Is the concept of an eternal hell for non-believers Not contrary to God’s merciful nature?

JayPS 2288

For all the stick that Jehova’s witnesses get, at least they agree that it’s a logical fallacy.

They believe in a 3-tiered afterlife.

One where good believes (only 144,000 of them) will ascend to Heaven.

The second where remaining good believers will live on early bliss for eternity (but not in heaven with God).

Thirdly, non-believers, the wicked, etc., will simply have their souls destroyed and they’ll cease to exist.

I don’t believe in any of it FWIW, but I’d love to hear opinions on the concepts of eternal Hell.

homer911

If there is an eternal Heaven, why should there not be an eternal hell? and to answer your headline question, God is giving you a lifetime, however long or short that may be for you, to accept His grace and come into a relationship with Him - that's pretty merciful

I certainly would not try and defined the the JW's interpretation of a few verses of scripture, an interpretation which is not consistent with the rest of scripture

'... God is giving you a lifetime, however long or short...'

A child up to age, say 9, is a bully or has even killed (someone like Jaime Bulger's killers) and get knocked down by a drunk driver. Do they go to hell for all eternity. If not, where does it say they won't.

JayPS 2288

At what age does a person become responsible for their own salvation? 18? 16? 12?

If Hitler repented at the end would he go to Heaven?

Would Ghandi be sent to Hell?

The DayDream

As you can see from the 1st reply, any answer a Christian will give will make just as little sense. But they'll make sure to tell you not to listen to the ridiculousness of some other faith, because clearly the one they picked to follow zealously is the right one, and everyone else is wrong and crazy.

When the truth is they're all nuts who believe in wacky stuff. It's actually a pretty easy gauge of someone's intelligence - the smartest people are usually the first to say, 'I could be wrong about this, but... ' while the dumbest people tend to be the ones who thump the table (or the bible) and roar their heads off about how right they are (Trump supporters are a good example of this).

And unfortunately that means there is no point trying to engage them in any discussion - they don't do logic, and they don't change their mind no matter how nonsensical their position is proven to be.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118966412#Comment_118966412

Mod: This is not a forum that allows you to take random digs at Christianity. Your post is both obnoxious and intentionally inflammatory to the intended audience of this forum and displays just the kind of pig headed intolerance you are complaining about. Please read the charter before posting here again.Thanks for your attention.

1. The purpose of this forum is to discuss Christian belief in general, and specific elements of it, between Christians and non-Christians alike. This forum has the additional purpose of being a point on Boards.ie where Christians may ask other Christians questions about their shared faith. In this regard, Christians should not have to defend their faith from overt or subtle attack.

looksee

Where do you get the reference to 'eternal hell for non-believers' from? Jesus didn't mention it - he did discuss the 'sheep and the goats' in Matthew 25:31 on, but the differentiation there was people who helped others and those who didn't, belief was not mentioned. Its perfectly possible for people of other faiths and none to do the things that Jesus discussed.

Further, believers believe they will go to heaven (or hell, but this is unlikely in the scenario of heaven being for believers) but since this is a matter of belief, how can they impose the consequences of belief or non-belief on others? If a person does not believe in God or salvation or however it is expressed, but wishes he did, he could have a miserable life of worry about the afterlife due to his inability to believe.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118966348#Comment_118966348

It's not a question of age of responsibility for one's own salvation, or indeed of personal responsibility for one's own salvation at any age.

In Christian theology, salvation isn't something you do; it's something Christ does. You can reject the salvation offered by Christ, though. One possible answer to the "at what age?" question — if you want to analyse it in those terms, which isn't the Christian tradition — is that a child lacks the maturity, and so the capacity, to reject salvation.

A second point is that we have to think about the hoary old question of "salvation by faith" versus "salvation by works". This is a point of theological difference between the Protestant and Catholic traditions and, like a lot of such points, it became quite confrontational, with each tradition tending to misunderstand the other's position, and then to frame it's own position in a polemical way, in opposition to that slightly misunderstood position. It doesn't always make for a healthy discourse.

Both sides can "mine" scripture for quotes in support of their position. There are passages which link salvation to belief (e.g. "He who believes in me will never die") and numerous others which link salvation to virtue, sometimes even to virtue without (explicit) belief (e.g. "“Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” Then he will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’.)

I think we reconcile these by recognising that the "belief" spoken of here is not just formal profession of the creed, but faith - a belief in which we place our trust, a belief that shapes how we live. So, visiting the imprisoned, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, etc are acts of love, and people who do these things have faith in the importance and validity of love, and in the need for love to shape our lives. These people might, hypothetically, be atheists, but if the nature of God is love then they are among those who know god without knowing his name.

If Hitler had repented at the end, would he be saved? Yes, if he had repented. But repentance involves a fundamental reshaping of heart and mind; it's not normally an instantaneous event but an extended process. So Hitler repenting between the moment he shot himself and bit down on the cyanide capsule and the time of his death is a fairly improbably scenario.

Would Gandhi be sent to hell? Some Christians would say yes but most, I think, would say that there is no reason think so.

JayPS 2288

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118968498#Comment_118968498

But those Christians who say Ghandi isn’t in hell are contradicting themselves or cherry picking beliefs.

According to Christian teaching, those who reject Christ’s salvation go to Hell.

Hitler could quite literally accept Christ and repent and go to heaven. Ghandi, if he heard of, and rejected Christ would burn in Hell.

olestoepoke

The thought of an eternity spent anywhere is terrifying, I'll take option 3 please and thank you.

JayPS 2288

The goalposts seem to be constantly shifted.

Until the not-too-distant past, unbaptised babies who died went to limbo, now the church thankfully doesn’t take such a despicable position.

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118969360#Comment_118969360

Mod: Given these points have already been directly addressed in Peregrinus' last post, my take on the above is and your subsequent post is to take a dig a Christianity without making any solid arguments to support your points. You received a warning for breach of charter, please read it before posting here again.

Thinkingaboutit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118970746#Comment_118970746

Limbo was never dogmatic teaching, but the Church suggested that some might never see God due to original sin which has to be washed away by the saving waters of baptism, but will also not be punished in any manner. No goals are shifted. A Catholic should be relaxed that you call it a 'despicable position.' Professional offence takers angry at a portion of a Christian's believes have no standing whatsoever. They wouldn't dare try it with Islam.

Anyone who asserts that there is universal salvation or that anyone who is 'basically good' is part of God's elect, that all or most are saved (like a certain bodybuilding bishop who says 'dare we hope all are saved') is misleading people, preaching error, even heresy. Salvation is only clearly possible for those baptised by water and the Holy Ghost (Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, John iii. 5) I would note that Gandhi is a far more mixed and uncertain figure than those who make him a plaster saint. Anyhow, God can choose to save others, like the good thief, St Dismas, but without baptism, outside the Church, salvation is utterly uncertain. Nor it is certain for those within the Church. St Leonard of Port Maurice oft preached on that matter. The portion of those saved is unknowable, but no one can ever take it for granted. Teaching does not change.

Anyone can look at a German updated 2011 version of Fr Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Barring some text glossing matters in the light of V2, it is all there, including some unusual things like how a priest (under authority) can ordain other priests or deacons.

JayPS 2288

Do you not think it’s odious that a child (through no fault of their own) who wasn’t baptised and died, never saw salvation?

Where’s the logic that a loving God would bestow original sin upon an innocent baby?

Why doesn’t God prevent tragedies such a still births or infant deaths before the baby is baptised in order to stop babies going to

limbo?

looksee

Mod: Let's leave Islam (and any other) whataboutery out of the discussion please.

Also: Troll post removed

Jim2007

https://youtu.be/xL01jmT0MN4

Well OP, I guess the main man has the answer.

JayPS 2288

What if someone wanted neither heaven nor hell? Would God accommodate such a request?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118974956#Comment_118974956

Okay, if you insist, purgatory it is. 😛

JayPS 2288

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118974988#Comment_118974988

😂

What if I just want to cease to exist?

lisajanecawley

The concept of eternity is incomprehensible to any human being so I presume it doesn't exist. The Christian God wouldn't threaten us with something that our minds can't understand since he's the one who created us with a limited understanding of the world.

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118975009#Comment_118975009

So as a Christian are you then saying you don't think your belief will allow you to live forever? (be it on earth, in heaven etc?)

Doesn't that fly in the face of biblical teaching?

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118975009#Comment_118975009

And yet the concept of eternity was conceived by humanity. Personally, I'm of the opinion that it is well within the capacity of the human mind to fully grasp abstract notions such as infinity and eternity. Perhaps what separates atheism and many forms of religious faith is the belief that our existence is fundamentally finite or not. I agree entirely that what any person can hope to understand is finite, we cannot appreciate eternity, but we can conceive it.

Peregrinus

I think the notion that, if we can't imagine it, it can't exist, is a fairly brave one. 😀

Gary kk

Old testament God was a bit of an ass if I recall correctly.

Jim2007

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118977211#Comment_118977211

Limiting is the word that comes to mind. There is nothing brave about limiting ones mind.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118977287#Comment_118977287

Although hell, damnation and similar concepts don't get much airplay in the Old Testament. Indeed, the afterlife is barely mentioned at all, so there's not very much about heaven or salvation either. Christian theology on this subject mostly draws on the NT scriptures.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118977314#Comment_118977314

To be fair, our minds are limited. If something is truly beyond our comprehension, well, it's beyond our comprehension. That's not a failure in courage on our part, or a self-imposed limitation.

But it does look to me a little arrogant to suggest that, if it's beyond our comprehension then it can't be real; that reality is limited by our understanding. I'd call that an error to which only the modern mind could fall prey.

Feisar

Non believer here, raised RC. God, merciful? I would suggest a good read of the Old Testament for anyone who thinks that!

JayPS 2288

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118977391#Comment_118977391

Why would God give us such a weak intellect so we can’t comprehend the afterlife thus giving people the scope to reject it, not out of arrogance but out of their own reasoning (or lack thereof).

dickdasr1234

You cannot prove/disprove the existence of god.

It is therefore solely a question of belief wherein logic is rendered futile.

If you believe there is a god, there is a god.

If you don't believe there is a god, there is no god.

Just like the dyslexic atheist who didn't believe in dog!

JayPS 2288

Why would god give us the opportunity to reject him and thus face damnation ?

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118977391#Comment_118977391

Agreed, though I'd suggest those limits are closer to what we can imagine than what we can comprehend. What we can imagine need not be rooted in reality. On the road to discovery, imagination often precedes understanding as can be seen in the works of many great minds throughout human history.

JayPS 2288

Would existing for eternity in heaven not also start to become boring?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118977457#Comment_118977457

I haven't said that we can't comprehend the afterlife; just that, if we can't comprehend something, that does not logically suggest that it cannot be real.

As it happens, we clearly can comprehend the afterlife to at least some extent, because here we are having a meaningful discussion about it. We couldn't do that if we didn't have a shared comprehension of what the word "afterlife" refers to.

But, granted, much about (our notion of) the afterlife remains speculative, or unknown, or difficult to picture, and the Christian tradition acknowledges this. (St. Paul makes this very point.) So your question is not without merit. Why would God offer us an afterlife that we can only party or hazily understand, and then invite us to make a once-and-for-all choice about it?

In the mainstream Christian tradition, God doesn't really ask us to make that choice. It's a modern, non-Christian and, dare I say it, basically capitalist caricature of the Christian faith to see it as a market transaction in which you must decide whether to pay a fixed price goods of uncertain quality and utility, that you don't really know what they are.

As already pointed out, the Old Testament has virtually nothing to say about the afterlife, one way or another. There is no promise of salvation or threat of damnation and, whatever reasons there might be for obeying the commandments, a bargain in which you get eternal bliss in the afterlife is not one of them. Such a thing is never suggested. Nor is there any threat of eternal fire, etc, if you don't obey. The fundamental reason for obeying the commandments is — that's the right and good way for you to live (if you're a Jew, obviously). If you live this way there is an expectation that good things will flow from that, but they are good things in this world - fulfilment, happiness, long life, the esteem of the community, etc. The best that you are ever promised for after your death is numerous descendants and a reputation that outlasts you. And none of this is presented as the reason why you should live that way; they are just consequences expected to result when people live in alignment with the natural and moral order, rather than in opposition to it.

Right. Christianity develops this in a couple of directions. First, it takes on board the notion of an afterlife (which was coming into Jewish thinking at the time) and really runs with it. It does this because of the centrality it assigns to its belief in the resurrection of Christ, and its associated belief in general resurrection. Death is not the end! Eternal life is a real thing! Secondly, it takes the Jewish notion that living in harmony with the natural and moral order will be good for you in this life and applies it to eternal life. It's only in eternal life that you can fully become the most perfect version of the creature that God created you to be. So you can't know true happiness, true fulfilment, etc in this life; only in the next. Right now you can only experience pale shadows of such things.

But, again, this is not a bargain, a swap — eternal bliss in return for your faith (or your works). Rather, believing and living in accordance with God's plan is the way in which you become the person that God planned you to be. Because you have free will you don't have to become that person. And, if you choose not to, then you won't — not as a punishment, but as the working out of your choice. The choice you're invited to make is not "Do I want a prime spot in heaven?" but "How do I want to live? What truth, what values, do I want to devote myself to, do I want my life to illustrate?" It's obvious that the choice you make about questions like that is going to affect the person you become, the life you experience, etc. And, if you believe in an afterlife, why wouldn't it affect the person you are, or the life you lead, in that afterlife? Being free to make the choice necessarily involves the freedom to make the choice which harms you or limits you.

Right. If you're a Christian that choice is wholly wrapped up in the person of Jesus Christ. The choice to follow Jesus is the choice to accept the truths and values that he taught - faith in God; a rejection of power and wealth as the centre of your life in favour of a life of love; an embrace of vulnerability; a commitment to justice and to service of others; etc, etc - you can read the gospels for yourself. If you profess to be a Christian but in fact place your faith in power, wealth, oppression, selfishness, etc - well, the choice you make is reflected in your deeds as much as , or more than, in your words.

If you're not a Christian you don't see the choice in those terms of Jesus Christ, obviously, but you still get to make the choice — it's part of the human condition. Just as it's not difficult to find examples of apparent Christians who put their faith in power, wealth, etc so it's not difficult to find non-Christians who make the opposite choice. The Christian tradition would say of those non-Christians that, by making those choices they are, unbeknownst to themselves, in search of the God they do not yet know, and that God will respond to them. Which you might think is a little bit patronising, but it's an answer to the objection that the Christian concept of God and the salvation he offers is cruel or arbitrary.

JayPS 2288

Think of it this way. The punishment one receives is usually (or should be) proportional to the severity of the crime one commits.

If I steal, I might get a Garda caution.

If I smuggle drugs, I might be six months.

If I rape, I might get 5 years.

If I murder, I might get 10….

And so on.

So what transgressions committed by myself are worthy of an eternity in Hell?

Secondly, if salvation is only possible through the redemption of Christ, and everyone goes to Hell if they reject this redemption, does that mean the default position is for everyone to go to Hell unless saved otherwise?

What happens to people who never heard of Jesus? Are they saved by default? What if a missionary spreads the word and the person rejects? Would it not be better not to spread the message thereby giving people an opportunity to reject Jesus?

indioblack

The example of the death of a young child and an elderly adult, and their experience after death , was a debate I remember from years ago on Boards.

The elderly person had the possibility of many routes in his or her life - the young child simply had not.

I wondered at the time how these two persons could be assessed/ judged to the same standard.

Loafing Oaf

This man summed up the OP's paradox perfectly

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118966308#Comment_118966308

Merciful? Love me or burn for eternity. Remember, you have until the moment you die to be in my good books, and I ain't telling you when that is.

homer911

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119026245#Comment_119026245

That's a real glass-half-empty way of looking at it. Yes indeed, merciful. God is offering the most wonderful gift you could ever possibly imagine, you lose nothing by following him. He gives you a lifetime (however long or short) to accept his gift and begin a new life with him, why would you turn that down?

BTW, you are quite right, there is no obtaining sanctification before God after you die. No amount of prayers from your loved ones will grant you salvation after you die, if you have not accepted it before you die

I find your response a conundrum, you clearly reject God, so given your options, you choose to "burn for eternity" as you put it. Well you can't say you were not warned

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119042233#Comment_119042233

'Why would you turn that down', you ask. Why would you turn down the opportunity to reach paradise by following the Zoroastrianism gods? The word paradise comes from their religion.

The simple answer is that for a lot of us we don't believe in any god (there's no proof - I know you wont agree with this). But, if we were to believe in any god (we likely wont) why believe in a particular god. You speak with full knowledge that god exists, that must give a great feeling, which is somewhat envious. However, I'd hate to live my life thinking, will (insert god of choice here) be displeased with my actions. It's one life (from my perspective) - and would hate to be 'enslaved' to a certain way of acting. So, I don't envy you that.

BTW, don't think because I don't follow a religion that I don't act morally. I do my best, why? because I have empathy and wish to have a good night's sleep.

smacl

you lose nothing by following him

This would imply the faithful make no personal sacrifices for their faith which I would argue is not the case. Catholic clergy for example forego sexual intimacy, marriage and raising a family. Most religiously inclined people devote a significant amount of their lifetime to religious observance and are often obliged to adhere to an ethos and morality that might run contrary to their personal preference and changing social norms. I guess much of this rests on the particular church you belong to and how that shapes your religious observance.

maestroamado

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058242933/is-the-concept-of-an-eternal-hell-for-non-believers-not-contrary-to-god-s-merciful-nature

where do they send christian hypocrites... i know a few of these...

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119042233#Comment_119042233

It's not that I reject God. I simply do not believe that there is evidence that God exists.

I will be as shocked as anyone if I end up in hell post mortem

I cannot choose to believe in something that is not convincing. I could pretend to, but presumably God would know my true thoughts on the matter.

I have examined this very carefully and nobody has shown me anything that is sufficient to convince me. (Including God himself)

looksee

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119065971#Comment_119065971

you step forward believing that still no cars coming. 

And you could be wrong. If you don't keep looking and paying attention there could easily be a car. Belief doesn't cut it, knowledge is what matters.

I don't understand your second paragraph, I think I get the gist of what you are saying, that is not sufficient to understand it. Maybe you could re-phrase it?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119042233#Comment_119042233

You do lose quite a bit of time in following him, all those hours spent in draughty buildings adoring him- he seems very needy for an all powerful being.

looksee

Think about the second paragph, you will see.

That entirely fails to be an argument; I thought about it when I wrote my first response and concluded that it is not even coherent English, I was trying to be polite about it.

Similarly I would not dream of using your syndrome name as, without explanation, it is meaningless.

homer911

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119043294#Comment_119043294

If you are looking for irrefutable evidence, what room does that leave for faith?

homer911

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119066187#Comment_119066187

Actually our church is very well heated 😊

Worship is about saying thanks, its definitely not about feeding God's ego (cant imagine he has one!)

homer911

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119042411#Comment_119042411

What I meant was.. What you gain in reality is far greater than what you think you might lose (and you mainly lose the stuff we can all do without)

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119086145#Comment_119086145

I don't see the value in having faith in the existence of something

Sometimes we have to put our faith in people, that they will honour their promises to us, but if faith is required just to believe they exist then its something I cannot be convinced by

An omnipotent God could easily prove his existence beyond a reasonable doubt, we would still need to have faith in his character, but at least we'd know he's real

smacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119086160#Comment_119086160

My feeling is that those who sacrifice the possibility of family and intimacy for the sake of their faith quite often find that this not something they can do without. Whatever about it perhaps being ultimately rewarding, I would certainly consider it major personal sacrifice.