Question about Heaven and Hell

[MikeMcK]

I'll let others reading this thread draw their own conclusions regarding whether anyone has been insulting to me or not. I'm sure at least one moderator is reading this thread.

Then I invite that moderator to step in.

All I can say is that's the way it has been perceived by me. If that "swine" comment wasn't for me, who was it for?

Yes, I quoted Jesus to you. However, anyone who has read my post knows that there is a difference between calling someone a swine and quoting Jesus' metaphor that continuing to present the Gospel to someone who is not open to it actually devalues it, much like taking something precious, in Jesus' case, pearls, and tossing them into the street to be trampled under foot.

That you seem to be so confused by this verse only goes to further call into question your claims to have been a Christian.

And whether you are perceived as scornful instead of loving should be of concern to you if you are trying to "reach" non-Christians. Maybe you need to soften your approach.

That someone doesn't just tell you what you want to hear is not the same as "scorn".

BTW, in this forum and the other one I'm participating in, there have indeed been evangelical Christians who have treated me with kindness, while at the same time saying things to try to guide me to evangelical Christianity. So it CAN be done.

I believe we have treated you with great kindness.

 

[BelindaP]

We must remember that everyone has different witnessing styles. Some people take a very soft and light tone, while others are more direct. MikeMck prefers the direct approach, while many here prefer the lighter tone.

Depending on what your preference is, his posts can seem refreshing and clear, or they can seem unkind and even mean. The important thing is to look at the intent and motivations behind them.

Based on his preferences, he would see your posts as being a bit flip floppy, which is why he got frustrated. I think at this point, everyone understands everyone else. We should leave it at that and not judge one another's posting styles.

Peace, and God bless.

 

[heron]

--double post--

 

[heron]

Back to the original question about Heaven and Hell--

Some people interpret the verses about the lake of fire differently. The Lake of Fire is mentioned five times from Revelations 19-21.

The Beast and the Devil were thrown into it, and suffered continually. But it is only assumed, not stated, that people will suffer continually.

For humans, the Lake event was called the second death. We could possibly assume that is a quick and final event. The first death for the body, the second for the soul.

That doesn't make it a pleasant conclusion, but at least it's easier to latch on to while we wait for the whole story.

The Jews of the Old Testament believed that souls rested below the ground. (Search "Abraham's Bosom" and levels of "Sheol.")

Even Jesus spoke of this location, in his parable about the poor man Lazarus and the rich miserly man. In the story, Abraham was present and able to communicate with other souls. Luke 16:20+

Sheol
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=sheol&section=0&translation=lit&oq=lazarus&new=1&sr=1
http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=7585

Commentary on Sheol
http://www.studylight.org/dic/hbd/view.cgi?number=T5741


Later Jesus said to the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in Paradise." Some believe that Jesus' atonement for sins released the dead from the limbo of Sheol, and started the ascent of the dead to heaven. I can't give you enough documentation for this, except a smattering of near-death experiences in contrast to pre-NT beliefs.

If you follow stories of near-death experiences, many of them speak of a river which one can choose to cross. In Within Heaven's Gates, Rebecca Springer speaks of a comfortable area like a residential suburb, where people can stay without moving on. Springer was urged to cross through the river to the side where God offered fullness of life. (Using other terms... I don't have the book at hand.)

The New Testament speaks of a few pathways toward salvation, so when we say "you must..." we're getting more legalistic about it than Jesus did. All of them require faith.


1. Baptism -- Mark 16:16 (in addition to believing)

2. Born Again --John 3:7 (ditto...used as illustration)

3. Repentance (with belief)
Mark 1:15

3. Faith and belief--
John 3:18
Ac 16:31
Ac 15:11 (in grace)
The criminal on the cross defended Jesus ' innnocence, and asked Jesus to remember him. Jesus declared the man's salvation publicly.
Luke 23:43


Abraham's faith was reckoned to him as righteousness. This was repeated in Romans 4, Galatians 3:8, and mentioned in Hebrews 11:8.


Galatians 3:8-14
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, declared the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the Gentiles shall be blessed in you.
14 ...in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


​

 

[BridgeBuilder]

As advised by more than one evangelical Christian, I took a look at "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel.

I didn't read all of "Mere Christianity" yet, just kind of skimmed through it because it is a pretty intense book, but I couldn't find anything much about hell. So then I googled C.S. Lewis and "hell" and discovered that he believed in purgatory and praying for the dead (apparently, if one can believe what you read on the internet), so maybe that's why he doesn't talk much about the nature of hell. Lee does quote C.S. Lewis at some point as saying that hell is one of the main reasons people think the Christian God is "barbaric". So I really wonder what C.S. Lewis REALLY thought about the nature of hell. If anyone else out there knows, that would be interesting to hear.

What I am seeking here is a defense of hell as a place of eternal torture, as many evangelicals on this forum and another have been claiming it to be.

Lee Strobel's books are fascinating. I will paraphrase/summarize so I don't quote copyrighted material here. Lee does appear to believe the Bible is the "Word of God", yet he doesn't support the "fiery" version of hell. Lee's approach is to interview "an expert" on the subject, a renowned conservative theologian. According to Lee's book, hell is NOT a place of torture. That is a misconception. It is a place of separation from God. It is indeed punishment due to this separation, but it is not a place of torture. Lee's expert claims the flames are just "a figure of speech". He says if you take the flames literally then the Bible contradicts itself because it says hell is a place of complete darkness (so how could there be flames there since they would provide light?). And the "gnashing of teeth" described in the Bible is due to great regret from being separated from God, not a reaction to "torture".

Lee's expert does say hell would not be a "good" place since people would grieve not being able to be with God. However, those people may not want to be in heaven with God anyway, not the God of the Bible. Those people may not want to be with "the kinds of values" that would be in heaven every day. And the people in hell would be those who did not want to submit their will to God, so hell is actually an honoring of the choices of these people. Still, I get the impression that Lee is NOT trying to present hell as an attractive place since people would realize they are missing out on being with God and would regret that ultimately.

Lee's expert also says that the Bible says there are differing degrees of suffering in hell and people will be sentenced according to their deeds. (I find this a little bit contradictory if hell is simply separation from God - how would there then be degrees of punishment there? Doesn't that suggest "torture" of some kind?) But Lee's expert re-emphasizes that hell is not an everlasting place of conscious torture. He says this over and over.

Ah, and FINALLY an answer to MY question in Lee's book, how interesting. As Lee states it, if there are no tears in heaven, it makes no sense that people in heaven wouldn't cry for those in hell. Lee's expert says that people in heaven will know that hell is God's ultimate way of honoring people's choices.

And apparently C.S. Lewis answered my question too because Lee's expert refers to that. C.S. Lewis apparently says somewhere that hell doesn't have "veto power" over heaven (which it would, if people in heaven mourned for the people in hell). According to C.S. Lewis, mature people can still find ways to be happy, while still feeling a sense of sadness for others. (By the way, this doesn't make sense to me - how could you then ever find "ultimate" happiness in heaven? If you were sad for your loved ones? Apparently the happiness in heaven is limited then?)

Anyway, this is what these apologists had to say. Basically, I have yet to find a firm defense of the fiery "eternal torture" version of hell, which in my mind would be contradictory to the existence of a "loving" God.

God Bless You,
BridgeBuilder

 

[Calminian]

Both C. S. Lewis and Strobel believed in Hell, they just don't believe the descriptions to be literal. Actually I don't either. There's a lot of descriptions about heaven I don't believe are literal. But both of these men believed in what the symbolism was communicating. Heaven is wonderful and Hell is horrible. As far as I know, Lewis believed Hell was eternal. If he didn't the Lewis haters would have been all over it. I'm almost positive Strobel does as well. Now they didn't didn't believe in literal fire, but certainly that it was a good descriptive symbol. Some theologians believe that symbolism always falls short of the reality. If that's the case, Hell is horrible beyond comprehension. I don't think many other early images could paint a more terrifying picture. Please don't go there.

You know, BB, in pondering your posts, I don't think apologetics is really your issue. The truth is, you don't like the God of the Bible and won't no matter how much evidence is presented to you. It's really not an issue of evidence with you. It's about emotion. You don't like the fact that He judges and punishes and does so eternally. No evidence is going to break though an emotion like that. I actually think theology might be a better point of focus. I don't know of anyone's asked, but what do you think about the concepts of sin and holiness? Do you believe in sin, evil, etc.? Just curious. Also you haven't really explained why hell would be inconsistent with a loving God? Perhaps you could expand. Do you think any kind of punnishment would be loving? How about 1000 years of torture for Hitler? Would that be consistent with a loving God? Or perhaps hell should only last as long as his sins lasted? Super curious. Looking forward to your thoughts.

 

[heron]

And the "gnashing of teeth" described in the Bible is due to great regret from being separated from God, not a reaction to "torture".

I agree-- weeping is obvious, and gnashing of teeth is usually what we do when we say "darn." Or something similar related to regret.

Ah, and FINALLY an answer to MY question in Lee's book, how interesting. As Lee states it, if there are no tears in heaven, it makes no sense that people in heaven wouldn't cry for those in hell. Lee's expert says that people in heaven will know that hell is God's ultimate way of honoring people's choices.

I suspect that both of us feel this was not qui-i-i-ite adequate, but close. I agree with you, that we aren't going to be content knowing that our loved ones have suffered or will continue to suffer. And brainwashing/lobotomy is definitely not part of God's written plan.

All I can say is that I don't know how this will play out. But I'm careful not to rewrite scripture... just keep exploring it to see if I interpreted it wrong.

There was an interesting CF discussion on Hell a year ago, where someone posted a near-death experience of a suicide victim. While I believe NDE's can be a dream state, many of them have similarities. This one in particular wrenched my inner being -- a grey room full of people walking back and forth, cycling the same regrets and despair in their head, making no effort to get out.

I haven't found it, but just ran across a site with over 250 NDE's:
http://www.aleroy.com/board255.htm (a similar story).​

 

[heron]

God doesn't leave the salvation of souls up to men.

Here's an example. A friend from icy northern territories told me that before Christianity was known in their area, angels visited his town to tell them of newcomers that would bring good news, and to welcome them. God communicated with his people before the missionaries came. I have heard other similar stories from various regions. It's not about bringing religion, but connecting with God.

 

[heron]

About blasphemy -- remember that most of the Old Testament warnings that frighten people, are calls to repentance. They come with a chance to change.

 

[heron]

(children are exempt)

Please note that most Christians do not subscribe to this belief. God knows our hearts.

He knows what we're capable of, whether we're too young to understand, or autistic or medicinally suicidal, or we don't speak a language that the Bible has been translated into. He holds us responsible for what we have been given.

Lu 12:48From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
It's hard to understand why God would entrust so much to us, but that's the way He has chosen to involve people. We are given a charge to pray for each other (which would imply God acting on prayer), power to heal, authority over evil spirits, insight to comfort others. God has entrusted us to teach information that could so easily be misinterpreted or lost.

But while we're dispensing information and assistance, we know that we can't change people. The decision takes place in the heart, a spot that we can only try to reach.

We watch the Holy Spirit bring different people and situations in to help people in crisis, and speak to the person directly. It's rarely one person or event that enacts the change. We don't save people... we just bring information and encouragement. (Hopefully!!)


1 Corinthians 4:1-8
So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God...

My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me...

Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? ...

Already you have all you want! Already you have become rich! You have become kings—and that without us!
​

 

[Calminian]

Please note that most Christians do not subscribe to this belief. God knows our hearts.​

I disagree. Most christians believe children are exempt from damnation. Really doesn’t matter because the Bible is clear. Children, before the age of accountability, are covered. Please tell me you don’t believe otherwise.​

 

[Ibsaintly1]

First of all start off by studying the Bible in light of what you already believe. Predetermined belief from a seminary or favorite denomination or teacher will greatly help your confusion. There are a thousand denominations and seminaries all teaching differing interpretations of various doctrines of the bible-each one is sure they are right!

Better yet, try the new teaching on the block from a Christian Celebrity such as Kenneth Copeland or Pat Robertson. Take your pick. They are all 100%sure they are right and yet all teach different interpretations of the same scriptures.

Then try reconciling God as Love with God the creator of the Eternal Bake Oven for sinners (and some Christians as well). Did the God of Love really create the worst torture in the history of life for his kids who mess up?

Then make "saved" and "salvation" to mean "saved from the hell of eternal torture" instead of "whole, deliver, preserve, heal".

Also confuse the Kingdom of Heaven with Heaven itself (it's harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel....). They are not the same.

There are many other ways all of which most Christians are involved in.

Thank God He is so much wiser, smarter and Loving than us.

 

[heron]

I don't believe children get saved at young ages. The enlightenment of God (John 1:9, Titus 2:11) is something that I believe only comes upon adults. I don't believe children are condemnable until they reach an age of accountability. In order to end up in Hell, one must commit the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Children cannot do this as they've not been given a true choice yet.

I have known children who asked to make the decision at a very young age. There are also children who hear from God and angels. From your earlier post, it sounds as though you include all of childhood. What do you consider the age of accountability?

 

[Letalis]

I think this thread has run its course. This isn't a debate forum.

Thread closed.

​