Total Posts:90|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Hell cannot exist

ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 3:41:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Assuming Heaven exists, and Heaven is perfect, Hell cannot exist.

Assuming Heaven is perfect, I think we can agree perfection is different for everyone. In order for me to be content, I would want infinite knowledge, hapiness, and friends.

If Hell exists, and I have infinite knowledge, I would know it existed, and would not be happy that my friends would be burning in Hell. I also could not have any of my friends that would be in Hell.

So Hell can't exist if Heaven does.

I challenge anyone to find the problem within this paradox.
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 3:45:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Heaven isn't an idea that is actually subject to people's ideas, at least not in the Biblical/Christian sense of the term.

Heaven is God's domain, and while it may be perfect for us, if we believe that our friends are burning in Hell and don't like it, God won't let you in, because it is His domain, not yours.

The entire point of a Christian is to accept God's ruling no matter what, even the rulings against your friends; you accept that they belong in Hell. So the entire idea that Hell can't exist because of your paradox doesn't fit in line with Christian ideologies anyways.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 3:45:44 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/21/2009 3:41:17 PM, ournamestoolong wrote:
Assuming Heaven exists, and Heaven is perfect, Hell cannot exist.

Assuming Heaven is perfect, I think we can agree perfection is different for everyone. In order for me to be content, I would want infinite knowledge, hapiness, and friends.

If Hell exists, and I have infinite knowledge, I would know it existed, and would not be happy that my friends would be burning in Hell. I also could not have any of my friends that would be in Hell.

So Hell can't exist if Heaven does.

I challenge anyone to find the problem within this paradox.

If Heaven is perfect for everyone, than it would be a completely seperate reality for everyone, meaning that in your reality Hell would not exist, but in the realities of those in hell, it would exist.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 4:40:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Your understanding of perfection is already self-refuting. Perfection, by definition, cannot be subjective. Moreover, your assumption that Heaven is perfect (or at least as you understand the word perfect) is not generally assumed.

Even further, your "paradox" hinges on the idea that you can even comprehend the perfection of heaven and what it must and must not include – and that it must be YOUR idea of perfection and not God's.

You are taking the two propositions (V) Heaven Exists, and (H) Hell exists, and introducing a third proposition, (P) Perfection, trying to make an explicit contradiction. The reason you are failing to create an explicit contradiction is because you are failing to create a tenable third proposition.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 7:06:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I stopped at where he said that Sheol did not have anything to do with an afterlife - either the height of ignorance or pandering to his audiences' ignorance. While the Old Testament talks of the body going to the grave, it talks of the soul going to Sheol - which is conscience existence beyond the grave...

Furthermore, if he was showing even the slightest exegetical honesty, he would not be attacking a strawman. True, many modern Christians believe that hell is a place of conscience eternal torment - but is this demanded by the text or even exegetically evidenced? For theological and exegetical reasons I espouse a seperationalist understanding of hell - insofar as I do not believe people in hell suffer horrible fiery agony or that it is a place where God is "getting even." Though hell could, in some sense, be referred to as punishment, I would not go so far as to say that it is. Hell is a place where God grants people what they chosen - separation from him. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a hopelessly morose existence, but still far from the conscience fiery torment described.

I understand that this may be an understanding that you are not familiar with. But it is a position I am willingly to defend exegetically, theologically, and logically.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 7:16:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/21/2009 7:06:33 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
I stopped at where he said that Sheol did not have anything to do with an afterlife - either the height of ignorance or pandering to his audiences' ignorance. While the Old Testament talks of the body going to the grave, it talks of the soul going to Sheol - which is conscience existence beyond the grave...

Furthermore, if he was showing even the slightest exegetical honesty, he would not be attacking a strawman. True, many modern Christians believe that hell is a place of conscience eternal torment - but is this demanded by the text or even exegetically evidenced? For theological and exegetical reasons I espouse a seperationalist understanding of hell - insofar as I do not believe people in hell suffer horrible fiery agony or that it is a place where God is "getting even." Though hell could, in some sense, be referred to as punishment, I would not go so far as to say that it is. Hell is a place where God grants people what they chosen - separation from him. Don't get me wrong, I think this is a hopelessly morose existence, but still far from the conscience fiery torment described.

I understand that this may be an understanding that you are not familiar with. But it is a position I am willingly to defend exegetically, theologically, and logically.

Well you obviously have a better biblical familiarity than I do, but you have to understand that I'm not advocating for or against this video. I'm religiously apathetic, I just find different interpretations/understandings/assertions interesting.

But at the same time this video asks an important question; why is God punishing us? I know there is a biblical answer, but the answer is almost moreso rhetorical.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 7:23:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I would say that the question is a false one. The question would not contain the same emotional empowerment if it were asked correctly: Why is God giving me what I chose?

If you choose to live a life absent God, God gives you an afterlife absent Him.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 7:29:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/21/2009 7:23:52 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
If you choose to live a life absent God, God gives you an afterlife absent Him.

Why does God give us the right to choose? Is it because he feels better if people choose him, and becomes jealous when they don't?
Is it like the situation when a child says to an older, wiser one "would you like to play hopscotch?" and the older, wiser child says "No, not right now," and the little child says "you're a big poopy face, I'm going to hang out with the cooler kids," aka the kindergarteners, thinking he is exacting revenge by depriving the older child of his presence, even though the older, wiser child feels just happy without his presence?

Is that kind of the same situation? Is God really that self-conscience?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 7:32:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/21/2009 7:23:52 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
I would say that the question is a false one. The question would not contain the same emotional empowerment if it were asked correctly: Why is God giving me what I chose?

If you choose to live a life absent God, God gives you an afterlife absent Him.

So God is not omni-present?

Also, Atheists don't choose to live life absent of God, they just don't see evidence for a God. Why would anyone choose punishment?

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 7:37:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/21/2009 7:23:52 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
I would say that the question is a false one. The question would not contain the same emotional empowerment if it were asked correctly: Why is God giving me what I chose?

If you choose to live a life absent God, God gives you an afterlife absent Him.

Ah, but therein lies a contradiction; why would God create a realm where he does not exist then use it to put his own creations for not believing in him?

And understand, I'm religiously apathetic. I believe in the possibility of God, but cannot be convinced. I'm also pan-spiritual, in that I like many aspect of every religion, I just can't help but find flaws that outweigh my positive feelings. So; I'm an agnostic. My profile comment is a joke.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 7:55:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Humor aside, I think you're missing the grander point. If what God wants is genuine acceptance and love, then it requires genuine choice. Apathy is indeed a choice. Your caricature need not REALLY be addressed, Valkov, because you didn't really say anything. You assume that God's absence is revenge.

So God is not omni-present?

So you are asking me if God is a big ugly Latin word that is never once used in the Bible? God is not ubiquitous in the way you are intending to render.

Also, Atheists don't choose to live life absent of God, they just don't see evidence for a God. Why would anyone choose punishment?

You misspoke. Atheists simply deny that the evidence available is adequate – they certainly make no claim that there is NO evidence. You meant to say that they say there is no PROOF. Regardless, an atheist has chosen not to believe in God, coming from the same epistemic framework as the theist, and has hence chosen to live a life absent of God's influence. Moreover, I said nothing of punishment; I said a life absent of God (which I believe to be miserable). This is, in no explicit sense, punishment.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 8:02:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/21/2009 7:55:07 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
You misspoke. Atheists simply deny that the evidence available is adequate – they certainly make no claim that there is NO evidence. You meant to say that they say there is no PROOF. Regardless, an atheist has chosen not to believe in God, coming from the same epistemic framework as the theist, and has hence chosen to live a life absent of God's influence. Moreover, I said nothing of punishment; I said a life absent of God (which I believe to be miserable). This is, in no explicit sense, punishment.

Defend religion all you want and I will not disagree, but do not try to claim the Bible as scientific fact when we both know it is absolutely not.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 8:04:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/21/2009 7:55:07 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
Humor aside, I think you're missing the grander point. If what God wants is genuine acceptance and love, then it requires genuine choice. Apathy is indeed a choice. Your caricature need not REALLY be addressed, Valkov, because you didn't really say anything. You assume that God's absence is revenge.

I understand your point that it may not be revenge, and is more just giving the people what they desire (aka they choose to live without God, they are there deprived of his presence), but it ultimately makes the entire endeavour pointless. If this is really God's plan, then it makes heaven and hell obsolete; Earth is where both these things can be accomplished, without the physical division of family and friends. There has to be a reason why God seeks to divide us. Barring that reason, Hell is therefore a punishment that must be worse than our own lives on Earth.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 8:07:43 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ah, but therein lies a contradiction; why would God create a realm where he does not exist then use it to put his own creations for not believing in him?

Perhaps you're mistaken as to what a contradiction is. A contradiction is essentially propositions that, when duly asserted, deny each other or themselves. An inability to comprehend a reason does not equal a contradiction or even prove that no reason exists. The question should be phrased, why does God allow his creatures the ability to choose to live a life absent of him? The answer lies in the reversal, insofar as the positive act cannot truly exist unless the negative of the act is possible.

I don't see the teeth of your question. I recommend you read Steven T. Davis's piece on Hell entitled, "Universalism, Hell, and the fate of the Ignorant."
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 8:10:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
but do not try to claim the Bible as scientific fact when we both know it is absolutely not.

This needs to be clarified... I made no such claim. But if we are talking about Hell, especially in the context of Christianity, we need to assume the framework. You cannot try to disprove hell by using the Christian framework and not allow the Christian to defend against such assaults with the same framework.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 8:15:55 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/21/2009 7:55:07 PM, InquireTruth wrote

So God is not omni-present?

So you are asking me if God is a big ugly Latin word that is never once used in the Bible? God is not ubiquitous in the way you are intending to render.

Haha, ubiquitous only means one thing. He either is in Hell or he is not ubiquitous.

Also, Atheists don't choose to live life absent of God, they just don't see evidence for a God. Why would anyone choose punishment?

You misspoke. Atheists simply deny that the evidence available is adequate – they certainly make no claim that there is NO evidence. You meant to say that they say there is no PROOF. Regardless, an atheist has chosen not to believe in God, coming from the same epistemic framework as the theist, and has hence chosen to live a life absent of God's influence. Moreover, I said nothing of punishment; I said a life absent of God (which I believe to be miserable). This is, in no explicit sense, punishment.

Well that is in their own words. They always claim there is "no evidence." Also, you are suggesting that there is no consequence for the disbelief in God. The Bible says otherwise. Also, disbelief is not worthy of eternal "misery." If a man in Australia heard about someone named GeoLaureate who could create planets, but failed to believe I existed. I would not punish him. He simply had never seen me, nor did he witness me perform such miraculous things.

I myself believe God is ubiquitous in the sense he is everything that exists, but I disagree entirely with Christian philosophy and dogma.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 8:18:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I understand your point that it may not be revenge, and is more just giving the people what they desire (aka they choose to live without God, they are there deprived of his presence), but it ultimately makes the entire endeavour pointless. If this is really God's plan, then it makes heaven and hell obsolete; Earth is where both these things can be accomplished, without the physical division of family and friends. There has to be a reason why God seeks to divide us. Barring that reason, Hell is therefore a punishment that must be worse than our own lives on Earth.

No doubt it most certainly will be worse than earth – at least I imagine it will. We are talking about subjects that are not central to Christian faith and thus do not have clear theological development in Scripture. Your assumption, however, is an incorrect one. Heaven cannot be accomplished on earth, as it is, for all intents and purposes, paradise. I don't know what hell will look like, or even what it will entail, all I know is that it is absent of God's presence, and in terms of my own life and my own experience, that is certainly hell.

You should read the soul-making theodicy by John Hick - It is a relatively short philosophical piece.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 8:23:01 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/21/2009 8:18:12 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
No doubt it most certainly will be worse than earth – at least I imagine it will. We are talking about subjects that are not central to Christian faith and thus do not have clear theological development in Scripture. Your assumption, however, is an incorrect one. Heaven cannot be accomplished on earth, as it is, for all intents and purposes, paradise. I don't know what hell will look like, or even what it will entail, all I know is that it is absent of God's presence, and in terms of my own life and my own experience, that is certainly hell.

But it isn't in my own experience. Your contention is based on the fact that people will live without God's presence - I'm already doing that, so I do not see how it is Hell. There must be a much worse 'punishment' than that - being at the whims of Satan and his wildly sado-masochistic machinations. Otherwise, it isn't much of a punishment at all.

As well, it doesn't have to be based on Scripture itself. Hell can be discussed as an abstract theological question outside of the Bible, something that I think the starter of this thread intended. I could be wrong, but of course it seems the majority of posts are based outside of Scripture.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 8:31:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Haha, ubiquitous only means one thing. He either is in Hell or he is not ubiquitous.

If you stretch it beyond physical confines. I'm not going to confine God to a certain word that you think is a necessary characteristic.

Well that is in their own words.

That is certainly presumptuous. I hope you are not intending to speak for all atheists. If that is indeed what they SAY, we can be relatively certain as to what they MEAN – and I think a fair analysis should focus on what they mean.

The Bible says otherwise

As I hope you read above, that is certainly something I am willing to discuss. If you think you can render a firm exegetical argument in support of hell as eternal, conscience, and fiery torment, then by all means share it. But I think any approach that is fair to the language, form and style will see eye to eye with my analysis and the analysis of many before me. Until you can substantiate the claims on which your analogy hinge, your analogy is more rhetorical flourish than substantive argument.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 8:42:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
But it isn't in my own experience. Your contention is based on the fact that people will live without God's presence - I'm already doing that, so I do not see how it is Hell. There must be a much worse 'punishment' than that - being at the whims of Satan and his wildly sado-masochistic machinations. Otherwise, it isn't much of a punishment at all.

Is this an argument? Perhaps you're right, perhaps that is exactly what hell is – Satan and his tyranny unleashed eternally on your ever-conscience soul. But I am speaking only from what I gather from Scripture, the source of the dichotomy we are speaking of.

As well, it doesn't have to be based on Scripture itself. Hell can be discussed as an abstract theological question outside of the Bible, something that I think the starter of this thread intended.

I have mostly been responding to the video that was posted – which attacks from a Christian framework. As you will see, my initial response to the original poster showed the inanity of his claim in terms of logical propositions.

I could be wrong, but of course it seems the majority of posts are based outside of Scripture.

You must be wrong… How can we talk about something that only makes sense within a particular axiom or framework, and expect coherent dialogue absent the framework it exists?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 8:46:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/21/2009 8:31:02 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
Haha, ubiquitous only means one thing. He either is in Hell or he is not ubiquitous.

If you stretch it beyond physical confines. I'm not going to confine God to a certain word that you think is a necessary characteristic.

You are trying to get out of answering the question. You seem to be suggesting "omni-present" is not a necessary characteristic of God. You say you don't want to confine God by calling him ubiquitous, yet you are confining him by claiming he is absent in the realm of Hell. If he is not ubiquitous, where is he? Why can't theists describe God or explain where he is, or what he was doing before he created the universe?

Well that is in their own words.

That is certainly presumptuous. I hope you are not intending to speak for all atheists. If that is indeed what they SAY, we can be relatively certain as to what they MEAN – and I think a fair analysis should focus on what they mean.

Ok, let's not dwell on this here. Some say "no evidence" some say "no proof." All of this is beside the point.

The Bible says otherwise

As I hope you read above, that is certainly something I am willing to discuss. If you think you can render a firm exegetical argument in support of hell as eternal, conscience, and fiery torment, then by all means share it. But I think any approach that is fair to the language, form and style will see eye to eye with my analysis and the analysis of many before me. Until you can substantiate the claims on which your analogy hinge, your analogy is more rhetorical flourish than substantive argument.

According to Bible.org:

(1) Hell was designed originally for Satan and his demons (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10).

(2) Hell will also punish the sin of those who reject Christ (Matthew 13:41,50; Revelation 20:11-15; 21:8).

(3) Hell is conscious torment.

* Matthew 13:50 "furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth"
* Mark 9:48 "where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched"
* Revelation 14:10 "he will be tormented with fire and brimstone"

(4) Hell is eternal and irreversible.

* Revelation 14:11 "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night"
* Revelation 20:14 "This is the second death, the lake of fire"
* Revelation 20:15 "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire"

This clearly contradicts your assertion that hell is not punishment, fire, and torture. You simply claim it is the absence of God, and is subjectively miserable to you. This is not what the Bible says. Also, calling this a metaphor does not solve the problem.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 8:53:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/21/2009 8:42:53 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
You must be wrong… How can we talk about something that only makes sense within a particular axiom or framework, and expect coherent dialogue absent the framework it exists?

We can talk about it because theology because beliefs aren't just based in a book. The book doesn't provide the structure; the belief does. Not all ideas of Hell are based in a Biblical framework, or even a Christian one.

Is this an argument? Perhaps you're right, perhaps that is exactly what hell is – Satan and his tyranny unleashed eternally on your ever-conscience soul. But I am speaking only from what I gather from Scripture, the source of the dichotomy we are speaking of.

It wasn't so much an argument as it was a statement. But, unfortunately Scripture isn't the only source of what we're talking about. It may be what you are addressing your arguments to, but it isn't for everyone else. My statement was more or less intended to ask why God would create Hell if it is only to deprive us of his presence - something a lot of people are already fine with doing. The only way Hell becomes less appealing to people like me is that there is a punishment inflicted upon us that is akin to torture and crimes against humanity.

But, if this isn't the case, then Hell and Heaven have no point to them, are at the very least Hell; because if there is no negative consequence to those that choose to live without God, there is no real incentive to even join in God's 'paradise'. It kind of negates the entire idea.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 9:35:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Why can't theists describe God or explain where he is, or what he was doing before he created the universe?

You assume that these are questions that the theist is required to answer. Let me help you so that you don't make the mistake again – they don't. Furthermore, I am not avoiding the question, I'm just baffled that you think it is somehow profound. If, by omnipresent, you mean that God is present (depending on your understanding, I would concede that God is not completely absent from hell) in hell, then no, God is not omnipresent.
1) Hell was designed originally for Satan and his demons (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10).

Says the king in the PARABLE. And Revelation is speaking only of the beast or devil and is using highly apocalyptic language – as part of the Semitic tradition, apocalyptic literature was often used to speak of present predicaments. The beast in revelation is actually Nero Caesar, which is easily evidenced by the numerology or grammatia of 666.

(2) Hell will also punish the sin of those who reject Christ (Matthew 13:41,50; Revelation 20:11-15; 21:8).

These are not substantive arguments. The only thing meant to be taken literally in parables is either the religious principle or moral lesson evoked. You are trying to take literally pieces of the parable – which is unfair to the text. Are we literally fish? Are we literally grabbed with nets? Moreover, in Christ's explanation of the parable, he is still using the language of the parable in that weeds are burned in the fire.

Mark 9:48 "where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched"

First, Mark is quoting Isaiah, so he is already using poetic language. Moreover, why would we take the second part literally but not the first? Mark's point is neither worms nor fire, but eternality.

Revelation 14:10 "he will be tormented with fire and brimstone"

You are doing what scholars call "selective literalism." You are only taking literal the parts within the context that suits you, even though it is so clearly obvious that the rest of the context is metaphorical.

(4) Hell is eternal and irreversible.

I agree.

Revelation 14:11 "the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night"

An obvious metaphor, referring to the fact that those who follow Nero and his oppressive ways will be punished – whether this is even referring to hell is not clear.

Revelation 20:14 "This is the second death, the lake of fire"

Is it a lake of fire, or a bottomless pit? Is it outer darkness or a place where the uttermost farthing must be paid? Because all these are metaphors used in the Bible for hell, yet they can't all be true. O, and there must also be a lot of worms there that won't die.

My contention is that hell is separation from God, not TOTAL separation. But a place apart from the source of love, joy, and peace. Weeping and gnashing of teeth refers to the fact that this place, unlike heaven, will not be absent of pain and suffering, human anguish and sorrow. This is far from conscience and eternal torment and suffering. There has to be some relevant reason why you accept the metaphors of hell as fire literally, but the descriptions of hell as outer darkness or a bottomless pit as metaphor.
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 9:42:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Not all ideas of Hell are based in a Biblical framework, or even a Christian one.

My point is that it is a Christian dichotomy. To talk about hell absent the Christian framework is futile insofar as it is just unmerited opinion based on air and fancy.

But, if this isn't the case, then Hell and Heaven have no point to them,

Heaven is paradise – that is incentive for me. Take this analogy for example. I want ice cream, you don't. We both don't have it. The place I'm going I get ice cream for free all the time – the place your going has never seen the "light" of ice cream ever (to mix metaphors). We have wandered far from the original intent of the thread. Is there an explicit contradiction between the existence of hell and the existence of heaven? I think not.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 9:51:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Congratulations, you just debunked bible.org and pastor Sid Litke, Th.M (Master of Theology). Not me. I just copy and pasted straight from the website. What I posted was a Biblical scholar outlining what the Bible says about Hell.

In any case whether the passages are metaphorical or literal, Hell is most certainly a place of punishment, despite your denial of this fact.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 10:00:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Congratulations, you just debunked bible.org and pastor Sid Litke, Th.M (Master of Theology). Not me. I just copy and pasted straight from the website. What I posted was a Biblical scholar outlining what the Bible says about Hell.

Well I figured it was not your own work.

In any case whether the passages are metaphorical or literal, Hell is most certainly a place of punishment, despite your denial of this fact.

I'm not denying it, I am denying that it is a fact - we certainly do not know it to be one. I am saying, according to Scripture, hell may not be as it is traditionally understood to be - this is as far as my claim goes. I happen to believe in a separationist view. Pastor Sid Litke may very well be right, but I certainly think that he is not. But what Pastor Litke and I could probably agree on is that it is adiaphora, and not central to Christianity, which is Jesus Christ and Him crucified and resurrected.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2009 10:19:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/21/2009 10:00:59 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
I'm not denying it, I am denying that it is a fact - we certainly do not know it to be one. I am saying, according to Scripture, hell may not be as it is traditionally understood to be - this is as far as my claim goes. I happen to believe in a separationist view. Pastor Sid Litke may very well be right, but I certainly think that he is not. But what Pastor Litke and I could probably agree on is that it is adiaphora, and not central to Christianity, which is Jesus Christ and Him crucified and resurrected.

When I say fact, I mean that from a Christian perspective, Hell is in fact a punishment. If Hell is not punishment, what's the point being a Christian as a means of salvation? I understand that theologically adept Christians will argue that there are many misconceptions about heaven, hell, Satan, or other areas of Christianity and this I agree (mostly because people make assumptions without reading what the Bible actually says). As far as what is central to Christianity, I'd say it's the absolute belief in the Bible because without the Bible, there is no Jesus. Obviously he could have existed without the Bible, but certainly not the significance and miraculous story.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat