There is no hell.
- Thread starter TerraMGP
- Start date
On what knowledge do you base this on? For all you know, the moon could be made of cheese.space_oddity said:
alright, so which smarty pants thought that it would be fun to create a place of eternal suffering?xitel said:
Seriously, this makes the Church even worse.
Thats actually only one interpretation of a passage of scripture.seydaman said:
Matt 16:17-19
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in Heaven.
18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be tbound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
While some interpret it the way he does, I don't see it like that. It is actually in reference to salvation, in which he is saying that it is up to the disciples, and later to Christians to guide and lead people to Christ who is the path to heaven.
As well the idea that the Bishopric of Rome as started by Saint Peter continued through the line of popes is pure interpretation. Similarly the Protestants have no claim on that statement as it applies in its purest form to the dioces of Rome and those who fall under it (Catholics).
it's really simple. Hell is a concept created by humans, just like heaven, just like God. There are politics at every stage of "civilized" man. Those that take power when others cannot or don't want to think for themselves. Those in power need tools to keep the general mass obeying. (in this case) First God was the thing to fear, powerful, cruel, and destructive. Then they wanted to give the unwashed masses hope instead of fear so they don't all kill themselves. so God was then good. But they still needed something to get people to obey, So now came the birth of Hell. In the end, the truth hurts that's why it's the truth. So Jesus was a salesman, the Church is a business, and ignorance is eternal. If you wish to live in ignorance from now until your dying breath that is fine, just don't try to recruit and I'll be happy 
You know I find it amazing that NOBODY paid attention to anything but the title, The atheists still go 'I don't beleive in either' rather than discussing the actual TOPIC of the thread which is the huge lie perpetuated in christian theology about hell, while the christians just keep saying 'if there is a heaven there is a hell' without reading the links I put up.
Could someone please READ the material I put in the thread and get an understanding of what I am talking about? Please?
Could someone please READ the material I put in the thread and get an understanding of what I am talking about? Please?
I've sort of come up with a reason I don't think I'll ever "go to hell"
If there is a benevolent and omnipotent creator... he/she/it cannot possibly fault me for my skepticism, after all, they made me a skeptic didn't they? Isn't it part of their plan? And they certainly aren't providing me with any good proof that meets my standards. If this isn't the case, they can't possibly be omnipotent.
Similarly if this being isn't benevolent, I feel perfectly comfortable telling he/she/it to fuck off and die. I won't worship a sky bully "just because." Basically if this "god" sends me to "hell" fine, because one should never just bow to arbirtary authority.
In the end though I don't think that an Omnipotent God exists in a form humans can understand and I seriously doubt that a "watchmaker" god will condemn anyone to undying punishment.
If there is a benevolent and omnipotent creator... he/she/it cannot possibly fault me for my skepticism, after all, they made me a skeptic didn't they? Isn't it part of their plan? And they certainly aren't providing me with any good proof that meets my standards. If this isn't the case, they can't possibly be omnipotent.
Similarly if this being isn't benevolent, I feel perfectly comfortable telling he/she/it to fuck off and die. I won't worship a sky bully "just because." Basically if this "god" sends me to "hell" fine, because one should never just bow to arbirtary authority.
In the end though I don't think that an Omnipotent God exists in a form humans can understand and I seriously doubt that a "watchmaker" god will condemn anyone to undying punishment.
I posted this in a different thread on here quite a while back, in the ask a theologin thread I believe.
Ok, here is my answer to the question about Hell.
The following information was taken from Reasoning from the Scriptures, published by Jehovah's Witnesses. Placed in spoilers as its rather long. This is directly from the book, as I mess things up when I try to paraphrase, and this has all the citations in it.
Ok, here is my answer to the question about Hell.
The following information was taken from Reasoning from the Scriptures, published by Jehovah's Witnesses. Placed in spoilers as its rather long. This is directly from the book, as I mess things up when I try to paraphrase, and this has all the citations in it.
Does the Bible indicate whether the dead experience pain?
Eccl. 9:5, 10: ?The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol,* the place to which you are going.? (If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.) (*?Sheol,? AS, RS, NE, JB; ?the grave,? KJ, Kx; ?hell,? Dy; ?the world of the dead,? TEV.)
Ps. 146:4: ?His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts* do perish.? (*?Thoughts,? KJ, 145:4 in Dy; ?schemes,? JB; ?plans,? RS, TEV.)
Does the Bible indicate that the soul survives the death of the body?
Ezek. 18:4: ?The soul* that is sinning?it itself will die.? (*?Soul,? KJ, Dy, RS, NE, Kx; ?the man,? JB; ?the person,? TEV.)
?The concept of ?soul,? meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, separate from the ?body,? . . . does not exist in the Bible.??La Parole de Dieu (Paris, 1960), Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary, France, p. 128.
?Although the Hebrew word nefesh [in the Hebrew Scriptures] is frequently translated as ?soul,? it would be inaccurate to read into it a Greek meaning. Nefesh . . . is never conceived of as operating separately from the body. In the New Testament the Greek word psyche is often translated as ?soul? but again should not be readily understood to have the meaning the word had for the Greek philosophers. It usually means ?life,? or ?vitality,? or, at times, ?the self.???The Encyclopedia Americana (1977), Vol. 25, p. 236.
Is there eternal punishment for the wicked?
Matt. 25:46, KJ: ?These shall go away into everlasting punishment [?lopping off,? Int; Greek, ko′la‧sin]: but the righteous into life eternal.? (The Emphatic Diaglott reads ?cutting-off? instead of ?punishment.? A footnote states: ?Kolasin . . . is derived from kolazoo, which signifies, 1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune. 2. To restrain, to repress. . . . 3. To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment;?hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death. See 2 Thess. 1.9.?)
2 Thess. 1:9, RS: ?They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction* and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.? (*?Eternal ruin,? NAB, NE; ?lost eternally,? JB; ?condemn them to eternal punishment,? Kx; ?eternal punishment in destruction,? Dy.)
Jude 7, KJ: ?Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.? (The fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah ceased burning thousands of years ago. But the effect of that fire has been lasting; the cities have not been rebuilt. God?s judgment, however, was against not merely those cities but also their wicked inhabitants. What happened to them is a warning example. At Luke 17:29, Jesus says that they were ?destroyed?; Jude 7 shows that the destruction was eternal.)
What is the origin of the teaching of hellfire?
In ancient Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs the ?nether world . . . is pictured as a place full of horrors, and is presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness.? (The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898, Morris Jastrow, Jr., p. 581) Early evidence of the fiery aspect of Christendom?s hell is found in the religion of ancient Egypt. (The Book of the Dead, New Hyde Park, N.Y., 1960, with introduction by E. A. Wallis Budge, pp. 144, 149, 151, 153, 161) Buddhism, which dates back to the 6th century B.C.E., in time came to feature both hot and cold hells. (The Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 14, p. 68) Depictions of hell portrayed in Catholic churches in Italy have been traced to Etruscan roots.?La civiltà etrusca (Milan, 1979), Werner Keller, p. 389.
Why is there confusion as to what the Bible says about hell?
?Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.??The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81.
Translators have allowed their personal beliefs to color their work instead of being consistent in their rendering of the original-language words. For example: (1) The King James Version rendered she?ohl′ as ?hell,? ?the grave,? and ?the pit?; hai′des is therein rendered both ?hell? and ?grave?; ge′en‧na is also translated ?hell.? (2) Today?s English Version transliterates hai′des as ?Hades? and also renders it as ?hell? and ?the world of the dead.? But besides rendering ?hell? from hai′des it uses that same translation for ge′en‧na. (3) The Jerusalem Bible transliterates hai′des six times, but in other passages it translates it as ?hell? and as ?the underworld.? It also translates ge′en‧na as ?hell,? as it does hai′des in two instances. Thus the exact meanings of the original-language words have been obscured.
Eccl. 9:5, 10: ?The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol,* the place to which you are going.? (If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.) (*?Sheol,? AS, RS, NE, JB; ?the grave,? KJ, Kx; ?hell,? Dy; ?the world of the dead,? TEV.)
Ps. 146:4: ?His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts* do perish.? (*?Thoughts,? KJ, 145:4 in Dy; ?schemes,? JB; ?plans,? RS, TEV.)
Does the Bible indicate that the soul survives the death of the body?
Ezek. 18:4: ?The soul* that is sinning?it itself will die.? (*?Soul,? KJ, Dy, RS, NE, Kx; ?the man,? JB; ?the person,? TEV.)
?The concept of ?soul,? meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, separate from the ?body,? . . . does not exist in the Bible.??La Parole de Dieu (Paris, 1960), Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary, France, p. 128.
?Although the Hebrew word nefesh [in the Hebrew Scriptures] is frequently translated as ?soul,? it would be inaccurate to read into it a Greek meaning. Nefesh . . . is never conceived of as operating separately from the body. In the New Testament the Greek word psyche is often translated as ?soul? but again should not be readily understood to have the meaning the word had for the Greek philosophers. It usually means ?life,? or ?vitality,? or, at times, ?the self.???The Encyclopedia Americana (1977), Vol. 25, p. 236.
Is there eternal punishment for the wicked?
Matt. 25:46, KJ: ?These shall go away into everlasting punishment [?lopping off,? Int; Greek, ko′la‧sin]: but the righteous into life eternal.? (The Emphatic Diaglott reads ?cutting-off? instead of ?punishment.? A footnote states: ?Kolasin . . . is derived from kolazoo, which signifies, 1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune. 2. To restrain, to repress. . . . 3. To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment;?hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death. See 2 Thess. 1.9.?)
2 Thess. 1:9, RS: ?They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction* and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.? (*?Eternal ruin,? NAB, NE; ?lost eternally,? JB; ?condemn them to eternal punishment,? Kx; ?eternal punishment in destruction,? Dy.)
Jude 7, KJ: ?Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.? (The fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah ceased burning thousands of years ago. But the effect of that fire has been lasting; the cities have not been rebuilt. God?s judgment, however, was against not merely those cities but also their wicked inhabitants. What happened to them is a warning example. At Luke 17:29, Jesus says that they were ?destroyed?; Jude 7 shows that the destruction was eternal.)
What is the origin of the teaching of hellfire?
In ancient Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs the ?nether world . . . is pictured as a place full of horrors, and is presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness.? (The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898, Morris Jastrow, Jr., p. 581) Early evidence of the fiery aspect of Christendom?s hell is found in the religion of ancient Egypt. (The Book of the Dead, New Hyde Park, N.Y., 1960, with introduction by E. A. Wallis Budge, pp. 144, 149, 151, 153, 161) Buddhism, which dates back to the 6th century B.C.E., in time came to feature both hot and cold hells. (The Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 14, p. 68) Depictions of hell portrayed in Catholic churches in Italy have been traced to Etruscan roots.?La civiltà etrusca (Milan, 1979), Werner Keller, p. 389.
Why is there confusion as to what the Bible says about hell?
?Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.??The Encyclopedia Americana (1942), Vol. XIV, p. 81.
Translators have allowed their personal beliefs to color their work instead of being consistent in their rendering of the original-language words. For example: (1) The King James Version rendered she?ohl′ as ?hell,? ?the grave,? and ?the pit?; hai′des is therein rendered both ?hell? and ?grave?; ge′en‧na is also translated ?hell.? (2) Today?s English Version transliterates hai′des as ?Hades? and also renders it as ?hell? and ?the world of the dead.? But besides rendering ?hell? from hai′des it uses that same translation for ge′en‧na. (3) The Jerusalem Bible transliterates hai′des six times, but in other passages it translates it as ?hell? and as ?the underworld.? It also translates ge′en‧na as ?hell,? as it does hai′des in two instances. Thus the exact meanings of the original-language words have been obscured.
I also didn't think early Judaism really had an "afterlife" so to speak of, considering that they, along with other religions from their regions thought Gods actively walked the earth.
They did, it was just an afterlife that was hidden from us. I may be wrong but my understanding is that they believed everyone is there when they die and the goal in this life was to live it well so you would not have regrets in the next life.PedroSteckecilo said:
Having actually read the first article, it makes some good points:TerraMGP said:
[*]The Old Testament term sheol really means "the grave", not "hell." This is a fault with the KJV, as most modern translations do not make this switch. Same with "Easter" for pascha.
[*]The "unquenchable fire" used as a description of hell is unquenchable because it is divine fire, like the burning bush, not because it lasts for eternity.
However, I disagree with its interpretation of Luke 12:4-5:
To say this refers to a nation or an idea is an unbelievable stretch; it clearly refers to a single person's fate after their death. In fact, this destruction is specifically being contrasted with the earthly destruction spoken of in Jeremiah, which was a similar punishment by God for sins, but accomplished by men and clearly not unending torment.
His idea of Gehenna as unambiguously referring to a place is inconsistent with the construction "the Gehenna of fire", but that's just the beginning of the problems.
The entire argument in general is predicated upon the assumption that the New Testament prophesies the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and not the final judgment of the "Day of the Lord" from earlier prophecies. This is not a settled question by any means, and I happen to disagree. Revelation 20:11-15 is very clear IMHO that it is referring to an individual moral judgment - "each according to his works" - rather than a collective judgment of the kind God is famous for doing on earth. His treatment of Isaiah 30:33 makes the same error.
He is also begging the question in some places. In the discussion on Isaiah 66:24, he uses the New Testament to prove the meaning of the Old - a specific national destruction. Earlier, he used "there is no mention of hell in the OT" to arrive at this interpretation of the NT. Isaiah 66 is actually a counterargument, not a support to his thesis, because "their worm will not die and their fire will not be quenched" is clearly poetic language describing the duration of fire.
Beyond that, the strongest argument for the popular conception of hell is in Luke 16, the rich man and Lazarus. This guy is hilariously wrong about this passage, but the post is long enough already.
tl;dr version: Christianity actually does teach about Hell. Don't believe the hype.