Would you prefer Hell or oblivion?

Moromaster

Note: This is not a discussion on whether Hell exists or not.

If you died and you had committed one of the deadly sins, would you prefer 'eternal damnation' or just sift into oblivion, nothingness?

equivariant

Moromaster wrote: »

Note: This is not a discussion on whether Hell exists or not.

If you died and you had committed one of the deadly sins, would you prefer 'eternal damnation' or just sift into oblivion, nothingness?

Would I be allowed a 1 month trial period of hell before I had to decide?

Moromaster

equivariant wrote: »

Would I be allowed a 1 month trial period of hell before I had to decide?

No.

greendom

Can you get promoted if you're a good boy ?

kelly1

Moromaster wrote: »

Note: This is not a discussion on whether Hell exists or not.

If you died and you had committed one of the deadly sins, would you prefer 'eternal damnation' or just sift into oblivion, nothingness?

Eternal and unimaginable suffering or nothingness? Tough decision...

PDN

Oblivion would be nice. If such things were decided by wishful thinking I would choose oblivion for everybody.

Fallen Buckshot

i dont know that oblivion wouldn't be hell .. endless torture etc etc or endless nothingness and mind numbing boredom ?

PDN

Fallen Buckshot wrote: »

i dont know that oblivion wouldn't be hell .. endless torture etc etc or endless nothingness and mind numbing boredom ?

Oblivion isn't boring if you're oblivious to it.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Oblivion isn't boring if you're oblivious to it.

just what I was thinking.

equivariant

Moromaster wrote: »

No.

Wow harsh! Even Sky allow you a one month trial period.:eek:

Seriously though, it is hard to answer this question without having some conception of what eternal damnation would be like

Pompey Magnus

I would definitely choose oblivion, no questions.

A variation on the question that I would find interesting is whether Christians would prefer to live in a universe in which everyone is assured of oblivion after death or in a univerise in which there is one correct faith and millions of incorrect faiths and if you pick the correct faith you have a chance of getting infinite and eternal reward after death but if you pick the wrong one or do not meet the standards after picking the correct one you would recieve infinite and eternal punishment.

vorbis

Oblivion without question.

In answer to your question Charco, I would go for a universe where everyone is assured of oblivion. I'm not a fan of the idea that people from other faiths go to Hell just for that reason alone.

Soul Winner

equivariant wrote: »

Wow harsh! Even Sky allow you a one month trial period.

Seriously though, it is hard to answer this question without having some conception of what eternal damnation would be like

Let me try to make it easy for you.

Hell:

If hell is inconceivably bad then let us try something that is conceivably bad. Imagine a pit where it is eternally hot and eternally dark and not just what we call dark like nighttime, I mean dark dark, nothing but deep and utter blackness and unquenchable heat with eternal wailing, screaming and gnashing of teeth, an eternally order-less and eternally chaotic existence with unceasing burning, choking and screaming.

Oblivion:

And now think of being aestheticized before an operation and given the 10 to 1 countdown by the doc and then you drop off, and then staying in that state forever, unaware of your existence and incapable of becoming aware of it.

Is it a hard question to answer now?

Soul Winner

Charco wrote: »

I would definitely choose oblivion, no questions.

A variation on the question that I would find interesting is whether Christians would prefer to live in a universe in which everyone is assured of oblivion after death or in a univerise in which there is one correct faith and millions of incorrect faiths and if you pick the correct faith you have a chance of getting infinite and eternal reward after death but if you pick the wrong one or do not meet the standards after picking the correct one you would recieve infinite and eternal punishment.

Picking the wrong faith will send you to hell. Rather rejecting the truth of the gospel will. If you reject that truth and are held to account for it what would you say in your defense? I believe God is a just God and He judges everyone based on their own standard. But people who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and reject it must give an account for why they rejected it. Jesus said that in my Father's kingdom their are many mansions. I believe there will be many in heaven that never even heard of Jesus. All the New Testament teaches is that for those who trust in God there is an absolute guarantee that they will make it in as long as they don't loose faith. He died for the whole field and is able to take whomever He pleases. So it is up to you whether or not you want to gamble with the call of God or not. I wouldn't to be worried about those who have never heard the gospel, I'd be more worried about myself having heard it and then reject it. How can there be remission for anyone who rejects so great a salvation as what God has provided in Christ once it has been preached adequately to them?

lugha

Soul Winner wrote: »

But people who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and reject it must give an account for why they rejected it. .... How can there be remission for anyone who rejects so great a salvation as what God has provided in Christ once it has been preached adequately to them?

Well here's my account. I heard it but I just wasn't sold on the idea. Nobody could or can give me a credible reason why I should opt for Christianity over any other religion. Simple as.

And the “adequately” qualifier is interesting. Don’t recall seeing that the last time this question came up. Surely it would only be adequate if it was good enough to convert me? So if I fail to be converted, ergo the preaching was not adequate. All my bases are covered! No?

PDN

lugha wrote: »

And the “adequately” qualifier is interesting. Don’t recall seeing that the last time this question came up. Surely it would only be adequate if it was good enough to convert me? So if I fail to be converted, ergo the preaching was not adequate. All my bases are covered! No?

No.

Adequate means that you understand it - if you choose to refuse it then that is your lookout.

greendom

Soul Winner wrote: »

Picking the wrong faith will send you to hell. Rather rejecting the truth of the gospel will. If you reject that truth and are held to account for it what would you say in your defense? I believe God is a just God and He judges everyone based on their own standard. But people who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and reject it must give an account for why they rejected it. Jesus said that in my Father's kingdom their are many mansions. I believe there will be many in heaven that never even heard of Jesus. All the New Testament teaches is that for those who trust in God there is an absolute guarantee that they will make it in as long as they don't loose faith. He died for the whole field and is able to take whomever He pleases. So it is up to you whether or not you want to gamble with the call of God or not. I wouldn't to be worried about those who have never heard the gospel, I'd be more worried about myself having heard it and then reject it. How can there be remission for anyone who rejects so great a salvation as what God has provided in Christ once it has been preached adequately to them?

I'd like to think that God would be a little understanding with people who had led a good life who didn't follow his every word, considering how corrupted his teachings have become by those entrusted with them.

Would he damn, for example, people turned off the Church by pedophile priests?

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

But people who have heard the gospel of Jesus Christ and reject it must give an account for why they rejected it.

Do you believe that God would accept any account?

99% of atheists are atheists because they are not convinced that Jesus is the son of God, not because they dislike or reject God or Jesus.

As for the topic. Oblivion seems like the obvious choice.

Soul Winner

greendom wrote: »

I'd like to think that God would be a little understanding with people who had led a good life who didn't follow his every word, considering how corrupted his teachings have become by those entrusted with them.

To know that His teachings have been corrupted assumes a knowledge of His teachings No?

Soul Winner

greendom wrote: »

Would he damn, for example, people turned off the Church by pedophile priests?

No He damns them for rejecting the price paid by His Son.

Soul Winner

NEWSFLASH: The Gospel of Jesus is the good news that He came and paid the price for your sins so that you don't have to.

What is so hard to understand about that?

No you can respond to this news in two ways:

1) I never sinned and don't need Jesus.

Or

2) Thank you Lord for your grace.

Now you mightn't be a bad sinner and feel the need for forgiveness in your life but that doesn't mean others are like that. Some people have more sensitive consciousness than that are when they hear about what Jesus did for them they accept it with a joyful heart. Now if you are totally convinced that there is no God and that you haven’t done anything to merit death by breaking His law even once in your life then good for you, if you're right then your right.

If you're not right then you will be held to account and will pay for your own sins because you rejected Jesus' payment for them which is what rejecting the Gospel is. Now do you still have a good excuse that nobody every explained the gospel adequately to you?

Welcome to the Christianity forum.

lugha

Soul Winner wrote: »

NEWSFLASH: The Gospel of Jesus is the good news that He came and paid the price for your sins so that you don't have to. What is so hard to understand about that? No you can respond to this news in two ways: 1) I never sinned and don't need Jesus. Or 2) Thank you Lord for your grace.

False dichotomy. There is a whole other option. Maybe there is a God but it is not the Christian one. Maybe one of the 1,000s of other possible religions that holds the real truth. In which case we do not know (and have no way of knowing) which horse to back!
Now what is so hard to understand about that?

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

99% of atheists are atheists because they are not convinced that Jesus is the son of God, not because they dislike or reject God or Jesus.

The other 1% must form the majority of atheists who post on discussion fora like these then - antagonistic as they so often are. The virulently expressed dislike for a God who has rightful say over how they behave, who owns them and to whom an account must be given gives lie the supposed lack of belief.

I'd agree with you that a lack of evidence is the reason why the unbeliever conciously disbelieves. But that doesn't let him off the hook - a person can believe God without having to believe in God. Consider, if you believe stealing is wrong then you, an atheist, believe God. It's wrong not because you believe so but because he said so, and instilled that sense into you.

And it would appear to be your believing God or no is the key issue with regard to whether you will be saved or not. Abraham believed God and was saved on account of it.

As for the topic. Oblivion seems like the obvious choice.

Most certainly.

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you're not right then you will be held to account and will pay for your own sins because you rejected Jesus' payment for them which is what rejecting the Gospel is. Now do you still have a good excuse that nobody every explained the gospel adequately to you?

So how do you believe we would be judged if no-one ever explained the Gospel to us? You said that you "wouldn't to be worried about those who have never heard the gospel, I'd be more worried about myself having heard it and then reject it."

So if the first Christians just decided to keep quiet and not tell people about the Good News and let the event die with them then would we all be just judged on our actions and not on our belief system that we happened to be born into or our lack of one? Are Christian missionaries guilty of condemning otherwise good people to eternal punishment by revealing the Gospel to them, people who could have been granted access to Heaven had it not been for those missionaries?

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

NEWSFLASH: The Gospel of Jesus is the good news that He came and paid the price for your sins so that you don't have to.

What is so hard to understand about that?

No you can respond to this news in two ways:

1) I never sinned and don't need Jesus.

Or

2) Thank you Lord for your grace.

Now you mightn't be a bad sinner and feel the need for forgiveness in your life but that doesn't mean others are like that. Some people have more sensitive consciousness than that are when they hear about what Jesus did for them they accept it with a joyful heart. Now if you are totally convinced that there is no God and that you haven’t done anything to merit death by breaking His law even once in your life then good for you, if you're right then your right.

If you're not right then you will be held to account and will pay for your own sins because you rejected Jesus' payment for them which is what rejecting the Gospel is. Now do you still have a good excuse that nobody every explained the gospel adequately to you?

Welcome to the Christianity forum.

I think you're still missing the point. I would love to accept Christianity. It is certainly good news to be offered the gift of grace, and a profound paradise. Existence would be infinitely better and more profound if Christianity were true. Yet I still don't accept it because I am not convinced that it is true. If I accepted Christianity because I wanted it to be true then I would be guilty of wishful thinking.

greendom

It feels as if Christianity is some sort of Big Brother or Derren Brown test.

The Clues were there, you didn't react to them you must pay the consequences.

Surely an all loving God would be more interested in people leading basically good lives than professing to believe in him.

What is the big deal with faith really?

Thanks for the welcome

Morbert

antiskeptic wrote: »

The other 1% must form the majority of atheists who post on discussion fora like these then - antagonistic as they so often are. The virulently expressed dislike for a God who has rightful say over how they behave, who owns them and to whom an account must be given gives lie the supposed lack of belief.

I'd agree with you that a lack of evidence is the reason why the unbeliever conciously disbelieves. But that doesn't let him off the hook - a person can believe God without having to believe in God. Consider, if you believe stealing is wrong then you, an atheist, believe God. It's wrong not because you believe so but because he said so, and instilled that sense into you.

And it would appear to be your believing God or no is the key issue with regard to whether you will be saved or not. Abraham believed God and was saved on account of it.

But isn't a primary aspect of Christianity the resurrection of Jesus? He has offered to take our place in judgement. Am I right in assuming that, if you don't believe that this is true, then you are not saved?

Soul Winner

greendom wrote: »

It feels as if Christianity is some sort of Big Brother or Derren Brown test.
The Clues were there, you didn't react to them you must pay the consequences.

No, think of it more in the context of a rescue effort. You are in need of God's deliverance, he provides it for you, you reject it, you don't get delivered. Like someone refusing to grab hold of a rope that has been thrown to them while they are drowning.

greendom wrote: »

Surely an all loving God would be more interested in people leading basically good lives than professing to believe in him.

No He is more interested in people who actually believe in Him and trust Him with their lives. Anybody is allowed to join this club but not all do.

greendom wrote: »

What is the big deal with faith really?

Faith is grabbing the life rope described above.

greendom wrote: »

Thanks for the welcome

You're welcome

postcynical

Moromaster wrote: »

If you died and you had committed one of the deadly sins, would you prefer 'eternal damnation' or just sift into oblivion, nothingness?

I suppose you mean that I died without repenting? As a Christian I've no worries about the next life, if there is one and however I'll be involved in it. I'll just enjoy my time here in this world, with a good life, good relationships with people and primarily a good relationship with God.

I sometimes speculate that oblivion might be one manifestation of Hell, which is comforting. Ultimately though, the afterlife is a long way away and Christianity for me is about enjoying this life with Christ.

equivariant

Soul Winner wrote: »

Let me try to make it easy for you.

Hell:

If hell is inconceivably bad then let us try something that is conceivably bad. Imagine a pit where it is eternally hot and eternally dark and not just what we call dark like nighttime, I mean dark dark, nothing but deep and utter blackness and unquenchable heat with eternal wailing, screaming and gnashing of teeth, an eternally order-less and eternally chaotic existence with unceasing burning, choking and screaming.

Oblivion:

And now think of being aestheticized before an operation and given the 10 to 1 countdown by the doc and then you drop off, and then staying in that state forever, unaware of your existence and incapable of becoming aware of it.

Is it a hard question to answer now?

I'm still not sure, because the sensations that you ascribe to hell are entirely bound up in the physical universe. For example, what meaning does heat have for a non physical being? How can we say that our spirits can hear the sound of screaming? I would have thought that the torture inflicted in hell would be more psychological rather than physical? But maybe I misunderstand?

For example, is it not true that some christians believe that eternal damnation means merely that you exist in the absence of god for eternity? In that case I would quite happily choose that option.

On the other hand, if you define eternal damnation to mean that which I would never choose to suffer over anything else, well then I don't have to answer the question. However, that definition may well lead to some logical problems.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

I think you're still missing the point. I would love to accept Christianity. It is certainly good news to be offered the gift of grace, and a profound paradise. Existence would be infinitely better and more profound if Christianity were true. Yet I still don't accept it because I am not convinced that it is true. If I accepted Christianity because I wanted it to be true then I would be guilty of wishful thinking.

Well I don't accept it because I want it to be true. It just rings true to me so I'm not sure what else I can do but believe it and live it. I accept the fact that this is not always the case for everyone else which is why I would recommend that they read books by converted intellectual atheists and non believers like C. S. Lewis and Frank Morrison to name but two.

Soul Winner

lugha wrote: »

False dichotomy. There is a whole other option. Maybe there is a God but it is not the Christian one. Maybe one of the 1,000s of other possible religions that holds the real truth. In which case we do not know (and have no way of knowing) which horse to back!
Now what is so hard to understand about that?

Well after sifting through all the others I came to believe in Jesus. If you're truly searching then you will choose one of them or conclude that they all are wrong, and you are well within your rights to do just that. But don't blame anyone else if it turns out that you were wrong. It is possible that all religions are wrong but it is certainly not true that they are all right. Either they are all wrong or one is right and the rest are wrong. I believe the right one to be Christianity you believe whatever you want.

Morbert

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well I don't accept it because I want it to be true. It just rings true to me so I'm not sure what else I can do but believe it and live it.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm saying it would be strange if God made allowances for those who have not heard of the gospel, but not for those who have heard it and, despite its positive message, weren't convinced that it is true.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

So if the first Christians just decided to keep quiet and not tell people about the Good News and let the event die with them then would we all be just judged on our actions and not on our belief system that we happened to be born into or our lack of one?

Yes, we would all have been judged on our actions. And since we are all sinners our actions would deserve hell.

Are Christian missionaries guilty of condemning otherwise good people to eternal punishment by revealing the Gospel to them, people who could have been granted access to Heaven had it not been for those missionaries?

No.

Soul Winner

Morbert wrote: »

I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm saying it would be strange if God made allowances for those who have not heard of the gospel, but not for those who have heard it and, despite its positive message, weren't convinced that it is true.

Well not believing that it is true is one thing but wholly rejecting it whilst not being convinced either way is completely different.

You could be not convinced that it is true but hope that it was, then after some open minded research into the subject come to the conclusion that it is in fact true, but the hoping that is was true is not the defining factor affecting your conclusion because your conclusion was based on the research not the hope. So even if you did want it to be true, a conclusion arrived at based on the research is not affected by that hope. You can't hope something into being true, it either is true or its not.

greendom

Soul Winner wrote: »

No, think of it more in the context of a rescue effort. You are in need of God's deliverance, he provides it for you, you reject it, you don't get delivered. Like someone refusing to grab hold of a rope that has been thrown to them while they are drowning.



No He is more interested in people who actually believe in Him and trust Him with their lives. Anybody is allowed to join this club but not all do.



Faith is grabbing the life rope described above.



You're welcome

But surely our lives on Earth shouldn't be seen as living in peril and in need of rescue. Does He not want us to lead rich and fulfilling lives not in need of a rescue from treacherous seas.

And if it is a rope, its enveloped in thick fog and there are hundreds of other ropes in the vicinity, you can't tell if they're burning or not and through the fog you can just make out land on the horizon

Zombrex

I thought the common Christian interpretation about hell, at least around these parts, was that it was where you are destroyed (that is what the fire is) so it would be more a question of would you prefer oblivion or oblivion.

Or am I getting that wrong? Are we back to eternal torture and suffering?

Soul Winner

Charco wrote: »

So how do you believe we would be judged if no-one ever explained the Gospel to us? You said that you "wouldn't to be worried about those who have never heard the gospel, I'd be more worried about myself having heard it and then reject it."

So if the first Christians just decided to keep quiet and not tell people about the Good News and let the event die with them then would we all be just judged on our actions and not on our belief system that we happened to be born into or our lack of one? Are Christian missionaries guilty of condemning otherwise good people to eternal punishment by revealing the Gospel to them, people who could have been granted access to Heaven had it not been for those missionaries?

Good question. It is possible that people who lived according to their own internal moral barometer and who where faithful in their own adherence to the convictions which they themselves pressed on others, to be condemned because they received the gospel then departed from it. But receiving the gospel then departing from it is not the same as just hearing it and not believing that it is true. Some people need more than someone telling them about it in order to be convinced, so they go off themselves to make sure and then they come back preaching it - or not. But if missionaries kept quiet about the gospel then those sinners who know there are sinners and know that they have done wrong will never know what God wrought in Christ and is not against them anymore because Jesus paid the price to pay for their sins. God wants His message to reach these people, if that means upsetting the applecart of the do gooders en-route then that's too bad for the do gooders, whether they believe it or not they need the gospel as much as anyone else, more even. But yeah, good observation regardless.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I thought the common Christian interpretation about hell, at least around these parts, was that it was where you are destroyed (that is what the fire is) so it would be more a question of would you prefer oblivion or oblivion.

Or am I getting that wrong? Are we back to eternal torture and suffering?

Yes, you are getting that wrong. I know of one Christian poster here who doesn't believe in hell, but the historic Christian position is that hell is eternal punishment - whatever actual form that takes.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, you are getting that wrong. I know of one Christian poster here who doesn't believe in hell, but the historic Christian position is that hell is eternal punishment - whatever actual form that takes.

It wasn't that they didn't believe in hell (the concept I'm talking about, not sure about this poster), but that hell was where you go to be destroyed.

It came up in a discussion about why would God torture people for eternity in a lake of fire, and the (rather common) Christian response was that he doesn't, you go to hell and you are destroyed.

I'll try and dig up the thread.

Soul Winner

greendom wrote: »

But surely our lives on Earth shouldn't be seen as living in peril and in need of rescue.

No they shouldn't be, but the sad fact is that it they are or Christianity is false, because this is what Christianity teaches, now you might not like that but liking or not liking has nothing to do with whether it is true or not, it's either true or it isn't. Do you really believe that the world isn't in need of a supernatural deliverance?

greendom wrote: »

Does He not want us to lead rich and fulfilling lives not in need of a rescue from treacherous seas.

Yes but you cannot do that without God with you. He knows that there is no other way to live this way without Him having premacy in your life.

greendom wrote: »

And if it is a rope, its enveloped in thick fog and there are hundreds of other ropes in the vicinity, you can't tell if they're burning or not and through the fog you can just make out land on the horizon

What other religion promises forgiveness of your sins and everlasting life by simply trusting in the one who promises it? Give me your chapter and verse while your at it.

antiskeptic

Morbert wrote: »

But isn't a primary aspect of Christianity the resurrection of Jesus? He has offered to take our place in judgement. Am I right in assuming that, if you don't believe that this is true, then you are not saved?

True* - but by extension. That is to say: suppose that your "believing Jesus is your saviour" is a subsequent thing to and a consequence of.. your having been saved. That is to say: when you are saved, one of the things that is done to you is that you are given evidence that satisfies you that Jesus is your saviour, God exists, you're 'going to heaven' and all the rest of it.

In this case it would indeed be correct* to say that if you don't believe Jesus is your saviour then you are not saved - but only because belief that he is, is an identifying attribute of a person who has already been saved. The sequence of salvation (were you to be saved) would go something like this;

Morbert believes God (although not yet perhaps believing in God's existance)

Morbert's believing God satisfies Gods requirement for saving Morbert. Salvation by belief/faith

God saves Morbert and issues forth various evidences which Morbert needs in order to believe x,y,z

Morbert, because he is in receipt of this evidence, believes x,y,z.

Morbert believes Jesus is his saviour as a result of an action of God post-salvation. If he doesn't it's because he's not been saved yet.


*there would be a contention that Old Testament characters didn't believe in Christ as Saviour in the sense we'd be familiar with today. It would appear that 'believing God' is the crucial point at which a person is saved in any case - which is something available to OT characters.. as well as sheep herders up the sides of mountains in Tibet who will never hear "The Gospel" (whatever that is, precisely)

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

It wasn't that they didn't believe in hell (the concept I'm talking about, not sure about this poster), but that hell was where you go to be destroyed.

It came up in a discussion about why would God torture people for eternity in a lake of fire, and the (rather common) Christian response was that he doesn't, you go to hell and you are destroyed.

I'll try and dig up the thread.

My ears are burning (pardon the pun):) As far as I'm aware, myself and, I think Hurin, believe the Lake of fire to mean 'The Second death of which there is no resurrection'. An everlasting punishment, i.e. death everlasting. However, I think most Christians on here have talked about it as a concious everlasting punishment.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

It wasn't that they didn't believe in hell (the concept I'm talking about, not sure about this poster), but that hell was where you go to be destroyed.

It came up in a discussion about why would God torture people for eternity in a lake of fire, and the (rather common) Christian response was that he doesn't, you go to hell and you are destroyed.

I'll try and dig up the thread.

Well in a sense both concepts are true to a point. The final place where Satan and his minions are thrown is not a place of simple destruction only, although their authority over mankind will be destroyed there along with other things they formally enjoyed, but it is also a place of torment, and eternal torment at that, which means that they will be around for eternity in order to endure said torment, in fact this (lake of fire) was prepared primarily for them and not for mankind per se. Unfortunately this is also the place where a portion of mankind will also go because of their lack of faith. Which is why the tarrying of our Lord is salvation. There is always a chance to repent which means to simply turn from your way to His way. That can be done right now.

greendom

Soul Winner wrote: »

No they shouldn't be, but the sad fact is that it they are or Christianity is false, because this is what Christianity teaches, now you might not like that but liking or not liking has nothing to do with whether it is true or not, it's either true or it isn't. Do you really believe that the world isn't in need of a supernatural deliverance?



Yes but you cannot do that without God with you. He knows that there is no other way to live this way without Him having premacy in your life.



What other religion promises forgiveness of your sins and everlasting life by simply trusting in the one who promises it? Give me your chapter and verse while your at it.

Sorry but Chapter and Verse is not my thing really (and its not saying much but I probably know more about Christianity than any other religion) - perhaps it should have been but there we are.

Thanks for the replies but I'm just not buying it.
So an atheist who spends his entire life doing good is to be damned because he chooses not to follow a book written thousands of years ago that was probably poorly transcribed and translated down through the years. Or to follow a religion that has done its best to complete discredit itself.

Surely he should be praised even more as he did good work not in the expectation of eternal reward, but because it was the right thing to do.

JimiTime

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well in a sense both concepts are true to a point. The final place where Satan and his minions are thrown is not a place of simple destruction only, although their authority over mankind will be destroyed there along with other things they formally enjoyed, but it is also a place of torment, and eternal torment at that, which means that they will be around for eternity in order to endure said torment, in fact this (lake of fire) was prepared primarily for them and not for mankind per se. Unfortunately this is also the place where a portion of mankind will also go because of their lack of faith. Which is why the tarrying of our Lord is salvation. There is always a chance to repent which means to simply turn from your way to His way. That can be done right now.

Death and Hades is thrown into this Lake of fire. Seems to signify oblivion to me I must say. As for 'torment', I forget wher I read it, but wasn't 'torments' used to describe captivity, i.e. Paul was 'in torments' in Rome? Death also being descibed as a prison. Fire symbolising destruction throughout the bible. Everlasting punishment then meaning, a punishment which will never be overturned. Everlasting death as it were, rather than the temporal condition of the 1st death.. I certainly don't see this concept as wishful thinking at all. I wholeheartedly have faith that whatever it is God will do, it will be the right thing to do. If it is the traditional concept of hell, I'll merely accept I got it wrong, and have no issue with Gods judgements. It is simply not the most valid interpretation IMO. The interpretation I give above is simply the one that makes most sense IMO. This is taking into account what I know (or think I know) about the nature of God, and also adding up the scriptures. Again though, for me personally, its got absolutely nothing to do with wishful thinking.

Húrin

Hell is a ridiculous idea and here is why:

1) lacking in Biblical support (whole other thread)

2) undermines the acceptance of the Gospel as a free choice - this hell concept makes the choice about as free as any other time a gun is held to one's head.

Soul Winner

greendom wrote: »

Sorry but Chapter and Verse is not my thing really (and its not saying much but I probably know more about Christianity than any other religion) - perhaps it should have been but there we are.

Thanks for the replies but I'm just not buying it.
So an atheist who spends his entire life doing good is to be damned because he chooses not to follow a book written thousands of years ago that was probably poorly transcribed and translated down through the years. Or to follow a religion that has done its best to complete discredit itself.

Surely he should be praised even more as he did good work not in the expectation of eternal reward, but because it was the right thing to do.

God judges the heart. There will be many who come to Him saying Lord Lord didn't we do thus and so in your name? And He will reply to them and say, depart from me you evil doers, I never knew you. God knows the hearts of every individual who ever lived and He knows if they be upright or not. There is no fooling Him, so yeah I'm sure there will be many honest atheists who genuinely had no reason to believe but who God knows if they had then they would have believed and likewise for those who make excuses for not believing, He can see trough that crap too. He judges the heart and if your heart be clean then Christ paid the price for your sins as well as anyone elses.

Soul Winner

JimiTime wrote: »

Death and Hades is thrown into this Lake of fire. Seems to signify oblivion to me I must say. As for 'torment', I forget wher I read it, but wasn't 'torments' used to describe captivity, i.e. Paul was 'in torments' in Rome? Death also being descibed as a prison. Fire symbolising destruction throughout the bible. Everlasting punishment then meaning, a punishment which will never be overturned. Everlasting death as it were, rather than the temporal condition of the 1st death.. I certainly don't see this concept as wishful thinking at all. I wholeheartedly have faith that whatever it is God will do, it will be the right thing to do. If it is the traditional concept of hell, I'll merely accept I got it wrong, and have no issue with Gods judgements. It is simply not the most valid interpretation IMO. The interpretation I give above is simply the one that makes most sense IMO. This is taking into account what I know (or think I know) about the nature of God, and also adding up the scriptures. Again though, for me personally, its got absolutely nothing to do with wishful thinking.

Hi JT. I fail to see why you are quoting me and then drawing me on some wishful thinking argument to which I said nothing in relation to you or anyone else's view.

JimiTime

Soul Winner wrote: »

Hi JT. I fail to see why you are quoting me and then drawing me on some wishful thinking argument to which I said nothing in relation to you or anyone else's view.

Sorry about that, it wasn't yourself that said it but my post made it sound like it was. That post ended up more like a stream of conciousness. Sorry again.

chozometroid

JimiTime wrote: »

Death and Hades is thrown into this Lake of fire. Seems to signify oblivion to me I must say. As for 'torment', I forget wher I read it, but wasn't 'torments' used to describe captivity, i.e. Paul was 'in torments' in Rome? Death also being descibed as a prison. Fire symbolising destruction throughout the bible. Everlasting punishment then meaning, a punishment which will never be overturned. Everlasting death as it were, rather than the temporal condition of the 1st death.. I certainly don't see this concept as wishful thinking at all. I wholeheartedly have faith that whatever it is God will do, it will be the right thing to do. If it is the traditional concept of hell, I'll merely accept I got it wrong, and have no issue with Gods judgements. It is simply not the most valid interpretation IMO. The interpretation I give above is simply the one that makes most sense IMO. This is taking into account what I know (or think I know) about the nature of God, and also adding up the scriptures. Again though, for me personally, its got absolutely nothing to do with wishful thinking.

I second this. The wicked will be consumed by fire at the day of judgement. They may suffer for a while, but not eternally.
Eternal torture is exteremly illogical. Other than the fact that it's not what the Bible says (IMO), it just doesn't make any sense.
What is the point of it being neverending? Is it supposed to get worse and worse, or just a constant random cycle of varying types and degrees of anguish? I mean, after 10 hours, when you just can't take it anymore, does your tolerance for pain just keep rising? The endless nature of it adds an element of hopeless despair that would seem to come to climax after a certain duration. I mean, 20 seconds in you yell, "Please let it end!" Then 3 months later you yell, "PLEASE LET IT END!!!!" Then 75 years later you yell, "PUUUULEEEEEEEEZE LUUUUEEEEEETTTT IIIIIIT EEEEEEEEEEENNND!!!!!!!!!!!" Of course, if there won't be hours and days, then it must be a timeless state. If it's timeless, there would still remain a sequence of experience, which would allow for some point of reference. The big question is, will there be actual thoughts.......contemplation over what it happening, or memory of what has happened? What sort of thought processes would our spirit-mind have, if only exposed to torture? Would each individual have a different experience? Would some people deal with it differently?
This is pointless speculation of course, but in the end it amounts to the equivalent of eternal existence. This doesn't make sense, because if you are physically dead and spiritually dead, there is nothing left.

What would be God's desired outcome for the punishment of "individual A" who did not live up to His expectations? The purpose of punishment is to teach a lesson, or justify a case. Endless torture would never teach a lesson, because there is no point in feeling regret or having a desire to change if you will never meet the end of your torture. As for justification, death is all that is needed -period-
The sin has left God's presence, and any sinful act "individual A" has committed has been paid for by their own death.
The penalty for sin is death.
Death is eternal separation from God.
Endless fire is not.
Who powers the fire?
Where is Hell that it could be separated from God?
The only separation from God is nonexistence.