Skeptical about hell

[SnowyMacie]

I’ve been part of a very long argument in Controversial Theology about this. It’s gotten too ugly to be useful. But as a result I’ve looked at a number of the key passages. For me as a liberal Christian, Jesus’ own teachings are the standard. But even Jesus seems to spoken in different ways:

* In several passages he talks about judgement in terms of fire. Several of the more explicit passages seem to imply a fire that destroys.
* the term Gehenna is used (translated hell in NRSV); it is sometimes associated with fire
* another image is the outer darkness, with weeping and gnashing of teeth
* the rich man in Luke 16:19 is being tormented in Hades (note that Hades is not the same thing as Gehenna, and may well be temporary)
* “eternal punishment” is used once, Mat 25:46, and “eternal fire” twice, Mat 18:8 25:41

It is challenging to produce a single description from all of these. Liberal exegesis tends to take typical usage over unusual or extreme usage. (This is the opposite of conservative exegesis, which tends to take the most extreme usage as controlling.) So I’m going to assume that the overall picture is of exclusion and destruction. I think the references to eternal fire can easily be understood using OT example, in which the fire is eternal, but things thrown into it aren’t. I think Luke 16:19 might well have used current Jewish imagery to make a point.

But if we take Jesus’ typical descriptions, I think we have to assume that he intended both being thrown into outer darkness and being burned up by chaff as the same thing. I’d say Jesus didn’t intend to teach a specific literal future for those who are excluded. Could exclusion and destruction reasonably both be reasonable images for the same thing? Sure. I doubt that someone permanently excluded from contact with the source of life is going to have much existence left. Whether they are directly destroyed, as suggested by the fire image, or just fade into nothing, as suggested by the outer darkness, doesn’t seem much of a difference.

Here's N T Wright's speculation, which I think is consistent with both, though perhaps more so with outer darkness.

“I don’t find any of these three traditional options completely satisfactory, but I think a somewhat different form of conditionalism may be the best we can do. We should of course always stress that the question of who shall eventually be saved is up to God and God alone, and that we can never say of anyone for certain, including Hitler and bin Laden, that they have gone so far down the road of wickedness that they are beyond redemption. I take it, however, that there are many who do continue down that road to the bitter end. How can we think wisely and biblically about their fate?”

“The central fact about humans in the Bible is that they bear the image of God (Genesis 1.26-8, etc.). … But they can only be maintained in his image, as genuine humans, by worshipping him; they depend on him for their life and character. The rest of creation, by contrast, is subject to decay and death. If we worship it, or some part of it, instead of the life-giving God, we are invoking death upon ourselves instead of life.

“This opens up a possibility: that a human being who continually and with settled intent worships that which is not God can ultimately cease completely to bear God’s image. Such a creature would become, in other words, ex-human: a creature that once bore the image of God but does so no longer, and can never do so again. Humans do, I believe, possess the freedom (some would say even the ‘right’, but I think that is difficult language at this point) to choose to worship creation rather than the creator. The God who made them and loves them grants them that freedom, even though they may misuse it. The New Testament indicates strongly that there are some, perhaps many, who go that route.”

Wright considers this a type of conditionalism. However I first ran into this by a book by a Catholic author, advocating a traditional view of hell. So the idea of eternal punishment and annihilation may in fact have some room for overlap. I would call what Wright describes destruction or second death.

Suprised by Hope, every Christian should read that book.

 

[hedrick]

Suprised by Hope, every Christian should read that book.

I have. My quotation is from that book.

However I’m not so convinced that references to Gehenna are primarily about the dangers of Romans destroying Israel. I haven’t run into any NT commentary that understands them that way. Since Gehenna was apparently a standard Jewish term for the place of eschatological judgment, it’s reasonable for Jesus to have used it that way.

Consider Mat 5:22. It parallels judgement by the council with Gehenna. This looks like typical Hebrew parallelism, where judgement by the council is parallel with judgement by God. Or Mat 10:20, where someone can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna. I don’t see Jesus saying that the Romans could do that.

Or Mat 18:9 which has Gehenna as an alternative to “life,” which I believe is eternal life.

 

[SarahsKnight]

I don't believe in eternal torment and I'm skeptical about the traditional depiction of hell. I think I'm starting to view Hell that's more like a type of "purgatory" or a place of purification and Penance where humans are purified of their sins and eventually get out and come to the Lord (eventually). Can you be a Christian and believe this?

You absolutely can be a true believer and not adhere to the traditional view of hell as eternal torment. Look around you, Mr. xpower, especially here in the liberal forum section. There's many believers - myself for one - who believe conditional immortality, in that hell is a place of literal, final destruction rather than pointless eternally ongoing suffering in a "new heavens and earth" that is supposed to be perfect according to God's will, thus only believers will truly have immortality from Jesus Christ. And there are some believers who adhere to universal reconciliation, in that those who are unsaved and judged will be "corrected" with a redemptive punishment and eventually brought to God because it is His will that everyone be saved, and God's will shall not be thwarted in any way (supported by verses such as "every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord"): a view that I may disagree with but at the same time highly respect because universalism's adherents I have found to show much better fruit by the Spirit in explaining their position than I have seen adherents to the eternal torment view display. Just search around on the Internet for arguments for and against the traditional view, and you may quickly find that it actually doesn't have very good Scriptural backup at all. After all, just because it is the majority view that has been held by the Church for centuries does not automatically mean that it is the truthful one.

 

[redblue22]

Hell might be a symbol, but whatever it is symbolizing sounds pretty bad.

 

[LloydK]

Actually, hell is good. It's not for punishment. It's for improving our love for everyone, or "purgation" of "sin", sin being bad habits. Hell mean's several things that are somewhat related. It means death, grave, darkness etc. Paul's name was Shaul, which is the same as sheol, which is hell, and means darkness. I think he was dark-complected. If you think about it, you see that pain is useful, because it warns us of damage being done to our bodies or minds. We're often not smart enough to figure out what's causing the damage right away, but eventually we start to understand. It's usually a bad habit of some kind doing the damage.

There is no eternal torture for anyone. Jesus told us the parable of the Lost Sheep to help us see that he will save all of us. By that I mean his example will save us all, as we learn to love everyone, like he did and does. When Jesus said follow me, he meant follow his example. A website I recommend is http://tentmaker.org.
http://tentmaker.org

 

[Abella30]

Actually, hell is good. It's not for punishment. It's for improving our love for everyone, or "purgation" of "sin", sin being bad habits. Hell mean's several things that are somewhat related. It means death, grave, darkness etc. Paul's name was Shaul, which is the same as sheol, which is hell, and means darkness. I think he was dark-complected. If you think about it, you see that pain is useful, because it warns us of damage being done to our bodies or minds. We're often not smart enough to figure out what's causing the damage right away, but eventually we start to understand. It's usually a bad habit of some kind doing the damage

There is no eternal torture for anyone. Jesus told us the parable of the Lost Sheep to help us see that he will save all of us. By that I mean his example will save us all, as we learn to love everyone, like he did and does. When Jesus said follow me, he meant follow his example. A website I recommend is http://tentmaker.org.
http://tentmaker.org

I love the tentmaker website. It allowed me to reconcile the concept of hell with my understanding of the gospel. Until I found it, I had major problems with Christianity.

 

[Si_monfaith]

I guess I'm a heretic as well... I don't believe hell exists, and I believe in universal salvation. Hell is being in the presence of God Whom you don't love. However, I believe everyone in His presence will eventually come to see Him for Who He is, and there will be no suffering. That doesn't jive with most of Christianity, but that's okay with me.

Also, first post! Yay me!

Your 4th line that starts with however is your faith in Jesus as in john 12:32.

 

[Goatee]

Hell, is EXACTLY how Jesus said it is............[/]