Why is hell even necessary?

[DontTreadOnMike]

Hi Mike, I'm new to this thread, it is big. Can you show me the Bible passages that say God will "eternally torture purposefully rebellious souls for a mere 80 years of rejection", my understanding is that souls will perish in the lake of fire to exist no longer. Those who have committed crimes will be punished and those whose names are in the lamb's book of life will go to live forever with Jesus as their Lord in the new earth. I'd like to know why you believe that non-believers will be "eternally tortured", it contradicts my own belief. I'll start reading the thread from the beginning but it is long so I might not absorb it all. I hope we can grow in understanding together.

That's what I believed when I was a Christian too. This thread is mainly for the people who do believe in eternal torture by hellfire.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ok Mike, I've read through the thread, some of it was just bickering. Let's try to get an answer by putting our brains to work. I have seen one major error in your position. If you can sort this out then you could be able to take your favorite parts of that remote island you crashed into (post #33) and keep on sailing. The problem I see is that you've believed that the majority of churches are preaching the right doctrine. The problem here is that you've probably only absorbed very small proportions of what the church leaders were preaching, you've probably heard these fragments in an improper context, and it is even possible that the preachers were entirely wrong. So you need to cut that loose and look toward the definitive source of Christian doctrine: the Bible. What I've noticed about this matter in the Bible is that ever since the very beginning it is about life and death. Remember that Adam and Eve were warned that they would die for their sin? So we have to face death. Does that mean that we are tortured forever? Certainly not. It means we completely die altogether. Cease to exist. Thinking doesn't happen. Everything you ever loved about life is gone. Everyone who ever loved you has lost you forever. That is the second death spoken of in Revelation 20:14.

So we need to get this straight first of all. Is your concern actually based upon biblical fact or is it based upon hear-say? In order to get to the bottom of this we are going to need to investigate scripture and think about what it means. I hope you aren't afraid to do that. Would you mind posting the verses that you are concerned about and let's see whether God really is the evil person you have come to think of Him as being.

catholic, orthodox, anglican, methodist, anabaptist, baptist, pentecostal all believe in eternal torment only two of the churches in study rejected eternal hell and three refused to comment on the duration of hell. - Denominations comparison chart by rose publishing.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

catholic, orthodox, anglican, methodist, anabaptist, baptist, pentecostal all believe in eternal torment only two of the churches in study rejected eternal hell and three refused to comment on the duration of hell. - Denominations comparison chart by rose publishing.

When why can't you all get your stories straight?


P.S. Your signature is slightly amusing because Isaac Newton was also an alchemist. He was a brilliant man but that doesn't mean he was right about everything.

 

[oi_antz]

catholic, orthodox, anglican, methodist, anabaptist, baptist, pentecostal all believe in eternal torment only two of the churches in study rejected eternal hell and three refused to comment on the duration of hell. - Denominations comparison chart by rose publishing.

Well I want to see biblical proof.

 

[elman]

Ok awesome. And if I ever have a similar experience, maybe I'll believe too. But until then, from an outsider's perspective, it's just anecdotal.

I understand, but I think one can only have similar experiences if one is willing to look for them and be open to the possibility. Nothing ever happened to me that forced my belief. I never heard any audible words from God.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

I understand, but I think one can only have similar experiences if one is willing to look for them and be open to the possibility. Nothing ever happened to me that forced my belief. I never heard any audible words from God.

Which brings us back to blind belief. If I have to at least start with blind belief before God will give me real proof, then I'm unwilling to do that. Not to mention the fact that I DID believe at one point. I had no doubts I and believed that I had proof straight from God.

 

[elman]

Which brings us back to blind belief. If I have to at least start with blind belief before God will give me real proof, then I'm unwilling to do that. Not to mention the fact that I DID believe at one point. I had no doubts I and believed that I had proof straight from God.

I said nothing about blind belief. I just said one has to be willing to accept the possibility of God in order to see how things may have occured as they did not simply by accident or coincidence. I don't know what made you change your mind about the proof you thought was from God, but I know that my experiences are not such that I can be certain God is there, but at the same time they are supportive of that position.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

I said nothing about blind belief. I just said one has to be willing to accept the possibility of God in order to see how things may have occured as they did not simply by accident or coincidence. I don't know what made you change your mind about the proof you thought was from God, but I know that my experiences are not such that I can be certain God is there, but at the same time they are supportive of that position.

I am open to the possibility. It's just that no one has convinced me yet.

If I had 5 people write down what they think their own internal proof from God is without mentioning their God, do you think you'd be able to tell which religion they follow?

Every religious person will tell you the same thing.

Person1: God reveals himself through nature.

Person2: God speaks to me

Person3: God gives me a burning in my bosom

Person4: God's holy scripture speaks to me

Person5: I just know. You can't know what it's like unless you become one of us.

And then when they find out that Person1 is Muslim, Person2 is Zoroastrian, Person3 is Mormon, Person4 is Jewish, and Person5 is neo-pagan, an argument will ensue about whose proof is real and whose isn't.

 

[createdtoworship]

Well I want to see biblical proof.

the beast and the prophet were in hell a thousand years before satan was cast in....

"the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet....These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone" Revelation 19:20

"An angel ....having ....a great chain in his hand ...and laid hold of the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years"
Revelation 20:1-2

And just a few verses later again...

"and the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever"
Revelation 20:10

So the beast and the prophet were in Hell for a thousand years and did not die or annihilate...

 

[razeontherock]

I am open to the possibility. It's just that no one has convinced me yet.

If I had 5 people write down what they think their own internal proof from God is without mentioning their God, do you think you'd be able to tell which religion they follow?

Every religious person will tell you the same thing.

Person1: God reveals himself through nature.

Person2: God speaks to me

Person3: God gives me a burning in my bosom

Person4: God's holy scripture speaks to me

Person5: I just know. You can't know what it's like unless you become one of us.

And then when they find out that Person1 is Muslim, Person2 is Zoroastrian, Person3 is Mormon, Person4 is Jewish, and Person5 is neo-pagan, an argument will ensue about whose proof is real and whose isn't.

Again, this is a false dichotomy. (Penta-chotomy?) There is one True and Living G-d. He is unconcerned with the petty things that divide us that you allude to, except that He opposes the division.

 

[elman]

I am open to the possibility. It's just that no one has convinced me yet.

If I had 5 people write down what they think their own internal proof from God is without mentioning their God, do you think you'd be able to tell which religion they follow?

Every religious person will tell you the same thing.

Person1: God reveals himself through nature.

Person2: God speaks to me

Person3: God gives me a burning in my bosom

Person4: God's holy scripture speaks to me

Person5: I just know. You can't know what it's like unless you become one of us.

And then when they find out that Person1 is Muslim, Person2 is Zoroastrian, Person3 is Mormon, Person4 is Jewish, and Person5 is neo-pagan, an argument will ensue about whose proof is real and whose isn't.

I don't tell you God reveals Himself through nature. I am troubled with the violence and pain and suffering that is part of nature and it is one thing that seems to contradict my assumption of a loving Creator.
I think God has spoken to me, but never directly in an audible voice. I had to think about what happened and get from it what God was telling me, and never could be absolutly certain I was interpreting the experiences correctly.
I don't have any burning in my bosom and I don't believe the Bible is inerrant.
I do suspect things have occured in your life that could be interpreted as indicating God having a part to play in our experiences. I think people reject these ideas sometimes because they are not willing to consider the possibility.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Again, this is a false dichotomy. (Penta-chotomy?) There is one True and Living G-d. He is unconcerned with the petty things that divide us that you allude to, except that He opposes the division.

How do you know? Probably some form of one of those reason above. My point was, when you ask a believer why they believe in God, they'll say "Because scriptures tells me, Because I feel it, and because it seems like some higher power created the universe"

But other believers who believe in different gods use the same types of arguments. Why are their gods not just as valid? Any argument you, as one type of believer, could use to refute their arguments could be used to refute your own.

 

[razeontherock]

This in no way diminishes the ramifications of the post you responded to.

 

[createdtoworship]

When why can't you all get your stories straight?


P.S. Your signature is slightly amusing because Isaac Newton was also an alchemist. He was a brilliant man but that doesn't mean he was right about everything.

not perfectly straight but all going the right direction, (and newton was a heretic as well- I just like that he liked the bible)

 

[createdtoworship]

I am open to the possibility. It's just that no one has convinced me yet.

If I had 5 people write down what they think their own internal proof from God is without mentioning their God, do you think you'd be able to tell which religion they follow?

Every religious person will tell you the same thing.

Person1: God reveals himself through nature.

Person2: God speaks to me

Person3: God gives me a burning in my bosom

Person4: God's holy scripture speaks to me

Person5: I just know. You can't know what it's like unless you become one of us.

And then when they find out that Person1 is Muslim, Person2 is Zoroastrian, Person3 is Mormon, Person4 is Jewish, and Person5 is neo-pagan, an argument will ensue about whose proof is real and whose isn't.

William Lane Craig:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

THE CAUSE IS GOD, ACCORDING TO THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

 

[razeontherock]

William Lane Craig:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

THE CAUSE IS GOD, ACCORDING TO THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Allow me to slightly rephrase, for the benefit of those not equipped with ears to hear:

The cause does exist, even though we don't understand it. That cause is the very definition of G-d, whom we don't understand either. If you're talking about something else, it's not the Biblical G-d you are considering.

This is the very argument that brought me to Faith. (Independently, no one told me about this)

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

William Lane Craig:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

THE CAUSE IS GOD, ACCORDING TO THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

Point one is an unfounded assumption. We can't currently look far enough back into the big bang to see the exact first moment. We can only look to within a few seconds I believe. There's no reason to believe that anything caused it. Now, there's also no reason to believe that nothing caused it either. We can assume it was caused by something, fine. But why does that something have to be an intelligence? And how in the world do people jump from "there must be a first cause" to "That first cause is intelligent, it cares about us, and look here! It wrote a book for us!"

There is absolutely no reason to make those connections. Saying that the universe has a first cause and that first cause is god, is exactly as helpful as saying the universe is god. Both statements have absolutely zero value because they don't tell us anything new about anything.


And all of that is irrelevant because there's no reason to believe the universe had a first cause anyway. WHY must everything have a cause? What cause God? You say, well he has always existed. He didn't BEGIN to exist so he doesn't need a first cause. Why can't you say the same about the universe? Why not skip a step and cut out the middle man? And if I grant to you that the universe requires an eternal uncaused first-cause, why must it necessarily be loving, or even intelligent for that matter?


The cosmological argument has too many holes, requires too many unfounded assumptions, and relies upon special pleading.

I'm content with saying "I don't know." There's no reason to jump to conclusions based on faulty logic.

 

[razeontherock]

There is reason to examine the logic you find faulty though. If you don't question reality itself, you do know things came to be. This is not jumping to conclusions! And from there it makes perfect sense, except we are left with the uncomfortable not knowing precisely who or what G-d is.

People in your shoes almost always fill in that blank with strawmen.

 

[createdtoworship]

Allow me to slightly rephrase, for the benefit of those not equipped with ears to hear:

The cause does exist, even though we don't understand it. That cause is the very definition of G-d, whom we don't understand either. If you're talking about something else, it's not the Biblical G-d you are considering.

This is the very argument that brought me to Faith. (Independently, no one told me about this)

not the biblical God but it's the same thing as the Biblical one, or can be switched to be compatible with the Bible. But your right we cannot know that the cause is a Biblical cause scientifically.

 

[createdtoworship]

Point one is an unfounded assumption. We can't currently look far enough back into the big bang to see the exact first moment. We can only look to within a few seconds I believe. There's no reason to believe that anything caused it. Now, there's also no reason to believe that nothing caused it either. We can assume it was caused by something, fine. But why does that something have to be an intelligence? And how in the world do people jump from "there must be a first cause" to "That first cause is intelligent, it cares about us, and look here! It wrote a book for us!"

There is absolutely no reason to make those connections. Saying that the universe has a first cause and that first cause is god, is exactly as helpful as saying the universe is god. Both statements have absolutely zero value because they don't tell us anything new about anything.


And all of that is irrelevant because there's no reason to believe the universe had a first cause anyway. WHY must everything have a cause? What cause God? You say, well he has always existed. He didn't BEGIN to exist so he doesn't need a first cause. Why can't you say the same about the universe? Why not skip a step and cut out the middle man? And if I grant to you that the universe requires an eternal uncaused first-cause, why must it necessarily be loving, or even intelligent for that matter?


The cosmological argument has too many holes, requires too many unfounded assumptions, and relies upon special pleading.

I'm content with saying "I don't know." There's no reason to jump to conclusions based on faulty logic.

nothing caused the big bang? interesting.