The Bible and Hell

[Menassa]

Unless of course you believe... God wrote the Text....

I don't.

Understandable.

[Nu Sparta]

Even when I was Christian I never truly believed in hell as a place of fire and physical torment. The OP has now given me great factual information to defend myself with in debates with my more "Blind-Faith" friends. Personally I hate the idea of "Blind-Faith". If you walk down a path full of obstacles with your eyes closed your going to hit something yes? As a Neo-Pagan I try to live through my beliefs with open eyes. I trust in my beliefs, but if I saw a hole in the road I would stop and contemplate why it was there and what made it, attempt to fix it even before making my way around it.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Even when I was Christian I never truly believed in hell as a place of fire and physical torment. The OP has now given me great factual information to defend myself with in debates with my more "Blind-Faith" friends. Personally I hate the idea of "Blind-Faith". If you walk down a path full of obstacles with your eyes closed your going to hit something yes? As a Neo-Pagan I try to live through my beliefs with open eyes. I trust in my beliefs, but if I saw a hole in the road I would stop and contemplate why it was there and what made it, attempt to fix it even before making my way around it.

Glad to have been of service.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

You're missing other places in the Bible where other dysphemisms or hyperbole is used to describe Hell and/or the Devil.

Which is, according to your logic, more proof that Hell doesn't exist.

Because the authors of the Bible used hyperbole.

Gotcha.

[Meryuma]

The Church is infallible.

How come infallible organizations always seem to change their doctrines over time?

[Xlanar]

I find this interesting, because in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, aka Mormons, (I know, not everyone considers Mormons to be Christian) there is no hell in the conventional sense. The stage of life immediately after death is the Pre-Judgment. Spirits go to one of two places (generally called Spirit Paradise and Spirit Prison, but I dislike those names because of the false impression they give) they penitent and righteous in one side and the unrighteous and non-believers in the other. Pretty similar to the concepts of Heaven and Hell right? However, instead of eternal paradise/damnation, the ones who are clean of their sins go to visit the others as missionaries, to teach to those that either rejected the gospel or never got the chance to learn. Those that have sins and have not repented are given the chance to overcome and repent. These realms are considered to be the same place, just with the first group on one half and the second group on the other half.

This is similar to the 'Pit' in one of the verses you referenced, with both the righteous and the unrighteous. In LDS doctrine the concepts of 'refiners fire' or something similar is quite common as well.

In the LDS bible dictionary it talks about some of the same things you were describing

Hell. An English translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, hell signifies an abode of departed spirits and corresponds to the Greek Hades. In common speech it generally denotes the place of torment for the wicked, although it has been often held, both in the Jewish and the Christian churches, that Hades (meaning broadly the place of all departed spirits) consists of two parts, paradise and Gehenna, one the abode of the righteous and the other of the disobedient.
...In latter-day revelation hell is spoken of in at least two senses. One is the temporary abode in the spirit world of those who were disobedient in this mortal life. It is between death and the resurrection.
...On the other hand, the devil and his angels are assigned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire—a figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in the scriptures (2 Pet. 2:4; D&C 29:38; 88:113). This kind of hell, which is after the resurrection and judgment, is exclusively for the devil and his angels, and is not the same as that consisting only of the period between death and resurrection. The one group are redeemed from hell and inherit some degree of glory. The other receive no glory. They continue in spiritual darkness. For them the conditions of hell remain.

In the LDS Church, we believe in a benevolent God, who gives all of his children the opportunity to be the best they can. He doesn't want to condemn anyone to eternal damnation, especially if they never got the chance to choose the right.

So, 'Hell' is definitely in the Bible, but it is not a place of everlasting torment for the unrighteous.

[The Archregimancy]

I see no particular reason to spend time on a thread that takes such a narrowly Augustinian version of Hell (especially since The Realm of God has already beaten me to posting about apocatstasis).

I'll just refer the OP to my previously expressed opinion on the latter, which can be found in Farnhamia's sig.

[Queen Elizabeth Landia]

Awww, all the Christians getting so upset and wound up by something that doesn't even exist. It's cute.

[CTALNH]

I propose we all go watch darkmatter2525 on youtube!

Who is with me?

[Gideus]

See, crap like this (especially the mistranslations) is why I'm glad that I'm a Reform Jew (by tradition). We don't believe in Hell. Problem solved.

[Ashkland]

I don't know about christianity much, but in Judaism, "Gan Eden" (Heaven) and "Gehenom" (Hell), is not an afterlife thing.
In fact, the word "Hell" (Both in English and Hebrew) comes from the word "Gehenna", it is a place where children were sacrificed to Moloch.

[Gideus]

I see no particular reason to spend time on a thread that takes such a narrowly Augustinian version of Hell (especially since The Realm of God has already beaten me to posting about apocatstasis).

I'll just refer the OP to my previously expressed opinion on the latter, which can be found in Farnhamia's sig.

Arch, my good sir...

Are you suggesting that there are cats in hell?

I didn't actually read back through the conversation. Shoot me.

[The Archregimancy]

I see no particular reason to spend time on a thread that takes such a narrowly Augustinian version of Hell (especially since The Realm of God has already beaten me to posting about apocatstasis).

I'll just refer the OP to my previously expressed opinion on the latter, which can be found in Farnhamia's sig.

Arch, my good sir...

Are you suggesting that there are cats in hell?

I didn't actually read back through the conversation. Shoot me.

No - I'm suggesting that Hell looks like an apothecary, obviously.

[Menassa]

I don't know about christianity much, but in Judaism, "Gan Eden" (Heaven) and "Gehenom" (Hell), is not an afterlife thing.
In fact, the word "Hell" (Both in English and Hebrew) comes from the word "Gehenna", it is a place where children were sacrificed to Moloch.

Gan Eden... was a human description for heaven.. there is a physical and spiritual place... so to with Gehonim.

[Gideus]

Arch, my good sir...

Are you suggesting that there are cats in hell?

I didn't actually read back through the conversation. Shoot me.

No - I'm suggesting that Hell looks like an apothecary, obviously.

Apothecaries are never complete without a few brooding black cats. You can't get your apothecary license without two or three, at the least.

In all seriousness, I think the idea of Hell is pretty silly. I also think that it was never in the original Bible(s). "Hell" in a "traditional" sense was not in the Torah to my knowledge, which was a large portion of the Bible in its early days (right? Not exactly the most informed on this.). Demons were not even the minions of whatever reigned in hell, they were simply the unfinished creatures that God never wanted to complete. I find it hard to believe that, knowing this, a "Hell" was ever intended to be in the Bible and I find it much more likely that it was adopted from the varied pagan beliefs throughout the Mediterranean and Europe - be it Hel from the Scandinavians/Germanic tribes or Hades from the Greeks (Pluto from the Romans), as many other traditions and beliefs in Christianity and all of its various forms were.

[The Kal Empire]

In Christianity, this ‘damnation’ is supposed to be the punishment for refusing Christ and failing to repent one’s wrongdoing (or sin) against God.

Incorrect.

A sin is a wrongdoing of any kind, that is punished by God.

Murder, for example, is not sinning against God, but it is sinning, and therefor one would be sent to the fiery pits of Hell for eternal damnation.

Sinning against God would be more like urinating on a Church wall.

[Gideus]

In Christianity, this ‘damnation’ is supposed to be the punishment for refusing Christ and failing to repent one’s wrongdoing (or sin) against God.

Incorrect.

A sin is a wrongdoing of any kind, that is punished by God.

Murder, for example, is not sinning against God, but it is sinning, and therefor one would be sent to the fiery pits of Hell for eternal damnation.

Sinning against God would be more like urinating on a Church wall.

That's a crime against God? You'd think he'd have tougher skin.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

I see no particular reason to spend time on a thread that takes such a narrowly Augustinian version of Hell (especially since The Realm of God has already beaten me to posting about apocatstasis).

I'll just refer the OP to my previously expressed opinion on the latter, which can be found in Farnhamia's sig.

I was merely pointing out that the Bible makes no reference to a hell in which the 'wicked' suffer for all eternity, which is the commonly held perspective of a typical Christian.

In Christianity, this ‘damnation’ is supposed to be the punishment for refusing Christ and failing to repent one’s wrongdoing (or sin) against God.

Incorrect.

A sin is a wrongdoing of any kind, that is punished by God.

Murder, for example, is not sinning against God, but it is sinning, and therefor one would be sent to the fiery pits of Hell for eternal damnation.

Sinning against God would be more like urinating on a Church wall.

Murder is sinning against God, it's the unjustified killing of one of his creations (that he claims to love).

[Distruzio]

The Church is infallible.

How come infallible organizations always seem to change their doctrines over time?

They haven't been changed.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

How come infallible organizations always seem to change their doctrines over time?

They haven't been changed.

I have an additional question, is the Church infallible only on matters of the Bible, or does it cover other areas as well?

[Death Metal]

All of you are wrong.

The Bible is actually the story of the only infallible man: Frank Castle, the Punisher.

And "Hell" was just a metaphor for Riker's Island.

There, now you'll see that everything about anything makes sense.

[Distruzio]

I'd say that the limitations demonstrate the faith and trust of Jesus in the men He authorized. Then again, I'm not an antitheist, like you are.

It seems that this has become a matter of belief rather than logic. As far as I am concerned, unless Jesus directly authorised Peter's successors, they were illegitimate. Therefore, as a consequence, the Church's authority is illegitimate, which means that only men can interpret the Bible, thus rendering your entire argument invalid and my OP wholly valid.

Incorrect. It does become a matter of belief, as you point out, but belief is not absent logic.

For instance... if I see that the sky is blue in non-rainy areas with white clouds within the visual limitations of my line of sight, then assuming that the sky outside the visual limitations of my line of sight is also blue in non-rainy areas with white clouds is, indeed, a belief made within reason and logic.

If I see that Jesus appointed Peter and the other apostles as legitimate heirs to His authority, even though they were repeatedly chastised by Jesus for lacking faith at times or for being obtuse at other times, then I cannot be criticized for also believing that the men those chosen directly by Jesus were also legitimate heirs to His authority. Furthermore, if it was the men authorized by the apostles who created the Bible after having created the Church, then I cannot be criticized for reasonably assuming that I should defer to their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures on all matters as I was never authorized by anyone to interpret the scripture.

Moreover, your reasoning here fails to consider the fact that Jesus pointed out that He was the Head of the Church and that the believers were the Body of Christ. Meaning that those men you now attempt to cast doubt on were, in fact, chosen by the Head of the Church as it was the Church, comprised of fallen and men of frailty, who chose them, to speak with His authority.

[Distruzio]

They haven't been changed.

I have an additional question, is the Church infallible only on matters of the Bible, or does it cover other areas as well?

Only on matters of scriptural interpretation, of spiritual discernment, of worship, and of living within the fallen world properly Christian.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

It seems that this has become a matter of belief rather than logic. As far as I am concerned, unless Jesus directly authorised Peter's successors, they were illegitimate. Therefore, as a consequence, the Church's authority is illegitimate, which means that only men can interpret the Bible, thus rendering your entire argument invalid and my OP wholly valid.

Incorrect. It does become a matter of belief, as you point out, but belief is not absent logic.

For instance... if I see that the sky is blue in non-rainy areas with white clouds within the visual limitations of my line of sight, then assuming that the sky outside the visual limitations of my line of sight is also blue in non-rainy areas with white clouds is, indeed, a belief made within reason and logic.

If I see that Jesus appointed Peter and the other apostles as legitimate heirs to His authority, even though they were repeatedly chastised by Jesus for lacking faith at times or for being obtuse at other times, then I cannot be criticized for also believing that the men those chosen directly by Jesus were also legitimate heirs to His authority. Furthermore, if it was the men authorized by the apostles who created the Bible after having created the Church, then I cannot be criticized for reasonably assuming that I should defer to their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures on all matters as I was never authorized by anyone to interpret the scripture.

Moreover, your reasoning here fails to consider the fact that Jesus pointed out that He was the Head of the Church and that the believers were the Body of Christ. Meaning that those men you now attempt to cast doubt on were, in fact, chosen by the Head of the Church as it was the Church, comprised of fallen and men of frailty, who chose them, to speak with His authority.

But the fact that Jesus neglected to say that Peter's successors were a legitimate authority to interpret the Bible doesn't mean that we should assume that they were. If anything, we should assume the opposite.

It's like suggesting that because I pass an item onto my friend when I die, I want their son to have it when they die.

[Distruzio]

Incorrect. It does become a matter of belief, as you point out, but belief is not absent logic.

For instance... if I see that the sky is blue in non-rainy areas with white clouds within the visual limitations of my line of sight, then assuming that the sky outside the visual limitations of my line of sight is also blue in non-rainy areas with white clouds is, indeed, a belief made within reason and logic.

If I see that Jesus appointed Peter and the other apostles as legitimate heirs to His authority, even though they were repeatedly chastised by Jesus for lacking faith at times or for being obtuse at other times, then I cannot be criticized for also believing that the men those chosen directly by Jesus were also legitimate heirs to His authority. Furthermore, if it was the men authorized by the apostles who created the Bible after having created the Church, then I cannot be criticized for reasonably assuming that I should defer to their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures on all matters as I was never authorized by anyone to interpret the scripture.

Moreover, your reasoning here fails to consider the fact that Jesus pointed out that He was the Head of the Church and that the believers were the Body of Christ. Meaning that those men you now attempt to cast doubt on were, in fact, chosen by the Head of the Church as it was the Church, comprised of fallen and men of frailty, who chose them, to speak with His authority.

But the fact that Jesus neglected to say that Peter's successors were a legitimate authority to interpret the Bible doesn't mean that we should assume that they were. If anything, we should assume the opposite.

It's like suggesting that because I pass an item onto my friend when I die, I want their son to have it when they die.

Jesus isn't dead. He yet lives, is the point.