Buddhist monk wants to go to Christian Hell

monosharp

Hey lads.

So I came across this story today and I honestly don't know what to think of it. I find it interesting because it really gives you an idea of how people raised outside the influence of Christianity view it, which the vast majority of Western people cannot claim.

Anyone in any western country will have some sort of experience with Christianity.

Anyways ...

There was a famous Buddhist monk in Korea who died recently. Now as I've said here a billion times before, many (not all) of the evangelist Christians here are extremely aggressive and extremely anti-Buddhist. So Buddhist temples/monks get verbally attacked commonly and physically attacked now and again.

So anyways this monk made a speech a while back where he was relating how he was told he was going to hell many times because he was Buddhist.

Anyways, he was an old monk and he didn't actually know anything about Christianity so he didn't know what hell was.

So he started doing research and this is how he put his discovery.

He was shocked, he had no idea what these people were really saying to him before. He didn't know what hell was.

So he decided to go and talk to a pastor in a church and the conversation went as follows;

(Translated from Korean)

I don't understand your God, because he's so jealous. Your God said if people don't believe him then he will send people to the Hell. I willing to go down to the Hell and try to help people who dumped to the hell since they did not believe GOD.

So basically he said he wanted to go to hell to help the people there.

I find it very interesting to see this perspective. What do people think ?

kelly1

Interesting. Sounds like his motives were sincere - a charitable act even.

Problem though, is that if He did go to hell (Let's hope not!), he would only be capable of hate because he would be deprived of God's grace which is the source of all love. There's only hate in hell.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

I don't understand your God, because he's so jealous. Your God said if people don't believe him then he will send people to the Hell. I willing to go down to the Hell and try to help people who dumped to the hell since they did not believe GOD.

So basically he said he wanted to go to hell to help the people there.

I find it very interesting to see this perspective. What do people think ?

He was perfectly misinformed. For one God doesn't send people to hell for not believing in Him in the sense of believing that He exists. Those who are on their way to hell are those who will not trust in His way of escape from it. They will not believe in it.

So here's the conundrum:

A). God doesn't exist and therefore Christianity is a load of bull and nobody should be believing it anyway.

Or

. God does exist, but Christianity is is still a load of bull because the God that does exist did not reveal Himself in the person of Jesus Christ and therefore Christ was a fraud, and all that hell stuff that Jesus spoke about is just a load of lies because He was a fraud to begin with.

Or

C). God does exist and has prepared a lake of fire for those who don't believe in him but he has not revealed himself in Jesus but rather one of the other great religious leaders of the world and therefore the monk's going to hell is not the fault of the Christian religion because that's false anyway, because as already said the God that does exist did not reveal himself in Jesus therefore making Jesus a fraud yet again and thus rendering Christianity a thing not to be believed in anyway.

Or

D). God does exist and has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ and has vindicated the claims that He made about Himself by raising Him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand where He can put His enemies under His feet, who has prepared a lake of fire for Satan and his angels into which they and everyone who's name is not found written in the book of life will be thrown, where they will be tormented day and night forever.

One of the above must be true.

So if A is true then the monk will be OK in the sense that there is no God and hence no hell, so he will not be going there anyway.

If B is true then the monk is probably still OK because as far as we know we have no indication that this unrevealed God ever prepared the lake of fire for anyone.

If C is true then the fact that the monk is going to hell is not because of Christianity, so you would need to post this on one of the other religious forums and beat them over the head with it.

If D is true then there is a hell to avoid and a heaven to gain. If D is true then the God of eternity in His grace and mercy took it upon Himself to save us from that hell that we were already destined for by having the curse of death fall on Him in our place, and all on the slender promise that the Father would raise Him from the dead after three days and three nights.

If D is true then the door of escape from hell is opened and all who are willing to walk through may do so freely. That they choose not to is their choice not God's. So if the monk does in fact end up in hell then it is because he flatly refused to walk through this door that the God of grace and mercy and peace who revealed Himself in Jesus has opened.

Or if he never actually heard of Jesus and was trying his best to live the best life that he could as best he knew how by his own moral compass then the God of mercy whom Christians believe has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ will not judge the monk anymore harshly than you or I would given his life's circumstances which inadvertently influenced his lack of knowledge about Jesus but where beyond his control to do anything about.

The apostle Paul teaches this very thing in his epistle to the Romans:

"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." Romans 2:12-16

If I missed anything let me know

monosharp

kelly1 wrote: »

Interesting. Sounds like his motives were sincere - a charitable act even.

Problem though, is that if He did go to hell (Let's hope not!), he would only be capable of hate because he would be deprived of God's grace which is the source of all love. There's only hate in hell.

But its an interesting concept isn't it ?

You have a man who has dedicated his life to enlightenment and easing pain and suffering. His first thought when he hears about 'hell' is that he wants to help ease the pain and suffering there.

I understand from a Christian perspective you could make the argument that he simply doesn't understand the concept of 'hell' properly but thats besides the point.

I think there are a few interesting questions here;

1. Is he (a good man in any human measurement) going to hell because he doesn't accept Jesus ?
2. Is he capable of going to hell even if its not his natural destination. i.e > Because he's a 'good man' but he wants to go to hell, can he choose to do so ?
3. Is he as you said, really incapable of doing good in hell ? I was never the best Christian when I was one but I wasn't aware of these details. If he, for instance was only capable of hate in hell then it wouldn't really be him would it ?

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

He was perfectly misinformed. For one God doesn't send people to hell for not believing in Him in the sense of believing that He exists. Those who are on their way to hell are those who will not trust in His way of escape from it. They will not believe in it.

Honestly I do understand but I think your missing the point completely. Especially since the translation is a bit dodgy. 'Believe in' and 'believe exists' are not really important, he is talking about people who go to hell full stop. The reason doesn't matter.

Also don't take the translation I've provided as 'exact' meaning because its dodgy at the best of times to translate Korean to English.

Why just an hour ago I had the imossible task of trying to explain the concepts of 'Should do' and 'have to do' to some people here. In Korean its the exact same meaning.

One of the above must be true.

So if A is true then the monk will be OK in the sense that there is no God and hence no hell, so he will not be going there anyway.

Ok but again this is not the point.

The monk is not worried he will go to hell, he wants to go to hell to help those suffering.

If B is true then the monk is probably still OK because as far as we know we have no indication that this unrevealed God ever prepared the lake of fire for anyone.

Again not the point, he doesn't care.

If D is true then there is a hell to avoid and a heaven to gain. If D is true then the God of eternity in His grace and mercy took it upon Himself to save us from that hell that we were already destined for by having the curse of death fall on Him in our place, and all on the slender promise that the Father would raise Him from the dead after three days and three nights.

Again, not the point but from what I know, many Buddhists don't understand the Christian desire to go to heaven. Desire/Want in Buddhism = bad.

If I missed anything let me know

I do appreciate the answer but I think you missed the point.

We have had many threads before on 'who is going to hell', i.e > good buddhist/Muslim/Jew go to hell yes/no ? before.

My point was that his view of hell is, I feel, quite unique and interesting in that he wants to go there to help the people there.

When you tell a Westerner/Other about hell they get worried about themselves suffering etc. When this guy heard about it he didn't want to save himself, he wants to 'help' the people there.

Gurgle

E) God does exist and has revealed himself many times down through the millenia in different forms appropiate to the culture of the time and place. The differences in the belief systems of the various religions are more to do with the influence of self-serving leaders as they cut, edit and modify liberally to present their own agenda as Gods message.

F) God exists but hasn't got involved on a personal level since 'Let there be light'

G) God exists but has never directly revealed himself as he prefers to work in the background. The most annoying thing to God is the plethora of religions mis-representing him for their own purposes.

(My guess is A btw, but who knows?)

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Honestly I do understand but I think your missing the point completely. Especially since the translation is a bit dodgy. 'Believe in' and 'believe exists' are not really important, he is talking about people who go to hell full stop. The reason doesn't matter.

Also don't take the translation I've provided as 'exact' meaning because its dodgy at the best of times to translate Korean to English.

Why just an hour ago I had the imossible task of trying to explain the concepts of 'Should do' and 'have to do' to some people here. In Korean its the exact same meaning.



Ok but again this is not the point.

The monk is not worried he will go to hell, he wants to go to hell to help those suffering.



Again not the point, he doesn't care.



Again, not the point but from what I know, many Buddhists don't understand the Christian desire to go to heaven. Desire/Want in Buddhism = bad.



I do appreciate the answer but I think you missed the point.

We have had many threads before on 'who is going to hell', i.e > good buddhist/Muslim/Jew go to hell yes/no ? before.

My point was that his view of hell is, I feel, quite unique and interesting in that he wants to go there to help the people there.

When you tell a Westerner/Other about hell they get worried about themselves suffering etc. When this guy heard about it he didn't want to save himself, he wants to 'help' the people there.

If my D is true, then Jesus already did what the monk desires to do. He descended into the depths and took the pain of death upon Himself in order to spare us, who were destined to go there, from its curse. All that is required of us now is that we trust in Him who paid such a price for our salvation. Total commitment of our lives to Him is our reasonable sacrifice. And if having desires is such a big no no in Buddhism anyway, isn't the monk breaking their law by having a desire to help people in hell?

Slav

monosharp wrote: »

So basically he said he wanted to go to hell to help the people there.

Good story but there is nothing new in it. The Christian faith is build around a man who did exactly the same thing: went to hell to help people there.

It's not something new in Buddhism either. For a Korean monk it's very natural to choose a path of Bodhisattva (which is itself likely to be influenced by Christianity in Mahayana Buddhism).

However, the story represents a common misconception about Christianity. God does not send people to hell. Quite the opposite: He's doing everything for people not end up there.

Zombrex

Slav wrote: »

God does not send people to hell. Quite the opposite: He's doing everything for people not end up there.

Who sends people to hell then?

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

If my D is true, then Jesus already did what the monk desires to do. He descended into the depths and took the pain of death upon Himself in order to spare us, who were destined to go there, from its curse.

So theres no more hell anymore ? I'm not going there ?

All that is required of us now is that we trust in Him who paid such a price for our salvation. Total commitment of our lives to Him is our reasonable sacrifice. And if having desires is such a big no no in Buddhism anyway, isn't the monk breaking their law by having a desire to help people in hell?

I don't know

MrPudding

Wicknight wrote: »

Who sends people to hell then?

Good question. I always thought it was god but I was informed in another thread that it was not god, apparently as well as not sending people to hell god also does not punish...

MrP

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

So theres no more hell anymore ? I'm not going there ?

There is still a hell but the good news of the Gospel is that we don't have to end up there. All that is required of us to avoid hell is to trust in the One who opened the door of salvation from it.

monosharp wrote: »

I don't know

But you said it in your earlier post that Desire/Want in Buddhism = Bad

monosharp wrote: »

Again, not the point but from what I know, many Buddhists don't understand the Christian desire to go to heaven. Desire/Want in Buddhism = bad.

Slav

Wicknight wrote: »

Who sends people to hell then?

They do it themselves.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

There is still a hell but the good news of the Gospel is that we don't have to end up there. All that is required of us to avoid hell is to trust in the One who opened the door of salvation from it.

Yes and people who don't 'trust' in it like me and I'm sure there might be another 1 or 2, are going to hell ?

Hence the monk saying he wanted to go there to help people suffering.

But you said it in your earlier post that Desire/Want in Buddhism = Bad

I said 'from what I know'.

I don't know that much about Buddhism, hence 'I don't know'.

So God doesn't send us to hell but he does send us to heaven ?

But he chooses not to send us to heaven if we don't worship him ?

And this is NOT the issue. This has been discussed a gazillion times before and its not the point of this thread.

Soul Winner

MrPudding wrote: »

Good question. I always thought it was god but I was informed in another thread that it was not god, apparently as well as not sending people to hell god also does not punish...

MrP

A hard saying by Jesus


"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" Matthew 7:13-14
He doesn't mince words.

Slav

monosharp wrote: »

All that is required of us now is that we trust in Him who paid such a price for our salvation. Total commitment of our lives to Him is our reasonable sacrifice. And if having desires is such a big no no in Buddhism anyway, isn't the monk breaking their law by having a desire to help people in hell?

I don't know

The monk does not break any laws if the word law is applicable to Buddhism at all. He only follows the path of Bodhisattva (which is very respected in his branch of Buddhism).

MrPudding

Slav wrote: »

They do it themselves.

Only the last little bit, and even then he is only acting in the way he was created to.

So god created man, knowing he would sin, obviously ‘cos he knows everything, in fact he created him in such a way that it was inevitable he would sin, it is in his nature. He then creates hell and then tells everyone that if you sin, and he decided what sins were, you will go to hell. So, he creates the sinful nature, he creates the rules, he creates the punishment and then what? He stands back, washes his hands and says “I am not sending them there, they do it themselves?” Nice.

MrP

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

And if having desires is such a big no no in Buddhism anyway, isn't the monk breaking their law by having a desire to help people in hell?

Buddhism teaches that desire for the material and sensory (ie I need more stuff or I need to feel better) leads to an unquenchable thirst for more. They call this Tanha

Buddhists try and quench these desires through their destruction rather than fulfillment, as they believe their fulfillment will not bring satisfaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taṇhā

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Yes and people who don't 'trust' in it like me and I'm sure there might be another 1 or 2, are going to hell ?

Why don't you trust it?

monosharp wrote: »

I said 'from what I know'.

I don't know that much about Buddhism, hence 'I don't know'.

So God doesn't send us to hell but he does send us to heaven ?

But he chooses not to send us to heaven if we don't worship him ?

And this is NOT the issue. This has been discussed a gazillion times before and its not the point of this thread.

OK

Slav

MrPudding wrote: »

Only the last little bit, and even then he is only acting in the way he was created to.

So god created man, knowing he would sin, obviously ‘cos he knows everything, in fact he created him in such a way that it was inevitable he would sin, it is in his nature. He then creates hell and then tells everyone that if you sin, and he decided what sins were, you will go to hell. So, he creates the sinful nature, he creates the rules, he creates the punishment and then what? He stands back, washes his hands and says “I am not sending them there, they do it themselves?” Nice.

MrP

The issue of God's omniscience and human free will has been discussed a good number of times here.

In short, different branches of Christianity will explain it differently. In my view, God did not create hell or punishment. Moreover, hell does not even exist from God's perspective and He does not punish in the sense of prosecution (although sometimes it's acceptable to say that He punishes in the sense of a parent "punishing" a child for purely pedagogical reasons). He only created something that He has no control over.

Did He know that His creation will fall? Yes, He did as He's above time. Did He has a plan to put things back right even before He created man? Yes, He did.

Was there any point creating humans that will fall and some of them possibly experience hell? It's a difficult moral question and my answer is yes, it was. I think human life itself is precious no matter what. The ability to make our own decisions and be creative definitely worth mistakes in decision making and some evil being created.

This is probably offtopic here so if you want to discuss it I think it's better to create a new thread or post in one of the old ones.

Blackhorse Slim

Getting back to the OP, I think this is an elegant demonstration that Buddhist ethics and morality is far better developed than Christian morality.

Slav

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

Getting back to the OP, I think this is an elegant demonstration that Buddhist ethics and morality is far better developed than Christian morality.

Did you forget to add "...though I have no clue about either of them" by any chance?

Blackhorse Slim

I know both fairly well as it happens, I have a Philosophy degree from NUI Maynooth which included studies in Ethics and Theology (from a very pro-Catholic viewpoint as you would expect) and I have been interested in Buddhism for more than 20 years, particularly zen and its Taoist ancestry.

So no, I didn't forget to add anything

Sam Vimes

kelly1 wrote: »

Problem though, is that if He did go to hell (Let's hope not!),

You hope that the teachings of your religion are wrong?

Slav

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I know both fairly well as it happens, I have a Philosophy degree from NUI Maynooth which included studies in Ethics and Theology

It's strange to see a comparison in "batter then" or "worse then" categories from someone with a degree in Philosophy and Ethics. Sounds a bit childish if you forgive me...

Blackhorse Slim

Slav wrote: »

It's strange to see a comparison in "batter then" or "worse then" categories from someone with a degree in Philosophy and Ethics. Sounds a bit childish if you forgive me...

Read my post, I didn't use either term. But I forgive you.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Buddhism teaches that desire for the material and sensory (ie I need more stuff or I need to feel better) leads to an unquenchable thirst for more.

This is very true Wicknight. Christianity teaches that nothing created (including other humans) can fully satisfy our deepest desires. The pursuit of happiness through pleasure in material things inevitable brings disgust and disenchantment. Only God can fulfill all our desires leaving us wanting nothing more.

On the subject of Hell, I would say this. God is our ultimate source and destiny. We were created to shared in the divine life of God and the glory of Christ. This is what we're made for. When we reject God, we reject the ultimate good and give preference to our own disordered human desires.

At the moment of death, our love of God or our hate/indifference for Him is fixed for all eternity. If we die without love of God, we have rejected that which we are made for and the source of all good.

So what do people expect God to do? To force us to be good, to deprive us of free will? God repects our choice. God doesn't condemn us. People who go to hell go of the own free will.

I am convinced that God extends the offer of mercy to everybody and we can either accept of reject His offer. It's clear that God loves us from the fact that He sent His only Son to die for us on the cross. Jesus came to this world as a merciful saviour and not to condem us. No matter how grave our sins, Jesus is always there with open arms ready to forgive us. Think of the prodigal son. There is much cause for celebration when the sinner sees the error of his ways and turns back to God for mercy.

/Sermon.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

At the moment of death, our love of God or our hate/indifference for Him is fixed for all eternity. If we die without love of God, we have rejected that which we are made for and the source of all good.

So what do people expect God to do?

Well he could not fix our love or hate of him for all eternity at the moment of our death for a start?

Is there any particular reason to do this

kelly1 wrote: »

To force us to be good, to deprive us of free will? God repects our choice. God doesn't condemn us. People who go to hell go of the own free will.

That isn't true though.

No one chooses to go to hell. They end up in hell because God sends them there because they displeased him. He could have sent them anywhere, instead he choose to send them to hell.

You could claim that if you don't want to go to hell accept Jesus' offer of salvation, but that is not the same thing as choosing hell out of your own free will.

I imagine that anyone in hell right now would choose to go anywhere else if they were given the option which they aren't.

kelly1 wrote: »

It's clear that God loves us from the fact that He sent His only Son to die for us on the cross. Jesus came to this world as a merciful saviour and not to condem us.

That is because we were all already condemned.

Off topic some what, but one would think (myself included) that if God actually loved us he wouldn't have created a place like hell in the first place. Creating a place like this and then offer some a way to avoid it does not scream love and compassion to me.

I really don't know how you guys reconcile this concept with a loving God. To me it perverts the very nature of the word "love". It is like saying that out of love a wife beater decided not to beat his wife over Christmas. The obvious objection to that would be that if he actually loved her he wouldn't have been beating her in the first place. If God actually loved us why create hell at all?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Who sends people to hell then?

Wicknight, I have told you this countless times over the years. Why do you not get it??

People choose to go to Hell, because they choose to reject Jesus.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Wicknight, I have told you this countless times over the years. Why do you not get it??

People choose to go to Hell, because they choose to reject Jesus.

Wonderful, but that wasn't the question I asked

Who sends people to hell?

I can choose to go to prison by stabbing the guy next to me in the neck, under the understand that I most likely will end up in prison. But I can't just walk into a prison and say I'd like to stay here place. I can't send myself to prison. I don't have that power. Prison is some where where I'm sent by other people.

Likewise I can't send myself to hell. I don't have control over the supernatural, I can't open a doorway to hell, I can't get into hell nor get out of hell (heck no one can even point me in the right direction)

So if I can't send myself to hell, and God doesn't send people to hell, who does?

Turtwig

Better question then :

Who created Hell and why?

Baggio

What really bugs me is those evangelical idiots shouting abuse at these monks telling them their on their way to hell!..what a bunch of numpties...its a stupid thing to be at....talking and reasoning is the way in these matters..not some clod thumping a guys head with a bible...crazy stuff..

I dont believe in buddhsim etc at all of course...but am not going to thump the head off some buddist monk just coz he hasnt found the right way yet....thats a journey for many people and while i have strong beliefs am not going to bully anyone,,,,maybe have a polite chat...that will do

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

Better question then :

Who created Hell and why?

Depends who you are asking. One perspective about hell is that it isn't a place of active punishment, it's a place that is totally absent of God. I believe this fits in nicely with the eschatology of Christianity - particularly with respect to the resurrection ushering in a new heavens and a new earth that are to be devoid of sin.

It's interesting to hear this monk's wishes. But with the greatest respect, I think that he completely misunderstood the concept of hell.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Depends who you are asking. One perspective about hell is that it isn't a place of active punishment, it's a place that is totally absent of God. I believe this fits in nicely with the eschatology of Christianity - particularly with respect to the resurrection ushering in a new heavens and a new earth that are to be devoid of sin.

But where then did this place come from?

Did it always just exist? If so how does that work? And if it didn't who created it?

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Depends who you are asking. One perspective about hell is that it isn't a place of active punishment, it's a place that is totally absent of God. I believe this fits in nicely with the eschatology of Christianity - particularly with respect to the resurrection ushering in a new heavens and a new earth that are to be devoid of sin.

It's interesting to hear this monk's wishes. But with the greatest respect, I think that he completely misunderstood the concept of hell.

This is kinda issue though, your interpretation of hell would be close to the one I agree with. However, the problem is many evangelicals (such as those trying to convince this monk) portray hell as place of eternal torment and suffering. To them the question remains valid in my view : Who Created Hell and Why?
If hell is a literal place then either God created it or it existed before God.
(Btw, I really think it was their twisted words. Absence of God is the only one that makes logical sense to me)

BrianCalgary

Christians choose to have a relationship with God. On death that desire is honoured. An eternity in the presence of God, doing what we were made to do. That is called Heaven. As CS Lewis put it: A place where God is overflowing and shares.

Hell is a place devoid of God. A place that becomes the way it is when God leaves. God does so on the wishes of those who choose an eternity completely devoid of God. CS Lewis: A place where we are empty and need to be filled so we suck from those around us.

I am paraphrasing Lewis from: The Screwtape Letters

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

Wonderful, but that wasn't the question I asked

Who sends people to hell?

I can choose to go to prison by stabbing the guy next to me in the neck, under the understand that I most likely will end up in prison. But I can't just walk into a prison and say I'd like to stay here place. I can't send myself to prison. I don't have that power. Prison is some where where I'm sent by other people.

Likewise I can't send myself to hell. I don't have control over the supernatural, I can't open a doorway to hell, I can't get into hell nor get out of hell (heck no one can even point me in the right direction)

So if I can't send myself to hell, and God doesn't send people to hell, who does?

You send yourself to prison because you commit a crime. You send yourself to Hell because you choose to reject God. It is your own fault, no one elses.

Our society refuses to accept responsibility, lets lay blame. You would end up in Hell through your own fault, because you choose to reject God. Why can you not understand this simple concept???

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You send yourself to prison because you commit a crime.

Really?

Cause I've seen prisoners being sent to prison and they weren't doing anything to actively get themselves from the court to the prison. In fact some of them were kicking and screaming not to go. They were being sent there by the police and the judges, how often had to drag them there.

And I'm pretty sure if I arrived at the gates of Mountjoy saying I would like to sent myself to prison they would turn me away.

So no you don't send yourself to prison.

Likewise you don't send yourself to hell.

If you don't accept that can you explain to me how I open a gateway to hell?

How do I send myself from point A to Hell by my own power?

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You send yourself to Hell because you choose to reject God. It is your own fault, no one elses.

Fault is nothing to do with the question I asked.

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Why can you not understand this simple concept???

Why can't you just answer a simple question without going into an irrelevant discussion about responsibility in society?

monosharp

BrianCalgary wrote: »

You send yourself to prison because you commit a crime.

No, the justice system sends you to prison when you commit a crime. You committing the crime is the reason your been sent to prison BY the justice system.

You send yourself to Hell because you choose to reject God. It is your own fault, no one elses.

Well if god created me then hes responsible for my decisions or at least my actions.

Our society refuses to accept responsibility, lets lay blame. You would end up in Hell through your own fault, because you choose to reject God. Why can you not understand this simple concept???

We are not talking about blame or fault.

I will accept your argument that its my fault if I go to hell, but the question was not whose fault it was but WHO sends me there.

And heres a question for you;

If the monk wants to go there to help the people there and ease their suffering can he choose to go there ? (assuming he was destined for oblivion/heaven/somewhere else.

When the monk is there, since he was a good person who lived a life helping others ease their pain will he be able to do the same in Hell ?

monosharp

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Christians choose to have a relationship with God. On death that desire is honoured. An eternity in the presence of God, doing what we were made to do. That is called Heaven. As CS Lewis put it: A place where God is overflowing and shares.

Hell is a place devoid of God. A place that becomes the way it is when God leaves. God does so on the wishes of those who choose an eternity completely devoid of God. CS Lewis: A place where we are empty and need to be filled so we suck from those around us.

Not really selling one over the other to me with those definitions.

I for one do not desire eternal life anywhere doing anything. I like the option of nothingness.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's interesting to hear this monk's wishes. But with the greatest respect, I think that he completely misunderstood the concept of hell.

Again, not the point. And if he did misunderstand the concept of hell its because of what certain people in certain powers of position in what they call 'Christianity' rant publically about.

But I would ask a few questions specifically to you if you don't mind.

1. Do you condemn the actions of people preaching in public that you will suffer in pain and agony for all eternity unless you are a Christian. (I won't even mention the verbal or physical abuse)

2. If hell actually is a place of fire, brimstone and big brother re-runs 24/7, can the monk do good there ? Can he help the sufferers ?

3. If hell is a place devoid of God but assuming we have consciousness there, can the monk ease the ... boredom (?) of the people there ?

4. If hell is the absence of God then how can you possibly claim its a bad place ? I'm completely absent of god right now and I feel great.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Again, not the point. And if he did misunderstand the concept of hell its because of what certain people in certain powers of position in what they call 'Christianity' rant publically about.

Of course it's the point. Why else would you be asking for clarification on the finer points of hell? From your opening post and right through to now it is clear that this thread is just another reason for you to have a go on your hobby horse. I've asked you in the past, but I'll ask you again - please change the record. I'd don't like such blatant repetition.

monosharp wrote: »

4. If hell is the absence of God then how can you possibly claim its a bad place?

Because God is good and the absence of goodness leaves only badness.

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

This is kinda issue though, your interpretation of hell would be close to the one I agree with. However, the problem is many evangelicals (such as those trying to convince this monk) portray hell as place of eternal torment and suffering. To them the question remains valid in my view : Who Created Hell and Why?
If hell is a literal place then either God created it or it existed before God.
(Btw, I really think it was their twisted words. Absence of God is the only one that makes logical sense to me)

Maybe they are right! Who am I to say? However, I just don't see that the notion is compatible with the God I believe I know.

To answer your question. I don't see why hell has to be a created place, it might be a necessary result, though. To use a flawed analogy - if removing a light from room leads to darkness, I don't believe it would be correct to say that the act of removing the light was an active creation of darkness. Surely darkness was the result of removing the light.

Still, I could be wrong on all this. There are certain doctrines within Christianity that aren't sufficiently developed for us to say anything with certainty, and I don't claim any special knowledge on this topic. I think that this lack of detailed explanation is simply because our limitations as beings prevent it.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

To answer your question. I don't see why hell has to be a created place, it might be a necessary result, though. To use a flawed analogy - if removing a light from room leads to darkness, I don't believe it would be correct to say that the act of removing the light was an active creation of darkness. Surely darkness was the result of removing the light.

Isn't that the same thing.

If I walk into a room and turn of all the lights who do you think is going to get shouted at for people walking into the coffee table?


If God has removed himself from a portion of the spiritual plane or what ever you guys want to call it and then places people in this place because they have displeased him then he has both created hell and sent people there.

Why he has done that (the bit BC seems fixated on) is irrelevant to this simple statement.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Well he could not fix our love or hate of him for all eternity at the moment of our death for a start?

Is there any particular reason to do this.

A very good question. I have a book here called "Everlasting Life - A theological treatise on the Four Last Things - Death, Judgment, Heaven and Hell by a dominican theologian called Garrigou Lagrange. It deals with this question of "immutability" of the will after death. So I'll have another read of it and try to summarize the argument as best I can. But not tonight...

kelly1

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

To answer your question. I don't see why hell has to be a created place, it might be a necessary result, though.

Fanny, Hell must have been created by God. Scripture says that hell was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt 25:41). And this was before humans came on the scene.

And hell must be a place rather than a state because it must contain the bodies of the damned after the resurrection (Acts 23:6).

chozometroid

Wicknight's question is easy to answer if you believe hell is just the second death. I believe hell is on earth at judgment day. It is not eternal, but a moment of destruction by fire, with eternal results.
So, people who do not choose Jesus will be consumed by the fires of hell when the Earth is purged of sin. Those who do choose Jesus will live in the New Jerusalem which will descend to the Earth.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Of course it's the point. Why else would you be asking for clarification on the finer points of hell?

I'm asking for opinions on the monks comments and the interpretation of hell he has been led to believe by people who claim to be part of your religion.

I asked several questions and you only answered one of them.

From your opening post and right through to now it is clear that this thread is just another reason for you to have a go on your hobby horse. I've asked you in the past, but I'll ask you again - please change the record. I'd don't like such blatant repetition.

In fairness its not this time but as I've said before, I don't consider yourself or PDN (or many other people here) in the same category as these people who I 'dislike'. I consider these people to be in the same league as Fred Phelps.

Because God is good and the absence of goodness leaves only badness.

But I'm absent of God right now. Am I bad ?

Could you please answer my other questions ?

J C

Soul Winner wrote: »

He was perfectly misinformed. For one God doesn't send people to hell for not believing in Him in the sense of believing that He exists. Those who are on their way to hell are those who will not trust in His way of escape from it. They will not believe in it.

So here's the conundrum:

A). God doesn't exist and therefore Christianity is a load of bull and nobody should be believing it anyway.

Or

. God does exist, but Christianity is is still a load of bull because the God that does exist did not reveal Himself in the person of Jesus Christ and therefore Christ was a fraud, and all that hell stuff that Jesus spoke about is just a load of lies because He was a fraud to begin with.

Or

C). God does exist and has prepared a lake of fire for those who don't believe in him but he has not revealed himself in Jesus but rather one of the other great religious leaders of the world and therefore the monk's going to hell is not the fault of the Christian religion because that's false anyway, because as already said the God that does exist did not reveal himself in Jesus therefore making Jesus a fraud yet again and thus rendering Christianity a thing not to be believed in anyway.

Or

D). God does exist and has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ and has vindicated the claims that He made about Himself by raising Him from the dead and seating Him at His right hand where He can put His enemies under His feet, who has prepared a lake of fire for Satan and his angels into which they and everyone who's name is not found written in the book of life will be thrown, where they will be tormented day and night forever.

One of the above must be true.

So if A is true then the monk will be OK in the sense that there is no God and hence no hell, so he will not be going there anyway.

If B is true then the monk is probably still OK because as far as we know we have no indication that this unrevealed God ever prepared the lake of fire for anyone.

If C is true then the fact that the monk is going to hell is not because of Christianity, so you would need to post this on one of the other religious forums and beat them over the head with it.

If D is true then there is a hell to avoid and a heaven to gain. If D is true then the God of eternity in His grace and mercy took it upon Himself to save us from that hell that we were already destined for by having the curse of death fall on Him in our place, and all on the slender promise that the Father would raise Him from the dead after three days and three nights.

If D is true then the door of escape from hell is opened and all who are willing to walk through may do so freely. That they choose not to is their choice not God's. So if the monk does in fact end up in hell then it is because he flatly refused to walk through this door that the God of grace and mercy and peace who revealed Himself in Jesus has opened.

Or if he never actually heard of Jesus and was trying his best to live the best life that he could as best he knew how by his own moral compass then the God of mercy whom Christians believe has revealed Himself in Jesus Christ will not judge the monk anymore harshly than you or I would given his life's circumstances which inadvertently influenced his lack of knowledge about Jesus but where beyond his control to do anything about.

The apostle Paul teaches this very thing in his epistle to the Romans:

"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." Romans 2:12-16

If I missed anything let me know

...you missed nothing ...and you are perfectly correct.:)

J C

monosharp wrote: »

But I'm absent of God right now. Am I bad ?

...you're certainly not good (just like every other sinner, including myself) ...
However you are unsaved and therefore just one heartbeat away from eternal perdition.

derfderf

Slav wrote: »

Good story but there is nothing new in it. The Christian faith is build around a man who did exactly the same thing: went to hell to help people there.

It's not something new in Buddhism either. For a Korean monk it's very natural to choose a path of Bodhisattva (which is itself likely to be influenced by Christianity in Mahayana Buddhism).

However, the story represents a common misconception about Christianity. God does not send people to hell. Quite the opposite: He's doing everything for people not end up there.

Didn't god create hell? If god is doing everything to prevent people ending up there why create it in the first place?