Question for Christians who believe that non-Christians go to hell

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why do you even bother to represent Christianity when you KNOW that you are going to do a bad job of it and piss Chrsitians off?

Oh, wait...

I know I didn't put it the way a christian would but as far as I can see they would just use different words to describe pretty much the same thing. Could you explain to me which part is inaccurate? As I understand it immoral acts do not land you in hell and moral acts do not save you from hell because we are all sinners regardless of how we live our lives. The only thing that lands you in hell is not believing in Jesus and the only thing that saves you from hell is believing in Jesus. No?

iUseVi

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't have that dilemma for I've been exposed to God.

You would appreciate that if God is overwhelmingly lovable (and assuming that I've no reason to fear him cravenly on account of my forgiven sin) it follows that I'm not in a position anymore not to love him.

God has nothing to blackmail me with if he's made it impossible for me not to love him.

Well thats a bit of a cop out IMO. If you are going down the non-free will route then its not blackmail, its more like forced prostitution. I prefer to think we would have some choice as whether to love and worship god or not.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Okay, okay, keep your hat on..

The correct approach it is NOT supposing you have to do something to work up love for God. Being in a state of love w.r.t. God is something that you are placed into by God by virtue of being saved. And so we can restate the above:

Either you are saved. Or you go to Hell.


That doesn't seem like blackmail. That seems like options. If you're not the one the clearly you must be the other.

Yes but I choose the third option. Don't worship god and don't go to hell. Your view of God is restricting my options though. I prefer to think that heaven is a reward for the faithful but theres no punishment for not "joining the club". That would seem more just, no?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Forget the keying and let it be burnt out. Would that bother you for one second? If not, then how about your house (after she's cancelled the insurance).

Don't confuse willingness to forgive with it costing you nothing. That you are happy to pay the cost doesn't alter the fact you have to pay.

Truly free for the forgiven. Not for the forgiver. If it costs you nothing then there is nothing to forgive. If you don't believe me then let me key your car and see how easy forgiveness comes

Yes if my car was burnt up it would bother me, but I still would not want my partner to be tortured for ever? Can you see the difference between being temporarily and justly angry, and punishing someone for eternity?

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hopefully the place for loving God is made clear above. It's a consequence of being saved.

That said; your response to what God represents (goodness, selflessness, kindness, patience, love, etc) does determine whether you end up saved or not. If you love/like/prefer what he represents then you'll meet up with God 'in heaven'. If you love/like/prefer what he doesn't represent then you won't

Call it loving God one-step-removed. Your answer to his question "what do you love" determines your eternal destination.

(Don't worry untowardly if you find you love both at times - God uses your love of evil things to assist in the attempt to save you from that love)

I'm sorry, its not at all clear to me how someone can have no choice but to love. How did lucifer fall? There must be free will involved.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What's in a word. If you want to call someone mugging you a "mistake" then by all means...

The point stands. In order to forgive these 'mistakes' you have to bear the cost.

Cost to me does not equal punishment. I am not being punished for their wrongdoing. The cost I bear is not equal in proportion to wrong doing. There isn't an equation or anything.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I wasn't supposing that in my set up. Free will doesn't have pressure exerting irresistable force (and although I don't consider we have freewill in the classic sense, I do think we have it effectively through God's counter-balancing of our own sin-enslaved will).

But start placing options in front of a freewill and you enter the realm of coin tossing. It's possible to throw a million heads in a row. It's just not going to happen.

Yes but the point is that isn't the coin's fault.

This is what I'm saying. If our choice is not actually a choice but rather the inevitable end result of something we ultimately have no control over (our inherited sin), why is we get blamed for this?

Just to add before someone gets smart and starts attacking atheists for not wanting to face blame, I've no problem being blamed for things I actually do. But we all have an innate sense that being blamed for something you didn't actually do is unfair. Like the man who strangled his wife because he was having a night terror. Anyone here think he should be treated like a murdering criminal?

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The only way to avoid this punishment is to accept as true a story about a man who walked on water and raised from the dead 2000 years ago.

Two points here. First, Moses and Abraham are but two examples of people who didn't know about Jesus (other than in vague metaphorical terms) but we are told in the NT that they are redeemed. Second, I don't know that people who haven't heard the story of Jesus are doomed. Unlike you, I can't categorically say either way what God's judgement would be for someone living before Jesus or without any exposure to the Gospel. But perhaps my last sentence isn't totally an accurate reflection of my position. I will categorically say that infants who lose their life are not condemned. I operate on the premise that God is good and that he doesn't actively seek out damnation, and in this way I wont argue, for example, that a Muslim living 1000 years who truly honoured God and had no real exposure to the Gospel is damned.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The only truly immoral act in christianity is not picking one particular story among thousands to believe because it is the only choice that it is within your power to make.

Wilful or not this is often the misrepresentation I see of Christianity. It's distilled down to the nasty idea of it being noting more than punishment for the thought crime of not believing in an angry God who desperately needs your attention. After all your 100's of posts here you still can't actually grasp the basics. In future please don't presume or pretend to speak for the rest of us. I'm quite angry at this. :mad:

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Two points here. First, Moses and Abraham are but two examples of people who didn't know about Jesus (other than in vague metaphorical terms) but we are told in the NT that they are redeemed. Second, I don't know that people who haven't heard the story of Jesus are doomed. Unlike you, I can't categorically say either way what God's judgement would be for someone living before Jesus or without any exposure to the Gospel. But perhaps my last sentence isn't totally an accurate reflection of my position. I will categorically say that infants who lose their life are not condemned. I operate on the premise that God is good and that he doesn't actively seek out damnation, and in this way I wont argue, for example, that a Muslim living 1000 years who truly honoured God and had no real exposure to the Gospel is damned.

There are a number of problems there. Firstly you have dealt only with the possible exceptions to the rule so the reality is still that the vast majority of people on the planet who have been exposed to christianity but who don't believe it are, according to the belief of most christians, going to go to hell regardless of how well they live their lives.


Secondly, if we're operating on the premise that god is good then there's a hell of a lot more that needs deciding than just whether or not infants who die are condemned, the first of which is how on earth believing a story about a guy who walked on water makes you worthy of salvation and how not believing it makes you worthy of punishment even if you live your life as morally as is humanly possible.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Wilful or not this is often the misrepresentation I see of Christianity. It's distilled down to the nasty idea of it being noting more than punishment for the thought crime of not believing in an angry God who desperately needs your attention. After all your 100's of posts here you still can't actually grasp the basics. In future please don't presume or pretend to speak for the rest of us. I'm quite angry at this. :mad:

Yes it is quite a nasty idea, I wholeheartedly agree and operating on premise that there is a god and it is good I don't see how christianity can be true.


If the criteria for salvation is something other than believing in Jesus then please explain to me how I am mistaken. Is it possible for someone who accepts Jesus as their saviour to be condemned and is it possible for someone who is given the option to accept him but chooses not to to be saved?

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It has been posited that hell is not a place of active punishment, rather it is the eternal separation from God, the source of all good.

Where did this notion come from, and more importantly 'Why' did this notion come about. To believe in such a notion, you obviously believe in the language used relating to 'hell' as metephorical. If so, I would say look further and ask the following:

1. Does this notion of eternal conscious suffering sound right? or does it cause a niggle in ones concience?

2. Do you consign it to a place like, 'It sounds harsh, but I just don't understand the gravity of sin' or somesuch?

3. If you see the language of 'fire' etc being metephorical, then look at other times fire is used in methephor by bible writers. To my knowledge it symbolises 'destruction', or 'tempering'. So if you explain 'hell' meaning the notion you stated above, what are you saying the fire metephor symbolises?

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I know I didn't put it the way a christian would but as far as I can see they would just use different words to describe pretty much the same thing.

You simply lack decorum, and your manner, which you make no apologies for, is not constructive to a good knowledge sharing conversation/arguement. You knowingly use language that you know will stir the pot. You may be a complete ignoramous when it comes to the subject matter, and thats fine, Even continuing to expose your ignorance is fine, but you 'knowingly' use language that 'can' wind up your audience, and that is no good for anyone involved. Why not simply seek to converse humbly? Of course, you can still be passionate in opposition, but without the need to sacrifice decorum.

Of couse, you may be just here to throw stones. In such a case, I'd rather you were simply banned, but it'd be great if you were here to converse in a respectful manner in order to learn, teach, challenge and share knowledge and wisdom.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

You simply lack decorum, and your manner, which you make no apologies for, is not constructive to a good knowledge sharing conversation/arguement. You knowingly use language that you know will stir the pot. You may be a complete ignoramous when it comes to the subject matter, and thats fine, Even continuing to expose your ignorance is fine, but you 'knowingly' use language that 'can' wind up your audience, and that is no good for anyone involved. Why not simply seek to converse humbly? Of course, you can still be passionate in opposition, but without the need to sacrifice decorum.

What I have done as far as I'm concerned is give an accurate description of a core christian belief without dressing it up in the language that is used to make it less, to use Fanny Cradock's word, nasty than it actually is. If there is something that I have misunderstood here:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If the criteria for salvation is something other than believing in Jesus then please explain to me how I am mistaken. Is it possible for someone who accepts Jesus as their saviour to be condemned and is it possible for someone who is given the option to accept him but chooses not to to be saved?

then please tell me so. Otherwise all I'm doing is giving an accurate description of the belief and if that makes people angry then that's not my fault.

edit: how do you suggest I point this out without lacking decorum? Honestly, I think I've been polite at all times and don't know how I can approach this in another way. Or should I just not point it out because doing so makes people angry?

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

all I'm doing is giving an accurate description of the belief and if that makes people angry then that's not my fault.

You know exactly what you are doing. Some honesty would be nice. Even if you represented the Christian position accurately (Which you don't), its neither here nor there, for its how you've presented it shows your contempt for Christianity and in turn the local population of this forum. If you temper your manner, 'you' and the Christians here will benefit. If you simply like to stir the pot though, then simply ignore.

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

You know exactly what you are doing. Some honesty would be nice. Even if you represented the Christian position accurately (Which you don't), its neither here nor there, for its how you've presented it shows your contempt for Christianity and in turn the local population of this forum. If you temper your manner, 'you' and the Christians here will benefit. If you simply like to stir the pot though, then simply ignore.

It might help things along if you pointed out what was in error in his post? You are being a bit vague atm.

JimiTime

iUseVi wrote: »

It might help things along if you pointed out what was in error in his post? You are being a bit vague atm.

It matters not about what was said, but rather how it was framed, and the motive of the poster. I'll let FC decide if he wishes to address the inaccuracies.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

You know exactly what you are doing. Some honesty would be nice. Even if you represented the Christian position accurately (Which you don't), its neither here nor there, for its how you've presented it shows your contempt for Christianity and in turn the local population of this forum. If you temper your manner, 'you' and the Christians here will benefit. If you simply like to stir the pot though, then simply ignore.

I am honestly lost. Which part of my post specifically do you think showed contempt for christianity and the population of this forum? Are you sure you're not taking a preconceived idea of me as having contempt for christianity and projecting it onto that post?

And if I have not represented it accurately then please tell me where I'm wrong and if you make your case well I will happily change my position

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I am honestly lost. Which part of my post specifically do you think showed contempt for christianity and the population of this forum? Are you sure you're not taking a preconceived idea of me as having contempt for christianity and projecting it onto that post?

And if I have not represented it accurately then please tell me where I'm wrong and if you make your case well I will happily change my position

You show contempt in posting the following blatant untruth: "The only truly immoral act in christianity is not picking one particular story among thousands to believe because it is the only choice that it is within your power to make."

That is certainly not what I believe, and I don't think it reflects the opinions of the vast majority of Christians, either on this board or in general.

It is a deliberate attempt to inflame the natives (successfully, apparently) and totally unacceptable. If you cannot engage in debate here without indulging in such gross misrepresentations then please don't bother.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

It matters not about what was said, but rather how it was framed, and the motive of the poster.

Censored if I'm wrong then tell me why I'm wrong, if I'm right then agree with me. This is just an ad hominem attack. I do not believe in christianity. I think there are many problems with the concept of christianity and my "motive" here was to point out what I see as one of the holes. If you think that means I lack decorum then you're entitled to that opinion but I don't know how to say what I said and make the point I was making in any other way. Can you please explain to me how I could have made that point in a way that would appear to be conversing humbly? Maybe I should have put it in the form of a question? I did end the post with "All imo of course and I'm sure people will disagree with me".....

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

You show contempt in posting the following blatant untruth: "The only truly immoral act in christianity is not picking one particular story among thousands to believe because it is the only choice that it is within your power to make."

That is certainly not what I believe, and I don't think it reflects the opinions of the vast majority of Christians, either on this board or in general.

It is a deliberate attempt to inflame the natives (successfully, apparently) and totally unacceptable. If you cannot engage in debate here without indulging in such gross misrepresentations then please don't bother.

I know that is not what christians believe. That was me drawing a logical conclusion from the christian beliefs that we are all inherently sinners, that all who accept Jesus are saved and that all who reject Jesus are condemned which I invite people to disagree with

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

You know exactly what you are doing. Some honesty would be nice. Even if you represented the Christian position accurately (Which you don't), its neither here nor there, for its how you've presented it shows your contempt for Christianity and in turn the local population of this forum. If you temper your manner, 'you' and the Christians here will benefit. If you simply like to stir the pot though, then simply ignore.

In fairness it is often necessary to frame things in quite a blunt manner to get around the double speak that propagates this forum (from both sides I might add).

It is very difficult to get a straight answer on these topics.

Which is why it was so refreshing to see antiskeptic's straight down the middle response about lying children going to hell.

I respect it when someone is secure enough in their position to simply state it without going through mountains of spin to frame it in a way that it doesn't sound like it actually is.

A good example of this is Sam saying that if you don't accept Jesus you wind up in hell (something that is straight out of the Bible) to which Fanny responded with the interested but irrelevant comment that he doesn't know what happened to people before Jesus arrived.

Which is fascinating but that isn't relevant to Sam's point, and it is hard to not come to the conclusion that Fanny knows it is not relevant to Sam's point, that he isn't simply spinning the conversation into a topic.

As I said earlier I think the Christians need to stop spinning everything with double speak, and the atheists need to stop with the faux outrage and shock.

We might actually be able to discuss something properly then.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

A good example of this is Sam saying that if you don't accept Jesus you wind up in hell (something that is straight out of the Bible) to which Fanny responded with the interested but irrelevant comment that he doesn't know what happened to people before Jesus arrived.

Which is fascinating but that isn't relevant to Sam's point, and it is hard to not come to the conclusion that Fanny knows it is not relevant to Sam's point, that he isn't simply spinning the conversation into a topic.

As I said earlier I think the Christians need to stop spinning everything with double speak, and the atheists need to stop with the faux outrage and shock.

We might actually be able to discuss something properly then.

I don't think Fanny's comment was irrelevant. Sadly we have learned that on this forum we have to qualify everything we say as if in a legal document because, sure as eggs is eggs, some drive-by atheist will jump in and start spouting stuff like, "So you believe that 100% of people who lived before 1AD are in hell".

It inevitably derails most threads. That is why Sam's post was singularly unhelpful in that it managed to totally twist and misrepresent what Christians actually believe.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Censored if I'm wrong then tell me why I'm wrong, if I'm right then agree with me. This is just an ad hominem attack.

There's nothing ad hominem, as I have no interest in debating your views on Christianity. I quite directly advised you as to how to be more contructive and respectful in your conversing. That a better approach would benfit 'your' quest for answers (if thats what you want), and also benefit the local populous.

At the end of the day, its up to you, and what you want from the forum.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Firstly you have dealt only with the possible exceptions to the rule so the reality is still that the vast majority of people on the planet who have been exposed to christianity but who don't believe it are, according to the belief of most christians, going to go to hell regardless of how well they live their lives.

No, I was dealing with your flawed attempt - complete with its pejorative slights - to represent Christianity. You made certain claims about the basics of Christianity and I have tried to show how your caricature is fallacious. What I have done in my previous post was to attempt to mention a couple of examples of those who didn't know about the guy who walked on the water but who are saved nevertheless. I've also suggested (probably not without controversy) that God might just have his own way of judging those who lived and died without ever having heard the Gospel.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Secondly, if we're operating on the premise that god is good then there's a hell of a lot more that needs deciding than just whether or not infants who die are condemned, the first of which is how on earth believing a story about a guy who walked on water makes you worthy of salvation and how not believing it makes you worthy of punishment even if you live your life as morally as is humanly possible.

You don't get it do you? After all this time you still can't grasp the fundamentals. Salvation isn't about believing in a guy who walked on water. It's conceivable that one could believe in Jesus, that he is God and that he offers a gift but also reject him. Salvation comes from accepting that gift. Damnation doesn't arise from this thought crime business of non-belief you seem to be hung up on. You don't die of a disease because you don't believe that the cure will help. You die because you refuse the cure.

Take humans out of the equation and consider the opposing fundamental forces mentioned in the bible - good and evil. If it is God's will to abolish the latter, then you are either part of the problem or you are not.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If the criteria for salvation is something other than believing in Jesus then please explain to me how I am mistaken. Is it possible for someone who accepts Jesus as their saviour to be condemned and is it possible for someone who is given the option to accept him but chooses not to to be saved?

I would think that it is possible for someone who accepts Jesus to be condemned. For example, whatever about good intentions, it might be someone decides at a later date that while never outright rejecting Jesus it is better to return to the old life - thus effectively handing back the ticket. As for the latter part of your question, I would assume that God honours people's intentions. If you reject the gift then you accept the consequences.

Sam Vimes

PDN wrote: »

I don't think Fanny's comment was irrelevant.

My comment was referring to people who have rejected christianity versus those who have accepted it so people who never had the opportunity to do either are indeed irrelevant.

Sam Vimes

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, I was dealing with your flawed attempt - complete with its pejorative slights - to represent Christianity.

Sorry I didn't mean for my post to be representing christianity. I thought it was clear from the context that I am not a christian and so was giving my view of it as a non-christian.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You made certain claims about the basics of Christianity and I have tried to show how your caricature is fallacious. What I have done in my previous post was to attempt to mention a couple of examples of those who didn't know about the guy who walked on the water but who are saved nevertheless. I've also suggested (probably not without controversy) that God might just have his own way of judging those who lived and died without ever having heard the Gospel.

You don't get it do you? After all this time you still can't grasp the fundamentals. Salvation isn't about believing in a guy who walked on water. It's conceivable that one could believe in Jesus, that he is God and that he offers a gift but also reject him. Salvation comes from accepting that gift. Damnation doesn't arise from this thought crime business of non-belief you seem to be hung up on. You don't die of a disease because you don't believe that the cure will help. You die because you refuse the cure.

Take humans out of the equation and consider the opposing fundamental forces mentioned in the bible - good and evil. If it is God's will to abolish the latter, then you are either part of the problem or you are not.

I would think that it is possible for someone who accepts Jesus to be condemned. For example, whatever about good intentions, it might be someone decides at a later date that while never outright rejecting Jesus it is better to return to the old life - thus effectively handing back the ticket. As for the latter part of your question, I would assume that God honours people's intentions. If you reject the gift then you accept the consequences.

I can accept that it is not as simple as the "thought crime" of non-belief but if you commit this thought crime then you cannot possibly accept the gift. One must get over the hurdle of finding the whole thing implausible before one can accept the gift.

You say that someone can believe in Jesus but go back to the "old life". I accept this but humans are sinners by nature so even those who don't make a conscious choice to do this commit sin which would otherwise send them to hell. Still, the act of accepting Jesus as your saviour is what allows you to avoid hell and rejecting him is what sends you there, not the specific moral or immoral acts that you commit in your life

edit: and to be honest the idea of someone who truly believes that Jesus has offered the gift of salvation, that the consequence of rejecting this gift is eternal damnation and that the consequence of accepting it is eternal bliss (or whatever you believe heaven to be) and still chooses to reject it is quite strange to me. Surely there would have to be some level of doubt as to whether the offer is true or not or whether they have truly rejected it?

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

There's nothing ad hominem, as I have no interest in debating your views on Christianity. I quite directly advised you as to how to be more contructive and respectful in your conversing. That a better approach would benfit 'your' quest for answers (if thats what you want), and also benefit the local populous.

At the end of the day, its up to you, and what you want from the forum.

I'm afraid you haven't JimiTime. you've told me that I lack decorum but you have not advised as to how to avoid this. Was it the part that PDN highlighted?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I don't think Fanny's comment was irrelevant.

Then you aren't paying attention. Sam explained quite nicely why it was irrelevant, and it is difficult to see how Fanny could have been confused.

Perhaps you would like it if we qualified every question to avoid confusing in the future.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Then you aren't paying attention. Sam explained quite nicely why it was irrelevant, and it is difficult to see how Fanny could have been confused.

Perhaps you would like it if we qualified every question to avoid confusing in the future.

What! Are we reading two different threads? Sam said the following:

The only thing that lands you in hell is not believing in Jesus and the only thing that saves you from hell is believing in Jesus. No?

No, this is not true. Why? Well, see my other posts.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm afraid you haven't JimiTime. you've told me that I lack decorum but you have not advised as to how to avoid this.

Apologies, I thought it was implied if one says you lack decorum, that to have decorum is the solution. So, have more decorum, and be more thoughtful with regards to your audience 'if' you wish to engage in an honest knowledge sharing conversation. This will stand you in good stead in all walks of life, not just here.

BTW, I love to be straight-up, not beat around the bush etc. I value it in others too. However, that does not mean that I sacrifice tact or manners. All too often I see folk use the 'I say it as I see it' approach as an excuse to be rude or abnoxious.

Fanny Cradock

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry I didn't mean for my post to be representing christianity. I thought it was clear from the context that I am not a christian and so was giving my view of it as a non-christian.

Sam, we already know you're not a Christian. If you are claiming to give an accurate representation of the beliefs of Christianity then I don't see why you should be giving your view as a non-Christian. You ended your post acknowledging that your representation was going to cause trouble. Low and behold... trouble.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I can accept that it is not as simple as the "thought crime" of non-belief but if you commit this thought crime then you cannot possibly accept the gift. One must get over the hurdle of finding the whole thing implausible before one can accept the gift.

What! An atheist doesn't find Christianity plausible. I never. What has this got to do with the your offending post?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You say that someone can believe in Jesus but go back to the "old life". I accept this but humans are sinners by nature so even those who don't make a conscious choice to do this commit sin which would otherwise send them to hell. Still, the act of accepting Jesus as your saviour is what allows you to avoid hell and rejecting him is what sends you there, not the specific moral or immoral acts that you commit in your life

I have no interest in slitting hairs with you. If you think you know what it is I believe then fine. Just don't again presume to speak for me.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

edit: and to be honest the idea of someone who truly believes that Jesus has offered the gift of salvation, that the consequence of rejecting this gift is eternal damnation and that the consequence of accepting it is eternal bliss (or whatever you believe heaven to be) and still chooses to reject it is quite strange to me. Surely there would have to be some level of doubt as to whether the offer is true or not or whether they have truly rejected it?

But you fine it all strange, Sam

Maybe its like somebody who smokes but they have no intention of stopping despite what they know about smoking. It is easier not to change, to always put it off till tomorrow or simply slip back into old ways. Besides, somebody could simply be backing the wrong horse.

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It has been posited that hell is not a place of active punishment, rather it is the eternal separation from God, the source of all good.

Where did this notion come from, and more importantly 'Why' did this notion come about. To believe in such a notion, you obviously believe in the language used relating to 'hell' as metephorical. If so, I would say look further and ask the following:

1. Does this notion of eternal conscious suffering sound right? or does it cause a niggle in ones concience?

2. Do you consign it to a place like, 'It sounds harsh, but I just don't understand the gravity of sin' or somesuch?

3. If you see the language of 'fire' etc being metephorical, then look at other times fire is used in methephor by bible writers. To my knowledge it symbolises 'destruction', or 'tempering'. So if you explain 'hell' meaning the notion you stated above, what are you saying the fire metephor symbolises?

Fanny Cradock

Yeah, it got washed away.

JimiTime wrote: »

Where did this notion come from, and more importantly 'Why' did this notion come about. To believe in such a notion, you obviously believe in the language used relating to 'hell' as metephorical. If so, I would say look further and ask the following:

I certainly would look at the language used to describe Hell to be metaphorical. Even the word for hell that is used in the synoptics, Gehenna, was the name of a rubbish dump that lay outside Jerusalem. Of course, it doesn't then follow that Hell is in itself a metaphor. I think that we just have to be careful not to read too much or too little into things.

JimiTime wrote: »

1. Does this notion of eternal conscious suffering sound right? or does it cause a niggle in ones concience?

2. Do you consign it to a place like, 'It sounds harsh, but I just don't understand the gravity of sin' or somesuch?

3. If you see the language of 'fire' etc being metephorical, then look at other times fire is used in methephor by bible writers. To my knowledge it symbolises 'destruction', or 'tempering'. So if you explain 'hell' meaning the notion you stated above, what are you saying the fire metephor symbolises?

With regards to these questions, I don't have anything near sufficient understanding of theology let alone Greek to analyse the subtleties of the texts. However, if you are asking for a roundabout answer based on my own personal convictions, I believe that no one understands sin fully. Perhaps history gives us some very practical demonstrations of the depravity, wickedness and selfishness that it fosters, but I wonder have plumbed the depths to which it can drag us down? I don't think of sin in proportional terms. A large dose is as dangerous as a trace amount. You either have the disease and you are fine thank you very much or you are awaiting the cure. I also don't believe that Hell is an active sentence - like being sent to prison for a crime. Rather I believe that it is a consequence of God putting the world to rights. In other words, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution. If sin is overthrown then the sinners are overthrown with it.

Inevitably there are many interpretations of what the result of Hell is. Everything from a place/ state of eternal torture, a place/ state of eternal separation from God (it has just struck me that perhaps this is what C.S. Lewis' book The Great Divorce is about. The title certainly struck me as a perfect description of the point I was trying to make - God and you go your separate ways), a place/ state where eventually everybody there will be released when they turn towards God for release from their sins, another way of describing eternal destruction etc., etc. To my mind some are more plausible than others. But I'm open to debate on the finer points.

antiskeptic

JimiTime wrote: »

Where did this notion come from, and more importantly 'Why' did this notion come about. To believe in such a notion, you obviously believe in the language used relating to 'hell' as metephorical.

If wanting to convey an existance as awful as could possibly be imagined, then the language used in the Bible, if metaphorical, is about as eloquent as it comes. It's the kind of language that completely silences the tendency for equivocators to relativise. Read it and shiver...whoever you are.

1. Does this notion of eternal conscious suffering sound right? or does it cause a niggle in ones concience?

Don't get me wrong: hell sounds absolutely awful. It is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy - had I got one. But if supposing the primacy of God's purpose being "the creation of beings with choice: with or without God" .. then I can see how eternal, conscious suffering respects that choice.

Anything less would be a form of sentimentalism.

God offers the very ultimate in both directions: you become absolute goodness or you become absolute vileness. Limit the ultimate in one direction (by annihilation) and you skew the balance of the choice. The issue isn't primarily our comfort. The issue is primarily our choice.

Niggling conscience? Not at all. Niggling my worry regarding those I love - most certainly. Although I don't suppose problems come the time when their choice too will have been rendered.

2. Do you consign it to a place like, 'It sounds harsh, but I just don't understand the gravity of sin' or somesuch?

See above. The best word I can think of for hell is ... apt. Fit for use.

3. If you see the language of 'fire' etc being metephorical, then look at other times fire is used in methephor by bible writers. To my knowledge it symbolises 'destruction', or 'tempering'. So if you explain 'hell' meaning the notion you stated above, what are you saying the fire metephor symbolises?

Precisely what being thrown into a fire would mean in reality: pain/anguish/suffering.

I know people have contorted ways of spinning the likes of "the smoke of their torment rises forever and ever" but to me that means the torment ongoing - not the torment limited and the traces of that torment existing forever, long after the tormented are gone

But my main reason for supposing eternal torment arises from what I believe God's primary motivation and purpose regarding us, is.

Choice. Our will be done.

antiskeptic

iUseVi wrote: »

Rape and murder are terrible terrible things.

Don't you mean terrible "mistakes"?