Is LITERAL Hellfire Torment A Bible Teaching?

[preacherman76]

The thought of an eternal tormenting punnishment of fire never sat well with me. No matter how I tryed to come to terms with it, I could never find the justice in it. How could such a thing be considered justice, rightious, true? Especialy when its admited that we see spiritual things through a dirty glass. For years I thought that biblicaly there was no way around it, so I came to the point where I just said that right now I dont understand, but one day, after this life, I would. I mean what else could I do? I fell completly in love with my creator. I couldnt be convinced he wasnt real, even if Ive been calling him by the wrong name. Thank God I eventualy met some folks who had the same thoughts as PA does, and was shown that this hell wasnt written in stone.

[Ogbin]

There is of course what the word hell and lake of fire mean and then there is context. I choose to believe the context. after all why say it if you don't mean it... If the word of God is true, which I believe it is, why take the chance? Just my thoughts.

[libstaK]

There is of course what the word hell and lake of fire mean and then there is context. I choose to believe the context. after all why say it if you don't mean it... If the word of God is true, which I believe it is, why take the chance? Just my thoughts.

I know alot of folk who say things that they don't mean. I also know alot of folks who claim God said something that I have no way of proving he did or did not say.

What does that mean?

- The Word of God is True

- The words attributed to be the Word of God whether presented in print through any source or verbally are subject to vigorous investigation and debate.

[Beany]

ALTER2EGO -to- FREE TO ROAM:

In case you did not notice, I quoted scriptures in my OP and asked specific questions dealing with those scriptures. As soon as you can find scriptures from God's inspired word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, to support Christendom's version of Dante's fictional hell, you will have made a point. As of now, you have not made any.

BTW: If you feel insulted by a thread that questions the false teaching of a sadistic Jehovah--on a debate forum where people routinely debate religious dogma--that is not my problem. You know the saying: "if you can't stand the heat. . . ." (No pun intended.)

Members are free to respond any way they choose, as long as it is within the forum rules. And please read the header at the top of this Spirituality forum to determine whether your posts meet those conditions. It's my opinion that the following strays outside the rules: the false teaching of a sadistic Jehovah

Edited November 28, 2013 by Beany

[LostSouls7]

Is hellfire real or taught in the bible???

HELL NO it's not!!!

rubbish... just a way to scare you into getting in line !

[Jack Skellington]

Just for fun and the sake of a good discussion, let me throw something out for consideration...

If no one minds, I'll preface with a song and a video to push the imagery along. As I pointed out to PA, I like it when alternative ideas are explored, not that there is treasure in every garbage pail-- but neither is everything we cling to of great value. When asked about the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God-- Jesus described it in peculiar ways that one might not expect. For starters, he doesn't point to a place or a paradise in some far off world, rather he speaks of a place of conflict where there is both evil and good present. Angels and demons at war with one another, enemies about. And not only that-- he says this kingdom is not somewhere out there, but within us. Inner space.

To pursue this 'opposite of heaven' idea that PA proposed, we should then perhaps consider that if the kingdom of heaven is within us, then perhaps the alternative is what is outside of us, that is-- this world around us. Where is the realm of the dead that Jesus 'descended to,' if not right here among us--- we mortals-- this place of the walking dead. Did we not once forfeit immortality and lose the right to eat of the Tree of Life?

Wasn't this earth cursed-- with thistles and weeds?

http://youtu.be/2vPQb2NFOCI

[+joc]

Infernal world is a lower world. Any place away from god is a form of torture. This is my interpretation. If god is true, we cant know how a person will feel to be away from it, when faced with its truth. that may be gruesome. this is my opinion.

On the other hand, last of abrahamic books, quran, which also recognizes the bible and says that it is altered in time and not anymore in its original form, makes it a must to believe in heaven and hell.it is one of the pillars in belief. in other words, you cant deny heaven and hell if you are believer. it is not optional Hell and torture in it is described in many verses.so according to abrahamic religions hell and torture in it exists.

I haven't read the Quran...but I don't think that hell is even mentioned in the Old Testament. But as I understand it in the New Testament...your thoughts above in the bold letters are accurate. A good definition of hell might be...eternity apart from God. And...Revelations...in my assessment attempts to describe hell on Earth...after all of those who choose God are either imprisoned or killed. The Tribulation period describes an Earth totally separate from God.

[Jack Skellington]

It might be a philosophical discussion as much as a purely religious one, but I put it here since our common framework for understanding is most often based on scriptural writings and our understanding (of those) is shaped from exposure to one perspective or another.

It is our spirits that live on, not our physical bodies. In the common way of thinking-- Earth-- is where we live- in a physical sense. From the ground we come and to the ground we return. Consider then, that "here" is also the place of the dead. And "here" those with a hope and a future of an eternal life walk among the dead--- among those who are already dead (doomed for destruction scripture says), though they may be wholly unaware of the fact.

While the television series of the same name (The Walking Dead) was produced for it's entertainment value, it parallels the discussion we might have here in that it is a type or shadow of a larger concept that reflects a larger spiritual reality where the living and the dead exist together, but apart from one another (if such a thing is possible).

Step outside of the box.

Could this also be the place of the dead already? Those who are the walking dead (though they don't know it) -who have not yet entered into life at all.

[DeWitz]

There is of course what the word hell and lake of fire mean and then there is context. I choose to believe the context. after all why say it if you don't mean it... If the word of God is true, which I believe it is, why take the chance? Just my thoughts.

Og, what's the context?

[DeWitz]

I haven't read the Quran...but I don't think that hell is even mentioned in the Old Testament. But as I understand it in the New Testament...your thoughts above in the bold letters are accurate. A good definition of hell might be...eternity apart from God. And...Revelations...in my assessment attempts to describe hell on Earth...after all of those who choose God are either imprisoned or killed. The Tribulation period describes an Earth totally separate from God.

Joc, read post #9 (and others). Then comment. Thanks. It's Revelation, by the way. No "s."

Edited November 28, 2013 by szentgyorgy

[thyra]

I haven't read the Quran...but I don't think that hell is even mentioned in the Old Testament. But as I understand it in the New Testament...your thoughts above in the bold letters are accurate. A good definition of hell might be...eternity apart from God. And...Revelations...in my assessment attempts to describe hell on Earth...after all of those who choose God are either imprisoned or killed. The Tribulation period describes an Earth totally separate from God.

I havent read the whole Quran either. Sacred abrahamic texts and most sacred texts are very open to interpretation in our current understanding level and can be confusing or can get very sentimental. But the issue when involved with themis to get confused and increase your desire as you read these books, The main purpose for reading of these books, for people who lived anytime other than the times of prophets, is mainly this.

On the other hand, earth may not be such a desperate place in terms of being close to god. There are many spiritual people who hinted that.

[DeWitz]

It might be a philosophical discussion as much as a purely religious one, but I put it here since our common framework for understanding is most often based on scriptural writings and our understanding (of those) is shaped from exposure to one perspective or another.

It is our spirits that live on, not our physical bodies. In the common way of thinking-- Earth-- is where we live- in a physical sense. From the ground we come and to the ground we return. Consider then, that "here" is also the place of the dead. And "here" those with a hope and a future of an eternal life walk among the dead--- among those who are already dead (doomed for destruction scripture says), though they may be wholly unaware of the fact.

While the television series of the same name (The Walking Dead) was produced for it's entertainment value, it parallels the discussion we might have here in that it is a type or shadow of a larger concept that reflects a larger spiritual reality where the living and the dead exist together, but apart from one another (if such a thing is possible).

Step outside of the box.

Could this also be the place of the dead already? Those who are the walking dead (though they don't know it) -who have not yet entered into life at all.

Yes: Everyone who voted for "W" TWICE was/is dead---at least, brain dead. Those of us who voted for Obama, twice, are simply dying.

[+joc]

I havent read the whole Quran either. Sacred abrahamic texts and most sacred texts are very open to interpretation in our current understanding level and can be confusing or can get very sentimental. But the issue when involved with themis to get confused and increase your desire as you read these books, The main purpose for reading of these books, for people who lived anytime other than the times of prophets, is mainly this.

On the other hand, earth may not be such a desperate place in terms of being close to god. There are many spiritual people who hinted that.

It used to be that the 'sacred' texts were just that...sacred. Very few people challenged them until our knowledge of the Universe, physics and math, and history grew to a certain point.

One thing is sure though...from the beginning of Man...whenever that first thought of 'self awareness' happened...Why became the question of our species. I suppose it is that question that led to our understanding and knowledge we have today....well some of us...some still view knowledge as a threat because it contradicts the 'sacred' messages. And the most confusing of all has to do with death...that Why word. A rabbit runs from the coyote because it has seen what the coyote will do if one doesn't run...but the rabbit really has no awareness of death otherwise...the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't think about death...they only think of survival. I just think that it is the Human fascination with Death that has created the myths of Heaven, Hell, After Life, etc. And the fascination comes from our ability to ask why. Once you start asking questions...you find answers...truthful or not...you find answers.

[Beany]

There are times, I think, when the questions can be more important than answers, because they set us off on a search or journey that can change our lives.

[Jack Skellington]

From a scriptural point of view as most Christian sects would teach, conceptually we are all dead (in our sins) --even born into sin and we live our "lives" here as walking dead--- it is our condition. Like a fatal disease that has no cure, or a man condemned to execution we exist only for a time, and from our first breath to our last, we exist as though dead already.

The "good news" that the Christ brought was an escape from this verdict, or a cure for this lethal condition. The idea becomes "dying to death" or coming out of death into eternal life--

Remember when He said- (speaking of the woman who poured the expensive perfume on his head) --"She has done a beautiful thing. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me... She poured perfume on my body to prepare me for my burial."?

Surely He was speaking of his physical body (Jesus) and not His Spirit, because concerning His Spirit He said-- "I will never leave you or forsake you." and "I will remain with you always even until the end of the age."

But of His body He said-- broken for you. Of His blood-- poured out for you.

The essence of the good news he brought was of the escape from hell. Setting the captives free. Rescue from the grave. Didn't he teach that what is dead, can come alive again?

[Alter2Ego]

Members are free to respond any way they choose, as long as it is within the forum rules. And please read the header at the top of this Spirituality forum to determine whether your posts meet those conditions. It's my opinion that the following strays outside the rules: the false teaching of a sadistic Jehovah

ALTER2EGO -to- BEANY:

My understanding of forum rules is that is is acceptable to attack another person's idea but it is out of line to personally attack another person, to attack their religious system, and that we are not to preach our religion to others.

Spirituality vs Skepticism

'Spirituality vs Skepticism' board guidelines Please always respect the beliefs of other members - the bashing of specific religions, countries, races or belief systems is strictly disallowed. Several of the topics in this section cover some sensitive areas and it is important to respect the views of others; this means no flaming, no flamebaiting, no trolling and no personal attacks. We must also ask that members do not use the forums to promote or 'preach' their personal spiritual beliefs to others.

You have not seen me attacking anyone or their religion, and you have not seen me preaching religion to anyone. I am attacking the idea of a sadistic Jehovah who torments the wicked for all eternity. You are telling me that I am violating forum rules by using the terms: "the false teaching of a sadistic Jehovah."

I was under the impression that this is a debate forum where people with opposing viewpoints are supposed to debate by attacking ideas they oppose. If everybody agreed with everyone else, there could be no debate and your forum would die out.

If you do not want me debating that hellfire torment is false and that the dogma defames Almighty God Jehovah, please confirm as I am not quite sure what you are driving at. Especially since I notice there are other people in this thread who clearly are not all in agreement with one another and are giving varying opinions of "hell" and making other claims that are in opposition. In other words, why am I being singled out for doing exactly what everybody else is doing?

Edited November 29, 2013 by Alter2Ego

[+joc]

ALTER2EGO -to- BEANY:

My understanding of forum rules is that is is acceptable to attack another person's idea but it is out of line to personally attack another person, to attack their religious system, and that we are not to preach our religion to others.

You have not seen me attacking anyone or their religion, and you have not seen me preaching religion to anyone. I am attacking the idea of a sadistic Jehovah who torments the wicked for all eternity. You are telling me that I am violating forum rules by using the terms: "the false teaching of a sadistic Jehovah."

I was under the impression that this is a debate forum where people with opposing viewpoints are supposed to debate by attacking ideas they oppose. If everybody agreed with everyone else, there could be no debate and your forum would die out.

If you do not want me debating that hellfire torment is false and that the dogma defames Almighty God Jehovah, please confirm as I am not quite sure what you are driving at. Especially since I notice there are other people in this thread who clearly are not all in agreement with one another and are giving varying opinions of "hell" and making other claims that are in opposition. In other words, why am I being singled out for doing exactly what everybody else is doing?

I have to agree with Beany. That is why this particular subject is divided into two catagories. In the Spirituality vs. Skepticism...that is the forum where you can say things like, God is a murdering, baby killing, rapist...But not in THIS forum...when people post in THIS forum...they are expected to either take the OPs thoughts on God and such as fact and add constructive dialogue...or...not to post at all. When you say that God is Sadistic...it flys in the face of the OPs ideas...in effect..it is offensive to those who hold God and the nature of God near and dear in their hearts. It is 'bashing' their beliefs...and therefore is...DIS-allowed. If you want to post negative comments about Religion or Spirituality or God...do it in the OTHER forum..the one that has the VS in the middle.

Edited November 29, 2013 by joc

[ambelamba]

I haven't read the Quran...but I don't think that hell is even mentioned in the Old Testament. But as I understand it in the New Testament...your thoughts above in the bold letters are accurate. A good definition of hell might be...eternity apart from God. And...Revelations...in my assessment attempts to describe hell on Earth...after all of those who choose God are either imprisoned or killed. The Tribulation period describes an Earth totally separate from God.

More like they didn't have any solid theology around the concept of afterlife.

[Beany]

ALTER2EGO -to- BEANY:

My understanding of forum rules is that is is acceptable to attack another person's idea but it is out of line to personally attack another person, to attack their religious system, and that we are not to preach our religion to others.

You have not seen me attacking anyone or their religion, and you have not seen me preaching religion to anyone. I am attacking the idea of a sadistic Jehovah who torments the wicked for all eternity. You are telling me that I am violating forum rules by using the terms: "the false teaching of a sadistic Jehovah."

I was under the impression that this is a debate forum where people with opposing viewpoints are supposed to debate by attacking ideas they oppose. If everybody agreed with everyone else, there could be no debate and your forum would die out.

If you do not want me debating that hellfire torment is false and that the dogma defames Almighty God Jehovah, please confirm as I am not quite sure what you are driving at. Especially since I notice there are other people in this thread who clearly are not all in agreement with one another and are giving varying opinions of "hell" and making other claims that are in opposition. In other words, why am I being singled out for doing exactly what everybody else is doing?

The Spirituality vs Skepticism board is primarily aimed at discussing the very nature of spirituality themed topics and as such skeptic vs believer style debates are to be expected, for general discussion on topics pertaining to religion and spirituality please visit the Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs board.

[Beany]

Just a thought here about sacred texts. I wonder if the way society has changed affects the way we perceive or understand them. When they were originally written, wasn't there a priest caste that held the religious knowledge and interpreted it for the common people? I know that for a long time in Europe the commoners weren't even allowed to own bibles, so they had to rely on instructions the Church. And I wonder if anyone with what could be considered a heretical POV would ever gain entry to the priest caste, someone like say, Copernicus.

Then Gutenberg invented the printing press, more people learned to read, religious writings became easier to obtain, and then, BAM, along came Luther and his objections to the sales of indulgences. So the information gradually moved out of the hands of a few and became more widely disseminated. And of course, our understanding is shaped by our culture, our education, our personal experiences, which have become increasingly diverse. So maybe it's natural that our understanding of the texts would change over time, that some passages would speak to us more loudly than they did our ancestors, and others no so much. I

Not saying any of this is true, just following a train of thought, I'm pretty sure there's someone out there who has something knowledgeable and worthwhile to say about this. I certainly haven't studied sacred texts in any way, but wondering if the "that was then, this is now" principle kicked in some historic way.

[Jack Skellington]

When confronted by people who had died, the Christ did not get terribly upset about it all, instead He'd say "They are asleep." -- And then at will, He would awaken them, their spirit would return to their body and they would awaken and rise again.

So where is the sting in that? What we called dead, He called asleep--- a temporary state, from which one could be awakened. A worse condition that He also pointed to, were those that though they were alive, and claimed to be awake, they were dead inside. They were full of dead men's bones.

But death, like the concept of "hell" was something that we could be rescued from. It wasn't a permanent fate. Our fate in this world (a 100% death rate) could be overcome-- that was the good news--- that death was not an eternal state, while eternal life was available to us.

It might help to frame the spiritual concept in decidedly biblical terms where eternal "Life" can be though of as like a tree-- The Tree of Life, if you like-- and where man is like this tree. Without diving into the chicken versus egg, or seed versus fruit discussion, this "tree" was planted and made alive by a Creator/Farmer/God.

It grows and bears fruit from which seed is produced. The seed though it dies and is put into the ground, there it is not really dead, but asleep until such a time as it is awakened and released and risen to life once more a tree. Not really the same tree, but a new one. Yet not really a completely new one, for it is "of" the tree from which it came to be.

The tree conceptually lives only as long as it produces fruit which produces seed, or until such a time as it is cut down, or uprooted, or destroyed by fire, and so on. Once gone, it is gone. While it is alive and producing however it not only lives, it gives life and in this way, though the tree itself may die, it in effect lives on in the many trees that came from the seeds which came from the fruit it produced while alive.

But is the tree alive at all? The tree is just a covering in the same way that the seed was just a husk. The true life is within the tree. Within the seed.

It's the mystical, magical unseen stuff that makes the thing-- the tree, the seed, the man alive. And it is this stuff inside that is everlasting and uncontained though it lives for a time in temporary houses. There is good reason that a tree was chosen for the metaphor. In the same way that the house you live in might be "your home" --it is not you. You are what lives inside your house and it can be shared space. Your house can also be destroyed without destroying you. Destroy this house and in three days I will raise it up again.

http://youtu.be/BB2Ad04mukI

[SpiritWriter]

ALTER2EGO -to- FREE TO ROAM:

And therein lies the problem of all hellfire howlers and those who believe in a trinity god. They do not care what the Bible says. It is all about their traditions, about what they have chosen to believe.

In case you did not notice, the questions in my OP are based on scriptures. If you cannot produce scriptures to confirm that Christendom's version of Dante's fictional hell is a Bible teaching, then we've nothing further to discuss. If you write me anything else complaining about weblinks not being provided, do not hold your breath waiting for a response. None will be forthcoming.

Start with your first four (4) verses of scriptures and explain to the forum why they are proof that literal hellfire torment is a Bible teaching.

Freetoroam was pointing out that you claimed Pagan religions supported burning of their own children, and this is offensive to her because she is a pagan. She also very articulately gave you scriptures concerning gods condemnation of certain burning sacrifices listed in the bible. So although she may have not answered your questions or participated the way you wanted she still has a valid point that you should consider.

[SpiritWriter]

weeping and gnashing of teeth cross references:

1. Matthew 8:12
   
2. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
   
3. Matthew 8:11-13 (in Context) Matthew 8 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
   
4. Matthew 13:42
   They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:41-43 (in Context) Matthew 13 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
   
5. Matthew 13:50
   and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:49-51 (in Context) Matthew 13 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
   
6. Matthew 22:13
   “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ Matthew 22:12-14 (in Context) Matthew 22 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
   
7. Matthew 24:51
   He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 24:50-51 (in Context) Matthew 24 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
   
8. Matthew 25:30
   And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ Matthew 25:29-31 (in Context) Matthew 25 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
   
9. Luke 13:28
   “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.
   

[+Link of Hyrule]

Just a thought here about sacred texts. I wonder if the way society has changed affects the way we perceive or understand them. When they were originally written, wasn't there a priest caste that held the religious knowledge and interpreted it for the common people? I know that for a long time in Europe the commoners weren't even allowed to own bibles, so they had to rely on instructions the Church. And I wonder if anyone with what could be considered a heretical POV would ever gain entry to the priest caste, someone like say, Copernicus.

Then Gutenberg invented the printing press, more people learned to read, religious writings became easier to obtain, and then, BAM, along came Luther and his objections to the sales of indulgences. So the information gradually moved out of the hands of a few and became more widely disseminated. And of course, our understanding is shaped by our culture, our education, our personal experiences, which have become increasingly diverse. So maybe it's natural that our understanding of the texts would change over time, that some passages would speak to us more loudly than they did our ancestors, and others no so much. I

Not saying any of this is true, just following a train of thought, I'm pretty sure there's someone out there who has something knowledgeable and worthwhile to say about this. I certainly haven't studied sacred texts in any way, but wondering if the "that was then, this is now" principle kicked in some historic way.

Considering the ability to read (and perhaps sometimes write) is viral to the priestly caste it is reasonably to suggest the teachings of text-based religious beliefs require a certain level of elite class. Along with this was the presumption of the priestly class "interpreting" the text for others. The difference between early Christianity and Judaism, however, is that the early church (and Jews) read out the text in Greek or Hebrew, so those listening were all able to hear and understand the words. Thus as they continued to learn they could say "yes, but what about the scroll of Isaiah, how does that work if these other prophets said..." In contrast, the church during the Middle Ages held their entire sermons (not just the text readings) in Latin, a language 99% of people couldn't understand. So after these unintelligible services, the priest would then say in plain accessible languages -"now do this and this and this, or else feel our wrath".

The earlier texts were accessible to anyone as long as there was sometime to read it. Of course, they'd accept on faith that what they are hearing is what was actually written, but that's aside the point.

One other point I've like to add, is that early Christians were actually called to be priests of God. Not just a select ruling class but all Christians were a "royal priesthood" (Philippians, I think from memory). Though they would still be limited by their education, if able, any Christian could share the words of God because they themselves were all God's priests. Thus it could be argued that the Reformation (Luther, Calvin, et al) was simply bringing back the original ideas of Christians as priests. The spread of education allows for greater research, and thus an expansion of the educated elite. Now in most parts of the (developed) world most people can read and write, so a ruling class isn't necessarily the best thing for Christian churches. Sure, someone to oversee daily governance of a group, with strong visions and missions in mind, but largely people come to their own conclusions.

I was fortunate enough to join a group of Christians that helped me develop my ability to read the Bible, underarms the various contexts within the different texts. But at first, before a solid understanding of how to read the Bible, I very much did have take things as said to me. Hence my beliefs are constantly changing, I've nor sweety very many truly unmovable doctrines in my theology (though there are some).

[Beany]

Thanks, PA, for informing me. I suppose Christianity, like every other institution, has continued to evolve and change. I'd like to read a history of Christianity to better understand how it has changed throughout the centuries, can you recommend something that's accessible to the average/non-Christian reader?

My beliefs are constantly changing, too, as I acquire new information and my understanding changes. For me, that's the mark of an intelligent, humble person. For some being right is a triumph, a way of feeling superior, of setting one's self apart, of giving ourselves permission to judge & criticize, which behavior is so antithetical to the lessons taught by Jesus. It's our awareness of our own fallibility that allows us to continue to learn & grow.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Beany