doctrine (such as universalists and annihilationists) trivialize the evil of those that disobey the commands of God and hence arrive at a picture of reality that is in fact false. Scripture portrays those that disobey God's commands in a heinously evil light; this has been overlooked by opponents of eternal torture.

I suggest the following:

1) Everyone who goes to hell is a child of Satan (Mt. 13:38)
2) Satan is a murderer (by God's standards, see Jn. 8:44)
3) Children share in the nature of their parents, hence the children of Satan are murderers (by God's standards)
4) God loves the victim with absolute or infinite love
5) The punishment is commensurate with the love that God bears toward the victim
6) The punishment is eternal (infinite, absolute) torture in hell

This is but one way to justify eternal torture; there is another way:

1) Everyone who goes to hell is a child of Satan (Mt. 13:38)
2) Satan is a murderer (by God's standards, see Jn. 8:44)
3) The children of Satan are guilty of the murder of God (Jn. 3:20, ref. with 1 Jn. 3:15)
4) God is a being of infinite goodness or infinite love
5) The murder of a being of infinite goodness or infinite love is a crime so evil and such an abomination that it deserves eternal torture in hell

Thus we see that there are really two ways to totally justify eternal torture: the murder of another human being, or the murder of God. I submit that the wicked are guilty of both of these crimes (as proven by Scripture), and that this is the reason why they go away into eternal torture. Ideas about being punished for vague "sins" and the like are really just distractions and trivializations from the main issue, which is murder.

Discuss.

In another post I stated that I was 68 years old and had always been taught that hell was eternal torment. I've always had trouble with that idea in fitting with the character of God. Recently I have studied the matter and have concluded that the idea of eternal torment for unbelievers is false doctrine that was started by the early churches in order to frighten people into joining the church. What follows is one of many good articles on this subject:

http://www.hellhadesafterlife.com/hell/annihilationism-traditionalism-problem-hell

 

[Bible Highlighter]

When you show me that the KJV at Luke 16:24 says "for I am tormented by this flame." rather than "for I am tormented in this flame." then I will agree that you know what you are talking about. Until then looks like you just change scripture to fit your assumptions/presuppositions and make sarcastic remarks about people who actually do language studies. I remind you that Greek has never been a dead language.

The english word "in" taken from Strong's G1722 can also mean "by" and has been translated as "by" in other parts of Scripture.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1722&t=KJV

To put it to you another way, the rich-man said, I am tormented because of this flame (with English word "by" meaning "because" or "for the purpose of"). For G1722 can be used in reference to "for the purpose of" or as meaning "because".

Also, "in [g1722] the east" (Matthew 2:2) can be a location that is in front of us. In other words, I could say, "My eyes are tormented in (or by) the east." "For when I look eastward, the rising sun in the east hurts my light senstive eyes."

Furthermore, the VOICE translation renders the heart of this verse more clearly for us,

"He shouted out, “Father Abraham! Please show me mercy! Would you send that beggar Lazarus to dip his fingertip in water and cool my tongue? These flames are hot, and I’m in agony." (Luke 16:24 VOICE).​

In other words, the verse is merely saying that the rich-man was tormented by the heat of some flames in hell somewhere and it doesn't mean he was actually in the flames.


...

 

[Radrook]

What is really strange about hellifirists is that they totally ignore the innate immoral nature of the punishment itself and glibly attempt to justify it based on power and creatorship two premises which are seriously are flawed.

 

[Gentlemantech48]

The english word "in" taken from Strong's G1722 can also mean "by" and has been translated as "by" in other parts of Scripture.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=G1722&t=KJV

For example, he said, I am tormented because of this flame (with English word "by" meaning "because" or "for the purpose of"). For G1722 can be used in reference to "for the purpose of" or as meaning "because".

Also, "in [g1722] the east" (Matthew 2:2) can be a location that is in front of us. In other words, I could say, "My eyes are tormented in the east." "For when I look eastward, the rising sun in the east hurts my light senstive eyes."

Furthermore, the VOICE translation renders the heart of this verse more accurately,

"He shouted out, “Father Abraham! Please show me mercy! Would you send that beggar Lazarus to dip his fingertip in water and cool my tongue? These flames are hot, and I’m in agony." (Luke 16:24 VOICE).​

In other words, the verse is merely saying that the rich-man was tormented by the heat of some flames in hell somewhere and it doesn't mean he was actually in the flames.


...

I have come to believe that when Jesus was talking about Lazarus he was speaking to the Pharisees who had their own false beliefs about Hell. Jesus was speaking to them in a parable in order to hide the truth from their eyes. He was using their own false beliefs about Hell to make a point. Generally, the parables of Jesus are not to be taken literally but, instead, we are to look for the hidden meaning that only The Holy Spirit can reveal to us.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I have come to believe that when Jesus was talking about Lazarus he was speaking to the Pharisees who had their own false beliefs about Hell. Jesus was speaking to them in a parable in order to hide the truth from their eyes. He was using their own false beliefs about Hell to make a point. Generally, the parables of Jesus are not to be taken literally.

I respectfully disagree. None of Jesus's parables were based on things that could not happen. All of Jesus's parables were based on real world examples or truth. Jesus did not illustrate spiritual truth by telling us fictional bed time stories or by talking about fictional beings from another planet so as to entertain people's false thinking of the world. Jesus never gave into people's false ideas. Jesus is the Truth and He did not speak a lie. If Jesus were to tell a story based on the Jew's beliefs that were not true, it would be a story based on a lie. 1 Peter 2:22 says no guile or deceit was found in his mouth.

Also, when the Scriptures say that Jesus did not speak to the Pharisees without a parable, this means during the time of his appearance to them. This does not mean Jesus could not speak directly to them. For Jesus called the Pharisees hypocrites and told them the wrong things they were doing. If Jesus ALWAYS spoke in parables with every single word, then He would not be able to communicate to the Pharisees that they were wrong or sinful and that they needed to repent.

Side Note:

Oh, and just so that you are aware, while I believe hell is a real place, I do not believe it is a torture chamber horrors whereby the wicked are burning in flames. It is more like a really bad prison (where God is still fair in regards to the their conscious time spent there). I also believe that the wicked will be destroyed (annihiated, or erased from existence) in the Lake of Fire after the Judgment, too. For ECT (Eternal Concious Torment) is not justice but it is overkill. It is cruel and sadistic; And it attempts to change how God is love and how God is good.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

On the contrary, Sodom and Gamora is an example to all who live ungodly. Sodom and Gomora was destroyed by fire and these cities are not being tortured in an endless unquenchable fire today. In other words, the example of Sodom and Gomora is that it was destroyed (and not kept alive to burn for all time).

That's because eternal punishment is reserved for eternity not here and now. Just like the rewards of heaven are not given to us now but reserved for eternity.

But God does things in the real world as an illustration or parallel of what He will do for us later. God rewarded physically various men of God with material goods as a means of showing that God is a rewarder to those who seek Him. How God operates here lets us know how He will operate in the aflter-life. This is why Jesus illustrates spiritual truth with real world examples. We can trust God about the spiritual things He ways by what He has done here on this Earth. Granted, today under the New Covenant, Jesus wants us to put our treasures in heaven instead. But God did physically reward his people back in the Old Testament (or the Old Covenant).


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Peace be with you.



"I am happy with this car." is more accurate if you are standing in front of this car.

"I am happy in this car." would imply you are happy inside this car.

If you were standing in front of a burning building that was on fire producing intense heat, you would say, "I can feel the intense heat of these flames burning the building."

If you were in a burning fire in a building that was on fire producing intense heat, you would say or scream out, "I am being tormented in these flames."

God bless you.

Please read the entire definition of the word "in" and it's examples at Dictionary.com

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/in?s=t

Besides, we also have to understand that the King James uses Early Modern English (1600's English) and it has influenced even other translations. Not that there is an error in the kJV, mind you. It is just written in a different type of English that we are not always familar with.

...

 

[Hillsage]

Neither of those passages say that those are parts of man. That is being imposed on the text. If Paul has said, I pray your soul, body, and clothing, would be kept from destruction, would you argue that your clothing is part of man? I don't think you would make that argument. This shows that the sentence structure doesn't require that these are a part of man.

The word "your" indicates possession or ownership. That he says "your" that shows they aren't "you" If someone says your car, you don't assume the car is a part of you.

Soul in this case is being used of life. Notice the "whole" the body and the spirit combine to form the soul. Part one and part two combine to form the "whole". Just like Genesis 2:7 shows us the body and the spirit combine to form the life, the living soul.




The Scriptures weren't written to people who had modern science. God gave them to people and expected them to understand what He was saying. So, trying to compare modern science to something written thousands of years ago is comparing apples and oranges.

The point is that saying that the soul is the brain or the will, or emotions, etc. doesn't fit a lot of passages of Scripture. The only proper understanding of the word is one that can accommodate "EVERY" passage of Scripture where the word occurs.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. (Gen. 1:24 KJV)

The word creature here is soul. Are all living creatures just a mind or will or emotions? Are all living creatures just a brain? There are passages like this all over the Scriptures




You might want to read that again. 'Do worry about your soul, what you will eat or what you will drink. He didn't say don't worry with you soul.



There is no implication and I didn't give an interpretation. I stated just what the passage says. On the contrary, you gave the interpretation that it's talking about thinking with your soul. That is contrary to Scripture.

You've got to make the distinction between literal and figurative uses of the word.




Firstly the "us" there is a Majestic Plural. However, just because God is spirit that doesn't necessitate that that is what God meant. God also is love. Is man love? It's doubtful when you look at all of the killing he does. Again, the point is that the idea is being imposed on the text. God said, 'let us make man in our image." It's then inferred that because God is spirit it must mean that man is spirit. No, doesn't have to mean that just because God is spirit that He means that man is spirit. That is an assumption. God didn't expound on what He meant when He said 'let us make man in our image".

However, let's look at that more closely. God said, 'let us make man in our image'. So, let's look at where God made man.

7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.1 (Gen. 2:7 KJV)

Look, Good made the man "BEFORE" He gave the spirit or before the soul came into being. This shows that beyond any doubt that the man existed before those receiving the spirit or becoming a soul. This shows beyond doubt that the soul and the spirit cannot be a part of man. Any understanding that doesn't align with the creation of man is incorrect no matter how popular the idea.



But you won't find that anywhere in Scripture. There is nowhere in Scripture that says that God "birthed" a spirit in man. The only spirit in man is God's breath or spirit of life. That this is the case can be seen in the vision that God gave to Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 37, the valley of dry bones, God shows Ezekiel the bones and Ezekiel prophesies over them and flesh comes on them but there are not alive. God then tells Ezekiel to prophesy to the ruach and life comes into the them and they live. The God gives Ezekiel the interpretation of the vision and says,

12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
13 And ye shall know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves,
14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the LORD have spoken it, and performed it, sa (Ezek. 37:12-14 KJV)

God told Israel that He would bring them out of their graves and would put "HIS" spirit in them and they would live. He didn't say I'll put your spirit back in you, He said, "I'll put my spirit in you." The only spirit in a man is God's spirit.





This passage isn't saying what you think it's saying. It's actually arguing my point. You should read the entire context which starts in chapter 4. The passage is actually speaking of the resurrection which you can see in chapter 4.




You won't find anything in Scripture that teaches that man is a spirit, he's not. God created him from the dust of the earth.

I did explain it. Notice the word "wholly". Paul is addressing their entirety. They are living souls composed of body and spirit, thus Paul seeks the sanctification of their entirety. May your spirit be sanctified, may your life be sanctified and may your body be sanctified.

The verse says nothing about them being parts of the man.

The problem is the presuppositions we bring to the text. The passages you're posting don't say that there are three parts to man. You already believe that so when you see those passages you believe that that's what they are saying. Look for a single passage of Scripture that says there are three parts to man or that man is a spirit. You won't find any such thing in the Scriptures. You'll find passages that say your spirit or the spirit in man, but that doesn't necessitate that the spirit is the man. We know that there is a spirit in man because we saw that in Gen 2:7 it is God's. The words your and you are different. You denotes who you are, your denotes what is in your possession or is associated with you. So, when we see in Scripture "your spirit" we know that it is spirit that we are in possession of or associated with. Again, that is God's breath or spirit of life that He gives to every living thing.

Once again it is proven; "A man convinced against his will, is always of the same opinion still." Enjoy your opinion. For those who think a bit beyond where you are at, it just doesn't wash. Scripture says man is a "spirit/soul/body" in one verse and you keep sticking your head in the sand refusing to answer that verse. Your senseless rabbit trail concerning the word "YOUR" simply proves how desperate you are to believe an indefensible position. So I'll stop here and you can jump through your hoops all you want to defend a position that fits neither the 'whole' of scripture, or the discipline of acceptable scientific and medical fact. Scripture continues to be PLAINLY understood.

1TH 5:23 and the God of the peace Himself sanctify you wholly, and may your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved unblameably in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ;

 

[aiki]

What is really strange about hellifirists is that they totally ignore the innate immoral nature of the punishment itself and glibly attempt to justify it based on power and creatorship two premises which are seriously are flawed.

Strawman. What has been argued in this thread by "hellfireists" is much more complex, careful and scriptural than what you describe here.

Selah.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Peace be with you.

Matthew C18
34 Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay back the whole debt.[w] 35 [x]So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart.”

Judging the wicked sinners is about Justice. God can get angry. God can torture. God is Divine so He dishes out Divine Judgment, Divine Justice, Divine Wrath, Divine Punishment.

God Threatens sinners with Torture in case you haven't noticed.

Rejection of the Salvation offered by the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ is a Guilty Offense leading to Eternal Damnation/Death.

That's what sinners deserve for spitting in the face of Jesus Christ by rejecting His Offer of Salvation earned through His Sacrifice of Blood, Pain, Misery and Suffering by remaining in their sins and refusing to repent of their wickedness and believing in Jesus Christ.

God bless you.

Matthew 18:34
"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him."

First, the verse says "tormentors" and not "torturers" in the KJV (Which I believe is God's final Word of authority).
Second, the tormentors did not torment this person for all eternity. The second half of this verse says that they would be tormented until he paid all that was due.


...

 

[aiki]

Gentlemantech48:

I read through the article you linked to and was very disappointed by its superficial treatment of the doctrine of ECT. Right from the start, the author was making assumptions and not once does he directly address the reasoning and arguments put forward by Bible scholars who support ECT.

Selah.

 

[Radrook]

Strawman. What has been argued in this thread by "hellfireists" is much more complex, careful and scriptural than what you describe here.

Selah.

Sorry, but those are the reasons I was provided with on another thread where the subject was intensively and extensively discussed.

 

[razzelflabben]

And that is what I do---put all the passages together and the different interpretations of some words and the character of God and you get-----no eternal torment in hell.

so, reconcile for me the passages that tell us that hell is eternal...you still haven't done that to any extent using context and translation issues and the like. I have heard (not sure now if it was you or another poster) try to reason yourself into the position you take but what I am talking about is using literary rules for comprehension in order to reconcile all passages which you claim here to be doing but have lacked posts that do that.

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm not quibbling over the number--at the same time, an almost 2 to one measure seems, to me, another red flag.

it's no red flag if there is no contradictions to begin with, which several of us have shown to be true with the eternal hell fire basic understanding (IOW's not looking into some of the variations but only the eternal fire aspect) So in order for your position to stand you have to show common literary rules for comprehension to prove your opinion of the topic at hand. See, the two to one ration doesn't say anything to us at all if we assume that God cannot lie. And just for the record, most of the passages you use to support your position are talking about the death of the flesh which is a different matter than the second death which is the subject in this thread, which would reduce us to about a two to one ration in favor of eternal hell...or even greater...but since that isn't what we are talking about and you just posted those claims to have something to say and not to insinuate that the number is significant somehow, we will let it slide. It is often very difficult to keep up with the changes your posts seem to be full of.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

One of the biggest problems with ECT (Eternal Concious Torment) is that nobody can explain the morality or goodness behind it. They just essentially say, "GOD and His Word is the reason" and that is it. But God's Word is interpreted in many ways. The true understanding of God's Word should line up with what is truly loving and good (in regards to fair justice). Most ECT Proponents say we cannot know His Judgment (when it comes to ECT).

But Proverbs says,

"Then shalt thou understand righteousness, and judgment, and equity; yea, every good path."
(Proverbs 2:9).

...