What is the Biblical view of hell?

[otseng]

The concept of Hell is one of the many unmarketable, embarrassingly unbelievable religious concepts that has been recently swept under the altar in the severely diluted quasi-belief system that passes for Christianity in certain circles.

In fact, I think this is why Christianity invented eternal punishment in hell. They started to realize that just plain dying wouldn't be compelling. So instead they invented the concept of "Everlasting Punishment" for those who refuse to comply.

Questions for debate:
What is the Biblical view of hell?
What concepts do we have of hell that are not in the Bible?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #598]

Thank you for your reply, in post #597, but I stand by what I posted concerning Luke 16.

Jesus was speaking TO his disciples, yes, but it is noticed that the Pharisees were listening. His whole meaning was directed AT the Pharisees. They were in charge of God's people and yet they failed miserably at feeding them their spiritual food. This is a theme throughout Jesus' ministry.

[William]

Even assuming that Christianity is a false belief system, I don't think it invented Hell for those reasons. I believe the need for there to be both reward and punishment is more primal than that, and much, much older.

Hell wasn't invented by Christianity. It was marketed by Christianity.

[PinSeeker]

Peace to you all,

And... um ... there is no lake in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Just sayin'...

Right. I agree. That was something onewithhim said.

Grace and peace to all.

[PinSeeker]

Thank you for your reply, in post #597, but I stand by what I posted concerning Luke 16.

Sure. Fine by me.

Jesus was speaking TO his disciples, yes, but it is noticed that the Pharisees were listening. His whole meaning was directed AT the Pharisees.

Nope. What He said applied -- and applies -- to all. He was using the Pharisees to make a point, both to His disciples and the Pharisees, that no one is righteous in themselves, as I said, not even those with the "greatest" perceived righteousness. His point is the same here as it was in Matthew 5:20, that "(U)nless (one's) righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, (he/she) will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Grace and peace to you.

[JehovahsWitness]

He was using the Pharisees to make a point, both to His disciples and the Pharisees...

Why do you say was he using the Pharisees? Why was he not using the Pharisees and the disciples to make his point? Could it be because there was a difference between the Pharisees and his disciples? And that the point he was making could only be made "using the Pharisees"?

[Purple Knight]

Even assuming that Christianity is a false belief system, I don't think it invented Hell for those reasons. I believe the need for there to be both reward and punishment is more primal than that, and much, much older.

Hell wasn't invented by Christianity. It was marketed by Christianity.

Whichever. Even if we do assume the worst motives, it's because it appeals to that need for both reward and punishment.

It's not about scaring people. If you preach things that are truly horrifying people will simply turn away and not believe that. If I invented a religion that had nothing but negatives and terrors about it, it wouldn't gain followers.

[William]

Even assuming that Christianity is a false belief system, I don't think it invented Hell for those reasons. I believe the need for there to be both reward and punishment is more primal than that, and much, much older.

Hell wasn't invented by Christianity. It was marketed by Christianity.

Whichever. Even if we do assume the worst motives, it's because it appeals to that need for both reward and punishment.

It's not about scaring people. If you preach things that are truly horrifying people will simply turn away and not believe that. If I invented a religion that had nothing but negatives and terrors about it, it wouldn't gain followers.

That is why you invent a character as an inspiring leader who is promoted as a perfect man and then place words in his mouth which cause confusion among the imperfect... creating fear is only part of the recipe - creating guilt is another part...outlaw what comes naturally and minds close and become captured.

The way you are arguing it, reward and punishment are natural human responses to nature - to the human experience of life on this planet. Even if that is the case, each human still has the ability to override such primal instincts. Especially if they ignore the pagan [including Christianity] influences of religiosity which have instituted superstition through supernatural mythologies...Christianity is simply an evolved form of paganism - the concept of hell comes from paganism...and the negatives and terrors about it do gain followers if the followers are assured they are safe from such things...as long as they continue to follow...

[PinSeeker]

Why do you say was he using the Pharisees?

Because He was. He was using the example of the Pharisees.

Why was he not using the Pharisees and the disciples to make his point?

Because he was using only the Pharisees.

Could it be because there was a difference between the Pharisees and his disciples?

Well, there was a perceived difference, yes. The Pharisees thought of themselves as righteous and able to fulfill the law. The disciples -- everybody else, really -- thought of them as far more righteous than they or anyone else.

...the point he was making could only be made "using the Pharisees"?

Yes, this is what I just said.

Grace and peace to you.

[JehovahsWitness]

...the point he was making could only be made "using the Pharisees"?

Yes, this is what I just said.

What was it that he could use from the Pharisees that was not in his disciples ? What was the différence between the two groups ?

JW

[Purple Knight]

The way you are arguing it, reward and punishment are natural human responses to nature - to the human experience of life on this planet. Even if that is the case, each human still has the ability to override such primal instincts.

I call this the Vulcan fallacy. Just because we can override such instincts doesn't mean we should. They exist for a reason. Arguably you can override the primal bit, but once we've done that, we should still take a good long look at why we have this instinct and if simply ignoring its raison d'etre will actually have good results.

In this case we want punishment so we can preclude parasitic behaviours and have a society where people generally help one another, not a society of a few helpers feeding a population of parasites. Behaviours like murder, rape, and theft are generally seen as worthy of punishment and for good reason.