Posted on 06/04/2014 6:52:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In certain schools of Christian thought, hell is not everlasting, but a more painful form of purgatory.
M any Christians presume that hell is a place where brutally painful punishments are inflicted on evildoers for an indefinite, and perhaps infinite, amount of time in the afterlife. Think of a medieval torture chamber with no exit — or fire extinguishers.
But this, as I argued in a recent column, makes no theological sense. If morality is good, then doing the right thing must be its own reward and doing the wrong thing must be its own punishment. To think that a sinner deserves extra, externally imposed suffering presumes that morality isn't good and that those who commit evil deeds benefit from their actions — which is another way of saying that those who do the right thing are fools.
The more theologically sound position is to hold that hell is a state of being, whether in this life or the next, in which we confront our own self-imposed alienation from what is truly good — from God, in other words. This educative punishment can be extremely painful, but the pain flows intrinsically from knowledge of our own immoral acts. It isn't inflicted on us by some external tormenter.
That, at any rate, was my argument.
Let's just say that my readers weren't universally appreciative of it. A fair number of them apparently want very much to believe that a fairly large number of people are going to be made to suffer egregiously in hell for their bad behavior in life.
I suspect that these same readers, and perhaps many more, will be equally adamant that I'm wrong to follow the implications of my argument a few steps further — to assert that Christians have reason to believe that the punishments of hell, whatever they may be, are temporary for all.
That's right: I think it's likely that if there is an afterlife, everyone — even Judas, even Hitler — eventually ends up in heaven.
Now, I'm perfectly willing to concede that several Gospel passages seem to describe an eternity of damnation for at least some people in the afterlife (Matthew 7:13-14, 25:31-46; Mark 9:45-48; Luke 16:23; John 3:36). Though I'd also like to point out that only in one verse (Matthew 25:46) does Jesus speak of something that could plausibly be translated as "eternal punishment," and in words (aeonios kolasis) that could perhaps more accurately be rendered as "eternal correction."
Then there are those contrary passages that seem to imply that God wants everyone — and perhaps even all of creation — to enjoy salvation (Romans 5:18, 11:33-36; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 28; Philippians 2:10-11; Colossians 1:19-20; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 21:4).
This tension — not to say contradiction — has led some thinkers to dismiss or argue away the implications of the latter passages. Of all the church fathers, Tertullian may have gone furthest in this direction, writing at length and in gory detail about the endless sufferings inflicted on sinners in hell, and even suggesting that observing these torments is an important source of the bliss that accompanies salvation in heaven.
The problem with this position is that it seems to be a form of what Friedrich Nietzsche called "Christian malice": A psychological malady in which the stringent self-denial that Christianity demands of its adherents leads them to feel intense resentment for those who are insufficiently ascetic. Nietzsche delighted in showing how this dynamic can turn Christians from preachers of love into hateful fanatics out to inflict suffering on anyone who dares to enjoy life.
Not all Christians have confirmed Nietzsche's critique as perfectly as Tertullian. Others have been driven by theological reflection to move in the opposite direction — to speculate that all people might eventually enjoy salvation in heaven, no matter how awful their worldly sins may have been.
Origen in the 3rd century and Hans Urs von Balthasar in the 20th both affirmed versions of universal salvation. Yet I find the most compelling variation in the writings of the 4th-century theologian Gregory of Nyssa — a major figure in the history of Christianity, though one more widely revered today by the Eastern Orthodox than by the Western churches.
Gregory maintained that hell resembles something like what Catholics have traditionally called purgatory: A place of sometimes excruciatingly painful purgation of sins in preparation for heaven. The pain is not externally inflicted as punishment, but follows directly from the process of purification as the soul progresses toward a perhaps never fully realized union with divine perfection. Gregory describes this process as a "constant progression" or "stretching forth" (epektasis) of oneself toward an ever greater embrace of and merger with God in the fullness of eternity — a transmutation of what is sinful, fallen, and finite into the transcendent beauty of the infinite.
Hell, in this view, would be the state of agonizing struggle to break free from sin, to renounce our moral mistakes, to habituate ourselves to the good, to become ever more like God. Eastern Orthodox theologians (and, interestingly, Mormons, who hold similar views) call it a process of divination or sanctification (theosis) that follows directly from the doctrine of God's incarnation in Jesus Christ. It is a formula found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, and other ancient theologians: God became a human being so that human beings might become like God.
All human beings.
One imagines that this would be a long, painful process — rendered longer and more painful for those who have fallen furthest from God during their lives. They are the ones for whom the afterlife is truly hellish — like a climb up a peak far, far higher than Mount Everest with little prior preparation or training, no expensive gear, and no Sherpas to help carry the load. But there would eventually be progress toward God, even for the climber who starts out in the worst possible shape, and from the lowest possible point in the valley below.
And at least there would be no dungeon pointlessly presided over by satanic, whip-wielding sadists.
So... why is it so scandalously wrong for God to, in your view..., “torture those humans who disagree, for all eternity”, but you somehow think it’s NOT scandalously wrong for God to... “torture those ANGELS who disagree, for all eternity”?
I was reading Romans this morning and I found something amazing that applies to this thread. Specifically, Paul sincerely uses reason with the readers. He attempts to explain how what God does actually makes sense. This is the bible way, too. No, we can’t know everything, obviously, but what we do know actually makes some sense from a human position. He reasons with us from a human perspective, though it is made clear to us that His ways are above our ways.
My reason for bringing this up is that not only are we allowed to, but we are excellently served by appealing to people AS people and the way people’s minds work. The bible does it, and we should do it.
And the turn or burn message, to a human mind, not only makes no sense but is abhorrently barbaric. It also does not fit with the personality of God as displayed from the first word of Genesis to the last word of Revelation. Those humans not in his favor are not tortured. They are killed and removed from the playing field.
Sorry. Torture = torment
Regarding Revelation 20:10, I have to keep saying this: It’s Revelation. It is a book of allegory and thick symbolism. If it is supported by other scripture, great, but even then it must be taken in context of the verse, the book and the bible. When I can point out dozens of places that say the fate of the lost is death, destruction, perish, etc. But you have to keep going back to Revelation 20:10, don’t you see the issue here?
The point of revelation 20:10 is that they are gone. It is finished. They are not coming back.
And on a side note: If I throw a lead fishing weight and a diamond into a pan and turn up the heat, the diamond will do nothing, while the fishing weight will melt. As the diamond and lead weight respond differently to the burner on my stove, an Angel and a temporarily resurrected human may respond differently to a “lake of fire”.
And the lake of fire is to the second death what lampstands are to the seven churches.
RE: Sorry. Torture = torment
OK, if that’s how you understand it, let’s concede that it is for the meantime.
How does that help us eliminate it? It doesn’t simply because IT IS THE WORD USED...
RE: Regarding Revelation 20:10, I have to keep saying this: It’s Revelation. It is a book of allegory and thick symbolism. If it is supported by other scripture, great, but even then it must be taken in context of the verse, the book and the bible. When I can point out dozens of places that say the fate of the lost is death, destruction, perish, etc. But you have to keep going back to Revelation 20:10, don’t you see the issue here?
Sorry, you cannot simply take all the other verses of the Bible and then IGNORE what Revelation teaches. You have to read what the Bible teaches AS A WHOLE.
And even if we grant that Revelation is a book of symbolism, you simply cannot METAPHORIZE this verse out of existence to make it mean something the words don’t mean.
FOREVER cannot be symbolized to mean something else.
TORMENT cannot be symbolized to make it mean something else ( only the understanding of what the degree of what torment is can be fluid, but the word torment is still the common understanding of the word ).
RE: Your analogy of the fishing weight and the diamond under fire.
Unfortunately, Revelations 14 does not give us hope that a human soul is like a fishing rod. It looks like it is more like a DIAMOND.
It says, Those who worship the beast will be tormented and will have no rest, day and night.... and their torment is forever and ever.
Even if Revelations is a book of symbolism, it is hard to make the words — “no rest” a symbol. Unless you want to change the meaning of the words into something we don’t recognize at all.
That fits with the belief that because God loves us, he would never force us to be where we don’t want to be. I want to be with him.
Sorry, you cannot simply take all the other verses of the Bible and then IGNORE what Revelation teaches. You have to read what the Bible teaches AS A WHOLE.
What I am saying is that we disagree on what it teaches. I’ll give an example of this. I believe that revelation 7 may discuss the rapture, while my pre-tribulation friend believes that the beginning of revelation 4 describes the rapture.
As I said to another friend discussing an area in which he and I disagreeed when he held up his bible and said “I believe what my bible says!” And I said to him, “What you believe is your interpretation of what the bible says.”
Thing is, you give me a “torment” and I raise you a “death”. To support your “torment” you must redefine what “death” really means in the afterlife (I think we agree it’s not the first death since we all succumb to that one). Now, that raises the interesting issue of determining what all these words really mean in the afterlife - something the bible is most definitely not fully forthcoming about (remember the sealing of the words of the seven thunders?). For me, it ultimately means applying the whole of scripture and what it tells me of the personality of God. And God describes Himself to us in human terms all over the bible. And it is clear that he meats us at our human reasoning level.
And when I attack the question from that perspective, The answer regarding “annihilation vs eternal conscious suffering” is an easy choice.
Even if Revelations is a book of symbolism, it is hard to make the words — “no rest” a symbol. Unless you want to change the meaning of the words into something we don’t recognize at all.
I confess that if the only description of the fate of the lost was Revelation 20:10, you and I would be in complete agreement - and I would not be a Christian. At least, if I was it would be solely out of fear.
And to be frank, I’ve noticed something about human nature in my 60 years: The more nonsensical a threatened outcome seems to a person, the less seriously they take it. Sometimes it is to their great discomfort - e.g. getting pulled over with a .08 alcohol level on a complete fluke and finding that you lose your job, your wife and your future.
But what I’ve found is that the more “reasonable” the punishment, the more likely a person is to take it seriously. And the thought of people going to eternal, unconscionable torment for the simple decision to not accept a God you may never even have been told about is ludicrous on the face of it to rational human thinking. It means you are attempting to convince someone of an irrational belief - which is difficult.
However, the God of Ecclesiastes that calls man’s fate basically equal to an animal if his only state is that of the natural man, followed by permanent annihilation, it sounds much more logical. More of a “punishment fits the crime” sort of thing. And if those that actively forsake God or fight with His elect end up thrown into a lake of fire and burned to death, never to come back, that sounds reasonable too. Thing is, as a Christian, I have no vindictive motives for even those I’ve seen on the internet that actively spew amazing hate for Christiandom. My wish for them is that they repent. But if they don’t, my wish is that they simply go away, never to return.
What the english bible’s call “eternal punishment” I call “eternal banishment”. But that’s not really the right word. But I have a hard time with “punishment” because I see the purpose of punishment as something finite that happens because of violating rules, followed by a return to a normal condition, hopefully after “learning their lesson”. But for those that die without Christ, there is no going back. The concept of punishment is kinda pointless. They simply need to go away. And once they do, there is no life outside the presence of God.
RE: No rest until they are consumed.
Let’s get back to the verse again...
” torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, “
There is not indication in that verse in Revelations 14 that says UNTIL such and such a time.
It says forever and ever.
RE: And to be frank, I’ve noticed something about human nature in my 60 years: The more nonsensical a threatened outcome seems to a person, the less seriously they take it.
Be careful that you don’t call something nonsensical simply because it doesn’t comport to your preconceived notion of how God views justice.
I am in sympathy to your point of view, but the verses I read IN TOTO do not support the view that the punishment is of limited duration. If any, the tenor of the words push towards the opposite ( as in Revelations 14 and Matthew 25 ).
Also, we do a non-believer any favors by presenting to him a teaching that does not do justice to what God’s word teaches. A doctor’s job is to tell his patient the truth and to tell him the remedy REGARDLESS of whether the patient likes the truth or not.
RE: What the english bible’s call “eternal punishment” I call “eternal banishment”.
Now, if you want to discuss the NATURE of the punishment, we can discuss it in a separate thread. But to say that the words “forever and ever” and torment do not mean what they mean is pushing it. I want to be convinced, but the Bible does not permit me to.
” torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, “
I was reading Romans again this morning and noticed how much Paul uses figures of speech. We are told very clearly not to fear and that fear is the opposite of faith, yet paul admonishes us to be afraid. That is contradictory if you parse words as a computer would. But if you understand the language, you understand the message.
This is why it is so difficult for computers to translate languages, though they are getting better at it all the time.
RE: I am in sympathy to your point of view, but the verses I read IN TOTO do not support the view that the punishment is of limited duration.
I actually feel the same way, but the reverse. I think the pain of punishment is of VERY short duration, as the duration of the pain of being eaten by a great white shark is of limited duration. But the “punishment” itself is eternal: You are dead and you are not coming back.
which leads you to the hypothesis that hell is temporary...
...Now... given this version of God, how does that square with “sentencing” angels to an eternity of burning in hell? Are angels less worthy of God’s love or mercy? Is God’s love and mercy incomplete, partial, or selective?...
i.e. They may be held accountable in ways we are not, just as se are held accountable in ways a dog is not.
RE: Yes. You are trying too hard to parse words,
Understanding the word-— torment to be something it isn’t is parsing words? Really ask yourself if the above statement does not describe what you are trying to do.
RE: translated into english.
Torment IS the English translation.
RE: Nothing wrong with that unless you base important doctrine on it.
I think it goes both ways. You are trying to create the doctrine of annihilation and trying to change the common and straightforward understanding of words — torment and forever and ever, and no rest.
RE: In which case, there better be plenty of other scriptures to back it up.
Sure. I mentioned Matthew 25, revelations 14 AND Revelations 20. I don’t see how those 3 passages contradict each other. In fact, a straightforward reading of all these passages do not support extinction at all.
RE: I was reading Romans again this morning and noticed how much Paul uses figures of speech
Which particular passage is that? Please share it with me and we’ll see exactly how we can understand it.
RE: I think the pain of punishment is of VERY short duration, as the duration of the pain of being eaten by a great white shark is of limited duration. But the “punishment” itself is eternal: You are dead and you are not coming back.
Then you have to contend with the following words from the Apostle John:
“If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark on his forehead or on his hand, he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall BE TORMENTED with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment ascends FOREVER AND EVER; and they have NO REST DAY or NIGHT”
RE: Hell is a human concept of something we don’t understand, and the bible clearly says it’s temporary because it is thrown into the lake of fire, which is also a concept.
“Hades” is the Greek word for the realm of the dead. In the Greek Septuagint, it replaces the Hebrew word “Sheol”.
There’s not a lot of description of Hades within the main canon - chiefly the teaching of Jesus in Luke 16 - but generally it is considered the holding place for the souls of the dead until the final judgement.
It is sometimes thought to be divided into “compartments” of sorts: e.g. a place of torment and a place of comfort (the bosom of Abraham). This is somewhat apparent in Luke 16 and 2 Peter 2:4 mentions the angels bound in Tartarus: the Greek name for the place of torment.
You’ll see in Revelation that Hades is always accompanied by Death (esp. see Revelation 6:8 where they are together personified). Death is thought to claim the material portion of a person and Hades the immaterial portion.
Whatever it is, the Lake of Fire supercedes Hades. Once Hades gives up its dead for the final judgement it is no longer needed and is sent to destruction along with those whose names were not in the book of life. Keep in mind that earlier Death and Hades were personified, so it makes sense in the apocolyptic setting that they could be sent to the same “place” as other persons.
Understanding the word-— torment to be something it isn’t is parsing words? Really ask yourself if the above statement does not describe what you are trying to do.
1. God created us in His image. He gave us a sense of justice, though it is only a limited version of His.
2. The eternal torment paradigm grossly violates our sense of justice. The human’s perception of justice involves the concept of the punishment fitting the crime. We don’t punish animals for things they cannot even understand are wrong. However, we sometimes kill them for it (if they are a danger). Likewise, we don’t throw a person in prison for 20 years for driving without license tabs. Because we can’t even understand the concept of eternal torment, we can’t wrap our minds around the concept of a person simply refusing the message of the bible because they are a skeptic being sent to such torment. And that is one reason so many people think the Christian message is foolishness. It is also interesting that many of them are heavily invested in that being part of the Christian teaching.
3. The fate of the lost, over and over, is described using words like “death”, “destruction”, “perish”, and when the length of time of that condition is described, the main point is that the condition is quite final. Hence the “consuming flame”, “their worm does not die”, etc. It makes it perfectly clear that for them, there is no redemption. There is no coming back from this state. It is not a form of purgatory. It is the end.
3. In all of bibical history, the fate of those God has deemed evil or otherwise in need of judgement have all received the fate of being killed or otherwise eliminated. When Israel was instructed to wipe out entire nations, they were not instructed to torture. They were instructed to kill them all. No kind of torture is never even brought up.
And then there is the whole concept of punishment. What is it? What’s its purpose? (I’m asking rhetorically)
When I view the whole package, though I always had a problem with the “turn or burn” message, I never really thought about it. When I did, and thought about its ramifications, I DID have a problem with it. When I studied it, I saw it for what it is - an apparent false teaching that crept into the church as a way some well meaning humans thought they could scare more people into Christiandom. At best.
Thank you for going to that trouble clarifying it. I agree with everything in that post.
Well... fine, call it what you like: hell, tartarus, gehenna, “the place/state of eternal burning”, eternal damnation, endless torment, etc.; the language in which we speak it (cf. the specific word “hell”) isn’t ultimately the point. As SeekAndFind already said: it doesn’t help your case if “eternal hell” is replaced by “eternal lake of fire”; wouldn’t the souls/beings who are condemned to it find it an equal torment?
It doesn’t address the eternal suffering of the fallen angels
Gehenna was a garbage dump, not a furnace. It had both worms and fire to consume. And in both cases it points out that the force that consumes does not die. Again, an analogy (for obviously Gehenna is not the literal subject of Jesus’ words) for the fate being final. They are gone. Permanently.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.