Questions about Jesus and hell

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[fatboys]

Someone please explain why unbelievers must endure eternal hellfire.

My understanding is that Jesus took our place. Doesn't that mean our punishment should just be a crucifixion? Or perhaps 36 hours of hell if you believe Jesus went there while he was dead? Or perhaps a longer finite stay in hell? But how could Jesus have paid our punishment if he didn't endure it?

And this still doesn't explain why his one payment has some sort of multiplier effect to atone for billions of Christians. If the answer is that God can just do whatever he wants, why not just forgive us without torturing himself/his son?

If you don't believe that Jesus took our place but rather bore our sins, then why does hell even need to exist? Also, if Jesus bore our sins, why was he not punished? Wouldn't he be responsible for our sins if he bears our sins?

Or do you not believe in hell? If so, why are you a Christian and why should I care about any of this? If there is no hell aren't you better off hedging your bet and appeasing some other angry deity? If you believe Christianity because it's simply true, why haven't I seen your evidence or good arguments? If you have neither, why believe? Faith? What proposition couldn't be justified by faith? How, then, is faith something that leads to truth?

I believe in a kind and loving God. Hell is coming face to face with the person you could have been and then habits no to spend eternity with it in a place much like we live on today. Those who beleive will receive a higher place to live

 

[Paul Yohannan]

Someone please explain why unbelievers must endure eternal hellfire.

My understanding is that Jesus took our place. Doesn't that mean our punishment should just be a crucifixion? Or perhaps 36 hours of hell if you believe Jesus went there while he was dead? Or perhaps a longer finite stay in hell? But how could Jesus have paid our punishment if he didn't endure it?

This argument has been used both by universalists and by those who believe in an inclusive soteriology. So there are Patristic voices you could look to (Origen, St. Gregory of Nyassa, St. Isaac the Syrian, Mar Solomon of the Assyrian church, etc.) who might support a view that addresses your concerns.

 

[bcbsr]

Someone please explain why unbelievers must endure eternal hellfire.

My understanding is that Jesus took our place. Doesn't that mean our punishment should just be a crucifixion? Or perhaps 36 hours of hell if you believe Jesus went there while he was dead? Or perhaps a longer finite stay in hell? But how could Jesus have paid our punishment if he didn't endure it?

And this still doesn't explain why his one payment has some sort of multiplier effect to atone for billions of Christians. If the answer is that God can just do whatever he wants, why not just forgive us without torturing himself/his son?

If you don't believe that Jesus took our place but rather bore our sins, then why does hell even need to exist? Also, if Jesus bore our sins, why was he not punished? Wouldn't he be responsible for our sins if he bears our sins?

Or do you not believe in hell? If so, why are you a Christian and why should I care about any of this? If there is no hell aren't you better off hedging your bet and appeasing some other angry deity? If you believe Christianity because it's simply true, why haven't I seen your evidence or good arguments? If you have neither, why believe? Faith? What proposition couldn't be justified by faith? How, then, is faith something that leads to truth?

First of all, the payment for sin is not trivial.

"No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him— the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough—" Ps 49:7,8

Only the Son of God could pay the price. It was because of who he was that the value of his sacrificed outweighed the sins of the world.

As for the eternal nature of hell I think what happens is that the sins in this life don't need an eternity to recompense. But the problem is that people still sin in hell. (Even those born of God sin from time to time, let alone those who are still dead in their sins) So it becomes an unending cycle of sin and recompense, like a man rolling a stone up a hill only for it ito roll down again and he has to go endlessly through the cycle.

That kind of resolves the issue in my mind.

 

[timbo3]

It did not say that his ability to think ends. It is saying to those on earth not to trust someone for help whose breath will someday go away - and then the thoughts he had will perish, as in his on earth thoughts end.

When David found out that his young son had died, he said that he could not return to him, but he would go his son.

Jacob thought Joseph had been devoured by a beast and yet said that he would go to him.

Genesis 37:33 And he knew it, and said, [It is] my son's coat; an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces.

Genesis 37:35 And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him

God speaking to Abraham
2 Kings 22:20 Behold therefore, I will gather thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt be gathered into thy grave in peace; and thine eyes shall not see all the evil which I will bring upon this place. And they brought the king word again.

God didn't say that Abraham would not see after he was dead.
He told him that he would not see the evil that was to come -in an on the earth location.
How would He gather Abraham to his fathers when Abraham was from Chaldea?

Psalms 146:4 establishes that when a person dies, his thoughts end, his mental faculties cease, all sensory inputs have ended, so that he or she cannot feel any pain, for they are dead. Ecclesiastes 9 verifies this by saying: "For the living know (Hebrew yada that means "are conscious") that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more of a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten".(Ecc 9:5, King James Bible)

Psalms 88 says: "O Jehovah, the God of my salvation.......Can those powerless in death rise up to praise you ?"(Ps 88:1, 10) Psalms 115 says: "The dead do not praise Jah; nor do any who go down into the silence of death".(Ps 115:17) At Psalms 31, David said: "O Jehovah, may I not be put to shame when I call on you (while alive). May the wicked be put to shame; May they be silenced in the Grave".(Ps 31:17) A person who is silenced cannot utter any words, for in the Grave, "the dead know not anything".

Isaiah 38 says: "For the Grave cannot glorify you, death cannot praise you. Those who go down into the pit (of death) cannot hope for your faithfulness".(Isa 38:18) Jesus said of his friend Lazarus: "Lazarus our friend has fallen asleep, but I am traveling there to awaken him".(John 11:11) Hence, when Lazarus died, Jesus likened his death to being asleep, not feeling anything, not aware of anything happening around him.

And had Lazarus been "alive" (instead of dead as the Bible establishes) as you seem to suggest, would he not have spoken of what he "saw" ? But Lazarus was blank on what happened during his four days in the Grave or Hades, because "the dead know nothing at all".(Ecc 9:5)

Thus, the need for a resurrection (Greek anastasis meaning "to raise or stand up again") from the dead.(John 5:28, 29) Otherwise, a person who is in the Grave would remain in "silence" forever.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The stumbling block is not that you aren't forgiven.

Forgiven for what, exactly?

Being born?
Sounds like it...

God never undoes something he did, because everything he does is as good as it could possibly be already.

Then why does the bible read as a history of failure after failure after failure on his behalf?

Taken literally the Noah flood is like literally "resetting" the world.

Even the entire Jesus "sacrifice" serves as a loophole because this creation of this God ended up being so messed up that every human was doomed to eternal suffering because of the rules that this God himself set up.

Having our sins paid for made it morally possible for God to save us

Save us from himself that is....
It IS God that sends "souls" to hell, isn't it?
Hell IS a creation of this God, isn't it?

Anything tainted with sin can't be cleansed

I guess that puts the "god is all-powerfull" statement in perspective, doesn't it?

God is the executor of justice, but he is not the reason for that justice. It is terribly incorrect to view God as an judge who wants to punish evil people forever.

That makes no sense.
According to the mythology, God created both heaven and hell.
He then created the rules by which souls are to be judged.

This means that this God is completely responsible for the entire system of rewards and punishments.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[Greg J.]

The stumbling block is not that you aren't forgiven.

Forgiven for what, exactly?

For doing evil according to your own moral standard, some of which we have as a part of human nature. (Romans 2:12-15)

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[razzelflabben]

Someone please explain why unbelievers must endure eternal hellfire.

My understanding is that Jesus took our place. Doesn't that mean our punishment should just be a crucifixion? Or perhaps 36 hours of hell if you believe Jesus went there while he was dead? Or perhaps a longer finite stay in hell? But how could Jesus have paid our punishment if he didn't endure it?

And this still doesn't explain why his one payment has some sort of multiplier effect to atone for billions of Christians. If the answer is that God can just do whatever he wants, why not just forgive us without torturing himself/his son?

If you don't believe that Jesus took our place but rather bore our sins, then why does hell even need to exist? Also, if Jesus bore our sins, why was he not punished? Wouldn't he be responsible for our sins if he bears our sins?

Or do you not believe in hell? If so, why are you a Christian and why should I care about any of this? If there is no hell aren't you better off hedging your bet and appeasing some other angry deity? If you believe Christianity because it's simply true, why haven't I seen your evidence or good arguments? If you have neither, why believe? Faith? What proposition couldn't be justified by faith? How, then, is faith something that leads to truth?

so many questions....first, hell or also known as the second death or the spiritual death of a man is NOT the punishment for our sins, it is the Consequence for our sins. IOW's it is what happens when we sin by order of the natural law of things. This death is also known as eternal separation from God. Now, in Rev. we see that both death and hades are thrown into the lake of fire...this is where the understanding of hell as you talk about it here comes from. Hell was according to scripture created for Satan and his demons but will also be used for the unbeliever once death and hades are thrown therein. Why are they thrown in? We don't really know. What we do know is that God says He will throw them in it and that it is a fire that never is quenched and those there are tormented day and night.

so not sure how to answer your questions in that you didn't give the biblical option to go from.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

For doing evil according to your own moral standard, some of which we have as a part of human nature. (Romans 2:12-15)

Please clarify.

1. Do you just assume that I do evil?
2. Or are you saying that because I am human, that I can't help BUT to do evil? Is that what you mean by it being "part of my nature"? Something like "breathing" for example, if breathing were evil? I mean, I HAVE to breath. I can't help but breath. If I stop breathing, I die.

If it is 1, then belief in a specific religion is not required for "salvation" - only not doing any evil is. And it would also be quite...what's-the-word...of you to just assume that I engage in doing evil as you know nothing about me.

If it is 2, then I can only wonder what there is to forgive. Especially considering the context here... In this context, the "judge" who does to forgiving, is also the one who created humans, including their own human nature.

That infamous statement of AaronRa, if I remember correctly, comes to mind: Created sick and commanded to be well.

So if it is 2, it seems to me that it should be turned around... God would have to be asking us for forgiveness for creating humans that have no other choice but to be evil. It would also extremely put into question this god's ethics and moral compass.

If there is some obscure option 3 that I haven't thought off, do share.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

your sins - transgressions

What sins and transgressions?

/Take a look at what happens to those type of men on the new earth.
they will be - abhorred

Is that it? I should act a certain way out of fear of punishment for doing otherwise? The reason I should not run around raping people is ... because I would go to jail? There isn't another, better, reason for not running around raping people?

You know, when I teach my son how to act properly, morally and ethicly... I'm not telling him "you shouldn't fight at school because you will get expelled".

Instead, I'm explaining to him how it's not nice to do so, why it is not okay to hurt other people. When it comes to teaching/educating/developing a moral compass, potential punishment is secondary.

Moral values aren't established based on fear of punishment.

But with Jesus Christ, we by His precious blood that He shed for us -believe on Him for everlasting life - and our sins have been blotted out.

To me, that is total moral bankrupcy.
I don't see how punishing a scapegoat covers guilt of immoral behaviour in any way.

And it also still isn't clear to me what immoral behaviour we are talking about either.
It actually seems to be that this isn't a question of behaviour or moral responsability at all.

Rather, it just sounds like a major non-sensical guilt trip.
It smells like snake-oil.

First, the religion says that you are "sick" by nature.
Then, it conveniently provides the only cure. And the source of the cure, ironically, is the very same source that made you sick in the first place. And somehow and for some reason, you are even supposed to feel guilty about it.
Worse even, if you don't buy into that convenient "cure", you even get punished for it.

It reads like a really bad cult movie.

A person either dies in their sins or dies in Christ.

If you say so.

 

[Greg J.]

Please clarify.

1. Do you just assume that I do evil?
2. Or are you saying that because I am human, that I can't help BUT to do evil? Is that what you mean by it being "part of my nature"? Something like "breathing" for example, if breathing were evil? I mean, I HAVE to breath. I can't help but breath. If I stop breathing, I die.

If it is 1, then belief in a specific religion is not required for "salvation" - only not doing any evil is. And it would also be quite...what's-the-word...of you to just assume that I engage in doing evil as you know nothing about me.

If it is 2, then I can only wonder what there is to forgive. Especially considering the context here... In this context, the "judge" who does to forgiving, is also the one who created humans, including their own human nature.

That infamous statement of AaronRa, if I remember correctly, comes to mind: Created sick and commanded to be well.

So if it is 2, it seems to me that it should be turned around... God would have to be asking us for forgiveness for creating humans that have no other choice but to be evil. It would also extremely put into question this god's ethics and moral compass.

If there is some obscure option 3 that I haven't thought off, do share.

God's nature defines what is good. He has rightful authority over everyone because everything was created by him in one sense or another.

People are able to choose to align themselves with what is good as best they can or to reject doing that. It's their choice. Choosing to obey God is a symptom of genuinely accepting that God is their god. Failing to do so only happens when one doesn't accept, or doesn't want to accept, that God has legitimate authority over them. When one rejects God, he rejects all the rights he would have from God for which God would be the source of legitimate authority. One of the rights that God grants under certain conditions is forgiveness, eternal life, and joy.

While God is the source of all life and nothing functions without his effort, the free will of humans and the effects of that are also present in our nature. Our nature comes from our parent's nature. Some people don't like the fact that they were not responsible for their parent's nature, but remain accountable for it, however, their talk is cheap. Their sinful actions speak a stronger word that they agree that sinful behavior is OK with them. If they believe they have not sinned, then they are calling God a liar (a sin), because God said everyone has sinned from his perspective.

The original human nature was inherited from God, before it became corrupt, and everyone today has inherited some of God's nature as well as their parent's nature. One of the facets of a (mentally healthy) individual's nature reflect the truth that murder is immoral. It is immoral to destroy the work of God (e.g., his choice to sustain the victim's life), because he is the owner (e.g., as creator). Those that choose to murder speak a loud word that murder is OK with them. As a result they can be killed without it being against their revealed morality. A murderer loses his claim of having a "right" to life (if he ever had one). Even if another person would be guilty in God's eyes of murder by killing the murderer, it would not be a violation against the murderer.

The same thing applies to any sin, because while we see various immoral acts as being different, they are all aspects of a single thing (evil). So, any immoral act results in the consequence of doing evil. Unfortunately, evil has qualities that people are generally not aware of, such as: it blinds to the truth, it imparts a self-destructive nature, transforms the moral actor permanently into "tainted with evil," and changes his nature so that his children will inherit that tainted nature as a part of their nature.

I'm not very good at converting spiritual truths into philosophy, so I probably won't continue to answer this way. The truth expressed from a spiritual perspective is available to anyone that will believe it.

 

[vinsight4u]

/nvm

 

[rjs330]

What sins and transgressions?



Is that it? I should act a certain way out of fear of punishment for doing otherwise? The reason I should not run around raping people is ... because I would go to jail? There isn't another, better, reason for not running around raping people?

You know, when I teach my son how to act properly, morally and ethicly... I'm not telling him "you shouldn't fight at school because you will get expelled".

Instead, I'm explaining to him how it's not nice to do so, why it is not okay to hurt other people. When it comes to teaching/educating/developing a moral compass, potential punishment is secondary.

Moral values aren't established based on fear of punishment.



To me, that is total moral bankrupcy.
I don't see how punishing a scapegoat covers guilt of immoral behaviour in any way.

And it also still isn't clear to me what immoral behaviour we are talking about either.
It actually seems to be that this isn't a question of behaviour or moral responsability at all.

Rather, it just sounds like a major non-sensical guilt trip.
It smells like snake-oil.

First, the religion says that you are "sick" by nature.
Then, it conveniently provides the only cure. And the source of the cure, ironically, is the very same source that made you sick in the first place. And somehow and for some reason, you are even supposed to feel guilty about it.
Worse even, if you don't buy into that convenient "cure", you even get punished for it.

It reads like a really bad cult movie.



If you say so.

That's OK you don't have to believe. But you also don't get to pick the consequences either for your unbelief. It's like a thief going to court and then getting to choose what happens to him. A thief doesn't get to tell the judge, hey I'm not a thief. Therefore nothing should happen to me despite the fact the judge has video of him stealing. The thief doesn't get to say, well I think your law is wrong therefore I'm not bound by your law. Doesn't work.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's OK you don't have to believe. But you also don't get to pick the consequences either for your unbelief.

I'm not "picking". If anything, I'm merely questioning the moral undertone of "punishing" people for being rational.

It's like a thief going to court and then getting to choose what happens to him.

No. A thief actually engaged in an immoral act: stealing (I'll let it slide for now that even that isn't as black and white as theistic "morality" tends to present it - sometimes stealing might be the moral thing to do)

I don't see how "not being convinced of bare fantastical claims" has any moral implications.

A thief doesn't get to tell the judge, hey I'm not a thief. Therefore nothing should happen to me despite the fact the judge has video of him stealing. The thief doesn't get to say, well I think your law is wrong therefore I'm not bound by your law. Doesn't work.

As said above, this analogy is not appropriate.
Not being convinced of something is not within your control. So how can it have any moral implications? How can you be held responsible for things that are out of your control?

I don't "choose" what convinces me and what doesn't. Neither do you. Belief is a compulsion, based on trust, reason, rational evidence and stuff.

I could "pretend" to believe a certain claim, but I can't "force" myself to actually believe a certain claim. If I remain unconvinced, then I remain unconvinced. I can't help that.

A thief, on the other hand, gets to choose wheter or not he sets out to go stealing. So holding somebody responsible for their beliefs, is rather like punishing someone for having a certain skin color...

 

[razzelflabben]

I'm not "picking". If anything, I'm merely questioning the moral undertone of "punishing" people for being rational.



No. A thief actually engaged in an immoral act: stealing (I'll let it slide for now that even that isn't as black and white as theistic "morality" tends to present it - sometimes stealing might be the moral thing to do)

I don't see how "not being convinced of bare fantastical claims" has any moral implications.



As said above, this analogy is not appropriate.
Not being convinced of something is not within your control. So how can it have any moral implications? How can you be held responsible for things that are out of your control?

I don't "choose" what convinces me and what doesn't. Neither do you. Belief is a compulsion, based on trust, reason, rational evidence and stuff.

I could "pretend" to believe a certain claim, but I can't "force" myself to actually believe a certain claim. If I remain unconvinced, then I remain unconvinced. I can't help that.

A thief, on the other hand, gets to choose wheter or not he sets out to go stealing. So holding somebody responsible for their beliefs, is rather like punishing someone for having a certain skin color...

except that belief unto salvation is a belief of the heart not the mind as such it is something you can choose to do or choose not to do.