What if a loved one ends up in Hell?

[Adoniram]

First of all, this question is primarily directed at Christians who believe that Heaven and Hell exists and their memories of loved ones persist in the afterlife. If you don't believe in one of those ideas, I welcome your comments, but I am most interested in the thoughts of Christians who do believe those ideas.

Heaven is supposed to be a place of bliss. However, with the large number of people who will not gain entrance to Heaven, it is unavoidable that some of its members will have spouses, parents, children and other loved ones who are in Hell. Could you be happy if a loved one ended up in Hell while you were in Heaven?

It's a valid question, but God has provided the answer. The truth is that we will not remember them.

Rev. 21
1 Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away.
4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away.”

Is. 65
17 “ For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind.

Anything that is associated with our former lives here on this earth that might cause pain or sorrow will be wiped from our memories.

 

[Whatthedeuce]

Then what are you capable of imagining? What is the Longest length of time you will sit in a church service before you are ready to go? If it is as you say, and you would gladly sit in a church service for an eternity, as apposed to burning forever, then why don't you sit in services now? How is 2-4 hours aweek too much, but an eternity an acceptable alternative?

I’m capable of imagining infinitely many things. Listing them all would literally take an infinite amount of time, so for practical purposes I will not do it.​

The longest length of time I will sit in a church service before I would be ready to go depends on what my alternatives to the church service are, and whether or not my alternatives are affected by the length of time I spend in the service.​

I don’t sit in church services now because my alternatives are more appealing than being tortured.​

2-4 hours a week is too much right now because I have more appealing alternatives. An eternity in a church service is only an acceptable alternative to 2-4 hours in a church service when the other options are less appealing than a church service.​

Your selective understanding and semi-literal interpretation of what is written has been dually noted.

As has been already established, I am not capable of understanding everything the people on this board tell me; however, my interpretations of what you wrote have not been semi-literal. I have taken everything literally.​

It is true, I did take one of your questions as being a rhetoric question; however, that was a result of the fact that I took the words to be literally true. Because I know that anyone who has been part of society long enough to learn how to operate a computer would almost certainly be familiar with the economic and monetary systems we adhere to, I can be very confident to think that such a person would know that Ferraris are bought with money, not asphalt and/or cobble stone. Since the person already knows this, I do not need to provide an answer to such a question. However, at no point did I abandon a literal interpretation of the things you say.​

You claim to not have Not made a decision about wanting to goto Hell.. Apparently you were lying or Mistaken.

The only things I have specifically claimed to have not made a decision about is whether or not I like Yahweh, and that is because I have never met him.​

Perhaps I have been misleading... let me quote the point I made in post #16 that states my opinoin:​

I want to not spend an eternity being tortured in fire. I would want anything that prevents that from happening.

If Hell, involves being tortured in fire, then my decision about whether or not I want to go there is clear. If Hell is the only alternative to being tortured in fire, then my decision about whether or not I want to go there is also clear. It all depends on what option involves me being tortured in fire for an eternity.​

However, since Hell is currently described as being a place in which people are being tortured in fire, I have decided that I do not want to go to Hell.​

So what if the other option is Very Very Very negative, and you know nothing of it?

Then, that would be Very Very Very unfortunate for me. However, I cannot make any such assumptions about something I have not experienced.​

How does one choose the lessor of two weevils, if he only knows of the one?

Well, anytime anyone makes a choice, it is a subjective decision. However, I have made it very clear, that when I know that one thing is very very bad, and I don’t know if the other is good, neutral, or bad, I pick the unknown one.​

What do you know of Heaven, truly? (Please answer this on in great detail, so we all may diced it.)

This could take quite a long time to answer; I will get back to you.​

How is it you can not imagine an eternity because you have not personally experienced it, but yet you imagine that, Heaven is somehow better than Hell if you refuse a personal relationship with God?

Heaven would be somehow better because in Heaven I am not being tortured in fire. As I have stated earlier, I want anything which prevents that.​

How is it you can power your imagination into action, when it suits the progression of a weak argument, and yet somehow your imagination seems closed to all other illustrations?

The only thing I have stated I am incapable of imagining so far is eternity. Even if your premise was true, and I fail to imagine everything which does not suit the progression a weak argument, one instance of my imagination’s limitations is not sufficient evidence to identify the kind trend you are talking about.​

If you maintained your requirement for literal purity, I would be able to respect your efforts here. As it is.. Deucey!

I don’t require “literal purity”. However, when I am involved in a discussion with a person I do not personally know, am unable to see hand motions, facial expressions, changes in voice tonality, and changes in speed of speech, I assume that everything stated is intended in a literal way unless the author states otherwise. I have been consistent with this expectation. If you thought my reading of one isolated question as being rhetorical was the result of a non-literal interpretation of the words it contained, I have already explained the thought process involved and that I did indeed read it literally.​

If your mind would change one way in an infinite environment, would you not think it could change back? Why would God want to be with a person who loved him for 100 years, and plotted to take over Heaven for the next 10,000, only to have him and his brothers change their minds again?

Well, I can’t claim to know what Yahweh would want under any circumstances. However, in post #10 you told me that he would respect my choices.
​

Now, I am also puzzled. if you thought my post to be off topic then why spend so much time responding to it? You seem somewhat educated, why throw your pearls of wisdom to simple swine? There have been several other posts in other threads i have made that you did not care to respond to.. so why this one, and not the others?

Did I make it too tempting this time? Did all the illustrations and semi rhetorical questions make you think explaining myself would be just too much for me to do?

I responded to your post because in it you asked me direct questions. When I am asked a direct question, my ordinary reaction is to directly respond to it unless I have a good reason not to.​

I never claimed to have “pearls of wisdom” or that the members of this forum are “simple swine”. If you are asking why I am posting on this forum in general, I already explained why in post #24 of this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7474161-3/​

The only posts in the threads I have made on this forum which I have intentionally ignored are the last two made by razeontherock in the thread in which I asked why Christians ask for things when they pray. I have not intentionally ignored any of yours. If I didn’t respond to them it is because I accidentally overlooked them, they did not contain questions, or I was not curious about any of the things they said. If you think that you made other unanswered posts which deserve a response, could you please point them out?​

Yes, you did make it too tempting this time. You asked me direct questions, and direct questions tempt me to answer them. I did not think that you would be unable to explain yourself. We are talking about a subjective topic, and I didn’t have any reason to think that you would make statements you don’t personally support.​

 

[Whatthedeuce]

One thing I must say is that I agree with all atheists out there, that it would be completely disgusting for God to send anyone to hell against their will. No one, and I mean no one, deserves to go to hell (in the sense that God would ever want that; sinners must be separated from God).

I would like to point out that the idea that the concept of Hell is "disgusting" is not fundamental to being an atheist. It is entirely possible for an atheist to have no ethical objections to the concept of Hell.

 

[Whatthedeuce]

razontherock: I have heard the story of the good Samaritan. It seems to be an illustration of the concept that people should love their neighbors.

I'm not sure how it helps determine who a person's loved ones are. Love is a term that is not clearly defined and is often used to mean different things in different contexts. I was under the impression that the definition of the word "love" as people apply it to close family members is different than the definition of the word "love" in the parable of the good Samaritan. Was I wrong?

 

[98cwitr]

Many of my loved ones will not go into heaven and many will...I will be thankful for the ones that do.

 

[drich0150]

I don’t sit in church services now because my alternatives are more appealing than being tortured.​

2-4 hours a week is too much right now because I have more appealing alternatives. An eternity in a church service is only an acceptable alternative to 2-4 hours in a church service when the other options are less appealing than a church service.​

Do you not see as a few hours a week as being a possible start in the prevention what you seem to fear the most??

Then, that would be Very Very Very unfortunate for me. However, I cannot make any such assumptions about something I have not experienced.​

Have you experienced Hell? If not then how can you make those assumptions? Are you not making the same type of assumptions about heaven?

Well, anytime anyone makes a choice, it is a subjective decision. However, I have made it very clear, that when I know that one thing is very very bad, and I don’t know if the other is good, neutral, or bad, I pick the unknown one.

How do you know it to be very very bad? Again have you experienced Hell? If not then may I assume you believe this because the bible told you? (just trying to save some time) If yes, then may I ask why you believe the very Bible that tells you that Hell is a very very Bad place, and yet can not believe what it says to do to keep from going their?

Well, I can’t claim to know what Yahweh would want under any circumstances. However, in post #10 you told me that he would respect my choices.

Given His circumstances, He will indeed respect your choices.

I responded to your post because in it you asked me direct questions. When I am asked a direct question, my ordinary reaction is to directly respond to it unless I have a good reason not to.​

I never claimed to have “pearls of wisdom” or that the members of this forum are “simple swine”. If you are asking why I am posting on this forum in general, I already explained why in post #24 of this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t7474161-3/​

For someone who Prides himself for answering direct questions you've seemed to have avoided this one.

Now, I am also puzzled. if you thought my post to be off topic then why spend so much time responding to it? You seem somewhat educated, why throw your pearls of wisdom to simple swine? There have been several other posts in other threads i have made that you did not care to respond to.. so why this one, and not the others?

This was in direct response to this post:

Regardless of all of this, it puzzles me that you would even make such a post. I stated that I though sending someone to a place like how Hell is described is unethical and abhorrent. The judgment that Hell is unethical and abhorrent is subjective. ​

I was asking if my post was so off topic and irrelevant, why did you spend so much of your time answering it? In reality I do not care why you have posted in general. I was curious as to why you would spend so much time answering an irrelevant post?

Why were you so puzzled?

If you think that you made other unanswered posts which deserve a response, could you please point them out?

In truth I don't feel a need to have a response to anything I've written to you. i was point out that you seem to take on certain posts and ignore others. I was probing to see if a simply written post would warrant your attention.

​

 

[Whatthedeuce]

I was asking if my post was so off topic and irrelevant, why did you spend so much of your time answering it? In reality I do not care why you have posted in general. I was curious as to why you would spend so much time answering an irrelevant post?
​

​

I realize that you were asking that, and I did answer you. J will quote the answer I provided in post#22:

I responded to your post because in it you asked me direct questions.

 

[drich0150]

[/left]
[/left]
I realize that you were asking that, and I did answer you. J will quote the answer I provided in post#22:

If that is all you have to say in the face of all the other questions that have been left unanswered then, I guess that's good enough.

I look forward to your next question.

 

[Hentenza]

First of all, this question is primarily directed at Christians who believe that Heaven and Hell exists and their memories of loved ones persist in the afterlife. If you don't believe in one of those ideas, I welcome your comments, but I am most interested in the thoughts of Christians who do believe those ideas.

Heaven is supposed to be a place of bliss. However, with the large number of people who will not gain entrance to Heaven, it is unavoidable that some of its members will have spouses, parents, children and other loved ones who are in Hell. Could you be happy if a loved one ended up in Hell while you were in Heaven?

I have and will have loved ones in hell. They put themselves there. I still love them and feel sorrow for them but ultimately, it is their decision.

 

[Criada]

I have to accept that God loves my loved ones infinitely more than I do, and if I don't want to see them in hell, then He certainly doesn't, and He has done all that is needed to prevent that.
If I knew that my loved ones were in the popular conception of hell, then I would sooner join them than go to heaven and leave them to suffer alone.
Fortunately, I do not think that is a choice that I will have to make.

 

[Emmy]

Dear Whatthedeuce. Hell is a place without God`s Love and light, and only Satan and his followers will live there. For myself, I pray and keep bringing all my loved ones constantly to God in prayer. To imagine that one of my children or grandchildren should choose to be without God`s Love or Light for eternity, seems unbelievable. Who would choose to end up in a place of Outer Darkness, where there can be heard loud wailing and gnashing of teeth?? They must be the poor mistaken souls, who listened to the wrong advice and realise too late what their stubbornness has brought on them. I say this with love and blessed assurance. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[brinny]

First of all, this question is primarily directed at Christians who believe that Heaven and Hell exists and their memories of loved ones persist in the afterlife. If you don't believe in one of those ideas, I welcome your comments, but I am most interested in the thoughts of Christians who do believe those ideas.

Heaven is supposed to be a place of bliss. However, with the large number of people who will not gain entrance to Heaven, it is unavoidable that some of its members will have spouses, parents, children and other loved ones who are in Hell. Could you be happy if a loved one ended up in Hell while you were in Heaven?

this reminds me of a scenario of a loved one threatening to commit suicide, and then perhaps, does.

God's presence is freedom from the chains of misery and suffering. A loved one who chooses hell over the grace of God, while tragic, has made their choice. God releases His own from false guilt and He Himself wipes away all our tears. God does not allow us to be haunted over something we had no control over.

Lest we forget, God grants wisdom and discernment. False guilt will be recognized for what it is.

The idea that we should "suffer" over something someone deliberately chose is not godly. As a matter of fact, even in this earthly realm, it is known that false guilt is not healthy....it's a form of "enabling" psychologically.

 

[Criada]

I don't think we were talking about guilt as such, simply the suffering which comes of knowing that a loved one is suffering, even if it is a 'choice'.

If a loved one steps into the road without looking and is badly injured, I am saddened and upset. It wasn't my fault, I don't feel guilty, but I don't ignore and say, well, it was their own fault!

 

[brinny]

I don't think we were talking about guilt as such, simply the suffering which comes of knowing that a loved one is suffering, even if it is a 'choice'.

If a loved one steps into the road without looking and is badly injured, I am saddened and upset. It wasn't my fault, I don't feel guilty, but I don't ignore and say, well, it was their own fault!

It's not a saying well it was their fault. It's recognizing what "enabling" is.

 

[Whatthedeuce]

I have and will have loved ones in hell. They put themselves there. I still love them and feel sorrow for them but ultimately, it is their decision.

If you feel sorrow for them now, do you think you would still feel sorrow for them in heaven?

 

[Whatthedeuce]

I have to accept that God loves my loved ones infinitely more than I do, and if I don't want to see them in hell, then He certainly doesn't, and He has done all that is needed to prevent that.
If I knew that my loved ones were in the popular conception of hell, then I would sooner join them than go to heaven and leave them to suffer alone.
Fortunately, I do not think that is a choice that I will have to make.

Since you think Yahweh has done all that is needed to prevent your loved ones from going to Hell, do you think that none of your loved ones are going to go to Hell?

If you do think so, then why are we told that Hell is a possibility when no one is going to go there?

If you don't think so, then how could Yahweh have done all that is needed to prevent that?

 

[Whatthedeuce]

this reminds me of a scenario of a loved one threatening to commit suicide, and then perhaps, does.

God's presence is freedom from the chains of misery and suffering. A loved one who chooses hell over the grace of God, while tragic, has made their choice. God releases His own from false guilt and He Himself wipes away all our tears. God does not allow us to be haunted over something we had no control over.

Lest we forget, God grants wisdom and discernment. False guilt will be recognized for what it is.

The idea that we should "suffer" over something someone deliberately chose is not godly. As a matter of fact, even in this earthly realm, it is known that false guilt is not healthy....it's a form of "enabling" psychologically.

Are you saying it is unhealthy to care about whether or not your loved ones are in pain?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
this reminds me of a scenario of a loved one threatening to commit suicide, and then perhaps, does.

God's presence is freedom from the chains of misery and suffering. A loved one who chooses hell over the grace of God, while tragic, has made their choice. God releases His own from false guilt and He Himself wipes away all our tears. God does not allow us to be haunted over something we had no control over.

Lest we forget, God grants wisdom and discernment. False guilt will be recognized for what it is.

The idea that we should "suffer" over something someone deliberately chose is not godly. As a matter of fact, even in this earthly realm, it is known that false guilt is not healthy....it's a form of "enabling" psychologically.

Are you saying it is unhealthy to care about whether or not your loved ones are in pain?

There is a difference between caring and enabling.

 

[The Penitent Man]

To refuse the validity of hell is to refuse God, and to refuse God is to reject His heaven. So I must never refuse the validity of hell.

 

[Whatthedeuce]

There is a difference between caring and enabling.

Well, if there is a difference between caring and enabling, then why would you talk about enabling at all when we are having a discussion about a topic on caring when a loved one is in pain?