Have Any Of You Changed Your Stance On ...

[KCKID]

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.

 

[HighwayMan]

I very much doubt those people will admit to it "going against their moral strain". But no matter how you slice it, it does. One good thing from the whole globalization movement though I think is that people are beginning to let go of this belief, when they come to understand how petty it is when there are so many different people with different faiths on the planet.

 

[Hooksta]

Well if you are being literal then Christians aren't allowed to eat shell fish either. (Leviticus 11:12)..."Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."

So my answer is I don't take it literal. I'm not sure its a "change of stance" for me though. I'm pretty sure I never literally believed Jonah lived inside a big fish either.

 

[Ectezus]

How often does the bible refer to Hell in particular? As in; not vague but clear cut ever lasting tormenting punishment.

- Ectezus

 

[Silent Bob]

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?

Not since coming to this forum but since I gave it an honest thought yes.

If so, what is your viewpoint now

If an aftelife exists (kinda agnostic here) then I would like to think that there is a place to go in order to attone for your horrible sins. After that you will be accepted into heaven. Hell to me is a state of inwards contemplation of every wrong you have done, like a bad acid trip with guilt on top.

and do you feel somewhat estranged from your home church which still clings to this belief?

I have so many things to feel estranged about hell is not at the top. I can ignore someone giving the old fire and brimstone lecture but I cannot sit idle when hatred is spewed towards all kinds of minories.

 

[KCKID]

How often does the bible refer to Hell in particular? As in; not vague but clear cut ever lasting tormenting punishment.

There IS nothing in the Bible about hell being a place of eternal torment that is ANYTHING but figurative. The actual definition of the biblical 'hell' is 'the grave'. When people die - whether saved or lost - they go to the grave or hell. No fiendish demons wielding pitchforks are waiting there to greet them and torment them with fire for ever and ever.

The extraordinary and erroneous belief about hell as taught by mainstream Christianity mainly comes from references by Jesus where He equates hell with gehenna, the garbage dump outside of Jerusalem where the fires were always kept burning to destroy dead animals and refuse. Then, of course, Jesus also tells the parable of the Rich Man & Lazarus where the rich man is found to be burning in everlasting torment. Many Christians believe it to be a factual account. But it isn't. It's simply (and quite OBVIOUSLY) a story Jesus tells His listeners but He also incorporates a Jewish fable into the story - Abraham's Bosom - with which to make a point. Abraham's Bosom is found NO PLACE ELSE in the Bible and is in NO WAY representative of a literal hell. The fable of the Rich Man & Lazarus isn't even ABOUT what happens in the afterlife. It was aimed at the Pharisees for an entirely different purpose.

The problem is that mainstream Christianity has to keep up the charade about hell because it would lose credibility if it changed its belief after oh, so long of false teaching. I personally would admire them for doing so but that's not the way it works, unfortunately.

Obviously, NO ONE knows what will happen at the end of time if there is such a thing. One thing IS certain, though. There will be no LITERAL eternal punishment for the lost. Hell is the grave ...NOT some fictitious and super-barbaric concentration camp for the unrighteous.

 

[Hooksta]

Hell is the grave ...NOT some fictitious and super-barbaric concentration camp for the unrighteous.

I'll have to remember this line.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

Anyone who's researched the history of the translation process know that the word their deriving "hell" from, actually translates to 'separation'.

My opinion of hell has remained the same, it's a scare tactic...although I don't know if you were looking for the deist point of view

 

[Nathan45]

Anyone who's researched the history of the translation process know that the word their deriving "hell" from, actually translates to 'separation'.

I don't know where you heard that, it's not true.

there are two words translated to hell in the NT, one is "Hades", the reference should be obvious, the second is "Gehenna".

"Gehenna" is the Christian rendering of "Ge Hinnom," literally "Valley of Hinnom," known in Hebrew as Gai Ben-Hinnom, literally the "Valley of Hinnom's son." In the Qur'an, gehenna (Gehennem, Jahannam) is a place of torment for sinners or the Islamic equivalent of hell.
In the Hebrew Bible, Gai Ben-Hinnom does not refer to hell but rather to a real valley in Jerusalem (Joshua 15:8, Joshua 18:16, 2nd Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 28:3, 2nd Chronicles 33:6,Nehemiah 11:30, Jeremiah 7:31~32, Jeremiah 19:2, Jeremiah 19:6, Jeremiah 32:35). Garbage from the walled city was burned there.

 

[bliz]

Honestly, I don't give much thought to hell because I know I will not end up there.

 

[Nathan45]

Honestly, I don't give much thought to hell because I know I will not end up there.

Because the other several billion people all writhing in agony in hell is of no concern at all to you.

 

[seashale76]

The so-called mainstream western view of hell isn't Orthodox. It was one of many reasons I gave up on Christianity for (what I thought at the time) good. I am so thankful to have stumbled across a Christianity that is practically a different religion. My race isn't finished yet and I certainly claim no knowledge that I'm saved.

 

[chingchang]

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?

My view changed from the "traditional" to the "annihilation" view after MUCH research and reflection...prior to finding CF. Although I don't have all of the details worked-out (don't need them to be)...I strongly believe that none will suffer the fate described in the traditional teachings of hell.

If so, what is your viewpoint now and do you feel somewhat estranged from your home church which still clings to this belief?

Annihilation. My change in view of this "doctrine" got the ball rolling and the more searching I did...the more I found my beliefs in conflict with what was being taught (other doctrine) at the conservative fundamentalist church that I was a member of. I left that church a little over a year ago.

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.

To be quite honest and without pulling out the scriptures...the idea of literal...conscious eternal torturing does not fit with the character of God as revealed through MANY examples in the OT.

Free Hugs,
CC

 

[white dove]

Obviously, NO ONE knows what will happen at the end of time if there is such a thing. One thing IS certain, though. There will be no LITERAL eternal punishment for the lost. Hell is the grave ...NOT some fictitious and super-barbaric concentration camp for the unrighteous.

That doesn't make any sense. You either assert that "no one" truly knows what will happen in the end or that somehow, you do. For some reason, you are certain that literal eternal punishment is not even on the roster? You don't know that -- and neither do I.

 

[HighwayMan]

That doesn't make any sense. You either assert that "no one" truly knows what will happen in the end or that somehow, you do. For some reason, you are certain that literal eternal punishment is not even on the roster? You don't know that -- and neither do I.

The uncertainty of death doesn't mean you can't rule somethings out based on moral reasoning. If there is an afterlife, one would imagine it having a point, not another way to torture (the majority of) mankind even further.

 

[bliz]

Because the other several billion people all writhing in agony in hell is of no concern at all to you.

That people will end up in hell concerns me a great deal. As to the details of what hell is actually like, that I am not concerned about. It is the absence of God, and that we cannot fathom.

 

[quatona]

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.

Seems to be a questions for Christians only.

 

[KCKID]

Seems to be a questions for Christians only.

Yes, I guess it is but the nonChristian can also feel free to exercise his or her logical viewpoint on this very erroneous teaching of the traditional Christian Church. Hell for the lost=eternal torment. This from a 'loving God' no less! This IS a shocker! To the nonChristian it puts mainstream Christianity in its entirety into disrepute!

There are people who haven't yet figured out WHAT to believe regarding Christianity even though they might feel led into believing something of a spiritual nature. I believe that we ALL have that inner feeling that there is more to life and beyond than merely what we can physically see, hear, and feel.

The problem seems to be getting people to admitting to that.

 

[R3quiem]

How often does the bible refer to Hell in particular? As in; not vague but clear cut ever lasting tormenting punishment.

- Ectezus

Well, Jesus referred to Gehenna quite often, which is now translated as hell even though it was a physical place.

Jesus did imply that the afterlife for some people would be a fate worse than death. For example,

Jesus said to his disciples: "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come. It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.
Luke 17:1-2 (also in Mark)

Then of course there is Jesus' parable about Lazarus, where the rich man dies and is in torment, and Abraham refuses to give him mercy:

"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
-Luke 16:22-26

And lastly, there is the following claim in Revelation:

A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.
-Revelation 14:9-12

Though nobody really knew what John of Patmos was even talking about, considering how crazy he was. Historians argue he was referencing Rome all throughout Revelation, while others argue that he's talking about the future of Christianity.

Oh, and there's the one OT reference of a negative afterlife I know about:

Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
-Daniel 12:2


Those are the least vague ones I know of. The Revelation one is about as direct as you get, but it's found in the most complex and crazy book in the Bible. The rich man and Lazarus is also pretty direct, but Christians who don't believe in hell have different interpretations of it.


And to the OP: No, my views on hell have never changed. I thought the concept of hell was horrible since I first heard it back when I was a Christian. I still find it horrible, and don't respect religions that teach it in the slightest.

 

[quatona]

Yes, I guess it is but the nonChristian can also feel free to exercise his or her logical viewpoint on this very erroneous teaching of the traditional Christian Church.

Arguing against a god concept by pointing to logic typically earns me the comment that god "is not bound by logic" (or something to that effect).

Hell for the lost=eternal torment. This from a 'loving God' no less! This IS a shocker!

"Who are you to judge god?", "God´s ways are mysterious.", "If in doubt, it´s the human understanding of right and wrong that´s flawed, not god´s." etc. etc.

To the nonChristian it puts mainstream Christianity in its entirety into disrepute!

Caveat: Personally, I´m not sure that the eternal torment doctrine is "mainstream Christianity", but apart from that: yes, I guess every non-believer in his right mind has problems taking it seriously.

There are people who haven't yet figured out WHAT to believe regarding Christianity even though they might feel led into believing something of a spiritual nature. I believe that we ALL have that inner feeling that there is more to life and beyond than merely what we can physically see, hear, and feel.

Yes, there are thoughts, ideas, concepts, emotions, beliefs, "inner feelings" for example.

As far as Christianity (and the other Abrahamic religions) goes, I think that as soon as you understand that god (and satan and the rest of the bunch) were meant to be metaphores representing your internal processes, it starts making some sense. So does hell as being one of the mental states for us to be in.

The problem seems to be getting people to admitting to that.

I suspect that it would be far easier to get people to admit it if they weren´t immediately asked to swallow the (actually not following) conlusion that their "spiritual" encounters pointed to something outside themselves along with it. That´s at least how I personally feel about it.