Buddhist monk wants to go to Christian Hell

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?

monosharp

J C wrote: »

...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.

Well according to many opinions here, eternal perdition doesn't sound that bad. Sounds more or less the same as the situation I'm in now.

BrianCalgary

monosharp wrote: »

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.?

Thanks Mono for that. It is what I wished to establish.

God is the judge who determines your final place. The only reason that I have a hope of getting into Heaven is because Jesus acts as my lawyer before God.

monosharp wrote: »

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. ?

I don't know if he can make that choice. Although I do think that he'd get burned out (no pun intended) emotionally trying to help so many needy people.

monosharp wrote: »

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 ?

I guess he could try, but would soon run into a situation where he would be done emotionally.

BrianCalgary

monosharp wrote: »

Well according to many opinions here, eternal perdition doesn't sound that bad. Sounds more or less the same as the situation I'm in now.

It will be worse, because in this portion of your life there is still God. In Hell I dont think God will be there.

BrianCalgary

derfderf wrote: »

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

Because there are people doing everything they can to get there.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

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.

Doesn't Jesus describe in a parable in Luke the rich man being in hell suffering torment of fire, looking "up" and seeing Lazarus by Abraham's side across a great chasm, placed there to stop people crossing over to either side? He calls out to them and begs Lazarus to ease his pain and then begs that Lazarus return to the land of the living to warn his brothers to repent and avoid the torment he is currently in.

Does this not imply that hell is a physical place where at the very least people are conscious and exist moment to moment, with senses and awareness, in agony. Rather than a single instant of destruction leading to oblivion?

How do you interpret the parable described in Luke?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Because there are people doing everything they can to get there.

And ... ?

Are you suggesting God had to create it?

Dancing_Priest

Surely it's not possible for a mere man to force God to do anything.
Similarly it's not even possible for man to influence Gods actions, which one has to concede is happening when by commiting a certain act they cause god to 'facilitate' them by making a special place for them i.e. hell.

The idea of God being altered or controlled by his creation is logically absurd. Almost as absurd as expecting a cohesive answer from a group of people who have wildly different notions about the nature and workings of their God.

There is no definitive Christianity, the fact that Christians will disagree with this statement renders it correct.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote: »

And ... ?

Are you suggesting God had to create it?

No.

BrianCalgary

Dancing_Priest wrote: »

Surely it's not possible for a mere man to force God to do anything..

Quite right here.

Dancing_Priest wrote: »

Similarly it's not even possible for man to influence Gods actions, which one has to concede is happening when by commiting a certain act they cause god to 'facilitate' them by making a special place for them i.e. hell..

We do through prayer. Just as a kid influences a parents decision.

Dancing_Priest wrote: »

The idea of God being altered or controlled by his creation is logically absurd. Almost as absurd as expecting a cohesive answer from a group of people who have wildly different notions about the nature and workings of their God.

There is no definitive Christianity, the fact that Christians will disagree with this statement renders it correct.

I dont think we have different notions of God. We may have different notions about certain aspects of Christianity, but our idea of God is pretty well summed up in the Apostles Creed.

Panrich

Wicknight wrote: »

And ... ?

Are you suggesting God had to create it?

He only had to create it to fulfill the fact that he is a vengeful god.

The purpose of a punishment is to either correct behaviour or to impart justice (revenge).

While there is hope of redemption then there is a plausible argument for a 'punishment' such as hell and a sinner may be saved and rehabilitated. After judgement day what other purpose can hell serve except as a revenge if there is no way back to salvation.
Hence an eternal hell is the product of a vengeful god.