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?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #612]

Do you distinguish between punishment and discipline?

[William]

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.

One can appreciate the idea that human society requires certain laws which help to reduce harm to the systems which govern said societies but this is of course all about human systems of reward and punishment, not about nature itself.

Change the systems from their current operating under the rule of disparity, and such laws against murder, rape, and theft wouldn't be any where near as necessary as they currently are. One can argue coherently that nature runs on a system of parity and that all human systems using disparity are against nature...one can see therein the harmful results of such systems...so when I wrote;

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 wrote 'even if that is the case' in relation to the idea that "each human still has the ability to override such primal instincts." IF it were true that nature needs over-ridding - that it is a natural thing for humans to be doing...

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #612]

Do you distinguish between punishment and discipline?

You can self-discipline, so yes. To my thinking, punishment is about correcting the behaviour of those who chose (rightly, without the punishment) to do as they did.

You may see a weaker man than yourself, who cannot possibly fight you and win, so you steal his wallet. Since he could not have won, this was the objectively correct decision. You can only gain and cannot lose. Punishment, to me, is about making this no longer the objectively right choice.

That's why I don't give a fig if punishment is assessed against the perpetrator or someone else. For example, if we punish every white person alive today for slavery, and next time white people think twice about enslaving people just because they can, because oh, well, we don't want our descendants punished, then it accomplishes the result and it's fine.

If punishment is only about the individual I really fail to see why to do it at all. If he wants to self-correct let him, but if he wants to steal, rape, and murder, let him do that too. Why should we care? Punishment isn't about preventing the act.

I wrote 'even if that is the case' in relation to the idea that "each human still has the ability to override such primal instincts." IF it were true that nature needs over-ridding - that it is a natural thing for humans to be doing...

That is absolutely true.

[onewithhim]

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.

It was indeed invented by those that claimed to be Christian. "Hell" in the strict Biblical sense is the grave. Christendom (false Christianity) made it into a fiery place by confusing Christ's mention of "Gehenna" with "Hades" (Hell). Then it was also marketed by Christendom.

[onewithhim]

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.

Isn't that what believers in hell-fire say---that hell-fire is the same as the lake of fire in Revelation? That's why I mentioned a lake.

[onewithhim]

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.

I agree with you, however Luke 16 was at that moment directed at the Pharisees. It is relatively easy to see that the "rich man" was metaphor for the Pharisees. Those religious leaders were enriching themselves by way of their prominent positions and yet not providing the spiritual food that they should have been giving to the people. The people (Lazarus) got spiritual crumbs from the Pharisees' "table." Jesus focused most of his righteous indignation on those Pharisees because they were responsible for guiding God's people in righteousness and yet they did not truthfully teach or make themselves truthful examples of what God expressed in His Word that He expected from His people. Jesus repeatedly said that they talked the talk but didn't DO what they told others to do (see Matthew chapter 23). He called them sons of snakes and hypocrites. So it's not surprising that he would focus on them with his parable in Luke 16.

[onewithhim]

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.

When the hell-fire baloney was invented, the people didn't have recourse to any Bibles so they could check it out for themselves. The Church told them what to believe, and the people thought that they were truly speaking for God when the Church said that if they didn't do what the Church said they would go to Hell. So they did what the Church said. PAY for masses and indulgences and to get someone out of purgatory, etc., etc. So they paid. The Church was very convincing. They had their ways, some of which was the grandeur of the cathedrals that would take a person's breath away, and all the pomp and circumstance that goes on in the churches---beautiful fixtures and clergy vestments and rituals.

[onewithhim]

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...

BTW, Jesus never preached a hell-fire. When he spoke of "Gehenna" (Matthew 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33) he was referring to an example of things being burned up to where they didn't exist any more (not eternal torture). Someone cunningly and nefariously started rendering Gehenna and "Hades" (Hell) as the same thing. It got really confusing, and even today people have to do a little research to distinguish between Gehenna and Hades.

Hades/Hell = the grave
Gehenna = complete obliteration

Again, Jesus never taught conscious torture in a fire.

[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...

BTW, Jesus never preached a hell-fire. When he spoke of "Gehenna" (Matthew 5:22,29,30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15,33) he was referring to an example of things being burned up to where they didn't exist any more (not eternal torture). Someone cunningly and nefariously started rendering Gehenna and "Hades" (Hell) as the same thing. It got really confusing, and even today people have to do a little research to distinguish between Gehenna and Hades.

Hades/Hell = the grave
Gehenna = complete obliteration

Again, Jesus never taught conscious torture in a fire.

Jesus never preached that his followers call themselves Christians or that they call the then non-invented Bible, "The Word of God". If early Christian made this stuff up, which appears to be the case, there is nothing worthwhile or trustworthy that can be accepted as truthful in any of the branches of Christendom, regardless of ones own particular beliefs that ones own branch is 'the way'.

No religion is true.

[tam]

Peace to you,

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.

Isn't that what believers in hell-fire say---that hell-fire is the same as the lake of fire in Revelation? That's why I mentioned a lake.

Yes, I understood what you were doing. I had earlier tried to make the point also that Hades is NOT the lake of fire, so the parable of the rich man and lazarus cannot be about eternal torment (regardless of what a person believes) after the Judgment.


But then everyone started talking as if it was the lake of fire, so I just thought I'd point that out, lol.

Peace to you!
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy