The claim of Hell is not real.

Two things.

As an atheist, I feel pretty cut off already and it's not half bad. I am in hell and hell is just fine.

Surely God has the ability to redeem everyone. This deletes the necessity of there even being a hell (in the old sense).

 

I agree about the Norse influence, but the old Greek religion concept of Hades appears to be the primary source for the mistake of a "hell" into Christianity.

I particularly want to make it clear that the concept of burning people or of souls burning or being punished after death is NOT a correct interpretation from Jesus and it is not a correct interpretation from the Bible.

Not only is Hell not real but it is not even a correct teaching of the Bible or from God, as the hell concept is entirely a projection from people placed over top of the truth.

The problem is that Christians believe (and fear) the Hell nonsense, as it surely implants no such fear into the Atheist.

That message is referring to this life here on earth, and when it is applied to this life then it makes perfect sense that people sell out their bodies to greed and to lust and to violence while loosing the morality as in losing their souls.

And as another poster pointed out - it says to "kill" and "destroy" as in "kill the body" and "destroy the soul" and NOT to keep them as alive being tortured and tormented for ever and ever.

The word "hell" in that text means the common grave, as a hole in the ground for dead bodies.

The wages of sin is DEATH, while the "eternal life" is a gift for all, Romans 6:23. It says DEATH and not eternal punishment. And even the "death" means the second death which means "dead to sin" as in everyone gets saved as dead to sin.

 

I agree that the doctrine of hell was problematic; when I was a Christian, I was a universalist for that reason.

Punishment in proportion to the crime would be fair; the notion that a finite mortal person could commit infinite immortal sins is rather absurd. There is no crime a human being could commit that would justify infinite punishment. This is the proportionality problem with the doctrine of hell, and it's something that hell-supporting denominations have never really had a good answer for.

Well, burning people eternally would not be forgiveness. A definite length of punishment is more debatable. Forgiving a person doesn't necessarily mean ignoring what they've done, or letting them off the hook. Forgiveness can be as simple as acknowledging that a person's debt to society has been paid once they have served their time. That hinges on making punishments proportionate to crimes.

I think you've got more of a leg to stand on with the forgiveness angle than the justice angle. But I agree that proper justice benefits both the guilty and the victims alike. Eternal torture is not justice by any means, since it would not benefit anyone.

I think that this perspective is essentially the only one that makes sense given what Jesus was saying. Salvation cannot be contingent on acceptance of Jesus as a personal savior--because doing that would diminish his power and the sacrifice he is said to have made. Salvation must be for everyone, or it is for no one.

 

The Bible does talk about Hell.

Matthew 23:33 - Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the (*)(*)(*)(*)ation of hell?

Revelations 20:10-15 - And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Psalm 9:17 - The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

Acts 2:27 - Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption

 

Atheists aren't scared of hell... Christians are. And not even all Christians, only the Christians who believe out of fear or a desire to put themselves above others.

The consequence for one is the same as the consequence for the other according to traditional church doctrine. All sin is infinite in the eyes of god, and without salvation everyone is destined there by virtue of having been born. This is the entire basis of the infinite hell argument. It's not about good people getting a good reward and bad people getting a bad reward, it's about acceptance of the church's authority giving a good reward while denial of the church's authority resulting in infinite unavoidable torture.

That's the traditional vie won hell, and the whole concept breaks down when you make it about a person's actual deeds in life. The story of the new testament wouldn't even broadly make sense from that perspective.

Assuming that there is a perfect deity... don't you think he should be above petty human perspectives? This view of heaven as modeled by Earth represents nothing more than a failure of imagination.

The original poster is not an atheist, he is a Christian universalist.

 

Is that what the Bible says? Is that what I said?

Is there soem reason that atheists NEED to take anything religious and spin it into a total bit of spun stupidity? And whose fault is that? Religions? Or yours?

The moral concepts preached in the Bible have effects right here and right now. Is we follow the teachings of compassion, selflessness, charity, wisdom, love, etc. we find that these are indeed wonderful way to live our lives and they have beneficial effects right here and now - not the least of which is deep contentment.

THat is different from the reality of a mass of humanity. Even in places like Iraq, under the yolk of a brutal dictator, families remained strong, friendships remained steady, love remained powerful, and the victims of Saddam's brutality were often aided by charity and compassion of their fellow man.

There was nothing any of them could do to remove Saddam. Nothing. And yet Saddam, for all his excesses and lavish riches, not only lost them as a result of his brutality and arrogant miscalculation, he will spend eternity in hell for his crimes - his victims? Well, they still have their families, they have endured his pain and they still take care of one another.

The same happens in a natural disaster, etc.

The reward is because it is right.

Is it better to define yourself simply by rejecting something in a deliberately mistaken charicature of someone else's beliefs?

Not all of it. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the concepts. I will leave it to you to venture into that debate, but there is a healthy debate within the community about that, all men being of God but only the chosen few who have heard and accepted the good word? Well, different branches have taken a different stance on the issue.

I am not at all surprised to see atheists brush over that complex issue by adopting the most extreme of the positions possible.

And yes, God can forgive anything if the repentence is genuine. That you cannot? Well, who are you to discern who is deserving of grace and who is not? Dahmer is not (though he needs it) Ghandi (who has little need of it) does?

And yet you are against the concept of Hell, even as you would clearly castigate Dahmer to hell? Interesting concepts you atheists have.

 

#1 - who care what the OP's religion is?

#2 - the church, all traditional churches, have a concept of forgiveness. Sin is not permenant, and indeed the old testament concept of sacrifice and the current concept of grace are all about removing the permenance of Sin.

It would be nice of atheists would stop telling us why our religion is crewed up by concstantly misquoting it - indeed, even missing massive portions of its central tenets.

#3 - it is not the Christians bleeting about hell in this thread. It is the atheists. Hell is a tool to badger Christians about our evil ways, and when that one is rebutted, well, now we are motivated by fear of hell alone - even though there are exactly zero Christians in this thread talking about their great fear of hell.

In fact, if you would take the time to familiarize yourself with the ACTUAL teaching, you will find that the center of our faith is a relationship with a loving God who wants what is best for us. Of course, you attack that even you claim it is fear that guides us.

In other words, and quite clearly, all you are doing is twisting our faith into a gross caricature of the actual teaching .... and why?

Do you feel better after bashing someone through what is quite obviously deliberate ignorance of our faith?

If you think fear guides us, I would say that it is irrational anger that seems to drive far too many atheists.

 

It is important because you're replying to a thread that is about the heretical Christian doctrine of universal reconciliation. This thread is about Christians, and specifically about universalism. A tangent about the imagined beliefs of atheists is entirely off-topic.

The traditional church does not teach that sin goes away; it teaches that people can accept Jesus as a savior to gain forgiveness for it. Salvation does not remove sin, it just lets a person avoid punishment for it. I'm not sure what church you go to, but the view you're presenting here is even less common than universalism. If a person's acts could remove sin, there would have been no reason for Jesus to sacrifice himself--the whole story wouldn't have made any sense.

I am giving the perspective I had when I was a Christian, not the one I presently hold. These arguments were the arguments I did make against the doctrine of hell when I was a regular church-going Christian.

Only because you dismiss the comments of the Christians in this thread, the OP among them. See your #1 response.

The atheists in this thread seem to be saying that the traditional concept of hell makes less sense than the alternative viewpoints, not attacking Christianity in general because of hell. Are you actually reading people's responses here? None of them involve attacking Christianity in general.

I have. The doctrine of hell was a significant problem I had with traditional church teachings. That's why I was a universalist. What you're talking about is not the "actual teaching", and is nothing more than a wishful thinking version of traditional Christian doctrine regarding hell. The new testment's story only makes sense from the traditional standpoint of hell, or from the universal reconciliation angle that Jesus's offer of salvation was universal and irrevocable. Saying that good works leads to heaven not only contradicts scripture, it causes the whole story to break down. There would be no need for Jesus to sacrifice himself if good works would undo sin. The entire basis of Christianity makes no sense from that viewpoint.

You clearly haven't been reading what I or anyone else have been writing in this thread. You look at who is posting and assume that it must be an attack on Christianity without bothering to look at the content of the posts.

I am not twisting anything. I am presenting the standard Christian argument for an infinite hell and contrasting it with the heretical teaching of universal salvation. No caricatures at all. you may be upset because your church teaches a seriously divergent view of hell, and you've come to believe that's the typical Christian viewpoint, but I cannot help that your church teaches an uncommon view on hell. I am presenting the standard sunday school justification of hell as held by traditional denominations when I am describing the traditional view on sin and hell.

What? Where was I or anyone else bashing anyone? You're the only person who's bashed a group of people in this thread. The rest of us were having a discussion about the doctrine of hell.

I think that fear guides some Christians, which is why I used the adjective I did. There is a reason why Christian adherents are sometimes called 'god-fearing people.' It is an accurate description of many mainline protestant denominations, and certainly catholics.

 

No, I taught my kids that there are consequences to their decisions, actions and inactions. Those consequences are in the here and now, therefore they must carefully consider them because it has direct effect on both theirs and other peoples lives.

I also taught them the "golden rule". that kind of wisdom transcends any religion. Morals are not the exclusive domain of the religious, by any stretch of the imagination.

The secular law of the land. I wouldn't call a muslim eating pork criminal behaviour. I wouldn't call a catholic having pre marital sex criminal behaviour. I would call a catholic priest diddling a little boy criminal behaviour.

Once again honour and integrity are not the exclusive domain of the religious.

honour:
a : good name or public esteem : reputation
b : a showing of usually merited respect : recognition <pay honor to our founder>
2: privilege

integrity: firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
2: an unimpaired condition : soundness
3: the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness

I respect other's faith. I involve myself in discussions about religion in the hope of a) understanding faith b) understanding why dogma is so important and most importantly c) challenging and evolving my own beliefs thru acquiring knowledge and debate with others of opposing views.

 

It is only referring to the grave and to death as many people live in sin under the impression that they will not die.

Especially Christians who claim they already have eternal life in their mystical immortal soul which is not true and not real.

Everybody is going to die as in death and dead, and being in hell means a dead body buried under the ground.

Jesus tells us to live rightly in this lifetime here and now, and Jesus did not give a message for living after death, except for a vague hope of a resurrection from the DEAD.

Revelations is a hard to decipher book, but first see in your quote above it says about the Devil and beast and false profit into a "lake of fire" but that is not calling it as "hell". Fire in the Bible is a symbol for the Holy Spirit and for purification, so it might torment the devil and false profit but it does not say torture.

And it says above - that hell and the sea would give up the DEAD within them, as like dead bodies in a grave (hell) and hell is not in the sea. THEN then it declares that hell itself is cast into the lack of fire, so hell is not a lake of fire and that casting is said to be some future prophesy which has not happened yet.

People are simply afraid of God, afraid of death, afraid of everything, while the Gospel message is not to fear, and that Jesus paid the punishment in full for all of humanity, that God forgives us all, and eventually everyone gets saved.

Those are talking about "hell" as a grave. As like it says the "nations" would be turned into hell which has happened as like old Rome is dead and gone and not burning in torment.

Nations are not burning in hell, and no people are either.

And your text of Acts 2:27 is talking about leaving the body (the soul) of Jesus in a grave where bodies corrupt as in decay.

 

The word for grave in greek is "ta/fov" and it means "grave, sepulchre, or burial".

The word For Hell was "geÑenna". This was a valley where they went and burned animal carcasses, and trash. It is a fitting symbol for a literal burning Hell.

The word for Hole was "fwleo/v", and it meant "lair, burrow, or lurking hole".

As you can see there were many words that Jesus could have used for grave, but He chose a burning heap as His word. Why not use one of the other words?

 

The main reason would be because the one chosen came from Jewish culture and Jesus was a Jew.
Of course, Gehenna was a literal burning heap for bodies of sinners, which destroyed them. This further suggests that Hell is the lack of eternal life rather than eternal suffering in fire.

 

Greek?

(This message should be more wordy, but says what it needs to).

 

The NT is written in greek, and by that time the septuagint would have been around.

 

Written in Greek, but based on a Hebrew concept. Jesus was a Jew and most things that come from him or Paul were based on Hebrew thought.
It's mostly the stuff outside of scripture (the image of Hell, the politicking over theology) that take on a Greco-Roman tone. The Book of Revelations, the one that most points to eternal Hell, was the product of a Roman non-Jew.

 

I was pointing out that the words here are NOT Greek, unless my Greek class is leading me far astray.

 

Sorry, it was transliterated.

&#947;&#949;&#941;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#962;

 

Well you mentioned heaven, so that was the only reason I brought that up. I agree with you more now that something is right in and of itself. Morality would still be worthwhile if no God ever existed. That's all I was really after. Your words made it appear as though you were saying to be moral because you get to go to heaven that way. But I misunderstood you.

Most Christians say people who reject God go to hell. Then they make special cases for the young, mentally retarded, and people who have not heard the Gospel. But that doesn't take away the force of my point. You have to be saved or you go to hell. And that is it. A small little prayer done before you die and you are in, home free. I also never said Dahmer deserved hell, I was just working within a Christian framework to show why I disagreed. Obviously I think no one deserves to have ETERNAL punishment for FINITE crimes, especially one as brutal as burning. It's just that Ghandi gets that eternal fire and Dahmer the rapist killer gets bliss with God almighty. I can't subscribe to a system that says such things.

 

I am trying to pick at the words in a better way.

As in I know that in the Greek language then the word "Hades" can and does mean a place of torment, and that word is used in the Greek New Testament, but the place of torturing dead people's souls is NOT the message of Jesus Christ.

The word Gehenna surely did mean a trash dump outside of Jerusalem, but it does not mean that God is torturing souls after death - no.

It would be different if the Bible declared Jesus as saying = Thou shalt do as I say or else I will burn you forever and all of you will pay for eternity if any of you do not do exactly as I say. Because no where in the entire Bible does it say anything like that. Not said by God, not said by Christ, not said by any prophet, as such a declaration is not truly said anywhere in the Bible.

And if such a monster of a place did exist then it needed to be said loud and clear and in specific terms so no one would be confused.

The fact that we have to look up word meanings out of the Greek and Hebrew language in order to know what was said means that it is not what was said.

As in example - I have a brother named "Leo", and yet that name means Leo the Lion as in the Constellation, LINK, but when my family says Leo then we only mean my brother and nothing to do with the lion.

Not Jesus or the Bible ever said that God was burning people in a place of torture and cruelty, as is claimed by mainstream Christianity.

 

What you brought up was heaven, reward, and hell, punishment, as if our religion were based a series of effusive promises rather than developing a relationship with God and following his ministry to draw closer to him and to be better people.

Are there Christians who use this? Sure. There are far more atheists who use it than Christians though. Again, I fail to see why either heaven or hell are important to atheists at all? They are inverifiable in a scientific sense and utter nonesense to you. If I threatened you with an imaginary dull spoon .... well?

Yep, if you reject God, you will go to hell. Yet the Bible itself is very clear that blasphemy and ignorance are forgiveable. There however a point at which such things become unpardonable and there are atheists on this very forum who have crossed that line. These are individuals who KNOW God is real, who have asked for an recieved irrefutable proof of God .... and reject him anyway, preach that he is not real, or evil, malign, etc.

But heh, hell isn't real to you, so who cares?

Unfortunately, if you demand and get proof of God - then you must be willing to deal with the results one way or the other. The lesson is to beware what you wish for - not to scare you into belief, but to caution your vehement denial and costs.

 

Sorry, Hell is real:

proofs:

http://www.av1611.org/hell.html

 

There is no real argument against emotional outburst of fear, so people who are afraid of the Hell myth are trapped by their own fear.

Of course it includes a fear of death and afraid of God and fear of the unknown and each person must raise their own courage to counter such ideals.

But there is another aspect in the Hell myth which is the power play, in that the poster above is not likely afraid as their point is to frighten others as a way of making them self to feel powerful and to feel as if they are in control.

The Bible often refers to people as "sheep" and as "lost sheep" but that is NOT a compliment to be referred to as a sheep.

The real sheep run around snuggled up in groups for protection, and just wave to the sheep and they turn anywhere we direct them, a dog's look frightens the sheep and if the dog barks the sheep will panic but seldom leave their tight nit group.

If any person ever wants to face the truth then each person must learn to express their courage to over rule the misguided fears.

 

Reallly?

When using the analogy of a sheep that has wondered away from the flock and must be found by a shepard, your bone of contention is that you think Christians are not using analogy but that we actually consider human beings as sheep?

The ignorance of atheism is sometimes astounding.

 

The Decapolis was made up of ten thriving Greek cities and that's where Jesus was safe for most of his brief ministry.

Are you saying John of Patmos was a Roman?