The doctrine of hell

[Sammy-San]

I personally believe that the unsaved will be tormented by being in the presence of God because while unable (willing or not, I'm a bit unsure as to which is true) accept God's love, thus being in communion and fellowship with him. In other words, the saved and unsaved are in the presence of God; to the righteous, it is comfort, to the wicked, agony.This ultimate rejection of being image of God will result in them become less and less human to the point they ultimately destroy themselves.


Probably the best videos on Hell I've ever seen

The enemy doesn't love God.

 

[SnowyMacie]

The enemy doesn't love God.

Um, how exactly does that relate to what I said?

 

[Sammy-San]

Um, how exactly does that relate to what I said?

You said the torment would be caused by being in God's presence.

 

[JackRT]

The enemy doesn't love God.

I have met the enemy and he is we.

 

[SnowyMacie]

You said the torment would be caused by being in God's presence.

Yes, it will be torment to the unsaved.

 

[Sammy-San]

Yes, it will be torment to the unsaved.

Even to the devil? He's jealous of God.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Even to the devil? He's jealous of God.

When Heaven and Earth become one again, the devil will be tormented. That's what is described at the end of Revelation.

 

[Sammy-San]

When Heaven and Earth become one again, the devil will be tormented. That's what is described at the end of Revelation.

What does that have to do with what I said?

 

[SnowyMacie]

What does that have to do with what I said?

You said that the devil is jealous of God, I took that to mean that you think that him being in the presence of God isn't torment to him.

 

[super animator]

I find the notation of hell to be barbaric and unjustified. Do I believe it? No. No amount of crimes commited on earth justified enternal torture.

 

[expos4ever]

Because you are superimposing your human conception of "love" onto God.

What other option is there? To imagine that "love" includes torturing people for eternity for no imaginable purpose?

 

[anonymous person]

What other option is there? To imagine that "love" includes torturing people for eternity for no imaginable purpose?

The Bible tells us what the purpose of hell is. So unless you want to just dispense with the bible, you cannot say that it serves no purpose.

Hell, among other things, was prepared for the devil and the fallen angels.

 

[anonymous person]

I find the notation of hell to be barbaric and unjustified. Do I believe it? No. No amount of crimes commited on earth justified enternal torture.

What if these crimes have eternal ramifications?

What if the people that are in hell are there because they reject heaven and choose to be there?

We have a word for people who choose to be punished and who choose to have pain inflicted upon them. It's masochism.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Because you are superimposing your human conception of "love" onto God.

Thing is we define love how love is defined in human standards. It's the only way we can define love. If God's definition of love is different from our definition of love, then we should change the definition of love from "showing compassion, empathy, and caring" to "caring to an extent until a line is crossed and then inflicting torture". No one would ever say "I love you" to someone then if we take everything from the Bible into account, especially hell, and say "That's how we should define love".

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Let us discuss.

Lake of fire, deep darkness and separation from God...all eternal as described by Jesus.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Thing is we define love how love is defined in human standards. It's the only way we can define love. If God's definition of love is different from our definition of love, then we should change the definition of love from "showing compassion, empathy, and caring" to "caring to an extent until a line is crossed and then inflicting torture". No one would ever say "I love you" to someone then if we take everything from the Bible into account, especially hell, and say "That's how we should define love".

Thank you for being sane.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Thing is we define love how love is defined in human standards. It's the only way we can define love. If God's definition of love is different from our definition of love, then we should change the definition of love from "showing compassion, empathy, and caring" to "caring to an extent until a line is crossed and then inflicting torture". No one would ever say "I love you" to someone then if we take everything from the Bible into account, especially hell, and say "That's how we should define love".

This is why I think the best explanation of Hell is that Hell is what happens when humans completely, deeply, reject God's love. C.S. Lewis said that the gates of Hell are locked from the inside. It is not so much that God sends people to Hell, but that we send ourselves there. If you watch the videos that I posted, they're both saying this, just in different wording.

 

[John Hyperspace]

Not only does the concept of "hell torture forever" have zero support in the bible (except one possible supporting verse in an apocalyptic book filled with symbolism which has to be translated a specific way); but I would propose that people that believe in the concept can't actually know love (and hence, can't actually know God since someone who doesn't know love doesn't know God: 1 John 4:8).

Not only being without any support, the very doctrine runs contrary to love itself. There is no way that a person can actually love others, yet be happy in a "heaven" where virtually every other person they "claim" to "love" is in endless suffering. This shows that the person claiming "love" is actually loveless, since love and empathy go hand in hand. It also shows that the person is not only loveless, but completely self-centered since the "so-called good news" is in fact only "good" because it is "good for them" even thought it's not for most others whom they claim to "love". Thus, they only care about themselves, and not really anyone else. If they did care about others, then the doctrine that "virtually everyone will suffer forever" would not be good news at all.

But to me, the worst part of the doctrine is the massive damage it does to the reputation of God. And they don't even care that they are very likely doing critical damage to the reputation of God with this terrible doctrine. They maintain it with enthusiasm, and toss it around as though they can't possibly be misunderstanding scripture, and causing massive injury to the name of God before men. You would think that a person that actually loved God, and cared about not injuring the character of God before men, would be more cautious about bandying about such a potentially devastating doctrine with such cavalier flippancy. But, no. I'm beginning to wonder if God has designed things so that something is clearly being manifested before us.

Then that solidifies my choice NOT to have kids.

That's actually a good point. I never thought about how unloving a person who believes in hell actually is, if they have children. To gamble the life of someone in such a way? It's unimaginably selfish and cruel. How does anyone who has had children, and believes in "hell" possibly justify their gambling with the soul of a child? Now that I think about it, how is this not a crime? How are they not in prison? How is this really any different than forcing their children to tightrope walk over a pit of acid?

But, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I'm concluding that no one actually believes the doctrine at all, and they're just repeating it in the same fashion as a parrot, while not fully aware of what belief such a doctrine really means in relation to their own character. They've been tricked into saying something terrible, that they don't fully comprehend, and actually would never believe if they could comprehend what they are actually saying.

 

[Rubiks]

the eternality of hell reflects one's eternal rejection of God.

 

[anonymous person]

Not only does the concept of "hell torture forever" have zero support in the bible (except one possible supporting verse in an apocalyptic book filled with symbolism which has to be translated a specific way); but I would propose that people that believe in the concept can't actually know love (and hence, can't actually know God since someone who doesn't know love doesn't know God: 1 John 4:8).

Not only being without any support, the very doctrine runs contrary to love itself. There is no way that a person can actually love others, yet be happy in a "heaven" where virtually every other person they "claim" to "love" is in endless suffering. This shows that the person claiming "love" is actually loveless, since love and empathy go hand in hand. It also shows that the person is not only loveless, but completely self-centered since the "so-called good news" is in fact only "good" because it is "good for them" even thought it's not for most others whom they claim to "love". Thus, they only care about themselves, and not really anyone else. If they did care about others, then the doctrine that "virtually everyone will suffer forever" would not be good news at all.

But to me, the worst part of the doctrine is the massive damage it does to the reputation of God. And they don't even care that they are very likely doing critical damage to the reputation of God with this terrible doctrine. They maintain it with enthusiasm, and toss it around as though they can't possibly be misunderstanding scripture, and causing massive injury to the name of God before men. You would think that a person that actually loved God, and cared about not injuring the character of God before men, would be more cautious about bandying about such a potentially devastating doctrine with such cavalier flippancy. But, no. I'm beginning to wonder if God has designed things so that something is clearly being manifested before us.



That's actually a good point. I never thought about how unloving a person who believes in hell actually is, if they have children. To gamble the life of someone in such a way? It's unimaginably selfish and cruel. How does anyone who has had children, and believes in "hell" possibly justify their gambling with the soul of a child? Now that I think about it, how is this not a crime? How are they not in prison? How is this really any different than forcing their children to tightrope walk over a pit of acid?

But, I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. I'm concluding that no one actually believes the doctrine at all, and they're just repeating it in the same fashion as a parrot, while not fully aware of what belief such a doctrine really means in relation to their own character. They've been tricked into saying something terrible, that they don't fully comprehend, and actually would never believe if they could comprehend what they are actually saying.

It seems to me that if God is love as the bible declares and which I am sure you would agree, and that if human beings are culpable moral agents, as the bible declares and which I am sure you agree with, then hell is necessary.