Why do some people think Hell isn't real?

LutheranMafia said:

This one paragraph is spot on, even though you deny it, Timothew.

Here is what you originally said:
Have you ever heard the criticism of atheism that it is based on "absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence"? The same criticism applies to your reasoning above.

Click to expand...

Well, Jesus said that Lazarus was dead. Therefore I believe that Lazarus was not alive. You can believe whatever you want. I'll just believe Jesus.

Timothew said:

Read Matthew 10:28, the body and soul are not immortal.
Your post is full of assumptions and statements with no backing:

If you have never read any posts by me saying that I believe the wages of sin is death and not eternal torture because Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death, then you simply have not been paying attention.

Click to expand...

Here the rub. I did read your post and you did make a claim about what the BIBLE did not say as somehow being meaningful. If one makes a mistake it is better to just admit than to attempt it did not happen and try to change the subject.

The fact Lazarus is recorded as saying ABSOLUTELY nothing after the miracle does not prove or disprove anything. Any attempt to say otherwise is speculative and without ANY Biblical support.

The rest of this post does not deserve a response because it attempts further slander the orthodox position rather than respond to why my response to a prior slander against the orthodox view CLEARLY shows the claims about being made about the orthodox view are false.

One cannot just paint a false picture of the opposing view and then attempt to throw one's own view of Scripture like Biblical darts at a false target.

If one is going claim the opposing view does not hold water and is not a congruent whole, then one has to do so entirely within the confines of that view. One cannot pick and choose a perceived weakness within the opposing view and then use one's own view of what scriptures says to attempt to disparage. Which is why I attempted in that prior post to show how the orthodox view is a complete package and supports what the orthodox view of the same scriptures says.


How silly to think one's own view of scripture would support an opposing view! Of course it does not, why would anyone think it would?


No, when we cannot agree on what scripture says then if one is going to exploit a perceived weakness then one needs to ask questions about the opposing view that do not seem to make sense. Asking those questions is not saying "notitisnot". Playing dueling scripture slings against false pictures of the opposing view is playing no-it-is-not. And yes that is playground level, so is attempting to change a subject rather than respond to a hard question or admit a mistake.

No, if we are going to get anywhere then one has to ask how the other view makes sense to the other person, with THEIR given (and in this case professed in writing) views of the whole construct and within THEIR view of scripture.

Like asking how a view that says EVERYONE PERISHES at death can possibly have any construct of an afterlife. Or how calling someone recreated a "resurrection" connects that new creation to the life of the original. Or how a view that essentially says we are nothing more than a bag of meat an bones with electric impulses giving an illusion of self-identifying uniqueness is any different than a myriad of atheistic views of human nature.

Timothew said:

Well, Jesus said that Lazarus was dead. Therefore I believe that Lazarus was not alive. You can believe whatever you want. I'll just believe Jesus.

Click to expand...

No, you were attempting to read between the lines and make speculations about Lazarus that are not present in the Bible.

LutheranMafia said:

I'd like to reiterated FWG's question about the spirit and ask some more of my own. You are so vague about the nature of the spirit and I think his question was very incisive. Since you so often deny that your views are properly being expressed when anyone attempts to extrapolate your views beyond simple three and four letter sentences, asking questions is the only way to get any clarification.


1) Do you believe that the spirit of man is conscious or unconscious?

Click to expand...

I believe that conscious man's spirit is conscious. I believe that the spirits of dead men are not conscious. The bible is vague on this topic, so of course, I have to be vague too. Unlike some people, I do not receive special revelation from God beyond what is written in the scriptures.
I am not Mike, so any similarities or differences in his view and mine relate to the fact that we are two different people reading the same book.

2) Along similar lines I'd like to ask you about materialism again. As I see it the only thing beyond pure materialism in your belief is God and the angels, nothing else. Is that correct? If not then in what other ways do your beliefs transcend materialism besides the existence of God and the angels?

Click to expand...

I believe ehat the bible says. The bible doesn't talk much about materialism, I don't think the word "Materialism" is even in the bible. If you are asking me if I believe that people can live when their bodies are dead, the answer is no. I'm not sure about the angels, for that matter. Teh greek word that is translated "angels" is "aggeloi". "Angel" is just taking the greek word which means "messenger" and transcribing the letters into english letters. But there are other instances in the bible where it seems that there are supernatural agents of God called Angels. So I'm holding off on saying anything definite about them. I'm more than willing to be ignorant about this matter until God shows me more. I don't think that answered your question in any way that would satisfy you, but I don't think the bible allows us to be dogmatic about things that it isn't dogmatic about.

3) I've asked you this before, but I forgot the answer. What do you think rephaim are? Why would the Bible speak of the spirits of the dead if the dead have no spirit?

Click to expand...

I don't know (or I can't remember if I ever did know) what rephaim are.
As for spirits of the dead, do you have a particular bible passage in mind?
I know of one passage where a person is assumed to be a spirit with no biblical indication that he is a disembodied spirit.

4) If the Jews didn't believe in ghosts then why did the Disciples believe that Jesus was a ghost when they first saw him after the resurrection?

Click to expand...

It's possible that some Jews believed in ghosts. There was never a monolith of Jewish thought. Even if they did believe in ghosts, does that mean I have to believe in ghosts?

5) How is it that angels and demons can have spirits independent of bodies, but that nothing like this exists in humans?

Click to expand...

I don't know. I don't know that they do. They seemed to have to possess a human to do anything. This seems like speculation beyond what the bible says.

If the human spirit can exist separate from the body, why don't you fly over here, and we can talk face to disembodied face? Let me know when you are coming so I can clean up first.

Timothew said:

Well, Jesus said that Lazarus was dead. Therefore I believe that Lazarus was not alive. You can believe whatever you want. I'll just believe Jesus.

Click to expand...

And now we attempt again to furhter distract from what was actually said, which went way beyond anything the Bible said. The claim was made that that because Lazarus said nothing about an afterlife experience that therefore such an afterlife does not exist and he was "just dead".

Again, the problem, which was never addressed, with the post that was made here is that it argues from silence and attempts so make a declaration based upon what is not there. When one gets called on doing that, it is probably best to just admit an error in over stating one's position rather than just attempting to change the subject.

LutheranMafia said:

No, you were attempting to read between the lines and make speculations about Lazarus that are not present in the Bible.

Click to expand...

No I wasn't. I was believing what Jesus plainly said. I still believe it.

Timothew said:

No I wasn't. I was believing what Jesus plainly said. I still believe it.

Click to expand...

Actually that is not correct. The claim was made that because the Bible has Lazarus silent about his experience between his death and the miracle that the Bible declares he had no experience and therefore no such experience exists because people are "just dead" when they die. Claiming to believe that is claiming to believe that from those verses MUCH more than what Jesus is recorded as saying and MORE than what the Bible said in those verses.

Annihilationism originated in Egypt!

I was watching a History Channel documentary called, "The Gates of Hell". After being here so long I didn't learn much, but I did learn one thing, that annihilationism started in Egypt.

Timothew always likes to characterize the immortality of the soul, which few Christians believe, as proof that early Christianity was corrupted by the Greeks. It is a weak point since few Christians believe this, but it is even weaker when one realizes that in fact annihiliationism is an import from Egypt.

It is a reoccurring subject of ancient Egyptian paintings and hieroglyphs that I have seen before, where Anubis judges the dead and weighs their heart against a feather. If the sins of the person weigh the heart down more than the feather the person is fed to a beast with the head of a crocodile and body of a lion, who devours the person's soul, annihilating them.

Here is an internet source on the subject:

Egyptian Belief and Moden Thought

While the doctrine of everlasting torment has support
from the monuments of Egypt, the Annihilationists, or
believers in the final destruction of the wicked, are not
without Egyptian support. Mr. Baring-Gould says, "A
high degree of education must be attained before the
notion of annihilation can be apprehended." That is an
argument for the intuitional teaching of immortality.

To this Mariette Bey alludes, when he says of the truly
impenitent, "for these a second death, that is to say, a
definitive annihilation, is reserved." In another place he
writes: ''The definitive annihilation in the midst of the
torments of a true hell was the suffering reserved for the
condemned." Rouge writes: "As to the condemned souls,
they are forced to submit to the second death."

Their sacred writings support this idea. Annihilation
furnishes the subject of many prayers ; as, " Let me not be
annihilated." In a prayer to Osiris for the departed, it is
said, " He sees in thee and he lives in thee, it is in thee
he will never be annihilated." In the 93rd chapter of the
Ritual, one reads, " The rebels become immovable things
during millions of years." The worm utterly devours
them ; the fire absolutely consumes them. The man may
be beheaded, or swallowed by a hippopotamus. Madame
Blavatsky, in His Revealed, refers to " the gradual dissolu-
tion of the astral form into its primal elements."

Pierret says : " The tomb is piteously closed upon
those whose faults condemn them to annihilation."
Lenormant asserts that the wicked, " before being annihi-
lated, are condemned to suffer a thousand tortures, and,
under the form of an evil spirit, to return here and dis-
turb men, and exert themselves for their injury." Mr.
Cooper, a most competent authority, with similar views,
writes : " The final punishment of the wicked consisted
in utter annihilation, after a period of frightful torture
in a fiery hell." The opinion, therefore, of the Rev.
Edward White and others, was forestalled in Egypt,
doubtless several thousand years ago. M. F. Lenormant
distinctly affirms : " The annihilation of being was held by
the Egyptians as the punishment reserved for the wicked."
The Zendavesta of the ancient Persians affirmed, " Hell
shall be destroyed at the resurrection."

M. Deveria indicates a parallel with the Book of the
Revelation, parts of which, at least, are deemed by the
author of the " Book of God," and by others, as copies of
the most ancient sacred writings in the world. The French
Egyptologist says : " The wicked who submit to these pun-
ishments (described on monuments) are condemned to
absolute annihilation, without hope of ever seeing the
living again. This annihilation is called the second death
in some hieroglyphic texts, as in the Apocalypse."

Full text of "Egyptian belief and modern thought .."

Timothew said:

No I wasn't. I was believing what Jesus plainly said. I still believe it.

Click to expand...

Why are you now denying what you clearly stated earlier in just the last page of this thread?

You clearly made statements about Lazarus that were a product of speculation, why are you unable to own up to this fact?

You know, we all engage in speculation from time to time. There is no sin in that. Why is it that you cannot admit to yourself that you sometimes engage in speculation? This is extraordinarily irrational of you, Timothew. It is so at odds with reality that I would call an ordinary person dishonest if they behaved like this. But I think your level of denial about how much speculation you engage in is so great that you can't admit to even the most obvious act of speculation, like this one about Lazarus.

You seem to have a deep down fear that admitting any act of speculation would start a domino effect that would expose all your thoughts as mere speculations. So you must deny ever engaging in speculation at all costs.

People arrive at different beliefs for many different reasons. But abandoning a belief held becomes a highly personal thing and generally an affront to the ego. Which is also why someone would avoid at all costs answering questions they know to be difficult regarding a particular belief.

Can I explain fully how God does not have a problem with suffering, even eternal suffering? No, but I think I can accept arguments first made thousands of years ago as to why it is a not a problem for God.

Can I explain how a view of human nature which says nothing remains of the individual after we die makes any talk of an afterlife possible?
No, I cannot not. But that does not mean there is not one, I just have not arrived at it myself or heard anyone else make it.

And if there was such an explanation, could I then explain how the person God recreates for Judgment is still the same person who lived the life to be judged?
No, I could not. I see nothing in that construct to connect the new person to the original.

If I stretched myself I could perhaps speculate a kind of timewarp where God brings each person at our death forward in time to the Judgment. However in order to really believe it is the same person they would need to look the same, with all the same defects they left this life with. Of course those going on to Heaven would need new bodies, the person brought forward in time would also need to be transformed to have a "glorified" body. If I believed this is what occurs, I would still have difficulty calling time travel a "resurrection".

And this attempt to explain how it could be possible from someone who does not believe any of these ideas. Intersting that no similar attempt is made by those holding these views to explain.

LutheranMafia said:

Why are you now denying what you clearly stated earlier in just the last page of this thread?

You clearly made statements about Lazarus that were a product of speculation, why are you unable to own up to this fact?

Click to expand...

I know that Lazarus was dead when he was in the grave because Jesus said so. There is even more evidence than that, Lazarus didn't say anything about being alive in heaven or hell. These 2 things work together. If Jesus hadn't said "Lazarus is dead", then him not talking about his trip through heaven, hell and the outer planets would not mean as much. But since Jesus said Lazarus was dead, I believe that. And of course Lazarus didn't talk about all the stuff that happened when he was dead because (wait for it!) he was dead. There was nothing to experience.

No more evidence that a "god-particle" exists is not proof that it does or does not exist. One can only conclude there is no evidence either way.

To conclude that because Lazarus is recorded as saying nothing means only one potential possibility is picking from the silence what one wishes that silence to mean. It can simply mean he remembered nothing. Could also mean what he said about it was not recorded. Could also mean he was told to say nothing. Could even mean he did not experiece a normal transition. And yes, it could mean he was "just dead".

However, if he was "just dead" and no longer existed as a unique individual when he died, then other than looking and acting like the original, in what way could we say we know it was the same Lazarus after the miracle?
I will answer since no one supporting this view has ever explained otherwise: we cannot say it is the same person if we say the first Lazarus ceased to exist when he died.

DrBubbaLove said:

People arrive at different beliefs for many different reasons. But abandoning a belief held becomes a highly personal thing and generally an affront to the ego. Which is also why someone would avoid at all costs answering questions they know to be difficult regarding a particular belief.

Can I explain fully how God does not have a problem with suffering, even eternal suffering? No, but I think I can accept arguments first made thousands of years ago as to why it is a not a problem for God.

Can I explain how a view of human nature which says nothing remains of the individual after we die makes any talk of an afterlife possible?
No, I cannot not. But that does not mean there is not one, I just have not arrived at it myself or heard anyone else make it.

And if there was such an explanation, could I then explain how the person God recreates for Judgment is still the same person who lived the life to be judged?
No, I could not. I see nothing in that construct to connect the new person to the original.

If I stretched myself I could perhaps speculate a kind of timewarp where God brings each person at our death forward in time to the Judgment. However in order to really believe it is the same person they would need to look the same, with all the same defects they left this life with. Of course those going on to Heaven would need new bodies, the person brought forward in time would also need to be transformed to have a "glorified" body. If I believed this is what occurs, I would still have difficulty calling time travel a "resurrection".

And this attempt to explain how it could be possible from someone who does not believe any of these ideas. Intersting that no similar attempt is made by those holding these views to explain.

Click to expand...

Yes but...a belief is just a belief. That is to say, were you born in another time and another culture, you might hold just as tightly to God being the Great Purple Aardvark. The problem with tradition is that it is vicarious. No matter if you are talking about the various scriptures or the traditions of the elders, it remains a vicarious view of what they believed they saw and heard.

As long as you each are arguing on the basis of belief, vicarious or otherwise, it remains an argument over the type of bread from which crumbs were dropped by Hansel and Gretal.

I could give you a dozen different arguments from a dozen differing religions. As long as no one knows, and no one does....then the only parts we know are valid are the parts that bear fruit.

Tim, do you have any kind of college education in science? You seem to be completely unaware of the fact that circular reasoning always results in totally invalid conclusions.

Timothew said:

I know that Lazarus was dead when he was in the grave because Jesus said so.

Click to expand...

No one has accused you of speculating that Lazarus was dead. We all agree that Lazarus was dead, but you seem to be in denial about this too.

Timothew said:

There is even more evidence than that, Lazarus didn't say anything about being alive in heaven or hell.

Click to expand...

You claim that if he experienced something in the afterlife that he would have denied being dead? That is probably the single most irrational thing I've ever seen you say, Tim. So based on his lack of denial that he was dead you then proceed to assume your own conclusion, that he must have experienced nothing. That is one speculation supposedly justified and verified by another point of pure speculation.

You have turned assuming your own conclusion and circular reasoning into an art form, Tim. Now you are engaging in recursive circular reasoning. You claim that one act of circular reasoning is not speculation because it is verified by another act of circular reasoning. It is still just a bunch of pure speculation based on nothing but circular reasoning.

Timothew said:

If Jesus hadn't said "Lazarus is dead", then him not talking about his trip through heaven, hell and the outer planets would not mean as much.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, because Jesus used the word dead, that automatically proves that he was an Egyptian style annihilationist just like you.

Timothew said:

But since Jesus said Lazarus was dead, I believe that.

Click to expand...

Your implication is that we do not believe Lazarus was dead, which is simply dishonest. I would kindly ask you to stop engaging in this type of behavior.

Timothew said:

And of course Lazarus didn't talk about all the stuff that happened when he was dead because (wait for it!) he was dead.

Click to expand...

That is your pure speculation, and you have failed to offer anything but circular reasoning in support of this.

LutheranMafia said:

Tim, do you have any kind of college education in science? You seem to be completely unaware of the fact that circular reasoning always results in totally invalid conclusions.

No one has accused you of speculating that Lazarus was dead. We all agree that Lazarus was dead, but you seem to be in denial about this too.

You claim that if he experienced something in the afterlife that he would have denied being dead? That is probably the single most irrational thing I've ever seen you say, Tim. So based on his lack of denial that he was dead you then proceed to assume your own conclusion, that he must have experienced nothing. That is one speculation supposedly justified and verified by another point of pure speculation.

You have turned assuming your own conclusion and circular reasoning into an art form, Tim. Now you are engaging in recursive circular reasoning. You claim that one act of circular reasoning is not speculation because it is verified by another act of circular reasoning. It is still just a bunch of pure speculation based on nothing but circular reasoning.

Ah yes, because Jesus used the word dead, that automatically proves that he was an Egyptian style annihilationist just like you.

Your implication is that we do not believe Lazarus was dead, which is simply dishonest. I would kindly ask you to stop engaging in this type of behavior.

That is your pure speculation, and you have failed to offer anything but circular reasoning in support of this.

Click to expand...

You know, when you repeat my own "words" back to me, I can't even recognize them. When did I ever say "if he experienced something in the afterlife that he would have denied being dead?"

No one has accused you of speculating that Lazarus was dead. We all agree that Lazarus was dead, but you seem to be in denial about this too.

Click to expand...

Bubba was saying Lazarus's soul survived the death of Lazarus.
When did I ever say "because Jesus used the word dead, that automatically proves that he was an Egyptian style annihilationist just like you."

When did I ever mention Egypt at all?

I would kindly ask you to stop engaging in this type of behavior.

Click to expand...

I keep trying to have a decent respectful discussion with you. Evidentally that is not possible.

.

Timothew said:

I believe that conscious man's spirit is conscious. I believe that the spirits of dead men are not conscious. The bible is vague on this topic, so of course, I have to be vague too.

Click to expand...

Your statement doesn't sound at all vague to me, it is very specific and unequivocal. How do you see it as vague? (I agree the Bible is vague so I'm wondering why I don't see that vagueness reflected in your statement at all if you agree the Bible is vague and you rely only on the Bible.)

Timothew said:

Unlike some people, I do not receive special revelation from God beyond what is written in the scriptures.

Click to expand...

Is that a reference to me? You are obviously making some kind of false assumption about some statement I have made in PM today. I have no direct experience of God. I have all sorts of mystical experiences, but none of God.

You on the other hand claimed to have experienced the direct hand of God at a critical juncture in your life, in addition to God's thoughts being revealed to you while reading the Bible. I know all Baptists believe the latter, but I don't see how you can see it as a valid approach if it leads all other Baptists to such a completetly different opinion than yours?Everybody can't be correct, so somebody's attempt to receive the illumination of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture must be profoundly faulty, either your's or their's.

Timothew said:

I believe ehat the bible says. The bible doesn't talk much about materialism, I don't think the word "Materialism" is even in the bible. If you are asking me if I believe that people can live when their bodies are dead, the answer is no. I'm not sure about the angels, for that matter. Teh greek word that is translated "angels" is "aggeloi". "Angel" is just taking the greek word which means "messenger" and transcribing the letters into english letters. But there are other instances in the bible where it seems that there are supernatural agents of God called Angels. So I'm holding off on saying anything definite about them. I'm more than willing to be ignorant about this matter until God shows me more. I don't think that answered your question in any way that would satisfy you, but I don't think the bible allows us to be dogmatic about things that it isn't dogmatic about.

Click to expand...

You acknowledge at least the possibility that angels have spirits without bodies, yet you completely preclude the possibility that this could ever be true of humans. Doesn't that seem logically inconsistent to you?

Timothew said:

I don't know (or I can't remember if I ever did know) what rephaim are.
As for spirits of the dead, do you have a particular bible passage in mind?
I know of one passage where a person is assumed to be a spirit with no biblical indication that he is a disembodied spirit.

Click to expand...

Timothew said:

It's possible that some Jews believed in ghosts. There was never a monolith of Jewish thought. Even if they did believe in ghosts, does that mean I have to believe in ghosts?

Click to expand...

Why would the Disciples believe in ghosts if it were not possible? Should you believe something different than the Disciples? Hopefully not.

Timothew said:

I don't know. I don't know that they do. They seemed to have to possess a human to do anything. This seems like speculation beyond what the bible says.

Click to expand...

How did demons get into a human body in the first place if they could not have ever existed before that without a body?

Timothew said:

If the human spirit can exist separate from the body, why don't you fly over here, and we can talk face to disembodied face?

Click to expand...

It is possible to do, but extremely unhealthy. I take it that you have never heard of OBE's (out of body experienes), astral projection and soul travel? Neither of the first two is uncommon, but OBE's can result in death if you don't get back in time, and you can get back to an extremely cold and weakened body if you push the limit. Astral projection and soul travel doesn't result in death, but it can quite readily result in a form of possession.

ssammoh said:

Kinda confused about that...

Can someone who doesn't believe in Hell give me a simple list of reasons why?

Click to expand...

the question cut both ways.
why do people think hell is real?
what are the reasons?

[BIBLE][/BIBLE]

gasman64 said:

The church doesn't want to admit they don't know and the people who make their living out of religion will never own up to their duplicity because 'fear' is a great motivator and leads to the filling up of bank accounts.

We don't refuse to believe in hell because we are rebellious and heretics. We don't believe in it because the bible never teaches it. If the bible taught something else, then i would believe that. But it doesn't. So I don't. It's not a small subject and the answers aren't easy to take, but if you are willing....then you could learn something amazing. It's up to you.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you have said and wonder why there are souls out there teaching anything other than the teachings, commands, words and knowledge of Christ through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

If you taught from the heart of God which he gives to us through his Holy Spirit upon our accepting and following Christ his son, then such things like these would be absent. Do we go and learn the "through-the-centuries" modernized Christendom's theologies and incorrect Biblical translations (interpretations) to present an awkward gospel of Christ to the world?

How do we Christians sort out things to do God's work for his son? I have found myself disinterested in such ideas as Hell's torturing existence, Trinity and plenty of others. God is one God. So we shouldn't discredit him, even innocently through our not knowing what is actual or not from the Scriptures (New Testament).

When I came to accept Christ, I did without accepting Christendom. It was and has been very personal and sought out in that way. I love the churches (so many of them), but my church isn't mine yet is God's alone, so my love encompasses all who profess Jesus Christ whether enhanced or not by the innocence of the history-led add-ons).

Should we do as Apostle Paul, to establish our own unique churches and not those of the denominations? I guess if you tried to do so, that if it were God's will, then your success would be coming through him, since most churches wouldn't support you, right?

It seems enough to get people to obey Jesus, as the living son of God in the flesh. You don't have to enhance this basic Gospel of God's. God warns us to not add or take away anything in the Holy Scriptures. Shouldn't we love God enough to obey him. If you love him enough, then perfect fear is real, other-words, we don't go astray as the world does which blindly, not knowing or fearing him, they just do as they think is best. Can Christian's instruct others in the basics of salvation without the hypes?

If I were a preacher of the Gospel, it would be without Christendom's interferences by their theologies and their unsure meddlings through translations . Obliviously, such a preacher would be without most of the present day churches' help, yet he could rely on the Creator's help, since his heart would be to seek God's will by relying on his Holy Spirit's guidance. Would not the churches started by such a person be under that's person's traditions much as the way it was for Apostle Paul's ministry. He had admitted that he didn't want to build upon another's work. Should anyone? Don't we do the most good, by relying on our faith in Christ and our personal understanding through God's will in our lives given to us by our patience and his Holy Spirit?