Hell

[Nihilist Virus]

My explanation gives the true answer to the original post question [below]:

You cannot reconcile justice until you understand the true nature of the word and what it is actually describing. The correct context is not "physical." Why do you keep insisting on a physical answer to something that doesn't even exist until physical life is over?

You do not believe that hell is a place of torment, so you are not reconciling that belief with anything.

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

Given your beliefs, you can only agree that it does not resemble justice or else you cannot give a relevant answer.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Seriously, you think mixed dancing, swimming qualifies as a sin? A transgression that deserves to be punished by eternal damnation? That godly perfection is a state of being that would never, ever include such "immorality"?
(And no, the Sermon of the Mount does not state this.)

Since so many Christians on this thread apparently thought that I'm unduly fixated on a very literal, very abhorrent conception of hell, here's what *I* think the "good news" is.

Most religions in the ancient world revolved around the concept of sacrifice, of killing livestock (or, in more extreme cases, even humans) in order to appease uncanny deities that were believed to exact gruesome revenge on any mortal who might deliberately or unknowingly cause offense. In a world that did not understand the naturalistic causes of plague, floods, earthquakes or lightning strikes, angry deities were the catch-all explanation for bad things happening, and moral transgressions (to be redeemed by sacrifice) were the reason behind (respectively the remedy for) such calamities.
Proto-Judaism had already taken some steps towards a more pragmatic approach, first outlawing human sacrifice by means of a tale that emphasized it was the attitude behind the act that mattered most (in Abraham's tale), and then substituting animals for those transgressions that people were not aware of committing.

But Christianity made an end to the logic of sacrifice its core doctrine: the "good news" at its heart is that its god loved people SO MUCH that he turned himself into a sacrifice, setting the captives free and urging his "Father" to forgive those who unknowingly committed such a grave transgression. God does not want your blood, or that of your relatives. He doesn't even want you to slaughter some animals for repentance, for you ARE forgiven. The truly good news is that God LOVES the world, instead of being an angry, unfathomable force bent on receiving protection money in the form of blood.

THAT is what set Christianity apart from other religions of late antiquity, that - more so than its apocalyptic promise of a World To Come - is at the core of its overwhelming success. The "Prince of Peace" set the captives free and urged us to love even our enemies.

Yes, there are verses that show Jesus condemning those who do not help the helpless, feed the hungry, or clothe the destitute in the harshest of terms, stating that such people have no place in the world to come, and belong on the burning rubbish heap in the valley of Hinnom. And he also states that those who cry "Lord, Lord", prophesying in his name and even performing miracles are not necessarily exalted if they fail to show love and compassion for the unfortunate.

But that is not the "good news" - it's an expression of a moral code that demands something more than saying the right words or waving the right membership card. Jesus was fairly radical (in a good way), and his ethos is almost diametrically opposed to the nationalist consumer-capitalism embraced by conservative Christianity today.

As far as I have read you are still looking at this from the wrong perspective. God is not punishing us for doing wrong, he is correcting the outcome of the wrong we did and do. Hell was never created for people, the fact that people end up there is because they fail to accept God's remedy. Hell is more of an outcome rather than a punishment though its effects are rather punishing. Since the fall of Adam and Eve everyone has been destined for eternal death: pictured in some parts of Scripture as "living death". However instead of accepting God's way of escape we perpetuate the very things that brought about the fall in the first place.

God is love. He has shown you the outcome of all life since the first sin and then offered you a way of escape. Why refuse to accept it?

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

It rung in my ear but I haven't read Girard for quite a long time. I rather like how seriously he takes ancient mythologies in that he respects them enough to engage with them critically. I think that his belief about the Crucifixion which can be phrased the same way as yours "an end to the logic of sacrifice" is quite apt; Jesus was the scapegoat of scapegoats, his death deconstructed the very idea of their necessity.

That's all he thinks it did? Wow.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

That's all he thinks it did? Wow.

No, it's not all Girard thinks it did. Girard was a rather conservative Catholic.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

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

Why fear it? Hell can't do anything to you. Fear God for he can save you.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

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.

Kind of like the etymology of the word "gay". We must take the meaning as the OP used the term, not based on origins and previous meanings.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

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.

??? Why are you afraid of something that has no power over you? Eternal torment is an outcome rather than a reward, though I suppose it is a reward if you pursue a lifestyle that ends with it. Kind of like continuing to smoke cigarettes after the Doctor warns you its going to kill you. If you do, you know who to blame. So how come with God you blame the doctor? It all sounds very strange to me.

 

[ScottA]

You do not believe that hell is a place of torment, so you are not reconciling that belief with anything.

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

Given your beliefs, you can only agree that it does not resemble justice or else you cannot give a relevant answer.

Sorry, you are communicating like English is not your first language.

Hell is not a [physical] place. Hell is a status. The description of torment, assumes an eternal "status" of lacking, a lack of fulfillment or contentment. This is true.

The justice of being forever lacking comes from a fair opportunity to choose fulfillment or not: literally, to choose life or death.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

So cut the if stuff. I don’t believe and many on this thread do not either. Start there. Explain how it is rational for us to deserve eternal hellfire.

Your perspective is wrong again and that is why you ask an irrational question. Does a smoker deserve emphysema? Do they think they do? Does the person breaking the speed limit deserve to die? Do they think they do? Does the sinner deserve eternal death? Do they think they do? Can I choose the results of repeatedly banging my head against a wall?

It is indeed rational to expect hellfire if you do not accept the alternative. Did you honestly learn so little in 20 years?

 

[civilwarbuff]

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?

The really funny part about this is you are complaining because you have a choice. The sad part is you don't want to make the right choice.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Why do you keep insisting on a physical answer to something that doesn't even exist until physical life is over?

Perhaps because physical life isn't over? The flesh as we know it is over but there is a heavenly body. See 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[ScottA]

Perhaps because physical life isn't over? The flesh as we know it is over but there is a heavenly body. See 1 Corinthians 15.

The flesh does not enter heaven or hell. Nor is hell comparable to life in the world, which is known to the flesh, but is known only to the spirit.

This topic is not about the flesh, or a physical existence.

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

The flesh does not enter heaven or hell. Nor is hell comparable to life in the world, which is known to the flesh, but is known only to the spirit.

This topic is not about the flesh, or a physical existence.

how do you know it is not about a "physical existence"? I will grant you it is not this physical existence, but that does not exclude physical existence, and that is my point. I was pointing out that you must have a point of reference to what the other observes, not just your observations and theories. I am sure you have an answer, but realize that The Bible describes it as a "Lake of fire" which is physical in its appearance. The typology Jesus gave was Gehenna which was an actual physical fire outside the walls of Jerusalem. The likeness of the natural can also bee seen in the spiritual, how can you then say it doesn't actually exist? I don't know who said it but Gehenna was not the lake of fire but was used to explain the lake of fire, which is yet to come.

 

[ScottA]

how do you know it is not about a "physical existence"? I will grant you it is not this physical existence, but that does not exclude physical existence, and that is my point. I was pointing out that you must have a point of reference to what the other observes, not just your observations and theories. I am sure you have an answer, but realize that The Bible describes it as a "Lake of fire" which is physical in its appearance. The typology Jesus gave was Gehenna which was an actual physical fire outside the walls of Jerusalem. The likeness of the natural can also bee seen in the spiritual, how can you then say it doesn't actually exist? I don't know who said it but Gehenna was not the lake of fire but was used to explain the lake of fire, which is yet to come.

Those descriptions, and literally the whole world, is a mere manifestation of what is otherwise spiritual. I did not say it doesn't exist, but that it is not physical, as the world is physical.

It is not good to take the world and its manifestations to heart, or to prefer its likeness. What communion has light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14

 

[Llewelyn Stevenson]

Those descriptions, and literally the whole world, is a mere manifestation of what is otherwise spiritual. I did not say it doesn't exist, but that it is not physical, as the world is physical.

It is not good to take the world and its manifestations to heart, or to prefer its likeness. What communion has light with darkness? 2 Corinthians 6:14

Your Scripture quotation is a little out of context and, in my view, largely irrelevant since Paul is not dealing with the same subject. Better to have said that which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit. At least that is on topic.

Whether it is spirits that burn or flesh that burns, and whether the flame is natural or spiritual makes little difference to the OP. The point is sinner's burn, how do you reconcile that to a God of love?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Sorry, you are communicating like English is not your first language.

Hell is not a [physical] place. Hell is a status. The description of torment, assumes an eternal "status" of lacking, a lack of fulfillment or contentment. This is true.

The justice of being forever lacking comes from a fair opportunity to choose fulfillment or not: literally, to choose life or death.

You insult my grasp of the English language when you misuse words like "example" and "metaphor"?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Your perspective is wrong again and that is why you ask an irrational question. Does a smoker deserve emphysema? Do they think they do? Does the person breaking the speed limit deserve to die? Do they think they do? Does the sinner deserve eternal death? Do they think they do? Can I choose the results of repeatedly banging my head against a wall?

It is indeed rational to expect hellfire if you do not accept the alternative. Did you honestly learn so little in 20 years?

You make it sound like banishment to hell is a cause-effect situation and not a deliberate choice by God. If so, what is Judgment Day?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Kind of like the etymology of the word "gay". We must take the meaning as the OP used the term, not based on origins and previous meanings.

But gay doesn't denote happiness today as it once did. So if I tell you I am gay today - are you going to assume I am happy today, or that I might be homosexual?

 

[ScottA]

You insult my grasp of the English language when you misuse words like "example" and "metaphor"?

It is because you stumble on such things, letting them become what is important to you, and you do not hear what is actually being said and what is important.

 

[ScottA]

Your Scripture quotation is a little out of context and, in my view, largely irrelevant since Paul is not dealing with the same subject. Better to have said that which is flesh is flesh and that which is spirit is spirit. At least that is on topic.

Whether it is spirits that burn or flesh that burns, and whether the flame is natural or spiritual makes little difference to the OP. The point is sinner's burn, how do you reconcile that to a God of love?

You equate all of these things to be the same, when they are as different a s light and darkness...that was my point, and what is important about the OP question.

All flesh is destroyed, all spirit is not.

The manifestation of each person's spirit, is just, because we are what we are, and we reap what we have sown.