Sha'irullah
رسول الآلهة
Norway is an icy hell. Unknown to many people is that Hell froze over a long time ago
-
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!
Why has Hell been reduced to a metaphor
- Thread starter Sha'irullah
- Start date
Norway is an icy hell. Unknown to many people is that Hell froze over a long time ago
Explains why it's the birthplace of black metal. \m/
Perhaps, as with political rule, people get the kind of theology that they deserve.
Is that because you want to go to hell? Or is going to hell something you would prefer be left to others?
I think its more of the fact that there is not many biblical texts on what Hell actually is. More of what we believe comes from fictional stories not biblical. People realize this and the churches feeling pressure and having nothing to disbute it are backing off. Other than Dantes Inferno which is fiction were is there a detailed biblical christian description of Hell.
According to my research hell is not bibical.
Sha'irullah, I really think you should express (to yourself if you prefer) why exactly you want to believe in the literal existence of Hell.
I don't know if you find that weird, but such concepts are best understood and believed on a per-person basis. No stance will fairly suit everyone.
I don't know if you find that weird, but such concepts are best understood and believed on a per-person basis. No stance will fairly suit everyone.
BruceDLimber
Well-Known Member
And who exactly determined what it "obviously" is and is not??!!
More modern religions tend to describe hell as spiritual separation from God as well as stating in scripture that it is indeed a temporary condition, not a permanent one.
And this is just as "obvious" to me as your opinion apparently is to you.
So again, Who says?!
Peace,
Bruce
Yes, that is indeed a relevant question, particularly when it comes to this category of concepts.
I'm not sure I have a set answer. I tend to think they do not quite deserve that much consideration.
Is Hell exothermic or endothermic?
A thermodynamics professor had written a take home exam for his graduate students. It had one question:
"Is hell exothermic or endothermic? Support your answer with a proof."
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law or some variant. One student, however, wrote the following:
"First, we postulate that if souls exist, then they must have some mass. If they do, then a mole of souls can also have a mass. So, at what rate are souls moving into hell and at what rate are souls leaving? I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for souls entering hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all people and all souls go to hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in hell to increase exponentially.
Now, we look at the rate of change in volume in hell. Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in hell to stay the same, the ratio of the mass of souls and volume needs to stay constant.
So, if hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter hell, then the temperature and pressure in hell will increase until all hell breaks loose.
Of course, if hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in hell, than the temperature and pressure will drop until hell freezes over."
Heaven Is Hotter Than Hell
The temperature of heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is the Bible, Isaiah 30:26 reads,
Moreover, the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold as the light of seven days.
Thus, heaven receives from the moon as much radiation as the earth does from the sun, and in addition seven times seven (forty nine) times as much as the earth does from the sun, or fifty times in all. The light we receive from the moon is one ten-thousandth of the light we receive from the sun, so we can ignore that. With these data we can compute the temperature of heaven: The radiation falling on heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation. In other words, heaven loses fifty times as much heat as the earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann fourth power law for radiation
(H/E)4 = 50
where E is the absolute temperature of the earth, 300°K (273+27). This gives H the absolute temperature of heaven, as 798° absolute (525°C).
The exact temperature of hell cannot be computed but it must be less than 444.6°C, the temperature at which brimstone or sulfur changes from a liquid to a gas. Revelations 21:8: But the fearful and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone [sulfur] means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, which is 444.6°C. (Above that point, it would be a vapor, not a lake.)
We have then, temperature of heaven, 525°C. Temperature of hell, less than 445°C. Therefore heaven is hotter than hell.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I think society at large does have an influence on religion but I think it is mainly due to thinking people having a hard time reconciling the notion of hell with an all-loving deity.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Nothing is necessarily deceitful or deceptive about it except if one approaches the subject simplistically. For starters, how the scripture is viewed in the first place makes difference into what changing the doctrine means and entails. If it's viewed as a direct revelation from god, or the word of god, then your objection holds a little merit (but only a little). If it's not, then that's one possible problem gone.
Further, if the change is acknowledged as a change, rather than as being supposedly the original teachings, then there is very little to object to in the light that you're objecting to.
In Muslim's case the Quran is widely viewed as the direct word of god, and the concept of hell has almost always been interpreted literally, so it's more difficult to justify the change in that case. However, nothing is stopping any Muslim from changing their approach to their scripture, and very few Muslims have done so. Rather than approach it as a final, direct, literal word of god, it can be approached differently and in which case i'd view that as much less "annoying" than blind delusion of consistency.
And the reason i describe it as blind delusion of consistency is because from a Muslim's view, god is also supposed to be all powerful and all merciful. So for a Muslim to accept that notion, and to accept a literal, eternal hell, is wildly more inconsistent in my eyes than for a Muslim to change their approach to their scripture, or to even maintain that approach but still prefer interpreting the concept as metaphorical or something else despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Hell isn't anything but a claim with some attributes defining it. Like most things, it changes through time.
And it'll find you already there, i hope.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Indeed. I believe the actual reality is far worse than the metaphor implies.
Wandered Off
Sporadic Driveby Member
We could also ask why it was "expanded" to literality in the first place. One obvious answer lies in how convenient a control mechanism it can be. As humanity begins to move away from taking mythology literally, hell's effectiveness at controlling people is diminished, and that likely explains its transition to the world of metaphor and mythology, where it rightfully belongs.
Maybe because, like many other things in existence, religious belief is not stagnant and is subject to change in interpretation due to surrounding influence (developments in science and philosophy, change in overall moral thought, general decrease in orthodoxy, etc.). It's not a bad thing; it just kind of is.
Although, slightly irrelevant question: I thought you didn't believe in an afterlife, RF user formally known as Sterling Archer?
Although, slightly irrelevant question: I thought you didn't believe in an afterlife, RF user formally known as Sterling Archer?