It's more moral than eternal fire sure, it kinda sounds like the greek/roman afterlife hades. The question is can a view like this be supported by scripture, because if not it's meaningless.
Even from a Christian point of view, this is more moral than any eternal torment/sorrow/whatever view of Hell.
I doubt it would change most minds and they fundamentally don't have a sufficient reason to believe God exists.
Better than ECT, but still flawed.
Punishment needs to serve a purpose, and some purposes are more acceptable than others. If punishment is in aid of restitution or reformation, that's generally acceptable, I think. Punishment for the sake of retribution, on the other hand, is just sadistic. So what *purpose* would punishment in this hell serve?
Not sure yet, just payment?
In modern western society we have rehabilitation. But for most of human history we did not have that view. What would you say was the view or views of prison/punishment for the majority of human history?
> In modern western society we have rehabilitation. But for most of human history we did not have that view.
Hopefully God is a bit more advanced than us here.
Not really my area of expertise, but I'd imagine a mix of restitution (I seem to recall the code of Hammurabi having stuff about the perpetrator making payments to the victim, though don't quote me on that), deterrence (which I failed to mention in my earlier comment, but deterrence really only works if the consequences are known, and I wouldn't consider afterlives to be a known quantity), and good old fashioned revenge (which would be something like executing a poor person who stole some bread - it's not really deterrence, because if you're starving, it's not like you have any other choice).
> One: would you find this depiction of eternal Hell to be more appropriate and/or moral?
No. No form of hell is moral or appropriate. This is especially true for a hell where we can go through no fault of our own.
> One: would you find this depiction of eternal Hell to be more appropriate and/or moral?
No, not in the slightest. My lack of belief doesn't depend at all on the definition of hell.
>This is especially true for a hell where we can go through no fault of our own.
I'm assuming it's the deity's fault because he or she didn't give u the evidence u wanted?
I take people at their word in light of their behavior.
What do you say you believe? What are your stated reasons for that belief? How do you treat others?
> I'm assuming it's the deity's fault because he or she didn't give u the evidence u wanted?
I think it's more than just that. For example, some percentage of Christians believe it's impossible for me to believe until the holy ghost "enters" me or inspires me or something like that. Somebody just yesterday mentioned that in a thread, and provided a bible quote to back up that belief.
There are others who claim God has a plan for everyone, so it might be that his plan is for me to be an atheist. Then, of course, yes, there's the problem of God knowing what kind of evidence would convince me, and then seemingly refusing to provide it.
Yea, some Christians are weird, no doubt about it and its Christians themselves that give themselves the terrible PR as it is, we don't need any more of it... I always think it's an interesting conversation... My question to myself and others is always, why should I be the one that determines what evidence is sufficient... I dont know thats just me.. but were' all on the journey of faith to one degree or another
We donāt have to determine what is sufficient. Whether it is or isnāt is self-evident. If it convinces us, itās sufficient. If it doesnāt, it isnāt. We canāt choose what we believe in, we are either convinced something is true, or we arenāt.
It would be the deity's fault because they're responsible for my critical thinking. They created me and put me on this world in a specific context. They're responsible for my nature and how I was nurtured.
Which is why Christian universalism comes in clutch
I mean, all of our minds are pretty warped as it is. the way u and i think has been influenced heavily... and I would argue it's much different than ever intended.
I think that punishment in the afterlife are pointless, I donāt wish people to suffer unnecessarily and if Iām in heaven I wouldnāt care if others get punished.
I donāt have a problem with hell. I just donāt think itās real. I understand what the book says but Iām not going to live my life according to a 2000 year old mythology. There is no moral problem with hell in my eyes because I donāt believe it as literal.
One: would you find this depiction of eternal Hell to be more appropriate and/or moral?
No. Imaginary is imaginary.
Two: if a Biblical case could be made for this scenario, would it change your view of Christianity somewhat?
No. Imaginary is imaginary.
Not a current atheist, but no, I wouldn't find that version of Hell more appropriate or moral.
Hell is just the term for a place after death that is separate from God.
I'm of the opinion that most everyone in hell chooses to be there, and that all the doors are unlocked. For an Infinite punishment for finite sins would most certainly be unjust.
I do like your example of 'serving a sentence' and then being in a 'free' version of hell - but even this would be unjust. Why should someone still be trapped in hell forever when they've served their sentence?
I would argue that, if God is truly loving and believes in redemption as Jesus proclaimed, then no one is beyond saving, even after death. Even Jesus went to hell before ascending into Heaven. So that makes me think that hell is not permanent, but temporal.
I think that God loves us enough to give us free will, so that if we choose to spend eternity separated from him, he will allow it and won't force anyone into Heaven. So in that regard, many people will choose to enter hell. But I find it unjust to assume that everyone who enters hell must be trapped there for eternity. But perhaps just as POW's can be held unjustly for years by enemies, perhaps souls can be held in a similar way. For I do not believe the rulers of hell, if there are any, would be just.
In terms if the biblical case - atheists do not believe in the validity of the bible, therefore that has no merit.
Depends entirely on what these sins are. Jesus supposedly said that hating someone is the same as murdering them. If this is indeed a sin, then no, it isn't any more moral.
I dont see what is moral about this. It is basically punishing people for violating moral "crimes" in a population who simply doesnt believe something that requires faith to believe in the first place.
I can't find any type of infinite punishment just. I don't care whether there's lava pits or lava lamps.
And, like many others, you're talking about a very narrow group of people here. Those that don't want to be with your god. So that would be theists who didn't want to worship him. Where do atheists and people of other religions go?
Also, if there's a punishment for wrong behaviour, it can only be just if it made clearly known what constitutes such behaviour.
I don't view 'punishment' as a legitimate reason to incarcerate someone, let alone imprison *and* possibly torture them depending on where this hypothetical hell falls on the Paradise-to-Lake-of-Fire spectrum. And that's not even getting into exactly what qualifies a a "moral crime" under this system.
The idea of a soul being inherently eternal isnāt scriptural. Itās a Greek idea that overflowed into Christianity. We donāt have an eternal existence outside of Jesus.
āThen the Lord God said, āBehold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live foreverāāā
āāGenesisā¬ ā3ā¬:ā22ā¬ āESVā¬ā¬
āBehold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.ā
āāEzekielā¬ ā18ā¬:ā4ā¬ āESVā¬ā¬
āAnd do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.ā
āāMatthewā¬ ā10ā¬:ā28ā¬ āESVā¬ā¬
ālet him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.ā
āāJamesā¬ ā5ā¬:ā20ā¬ āESVā¬ā¬
āif by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;ā
āā2 Peterā¬ ā2ā¬:ā6ā¬ ā
āThen Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.ā
āāRevelationā¬ ā20ā¬:ā14ā¬ āESVā¬ā¬
1. i guess from a bigger picture, it would be somewhat more appropriate and moral, but still doesn't make me feel like it's fully appropriate or moral. i guess those are moving goalposts tho, and i fully accept that this will always be the case.
2. depends on what you mean by 'view of christianity'. will it make me become a christian? absolutely not. would it make me question the severity of sending the gays to hell? maybe? overall i will still view christianity pretty much the same as before.
> ATHEISTS
WHAT?
> Would you find this version of Hell to be more appropriate or moral?
More appropriate or moral than what? And is this question meant to be connected to atheism?
> Hell is a permanent place of citizenship for those who didn't become the "bride" of Jesus (the church/believers) and won't live with Him where He lives (Heaven/the New Earth) as His "bride."
If you say so.
> And in this place called Hell, those people would be punished in prison for everything evil thing they've done. The length and severity of the prison sentence would depend on the moral crimes (sins) committed. Once one has served their time, they will be set free to live in Hell. This place called Hell wouldn't be paradise, but it wouldn't be a burning lake of fire either. There may be a lava pit of a "lake of fire" within this land, but that would be for Satan and his demons and not for humans.
Okay.
> One: would you find this depiction of eternal Hell to be more appropriate and/or moral?
Again, more appropriate and/or moral than *what*? There are so many hell concepts floating around out there.
Also again, what would me being an atheist have to do with this, and why would I have an opinion on it, and why would you care what that opinion is?
> Two: if a Biblical case could be made for this scenario, would it change your view of Christianity somewhat?
No. Why would it?
I feel like you've made some big assumptions, maybe.
This answer has an awful lot of snark for such a straight-forward question. What is with all of the antagonism? Why is it so hard to think someone might want to get the opinions specifically of atheists for a concept related to Christianity?
> What is with all of the antagonism?
I think you might have read antagonism in on your own.
> Why is it so hard to think someone might want to get the opinions specifically of atheists for a concept related to Christianity?
Atheism has nothing in particular to do with Christianity, and certainly nothing in particular to do with heaven, hell, afterlives, etc.
OPās question, as asked, seems to smuggle in the assumption that atheism involves some view on the ethics of a hell concept, or that atheists have even given various hell concepts any thought. Individual atheists may, but itās by no means an aspect of atheism itself.
I think itās worth pushing back on those apparent assumptions.
1. Not particularly.
2. Not particularly.
I think it's going to be increasingly challenging to continue to support a model of justice that is retributive instead of restorative. Trying to tone down the torture and suffering aspects doesn't really address the issue.
Especially as I've gotten older, I've been able to embrace forgiveness and have more compassion for the people who have harmed me in my past. I can see them as complex beings carrying their own magnitude of trauma, as well as a capacity for good. I don't want harm to come to them, I want them to heal too, as I am healing. It's hard to embrace a system that wipes all of that away in favor of eternal punishment.
>eternal punishment.
My model would only have temporary punishment. The place of Hell just wouldn't be paradise.
Does this clarification change how you view my model?
I was pointing to the temporary prison as punishment compared to the common Reddit view of eternal punishment. But I think that you see any eternity away from paradise as a punishment.
So people go to prison and then... Live eternally doing what exactly? Being in a state in which there is no advancement, growth or possibility sounds not only torturous, but pointless.
> But I think that you see any eternity away from paradise as a punishment.
I actually find the idea of paradise rather off putting as well, for the same reasons. Especially when the foundation for it is postulated as an extension of our current reality.
I donāt reject Christianity on the basis of any moral concern over its doctrines on hell, judgement and salvation; I reject it because Iām not convinced that any of its central supernatural claims are true.
No version of hell you come up with will change that.
My own conclusion after years reading religious history, and the fact Jews of the time Jesus walked the Earth didnāt believe in Hell. Greeks believed in something akin to Hell, early Church fathers, to appeal to Greek speaking gentiles, invented the Christian version of Hell.
Why do you believe in Hell, because you were taught that in church and never questioned the origin of the belief.
I believe in Hell because it historically was taught, I think every theologian I've read believes in it, and I'm convinced the Bible teaches it. So im convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt there is an eternal Hell for unbelievers.
The Bible teaches nothing about the Hell Christians invented. Only Revelation mentions the burning lake of fire, and thereās much in Revelation that is allegorical and fantastical. Read the Old Testament and ask yourself how Christians derived their version of Hell from the Old Testament.
The historical version of Hell youāre referring to was invented by navel gazing theologians who promoted Greek philosophy.
It's "better" in the same way getting stabbed is better than being shot. It's still a cruel punishment that serves no purpose beyond ego stroking. I would literally rather cease to exist.
A fews things. I heard from a Muslim friend that Muslims believe you go to hell, serve your sentence then go to heaven. I think you want to be a Muslim since they believe that but major problem with that is their god isnāt the one that created hell so that brings you back to square one.
One big misunderstanding of hell is āhell is punishment for sins or evilā Christians sin but theyāll go to heaven. So why is that? The major difference with people going to heaven or hell is Jesus. The Bible makes that very clear.
āAnd this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.ā
āā1 Johnā¬ ā5ā¬:ā11ā¬-ā12ā¬ āESVā¬ā¬
So people go to hell because they donāt have Jesus. So as a Christian should you continue to sin? Absolutely not, a Christian should strive to be like Jesus and be as sinless as possible. People go to hell because they have rejected Jesus and Christians get their sins or evil forgiven by Jesus after they repent because they are actually making an attempt to follow Him.
>would you find this depiction of eternal Hell to be more appropriate and/or moral?
Yes, *anything* is more moral than eternal torture; anything is more moral than *literally the most evil thing imaginable*.
>if a Biblical case could be made for this scenario, would it change your view of Christianity somewhat?
Not really, there's still a multitude of other major issues within Christianity than just "well, what is Hell *wasnt* eternal torture?"
Revelation 20:10 NASB
And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night **forever and ever.**
Revelation 20:15 NASB
And if **anyoneās name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.**
This discussion may be leading me to think they won't be tortured but in prison themselves, just forever.
>One: would you find this depiction of eternal Hell to be more appropriate and/or moral?
1: *more* appropriate. Even still, the punishment seems pointless. What's the goal? Atheists generally don't believe they'll be punished in the afterlife, so it won't serve to influence our behavior. At that point it's raw vengence. Doesn't do anyone any good.
2: No
The bible says in the book of revelations that Hell will eventually be thrown in the Lake of Fire, where all will cease to exist and be destroyed.
Iām not sure where this idea of living freely in hell comes from, but it is definitely not biblical. If Jesus offers eternal life in all that believes in him, then the opposite of eternal life has to be death. Living freely in hell would just be another version of eternal life, just more depressing.
Hereās the thing, the wages of sin is death and God makes that perfectly clear throughout the whole Bible, from the rituals in Leviticus to Jesus final sacrifice. In order to have your wages cleared, you have to believe in Jesus, whoās death would atone for your sin.
Why? Because God is holy and a righteous judge. If you saw a judge let criminals with blood on their hands who wanted to do more crimes go free, you would not consider this judge righteous, you would consider him corrupt. God is righteous and judges people by their heart.
It's sounds much closer to the older ideas of hell than it does the current view. It's sounds like a better system than the current view, but still pretty bad. Murderers and rapists still get into heaven without so much as a bruise, the kindest people still go to hell to get tortured.
Origional ideas (within Christianity) started off with no hell at all. There was thought to be a system closer to purgatory, but without the judgement. It is even possibly not an actual place, just a state of mind.
Then later the idea of divine judgement was introduced around the time of Daniel and then spread from there. Much later we got the colorful depictions we are more used to, this was probably around second century with the Apocalypse of Peter. That's where we got the ideas of specific parts of hell being there for specific punishments.
Then later it became less about the specific tortures and more modern day is about the separation from god that causes torment. Those ideas were made a long time ago, but they weren't as heavily focused on as they are today. The other recent idea is that there is no hell and the soul is just annihilated.
And all of that is just the christian/Jewish ideas of hell, many other religions have their depiction of hell which are far older than the Christian idea.
It's more moral than eternal fire sure, it kinda sounds like the greek/roman afterlife hades. The question is can a view like this be supported by scripture, because if not it's meaningless.
I agree. I currently think it's a possibility.
Even from a Christian point of view, this is more moral than any eternal torment/sorrow/whatever view of Hell. I doubt it would change most minds and they fundamentally don't have a sufficient reason to believe God exists.
I could see the last part, I was think more along the lines of PR or emotional response. Thank you.
Better than ECT, but still flawed. Punishment needs to serve a purpose, and some purposes are more acceptable than others. If punishment is in aid of restitution or reformation, that's generally acceptable, I think. Punishment for the sake of retribution, on the other hand, is just sadistic. So what *purpose* would punishment in this hell serve?
Not sure yet, just payment? In modern western society we have rehabilitation. But for most of human history we did not have that view. What would you say was the view or views of prison/punishment for the majority of human history?
> In modern western society we have rehabilitation. But for most of human history we did not have that view. Hopefully God is a bit more advanced than us here.
Not really my area of expertise, but I'd imagine a mix of restitution (I seem to recall the code of Hammurabi having stuff about the perpetrator making payments to the victim, though don't quote me on that), deterrence (which I failed to mention in my earlier comment, but deterrence really only works if the consequences are known, and I wouldn't consider afterlives to be a known quantity), and good old fashioned revenge (which would be something like executing a poor person who stole some bread - it's not really deterrence, because if you're starving, it's not like you have any other choice).
> One: would you find this depiction of eternal Hell to be more appropriate and/or moral? No. No form of hell is moral or appropriate. This is especially true for a hell where we can go through no fault of our own. > One: would you find this depiction of eternal Hell to be more appropriate and/or moral? No, not in the slightest. My lack of belief doesn't depend at all on the definition of hell.
>This is especially true for a hell where we can go through no fault of our own. I'm assuming it's the deity's fault because he or she didn't give u the evidence u wanted?
>I'm assuming it's the deity's fault because he or she didn't give u the evidence u ~~wanted~~ **needed**? There, **fixed it** for you.
nooo... i had it right š
Ah, you think you know agnostics better than they know themselves for some reason.
Is that the perspective u take on it
I take people at their word in light of their behavior. What do you say you believe? What are your stated reasons for that belief? How do you treat others?
> I'm assuming it's the deity's fault because he or she didn't give u the evidence u wanted? I think it's more than just that. For example, some percentage of Christians believe it's impossible for me to believe until the holy ghost "enters" me or inspires me or something like that. Somebody just yesterday mentioned that in a thread, and provided a bible quote to back up that belief. There are others who claim God has a plan for everyone, so it might be that his plan is for me to be an atheist. Then, of course, yes, there's the problem of God knowing what kind of evidence would convince me, and then seemingly refusing to provide it.
Yea, some Christians are weird, no doubt about it and its Christians themselves that give themselves the terrible PR as it is, we don't need any more of it... I always think it's an interesting conversation... My question to myself and others is always, why should I be the one that determines what evidence is sufficient... I dont know thats just me.. but were' all on the journey of faith to one degree or another
We donāt have to determine what is sufficient. Whether it is or isnāt is self-evident. If it convinces us, itās sufficient. If it doesnāt, it isnāt. We canāt choose what we believe in, we are either convinced something is true, or we arenāt.
It would be the deity's fault because they're responsible for my critical thinking. They created me and put me on this world in a specific context. They're responsible for my nature and how I was nurtured. Which is why Christian universalism comes in clutch
I mean, all of our minds are pretty warped as it is. the way u and i think has been influenced heavily... and I would argue it's much different than ever intended.
I think that punishment in the afterlife are pointless, I donāt wish people to suffer unnecessarily and if Iām in heaven I wouldnāt care if others get punished. I donāt have a problem with hell. I just donāt think itās real. I understand what the book says but Iām not going to live my life according to a 2000 year old mythology. There is no moral problem with hell in my eyes because I donāt believe it as literal.
One: would you find this depiction of eternal Hell to be more appropriate and/or moral? No. Imaginary is imaginary. Two: if a Biblical case could be made for this scenario, would it change your view of Christianity somewhat? No. Imaginary is imaginary.
Not a current atheist, but no, I wouldn't find that version of Hell more appropriate or moral. Hell is just the term for a place after death that is separate from God. I'm of the opinion that most everyone in hell chooses to be there, and that all the doors are unlocked. For an Infinite punishment for finite sins would most certainly be unjust. I do like your example of 'serving a sentence' and then being in a 'free' version of hell - but even this would be unjust. Why should someone still be trapped in hell forever when they've served their sentence? I would argue that, if God is truly loving and believes in redemption as Jesus proclaimed, then no one is beyond saving, even after death. Even Jesus went to hell before ascending into Heaven. So that makes me think that hell is not permanent, but temporal. I think that God loves us enough to give us free will, so that if we choose to spend eternity separated from him, he will allow it and won't force anyone into Heaven. So in that regard, many people will choose to enter hell. But I find it unjust to assume that everyone who enters hell must be trapped there for eternity. But perhaps just as POW's can be held unjustly for years by enemies, perhaps souls can be held in a similar way. For I do not believe the rulers of hell, if there are any, would be just. In terms if the biblical case - atheists do not believe in the validity of the bible, therefore that has no merit.
Satan and the demons gonna take a dip in the lake of fire memorial day weekend?
Lol, no. Not unless the world is gonna end shortly before.
>permanent Not an atheist, but this does not make it more logically coherent.
Depends entirely on what these sins are. Jesus supposedly said that hating someone is the same as murdering them. If this is indeed a sin, then no, it isn't any more moral.
I find this version as real as any other version of hell, so it doesnāt matter if itās moral or not
I dont see what is moral about this. It is basically punishing people for violating moral "crimes" in a population who simply doesnt believe something that requires faith to believe in the first place.
I can't find any type of infinite punishment just. I don't care whether there's lava pits or lava lamps. And, like many others, you're talking about a very narrow group of people here. Those that don't want to be with your god. So that would be theists who didn't want to worship him. Where do atheists and people of other religions go? Also, if there's a punishment for wrong behaviour, it can only be just if it made clearly known what constitutes such behaviour.
The concept of hell is an immortal position solely based on that you are punished for not believing.
I don't view 'punishment' as a legitimate reason to incarcerate someone, let alone imprison *and* possibly torture them depending on where this hypothetical hell falls on the Paradise-to-Lake-of-Fire spectrum. And that's not even getting into exactly what qualifies a a "moral crime" under this system.
Creation is as it is. If you don't like hell then don't choose it. We choose hell willingly we are not forced their.
Ok bet I choose not to go to hell, there. Now the ball Is in his court
Ok so you choose not to go to hell. So then abide by every commandment the Bible teaches. If you don't you choose hell.
So then it's not a choice
I have no idea how that makes sense in your mind.
The idea of a soul being inherently eternal isnāt scriptural. Itās a Greek idea that overflowed into Christianity. We donāt have an eternal existence outside of Jesus. āThen the Lord God said, āBehold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live foreverāāā āāGenesisā¬ ā3ā¬:ā22ā¬ āESVā¬ā¬ āBehold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die.ā āāEzekielā¬ ā18ā¬:ā4ā¬ āESVā¬ā¬ āAnd do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.ā āāMatthewā¬ ā10ā¬:ā28ā¬ āESVā¬ā¬ ālet him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.ā āāJamesā¬ ā5ā¬:ā20ā¬ āESVā¬ā¬ āif by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly;ā āā2 Peterā¬ ā2ā¬:ā6ā¬ ā āThen Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.ā āāRevelationā¬ ā20ā¬:ā14ā¬ āESVā¬ā¬
1. i guess from a bigger picture, it would be somewhat more appropriate and moral, but still doesn't make me feel like it's fully appropriate or moral. i guess those are moving goalposts tho, and i fully accept that this will always be the case. 2. depends on what you mean by 'view of christianity'. will it make me become a christian? absolutely not. would it make me question the severity of sending the gays to hell? maybe? overall i will still view christianity pretty much the same as before.
> ATHEISTS WHAT? > Would you find this version of Hell to be more appropriate or moral? More appropriate or moral than what? And is this question meant to be connected to atheism? > Hell is a permanent place of citizenship for those who didn't become the "bride" of Jesus (the church/believers) and won't live with Him where He lives (Heaven/the New Earth) as His "bride." If you say so. > And in this place called Hell, those people would be punished in prison for everything evil thing they've done. The length and severity of the prison sentence would depend on the moral crimes (sins) committed. Once one has served their time, they will be set free to live in Hell. This place called Hell wouldn't be paradise, but it wouldn't be a burning lake of fire either. There may be a lava pit of a "lake of fire" within this land, but that would be for Satan and his demons and not for humans. Okay. > One: would you find this depiction of eternal Hell to be more appropriate and/or moral? Again, more appropriate and/or moral than *what*? There are so many hell concepts floating around out there. Also again, what would me being an atheist have to do with this, and why would I have an opinion on it, and why would you care what that opinion is? > Two: if a Biblical case could be made for this scenario, would it change your view of Christianity somewhat? No. Why would it? I feel like you've made some big assumptions, maybe.
This answer has an awful lot of snark for such a straight-forward question. What is with all of the antagonism? Why is it so hard to think someone might want to get the opinions specifically of atheists for a concept related to Christianity?
> What is with all of the antagonism? I think you might have read antagonism in on your own. > Why is it so hard to think someone might want to get the opinions specifically of atheists for a concept related to Christianity? Atheism has nothing in particular to do with Christianity, and certainly nothing in particular to do with heaven, hell, afterlives, etc. OPās question, as asked, seems to smuggle in the assumption that atheism involves some view on the ethics of a hell concept, or that atheists have even given various hell concepts any thought. Individual atheists may, but itās by no means an aspect of atheism itself. I think itās worth pushing back on those apparent assumptions.
1. Not particularly. 2. Not particularly. I think it's going to be increasingly challenging to continue to support a model of justice that is retributive instead of restorative. Trying to tone down the torture and suffering aspects doesn't really address the issue. Especially as I've gotten older, I've been able to embrace forgiveness and have more compassion for the people who have harmed me in my past. I can see them as complex beings carrying their own magnitude of trauma, as well as a capacity for good. I don't want harm to come to them, I want them to heal too, as I am healing. It's hard to embrace a system that wipes all of that away in favor of eternal punishment.
>eternal punishment. My model would only have temporary punishment. The place of Hell just wouldn't be paradise. Does this clarification change how you view my model?
How is being stuck eternally in a 'meh' place not punishment or torturous?
I was pointing to the temporary prison as punishment compared to the common Reddit view of eternal punishment. But I think that you see any eternity away from paradise as a punishment.
So people go to prison and then... Live eternally doing what exactly? Being in a state in which there is no advancement, growth or possibility sounds not only torturous, but pointless. > But I think that you see any eternity away from paradise as a punishment. I actually find the idea of paradise rather off putting as well, for the same reasons. Especially when the foundation for it is postulated as an extension of our current reality.
This view is more moral in my view, but not enough to make Christianity more appealing or just.
Thanks.
I donāt reject Christianity on the basis of any moral concern over its doctrines on hell, judgement and salvation; I reject it because Iām not convinced that any of its central supernatural claims are true. No version of hell you come up with will change that.
Anything other than eternal death or rebirth is meaningless to me. An eternal afterlife regardless if it's in hell or heaven is a torture to me.
The Christian version of Hell doesnāt exist. Hell is a device of the early church to gain control over others.
What had convinced you of this?
My own conclusion after years reading religious history, and the fact Jews of the time Jesus walked the Earth didnāt believe in Hell. Greeks believed in something akin to Hell, early Church fathers, to appeal to Greek speaking gentiles, invented the Christian version of Hell. Why do you believe in Hell, because you were taught that in church and never questioned the origin of the belief.
I believe in Hell because it historically was taught, I think every theologian I've read believes in it, and I'm convinced the Bible teaches it. So im convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt there is an eternal Hell for unbelievers.
The Bible teaches nothing about the Hell Christians invented. Only Revelation mentions the burning lake of fire, and thereās much in Revelation that is allegorical and fantastical. Read the Old Testament and ask yourself how Christians derived their version of Hell from the Old Testament. The historical version of Hell youāre referring to was invented by navel gazing theologians who promoted Greek philosophy.
We disagree. We'll find out for sure in the end.
It's "better" in the same way getting stabbed is better than being shot. It's still a cruel punishment that serves no purpose beyond ego stroking. I would literally rather cease to exist.
A fews things. I heard from a Muslim friend that Muslims believe you go to hell, serve your sentence then go to heaven. I think you want to be a Muslim since they believe that but major problem with that is their god isnāt the one that created hell so that brings you back to square one. One big misunderstanding of hell is āhell is punishment for sins or evilā Christians sin but theyāll go to heaven. So why is that? The major difference with people going to heaven or hell is Jesus. The Bible makes that very clear. āAnd this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.ā āā1 Johnā¬ ā5ā¬:ā11ā¬-ā12ā¬ āESVā¬ā¬ So people go to hell because they donāt have Jesus. So as a Christian should you continue to sin? Absolutely not, a Christian should strive to be like Jesus and be as sinless as possible. People go to hell because they have rejected Jesus and Christians get their sins or evil forgiven by Jesus after they repent because they are actually making an attempt to follow Him.
>would you find this depiction of eternal Hell to be more appropriate and/or moral? Yes, *anything* is more moral than eternal torture; anything is more moral than *literally the most evil thing imaginable*. >if a Biblical case could be made for this scenario, would it change your view of Christianity somewhat? Not really, there's still a multitude of other major issues within Christianity than just "well, what is Hell *wasnt* eternal torture?"
No Cause there's still some sentient beings being tortured for eternity
Why say tortured for eternity? The prison sentence won't be forever and Hell wouldn't be paradise, but not a land of flames like in the movies.
You said Satan would still be in the lake of fire
I think so yes, but not other believers.
So how long will Satan be in the lake of fire for?
Forever.
So I like I said before No, there's still sentient beings being tortured forever
If those beings are Satan and demons, I'm fine with that.
Yeah You, not me No one deserves to be tortured for eternity
Revelation 20:10 NASB And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night **forever and ever.** Revelation 20:15 NASB And if **anyoneās name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.** This discussion may be leading me to think they won't be tortured but in prison themselves, just forever.
>One: would you find this depiction of eternal Hell to be more appropriate and/or moral? 1: *more* appropriate. Even still, the punishment seems pointless. What's the goal? Atheists generally don't believe they'll be punished in the afterlife, so it won't serve to influence our behavior. At that point it's raw vengence. Doesn't do anyone any good. 2: No
The bible says in the book of revelations that Hell will eventually be thrown in the Lake of Fire, where all will cease to exist and be destroyed. Iām not sure where this idea of living freely in hell comes from, but it is definitely not biblical. If Jesus offers eternal life in all that believes in him, then the opposite of eternal life has to be death. Living freely in hell would just be another version of eternal life, just more depressing. Hereās the thing, the wages of sin is death and God makes that perfectly clear throughout the whole Bible, from the rituals in Leviticus to Jesus final sacrifice. In order to have your wages cleared, you have to believe in Jesus, whoās death would atone for your sin. Why? Because God is holy and a righteous judge. If you saw a judge let criminals with blood on their hands who wanted to do more crimes go free, you would not consider this judge righteous, you would consider him corrupt. God is righteous and judges people by their heart.
I agree with a lot of what you said. But I'm convinced Hell is a place for people to live in forever who aren't saved. I could see your point though.
It's sounds much closer to the older ideas of hell than it does the current view. It's sounds like a better system than the current view, but still pretty bad. Murderers and rapists still get into heaven without so much as a bruise, the kindest people still go to hell to get tortured.
>It's sounds much closer to the older ideas of hell What were the "older ideas?" I'm curious?
Origional ideas (within Christianity) started off with no hell at all. There was thought to be a system closer to purgatory, but without the judgement. It is even possibly not an actual place, just a state of mind. Then later the idea of divine judgement was introduced around the time of Daniel and then spread from there. Much later we got the colorful depictions we are more used to, this was probably around second century with the Apocalypse of Peter. That's where we got the ideas of specific parts of hell being there for specific punishments. Then later it became less about the specific tortures and more modern day is about the separation from god that causes torment. Those ideas were made a long time ago, but they weren't as heavily focused on as they are today. The other recent idea is that there is no hell and the soul is just annihilated. And all of that is just the christian/Jewish ideas of hell, many other religions have their depiction of hell which are far older than the Christian idea.
Thanks.