Is there a Hell?

[Guest shiloh357]

I think it's time I bowed out of this debate.

Probably for the best.

I am not ignoring the intent of the author

You're just in a state of denial

I don't see this as an essential doctrine (ie, my salvation is not at stake whether I believe in a literal hell or not)

It may not be essential for salvation, but that does not make it a "nonessential" doctrine. It is quite essential, as it is foundational to the Christian faith and when the foundation is faulty any built on it is fault as well.

Again, this is another non-essential salvation issue and calling my view of a symbolic book as to be taken in symbolic ways as a "crutch" is just not helpful (perhaps even harmful in some ways).

Again, it is an essential issue, because it speaks to primary doctrines and furthermore, just because Revelation utilizes some symbolism, it does not follow that it is a "symbolic" book. What I find is that it is easy to get around a plain teaching of Scripture by just relegating to "symbolism." Suddenly, it doesn't mean what it actually says. That is why the whole "symbolism" thing is just a crutch. Not everything in Revelation is symbolic and that is true whether your talking about hell or any other part of the book.

[ParanoidAndroid]

I think it's time I bowed out of this debate.

Probably for the best.

Probably

I am not ignoring the intent of the author

You're just in a state of denial

And still you persist with the insults and attacks. You're not very personable with people who hold different views than you, are you? If you don't mind my asking, are you as insulting to non-Christians when you tell them the gospel as you are with me? If so, comments like this are likely to drive them further away from God, not closer. If not, then why act this way with a brother in Christ?

It may not be essential for salvation, but that does not make it a "nonessential" doctrine. It is quite essential, as it is foundational to the Christian faith and when the foundation is faulty any built on it is fault as well.

.........

Again, it is an essential issue, because it speaks to primary doctrines and furthermore, just because Revelation utilizes some symbolism, it does not follow that it is a "symbolic" book. What I find is that it is easy to get around a plain teaching of Scripture by just relegating to "symbolism." Suddenly, it doesn't mean what it actually says. That is why the whole "symbolism" thing is just a crutch. Not everything in Revelation is symbolic and that is true whether your talking about hell or any other part of the book.

When I say something is "symbolic", there are always textual reasons for this. It's not a simple matter of "oh, I don't like what it says so it has to be symbolic". There are many things in the Bible I don't like and wish were not in there. But they are, and so I am obliged to live by it and take it as truth (eg, women pastors - I have no moral objection to this, but see it as a biblical teaching. I can give you rationalisations for this, eg "it only applied to Timothy's situation", or "it no longer applies in the modern world where women are just as educated as men" - both common rationalisations by liberal Christians). I am not a liberal Christian.

I can see the wisdom in Revelation 1-3 to be considered literal in some respects (as it is addressed to each specific church, though even there some symbolism exists, eg "neither hot nor cold but lukewarm so I spat you out of my mouth"), and I can see the overarching theme of Revelation 4-5 (the picture of the New Heavens), though as to a literal description of heaven, I'm not so sure. From there on, I find it hard to take a literal view, eg. are the seven seals/cups/etc all separate events or different descriptions of the same event? Or can we take a literal view of 144,000 people saved (or alternatively as the "first fruits")? Who is the anti-Christ? Some have said the Pope (some even have said specific pope's), others have said the United States, while others have said Iraq. And before our generation, every generation have had their own views based on their own political situations, and in each generation, there are/were always people who just "knew" that the Prophecies would be fulfilled within their lifetime. And this does not include the passage from 1 John 2, which refers to many "anti-Christ's" - many anti-Christ's, but only one real "anti-Christ" from Revelation (just something to ponder there)......

To finish off, I would ask for you to please respect my views as I have respected yours. I have not made insults or attacks towards you, and some of your comments are unwarranted and unwanted. Thank you,

~ Paranoid Android

[Guest Honolulu-Dad]

Paranoid,

You are not alone in being on the receiving end of Shilohs' insults and attacks. He attacks everyone who says anything contrary to his opinion.

It's sad actually!!

[Guest shiloh357]

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 24 2008, 12:44 PM)

QUOTE

I am not ignoring the intent of the author

You're just in a state of denial

And still you persist with the insults and attacks. You're not very personable with people who hold different views than you, are you? If you don't mind my asking, are you as insulting to non-Christians when you tell them the gospel as you are with me? If so, comments like this are likely to drive them further away from God, not closer. If not, then why act this way with a brother in Christ?

I am not insulting you. The fact is that I have cited passages that clearly refer to man's spiritual separation from God, and you simply ignore places like 2 Thess. 2:9 and other passages or you try to assign values to them that are simply not there because you cannot fathom eternal punishment. I have pointed to several passages and instead of actually engaging them you declare that we are operating from equally valid approaches when we are not. So yeah, it is a case of denial. I examine things like context, purpose, occasion and audience. I examine parallel passages as well examining the original languages and there is simply no getting around a spiritual condition of eternal separation from God without doing extreme violence to the text.

[spiritman]

Hell is real. One study shows that 90% of the world population say there is a heaven, while only 50% believe in hell. But what does the Bible say? Jesus said it was real (that's good enough for me) "Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angel: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal." Matthew 25:41-46

"And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark 9:42-48 (nore: the word "Hell" here is "Gehenna" or "Gehenna of fire" which is the place of the future punishment This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the wicked and their future destruction.)

Other places that tells us that it is real are Matthew 3:12, Daniel 12:2, Luke 16:23-24, 2 Thesselonians 1:9, Revelation 14:10-11, Revelation 20:10

There are cults that teach that Hell is symbolic, or that it is just a stopping off place until you overcome your sin and are good enough to make it to Heaven. The New Age and Emerging church teachings include the "feel good" lie that God wouldn't punish someone by sending them to Hell forever. Well, they can say whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true. We can choose now to accept Jesus - the only way to eternal life - or we can choose Hell. It is here and now in this life that we must accept Jesus.

<>< ><>

Nathele

Good post

[ParanoidAndroid]

I am not insulting you. The fact is that I have cited passages that clearly refer to man's spiritual separation from God, and you simply ignore places like 2 Thess. 2:9 and other passages or you try to assign values to them that are simply not there because you cannot fathom eternal punishment. I have pointed to several passages and instead of actually engaging them you declare that we are operating from equally valid approaches when we are not. So yeah, it is a case of denial. I examine things like context, purpose, occasion and audience. I examine parallel passages as well examining the original languages and there is simply no getting around a spiritual condition of eternal separation from God without doing extreme violence to the text.

Actually, it's my opinion that my approach is more valid than yours. I am not stating that we are arguing from equally valid views. And I also believe that this is backed up by the Bible, because I also examine context, purpose, occasion and audience, referencing other parts of the Bible in proper contextual understanding. However, since I acknowledge that I could be wrong (we are all humans, and as such fallible, particularly when it comes to controversial issues that have many interpretations), I'm not quite so eagre to tell you that your views are deluded or placing you in a state of denial. While you on the other hand are so firmly set in your ways that you cannot fathom being wrong, you resort to comments such as that - and whether you realise it or not, that is being offensive, and if you communicate like this with non-Christians, I guarantee your behaviour will drive them away from God, not to him. Think about that, please.

~ PA

[Guest Honolulu-Dad]

I am not insulting you. The fact is that I have cited passages that clearly refer to man's spiritual separation from God, and you simply ignore places like 2 Thess. 2:9 and other passages or you try to assign values to them that are simply not there because you cannot fathom eternal punishment. I have pointed to several passages and instead of actually engaging them you declare that we are operating from equally valid approaches when we are not. So yeah, it is a case of denial. I examine things like context, purpose, occasion and audience. I examine parallel passages as well examining the original languages and there is simply no getting around a spiritual condition of eternal separation from God without doing extreme violence to the text.

Actually, it's my opinion that my approach is more valid than yours. I am not stating that we are arguing from equally valid views. And I also believe that this is backed up by the Bible, because I also examine context, purpose, occasion and audience, referencing other parts of the Bible in proper contextual understanding. However, since I acknowledge that I could be wrong, I'm not quite so eagre to tell you that your views are deluded or placing you in a state of denial. While you on the other hand are so firmly set in your ways that you cannot fathom being wrong, you resort to comments such as that - and whether you realise it or not, that is being offensive, and if you communicate like this with non-Christians, I guarantee your behaviour will drive them away from God, not to him. Think about that, please.

~ PA

Amen!!

[Guest shiloh357]

Actually, it's my opinion that my approach is more valid than yours. I am not stating that we are arguing from equally valid views. And I also believe that this is backed up by the Bible, because I also examine context, purpose, occasion and audience, referencing other parts of the Bible in proper contextual understanding.

Yet you have presented no evidence to that end. I have asked you for it, more than once and you have failed to present anything.

However, since I acknowledge that I could be wrong, I'm not quite so eagre to tell you that your views are deluded or placing you in a state of denial.

There are people today who still believe the earth is flat and no amount of evidence presented to them will convince them otherwise. They even have an organization in California called "The Flat Earth Society."

They believe that our missions to the moon and outerspace are just made up in Hollywood. They reject any attempt by modern science to show the earth is a sphere and claim that their "evidence" proves the earth is flat. At some point, one has to simply tell them the truth about what they believe. At some point, you have to deal with that kind of intellectual suicide for what it is.

The same applies here. The Bible teaches that man will live forever in eternal separation from God if he chooses that option. It is the flipside of living forever with God in eternal bliss. Not one credible Greek scholar agrees with your position and no mainline Christian Bible teacher of good repute, either living or dead, shares your view. This an issue where there is a right and wrong position. It is not a case where "the truth is somewhere in the middle." The reality of hell is foundational to the Christian faith and is, therefore, not a nonessential issue over which there is no concrete biblical answer.

As of yet, all you have done is claim to have studied the issue, but so far, you have not produced the nuts and bolts of how you arrived at your conclusion. Simply restating your conclusion over and over doesn't make it more true or valid.

While you on the other hand are so firmly set in your ways that you cannot fathom being wrong, you resort to comments such as that - and whether you realise it or not, that is being offensive, and if you communicate like this with non-Christians, I guarantee your behaviour will drive them away from God, not to him. Think about that, please.

No one likes being told their wrong. Not even me. The difference between you and me is that when I am told I am wrong, I simply provide the evidence to show why I believe my position is correct. I am not threatened by being told I am wrong.

Still waiting for the evidence you have gleaned from your studies.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Actually, it's my opinion that my approach is more valid than yours. I am not stating that we are arguing from equally valid views. And I also believe that this is backed up by the Bible, because I also examine context, purpose, occasion and audience, referencing other parts of the Bible in proper contextual understanding.

Yet you have presented no evidence to that end. I have asked you for it, more than once and you have failed to present anything.

I have provided the evidence. Let us run through some of it again (you can find this all on the previous pages of this thread):

I addressed the three words we traditionally translate as "hell" in the New Testament (hades, gehenna, and tartaros), and even though they all refer to different subjects and ideas, the common link many Christians try to make between these three separate and distinct words as all referring to the same thing (they don't), and that all these three words also refer to the Lake of Fire in Revelation 20 (we know "hades" at least is thrown into the Lake of Fire, but by that very nature, hades can not be the same place as the Lake of Fire (yet Christians still see them as such). Suffice it to say, I find it convoluted reasoning to address all four words/phrases and refer to them as if they are speaking of the same thing. In response to this, you didn't think it pertinent to address these four terms, ("irrelevant" was the word I think you used).

Concerning specific verses, I referred to Mark 9:43-49 and wrote into quite some detail on the passage, and showed how Jesus was contrasting the purifying fire of of Eternal Life with the earthly and condemnatory fires of gehenna (which is a physical place, not a spiritual one). Again, you ignored this comment.

From memory, you also rejected my post concerning the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus (or at the very least I can't recall you ever making a response to me concerning that).

I also addressed half a dozen references to "destruction", though we've been over that one too many times, so let sleeping dogs lie.

Without going through the whole thread again, I've probably addressed one or two other issues, but even if this is the only evidence I have presented, you cannot accuse me of not providing any. You have simply read my evidence/reasoning and then dismissed it as either wrong or immaterial.

There are people today who still believe the earth is flat and no amount of evidence presented to them will convince them otherwise. They even have an organization in California called "The Flat Earth Society."

I see what you mean, to a point. However, I would contend that there are very few people who belong to the "Flat Earth Society" who actually believe it. I know at least one person who joined that society (him being the only person I know who joined it), and he did so simply so he could laugh at dinner time and tell guests he was a member of the society, so they could laugh as well. For lack of a better term, it was a "conversation starter" - he didn't believe, he just joined to have something to talk about.

They believe that our missions to the moon and outerspace are just made up in Hollywood.

Actually, that's not just the Flat-Earth society. A lot of Conspiracy Theorists believe it impossible to travel to outer space and therefore the moon-landing was a hoax. Though many people such as these people also believe that 9/11 was an Inside Job, orchestrated by the U.S government. The landing on the moon is not confined to Flat-Earth believers, and if we look in terms of numbers, there would be more people who believe the moon-landing was a fake but still believe in a spherical Earth.

As of yet, all you have done is claim to have studied the issue, but so far, you have not produced the nuts and bolts of how you arrived at your conclusion. Simply restating your conclusion over and over doesn't make it more true or valid.

*See first section of post for details

[methinkshe]

For the sake of newcomers to this thread (me, to be specific!) is it fair to summarise the argument thus: that Shiloh and ParanoidAndroid are debating whether the eternal state of those who die without Jesus is one of annhilation (which implies an end to consiousness and awareness) or one of everlasting and conscious torment, i.e. a continuous and continuing knowledge of eternal separation from God and all that is good, since God Himself IS good.?

What is the second death, in other words? Assuming ALL men are resurrected for the purpose of judgement, in what form are they resurrected - bodily or spiritually? If bodily, is not the second death just a second physical/bodily death with the spirit remaining a conscious receiver of the knowledge of God and separation from God?

If the second death is a spiritual death, than that would imply total annihilation as though a person had never existed.

This is my limited understanding to date.

I am interested in the ongoing discussion and would like to learn more.

I hope that the debate will continue, guided by the Holy Spirit, as I am eager to be taught.