Hell

[Justatruthseeker]

There's almost as many conceptions of hell as there are Christians, but I want to talk about a very specific one, and ONLY that.

So if you believe that Hell is God's absence, or his presence as experienced through the mind of the unregenerate sinner, or annihilation, or a temporary place of purification, or a conundrum to be solved by trusting that a just God would find a way to do the right thing and save all - this thread might not be for you.

The conception of hell that I address here is a place of literal torment, where sapient beings are deliberately sent by God for failing to be as flawless as a deity, and where they'll spend eternity with no chance of redeption or mercy.

To me, such a conception of hell reflects *extremely* badly on the corresponding conception of deity, and no argument from authority ("who are YOU to question an all-powerful being?????") will resolve the matter.

So, if you believe that it is literally impossible for any of us to measure up to God's standard, and we are then punished for it - that's like torturing a dog with a branding iron for its failure to comprehend algebra. Or setting up an eight-meter pit (with poisoned spikes at the bottom) for people to jump over when you *know* they'll never get further than 6 m.

And I'm sorry, but basically extending a pardon to all who wave the right party membership card doesn't solve the moral dilemma here, either, because people are still being sent to Cosmic Auschwitz.

In short: how do you manage to reconcile this belief with anything remotely resembling justice?

Yet not a single place in the Bible where "hades" or Sheol" (wrongly translated as "hell") exist, point to a place of eternal punishment. We are told only that the punishment for sin is eternal. And that this punishment is death. That hades (hell) itself will be thrown into the lake of fire and "cease to exist".

Sheol was the abode of the dead - a place where all went good or bad - animal or human.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/49-14.htm

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/ecclesiastes/9-2.htm
and verse 3

It was devoid of all thought and reason - there existed neither pain nor suffering.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/ecclesiastes/9-6.htm

There is no light.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/job/10-21.htm
And verse 22

No remembrance at all.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/6-5.htm

The thought of hell as a place of eternal torment did not creep into Christian belief until well after the 3rd century - when they used it as a tool to keep barons and kings in line - follow what we teach or be excommunicated and suffer for eternity.

Hades and sheol simply refer to the grave. Hell and Hellfire are deceptive words. When hell is used to indicate fire in the bible it is referring to Gehenna, a place of destruction, not a common grave of mankind, which Hades and Sheol both mean. The Old English dialect spoke of “helling” potatoes. This did not mean to roast them in fire, but meant to put them in the ground. Hell cannot be Gehenna, “the unquenchable fire” if it is also Hades, because “the Lake of Fire” is the same place that Jesus described as Gehenna, and Hades is going to be thrown into “the lake of fire” upon the second death. So most bibles indicate that “the Lake of Fire” is going to be thrown into “the Lake of Fire!” Revelation 20:14 Destruction into destruction? That doesn’t make any sense. The point of that scripture is that death and all that is bad, even the place of the dead, are going to be destroyed. So you can see the common inaccuracy and inconsistencies of the usage of Hell in the bible.

And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: (note: for “hell” - original literature read “Gehenna” not hades or sheol). And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. (note: for "hell" original literature read "Hades").
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; (note: for "hell" original literature read “Tartarus”).

How can anyone rightly substitute four different words that have different meanings with one word, unless they intend on misleading people to believe that these four different places are the same place?

http://www.beyondweird.com/occult/hellfire.html

"
WHERE DOES THE WORD HELL COME FROM?
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, under "Hell"
says: "from 'helan' to conceal." The word "hell" thus originally conveyed
no thought of heat or torment but simply of a 'covered over or concealed
place.' In the old English dialect the expression "helling potatoes" meant,
not to roast them, but simply to place the potatoes in the ground or in a
cellar.
Collier's Encyclopedia (1986, Vol 12, p.28) says concerning "Hell":
First it stands for the Hebrew Sheol of the Old Testament and the Greek
Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament. Since Sheol in the Old Testament
times refered simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral
distinctions, the word 'hell,' as understood today, is not a happy
translation."
The meaning given today to the word "hell" is that portrayed in Dante's
Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost, which meaning is completely
foreign to the original definition of the word. The idea of a "hell" of firey
torment, dates back long before Dante or Milton. The Grollier Universal
Encyclopedia (1971, Vol. 9,p.205) under "Hell" says: "Hindus and Buddhists
regard hell as a place of spiritual cleansing and final restoration.
Islamic tradition considers it as a place of eternal punishment." The idea
of suffering after death is found among the pagan religious teachings of
ancient peoples in Babylon and Egypt. Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs
depicted the "nether world . . . as a place full of horrors, . . . presided
over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness." Although ancient
Egyptian religious texts do not teach that the burning of any individual
victim would go on forever, they do portray the "other world" as featuring
"pits of fire" for "the damned."--The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, by
Morris Jastrow, Jr. 1898, p. 581; The Book of the Dead, 1960, pp. 135-200.
"Hellfire" has been a basic teaching in Christendom for many centuries,
it is understandable why The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Vol XIV,p.81)
said:"Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused by the early
translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the
Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of
these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not
sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception."
Nevertheless, such transliteration and consistent rendering does enable the
Bible student to make an accurate comparison of the texts in which these
original words appear and, with open mind, thereby to arrive at an
understanding of their true significance.
So, what is the 'Lake of Fire" of Revelation chapter 20? First let's
look at verse 15, it says: "Whosoever was not found written in the book of
life was cast into the lake of fire." But verse 14 says:"And death and hell
were cast into the lake of fire." Is hell itself to be tormented? And how
can death ,a condition, be thrown into a literal fire? The rest of verse 14
reads: This [the lake of fire] is the second death." Rev. 21:8 repeats this
point. What is this "second death"? The Catholic Jerusalem Bible adds this
footnote concerning "the second death": "Eternal death. The fire ... is
symbolic." Very true, for it signifies complete destruction, or
annihilation.
How interresting! "Hell" is to be destroyed! Note, however, that the
Greek word used here is Hades, which, according to Strong's Exhaustive
Concordance of the Bible, means "grave." Are the dead conscious or
suffering in hell, or Hades? The Bible replies:"The dead know nothing...for
neither work, nor reason, nor wisdom,nor knowledge shall be in hell, whither
thou art hastening."--Ecclesiastes 9:5,10, Catholic Douay Version.
However you may ask "Why does Rev.20:10, say that the Devil will be
'tormented' in the lake of fire?" If, as we have seen, the lake is
symbolic, then, logically the torment is also.
In the Bible times, jailers often cruelly tortured their prisoners,
hence they were called "tormentors." In one of his illustrations, Jesus
spoke of a cruel slave as being 'delivered to jailers' (Greek, basanistes',
which actually means "tormentors" and is so rendered by the KJV at Matt.
18:34). So when Revelation speaks of the Devil and others as being
"tormented...forever" in the lake of fire, it means that they will be
"jailed" to all eternity in the second death of complete destruction. The
Devil, the death inherited from Adam, and the unrepentant wicked all are
spoken of as being destroyed eternally--"jailed" in the lake of
fire.--Compare Heb.2:14; 1 Corinthians 15:26; Psalm 37:38.
The Dogma of eternal torment is based on the immortal-soul theory.
However, the Bible clearly states: "The soul that is sinning--it shall
die."(Ezekial 18:4,20; see also Acts 3:23.) Proclaimers of hellfire have
made the true God, Jehovah, appear to be a fiend--a cruel monster--instead
of what he is: a God of love, "merciful and gracious . . . and abundant in
loving kindness."--Exodus 34:6.
Lovingly God has made provision to save men, not from torment, but from
being destroyed. Said Jesus: "God loved the world so much that he gave his
only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exercising faith in him not be
DESTROYED but have everlasting life.--John 3:16.

"

If both God and Jesus state that only the righteous will recieve eternal life and the wicked will be destroyed, who is going to give them this gift of eternal life reserved only for the righteous???????

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'd like to take a moment to thank those for the likes and supports I have received throughout the years. Even though yes, I realize I have an aggressive debating style and offend some now and then. But when it comes to scripture I simply try to follow the model of my "Teacher" when it comes to ignoring scripture itself to teach one's own beliefs, or the beliefs of the majority.

Matthew 23:33 "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?" (let's clarify the original is Gehenna and not hell, since this is the subject of the OP.)

So if at times I seem a little rough on people it is because sometimes plain speaking is needed - as the only Teacher that taught all truth at all times understood himself. Am I comparing myself to him? Not at all - just trying to emulate what he himself did when those that were entrusted with teaching the truth to the flock failed to do so and instead taught their own beliefs - guiding the flock into destruction and not everlasting life.

So you all make me feel humbled - but don't worry - it won't last long

That was my sarcastic humor by-the-way, which also tends to annoy some. But really - thank you all.

But I will always fight what I believe to be false beliefs - because only the truth will set you free.

I just fail to understand how some can apply the gift of everlasting life reserved only for the righteous to the wicked as well - making God into something evil and a liar. For if that gift is given to the wicked as well - then it is no gift at all, but becomes merely ones place for spending that eternal life that is the gift itself.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3-16.htm

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not be destroyed, but have eternal life.

http://biblehub.com/greek/622.htm

"apollumi: to destroy, destroy utterly"

So let us not fall into pagan beliefs and risk being destroyed utterly. The first death is temporary - but the second death is permanent - from it there will be no hope of a resurrection.

 

[ViaCrucis]

No. But to be quite frank I can't help but extend the principle of charity your way... You're joking in the majority of your posts, right? You don't actually believe what you're saying in most cases, aren't you? I find it very difficult to believe that a rational person, a lover of the good and a believer in truth, would say the majority of the things you say.

This sort of befuddled response to AV's posts should probably be considered basic initiation to CF. So with that said, welcome to Christian Forums. The next step is to get into a debate with AV and make sense so he can tell your well thought out argument and point to "take a hike".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

This sort of befuddled response to AV's posts should probably be considered basic initiation to CF. So with that said, welcome to Christian Forums. The next step is to get into a debate with AV and make sense so he can tell your well thought out argument and point to "take a hike".

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for the advice.

 

[nightflight]

Good topic. Fear of hell has been the bane of my existence.

 

[Sketcher]

That's not what I believe Hell is, for the record. But if it were, I wouldn't wish a lesser sentence on, let's say, ISIS.

 

[Wgw]

Good topic. Fear of hell has been the bane of my existence.

Could you elaborate on this, here or in anoher thread? Fear of eternality used to be the bane of my existence, until I studied the Cappadocians, St. (psuedo) Dionysius the Aereopagite, et al.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yet not a single place in the Bible where "hades" or Sheol" (wrongly translated as "hell")

Hel was the Germanic/Norse underworld, ruled by the goddess Hel. In much the same way that Hades was the Greek underworld ruled by the god Hades.

To that end "Hel" or "Hell" are valid translations. That is, to speak of the realm of the dead. What is confusing is also translating Gehenna as "Hell".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Hel was the Germanic/Norse underworld, ruled by the goddess Hel. In much the same way that Hades was the Greek underworld ruled by the god Hades.

To that end "Hel" or "Hell" are valid translations. That is, to speak of the realm of the dead. What is confusing is also translating Gehenna as "Hell".

-CryptoLutheran

No, they are not valid translations because of how they are thought of today. Even in the old times Hades was "In older Greek myths, the realm of Hades is the misty and gloomy abode of the dead, where all mortals go."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades

It had no thought of pain or torture: "Later Greek philosophy introduced the idea that all mortals are judged after death and are either rewarded or cursed."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_(location)

"The old Old Norse word Hel derives from Proto-Germanic *haljō, which means "one who covers up or hides something", which itself derives from Proto-Indo-European *kel-, meaning "conceal"

Likewise the Hebrew Sheol brought no thought of pain or torture. This is why "hell" is not a good translation - because it is TODAY associated with pain and suffering. If people thought of hell as merely a covered over place as they once did, it would be another story. But go ask anyone today what hell means and it wont be simply a place of the dead, but a place of eternal torment, which the original thought did not convey.

 

[TheBear]

I like the good, old fashioned, fire and brimstone, burning and torture and agony, forever and ever, view of hell. Has anyone created a computer generated video of that?

 

[Wgw]

Hel was the Germanic/Norse underworld, ruled by the goddess Hel. In much the same way that Hades was the Greek underworld ruled by the god Hades.

To that end "Hel" or "Hell" are valid translations. That is, to speak of the realm of the dead. What is confusing is also translating Gehenna as "Hell".

-CryptoLutheran

Lest anyone should object, by the way, to this apparent reference to Pagan religion, note Psalm 95:5 LXX ("The gods of the gentiles are demons.")

 

[rockytopva]

3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. - Revelation 12

Notice that the devil took a third of the stars in heaven and that he and his angels fought against Michael and his angels. This puts Lucifer the devil on footings with Michael and his angels.

A third.... I believe there are three sets of angels...

Michael - Archangel over Strong Angels
Gabriel - Archangel over Wise Angels
Lucifer - Archangel over Worshiping Angels

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. - Matthew 25

Lucifer is archangel over his third of the heavenly angels, who have now turned to darkness. Not only does one have to endure the torments of the everlasting fire, but of the control freaks that exist down there, and their leader will be Lucifer himself.

 

[TheBear]

I always wondered about how the flesh and nerves would sustain being burned by fire forever and ever. One would think that once the flesh and nerves were incinerated, there would be no more pain sensation. Islam teaches that the flesh and nerves are regenerated over and over, for all eternity. Does Christianity have a similar explanation?

 

[TheBear]

 

[ViaCrucis]

I always wondered about how the flesh and nerves would sustain being burned by fire forever and ever. One would think that once the flesh and nerves were incinerated, there would be no more pain sensation. Islam teaches that the flesh and nerves are regenerated over and over, for all eternity. Does Christianity have a similar explanation?

Most of Christianity would say that the fire of hell is figurative, not literal. There is no literal burning going on.

"The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that heaven and hell are relations to or experiences of God's just and loving presence There is no created place of divine absence, nor is hell an ontological separation from God. One expression of the Eastern teaching is that hell and heaven are dimensions of God's intensifying presence, as this presence is experienced either as torment or as paradise depending on the spiritual state of a person dwelling with God." - Wiki

The same Wikipedia article outlines Roman Catholic ideas which are not entirely monolithic; however the overwhelming opinion of most Catholic theologians has been that Hell is not a place but rather a state, it is first and foremost the state of God's absence--whatever else Hell is or entails would be unknown. Further, Catholic theologians--most notably Hans Urs von Balthasar--have argued that Catholic dogma is unable to state whether or not Hell is full or empty, and thus the possibility that Hell is empty remains (Balthasar specifically provides this idea in his work Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?).

Protestant views can be as varied as Protestants themselves. As such it is impossible to speak of a "Protestant view" of Hell. However many Protestants, if not most, will likely agree to some extent with the Catholic idea of Hell as God's absence; and Protestants have, in the last century, often been very influenced by C.S. Lewis on this subject, both Mainline and Evangelical.

What one is quick to find is that the idea that Hell is a literal location wherein one is physically tormented and roasted with actual flame for all eternity is rather definitively not the view of most Christians; it is usually only the position of a few Fundamentalists who also generally adhere to a rather woodenly literal reading of Scripture.

As a rule I usually recommend three sources to get a more varied idea on how Christians have tackled the concept of Hell:

1) The writings of St. Isaac the Syrian whose view is reflected in the standard Orthodox view
2) Balthasar's Dare We Hope
3) C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce

That certainly doesn't and won't cover everything, not even a little. But it does provide an ancient perspective and two 20th century perspectives, one from a Roman Catholic (Balthasar) and one from an Anglican (Lewis).

Fundamentally trying to argue "Hell is X" is problematic if for no reason other than that the Christian Church simply has never had a dogmatic position on the subject. To offer just one example of that fact consider the topic of Apokatastasis

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TheBear]

Most of Christianity would say that the fire of hell is figurative, not literal. There is no literal burning going on.

I agree. Most Christians don't believe that.

My question was really addressed to those who do believe in a literal, fire and brimstone hell. I was just curious about their thoughts on that.

 

[nightflight]

Could you elaborate on this, here or in anoher thread? Fear of eternality used to be the bane of my existence, until I studied the Cappadocians, St. (psuedo) Dionysius the Aereopagite, et al.

I was scared of eternal torment since childhood. It had a profound effect on my life, as it has so many others. Its a vicious doctrine.

 

[zippy2006]

I was scared of eternal torment since childhood. It had a profound effect on my life, as it has so many others. Its a vicious doctrine.

Heavens, what ever happened to the question, "Is it true?" The reason you were scared is because it is frightening. But the fact that it caused you fear, or that it has some special affect on your life says nothing about its truth or falsity. It's interesting that a modern, secular culture seems to care so little about truth.

 

[nightflight]

Heavens, what ever happened to the question, "Is it true?" The reason you were scared is because it is frightening. But the fact that it caused you fear, or that it has some special affect on your life says nothing about its truth or falsity. It's interesting that a modern, secular culture seems to care so little about truth.

Obviously I did believe it was true, hence the life-crushing fear I experienced.

Hello.......

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, they are not valid translations because of how they are thought of today.

Contemporary misinformation or misunderstanding doesn't nullify the validity of ancient translation attempts, it only renders it necessary to properly define terms in their historical context.

That there is a contemporary confusion as to the concept of "hell" doesn't mean it was invalid when Christian ideas were translated into the languages of early Germanic people. That's not a reasonable argument.

-CryptoLutheran