Hell is human creations

lol but he has long hair and his half-naked......i don't like guys like that :Ptwilightpanda

[QUOTE="mindstorm"][QUOTE="twilightpanda"]

i don't even know the guy and you want me to spend an eternity with him? D:

:P

twilightpanda

Think of it like a blind date that is guaranteed to turn out well. :P

lol but he has long hair and his half-naked......i don't like guys like that :P

Actually he had his hair pulled out (at least according to a prophesy in Isaiah) and was completely naked... but that's a discussion for another time. :o

Now he has white hair and a white robe (assuming the text I'm speaking about is a literal discription).

What, you're saying this isn't your type? :P ChiliDragon

that is not long hair.......i am talking about hair below the shoulders 

Actually he had his hair pulled out (at least according to a prophesy in Isaiah) and was completely naked... but that's a discussion for another time. :o

Now he has white hair and a white robe (assuming the text I'm speaking about is a literal discription).

mindstorm

so he looks like gandalf now? lol :P

[QUOTE="twilightpanda"]and if heaven and hell did exist the thought of being in heaven forever seems boring don't you think?ChiliDragon

It's still pure specualtion either way is it not?

[QUOTE="twilightpanda"]

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="twilightpanda"]and if heaven and hell did exist the thought of being in heaven forever seems boring don't you think?mindstorm

ya but i am the kind of person who gets bored really easily even if i am happy :P

I guarentee heaven will not be boring. Indeed, there will not be orgies and drunkenness but this fun and enjoyment will be good and eternal. Essentually, heaven is eternal bliss with the one we love most dearly, Jesus Christ. If we do not love Jesus, well that would explain why we might not look forward to heaven.

It's still pure specualtion either way is it not?THUMPTABLE

Not trying to be rude, but your speculating on specualtion:PTHUMPTABLE

Not quite, just being biblical. :P

that is not long hair.......i am talking about hair below the shoulders

twilightpanda

Ah, but why do you make the assumption that Jesus did have hair below the shoulders?

[QUOTE="twilightpanda"]

that is not long hair.......i am talking about hair below the shoulders

Lansdowne5

Ah, but why do you make the assumption that Jesus did have hair below the shoulders?

because of all the paintings.......i don't know why people paint him that way since no one knows exactly what he looks like

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="twilightpanda"]

that is not long hair.......i am talking about hair below the shoulders

twilightpanda

Ah, but why do you make the assumption that Jesus did have hair below the shoulders?

because of all the paintings.......i don't know why people paint him that way since no one knows exactly what he looks like

The earliest painters actually didn't paint him with long hair -- it was only after the 4th century it started.

I suppose people might have confused being a Nazarite (someone who didn't cut their hair) with being a Nazarene (someone from the town of Nazareth). :)

The earliest painters actually didn't paint him with long hair -- it was only after the 4th century it started.

I suppose people might have confused being a Nazarite (someone who didn't cut their hair) with being a Nazarene (someone from the town of Nazareth). :)

Lansdowne5

So people's impression of Jesus changed due to the misinterpretation of a word?

That sounds familiar! :P 

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

The earliest painters actually didn't paint him with long hair -- it was only after the 4th century it started.

I suppose people might have confused being a Nazarite (someone who didn't cut their hair) with being a Nazarene (someone from the town of Nazareth). :)

GabuEx

So people's impression of Jesus changed due to the misinterpretation of a word?

That sounds familiar! :P 

It is a possibility, yes. 

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

The earliest painters actually didn't paint him with long hair -- it was only after the 4th century it started.

I suppose people might have confused being a Nazarite (someone who didn't cut their hair) with being a Nazarene (someone from the town of Nazareth). :)

Lansdowne5

So people's impression of Jesus changed due to the misinterpretation of a word?

That sounds familiar! :P 

It is a possibility, yes. 

It's really hard to say.  Short hair, just as in our culture, is seen as more clean and proper.  As a result, the early church had paintings of Jesus looking just like that (later than 200 A.D.).  The only reason why I would not trust this account is that these same paintings have Jesus with no beard. 

Isaiah 50:6 states, "I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting."  I do believe this is indeed a future prophecy speaking of Jesus.  As such, I do believe he has a beard.

Towards the "Eternal fun in Heaven" discussion

But what exactly do you do, if you are stuck in there with only similar people for eternity?

It reminds me of those situations where one man thinks he knows what is best for everyone, and we know how that works out...

Maybe contributing to my falling out of Christianity is the fact that Heaven never even sounded very good to me. All people say is "It is filled with love, and you will be perfectly happy there for all eternity with Jesus." That doesn't sound like fun, do you ever play videogames where all you do is be nice to people and keep someone company? I don't, because it's not that fun. Particularly if you have to play that game non-stop for an eternity.

Towards the "Eternal fun in Heaven" discussion

But what exactly do you do, if you are stuck in there with only similar people for eternity?

itsTolkien_time

Not quite.  Phillipians 2:9-11 puts it this way, "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,  and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."  

The idea of it being similar people is way off since it will include every people.  Also, one might need to clarify what it means by heaven.  When we die as followers of Christ, our spirits we will ascend into heaven but we only spend a limited amount of time there.  At the return of Christ he will physically resurrect his followers from the dead according to 1 Corinthians 15.

At that point Jesus will usher in his kingdom on earth.  He will re-create the earth, make it as it was intended to be.  There will no longer be sin and death in this world.  Isaiah 65:17-25 as well as the end of Revelation speaks of this time.

It reminds me of those situations where one man thinks he knows what is best for everyone, and we know how that works out...

Maybe contributing to my falling out of Christianity is the fact that Heaven never even sounded very good to me. All people say is "It is filled with love, and you will be perfectly happy there for all eternity with Jesus." That doesn't sound like fun, do you ever play videogames where all you do is be nice to people and keep someone company? I don't, because it's not that fun. Particularly if you have to play that game non-stop for an eternity.

itsTolkien_time

No wonder you do not like the idea of heaven.

Have you ever spent time with a girlfriend or whomever and simply wished that it would last forever?  Or maybe spent time with some friends and wished time would always be like that?  I'd imagine eternity and spending time with Jesus to be very much that same way.

This New Creation will be an existence that you've likely always wanted.  What I mean by this is that it has all the good things about life but no sin, death, disease, suffering, pain, etc. 

(The rest is simply my assumptions about heaven) In the Garden of Eden Adam was cursed with being burdened by work.  No longer will work be a burden.  We will be given tasks that will not be a burden.  We will essentually have the best possible job and life ever all while praising the God that we love.  However, if you do not love Christ then that wouldn't sound quite as appealing.

Have you ever spent time with a girlfriend or whomever and simply wished that it would last forever? Or maybe spent time with some friends and wished time would always be like that?mindstorm

This is a great description of how I picture heaven, and also the main reason I don't think it will be very boring.ChiliDragon

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]This is a great description of how I picture heaven, and also the main reason I don't think it will be very boring._Tobli_

That's assuming time exists........and that we will be able to percieve it.......

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]This is a great description of how I picture heaven, and also the main reason I don't think it will be very boring._Tobli_

At the end of the day, however, I don't think it even matters.  A person's goal for serving Christ is to glorify him, not because we want blessings.  That's selfish and not what Christianity is all about.  

Many people I've spoken with have the idea of "If I become a Christian, what do I get out of it?"  The question is even wrong.  It's, "Is the best way that I can possibly serve God (assuming he exists) be becoming a Christian?" 

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]This is a great description of how I picture heaven, and also the main reason I don't think it will be very boring._Tobli_

At the end of the day, however, I don't think it even matters.  A person's goal for serving Christ is to glorify him, not because we want blessings.  That's selfish and not what Christianity is all about.  

Many people I've spoken with have the idea of "If I become a Christian, what do I get out of it?"  The question is even wrong.  It's, "Is the best way that I can possibly serve God (assuming he exists) be becoming a Christian?" 

mindstorm

Yeah, that's pretty much my take on it... it never fails to make me sad when I see people ask questions along the lines of, "Well, what's the point of believing if not for eternal salvation?"  I can't help but feel that they've completely missed the point, and seem to follow Jesus more out of fear than out of love.  I've always said that if God grants me eternal life, then so much the better, but I would love him all the same even if he didn't - a love contingent on "what will you do for me in return?" is scarcely a genuine love at all.

This is also one reason why I don't like God-of-the-gaps arguments, too - in my view, they insult God by pretty much rendering him nothing more than a temporary answer to questions until science finds the actual answer.  If God created the universe, then it seems to me that one ought to be able to find God in every single thing true about the universe, not merely in the bits and pieces that we don't yet understand.

If God created the universe, then it seems to me that one ought to be able to find God in every single thing true about the universe, not merely in the bits and pieces that we don't yet know.GabuEx

I think it depends on why one tries to look for God. If you are looking for an answer to everything we don't yet know, you'll never be able to see heaven in a wild flower of find God in the rain.... it probably won't even occur to you to look in those places. We know where the rain comes from. Explain the neutrons! That sort of thing. :PChiliDragon

Well, it's not that I don't understand it - I think it's a natural human tendency to feel uncomfortable in the face of what we don't yet know and to try to fill in those gaps with an easy answer that makes them feel more confident about the universe.  God-of-the-gaps arguments have been around since pretty much forever - first thunder and lightning were because of God, then the motion of celestial bodies was because of God, then the stability of the solar system was because of God... I doubt it will ever be something that goes away, but that doesn't change my view of it. :P

Everything has gaps. When you work something down to its smallest bit, there has to be a way to divide it even further. We used to think that atoms were as small as matter got, but that was disproven. How long until we find the particles that make up electrons? The same with God. Why was he here? Then continue from there. The gaps make everything hard to believe. What lies beyond the edgeo of space? What happens to time beyond the boundary of the expanding universe?itsTolkien_time

Everything has gaps. When you work something down to its smallest bit, there has to be a way to divide it even further. We used to think that atoms were as small as matter got, but that was disproven. How long until we find the particles that make up electrons? The same with God. Why was he here? Then continue from there. The gaps make everything hard to believe. What lies beyond the edgeo of space? What happens to time beyond the boundary of the expanding universe?itsTolkien_time

Side note: There is already something that makes up electrons, protons and neutrons. They're called quarks

(I'll enter the debate once i've read every page just to see the train of thought).

domatron23

Side note: There is already something that makes up electrons, protons and neutrons. They're called quarks

Maqda7

Actually, those only make up protons and neutrons.  Electrons still have no known subcomponents.

[QUOTE="Maqda7"]

Side note: There is already something that makes up electrons, protons and neutrons. They're called quarks

GabuEx

Actually, those only make up protons and neutrons. Electrons still have no known subcomponents.

Well I now officialy do not believe a word my physics teacher said.

Hell is life, as is Heaven. It's always struck me curious as to why whenever Heaven or Hell is mentioned, it's never once considered to be present right now, only ever mentioned in the abstract. Well, why not? Life can be utter bliss in one moment, and horrific continuous torture in another. LIVING is hell, period.

If not, then I still have my "sin queue" waiting to cash-in when I bite the bullet just in case. Whew....as if I didn't already have enough to worry about.

Yeah, that's pretty much my take on it... it never fails to make me sad when I see people ask questions along the lines of, "Well, what's the point of believing if not for eternal salvation?"  I can't help but feel that they've completely missed the point, and seem to follow Jesus more out of fear than out of love.  I've always said that if God grants me eternal life, then so much the better, but I would love him all the same even if he didn't - a love contingent on "what will you do for me in return?" is scarcely a genuine love at all.

GabuEx

Sorry for dragging this thread up after a month of quiteness (where did MatrixSamurai27 go?), but I've been impressed by(and learned from) GabuEx's statements and justification regarding concepts of eternity and damnation.

It would seem a hugely important paradigm shift in Christianity if you are correct, Gabu. It would seem a robust argument - using actual textual source analysis criticism. This conclusion would make the prospect of faith far less intimidating for many.

I'm thinking the central feature of disagreement is the usage and contextualisation of "aion" and "aoinios" in the NT. My fear is that contextualisation uses inference, so can not be an exact interpretation of meaning. So I wonder how other uses of the word, where it is meant to mean "for ever", differ in the application of their structure and context.

Do you know of a bible version that most accurately translates the source texts, with respect paid to greek usage and abstract meaning? 

I do know that not all early Christians have the same view of scripture and faith (Gnostics, etc), which is why the council of Nicaea convened, isn't it?. so I'm not sure I can really accept a unified account of early Christian thought.

The inferences between divinity and sulphur do seem tenuous. If the same word is used for each, it does not necessarily make for a linked definition. Sulphur gives off suphur dioxide gas when burnt - a noxious and poisonous gas. It also melts into a sticky dark orange liquid when it burns (on its own). There is evidence of sulphur being used in pre-Christian pagan festivals, so links to divinity compare with links to false worship too. The attributes of sulphur make it well suited to the notion of fiery damnation as equally as "divine cleansing". 

Sorry for dragging this thread up after a month of quiteness (where did MatrixSamurai27 go?), but I've been impressed by(and learned from) GabuEx's statements and justification regarding concepts of eternity and damnation.

It would seem a hugely important paradigm shift in Christianity if you are correct, Gabu. It would seem a robust argument - using actual textual source analysis criticism. This conclusion would make the prospect of faith far less intimidating for many.RationalAtheist

Senior year of mechanical engineering is hell lol. I will probably start putting a response together piece by piece because that's all I have time for. The research I have done so far has suggested Gabu Ex is ignorant of some important scholarship. One thing for now is that people back then used sulfur in their homes because they thought it drove evil spirits AWAY.

Senior year of mechanical engineering is hell lol. I will probably start putting a response together piece by piece because that's all I have time for. The research I have done so far has suggested GabuEx is ignorant of some important scholarship. One thing for now is that people back then used sulfur in their homes because they thought it drove evil spirits AWAY.

MatrixSamurai27

I think I nearly know how you feel. I transferred away from Mech BEng after year 1 to Computer science (years ago) for an easier ride. So good luck with that!

I butted in since I thought Gabu put a very cogent argument across. A claim of ignorance does seem a bit misguided, if I may be so presumptuous. I think the resolution is to assess the "scholarship" used for each claim to assess its importance. Scholarship can be subject to tremendous inference and interpretation and has no objective standards of quality, which leads to issues like this. It would be great to see the majority Christian view justified here, all the same.

What could be worse than burning in hell, unable to escape for eternity, surrounded by a molten substance that, as well as burning and sticking to you, was also trying to drive you AWAY. It would be like shear hell! (geddit?)

Anyway, it would be good to hear your further thoughts on this fascinating (to me) thread, whenever you do get the time.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

Sorry for dragging this thread up after a month of quiteness (where did MatrixSamurai27 go?), but I've been impressed by(and learned from) GabuEx's statements and justification regarding concepts of eternity and damnation.

It would seem a hugely important paradigm shift in Christianity if you are correct, Gabu. It would seem a robust argument - using actual textual source analysis criticism. This conclusion would make the prospect of faith far less intimidating for many.MatrixSamurai27

Senior year of mechanical engineering is hell lol. I will probably start putting a response together piece by piece because that's all I have time for. The research I have done so far has suggested Gabu Ex is ignorant of some important scholarship. One thing for now is that people back then used sulfur in their homes because they thought it drove evil spirits AWAY.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Yeah, that's pretty much my take on it... it never fails to make me sad when I see people ask questions along the lines of, "Well, what's the point of believing if not for eternal salvation?"  I can't help but feel that they've completely missed the point, and seem to follow Jesus more out of fear than out of love.  I've always said that if God grants me eternal life, then so much the better, but I would love him all the same even if he didn't - a love contingent on "what will you do for me in return?" is scarcely a genuine love at all.

RationalAtheist

Sorry for dragging this thread up after a month of quiteness (where did MatrixSamurai27 go?), but I've been impressed by(and learned from) GabuEx's statements and justification regarding concepts of eternity and damnation.

It would seem a hugely important paradigm shift in Christianity if you are correct, Gabu. It would seem a robust argument - using actual textual source analysis criticism. This conclusion would make the prospect of faith far less intimidating for many.

I'm thinking the central feature of disagreement is the usage and contextualisation of "aion" and "aoinios" in the NT. My fear is that contextualisation uses inference, so can not be an exact interpretation of meaning. So I wonder how other uses of the word, where it is meant to mean "for ever", differ in the application of their structure and context.

Do you know of a bible version that most accurately translates the source texts, with respect paid to greek usage and abstract meaning? 

Yes, actually, I do - there are two Bible translations I know of whose sole purpose is to provide as literal a translation of the source text as possible without any regard for readability or textual flow.  They are Young's Literal Translation and the Concordant Literal Version, and are intended more for study than for reading.  Young's Literal translates aionion kolasin - the crucial phrase that is the only place where translators find the phrase "eternal punishment" in the entire Bible - as "punishment age-during", not "eternal punishment".  Concordant Literal translates it as "chastisement eonian".  Neither contain from cover to cover any sense whatsoever of eternal punishment of the wicked.

As for uses of the word where it is meant to mean "forever", well... there aren't any, really.  Because that isn't what the word meant.  The Greek language already had a word that meant "eternal" when the word aionios was coined; that word was aidios, used twice in the Bible and not once with regards to the punishment of humans.  To assert that aionion means "eternal" when there already was a Greek word that means "eternal" would basically to say that the Greek had two words that were complete synonyms - which would be extremely out of character for the language.  Plus, aionion is just the adjective form of the noun aion (eon), and the latter appears over and over again in the Bible in the plural form.  Unless one wishes to assert that there exist multiple eternities (one infinite period of time isn't enough?), it just makes no sense whatsoever to translate it in this way.

I do know that not all early Christians have the same view of scripture and faith (Gnostics, etc), which is why the council of Nicaea convened, isn't it?. so I'm not sure I can really accept a unified account of early Christian thought.

RationalAtheist

The council of Nicaea was indeed convened to establish certain points of orthodox thought, yes.  However, Gregory of Nyssa, one of the pivotal contributors to the Nicene Creed, was an unrepentant universalist.  We have at least three pieces of writing each from a non-universalist (which I provided earlier) that attest to the idea that the masses were indeed widely universalist in nature, along with the prominent theological teachers in early Christianity.  There were pages upon pages of writings from the earliest Christian teachers attempting to dispel wrong teachings that had taken root among the population, and not a single one of them until much later said a single word against universalism.

Certaintly there were many things that were recognized as false from the beginning despite the fact that the masses adhered to them, and which many attempted to stamp out.  Universalism, however, is rather notably absent from this group.  Both the masses and the teachers adhered to it, and for the first five hundred years or so, no one spoke a word against this doctrine.  And those who did come to speak out against this doctrine were exclusively those whose primary language of learning was Latin, not Greek - precisely because it was the Latin translation of the New Testament that first contained the notion of eternal punishment, not the original Greek.

The inferences between divinity and sulphur do seem tenuous. If the same word is used for each, it does not necessarily make for a linked definition. Sulphur gives off suphur dioxide gas when burnt - a noxious and poisonous gas. It also melts into a sticky dark orange liquid when it burns (on its own). There is evidence of sulphur being used in pre-Christian pagan festivals, so links to divinity compare with links to false worship too. The attributes of sulphur make it well suited to the notion of fiery damnation as equally as "divine cleansing". 

RationalAtheist

The fact that the same word is used for each is only a small piece of the puzzle.  There are plenty of recorded documents of people extolling both its purification ability and its medical benefits, which I have provided.  Whether or not these medical benefits are real is not the point - the point is the symbolism that it held for the people.  When Jesus spoke, he spoke in terms that the people would understand; hence, the use of sulfur as a symbol, along with fire, another powerful piece of symbolism.  From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Fire is perhaps one of the most symbolically complex phenomena in the history of human culture. It renders raw meats and vegetables into cooked and edible food, base minerals into useful and durable metals, and porous dirt and clay into watertight pottery. It destroys the forests and brushlands, but its ashes make the earth fertile and productive. Fire is thus viewed as a powerful transformer of the negative to the positive. Because of such properties, fire is commonly found in purification rites throughout the world."

If we understand the fire and sulfur as described to be symbols along with all the others found in the Bible, rather than the overly literal picture where people are literally thrown into an endless expanse of fire and sulfur, then the description paints a vastly different picture - and one that, I would assert, is much closer in line with statements that Jesus is "the Savior of all" (1 Timothy 4:10) and the parable in which the shepherd does not rest until he finds his lost sheep (Luke 15:3-7).

It is very easy to get bogged down in this verse or that, or this word or that, but to do so fundamentally misses the big picture.  We are told in no uncertain terms that God is love (1 John 4:8 ) - not just loving, but love itself; that is to say, that when we experience love, we are experiencing God.  We are additionally told in no uncertain terms that anyone who does not know love does not know God, period. (1 John 4:8 )  We are told that love is the most important thing one can have, and that without it, one is nothing. (1 Corinthians 13:2)  It is thus the case that the very foundation of our understanding of God must be love: one who knows love knows God, and one who does not know love does not know God.

Rather than examining singular verses or ideas with a fine-toothed comb, I think it is much productive to simply always keep this principle in mind.  Bible verses can be mistranslated, misquoted, and misunderstood.  Love cannot.  The picture of God as love yet the tormentor of most of mankind conveys a god afflicted with the most acute case of multiple personality disorder I have ever seen.  On the other hand, the picture of God as love who will purify and bring all humanity to his embrace is one of complete consistency, and is a God whom I submit any may worship without any trouble to their conscience at all.

The research I have done so far has suggested Gabu Ex is ignorant of some important scholarship. One thing for now is that people back then used sulfur in their homes because they thought it drove evil spirits AWAY.

MatrixSamurai27

I don't see how that is in any way in conflict with anything I have said.  It was thought to drive evil spirits away through divine power - thereby purifying what it is applied to, which is exactly what I've said all along.  Humans are not evil spirits, but rather were thought to be afflicted by evil spirits.  We are told in no uncertain terms to love our neighbors, our enemies - pretty much every single person on the planet.  If humans were evil spirits, then Jesus would effectively have told us that we are to love evil spirits.  I would assume you would not be comfortable making that assertion.

Thanks, Gabu - that's a lot to take in.

I found Youngs Literal Translation on the interweb and the associated Wiki page.

And the Concordant Literal (NT only) here, with a Wiki here.

Anyone fancy trying to beat me reading though them? (I do hope they're genuine versions!)

They do seem like good resources to get the most unpolluted versions of biblical verse.

:D 

[QUOTE="MatrixSamurai27"]One thing for now is that people back then used sulfur in their homes because they thought it drove evil spirits AWAY. Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="MatrixSamurai27"]One thing for now is that people back then used sulfur in their homes because they thought it drove evil spirits AWAY. ChiliDragon

I dont see what point of Gabu's, matrixsamurai is trying to counter by his statement...

A claim of ignorance does seem a bit misguided, if I may be so presumptuous. RationalAtheist

It only is if I don't demonstrate it eventually.

Scholarship can be subject to tremendous inference and interpretation and has no objective standards of quality, which leads to issues like this. RationalAtheist

That sounds like a nice out when confronted with quality scholarship one doesn't like.

What could be worse than burning in hell, unable to escape for eternity, surrounded by a molten substance that, as well as burning and sticking to you, was also trying to drive you AWAY. It would be like shear hell! (geddit?)RationalAtheist

I thought you said you read the thread? My view says hell is a place of everlasting shame and seperation from God's glorious presence. No physical pain.

And what would that prove?Teenaged

It gels with my view that God's punishment is driving sinners away from his glorious presence into hell. That is one possible thing the imagery could suggest.

They used to burn it in houses whose owners died of the plague, thinking that purified it and made the house safer to be in.ChiliDragon

They believed it purified it because they believe it drove the evil spirits out of the house whom they believed caused sickness. Going along with the judgment at the end of time, the imagery for hell would suggest the universe is purified because the wicked are driven away to hell.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]A claim of ignorance does seem a bit misguided, if I may be so presumptuous. MatrixSamurai27

It only is if I don't demonstrate it eventually.

Scholarship can be subject to tremendous inference and interpretation and has no objective standards of quality, which leads to issues like this. RationalAtheist

That sounds like a nice out when confronted with quality scholarship one doesn't like.

What could be worse than burning in hell, unable to escape for eternity, surrounded by a molten substance that, as well as burning and sticking to you, was also trying to drive you AWAY. It would be like shear hell! (geddit?)RationalAtheist

I thought you said you read the thread? My view says hell is a place of everlasting shame and seperation from God's glorious presence. No physical pain. 

I was only trying to point out that ad-hominem attacks are the weakest form of argument. To me, they indicate the end of a bad one.

I thought you were "busy" getting this "quality scholarship" in trying to respond to Gabu's plentiful evidence. So please permit me to consider taking this "nice out", when you do confront me with it.

I'm sorry - I must have missed your painless hell. Hell doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as it used to - after reading this thread. The evil spirits being driven away during purification is still a valid interpretation of sulphur-usage in hell though, isn't it?

It gels with my view that God's punishment is driving sinners away from his glorious presence into hell. That is one possible thing the imagery could suggest.

MatrixSamurai27

Revelation 14:10 says that those in the lake of fire and sulfur are "in the presence of ... the Lamb".  The Lamb is Jesus.  People always say that hell is estrangement from God, yet the Bible says right there that all those in the lake of fire and sulfur not only are not permanently estranged from God, but also are in Jesus' presence.  How many times did Jesus reject one who sincerely wished to follow him during his time on Earth?  And how many times did Jesus heal another person during his time on Earth?  Why, then, would we expect him to be completely different here?

So, two questions:

1. It has been established that fire is a powerful symbol for the transformation of the negative to the positive.  If you are accepting the idea that the sulfur is intended as symbolism, then you must accept that the fire is symbolic as well, as they are inextricably linked.  So, then, how does the fire fit into the picture?  Where does purification fit into the picture of eternal shame and separation from God?

2. How in the world can the assertion be made that hell is estrangement from God if we are told in plain text that all those in this lake of fire and sulfur are in the presence of the Lamb?

I mean no offense by this, but your view of hell as everlasting shame and separation is just in plain conflict with not only the symbolism in the Bible but also the bare text alone, too.  When Jesus gives the parable of the shepherd and the lost sheep, how long did the shepherd search for the sheep?  We are told "until he finds it" (Luke 15:4).  What will God be at the very end?  We are told, "all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28 ) - that is, all things in everyone.  How could this be if the vast majority of humanity were eternally estranged from God?  This is the truth of the matter: we are not abandoned or driven away when we die in sin; rather, we are purified in the presence of Jesus.

Those who remain sinners are like drug addicts, addicted to the momentary highs of sin, unwilling to recognize the destruction and pain that their addiction is causing.  Following Jesus in life is akin to recognizing yourself the damage you're doing to yourself and others, and fixing it.   Those who die in sin are those who did not, and the lake of fire and sulfur is God effectively staging an intervention, much as one's friends would do if one were addicted to drugs and nothing else worked.  The torment is not inflicted by God, but rather ourselves - it is the same torment that a drug addict goes through when first placed on the road to sobriety.  We don't want to change, because we feel an empty sense of security in our state of being.  But God knows that there is a way to attain happiness far out of the league of momentary pleasures that one can attain through sin, and will not rest until we recognize that, just as one finally made sober recognizes how much of a favor his friends did for him.

Going along with the judgment at the end of time, the imagery for hell would suggest the universe is purified because the wicked are driven away to hell.MatrixSamurai27

Wow Gabu, that is quite interesting.  I always thought of hell as eternal seperation from God, but you've convinced me otherwise.  But that makes me wonder what exactly does satan rule over then?  Does he do this temporary punishment?  Will he and his demons brought back to God?  Those are some of the things I'm wondering. 

Wow Gabu, that is quite interesting.  I always thought of hell as eternal seperation from God, but you've convinced me otherwise.  But that makes me wonder what exactly does satan rule over then?  Does he do this temporary punishment?  Will he and his demons brought back to God?  Those are some of the things I'm wondering. 

jackelhunter

Well, the devil doesn't, actually - Revelation 20:10 says that the devil is also cast into the lake of fire and sulfur along with the beast and false prophet, just like the humans.  The image of the devil lording over the damned in hell, victorious in his evil desires, is a popularized depiction, but one that I don't think has any real Biblical basis.  An ultimately victorious devil necessarily implies an ultimately defeated God, perhaps one of the biggest problems I have with the doctrine of eternal torment or separation.

As for the final fate of the devil, I'm not sure.  To be honest, I sometimes wonder whether the devil is intended to be a literal evil being who exists unto himself, or if he is intended to be simply a personification of the darkest parts of humanity.  If it is indeed a real entity external to humanity, however, I personally lean strongly towards the side of the ultimate reconciliation of the devil himself, too, which was actually a position held by the masses in the earliest days of Christianity.  The way I see it, if we are to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21) and if mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:13), and if indeed God will be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28 ), then I can scarcely imagine a more fitting triumph over evil than the salvation and reconciliation even of evil itself to the warmth and love of God.  "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26)

[QUOTE="jackelhunter"]

Wow Gabu, that is quite interesting.  I always thought of hell as eternal seperation from God, but you've convinced me otherwise.  But that makes me wonder what exactly does satan rule over then?  Does he do this temporary punishment?  Will he and his demons brought back to God?  Those are some of the things I'm wondering. 

GabuEx

Well, the devil doesn't, actually - Revelation 20:10 says that the devil is also cast into the lake of fire and sulfur along with the beast and false prophet, just like the humans.  The image of the devil lording over the damned in hell, victorious in his evil desires, is a popularized depiction, but one that I don't think has any real Biblical basis.  An ultimately victorious devil necessarily implies an ultimately defeated God, perhaps one of the biggest problems I have with the doctrine of eternal torment or separation.

As for the final fate of the devil, I'm not sure.  To be honest, I sometimes wonder whether the devil is intended to be a literal evil being who exists unto himself, or if he is intended to be simply a personification of the darkest parts of humanity.  If it is indeed a real entity external to humanity, however, I personally lean strongly towards the side of the ultimate reconciliation of the devil himself, too, which was actually a position held by the masses in the earliest days of Christianity.  The way I see it, if we are to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21) and if mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:13), and if indeed God will be all in all (1 Corinthians 15:28 ), then I can scarcely imagine a more fitting triumph over evil than the salvation and reconciliation even of evil itself to the warmth and love of God.  "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26)

While reading this, one of the things I thought is the whole issue of what in the bible is meant to be literal and what isnt. Because it seems satan is a key figure in the Bible, so its hard to say whether or not he is meant to be literal.  Wasn't Jesus himself tempted by the Devil?  

The strange thing is that many things in the Bible have been reconsidered after more discoveries in science are made (and in this case it's through studying the texts in Greek), but exactly how does one go about determining the different stories of the Bible as literal or not?  I know this is pretty vague, but you seem like the guy to ask this question.  

While reading this, one of the things I thought is the whole issue of what in the bible is meant to be literal and what isnt. Because it seems satan is a key figure in the Bible, so its hard to say whether or not he is meant to be literal.  Wasn't Jesus himself tempted by the Devil?

jackelhunter

Yes, he was, but here's the thing: in none of the accounts whatsoever were there any witnesses on the scene.  Whenever the devil appears as an actual physical entity, it's always with consultation with God or Jesus, never with humans (except perhaps as the serpent in the Garden of Eden, if one interprets that as being Satan).  Pretty well every other time, Satan is simply presented as one to whom a human may belong.  That would indicate to me the very real possibility that the devil is not actually intended to be taken as a physical entity, but rather as a personification of sinful desire and temptation.

The strange thing is that many things in the Bible have been reconsidered after more discoveries in science are made (and in this case it's through studying the texts in Greek), but exactly how does one go about determining the different stories of the Bible as literal or not?  I know this is pretty vague, but you seem like the guy to ask this question.  

jackelhunter

Well, the allegorical interpretation of the Bible isn't really anything new.  Way back in the earliest days of Christianity, the theological school of Alexandria preached just that.  It's more the case that it's an interpretation that has grown in prominence in recent years; it's not, as many have asserted, just a cynical attempt to hold onto the Bible in light of recent scientific discoveries.

As for how one goes about determining what is literal and what isn't, well... that's pretty much one of the oldest unsolved questions in the history of Christianity.  Even right at the very beginning, you had Alexandria saying that it's allegorical, and Antioch saying that it's completely literal.  Forget Catholicism and Protestantism - this right here is pretty much the oldest divide in the religion.  If there were a way to determine just what's literal and what isn't, then we sure as heck haven't found it yet.

Personally, I tend to take a minimalist approach.  The ultimate message brought by Jesus was one of love and how we ought to conduct ourselves in life, not one of factual matters.  It would seem strange to me, then, if the entire rest of the Bible were indeed intended to tell us all about the physical universe in which we live, if indeed Jesus, the central figure in it all, didn't really say a single word about such things.  But that's just me.

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22)

This is not "all in Christ", but "in Christ all" - all will be made alive in the end, "so that God may be all in all" (panta en pasin - "everything in all things").  Thus our conclusion: it is not some elected minority who will live forever in the grace of God at the end of time, but everyone.  As I've said to others, we ought not to approach this with apprehension, but rather with joyous rapture - Jesus truly will be as victorious over death as he said he would be.GabuEx

In the whole context of 1st Corinthians 15, Paul is talking about the resurrection of the dead. His point isn't about eternal life, but how Christ's resurrection guarantees that everyone else will rise from the dead someday.

No offense, but this is plainly just hand-waving in an attempt to say "that doesn't count" without actually addressing the points being made.  Revelation says in no uncertain terms that those being punished are in the presence of the Lamb.  Period.  You can't look at that verse and then tell me that the punishment is separation from God when it plainly says right there that Jesus is present.GabuEx

Sorry, but Paul explicitly states that they are separated from God.

"They will be punished with eternal destruction, forever separated from the Lord and from his glorious power."

-2nd Thessalonians 1:8-9 (NLT)

Now, I gave you a hint later when I specified that the damned are separated from his glorious presence. This verse poses no contradiction with your Revelation cite because God, being omnipresent, is present in a sense in hell, but Jesus himself and the Glory of God are not there. This once again goes with my view that Heaven is a place of honor, because it is a great honor to be able to be with Jesus Himself and the Glory of God.

What I was saying is this: every single Christian we have on record in the first five centuries for whom the original Greek New Testament was their primary source for Biblical insight believed that the aionion kolasin was temporary and that all men would be reconciled to God.GabuEx

I think we will have a more fruitful discussion about this area if you can provide some sources that argue this while taking into consideration the whole context of what they were saying. It would take quite a while to check out the context of all the people you cite for myself.

Yes, it does.  The Hebrew of the Old Testament did not even have the concept of eternity.  It just was not in the vocabulary, full stop.  Thus, no Hebrew word can be translated into "eternal" without some hefty mental gymnastics.GabuEx

You're missing the nuance here in Daniel 12:2. Just because they didn't have a word for eternity doesn't mean they didn't have a mental concept of eternity. What other word would they use when they wanted to express the concept? Also, you didn't address the point about how the Jews viewed the resurrection body as eternal, which is another point in favor of seeing the concept of eternity being communicated here.

"This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:9-10)

Jesus additionally saves those who believe from the aionion kolasin that is required to purify those who die in sin.  But by no means does "especially" remove what precedes it from the tent formed by the sentence in which it appears.  If I say that I like science, and especially physics, then I do not say that I only like physics to the exclusion of the rest, but rather that I like it all.

Similarly, though many try and try and try some more, the end result is the same: Jesus is the Savior of all men.  And that, my friend, is the truly Good News.GabuEx

The problem is that Paul doesn't say Jesus will save all men. He says Jesus is the Savior because he is able to save all men, but that doesn't necessarily mean he will. Paul is emphasizing Jesus' title here. If Jesus was going to save Christians and non-Christians alike, then why would Paul see it necessary to emphasize that Jesus is especially the Savior of Christians? It makes much more sense to see that his reason for putting it this way is because the especially points to the fact that Christians accept his title of Savior.

But here's the thing: you have stated quite clearly that you do not believe kolasis to refer to punishment with the intent to improve the one being punished.  And if punishment is not intended to improve the one being punished, then the only other conclusion is that it must be an end unto itself.  Yet, here is where we run into a problem: the Greek word for punishment for the sake of punishment is timoria.  You are thus effectively asserting that kolasis is a synonym for timoria.GabuEx

No, I think kolasis gives a clue to the nature of the punishment, unlike timoria.

Yet, there are many texts such as the one from Clement of Alexandria that draw a clear distinction between kolasis and timoria: far from being synonyms, all the evidence points to them being mutually exclusive in nature.  So if you are to assert that kolasis does not refer to punishment with the intent to bring about an improvement, then to what form of punishment does it refer such that it is differentiated from timoria?  This is a question that you absolutely must answer for your position to be tenable.  Kolasis cannot refer to punishment for the sake of punishment, as that would make it timoria.  But you assert that it also does not refer to punishment for the sake of improvement.  Then what options remain?GabuEx

Timoria means what you said, but it doesn't really specify the nature of the punishment. Kolasis would refer to punishment but it also delineates the nature of the punishment. As I have argued, it can gel with my view because it deals with something being cut off. Also, as I have said, I have not seen you demonstrate scripturally that it is the wicked having their evil cut off from them, contra the wicked being cut off from the righteous which I assert and have provided scripture cites for.

Well, here's the thing regarding Sodom and Gomorrah.  People look at Sodom and Gomorrah as though the punishment meted towards it was final and annihilatory in nature, and then conclude that the lake of burning sulfur is the same.  But that just isn't so:GabuEx

Um, the actual cities were never rebuilt. Ezekiel is using them as a figure of speech.

For how can we declare that "mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13) if it is the case that the vast masses will be subject to unceasing, merciless judgment for all eternity?  The Greek word here translated to "triumph" is katakauchaomai, a word referring to the rejoicing at the sight of another's defeat - and until there be no sting of judgment left in existence, there can never truly be such a triumph, as clearly mercy will have had no final victory with which to lord over judgment.  If it is truly the case that mercy triumphs over judgment, then we must conclude that, in the end, mercy will indeed have the last laugh.GabuEx

The problem is that you misunderstand what "mercy" meant back then. It meant "fulfillment of covenant obligation." See here. So "fulfillment of covenant obligation" will triumph over judgment because God is obliged by the terms of the new covenant to save its participants from judgment.

1.    It has been established that fire is a powerful symbol for the transformation of the negative to the positive.  If you are accepting the idea that the sulfur is intended as symbolism, then you must accept that the fire is symbolic as well, as they are inextricably linked.  So, then, how does the fire fit into the picture?  Where does purification fit into the picture of eternal shame and separation from God?GabuEx

It's time for you to deal with what I said above.

"They believed it purified it because they believe it drove the evil spirits out of the house whom they believed caused sickness. Going along with the judgment at the end of time, the imagery for hell would suggest the universe is purified because the wicked are driven away to hell."

If we are to believe the sulfur imagery suggests the actual people are purified, then you have to show that the ancients believed that evil spirits themselves were purified by the sulfur instead of being driven away from the home.

I was only trying to point out that ad-hominem attacks are the weakest form of argument. To me, they indicate the end of a bad one.RationalAtheist

I wasn't using the word ignorant in the insulting sense, but the simple descriptive sense.

The evil spirits being driven away during purification is still a valid interpretation of sulphur-usage in hell though, isn't it?RationalAtheist

Yes, if it is understood that the universe is being purified, not them.

Or that the wickedness is driven away from them, leaving them pure.ChiliDragon

Yes, but that is only tenable if the Bible teaches that somewhere in an explicit sense, which I haven't seen yet. I have provided references that I think explicitly teach my view.

Okay, now that I've finished my reply, it's time I throw something new into the discussion. Namely, if Gabu's view on hell is correct, then it throws the doctrine of atonement on its head and makes it nonsensical. Gabu says people's punishment in hell will last a certain time, in proportion to the wickedness of their deeds. This brings up the question then, if God's punishment for sin is a function of time, then how in the world did Jesus' half a day on the cross pay for all the sins of the people that would become Christians?

Now, I have proposed an honor/shame view to explain what people experience in heaven and hell. This makes perfect sense of the atonement, namely, why Jesus' "short" sufferings were enough to pay for all Christians' sins, and why people stay in hell for eternity.

First I will provide this list (Source).

1.    God is in the position of highest authority, of the highest good, and is therefore a being of the highest personal honor.

2.    All sin and evil are therefore an insult to the honor of God, a disregard of His rule and authority and an honor offense.

3.    Any who commit sin/evil, therefore, are degrading God's honor and status. Because this honor rightly belongs to God, it must be restored.

It should be noted here that some may object that it is impossible to take away honor from God. This argument fails because ancient people recognized two types of honor: Acquired honor and what we might call inherent honor.

The second type of honor is honor due someone because of what they were by nature -- their family associations, for example. This type of honor is associated with God's nature and indeed can't be taken away.

However, acquired honor is a different matter. It has to do with one's deeds and authority. This kind of honor, even if it belongs to God, can indeed be taken away, because at its core is what others (including us) think of God.

4.    God's proper response to disobedience, which dishonors Him, is to require the shaming and punishment of those who degrade His honor.

5.    Jesus Christ underwent the crucifixion, a "status degradation ritual," in our place. In other words, he experienced the shame that was rightly owed to us. Crucifixion was the most shameful death in the NT world. See more on that here.

6.    As a corollary, one who accepts the payment offered by Jesus ought, sensibly, to be aware of this price that has been paid and respond accordingly. One who does not respond accordingly is not appreciative of the paid price and may not truly have accepted the gift.

7.    In the process of the crucifixion, then, Jesus acts as a broker for those who wish to enter into a covenant with God. Those who enter that covenant are expected to serve within that covenant if they have indeed made a commitment."

God, the being of highest honor, is the one doling out the shame so to speak. We are humans, and thus can only have human honor, which is not as "high" as divine honor. We can thus only ever suffer human shame (deprivation of all human honor), which would never satisfy the shame quotient punishment coming from a being of divine honor. This is why people can never be punished long enough in hell to get out. It has to do with the quality of the beings involved. To put another way, it's a qualitative matter over a quantitative one.

Now, you may already see this, but this is why Jesus crucifixion was enough to pay for all sin even though he was only up on the cross for half a day. He, having divine honor, suffered the worst shame possible in the world at the time. The Divine Son allowed himself to be shamed, thus giving the only offering that would satisfy the shame quotient punishment coming from a being of divine honor.

I'm sorry - I must have missed your painless hell. Hell doesn't sound anywhere near as bad as it used to - after reading this thread.RationalAtheist

I wouldn't say my view waters down hell all that much. It's still a place non-Christians will not desire to be. All the wonderful graces God gives to Christians and non-Christians alike in this world will not be there.