Why an eternal hell? (2)

[Kesha29]

Ok, I have read a little but there is no way I'm going to read this "book" of threads just to respond.... So forgive me if I repeat what some have said... As of now in my study on the idea of Hell being eternal, I believe it is not... The reason why is because our great God would not punish His own creation for an eternity because of a sinful lifestyle that might have lasted 120 years at best in our day... That would be unjust, and I think we can understand what is just and what is not... We are filled with the Holy Spirit and have the mind of Christ... Death is the absence of life not life in torment... God is Life and being cut off from Him is having all life removed.... Therefore life in torment would have to have some form of God with you.... Notice that the new heaven and earth are not created until Hell and the grave are done away with.... All tears wiped away and no more pain and no more curse.... This happens when there is no more sin... This Lake of fire destroys completely... Look at words like: parish, destroy, passed away.... All meaning to cease to exist. to have sin existing somewhere even in torment is still perpetuating sin.... But God says that all things have been made new and that, after death/Hell is destroyed.... This the last enemy and for God to have victory over it, it must be destroyed... To say our soul is eternal is unbiblical... Jesus says that only through Him do we have the hope of eternal life... Words like forever and ever in the Bible is translated In general, the Greek word aion is translated: forever. However its real meaning is "Age". There are actually two meanings for the word "Age"

"Age" can mean a human lifetime, or life itself. So it can be a limited time, as long as someone is going to live.
"Age" can also mean an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, or an eternity. So it can mean forever and ever.
Basically, if the subject is God or Jesus, since they exist in eternity, the meaning of "Age" would be an unbroken age, or an eternity. On the other hand, if the subject is referring to finite human beings, then the meaning of "Age" would be limited to the life-span of a human lifetime....

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Isn't one eye better than none?

The contrast is specific. Having no eyes because one no longer exists is not a credible or even imaginable, well I soften that - reasonable/logical thought. What difference would it make if one had no eyes or both eyes when one no longer exists?

I think it is the promise of life that makes it so vastly preferable.

I agree life is preferable, so would any reasonable person when asked such a thing directly. But that is not the point of the parable or the contrast being made. If that were simply the point, there would be no need to talk of self deprivation in this life being better than ending up in Hell.

Any child understands getting a treat is better than not getting a treat or even that one might be expected to behave a certain way in order to get the treat. The parable however touches on the need for self deprivation in this life not just to gain LIFE in the next but also to avoid the opposite fate if one DOES NOT self deprive.

The parable is intentionally creating images of how terrible one fate in the next life is, so bad that SEVERE self deprivation in this life SHOULD BE prefered by everyone. To say the fate being referenced is simply an end to existence makes such imagery meaningless.

There is no point in having none, one, two or three eyes if one no longer exists. So it is not possible to imagine being told we SHOULD BE willing to do pluck an eye out rather than keep it and "cease to be" with two eyes.

I realize there is logically some dread that could be associated with someone facing "ceasing to be"(if that were possible), but the imagery associated with that compared to the orthodox view of Hell does not seem in keeping with the level of dread the parable is implying SHOULD BE felt in this life.

No one wants to die, but plenty freely and repeatedly choose behavior risking death. And if they logically reasoned out the risk most of them would prefer death over other possible outcomes of that behaviour (prolonged severe agony for example), and if they thought about such potential most would admit they would prefer death.

Imagine telling those people that they would be better not doing it because they could die. Imagine further telling them that they would be better off to maim themselves preventing them from doing it than to die unmaimed doing it. That makes no sense. If it makes no sense to make such contrast/suggestion to someone for just the temporal death, why would it suddenly make sense to make essentially the same suggestion in regards to our eternal fate?

 

[Assyrian]

The contrast is specific. Having no eyes because one no longer exists is not a credible or even imaginable, well I soften that - reasonable/logical thought. What difference would it make if one had no eyes or both eyes when one no longer exists?

The reason their annihilation was the sin caused by what they did with their hand or eye so it is a reasonable contrast.

I agree life is preferable, so would any reasonable person when asked such a thing directly. But that is not the point of the parable or the contrast being made. If that were simply the point, there would be no need to talk of self deprivation in this life being better than ending up in Hell.

If Jesus gave a graphic if metaphorical description of the struggle to live a godly life, why not give an equally graphic description of how terrible destruction is? Remember it is not just annihilation but their life being judged and discarded as only fit for the fire and worms of the municipal rubbish tip.

Any child understands getting a treat is better than not getting a treat or even that one might be expected to behave a certain way in order to get the treat. The parable however touches on the need for self deprivation in this life not just to gain LIFE in the next but also to avoid the opposite fate if one DOES NOT self deprive.

The parable is intentionally creating images of how terrible one fate in the next life is, so bad that SEVERE self deprivation in this life SHOULD BE prefered by everyone. To say the fate being referenced is simply an end to existence makes such imagery meaningless.

There is no point in having none, one, two or three eyes if one no longer exists. So it is not possible to imagine being told we SHOULD BE willing to do pluck an eye out rather than keep it and "cease to be" with two eyes.

I realize there is logically some dread that could be associated with someone facing "ceasing to be"(if that were possible), but the imagery associated with that compared to the orthodox view of Hell does not seem in keeping with the level of dread the parable is implying SHOULD BE felt in this life.

No one wants to die, but plenty freely and repeatedly choose behavior risking death. And if they logically reasoned out the risk most of them would prefer death over other possible outcomes of that behaviour (prolonged severe agony for example), and if they thought about such potential most would admit they would prefer death.

Imagine telling those people that they would be better not doing it because they could die. Imagine further telling them that they would be better off to maim themselves preventing them from doing it than to die unmaimed doing it. That makes no sense. If it makes no sense to make such contrast/suggestion to someone for just the temporal death, why would it suddenly make sense to make essentially the same suggestion in regards to our eternal fate?

You seem to keep forgetting that the alternative to unmaimed destruction is entering eternal life, not just losing this present life but failing to gain everlasting life.

It sound to me like your understanding of this parable is completely swamped by the Medieval view of hell. You realise on one level that annihilation is terrible, but the Medieval view of hell is so terrible you can't get past the idea that annihilation would be so much preferable to an eternity writhing in agony. So you understand logically that it should be dreaded, but emotionally you can't grasp it because it seems so much more preferable to the alternative. Because the traditional Medieval view of hell has made such vivid and intense use of the worms and fire, you cannot seem to get past this to look at what that imagery would have meant to first century Jews who knew the smoke and stench of the decaying bodies in the valley of Hinnom.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

As for "Medievil" am not sure how to read 1st and 2nd century Christian writings and conclude anything different than what I have already suggested here. If one is happy in believing someone selling such beliefs all evolved much later, good luck with that.

And actually I cannot get past how it would be logical to suggest it would be better for someone to pluck out their own eye than face "poof you are done" as opposed to facing something more dreadful. Sure we freely admit both are dreadful, but one is far worse.

If the idea were just that heaven will be so pleasant that everyone should pluck out their own eye to avoid missing the opportunity of getting there then I would agree with you, but that was not the point being made. The contrast being made is direct and it opposes not the loss of heaven, but the pain of an experience we call Hell with any temporal pain of self deprivation.

 

[Assyrian]

As for "Medievil" am not sure how to read 1st and 2nd century Christian writings and conclude anything different than what I have already suggested here. If one is happy in believing someone selling such beliefs all evolved much later, good luck with that.

The early church had universalists annihilationists as well as what became the traditional eternal torment view. It wasn't until the fifth century that this view became the norm while the graphic representations of this torment flowered in the Medieval period in church art.

And actually I cannot get past how it would be logical to suggest it would be better for someone to pluck out their own eye than face "poof you are done" as opposed to facing something more dreadful. Sure we freely admit both are dreadful, but one is far worse.

Just because your view is so much more dreadful, it doesn't mean that is the dreadful Jesus was referring to.

If the idea were just that heaven will be so pleasant that everyone should pluck out their own eye to avoid missing the opportunity of getting there then I would agree with you, but that was not the point being made. The contrast being made is direct and it opposes not the loss of heaven, but the pain of an experience we call Hell with any temporal pain of self deprivation.

It contrasts the loss of a hand or an eye with the loss of everything, what is the problem with that?

But you haven't addressed my point at all, that you cannot see past the traditional interpretation of the passage to see how it might have appeared to people with no concept of an everlasting hell, but who were well aware of the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem where rubbish was destroyed. Your argument in the second paragraph illustrates that. You cannot see past the dreadfulness of everlasting hell to grasp that having you life and all you have been and done tossed on the rubbish heap as a worthless failure to rot decay and burn away.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Repeating something does not make it any more true than the first time. The presumption of the first was that I held a view which blinds and binds me to view of Hell rooted in one imagined (or rather wanting others to imagine) as orginating in Medievil times. When I countered, you attempt to soften the mistake of that presumption, nice side step, but two wrongs do not make it any more right either.

The fact that in the history of Christianity, recorded and kept by the Church BTW, that there were people that believed things opposed to the Church then and now is not evidence for or against the Church being right or wrong. One of us is wrong in our belief because the two are opposed. But none of this addresses the error in logic being discussed.

Also to follow this thought process one would have to believe the people actually hearing these words would then teach others something entirely different such that by the end of the 1st and certainly into the 2nd century they are all speaking of the eternal nature of Hell's "fire" in regard to the damned and then later doing so in defense of that concpet against those with similar ideas to those presented here. One could claim they (those stood with what we would call the teaching of the Church) got it all wrong and that those they argued against had it right, but that is a difficult position to maintain and goes beyond the topic of this thread. Suffice it to say the "horrible" notions of Hell did not begin in the "Medievil" times as was originally suggested.

But even supposing no pre-existing concept of a Hell by the original audience, it is illogical to conclude people would accept the idea it would be better to severly self-deprivate in this life than to end up rotting to nothing in a garabage pile. People just do not think that way. If one enjoys doing something and even knowingly risks death doing so, the thought of what is the worst thing that could happen would be on death, and shaming them by saying you could wind up rotting in the ground because of your doing that is not only not going to stop them, it is likely to be scoffed at. No, in order to make headway it would have to be the potential of something worse than just being made dead/nothing to even make them think of giving it a second thought. That was my point.

 

[dollarsbill]

Hell is not eternal; it is never ending.

Total contradiction. Hell fire is eternal and never ending.

 

[FredVB]

Total contradiction. Hell fire is eternal and never ending.

I have asked about this same thing before, hearing it said there is a distinction in the words never-ending and eternal, and only being told for an answer that Yahweh God is distinct with his being essential, which I understand anyway. But I do not hear how there is basis from the Bible for saying such words should have distinct use.

 

[Ripheus27]

I have asked about this same thing before, hearing it said there is a distinction in the words never-ending and eternal, and only being told for an answer that Yahweh God is distinct with his being essential, which I understand anyway. But I do not hear how there is basis from the Bible for saying such words should have distinct use.

The closest thing I can come up with would be the passage (forgive me for not remembering where it is) where a day of the Lord is likened to a thousand years of our days, which suggests eternal, not just sempiternal, consciousness. And the difference between sempiternity and eternity is that each involves the entire timeline of the world, but in the former case this line is drawn (figuratively speaking) point by point (or finite segment by finite segment) whereas in the latter the line is drawn all at once.

Eternal hell, then, would be experiencing perdition all at once; denying eternity to hell while saying that hell never ends would be to deny that all-at-once aspect of the experience.

 

[FredVB]

The closest thing I can come up with would be the passage (forgive me for not remembering where it is) where a day of the Lord is likened to a thousand years of our days, which suggests eternal, not just sempiternal, consciousness. And the difference between sempiternity and eternity is that each involves the entire timeline of the world, but in the former case this line is drawn (figuratively speaking) point by point (or finite segment by finite segment) whereas in the latter the line is drawn all at once.

Eternal hell, then, would be experiencing perdition all at once; denying eternity to hell while saying that hell never ends would be to deny that all-at-once aspect of the experience.

I follow this. But what basis is there from words as used in the Bible for the different words to be for different things in our language?

 

[Assyrian]

Repeating something does not make it any more true than the first time. The presumption of the first was that I held a view which blinds and binds me to view of Hell rooted in one imagined (or rather wanting others to imagine) as orginating in Medievil times. When I countered, you attempt to soften the mistake of that presumption, nice side step, but two wrongs do not make it any more right either.

And you misrepresent my point as any idea from medieval time as medievil. I was talking about the vividness of imagery from the Medieval being a problem you can't seem to get past, rather than the ideas being (medi)evil. You agree in the next paragraph that there was disagreement over hell in the early church, well if the debate was only settled around the time of Augustine, that beings you into the early medieval period anyway. It isn't the dating of the medieval period, or the evilness of the medievil that is the issue, but whether this concept of hell with all its vivid intensity is getting in the way of you examining other ways of looking at the scriptural texts. You can't seem to be able to imagine what the metaphor would mean to people who didn't have your view of everlasting agony in hell. And from our discussion the problem you have imagining a different interpretation is because you can't get past your view of everlasting agony.

The fact that in the history of Christianity, recorded and kept by the Church BTW, that there were people that believed things opposed to the Church then and now is not evidence for or against the Church being right or wrong. One of us is wrong in our belief because the two are opposed. But none of this addresses the error in logic being discussed.

You do need to specify what error of logic you are talking about.

Also to follow this thought process one would have to believe the people actually hearing these words would then teach others something entirely different such that by the end of the 1st and certainly into the 2nd century they are all speaking of the eternal nature of Hell's "fire" in regard to the damned and then later doing so in defense of that concpet against those with similar ideas to those presented here. One could claim they (those stood with what we would call the teaching of the Church) got it all wrong and that those they argued against had it right, but that is a difficult position to maintain and goes beyond the topic of this thread. Suffice it to say the "horrible" notions of Hell did not begin in the "Medievil" times as was originally suggested.

Be careful reading your interpretation of biblical imagery like eternal fire into church fathers who use the same terminology. It is no more evidence of your interpretation or mine. But as for mistakes developing and growing down through the centuries, wasn't the early church warned again and again by Jesus and the apostles that this is exactly what would happen? Aren't we warned to test everything and to beware of the traditions of men? That is why we need to keep going back to scripture and not simply rely on what we have been told by tradition.

But even supposing no pre-existing concept of a Hell by the original audience, it is illogical to conclude people would accept the idea it would be better to severly self-deprivate in this life than to end up rotting to nothing in a garabage pile. People just do not think that way. If one enjoys doing something and even knowingly risks death doing so, the thought of what is the worst thing that could happen would be on death, and shaming them by saying you could wind up rotting in the ground because of your doing that is not only not going to stop them, it is likely to be scoffed at. No, in order to make headway it would have to be the potential of something worse than just being made dead/nothing to even make them think of giving it a second thought. That was my point.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the parable. It was to teach the wisdom of seeking after God even when it costs us to do so. It taught his disciples that the cost they paid and would pay in following him was more than worth it. It was not to meant to terrorise people into the church who have no love of God or interest in following him.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Maybe not, but there aren't any verses that say the great prostitute in Revelation isn't a physical prostitute either

'harlot' can be translated as 'idolatress' in Revelation, and fornication is a form of idolatry but it is not the only idolatrous act. It is probably being told that an institution who has abandoned God for vanities and temptations will rise, bearing red and white. Red and white of course are the colors of sacrifice, meaning blood and innocence, which means that such an institution will be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

It all ties into the whole traditional concept of Revelation.



Anyways, Hell exists because it has to- because there must be a balance of consequences. Heaven is a wonderful place beyond measure, but the big thing is that you enjoy the full knowledge of God, being able to see the past and future- you are in the realm of the Mighty One, you see. It's pretty much the seat of existence.
For that reward, there must be a consequence, and that consequence is to be forever without God. It's a symmetry at work- you see it all the time in Mosaic Law such as eye for eye, and you even see it in the principle of good and evil.

 

[Assyrian]

'harlot' can be translated as 'idolatress' in Revelation, and fornication is a form of idolatry but it is not the only idolatrous act. It is probably being told that an institution who has abandoned God for vanities and temptations will rise, bearing red and white. Red and white of course are the colors of sacrifice, meaning blood and innocence, which means that such an institution will be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

It all ties into the whole traditional concept of Revelation.

Idolatress is interpreting the word 'harlot' metaphorically, you are also taking a description of an individual woman and interpreting it metaphorically and symbolically as an institution. Now I agree that is what the prophesy is talking about, but the point remains that there is nothing in the text that tells you the great harlot is an idolatrous church rather than a individual woman in the sex trade, which make it difficult to insist the lake of fire in the same book must be a literal lake unless the text say otherwise.

Anyways, Hell exists because it has to- because there must be a balance of consequences. Heaven is a wonderful place beyond measure, but the big thing is that you enjoy the full knowledge of God, being able to see the past and future- you are in the realm of the Mighty One, you see. It's pretty much the seat of existence.
For that reward, there must be a consequence, and that consequence is to be forever without God. It's a symmetry at work- you see it all the time in Mosaic Law such as eye for eye, and you even see it in the principle of good and evil.

I don't see why there has to be a symmetry between heaven and hell, God is not limited by some sort of karmic balance that limits the joys of heaven to to the extent of the suffering in hell. The idea seems to cut across the basis of the gospel itself. I could understand if salvation was by works, that good works earned us our reward in heaven to the same extent that sin earned us punishment in hell. But salvation is by grace not merit. While hell may be what people deserve by the evil deeds, salvation is a free gift by God's grace through faith. It is not what we deserve nor is it limited by what we could ever possibly deserve. If you want to balance what God has so graciously given us with an an equally greater punishment in hell it would to take the punishment in hell beyond what people could possibly deserve too, and make hell as unjust and unmerited as heaven is by grace and unmerited. That doesn't sound like God.

 

[FredVB]

You can't seem to be able to imagine what the metaphor would mean to people who didn't have your view of everlasting agony in hell.

Even if the account of the rich man going to hell was a parable, and even if with that there were metaphors, what Jesus yet said in different places, rather than what we think people of the time thought, should show what there is to be understood about hell. And if it had no reality (and Jesus knowing that), it would have been deceptive for Jesus to say things about it as he did, even if in a parable, as all he said would provide that understanding. That would be understanding continuing misery, even if what contributes to misery is imagery. There is if it is otherwise no sense for Jesus Christ to have been speaking so of it.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

And you misrepresent my point as any idea from medieval time as medievil. I was talking about the vividness of imagery from the Medieval being a problem you can't seem to get past, rather than the ideas being (medi)evil. You agree in the next paragraph that there was disagreement over hell in the early church, well if the debate was only settled around the time of Augustine, that beings you into the early medieval period anyway. It isn't the dating of the medieval period, or the evilness of the medievil that is the issue, but whether this concept of hell with all its vivid intensity is getting in the way of you examining other ways of looking at the scriptural texts. You can't seem to be able to imagine what the metaphor would mean to people who didn't have your view of everlasting agony in hell. And from our discussion the problem you have imagining a different interpretation is because you can't get past your view of everlasting agony.

If you think so, must be true to you at least.

My thought was this view of Hell being eternal suffering has not changed for thousands of years, so whether anyone has difficulty now with the powerful images from medievil art is irrelevant. I personally do not agree with attempting to "scare" people into the Church/Heaven and from my own experience that is more apt to be found today in Protestant Churches than in any Catholic Church. So based on what I know and my experience with the Church, the idea that this teaching is used in this manner is a false accusation. I have witnessed that tactic being used in several Baptist Churches, but cannot speak how widespread that might be. But again, I do not think my "problem" is not being able to get over such terrifying images.

I do happen to think one should be scared however of risking one's eternal rest and to me that view is more logically connected with the words than suggesting Jesus would be saying it is bad for someone to "not exist" with both eyes in the next life. To me it is illogical to even think of having eyes while "not existing".

You do need to specify what error of logic you are talking about.

I thought I was, but in case it was missed re-read last section and prior postings. (where I said basically the same thing)

Be careful reading your interpretation of biblical imagery like eternal fire into church fathers who use the same terminology. It is no more evidence of your interpretation or mine.

I would think one should be more careful of reading what someone else tells one the Fathers said or possibly believed. I prefer reading the material myself over someone commenting and giving me quotes to support the commentators position.

I also find when the overall discussion is a defense of a particular view against those who claim the opposite, it is difficult to take a position that such a defender of the faith was just using the "same terminology". I could see how someone dishonest might want to re-write history by taking quotes out of context and sowing doubt about what a particular person may or may not have believed.

People also change their minds during their lifetime, which means they could be wrong at one point and even Saints and Doctors are still human. I do agree one should be careful accepting what commentaries say.

But as for mistakes developing and growing down through the centuries, wasn't the early church warned again and again by Jesus and the apostles that this is exactly what would happen? Aren't we warned to test everything and to beware of the traditions of men? That is why we need to keep going back to scripture and not simply rely on what we have been told by tradition.

How conveniet to recall those Words but waffle on things like "the Gates of Hell will NOT PREVAIL" and "go teach" and "faithfully pass on". A bit selective for my taste.

While there, it is also beyond logic to me to buy into the idea God set these things in motion by becoming Man and teaching these men way more than what we have today to read, only to have all that be completely lost/corrupted for the ages. But that is another topic.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the parable. It was to teach the wisdom of seeking after God even when it costs us to do so. It taught his disciples that the cost they paid and would pay in following him was more than worth it. It was not to meant to terrorise people into the church who have no love of God or interest in following him.

Am not sure I agree Matt 5 is a parable at all.
It is a series of proclamations - teachings and probably copied from a collection of teachings/sayings of Jesus. And they all have the same structure in this section:- this - results in this.

Which is why I say again it seems illogical, and therefore making Jesus' teaching nonessense to say better to severely self-deprivate in this life than to go without doing so into "none existence" whole (without self-deprivation). The concept of being "whole" and cast into Hell makes no sense to me if that is to be understood as an end to existence. What does being "whole" mean to someone who no longer exists?
I do see what "whole" would mean to someone experiencing eternal suffering. Why it would matter whether one who no longer exists is "whole or not" at the instant of "nonexistence", (if you will), am unclear on.

Look, I get it. People have problems with the idea of someone eternally suffering and mistakenly believe that having it be so creates a "problem" for God in their minds.
The "problem" I have with that view (and the "solution") is that we have suffering now and I fail to see how one can excuse God over nothing but duration if it is true there is any "problem" at all that there is suffering.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

Idolatress is interpreting the word 'harlot' metaphorically, you are also taking a description of an individual woman and interpreting it metaphorically and symbolically as an institution. Now I agree that is what the prophesy is talking about, but the point remains that there is nothing in the text that tells you the great harlot is an idolatrous church rather than a individual woman in the sex trade, which make it difficult to insist the lake of fire in the same book must be a literal lake unless the text say otherwise.

That's just grasping at straws. Basically, you are saying 'well if the Church isn't the harlot of Babylon, then I don't have to take the Lake of Fire literal'.
Which is classic church warfare mixed with a little bit of degradation of two thousand years worth of hermeneutics.

 

[ssammoh]

It does indeed.

How the heck are eternal fire, punishment in fire, and eternal life in fire the same thing?

Eternal fire doesn't necessarily mean fire that's eternal.
Jude 1:7
"In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

Punishment in fire means being punished by being burned.

Eternal life in fire means burning for eternity.

 

[ssammoh]

Those who deny Hell fire are doomed to dwell therein forever.

Scripture?

 

[ssammoh]

He is indeed "able".

Rev 20 They will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

That was referring to the unholy trinity.

 

[ssammoh]

eternal hell = final separation

eternal hell = not in the bible

Revelation 20:14
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.