The Three Main Views of Hell

[Alive]

21 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Thanks!  That looks quite involved.  And I didn't know this has been discussed to any great length on here, as someone recently asked if the 3 views of hell could be discussed. It is not a simple topic, or at least not as simple as the traditional view that much of us in Christendom seem to have been taught.

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but here's something salient I thought to pull out from it:  

Look at the many times that word for 'perish' is used. That word has meaning and the Holy Spirit chose to use it.

I only ask that you consider those verses and then ask the Lord, if what much of what christendom has taught for many years, may be false.

There are simply far more scriptures that deal with ultimate fate that mention a ceasing to exist/destruction, than those that seem to say the ultimate fate of the unredeemed are tortured for eternity.

So am I correct in saying you see some merit to the annihilation view?

Yes---I believe this to be true for two sets of reasons. The overwhelming scriptural language and that the God that I have come to know for near 50 years, is not capable of torturing humans for an eternity, for relatively fleeting sin--as bad as sin is. That would not be 'just'. We are made in His image and a factor of that 'image' is a sense of justice. No man alive in his right mind, would think that any kind of justice.

Suffering? Oh yes and measured in justice--then death. Final.

There is only one kind of eternal life and that Life is 'Christ'.

I have said this before but, picture being in flames for a full minute, an hour, a day, a month, a year, a decade----on and on in writhing pain in flames and that body being sustained by God for the purpose of eternally torturing a great many humans

The wages of sin is ultimate death.

I could make many more arguments, but this is all I care to say at this time.

I find it very troublesome, that so many of my brethren talk with almost glee and energy, of consigning humans to that kind of torture.

Let them burn in hell they say--they are evil. I can only hope, they do not know what they are saying.

[Tristen]

11 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Thanks for your thoughtful for reply, sister!  Regarding your question above, I think most from the annihilation view say that there is a period before the soul is brought to nothing, and in that time there may be "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Your points are well taken and are common related to this subject.  As I alluded to before, I hold transitional views on hell, as it certainly appears some will face that destiny meant for the devil and his angels.  However, I see that there are some pretty good persuasions that perhaps the larger number will face permeant death.  Death in its simplest form means devoid of all life with no ability to respond to anything - nothingness.

For your consideration, I thought to copy a blog article here, by someone who holds a traditional view of hell, but also sees that there is some merit to be considered regarding the annihilation view too. Let's have some conversation about what he presents, okay . . . are you open to that?  I think it would be a good place to start.

Found here: https://theologyintheraw.com/biblical-support-for-annihilation/

  In my previous post, I said that while I am not an “Annihilationist,” I do see enough biblical support for this position to qualify it as an Evangelical option. I have not yet had the time to clear my desk to engage in prayerful, thorough, painstaking exegesis to have landed on this position. But from what I have seen, there’s a good deal of sound, biblical arguments for it.
Before we examine these, we need to know what it is we’re even talking about.

Rightly understood, the annihilation view of hell says that there will be irreversible, horrific punishment for those who don’t believe in Christ. This punishment may last for a period of time, but ultimately it will end. The wicked will pass out of existence; they will not be tormented forever and ever.

This view is usually referred to as “conditional immortality” by its proponents, since immortality is a gift given to the righteous in Christ (see below). But as statement in my previous blog, I actually prefer the term “terminal punishment” instead of conditional immortality (which is still unfamiliar to many) or annihilation (which has too many negative connotations). To be clear, annihilation (hereafter “terminal punishment”) is not a product of Jehovah’s Witness theology. While it’s true that JW’s hold to this view, this doesn’t mean that they invented the doctrine nor does it mean that those who hold to terminal punishment are Jehovah’s Witness. I’m sorry to waste your time with this basic point, but I’ve actually heard people assume I’ve become Jehovah’s Witness because I see biblical support for terminal punishment. Yikes! Does that mean that I’m also Muslim because I believe in the sovereignty of God? Or Buddhist, since I believe in nonviolence? One of the more comical assumptions was from someone on Facebook who thought I might now be an atheist because they heard that I was “an Annihilationist.”

Come on, people! We must use our brains. And our Bibles. It’s a sad day in Evangelicalism when accusations and name-calling replace authentic study of God’s inspired word.

Plus, the duration of hell is not listed in the Apostle’s Creed nor the Nicene Creed—the basic standards of orthodox Christian doctrine. And while ECT has been the dominant, though not universal, Christian view, terminal punishment has been the view of several prominent Evangelical theologians throughout history.

In any case, here are some of the strongest biblical arguments in favor of terminal punishment:

First, most of the passages in the NT that talk about the fate of the wicked use language that suggests finality. Here’s just a small sampling:

“Destruction” or “perish” (Greek: apoleia or olethros Matt 7:13; John 3:16; 17:12; Acts 8:20; Rom 9:22-23; Phil 1:28; 3:19; 2 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 6:9; Heb 10:39; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 Thess 5:3; 2 Thess 1:9; 1 Tim 6:9).
“Death” (Greek: thanatos or apothnesko Rom 1:32; 6:21; 7:5; 8:6; 1 Cor 15:21-22; 15:56; 2 Cor 2:16; 7:10; James 1:15; 5:20; 1 John 5:16; Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8)
“End” (Greek: telos Rom 6:21-22; 2 Cor 11:15; Phil 3:19; 1 Pet 4:17)
“Disintegration/corruption” (phthora) (Gal 6:8; 2 Pet 1:4; 2:12).
We could add to this list several other images that would also suggest the cessation of life for the wicked. Images such as:

burned up chaff, trees, weeds, branches (Matt 3:12; 7:19; 13:40; John 15:6).
a destroyed house, discarded fish, uprooted plant, chopped down tree (Matt 7:27; 13:48; 15:13; Luke 13:7)
the Day of Judgment is compared to OT examples of the flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot’s wife turned into salt (Luke 17:27, 29, 32).
wicked compared to ground up powder or cut to pieces (Matt 21:41, 44; 24:51).
Let’s pause for a second. Look up some of these passages if you need to. Lay aside your assumptions as best you can and consider these points. These biblical points. I’m not saying you need to embrace this view—I haven’t embraced it yet. But any fair-minded, Bible-believing Christian should at least pause and say, “Huh, wow, a plain reading of those texts would suggest finality.”

In a recent debate between on the nature of hell between Al Mohler (ECT) and Chris Date (Terminal Punishment), Date kept giving exegetical argument after exegetical argument, and Mohler simply referred to Date’s arguments as “not the traditional reading” and clear evidence of “interpretive calisthenics.” Maybe I’m completely blinded, but is it “interpretive calisthenics” to say that destruction, death, perish, end, burned up chaff, and the destructive of Sodom and Gomorrah may actually suggest finality and not ongoing torment? Certainly, we’ll get to the counterarguments from the ECT position. But when we hear of someone embracing terminal punishment in light of the Scriptures, we should at the very least stop mocking the arguments without actually refuting them. You can acknowledge that a particular view has some good biblical merit without actually embracing it.

Second, the Bible says that the gift of immortality is only given to believers who are in Christ (see (1 Cor 15:21-23, 50-54; 2 Tim 1:10). That is, immortality (i.e. living forever) is not inherent to humankind. The soul is not inherently immortal, so ECT can only work if God miraculously gives a type of immortality to the wicked at their resurrection. But this is never clearly stated in Scripture. Immortality is only given to believers. And remember Genesis 2, where “living forever” was conditioned upon eating from the tree of life (which shows up again in Rev. 22).

What’s interesting is that Augustine, who was by far the most influential advocate for ECT, believed that the soul was immortal. (His view was carried over from his Platonic past.) For him, terminal punishment wasn’t even an option. The soul, which lives forever, must either live forever in heaven (or the new creation) or live forever in hell. ECT was the only real option for Augustine and his view was more or less embraced for the next 1,000 years.

Third, the language of “eternality” (aionios) doesn’t always (or usually?) convey the idea of never-ending time. Notice, for instance, some of the Septuagint uses of the Greek word aionios:

LXX Ps 24:7 “Life up your heads, O gates! And be lifted up, O aionioi (eternal) doors!”
LXX 1 Chron 15:2 “eternal priesthood”
So when we come to passages like 2 Thessalonians 1:9 where Paul talks about “eternal destruction,” this doesn’t have to mean “the ongoing, never ending act of destroying which is never final,” but it could very easily mean “a destruction characteristic of the ages.” Or even if aionios does signify never-ending time, when joined with olethron (“destruction”), it could mean that the destruction is final; that is, it will never end or be reversed.

And the same is true of Matthew 25:46. When Jesus says: “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life,” the “eternal punishment” doesn’t have to mean the “eternal act of punishing” but could mean the never-ending duration of the punishment—the results of the verdict.

The sum up this point, the word “eternal” (or better: “everlasting”) may refer to ECT, but it could also simply refer to the finality or completeness of the destruction or to its other worldly nature—it’s a “destruction of the ages,” or “not of this world.” Either way, it does not unambiguously refer to ECT.

I know, I know. Some of you will still say that this is interpretive calisthenics. But I disagree. This is simply the possibility of the Greek language. Again, to be clear, I’m not saying that terminal punishment is the only way, or even the best way, to interpret 2 Thessalonians 1:9 or Matthew 25:46. I do think, however, that it’s a perfectly legitimate way of understanding how the Greek adjectives and nouns can function. Only those who are conditioned to read ECT into these texts will say that they can only be interpreted to mean eternal conscious torment.

I’ve got some thoughts on the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” and “undying worm” images, but why don’t we stop here. There’s a lot to digest. But stay tuned, we’ll keep talking about hell, but I promise you: This series won’t last forever. It will terminate at some point in time.

 

“Regarding your question above, I think most from the annihilation view say that there is a period before the soul is brought to nothing, and in that time there may be "weeping and gnashing of teeth."”

My first comment would be that I don’t see the concept of “a period before the soul is brought to nothing” clearly articulated in Biblical text. Whereas I do see the concept of a “forever” punishment reinforced in many Biblical passages. So again, for me it comes back to what is clearly stated, and asking myself, ‘Why I would feel the need to move away from what is clearly stated?’. Is it because, in my general reading of the text, I genuinely, objectively see an alternate interpretation, or is it because I’m having a difficult time with the severity of an eternal hell (i.e. because I have a personal agenda to make the Bible say something different)?

My second response is to wonder why God is being so cruel as to torture people for “a period” when the option of immediately extinguishing their existence is available to Him. I don’t understand the purpose of such torture – since no amount of suffering can pay back what is owed. If personal suffering could pay what is owed, that would be the Catholic concept of purgatory, leading eventually to eternal life, not oblivion. So why the need to torture someone if oblivion is their final destiny anyway?

 

“However, I see that there are some pretty good persuasions that perhaps the larger number will face permeant death.  Death in its simplest form means devoid of all life with no ability to respond to anything - nothingness”

I think this is another semantic attempt to work-around any discomfort with the idea of a “forever” punishment.

On a matter of logical consistency, if there is “a period” after our “death”, but before our “nothingness”, then “death” cannot be defined as “nothingness”.

The Lake of Fire, in which the devil, the beast and false prophet “will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev 20:10), is called the “second death” for rebellious humans (Rev 20:14, 21:8). Rather than being “devoid of all life with no ability to respond to anything - nothingness”, this “second death” explicitly “burns with fire and brimstone” (Rev 21:8). It is therefore not “nothingness”.

 

“For your consideration, I thought to copy a blog article here, by someone who holds a traditional view of hell, but also sees that there is some merit to be considered regarding the annihilation view too. Let's have some conversation about what he presents, okay . . . are you open to that?  I think it would be a good place to start”

Generally speaking, I am more interested in responding to points you raise, and am somewhat reluctant to provide rebuttals to links for the following reasons:

- I don’t think it is fair for me to make arguments against someone who is not present in the conversation to defend their position.

- It takes a lot more time and effort to formulate a rebuttal argument than it does to paste a link. So, before I put in that time and effort, I prefer to have some sense that the one I am in a conversation with has also put enough effort into the topic to be able to express the point for themselves. Otherwise, it’s only me thinking for myself and putting effort into the conversation, while the other side just pastes links to ready-made arguments they agree with.

- Alternatively, I could just find links that agree with me. But that’s not really a conversation between us – just a regurgitation of what already exists on the internet.

 

Having said that, I’ll make a few notes on what you pasted.

Firstly, there is a strong, and recurring, insinuation that those who read the argument are inclined to not be fair-minded – to which I would respond, ‘At least give me a chance to consider your arguments before presuming to assess how fair-minded I’m being’. This is posturing, and makes the article feel like a setup – i.e. if you disagree with the argument, the author can claim, ‘See? I told you they’d be closed-minded’. It sounds like someone who is not secure in the quality of their position. And yes, as the author notes, this is a “waste” of the reader’s “time” with an irrelevant “point”.

 

“most of the passages in the NT that talk about the fate of the wicked use language that suggests finality. Here’s just a small sampling:”

This argument takes a very narrow connotation of the words, and then proceeds to ignore any contrary information on the topic.

Just as one example; yes, “destruction” can mean obliteration from existence – into “nothingness”. But “everlasting destruction” (or, if you prefer, “age-long destruction”) speaks to a process of “destruction” occurring over a period (“everlasting”), and not to “finality” and “nothingness”.

When you used the word “permanent” above, I had to read the next sentence to understand what you meant – because “permanent” can mean a sense of “finality”, but it can also speak to an unchanging state. This demonstrates that it’s not good enough to build an argument based on a narrow connotation of a word without considering other aspects of context.

 

“the Bible says that the gift of immortality is only given to believers who are in Christ”

This is very similar to the first argument – where a very narrow understanding of the words “life” and “death” are being applied – and where there are many examples of these words being used in scripture expressing ideas outside of this very narrow understanding.

 

“the language of “eternality” (aionios) doesn’t always (or usually?) convey the idea of never-ending time”

I think I effectively argued against this in an earlier post.

The appeal to the ‘maybes’ and ‘possibilities’. i.e. ‘Sometimes this word can mean something slightly different to how it was translated. Therefore, maybe the verse we are uncomfortable with doesn’t actually mean what it says most clearly’.

Occasionally, this might be a valid approach (though to build doctrine, one would need more supporting arguments beyond ‘this is at-least one possible interpretation’). Nevertheless, on a topic that is so thoroughly addressed in scripture (such as hell), basing conclusions on this approach requires ignoring the preponderance of Biblical evidence reinforcing the idea that hell is a “forever” punishment.

 

As another thought, I think equating the concept of ‘eternity’ and “time” can be a bit tricky. Considering that God created “time” out of eternity (i.e. God’s reality ‘before’ “time” was created) – that means there is a concept of eternity that exists independently of “time”. I’ll have to have a think about how this might impact the concept of hell.

 

[Dennis1209]

As my signature line suggests, I do not have the answers, but I have 2 cents to contribute to this conversation. 😊

If God gifted immortality to the angels and humanity, would He take it back? If God took immortality back, it stands to reason that immortality was not eternal; to begin with, it was conditional. Conditional on what?

Most agree that we are created as tri-part beings (body-soul and spirit).

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (nephesh)

To avoid boring anyone with the Hebrew/Greek word definitions of what our souls are. Our souls are who we indeed are, non-physical (bodiless). Each soul is unique and one of a kind, like a snowflake. Our inner self, the soul, contains everything we are that makes us.

Our bodies are unique in looks, abilities, and makeup, our shell or tent, if you will. We all know this tent is corruptible and will return from which it came.

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting (aiṓnios) punishment: but the righteous into life eternal (aiṓnios).

Now the boring stuff:

Everlasting – eternal: aiṓnios ③ pert. to a period of unending duration, without end^[1]

Ecclesiastes 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

There seems to be no distinction between the saved and lost above, of where our spirits go at death. It is clear in Genesis that God gave everything with the breath of life, a spirit, and a soul of their kind. The Lord did not give the animal kingdom the breath of life with an eternal (aiṓnios) soul.

Daniel 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

This Heb./Aram. Word ʿô·lām is exactly the equivalent to the Greek word aiṓnios

It appears to me Ex Nihilo and Annihilation are the two ends of the spectrum. The posses a paradox. 

ANNĪHILA´TION, n. The act of reducing to nothing or non-existence; or the act of destroying the form or combination of parts under which a thing exists, so that the name can no longer be applied to it, as the annihilation of a corporation.

2. The state of being reduced to nothing.^[2]

The preponderance of scriptural evidence seems to be IMO when God created His spiritual and human family; they were created immortal. Humanity and not angels were created in His Image.

Does it make sense that the Lord would erase all vestiges of many created in His image, erasing and annihilating their existence? I do not personally see annihilation even hinted at in scripture. Adam was created in the image of God. Because of one man’s sin…, the image of God was also passed down generationally.

I see this as sinning against an eternal God requires eternal punishment to the degree of works in the flesh. Those that have faith, trust, and belief by Grace receive a free pardon through the blood of the Lamb.

¹⁶ For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

The word perish means die, be ruined, eternal death: Eternal death is the ruin of complete and total separation from God for all eternity, not the erasure of total existence through annihilation.

I see Hades (or Hell) as the temporary holding of jail until judgment. Judgment at the Great White Throne leads to eternal incarceration in the Lake of Fire. It does not get any plainer than this concerning annihilation:

Revelation 20:10 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. 14. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 

 

---

^[1] Arndt, William et al. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature 2000: 33. Print.

^[2] Webster, Noah. Noah Webster’s first edition of An American dictionary of the English language. 2006: n. pag. Print.

[Dennis1209]

I want to add another 2 cents to this and all Biblical study. This will be only 4 cents I have added, so it does not even add up to a dime. Bible translations and word meanings give different thoughts and perspectives of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Each word has a meaning to convey something.

How those words are read gives us our interpretations and thoughts. Hundreds of examples of word meanings have changed over time and culture. Many of the same words we casually use have different meanings in the legal profession and make no sense in our everyday vocabulary and conversations.

I cannot read Hebrew and Greek to study scripture independently; I can barely recite the 32 letters in the American alphabet. I need scholarly help in the form of commentaries and the best scholarly lemmas and lexicons available (BDAG, DBL, TDNTA, EDNT, MCEDONTW, etc.).

The same applies to our modern dictionaries versus Webster’s 1828 or Black’s dictionaries. To understand “words” that form our thoughts, Webster’s 1828 is a much better resource than anything modern. Often it quotes the scriptural passage of the word’s meaning.

These lexicons and dictionaries clearly define the word’s meaning in its context, such as perish, annihilation, eternal, and forever.

I know, at 4 cents, it is not even worth a dime, but I am getting there. LOL

[AnOrangeCat]

On 1/1/2023 at 5:38 PM, Vine Abider said:

Frankly, I still can't say I know for sure what hell is all about, and I'm not "dogmatically married" to any of these 3 views, so I just tell others, "Whatever it is, the bottom-line is this - IT'S NOT GOOD and therefore is something to avoid at all costs! And the only way to do that is salvation through Jesus Christ!"

This is basically my stance on it too. I was raised amongst people who held to the traditional view but over time I came into the other viewpoints. I looked at them and I can at least see some merit to most of the cases made. I'd like to believe in univeralism but its foundation seems shaky IMO so I have trouble accepting it. But Hell isn't especially central to my theology so I'm personally content to accept that certain aspects of it will be uncertain.

[Alive]

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

I want to add another 2 cents to this and all Biblical study. This will be only 4 cents I have added, so it does not even add up to a dime. Bible translations and word meanings give different thoughts and perspectives of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Each word has a meaning to convey something.

How those words are read gives us our interpretations and thoughts. Hundreds of examples of word meanings have changed over time and culture. Many of the same words we casually use have different meanings in the legal profession and make no sense in our everyday vocabulary and conversations.

I cannot read Hebrew and Greek to study scripture independently; I can barely recite the 32 letters in the American alphabet. I need scholarly help in the form of commentaries and the best scholarly lemmas and lexicons available (BDAG, DBL, TDNTA, EDNT, MCEDONTW, etc.).

The same applies to our modern dictionaries versus Webster’s 1828 or Black’s dictionaries. To understand “words” that form our thoughts, Webster’s 1828 is a much better resource than anything modern. Often it quotes the scriptural passage of the word’s meaning.

These lexicons and dictionaries clearly define the word’s meaning in its context, such as perish, annihilation, eternal, and forever.

I know, at 4 cents, it is not even worth a dime, but I am getting there. LOL

Its the study of those words and the scriptures over all that give me a solid ground for where I stand, but as I mentioned the God of the bible and the Lord that I have come to know over these years--is not the God that the RCC depicted while borrowing from pagan stories of an afterlife. The RCC used it as a fear tactic and made much of it.

I believe the doctrine turns many from considering our Savior. Why? Because they can not see any semblance of Justice there.

The RCC left many a blemish.

[tim_from_pa]

On 1/1/2023 at 6:38 PM, Vine Abider said:

A few weeks ago someone here mentioned that they'd like to see a discussion about hell. Up until about a year ago, I hadn't given the topic much time, pretty much thinking that it was a binary thing - if one isn't a regenerated believer in Christ, they will burn forever consciously (aka lake of fire). But a brother who hosts a daily radio show, Steve Gregg, talked about the subject several times and I started to realize I really didn't know what I thought I knew about the subject. And also that views other than what I held (the traditional, eternal, conscious torment view) had some interesting arguments from scripture I wasn't so aware of . . . I realized I had just a superficial knowledge at best. 

So since this is an important topic, considering that "hell" may be the future destiny of unbelievers around me, I thought to get the book brother Steve wrote on the subject. It is a thoughtful and well researched book and is called, "All You wanted to Know about Hell - Three Christian views of God's final solution to the problem of sin." on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/All-Want-Know-About-Hell/dp/1401678300

The 3 views of Hell presented are:

1. Traditionalism - eternal conscious torment 

2. Annihilationism - soul is no more 

3. Universalism - all people eventually restored to God

Regarding these three views, Steve goes into church history quite a bit and painstakingly breaks down scripture for each of these view. His stated goal is just to present these views and not to draw his own conclusions. I found it a very fascinating read, to say the least - I would highly recommend it for anyone wanting to really dive into what the word says on this topic, and to also get an understanding of how these different views came about.

Personally, I lean toward something of a mix of these . . . (big reveal: mix of traditionalism & annihilationism)

Frankly, I still can't say I know for sure what hell is all about, and I'm not "dogmatically married" to any of these 3 views, so I just tell others, "Whatever it is, the bottom-line is this - IT'S NOT GOOD and therefore is something to avoid at all costs! And the only way to do that is salvation through Jesus Christ!"

FYI & Exhortation: We batted this topic around on another Christian forum for a good while . . . I hafta say some got their feathers ruffled a bit, when their favorite view of hell came under sharp scrutiny. I hope this won't get too "ornery" on here, and that we remember this is not a core essential of our Christian faith. Let's just have some family discussion, not get too intense, and see what light the Lord Spirit will shine on the subject! (aka - let the fun begin )

PS: Anyone interested in seeing Steve Gregg do a really good lecture on these three views, it can be found by going to Youtube and searching for: Hell - Three Christian Views Lecture by Steve Gregg

I believe in #2, only because the penalty for sin is death.  The Bible talks about a second death, perishing and destruction where there is no more resurrection to life.  This is indeed eternal punishment.  

The problem with #1 is if a person is conscious, then they are alive in the sense of existing.  It's certainly not a pleasant existence but it is one nevertheless;  a non-being and someone who is otherwise dead would not know the experience of that pain forever. So position #1 is eternal existence, except it's eternal life in misery.  The Bible teaches only God is immortal and as such grants us eternal life. Man will die. Also, there is an issue with Christ's atoning death would not work if the price of sin is hell forever and ever.

Let me share a thought and understanding I had recently.  It's what John the baptist said.  He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.  The Bible also teaches no mortal man can stand in the presence of God as he will die.  See where this is going?  Shekinah Glory, the Holy Spirit and the perishing of hell fire is all one in the same. I'm not saying that the presence of the Lord won't cause a literal conflagration and indeed will when (as the apostles warned) that the heaven and earth will perish with great heat as the Lord renovates the Earth for the next Earth age.  This is the lake of fire.  Unregenerate, wicked people will be raised physically, to literally burn in this fire and the presence of the Lord.  Where there's a literal fire, there has to be oxygen to burn.  Thus all old things are passed away, all things become new, and what was in the past will then be as if it never was.  That's a blessed hope!

[AnOrangeCat]

6 minutes ago, Alive said:

Its the study of those words and the scriptures over all that give me a solid ground for where I stand, but as I mentioned the God of the bible and the Lord that I have come to know over these years--is not the God that the RCC depicted while borrowing from pagan stories of an afterlife. The RCC used it as a fear tactic and made much of it.

I believe the doctrine turns many from considering our Savior. Why? Because they can not see any semblance of Justice there.

The RCC left many a blemish.

This is an interesting thing. I hadn't considered that the RCC influenced theology in that manner, though I have heard that in Jewish thought the soul wasn't considered innately immortal. Supposedly the idea of an immortal soul came from Greek influence. I couldn't say for sure as I'm not well read enough on the topic to weigh in as an authority but it does make me wonder.

[Alive]

2 hours ago, AnOrangeCat said:

This is an interesting thing. I hadn't considered that the RCC influenced theology in that manner, though I have heard that in Jewish thought the soul wasn't considered innately immortal. Supposedly the idea of an immortal soul came from Greek influence. I couldn't say for sure as I'm not well read enough on the topic to weigh in as an authority but it does make me wonder.

Yes---that is where it came from, although other cultures had similar stories. I believe it is the enemy that influenced these as men as they worshipped other gods. The Romans got stuff from the Greeks and the RCC adopted a great many pagan ideas and melded them into the 'doctrine'. It became a huge messed up construct--a religeon.

[Alive]

Where do you suppose these ideas came from?

Tartarus

The Greeks had two version of hell – One called Hades, which is the underworld, and another called Tartarus, that is supposed to be far below Hades. Only the worst human beings were sent to Tartarus, but their time there was not permanent. A human would have to serve the appropriate punishment in Tartarus, such as sitting next to appetizing food and drinks for a year without touching it, after which the soul would be washed away by one of the many rivers that flows through this realm.

 

Irkalla

According to Babylonian mythology, the dead need to first pass through seven gates to reach the underworld. Each gate is supposed to be guarded by a gatekeeper who can be bribed using a piece of clothing or jewelry. Once you reach the underworld, you will live in a place where everyone wears feathers, and people have no choice but to eat and drink dust in the dark for the rest of eternity.

 

Kasyrgan

Based on Mongolian Shamanism, any person who dies is judged by Erkil Khan, the prince of the underworld. If Erkil sentences you to eternity in Kasyrgan, you will have to contend with being boiled in black tar inside a massive cauldron. The worst sinners are supposed to drown inside this tar, while the ones who have committed at least a few good deeds in their life are supposed to rise to the surface of the tar and get a chance at redemption.

 

Mictlan

The ancient Aztecs believed that as soon as a person died, they had to undergo a massive four-year journey just to reach hell. This hell is ruled by a god named Mictlantecuhtli who is supposed to be a blood-splattered skeleton wearing a necklace made of human eyeballs. He is supposed to punish you for eternity based on your sin levels as a human.

 

Narak

Narak is the version of hell based on Hindu mythology. This underworld is divided into 25 realms, and you are sentenced to spend eternity in one of these hells based on your sins. One of these realms includes you being boiled in hot oil for eternity, while another involves you punishing yourself for the rest of time.

 

Helheim

Helheim is the place Vikings are sent if they haven’t died a honorable death. Helheim is supposed to be an extremely cold place that is guarded by a four-eyed, blood-soaked hound called Garmr, and a giant eagle called ‘corpse-eater’. There is also a place in Helheim called Niflhel, where the especially horrible vikings are apparently sent.

 

Avici

According to Pure Land Buddhism, Avici is one of the worst kinds of hell. You only have five sins that you need to avoid to stay out of Avici, but if you commit even one of these sins, you are sent here for trillions of years to face never-ending punishment. It is supposed to be surrounded by iron walls, haunted by iron snakes and iron dogs, and it is so horrible that even your soul can get killed in Avici. Unfortunately, if your soul does die here, it is also reborn here as well, and the punishment continues.

 

The House Of Lies

This is based on the mythology of the ancient Persian religion Zoroastrianism. They believe that a young woman awaits you after you die across a bridge that you need to cross. This woman is supposed to the physical representation of your life. If you lived a sinful life, the woman will look horrible and scary, but if you have been a good person the woman is supposed to look beautiful. If you are a sinner, you are thrown into the house of lies where you have no option but to eat foul food, such as corpses, in the dark for the rest of eternity.

 

Black Thread Hell

This is a version of hell based on Tibetan Buddhism, which believes that the ‘Black thread hell’ is a place for people who have lived slanderous lives filled with lies. The sinners are marked with black lines and are then dissected along these lines with burning saws.