What kind of a god would make a place like Hell/Hellfire?

[YmirGF]

The problem is that you seem to think that our ancestors were very ignorant and unintelligent beings who were fooled into a set of beliefs or way of life simply by the threat of an "imaginary" fiery place unless they obeyed.

Correct me i'f I'm wrong in but it seems rather odd and immature to think that they could be fooled into just about anything by almost anyone.

Well, the people of the Arabian peninsula were hardly the leaders of the intellectual world, Gharib. They were little more than backwater bumpkins, to be generous. That does not mean they were stupid, but it does mean that they would be putting in the hands of a charismatic fellow like Muhammad. Aside from that you are pretending the deep superstition of early peoples away as if they were analytical as we are today. They were not. It wasn't so much that Muhammad came up with the ideas of the Hellfire, but he certainly slobbered all over accounts of it that must have chilled listeners to the bone. My guess is many hedged their bets that he might actually know what he was talking about. The words of P.T. Barnum seem especially appropriate here and are just as true today - if that help to make you feel better.

You didn't understand the example or my explanation.

It was a crap example and a barely cogent explanation. Best move on.

 

[Glaurung]

The other day I burned my finger (only slightly, nothing serious) and I was spiraled down the rabbit hole of "what if" propelled by the idea that fire and burning is probably one of the few things that elicits an instantaneous reaction from our bodies. On contact, our bodies instantly recoil due to the instantaneous and lingering pain of a burn. That got me thinking, most human animals could not inflict that kind of lingering pain on others, aside from horrid things like Napalm used during conflicts, of course. Beyond that though, what kind of a being could stand by and watch some of its supposed creations writhing in pain for more than a few short moments - let alone, eternity?

Any thoughts justifying this would be appreciated.

At least as far as Catholicism (and I'd wager Orthodoxy too) teach, the question presupposes an assumption that is not correct. That Hell is a punishment actively imposed on human beings by God.

Hell is the freely chosen rejection of God's presence. Since God is the source of our eternal joy, it follows that those who reject God are barred forever from that joy. Without God there is nothing but pain, misery and hatred.

Hell exists because God does not impose himself on us. Hell is painful because although we are free to reject God and his terms of salvation, God is nonetheless the purpose for which we were created. We cannot be happy without him. Hell is a mercy, as those who are so enamoured with sin that they would forever reject God could never exist directly in the presence of God without far greater misery.

As we learn from St Faustina.
“I received a deeper understanding of divine mercy. Only that soul who wants it will be damned, for God condemns no one.” (1452)

If you think that no one would choose to be damned, then you completely underestimate the stubboness of human beings. I see many people who resent and deride God in life, why would death suddenly change such a mind?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

The whole hell is not very old in the Abrahamic religions, and didn't exist 300 years before Jesus.

The Old Testament books don't have hell or anything resembling that Christian NT literature and belief.

The place where the wicked are punished, don't exist until the Hellenistic period, when some Jews were influenced by religions of the Greeks and Egyptians, in which the departed shades were judged. The hell that later showed up in the gospels and Revelation were clearly influenced by the pre-Christian writings, like the two books of Enoch.

Enoch, the one who supposedly walked with God, and later vanished in his 365th year. In these two books of Enoch, Enoch was described as the Scribe Of God, directly learning the prophecies from God, that even god's archangels were clueless of.

In the second book of Enoch (known as 2 Enoch or the Secret Book of Enoch), in which the ascribed author - Enoch - was said to have ascended the 10 heavens, witnessed the strange wonders of these heavens, before returning to his home, before he disappeared, but not before giving the volumes of books to his son.

In this book, he described the 2nd heaven where sinful angels were punished (2 Enoch 7), and it was dark heaven, blacker than the nights on earth.

And in the 5th heaven (2 Enoch 18), is another place where God keep chief fallen angels known as the Watchers in prison and tormented. The Watchers were the ones had taken mortal women as wives and sired giants (Nephilim). The Nephilim (described more fully in 1 Enoch, in the first volume known as the Book of Watchers, in which good archangels waged wars against the fallen Watchers) was the reason why the flood occurred in Noah's days (to destroy the Nephilim), a flood that God had predicted (2 Enoch 34) when Enoch met God in the 10th heaven (2 Enoch 22).

It is the 3rd heaven, which was divided into two separate parts, which is of interests, relating to hell. In one half of the 3rd heaven, it was the garden of Eden, but on the other side, is where mortals, not angels, were punished for their sins.

The 2nd, 3rd and 5th heavens were the Hellenistic Jew versions of the Greek Tartarus or Egyptian Duat. This is where Christians got their idea about hell, from the books attributed to the patriarch Enoch. the books were influential enough that the epistle of Jude stated that Enoch had some prophecies (prophecies that were obviously in the two books of Enoch).

At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
(Daniel 12:1-2)

 

[gnostic]

At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
(Daniel 12:1-2)

And your point, Swinger?

Reading the quote, and the rest of the chapter (12). It sounds more rhetoric than a prophecy...but then again, all the prophecies I have seen in the bible, and scriptures of other religions, are just that - rhetoric.

And it still don't give me the same image of hell portrayed in the New Testament.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

And your point, Swinger?

Reading the quote, and the rest of the chapter (12). It sounds more rhetoric than a prophecy...but then again, all the prophecies I have seen in the bible, and scriptures of other religions, are just that - rhetoric.

And it still don't give me the same image of hell portrayed in the New Testament.

So when it doesn't fit your claim of 'no Hell in the old testament', it just becomes rhetoric?

 

[viole]

But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book.
(Daniel 12:1-2)

I seriously hope He uses a data base system. I also see some problems if someone is called John Smith, or something.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Scott C.]

Hell is just the scare tactics to make you believe in the invented solution.

My church differs from other Christian churches on the concept of Hell. Hell is temporary and serves a reformative purpose to help the person to grow and to prepare for a degree of Heaven. It's also not literal fire or burning. It's sorrow for having separated oneself from the presence of God. It's living without God's light and presence.

Also, it's not a scam or scare tactic. Members of my church believe in it and our scriptures teach it. Even if we're wrong, that doesn't make it a scam. There would have to be intentional deceit for gain, which there is not.

 

[Scott C.]

I seriously hope He uses a data base system. I also see some problems if someone is called John Smith, or something.

Me thinks a db is far too pedestrian for the Lord of the universe.

 

[viole]

Me thinks a db is far too pedestrian for the Lord of the universe.

Yet, still much less pedestrian than a book. You might run the risk of sending to Heaven, or to Hell, the wrong guy.

People called J. Smith, for instance. There are so many of them.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Acim]

what kind of a being could stand by and watch some of its supposed creations writhing in pain for more than a few short moments - let alone, eternity?

I've got to take off my gnostic hat to reply to this. For my understanding is Heaven is here and now. To whatever degree that is not realized, experienced - is the corresponding to degree which hell is being experienced, but arguably considered 'not all that bad.'

As I was reading through the thread, the thought of cremation kept occurring to me. So, clearly in the so called afterlife, it couldn't possibly be the body we had on earth in this alleged place call hell. Otherwise, we could tell the being in charge that full burning of the body has already occurred. Sorry. Yeah, I know that disappoints you, but perhaps you could make another body for me to 'live' in and use that to torture me for eternity.

Also, just the idea that we seemingly would have no issue with cremation of a dead body seems like it relates to what is being asked for consideration. Or all the things that are possibly done with a dead body, are all things that seemingly we have no issues with, or those of us that do are very rare.

So, not only is afterlife a vast assumption (as is no afterlife), but the notion that we'd have a body there and that it would be subject to all things we currently understand about physical reality, would be a really enormous assumption. So much that I don't see how it would be deemed 'afterlife' but just life continuing.

I wish I could speak more on this, but it strikes me as entertaining nonsense to believe Creator upholds separation in existence and that is somehow sensible. I'm barely able to make sense of it in the here and now, and to take the body out of the equation makes it very challenging, or I would argue not possible. I could possibly understand a sense of projection working in the afterlife as it works here in physical existence, but again, wouldn't see it as vastly different from a physical existence where everyone is separate from everyone/everything and God is nowhere to be found.

What kind of being could stand by and watch creations writhing in pain (of separation from God) for more than a few short moments? I dunno, perhaps all of us? In every moment where we pretend that separation from God is reality and that you have to 'earn a living' and if you get out of line you deserve punishment, being locked away for the rest of your life, and so on and so forth.

Or maybe just dentists.

 

[Scott C.]

Yet, still much less pedestrian than a book. You might run the risk of sending to Heaven, or to Hell, the wrong guy.

People called J. Smith, for instance. There are so many of them.

So if you're a bad person, you would want a common name. Yet, if you're good, you want a unique name.

 

[Etritonakin]

The other day I burned my finger (only slightly, nothing serious) and I was spiraled down the rabbit hole of "what if" propelled by the idea that fire and burning is probably one of the few things that elicits an instantaneous reaction from our bodies. On contact, our bodies instantly recoil due to the instantaneous and lingering pain of a burn. That got me thinking, most human animals could not inflict that kind of lingering pain on others, aside from horrid things like Napalm used during conflicts, of course. Beyond that though, what kind of a being could stand by and watch some of its supposed creations writhing in pain for more than a few short moments - let alone, eternity?

Any thoughts justifying this would be appreciated.

Read all scriptures on the subject -and take them together. Also consider what the words can mean -not just what you take them to mean.

Here are some to consider...
1Co 3:13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.
1Co 3:14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

Rev_2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

Rev_20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Rev_20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Rev_21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
1Co 15:24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

 

[Astravalon]

Hell exists because God does not impose himself on us. Hell is painful because although we are free to reject God and his terms of salvation, God is nonetheless the purpose for which we were created. We cannot be happy without him. Hell is a mercy, as those who are so enamoured with sin that they would forever reject God could never exist directly in the presence of God without far greater misery.

Yet God imposed Himself on us in bringing us into
existence to begin with, knowing full well which of us
would reject Him.

So for Him to suddenly step back—and just at the point where
imposing Himself on a person would be of the most benefit no
less—makes little sense.


-

 

[gnostic]

So when it doesn't fit your claim of 'no Hell in the old testament', it just becomes rhetoric?

It (your quote) doesn't describe a Christian version of hell.

Second, did you bother to read the whole chapter?

4 But you, Daniel, keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end. Many shall be running back and forth, and evil shall increase.”

9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are to remain secret and sealed until the time of the end.

It state that "Daniel" should keep the book hidden until it was time to reveal it. That Daniel himself must reveal it.

Now, if this secret was Daniel's secret to reveal, and if this secret was supposed to be reveal during Jesus' ministry, then where is Daniel?

"...keep the words secret and the book sealed until the time of the end."​

What you have quoted, the 1st two verses would be all good, but verse 4 is also relevant to the earlier verses, except that Daniel never appear in the gospels or the Revelation to reveal anything.

Twice, the one speaking to Daniel commanded that he must keep it a secret until it is time or more precisely "the time of the end". The whole chapter could mean anything, but it would seem that secret has to be reveal during Daniel's lifetime.

Daniel was to keep the secret, and Daniel was meant to reveal that secret - "until the time of the end".

So when is "the time of end"? When will Daniel know "the time of the end", for Daniel himself to reveal it? How will Daniel know it is time? Will Daniel be around to reveal the secret?

I hate Christians who quote a verse or two, twist the meaning for their own agenda, expect us to accept their interpretations without question, WITHOUT BOTHERING TO READ THE WHOLE CHAPTER.

You are cherry-picking the verse.

Where is the "lake of fire" and "brimstone" in Daniel 12:1-2 or any part of Daniel 12?

This "lake of fire" and "brimstone" is mention 3 times in Revelation - 19:20, 20:10 and 21:8 - of what will happen to the beast and the false prophet (19:20), to the devil (and the beast and false prophet mentioned again in 20:10), and lastly, to all the sinners (last verse, 21:8).

Daniel 12, only state "...and some to shame and everlasting contempt." This is rather vague, and doesn't anywhere describe hell as the "lake of fire".

Daniel state that Michael is the protector of "your people", and he shall arise to protect them. I am assuming that the "people" is referring to that of Judah. Sorry, but where is Michael, the protector, in the gospels?

I only see Michael in Revelation, when he fight the "dragon" aka the Devil aka Satan, but not in the gospels. So how Michael relevant in all this. So unless you think Jesus is Michael, the chapter, not just the verses that you have cited, is far too metaphoric and obscure, to be taken literal, and it doesn't match up with the hell in the New Testament.

 

[Glaurung]

Yet God imposed Himself on us in bringing us into
existence to begin with, knowing full well which of us
would reject Him.

I don't think you sincerely object to your own existence. If the real objection is that existence isn't how you would have it, then that's tough. God knows better than you.

Don't misunderstand me. Why God allows this state of affairs full-well knowing that grace will not be efficacious (results in salvation) for all is a mystery. But we are assured in Scripture that no one is damned on God's account, but their own.

So for Him to suddenly step back—and just at the point where
imposing Himself on a person would be of the most benefit no
less—makes little sense.

There's little point in our creation if God were to force our wills. Choice underpins the very purpose of this life. And you are completely free to exercise that choice even to the point of rejecting God himself.

Said far more eloquently.

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell . No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.'

 

[Thief]

The other day I burned my finger (only slightly, nothing serious) and I was spiraled down the rabbit hole of "what if" propelled by the idea that fire and burning is probably one of the few things that elicits an instantaneous reaction from our bodies. On contact, our bodies instantly recoil due to the instantaneous and lingering pain of a burn. That got me thinking, most human animals could not inflict that kind of lingering pain on others, aside from horrid things like Napalm used during conflicts, of course. Beyond that though, what kind of a being could stand by and watch some of its supposed creations writhing in pain for more than a few short moments - let alone, eternity?

Any thoughts justifying this would be appreciated.

I believe the peace of heaven is guarded

you can't let everyone in...that would be chaos

and you gotta contain the riff raff......

 

[Thief]

the angelic have freewill

it was God's Favored that got the downside started

 

[Astravalon]

I don't think you sincerely object to your own existence. If the real objection is that existence isn't how you would have it, then that's tough. God knows better than you.

I never said I objected to my existence. That isn't the
point. I'm addressing the inaccurate claim that God
doesn't impose Himself on us. He decides who will
exist—and, by extension, where they'll end up given that
He foreknows this.

Don't misunderstand me. Why God allows this state of affairs full-well knowing that grace will not be efficacious (results in salvation) for all is a mystery. But we are assured in Scripture that no one is damned on God's account, but their own.

It's interesting how people will include certainty of hell in
the "mystery" but any other, less dire, scenario is set
aside because hey, it's all a mystery.

No, if damnation were a factor (and I seriously doubt that
it is), it was established by God from the beginning.
People will try to get Him off the hook by various and
sundry means, but if He is, indeed, the Creator of
anything and everything (which, interestingly enough,
these same people would likely insist upon in the most
absolute terms if this were a creation-vs-evolution
discussion), then damnation in hell is also of His own
making / doing.

There's little point in our creation if God were to force our wills. Choice underpins the very purpose of this life. And you are completely free to exercise that choice even to the point of rejecting God himself.

Said far more eloquently.

C.S Lewis said:
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell . No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.'

Ironically, the very insistence that our wills be free
negates the spirit of "Thy will be done". People pushing
the hell-concept prefer assurance of 'free will' over
assurance of salvation (assuming the latter is even
needed, of course). I see little very little "Thy will be
done" in that mindset.

What if His will is that your will be limited? Would you
still wish to be surrendered to His will, in "Thy will be
done" fashion?



-

 

[viole]

So if you're a bad person, you would want a common name. Yet, if you're good, you want a unique name.

J. Smith, where J. can be John or Joseph, is a pretty common name, I think.

Ciao

- viole

 

[gnostic]

The problem is that you seem to think that our ancestors were very ignorant and unintelligent beings who were fooled into a set of beliefs or way of life simply by the threat of an "imaginary" fiery place unless they obeyed.

Correct me i'f I'm wrong in but it seems rather odd and immature to think that they could be fooled into just about anything by almost anyone.

You didn't understand the example or my explanation.

I don't think you understand, Gharib, that just about everyone in the entire world at that time were superstitious people, and those who lived in the Arabian peninsula were not an exception to that rule.

So yes, people were easily fooled by whatever religions teaches.

What do think faith is, Gharib?

Faith, in the religious context, is a conviction or trust in a belief and accepting them as true without evidences. That's exactly what superstitious belief is - faith...it is blind faith.

It is blind faith that people accept Muhammad's say-so that he is a prophet of God, or that he speak for God, or that the Qur'an and teachings come from God.

Like YmirGF said...

Well, the people of the Arabian peninsula were hardly the leaders of the intellectual world, Gharib.

...the Arabs of the early 7th century weren't intellectual people.

Think about it, Gharib, who were the earlier followers (before they fled to Medina), beside Muhammad's family and friends?

A large number of people who were attracted to Muhammad were non-wealthy people, people who (A) do not get to inherit from noble families or wealthy merchants, like second or younger son(s), or (B) those who didn't get opportunities to gain apprenticeship in some sorts of trades or professions, (C) those who indentured servitude.

These sorts of people, are not know to have higher education.

And what about those who join and follow Muhammad when he arrived in Medina. I think many followed Muhammad for the prospect that they can gain wealth through raids and battles, like spoils or plunders, or selling people off to slavery (such as around a dozen raids during 623 and 624). Those who followed him weren't known for being intellectual; it does take a genius to be a robber or bandit.

Muslims also gain land and wealth from the Jews they off from their homes, confiscating them from the Banu Qaynupa, in 624, as a vendetta for not accepting him as a prophet.

Before this, he tried to gain support from the Jewish tribes that were living there in Medina, by originally stating that Muslims should pray in the direction of Jerusalem, but changed the direction of their prayers to Mecca, when they wouldn't support him. That's pretty transparent petty behaviour of a vicious tyrant, when he began systematically driving each tribe out of Medina, and you don't have to be a genius to see Muhammad's self-serving move, but even to this day, Muslims are blinded by his so-called virtues, refusing to see his Machiavellian behaviour.

Muhammad was a true warlord and opportunist politician, who took advantage of people's naivety, and manipulate them into stealing and killing for him. And he used religion to gain his powers.