• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Was Hell a Mistake?

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Both Christianity and Islam hold out the threat of eternal torture in hell as a reason to adopt their religion. But was hell a mistake?

Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions.

Instead, all that matters to them is they are saved (and that, of course, homosexuals and folks who've had abortions "get what's coming to them"). Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
Both Christianity and Islam hold out the threat of eternal torture in hell as a reason to adopt their religion. But was hell a mistake?
Since, according to Catholic teaching, the punishments of hell are divinely revealed revelation, the teaching of such cannot be mistaken.

Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions.
Matthew 7:21-23

Instead, all that matters to them is they are saved (and that, of course, homosexuals and folks who've had abortions "get what's coming to them"). Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?
The notion of being "saved" is alien to Catholic teaching. Salvation is guaranteed by final perseverance in a state of grace.
 
Last edited:

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?

By “them”, you mean the teachings of eternal torment?

They certainly do! Teaching “God is love” (which the Bible does say), then turn around and teach “God burns people forever” (which the Bible does not literally say) — twisted.

BTW, “tormented” is not “burned”; different word.
The torment is actually related to being confined in a jail. Back in Jesus’ day, jailers were actually referred to as tormentors:

**But what of Revelation 20:10 about the Devil’s being “tormented day and night for ever and ever”? In Jesus’ time jailers were called “tormenters.” So when the Scripture says he will be “tormented day and night for ever and ever” in the “lake of fire,” it means that the Devil will be restrained in a never-ending detention [or state] of destruction. Indeed, it will be “for ever and ever.”**

— Excerpt from Is Hell Hot? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Another source:
Thesaurus
Tormentors (3 Occurrences)
...Tormentors (3 Occurrences). Matthew 18:34 His lord was angry, and delivered him
to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him. ...
/t/tormentors.htm - 7k
Tormentor (1 Occurrence)
... Probably the imprisonment itself was regarded as "torment" (as it doubtless was),
and the "tormentors" need mean nothing more than jailers. Burton Scott Easton. ...
/t/tormentor.htm - 7k

Owing (7 Occurrences)
... (DBY YLT). Matthew 18:34 And his lord being angry delivered him to the
tormentors till he paid all that was owing to him. (DBY YLT). ...
/o/owing.htm - 8k

Wroth (65 Occurrences)
... (KJV ASV WBS YLT). Matthew 18:34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the
tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. (KJV ASV WBS YLT). ...
/w/wroth.htm - 26k

Torments (1 Occurrence)


From:Topical Bible: Tormentors
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
That type of hell is cultural. I never heard people talk about hell, or satan, growing up.

Obviously hell is bad, however that fear of hell thing, not familiar with it.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Both Christianity and Islam hold out the threat of eternal torture in hell as a reason to adopt their religion. But was hell a mistake?

Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions.

Instead, all that matters to them is they are saved (and that, of course, homosexuals and folks who've had abortions "get what's coming to them"). Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?

I was never too afraid. Although I have several friends, who were at one time terrified! When they studied the Bible with JWs though, they were so relieved to learn the truth about it.

Sounds like I made this up, but I didn’t.
 

12jtartar

Active Member
Premium Member
Both Christianity and Islam hold out the threat of eternal torture in hell as a reason to adopt their religion. But was hell a mistake?

Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions.

Instead, all that matters to them is they are saved (and that, of course, homosexuals and folks who've had abortions "get what's coming to them"). Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?

Sunstone,
Many Bibles have substituted the Word Hell, where the Bible has Hades, Gehenna, pit, even Tartarus. This was done, most likely to try to frighten people to join a certain religious Denomination. They, who have changed the words to Hell, have put a different meaning to certain words as Hades. Hades, in the Greek Scriptures, means the same thing as Sheol, in the Hebrew Scriptures. This can be determined by a comparison of the Scriptures, Psalms 16:10, where Sheol is used in the Hebrew language, and Acts 2:27,31, Hades is used for the same Scripture. These Scriptures tell that Jesus, the Christ being in Hades for parts of three days. This alone seems to prove that the original meaning of Sheol, or Hades did not have a meaning of torture, torment, for Jesus was perfect, never sinned, so Jesus would never have gone to a place of torment, even for parts of three days.
If we consider the case of Job, at Job 14:13-15, where Job is asking God to hide him in Sheol until His wrath was past, and then resurrect him, because as Job said, God would have a desire to see Job again. Job, surely would not be asking to go to a place, that would be even worse than the torment he was already in with boils all over his body, Job 2:7,8.
The term Sheol, Hades was the common grave of mankind, where a person was, it seems, out of existence, except in the memory of God, Who could resurrect him again, by creating a body, just as he had, and then putting his complete Memory Bank in his mind. This would allow a person to remember, and know exactly who he was before his death, Self Recognition.
According to the Bible, when a person is dead he has no feeling, no thoughts, he, it seems, is out of existence, until resurrected, Ecclesiastes 3:18-20. These Scriptures tell the same thing as Genesis 3:19. Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10 tells us the same thing, that a person who has died has no knowledge or feeling. The same thing is recorded at Psalms 146:3,4.
Several Bibles use the word Gehenna, where Hell is sometimes used. Gehenna was used by Jesus, because Gehenna was a place over the Southern, and part Western wall in Jerusalem, where trash, garbage was thrown. It was kept burning all the time, with sulfur thrown in to make it very hot, to burn up everything completely. Gehenna was used by Jesus as a place that enemies of God would go, from which there was NO resurrection. Gehenna was another name for the Lake of Fire and Sulfur, The Second Death, Revelation 20:14,15. Notice that things not animal, non living things are also to be thrown into The Lake of Fire and Sulfur. This shows us that these thing will never be seen again, just as anything thrown into Gehenna. Jesus used this term several times to impress the importance of listening to his teachings, Matthew 5:21,22, 23:33, Mark 9:42-48.
At 2Peter 2:4, some Bibles use the word Hell for the word Tartarus, which is a place of confinement for only angels, not for mankind, 2Peter 2:4, Jude 6.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
These are good replies so far, but most of them fail to address the question posed in the OP: Would religions be better off without the people who only believe in them in order to escape hell?
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
I believe the "blaming satan", idea, is cultural, as well. There was probably some god that got incorporated into xianity, who was a deceiver.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Both Christianity and Islam hold out the threat of eternal torture in hell as a reason to adopt their religion. But was hell a mistake?

Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions.

Instead, all that matters to them is they are saved (and that, of course, homosexuals and folks who've had abortions "get what's coming to them"). Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?
There are hell realms in Buddhism, but they are more like a realm of consciousness where there is much suffering and it is difficult to find the way to end the suffering due to strong attachments or delusion. Buddha taught the ending of suffering, and the reason for following Buddhadharma. Dismissing the humane aspects of the dharma will only lead to prolonged suffering.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Both Christianity and Islam hold out the threat of eternal torture in hell as a reason to adopt their religion. But was hell a mistake?

Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions.

Instead, all that matters to them is they are saved (and that, of course, homosexuals and folks who've had abortions "get what's coming to them"). Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?
With recruitment of followers as their objective, the choice of Heaven or Hell in an afterlife was a stroke of genius by the founders of Christianity. It combines the motivational power of both reward (Heaven) and punishment (Hell) to coerce belief from children and other naive minds. At the same time, it sets up the faithful as members of an elite group favored by God which appeals to the arrogant side of human nature.

The problem with using the reward and punishment method to manipulate others is that, if they're not naive and they realize what you're trying to do to them, the effectiveness is lost and they get angry.

Another problem is that the Christian version of God had to be portrayed as being an enforcer...much like an arrogant human king...allowing his children to suffer in Hell for eternity if he's not worshiped as instructed.

Yet another problem is that the Christian God loves conditionally (I'll love you if you please me) while much of the world is realizing that genuine love is always unconditional. If a Loving Creator exists, it's hard to imagine it incapable of unconditional love.
 
Last edited:

KT Shamim

Ahmadiyya Muslim Community
Both Christianity and Islam hold out the threat of eternal torture in hell as a reason to adopt their religion. But was hell a mistake?

Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions.

Instead, all that matters to them is they are saved (and that, of course, homosexuals and folks who've had abortions "get what's coming to them"). Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?
Several statements made here that need to be clarified.

1. In Islam hell is not eternal
[Qur'an 11:107-108] "As for those who will prove unfortunate, they shall be in the Fire, wherein there shall be for them sighing and sobbing,
Abiding therein so long as the heavens and the earth endure, excepting what thy Lord may will. Surely, thy Lord does bring about what He pleases."
[Qur'an 11:109] "But as for those who will prove fortunate, they shall be in Heaven; abiding therein so long as the heavens and the earth endure, excepting what thy Lord may will — a gift that shall not be cut off."

Concept of eternal hell is mostly a fault of scholars of Islam and people are right to question it.
In Islam Hell is sort of a painful surgery ... a long painful surgery but not eternal. I can quote some other evidences too if you'd like.

2. Is Hell a reason to adopt Islam?
Yes ... it is one reason. Another reason is heaven.
But the ultimate reason is that we should be grateful to our Creator and Benefactor and that it is His right that we must worship Him.

3. Hypocrites of any religion can go to hell as much as disbelievers. So being a "Muslim" doesn't guarantee you anything until God considers you a true believer. Only God can make that judgement call. The way you present it it would definitely be a corrupting influence.

4. It is possible that followers of other religions (i.e. not Islam) due to their circumstances end up in heaven.
[Qur'an 2:63] "Surely, the Believers, and the Jews, and the Christians and the Sabians — whichever party from among these truly believes in Allah and the Last Day and does good deeds — shall have their reward with their Lord, and no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve."

It must be clarified though that rejection due to ignorance is not the same as outright rejection despite the clarity of the truth of a Prophet of God has been revealed. i.e. we should not test God's mercy rather we must always be looking for the truth.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
30 jun 2018 stvdv 014 26
Both Christianity and Islam hold out the threat of eternal torture in hell as a reason to adopt their religion. But was hell a mistake?

Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions.

Instead, all that matters to them is they are saved (and that, of course, homosexuals and folks who've had abortions "get what's coming to them"). Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?
Okay: Out of fear for hell they adopt religion. That's a valid reason. I eat every day to avoid dying.

a) Hell is real [created by God]
Was hell a mistake? Then not, unless you doubt God. Then remaining two questions make not much sense. If God made mistake better through out all.

b) Hell is unreal [invented by the religion themselves to control others]
Would religions be better of without? Religions invented it themselves to control the masses: Still there, so religions are satisfied with it
Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support? No, because it is invented by the religions themselves = corrupt at the base already.

c) Hell is unreal [invented by others then the religion themselves]
That seems strange to me. Then religion must be quite gullible. I would go that "hell" was invented by themselves not by outsiders
 
Last edited:

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Both Christianity and Islam hold out the threat of eternal torture in hell as a reason to adopt their religion. But was hell a mistake?

Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions.

Instead, all that matters to them is they are saved (and that, of course, homosexuals and folks who've had abortions "get what's coming to them"). Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?
hell is definitely a mistake.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
With recruitment of followers as their objective, the choice of Heaven or Hell in an afterlife was a stroke of genius by the founders of Christianity. It combines the motivational power of both reward (Heaven) and punishment (Hell) to coerce belief from children and other naive minds. At the same time, it sets up the faithful as members of an elite group favored by God which appeals to the arrogant side of human nature.

The problem with using the reward and punishment method to manipulate others is that, if they're not naive and they realize what you're trying to do to them, the effectiveness is lost and they get angry.

Another problem is that the Christian version of God had to be portrayed as being an enforcer...much like an arrogant human king...allowing his children to suffer in Hell for eternity if he's not worshiped as instructed.

Yet another problem is that the Christian God loves conditionally (I'll love you if you please me) while much of the world is realizing that genuine love is always unconditional. If a Loving Creator exists, it's hard to imagine it incapable of unconditional love.

Do people who join or stay with a religion out of fear of hell tend to corrupt that religion?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Do people who join or stay with a religion out of fear of hell tend to corrupt that religion?
If we assume that timid people, those more susceptible to fear, would be more likely to qualify for the group that interests you, I'd guess the answer would be "no." I don't associate timid people as being more corrupt than others. However, they might be followers, more easily led to act morally or immorally..
 
Top