I was raised as a catholic
But I think maybe religions just use that to scare people to keep bringing them back to church.
Unfortunately that's what priest feed of, the people!

I was also told that hell is just a state in your should that doesn't let you see God!
But what about the eternal fire?

Hell is derived from the nordic "godess" Hel that guards the realm where those vikings go who fail to die in battle. So it is an idea taken from older religions but if that makes it more or less likely to be true depends.

Hell is described several ways in the Bible. Fire is a common motif, but so is darkness, so is sorrow, chains, and there are lots of other images. Basically they're all attempts to describe the indescribable because our finite minds can't comprehend it.

Basically it's the absence of God. The general impression is that it's a state of complete isolation, so Mark Twain's famous comment about "heaven for climate, hell for company" is way off base. There's no indication or hint anywhere that Satan rules or even lives in hell. Those are just a few thoughts. In the Bible, it definitely exists. But we know very little about it except that it's not a place anybody would want to go, and there's an easy way to avoid it.

I believe that there is a heaven and a hell, the people that believe like me are very happy in the way we believe, the ones that don't believe that way we do sure hope that we are wrong.

Just so people are aware who post on this thread...

The subject is discussed at length on the following thread.

LINK (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/christianity/what-about-hell-186212.html)

Thanks!

As with heaven the exact things that happen, and how it will be like, is not totally know. The fact it exists is not at debate, since as a Christian, we believe the bible to be true, and the bible tells us there is a heaven and a hell.

Of course mankind does not want there to be one, since if there is, then failure to be saved has a punishment

Ecclesiastes 9:5 states "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten."

If the wicked suffered literally in hell then this scripture would have no meaning. Also compare Psalms 146:3,4 which tells us that in the day one perishes, his thoughts do perish. Literal torment requires feeling, something that according to these scriptures we don't have when we die (the dead are conscious of nothing at all).

Job even begged God to "protect him in Sheol (hell) and keep him secret until his anger turns back" due to the terrible suffering he was experiencing, meaning he wanted to die. Would he say this if Sheol was a place of eternal torment? Therefore Sheol (Hebrew) or Hades (Greek) simply means "the common grave of mankind".

Clearly, the bible's view of hell is not in harmony with the idea that it is a literal place of torment.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 states "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten."

If the wicked suffered literally in hell then this scripture would have no meaning. Also compare Psalms 146:3,4 which tells us that in the day one perishes, his thoughts do perish. Literal torment requires feeling, something that according to these scriptures we don't have when we die (the dead are conscious of nothing at all).

Job even begged God to "protect him in Sheol (hell) and keep him secret until his anger turns back" due to the terrible suffering he was experiencing, meaning he wanted to die. Would he say this if Sheol was a place of eternal torment? Therefore Sheol (Hebrew) or Hades (Greek) simply means "the common grave of mankind".

Clearly, the bible's view of hell is not in harmony with the idea that it is a literal place of torment.

And of course, Jesus didn't know what he was talking about when he described a place of sorrow, weeping and gnashing of teeth, where the worm never dies and the fire is never quenched.

All three of the passages you cited are looking from a human perspective, not from God's, and describe only the body, not the total person. Context is everything.

[QUOTE]All three of the passages you cited are looking from a human perspective, not from God's,

Hmm so what you're saying is, the bible is the word of man, not God? I have to disagree there.

Hmm so what you're saying is, the bible is the word of man, not God? I have to disagree there.
That's not what Dave is saying at all. If you read the entire passages, you will see that these are simply observations by a living man to the status of a deceased one. As we living look at a dead man, we notice that he can no longer eat or breathe or drink or work to earn money or have conscious thoughts. The Ecclesiastes passage goes on to tell us to enjoy life while we can, because, before we know it, life will be over and we will be dead. Psalms says when we die, we return to the earth and all our plans perish. The passages are simply commenting on the brevity of man's lifespan, not on heaven or hell.

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2450317]


Hmm so what you're saying is, the bible is the word of man, not God? I have to disagree there.

Nice try, but pretty lame. You know that's not what I said, so please don't misquote me.

Let's take each in turn.

Ecclesiastes makes no bones about the fact that its viewpoint is that of man "under the sun." i.e. he's ONLY looking at life from an earthly perspective, and he tells the reader so more than a dozen times. If you're going to go with Ecclesiastes as your primary theology text, then you also have to conclude that all of life is meaningless and there's no point to it; "all is vanity and chasing after wind." Is this your view of life? You also have to conclude that there's no better way to live than to be a self-indulgent Epicurean; is that how you live? Eat, drink, and make Mary, for tomorrow we die. Great theology, that.

Psalms 146:3,4 is next. What does it actually say?


Do not put your trust in princes,
In mortal men, who cannot save.
4 When their spirit departs, they return to the ground;
On that very day their plans come to nothing.

Note several important things. It doesn't say their "thoughts" cease, it says their plans come to nothing. In other words, if you trust in mortal men to rescue you, you may or may not get rescued because if they die then you're right back where you started. A dead prince can't do anything for you, no matter what his intentions were. Notice also the phrase "when their spirit departs." That's a clear statement that something leaves the body and goes somewhere else, so you're not doing yourself much good with this passage. Once again, context is everything.

As for Job, you didn't give a reference. Job also called down a curse on the day he was born. Do you take that as prescriptive theology as well? I repeat: context is everything.

Now I have a question for you: if it's so clear in the Bible that "hell," or whatever one chooses as a translation of the various words in question, is just "the common grave of mankind" then why do you only go with Old Testament quotes, ripped out of their clear context? Jesus gave us a clear picture of the departed righteous and the departed wicked in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, he gave us numerous images depicting a place of sorrow and loneliness and made it clear that he was talking about a real place. I suggest you deal with his words as they stand and learn from them.

As with heaven the exact things that happen, and how it will be like, is not totally know. The fact it exists is not at debate, since as a Christian, we believe the bible to be true, and the bible tells us there is a heaven and a hell.

Of course mankind does not want there to be one, since if there is, then failure to be saved has a punishment

The bible says many things and most of if contradicts with itself, unsurprisingly since it is written by many over a long period.

The bible says many things and most of if contradicts with itself, unsurprisingly since it is written by many over a long period of time.
Actually, the Bible does a great job of NOT contradicting itself, since it was written by so many over such a long period.

No, only those that wish to not believe the bible find issues, and as with many things, it has evolved over time, starting with the history of the Hebrew nation with evolved into the Christian Church of today. Mans own sinful nature and desire to do his own will is the only thing that finds fault in the bible.

It is the true word of God and is true in what it says, one only has to listen and believe.

Actually, the Bible does a great job of NOT contradicting itself, since it was written by so many over such a long period.

I googled bible contradictions and selected the first result, here's 66 contradictions for you to mull over:

A List Of Biblical Contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#contradictions)

I googled bible contradictions and selected the first result, heres 66 contradictions for you to mull over:

Yeah, yeah. I've seen that list before. The Bible also says the trees of the field clapped their hands and mentions the four corners of the earth. More contradictions. Oy vey! Sorry, I don't mull over such silliness as the list on that site.

Yeah, yeah. I've seen that list before. The Bible also says the trees of the field clapped their hands and mentions the four corners of the earth. More contradictions. Oy vey! Sorry, I don't mull over such silliness as the list on that site.

Those aren't contradictions unless the Bible also says that trees don't have hands and that the earth has five corners.

Yeah, yeah. I've seen that list before. The Bible also says the trees of the field clapped their hands and mentions the four corners of the earth. More contradictions. Oy vey! Sorry, I don't mull over such silliness as the list on that site.

It also says the sun rises and sets. Obvious contradiction! That list is one of the phoniest I've ever seen, and I've seen plenty.

Those aren't contradictions unless the Bible also says that trees don't have hands and that the earth has five corners.
God made your brain. Your brain says trees don't have hands, and the earth doesn't have FOUR (not five) corners.

Or wait! Are you really saying, since the Bible says so, trees really do clap their hands, and the earth has four corners?

You're arguing yourself into one of those corners.

I googled bible contradictions and selected the first result, heres 66 contradictions for you to mull over:

A List Of Biblical Contradictions (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#contradictions)

Many contradictions appear because science did not exist in the Ancient world. The sun going around the earth was assumed to be correct for thousands of years. Biblical scholars could only explain things in terms of their understanding. In other words, as humans we can only explain things in terms of 'common knowledge' of the day.

I don't really see a problem with this.


Tut

God made your brain. Your brain says trees don't have hands, and the earth doesn't have FOUR (not five) corners.

Or wait! Are you really saying, since the Bible says so, trees really do clap their hands, and the earth has four corners?

You're arguing yourself into one of those corners.

Saying that trees have hands and that the world has corners are allegories, the Bible is full of them.

Like I said before the Bible was written over a long period and by many people. It has also been rewritten and edited at least once per century and not only for theological reasons but political as well. Trying to deny or ignore that is being willfully blind.

Jesus' philosophy is best summed up by the golden rule, no need to nitpick.

no need to nitpick.
Precisely! I'm glad you agree.

Saying that trees have hands and that the world has corners are allegories, the Bible is full of them.

Actually, those are metaphors.


Like I said before the Bible was written over a long period and by many people. It has also been rewritten and edited at least once per century and not only for theological reasons but political as well. Trying to deny or ignore that is being willfully blind.

Uh-huh. No backing, no evidence, just a blanket statement that can't be defended historically or philologically, and anybody who doesn't agree must be willfully blind. Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.


Jesus' philosophy is best summed up by the golden rule, no need to nitpick.

Wrong again. Jesus' philosophy is best summed up by John 14:6.

Actually, those are metaphors.

An allegory is an extended metaphor.


Uh-huh. No backing, no evidence, just a blanket statement that can't be defended historically or philologically, and anybody who doesn't agree must be willfully blind. Thanks for the laugh, I needed that.

Every time the Bible was translated it was in a sense rewritten. E.g. when the King James Bible was written the translators replaced "Yahweh" with "The Lord." And that is the very least of it.
Another time all references to reincarnation were edited out of the New Testament, the idea of it only survives indirectly such as when the man born blind asked Jesus, "was I born blind because of the sins of my father or my own sins ?" Remember he was born blind so any sins of his could only have been committed in a former life.
The oldest known Bible, the Sinai Bible in the British Museum has more than ten thousand alterations from today's Bible.


Wrong again. Jesus' philosophy is best summed up by John 14:6.

I doubt Jesus ever said that. But it is typical for a power hungry religious organization to add something like this to strengthen its hold on followers minds.

I don't think it makes any difference how many times the Bible was rewritten. Once or one thousand-we still end up with the same problem. In a previous topic I suggested that our sense experiences and historical information was, and still is changing. We can never tell if our sensory information is necessarily true.

No doubt the bible was inspired by God, but this inspiration was written down by by men. In fact it would make no different if God wrote something down himself. In the end we are stuck in the human situation. We can never break free of time and space ( while we are alive) and say. "This is the way the it really is".

From my point of view allegories/metaphors are a good way of getting the spirtitual message across.

Tut

An allegory is an extended metaphor.


The ones you mention are not extended.



Every time the Bible was translated it was in a sense rewritten. E.g. when the King James Bible was written the translators replaced "Yahweh" with "The Lord." And that is the very least of it.

Nobody knows if it was pronounced Yahweh, or Yehowahu, or Johann Sebastian. It was and is common to render it as "the Lord." That's not rewriting, it's good-sense translation. You're grasping at straws, nothing more. And the more modern translations have in hundreds of cases actually restored the meaning of the original. Translation is not the same as rewriting or editing; I think you're making this stuff up.


Another time all references to reincarnation were edited out of the New Testament, the idea of it only survives indirectly such as when the man born blind asked Jesus, "was I born blind because of the sins of my father or my own sins ?" Remember he was born blind so any sins of his could only have been committed in a former life.

http://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/rofl.gifhttp://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/rofl.gifhttp://www.nwdiveclub.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif

Oh, this is the funniest thing I've read in ages! Where's your evidence that anything was "edited out"? What surviving documents can you produce that have the pre-editing text? I could just as easily say all references to unicorns were edited out somewhere along the way. I can understand people who have various problems with the Bible, but most of them are based on something real. Again, I think you're just making stuff up.


The oldest known Bible, the Sinai Bible in the British Museum has more than ten thousand alterations from today's Bible.

Do you perhaps mean Codex Sinaiticus, found at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mount Sinai by Constantin Tischendorf in the late 1800's? I've read the whole thing. Have you? And of those "more than ten thousand alterations," the vast majority are nothing more than spelling variations. For that matter, I'm not sure how you can talk about an ancient Greek manuscript having alterations from "todays [sic] Bible." What exactly is "today's Bible"? Is it in English? This is so much nonsense. The Old Testament of Sinaiticus is the Septuagint Greek text, the New Testament is one of the best examples of the Alexandrian text-type. It shows corrections over the centuries from at least four hands, omits the last ten verses of Mark, and includes the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas. And it's not the "oldest known Bible." Your information is haphazard, spotty and just plain wrong.


I doubt Jesus ever said that. But it is typical for a power hungry religious organization to add something like this to strengthen its hold on followers minds.

What's your basis for doubting it? I really don't know what "power hungry religious organization" you mean, since we have clear evidence that it was written in the first century, when Christians were a severely persecuted minority who just wanted to live in peace. The power-hungry religious organization of that time was the Roman empire, which was trying to wipe them out. I'd love to know where you're getting this stuff, because it's so far beyond absurd I'm not sure English has a word for it.

i was raised as a catholic
but i think maybe religions just use that to scare people to keep bringing them back to church.
unfortunately thats what priest feed of of, the people!

i was also told that hell is just a state in your sould that dosent let you see God!
but what about the eternal fire?

Pope John Paul II - Catechesis on Heaven, Hell and Purgatory (link) (http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm)

JoeT

My point is Dwashur and Wondergirl, all things written in the bible are inspired of GOD and are there for our benefit (2 Timothy 3:16) so, what man has written and recorded in the bible ultimately comes from God's thoughts. These men understood clearly what condition we are in when we die and whether it be from the OT or NT it all harmonizes with this. Even Jesus himself likened the condition of the dead to being asleep. (John 11:11-14) This harmonizes with Eccl 9:5 and backs up the resurrection hope in Matthew 28:19,20.

I'm glad you mentioned Jesus remarks about the maggots Dwashur as he was alluding to Isaiah 66:24 which states “the carcases of the men that have transgressed against [God],”... “their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched.” This of course was referring to how ones not deserving of a proper burial were treated in Jerusalem. (Their bodies were thrown into The Valley of Hinnom which was like a dump, Gehenna in Greek) So Gehenna is a place of eternal destruction, not eternal torment. (Compare Revelation 20:13,14) Jesus then drives the point home in Matthew 10:28 by saying "And do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Ge‧hen′na."

Yes our spirit certainly does go back to God where it originally came from but that's not to say we are floating round playing harps up there but rather any chance we have of a resurrection remains with God. The soul itself dies according to Ezekiel 18:20 but our life force (spirit) comes from God and returns to God.

As for your comment of the rich man Lazarus parable Dwashur, I've posted before on that subject under the thread How Is It Then That People See Ghosts and Spirits?

I try my best to post here in order to help people understand the bible and if possible draw closer to God, not to argue or debate over and over. Yes I've learned a great deal in studying Jesus' and his Father's words and put all my trust in them. Isn't it nice that we can have a place like this to freely share with others what we've learned?

My point is Dwashur and Wondergirl, all things written in the bible are inspired of GOD and are there for our benefit (2 Timothy 3:16) so, what man has written and recorded in the bible ultimately comes from God's thoughts.

No argument there, but again, context is everything. You like to pull certain passages out of context and make them say what you want them to, regardless of their immediate context or the wider context of the Bible.


These men understood clearly what condition we are in when we die and whether it be from the OT or NT it all harmonizes with this. Even Jesus himself likened the condition of the dead to being asleep. (John 11:11-14) This harmonizes with Eccl 9:5 and backs up the resurrection hope in Matthew 28:19,20.

"It all harmonizes with this." Wrong, wrong, wrong. Paul said that to be absent from the body is to be present with the lord, commanded that someone be handed over to Satan for destruction of the flesh so the spirit can be saved, Revelation shows the souls of martyrs clearly conscious beneath the altar in heaven, the list goes on and on and on.


I'm glad you mentioned Jesus remarks about the maggots Dwashur as he was alluding to Isaiah 66:24 which states “the carcases of the men that have transgressed against [God],”... “their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched.” This of course was referring to how ones not deserving of a proper burial were treated in Jerusalem.

Wow. If ever there was a better example of what's been called "knight-jump exegesis" I don't know what it is.


Yes our spirit certainly does go back to God where it originally came from but that's not to say we are floating round playing harps up there but rather any chance we have of a resurrection remains with God.

Okay, now you're just deflecting. Nobody said anything about floating or harps or any of that nonsense, and you know it. Stick to what we actually say or just acknowledge that you don't have a biblical answer.


The soul itself dies according to Ezekiel 18:20 but our life force (spirit) comes from God and returns to God.

This is an utterly meaningless statement. There's really not much to say to it because it's internally contradictory.


As for your comment of the rich man Lazarus parable Dwashur, I've posted before on that subject under the thread How Is It Then That People See Ghosts and Spirits?

Was it as lame as this stuff?


I try my best to post here in order to help people understand the bible and if possible draw closer to God, not to argue or debate over and over. Yes I've learned a great deal in studying Jesus' and his Father's words and put all my trust in them. Isn't it nice that we can have a place like this to freely share with others what we've learned?

No, your posts here push a particular sectarian view that most people familiar with Christianity can recognize in an instant. Don't try to disguise it with polite language, because we all know what you're doing. The Bible contradicts your view. So if you truly do believe it, then you have a decision to make.

Pope John Paul II - Catechesis on Heaven, Hell and Purgatory (link) (http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm)

JoeT

I agree with John Paul11(perhaps for different reasons) when he explains heaven,hell and purgatory in terms of, 'state of being' rather than 'a real place'. If we say heaven and hell are actual places then we must being talking about 'place' in terms of four dimensions. The problem then becomes, 'where is it located?' John Paul11 seems to be acknowledging the problems we have when we try and represent our experiences in terms of language.

I think that Greo-Roman Idealism played an important role during this time.
By this I mean that new knowledge was meaningless unless it fitted into an Idealist understanding. More correctly, the only way it could be understood at the time.

Heaven and hell would have been regarded as being part of the natural world. So the concept of a place would make perfect sense.

Jesus would have known all of this but he had no choice but to couch the idea in a way that was understandable for the time... Well, it makes sense to me.

Tut

I agree with John Paul11(perhaps for different reasons) when he explains heaven,hell and purgatory in terms of, 'state of being' rather than 'a real place'. If we say heaven and hell are actual places then we must being talking about 'place' in terms of four dimensions. The problem then becomes, 'where is it located?'
I hope you're not limiting God to four dimensions. Scientists postulate that there are at least ten dimensions, possibly more. If God could figure out how to create the universe and all that's in it, I'm guessing He could figure out how to create heaven and where to put it.

I hope you're not limiting God to four dimensions. Scientists postulate that there are at least ten dimensions, possibly more. If God could figure out how to create the universe and all that's in it, I'm guessing He could figure out how to create heaven and where to put it.

Hi Wondergirl,

Once again an impressive post by you.

If what you are saying is correct then I guess God can travel as many dimensions as he likes. Interesting idea.

Using the idea you have put forward- my point was this. It would make no sense for Jesus to have said to his followers...

Heaven is a place that exists in a tiny curled up dimension less than a Plank length 1.616252(81)x10-35 meters. We find heaven and hell as we move along each of the ten dimensions. One could imagine the looks he would have received.

I guess my point was that he needed to explain heaven and hell in understandable terms. And the best understanding of the time was that heaven and hell is a real place. As opposed to the idea of explaining heaven and hell in terms of a place that is not really a place because dimensions are meaningless when we get down to such tiny lengths.

Regards

Tut

the best understanding of the time was that heaven and hell is a real place. As opposed to the idea of explaining heaven and hell in terms of a place that is not really a place because dimensions are meaningless when we get down to such tiny lengths.
Why would you think other dimensions are tiny? A certain psychic claims that the dead are walking around about three feet off the ground in a dimension we can't see or interact with. (So watch out when you're walking so you don't get someone's foot in your mouth or get kicked in the stomach.)

I always liked that Twilight Zone adventure when the kid crawls under his bed and finds a "door" or opening into another dimension.

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.

Go to your local library and check out books on string theory and wormholes.

Why would you think other dimensions are tiny? A certain psychic claims that the dead are walking around about three feet off the ground in a dimension we can't see or interact with. (So watch out when you're walking so you don't get someone's foot in your mouth or get kicked in the stomach.)

I always liked that Twilight Zone adventure when the kid crawls under his bed and finds a "door" or opening into another dimension.

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone.

Go to your local library and check out books on string theory and wormholes.


Hi wondergirl,


Perhaps you need to keep in mind that you are the one who introduced the idea of extra dimensions.

As to why these dimensions need to be tiny? Planck force predicts the required tension in a string. Theories about time, length and mass on a tiny scale follow from this prediction.

As to your reference to the 'Twilight Zone' I' m not sure what you are getting.


Regards

Tut

You and Pope John Paul II mentioned four dimensions, but God certainly isn't limited to what our finite minds are. Like the lad in TZ, there may be a door to another dimension (or a wormhole) under your bed (you just don't know it's there). I personally like the JW's belief that most of the faithful will end up spending eternity on a perfect Earth. Since God went to all the trouble to make such a beautiful world, why waste it by destroying it with fire or ice?

You and Pope John Paul II mentioned four dimensions, but God certainly isn't limited to what our finite minds are. Like the lad in TZ, there may be a door to another dimension (or a wormhole) under your bed (you just don't know it's there). I personally like the JW's belief that most of the faithful will end up spending eternity on a perfect Earth. Since God went to all the trouble to make such a beautiful world, why waste it by destroying it with fire or ice?

Hi again Wondergirl,

Yes, I agree that God is not limited by four dimensions. The ones who are limited by four dimensions are ourselves. On this basis any understanding of God is restricted to a four dimensional explanation. Can we come up with an explanation not involving four dimensions?

Regards

Tut

Hi again Wondergirl,

Yes, I agree that God is not limited by four dimensions. The ones who are limited by four dimensions are ourselves. On this basis any understanding of God is restricted to a four dimensional explanation. Can we come up with an explanation not involving four dimensions?

Regards

Tut

Since a four-dimensional world is the only reference point our finite minds can comprehend, probably not.

[QUOTE]I personally like the JW's belief that most of the faithful will end up spending eternity on a perfect Earth. Since God went to all the trouble to make such a beautiful world, why waste it by destroying it with fire or ice?

Excellent point WGirl! There are many scriptures that back this belief up, Isaiah 45:18; Eccl 1:4; Psalm 37:29 to name a few, so why doubt God's purpose for this beautiful home of ours?

If a landowner rents his brand new home to thugs who then trash it and turn it into a hovel, what will he do? Burn the building down? No he will evict the tenants and find more responsible ones to care for it properly. The same with God and the earth. Doesn't this show God to be truly loving as it brings out in 1 John 4:8? So how could a God so loving and merciful punish a mere human for all eternity? That idea is in complete contrast with the words in Psalm 104:9 "He will not for all time keep finding fault, Neither will he to time indefinite keep resentful."

Dwashbur, I'm busy brushing the dust off my feet. :p

[QUOTE]the resurrection hope in Matthew 28:19,20.

Edit: Oops this should be John 5:28, 29. :o

No he will evict the tenants and find more responsible ones to care for it properly.
What will God do with the evicted tenants?

[QUOTE=Wondergirl;2453308]

Excellent point WGirl! There are many scriptures that back this belief up, Isaiah 45:18; Eccl 1:4; Psalm 37:29 to name a few, so why doubt God's purpose for this beautiful home of ours?

If a landowner rents his brand new home to thugs who then trash it and turn it into a hovel, what will he do? Burn the building down? No he will evict the tenants and find more responsible ones to care for it properly. The same with God and the earth. Doesn't this show God to be truly loving as it brings out in 1 John 4:8? So how could a God so loving and merciful punish a mere human for all eternity? That idea is in complete contrast with the words in Psalm 104:9 "He will not for all time keep finding fault, Neither will he to time indefinite keep resentful."

Dwashbur, I'm busy brushing the dust off my feet. :p

;) I don't think any of us here dispute the idea of a final resurrection and eternal life on the new earth described in Revelation 22. The question is about those who don't end up there.

Those who end up in hell do so because they reject God. God doesn't punish them, they basically choose their fate. Once again, the torment and all that is a human attempt to describe the indescribable: a place totally devoid of God's presence. It has nothing to do with whether God is loving or not, it has to do with people's choice to reject him and spend eternity without him.

[QUOTE=Moparbyfar;2453516]


Those who end up in hell do so because they reject God. God doesn't punish them, they basically choose their fate....... It has nothing to do with whether God is loving or not, it has to do with people's choice to reject him and spend eternity without him.

Dwashbur (and others)--

God creates you. God, being all-knowing, knows exactly that you will reject God. God knows this from all eternity. You cannot change what God has known from all eternity. You wind up in hell. Why did God create you in the first place if he, in his infinite all-knowingness, knew that you would wind up in hell?

If this is the way it works, how could this be a loving God?

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2454090]

Dwashbur (and others)--

God creates you. God, being all-knowing, knows exactly that you will reject God. God knows this from all eternity. You cannot change what God has known from all eternity. You wind up in hell. Why did God create you in the first place if he, in his infinite all-knowingness, knew that you would wind up in hell?

If this is the way it works, how could this be a loving God?

Whether God knows what will happen or not, the choice is still yours. Nobody twists your arm or puts a gun to your head. How could God be a loving God if he didn't give you a choice? That's a better question. It's all in your definition of "loving," and yours is lacking in this respect.

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2454090]

Dwashbur (and others)--

God creates you. God, being all-knowing, knows exactly that you will reject God. God knows this from all eternity. You cannot change what God has known from all eternity. You wind up in hell. Why did God create you in the first place if he, in his infinite all-knowingness, knew that you would wind up in hell?

If this is the way it works, how could this be a loving God?

Hi Athos,

From your statement it get the impression that you are a fatalist. You don't think there is such a thing as free will. This is not a criticism>just curious.

Regards

Tut

God creates you. God, being all-knowing, knows exactly that you will reject God. God knows this from all eternity. You cannot change what God has known from all eternity. You wind up in hell. Why did God create you in the first place if he, in his infinite all-knowingness, knew that you would wind up in hell?

If this is the way it works, how could this be a loving God?
Your existence is the product of choices made by your parents. God has not predestined any of us to be born. He is not responsible for creating anyone to be sent to hell. People have absolute free will within the confines of their personal ability and thus choose to reject Him (i.e. go to hell) rather than submit their lives to Him.

If what you say is true, why would God bother with this intermediate stage in the first place? Why not just bypass this life, create people, and put them in heaven?

[QUOTE=Athos;2454402]

Whether God knows what will happen or not, the choice is still yours. Nobody twists your arm or puts a gun to your head. How could God be a loving God if he didn't give you a choice? That's a better question. It's all in your definition of "loving," and yours is lacking in this respect.

You say "whether God knows what will happen or not", but that's the point, is it not? God DOES know, at least if he is posited as an all-knowing God. There's simply no getting around it - an omnipotent God who creates a creation that he knows will go to hell can hardly be called a loving God.

You say my definition of "loving" is lacking. Easy to say, but I note you didn't support your comment.

To Tut -- No, I'm not a fatalist. I'm merely pointing out an obvious contradiction in the notion of God if he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. Free will, in this definition of God, does not exist. I define "loving", at least in part, as NOT sending someone to hell. The logic is inescapable.

To Wondergirl - Of course God has predestined us to our destination. Calvin understood this and came up with what I believe is the most horrendous understanding of God ever described. But, to give Calvin his due, he was logically consistent.

Theologians and philosophers from the beginning have grappled with this conundrum - to no avail, I might add.

It really is a simple logical exercise. To deny it is a reflection of what one wants to believe, and I understand that.

Blaise Pascal, among many others, confronted with the logical difficulties of "God", concluded that a "leap of faith" was necessary. As did Kierkegaard. And so many others over the years.

When anyone tries to fit God into their notions of rationality, they always wind up against a wall of confusion.

Better to just say "I don't know", go on believing, and leave it at that. Trying to fit God into a place where he cannot be "fitted" does nothing but allow others to deconstruct a false proposition.

Of course God has predestined us to our destination.

When anyone tries to fit God into their notions of rationality, they always wind up against a wall of confusion.
I rest my case.

I rest my case.

Your "case" was that God has NOT predestined us. Exactly what case are you resting?

Your "case" was that God has NOT predestined us. Exactly what case are you resting?
Stuffing God into a box.

Stuffing God into a box.

Ok. Ergo, you agree with my original post. Good for you.

Ok. Ergo, you agree with my original post. Good for you.
Ergo. No, I don't.

Ergo. No, I don't.

Then, what is your case?

Do you still believe in hell?

Do you still believe in hell?
What definition do you use?

What definition do you use?

Hell as in the Bible - a place of eternal punishment.

Hell as in the Bible - a place of eternal punishment.
Fire and brimstone too? Weeping and gnashing of teeth? (Those are also in the Bible)

Fire and brimstone too? Weeping and gnashing of teeth? (Those are also in the Bible)

I see you won't answer. You'll just keep quibbling and post silly responses. I'll look in tomorrow to see if you've answered.

I see you won't answer. You'll just keep quibbling and post silly responses. I'll look in tomorrow to see if you've answered.
Hell is where God is not.

"Eternal punishment" is a very broad term. Quibble? Silly responses? No, I'm trying to pin you down as to what you mean by that. Do you mean something like what's depicted in The Last Judgement (Sistine Chapel)? You don't like the "eternal" part? The "punishment" part? I'm guessing the former.

It could be anything of punishment, we are often given examples. For Excon perhaps he would be stuck at a BUSH family reunion. But seriously, yes, the bible gives us examples of it, plus the knowledge that it will be a place of great suffering.
So fire or now fire, a punishment is still just that.

[QUOTE=dwashbur;2454473]



To Tut -- No, I'm not a fatalist. I'm merely pointing out an obvious contradiction in the notion of God if he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. Free will, in this definition of God, does not exist. I define "loving", at least in part, as NOT sending someone to hell. The logic is inescapable.


Hi Athos,

What you say above is actually correct.

God is all-powerful, all-knowing, all- loving and there is evil in the world. You can have any three of these propositions together but you cannot have all four together. Therefore, in that respect you are correct.

However, there are some counter arguments.


Regards

Tut

What will God do with the evicted tenants?

Psalm 9:17
Romans 6:23
Psalm 37:9,10
Psalm 145:20
Zephaniah 1:17,18

Complete destruction, annihilation for the wicked.

Psalm 9:17
Romans 6:23
Psalm 37:9,10
Psalm 145:20
Zephaniah 1:17,18

Complete destruction, annihilation for the wicked.
That's not what Romans says.

Ah quite right Wgirl, I was thinking of 2 things at once when I posted that. It does say that "the wages sin pays is death" - not punishment in hell. That was my line of thought for that scripture. If one was to be punished forever in hell, they would be alive in some form which contradicts Romans 6:23.

Ah quite right Wgirl, I was thinking of 2 things at once when I posted that. It does say that "the wages sin pays is death" - not punishment in hell. That was my line of thought for that scripture. If one was to be punished forever in hell, they would be alive in some form which contradicts Romans 6:23.
The other verses are from the O.T. We all know that the Jews believe the grave is the last stop. Only the first reference in Psalms says that. The other verses refer to other things, but not eternal annihilation.

2 Tim 3:16,17 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." That includes the OT which is not merely a story about the Jews but tells so much more - God's purpose for mankind and the earth, prophesies that would later be fulfilled even in the NT, ones yet to be fulfilled, God's personality, lessons for us to learn from. It will help right hearted ones to compare scriptures from the OT with the NT in order to see the whole picture.

Is there such thing as hell?

Yes.


i was raised as a catholic

The Catholic Church teaches the existence of hell:
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1035 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1035.htm)


but i think maybe religions just use that to scare people to keep bringing them back to church.
unfortunately that's what priest feed of, the people!

Sounds as though you are either having or have had a crisis of faith.


i was also told that hell is just a state in your should that doesn't let you see God!

By whom and whom do you believe?


but what about the eternal fire?

The eternal fire is real.

It doesn't matter if the Catholic Church or ANY so called "church" preaches Hell or doesn't. The BIBLE teaches there is INDEED a hell.

As a born again Christian woman, my ONLY authority is the written word of God. IN that written word called the BIBLE... there is a heaven and there is a hell. GOD is not a man that he should lie.

[QUOTE=classyT;2459065]It doesn't matter if the Catholic Church or ANY so called "church" preaches Hell or doesn't. The BIBLE teaches there is INDEED a hell.

Hi classyT,

Glad you could join in. What you say above doesn't seem to be in dispute with many of us. The problem seems to be.'Yes, there is a hell but where is it located?' If hell were a physical place then there is every chance in the future of marking it on some type of map.

If it is, 'a state of being' ( as suggested by a famous Pope) then it doesn't have a physical location. It doesn't make it less 'real'. It just means that it doesn't have a location.

Regards

Tut

Jesus gave a vivid description of Hell when He gave the account of the rich man who went there.

And,

Death is not extermination, it is separation.

2 Tim 3:16,17 "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work."

No one is disputing that. But again, context is everything, and it's what you consistently ignore.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 states "For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten."

If the wicked suffered literally in hell then this scripture would have no meaning. Also compare Psalms 146:3,4 which tells us that in the day one perishes, his thoughts do perish. Literal torment requires feeling, something that according to these scriptures we don't have when we die (the dead are conscious of nothing at all).


The gift of God is eternal life. I think God wouldn't give someone eternal life if they aren't going to heaven.

The gift of God is eternal life. I think God wouldn't give someone eternal life if they aren't going to heaven.
God offers everyone eternal life, but some refuse it.

God offers everyone eternal life, but some refuse it.

I thought that Lutherans believed in pre-destination? As I understand the logic, God pre-ordained from eternity those who went to heaven. To double up, I thought it included the belief whereby God also pre-ordained those who went to the “not-so-good-place”? So, how can you choose to accept or reject God’s offer of eternal life? This seems to contradict some of your previous statements.

JoeT

I thought that Lutherans believed in pre-destination? As I understand the logic, God pre-ordained from eternity those who went to heaven. To double up, I thought it included the belief whereby God also pre-ordained those who went to the “not-so-good-place”? So, how can you choose to accept or reject God’s offer of eternal life? This seems to contradict some of your previous statements.

JoeT
It doesn't contradict any of my previous statements. (Please quote me if you find any.) Missouri-Synod Lutherans believe a person can reject God and salvation; they do not believe in predestination. I do not know what other Lutheran synods believe.

It doesn't contradict any of my previous statements. (Please quote me if you find any.) Missouri-Synod Lutherans believe a person can reject God and salvation; they do not believe in predestination. I do not know what other Lutheran synods believe.

Predestination is a lousy term. I prefer to say sovereignty; God is sovereign over his creation and nothing happens without at least his permission. Free-will is also a lousy term; I prefer to speak in terms of responsibility. Humans are responsible and answerable for their actions, including rejecting God and his way of reconciliation.

Somewhere off in the distance those two ideas reconcile. I don't pretend to understand it and don't even try. The reconciling of the two notions happens somewhere in the infinite mind of God, so if he explained it to me, I wouldn't be able to grasp it because I'm finite.

The only predestination that I can see in the Bible is this:
Every one who accepts Jesus as Savior and Lord is PREDESTINED to be conformed to His image. That is, at some point, every believer will become like Jesus in character.

It doesn't matter if the Catholic Church

To you. It matters quite a bit to me.


or ANY so called "church" preaches Hell or doesn't.

This person says she is a former Catholic so I was informing her the Catholic teaching.


The BIBLE teaches there is INDEED a hell.

There is no denying that.


As a born again Christian woman, my ONLY authority is the written word of God.

Even though the written word of God gives you many authorities:
Matthew 18:17
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

So, in saying that you accept only the Bible and no other authority, you are admitting that you don't even obey the Bible.


IN that written word called the BIBLE... there is a heaven and there is a hell. GOD is not a man that he should lie.

That is correct. And the Catholic Church teaches the Bible.

Sincerely,

De Maria

That is correct. And the Catholic Church teaches the Bible.

Sincerely,

De Maria


Not wise to parry with DeMaria. He knows the Bible as well as anyone on these pages - better, in my opinion.

But, for those who are honestly trying to get a better understanding of the Catholic faith, De Maria is the one to read.

It is inconceivable to me that in 2010 people still believe the fairy tales of religion. It's 40 years now since a man was whacking a golf ball around on the moon and chasing it in a cart, and people still believe this religion tripe?

It is inconceivable to me that in 2010 people still believe the fairy tales of religion. It's 40 years now since a man was whacking a golf ball around on the moon and chasing it in a cart, and people still believe this religion tripe?

Forty years since the moon golfing, and 50,000 years since mankind began to wonder about himself and his place in the universe. Surely golfing on the moon is not your ultimate answer.

It is inconceivable to me that in 2010 people still believe the fairy tales of religion. It's 40 years now since a man was whacking a golf ball around on the moon and chasing it in a cart, and people still believe this religion tripe?


I believe, I wouldn't call my faith 'fairy tales' and many were martyred for more than tripe in a moon crater.

JoeT

Being martyred for a childish fairy tale makes it all the more sad. Even the Neanderthals were not that stupid.

Gregory the 1V told his Cardinals: "it has served us well, this myth of Christ. We shall continue to exploit it to our advantage." I really feel sorry for you poor lost people who actually believe the childish Alice-in Wonderland and Dorothy- in-Oz fairy tales in a Bible rife with war, blood, murder and countless contradictions and which even a deranged schizo would flee from in horror.

Well golly gee willikers... if Gregory the IV told his Cardinals that Christ was a MYTH.. well it MUST be true. WOW!

FYI a relationship with Jesus Christ and believing in a HELL isn't a 'religion" . I wouldn't go so far as to call YOU stupid and compare you to a Neanderthal becauseI'm much to sweet spirited. :D but before you post on the Chrisitianity forum you MIGHT want to use some wisdom. The OP chose to post the question for CHRISTIANS views not views from
Gregory the IV ( brilliant as you may think him to be.)

Since you seem to like quotes and quoted old Greggy the IV.. think I will quote a famous guy named PAUL...

Paul said this to an assembly in ROME( speaking of guys like Gregory IV whoever the heck he was)

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, (romans 1:22)


:)

If the Catholic Church will drop some of its extra-Biblical dogma, non Catholic believers might regard it with more respect.

But, no, Catholic scholars will defend to the last ditch those dogmas that are mythical, to say the least.

I notice that they rely on the Catholic encyclopedia a lot more than they do the Bible, though.

As for you Atheists, enjoy the differences within the Christian community while you can. Every knee will bow before Jesus and acknowledge Him as LORD of all.

That includes you.

Classy T: Well Holy Cow. Jeepers... the only difference is that Pope Gregory 1V was Real, the woman-hater St. Paul was and is a Myth. and the book of Romans you quote from is out of the biggest swindle in History... the Bible. It is a sad pity that a whole life is wasted embracing a book that espouses hate, jealousy ("I am a jealous God") wars, slaughter, racism , slavery, child-killing, and a book of Revelation which sees a stoned, spaced out, hashish-puffing fanatic stranded alone on some island and hallucinating about Apocalypses, Armageddon's and eerie ghostly figures riding horses through the clouds, and culminating in yet another slaughter-house war in which everyone is wiped out except those who believe in "God". By the way, next time you see Santa Clause say hello to him for me, willya? Mucho gracias, muchacho.

If you wrote and spelled and expressed your pov better than you do, I might even think about what you say and take you seriously, lobstertrap, but 'tis not to be.

If you wrote and spelled and expressed your pov better than you do, I might even think about what you say and take you seriously, lobstertrap, but 'tis not to be.

I can't bring myself to take him/her/it seriously in English or Spanish:


Mucho gracias, muchacho.

It's muchas gracias, and if you looked at the profile you'd see that ClassyT is a muchacha, definitely not a muchacho.

And with that, I decline to feed the troll any further.

If the Catholic Church will drop some of its extra-Biblical dogma, non Catholic believers might regard it with more respect.
Maybe we should take a vote on which of Christ’s words we should drop from our faith? We should take on a new faith founded on ourselves and how others perceive Christians (a.k.a. Catholics). Maybe after handing over His Kingdom on earth to Peter and his successors we should rise up and force all priests to marry – this will make Protestants ‘like’ Catholics. In fact, Catholics should turn over their faith to schismatics, this will prove the depth and breadth of the Catholic faith.

You've got to be kidding!


But, no, Catholic scholars will defend to the last ditch those dogmas that are mythical, to say the least.

‘Mythical’? You hold scripture to be ‘Mythical’? Your argument is for Protestants to ‘like Catholics’ is to commit apostasy? When was the last time you visited earth?


I notice that they rely on the Catholic encyclopedia a lot more than they do the Bible, though.

I guess what a blind man sees tortures him with the phantoms found in his ignorance of light?

JoeT

Yes, so sorry about the poor Spanish. We don't have 25,000,000 illegal Hispanics in our beautiful country, so I admit to being a little lax on the language.

Wondergirl agrees : I was being sarcastic. It was the troll's dessert.

I knew you were being sarcastic. I decided to continue in that vein :D