The Fear of Hell

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_III said:
It’s good to know that Baptists are allowed to repudiate not only the teaching of hell in the Apostle’s Creed, but also the teaching on hell by Christ himself, so long as they follow their conscience instead of the biblical rulebook. It’s good to know Baptists have no allegiance to either the Apostle’s Creed or the Bible unless they like the passages they happen to be reading at the moment.
Click to expand...
Re the Apostles’ Creed, see post #312. The CCC renders two different versions, one He descended into hell and the other He descended to the dead. Perhaps the authors are playing with legalists, and have got them jumping from one foot to the other trying to decide whether they must recite the first, the second, or in Ned Flanders style, diddley diddley both diddley.

I see you think freedom of conscience is a most terrible thing. There should be a law against it! The very impertinence of not obeying Mao Tse-tung’s little red book! You don’t get that kind of decadence in North Korea!

However, you have aroused yourself prematurely as I haven’t yet actually said whether or not I believe in hell because I wanted you to read the SEP article. Please get on with it, I can’t hold my breath much longer.
*Matthew 25:44-46
Click to expand...
"Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’ And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Click to expand...
Do you like that passage? :confused:*
Click to expand...
What’s not to like in the parable of the sheep and goats?

btw, here’s the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the word parable:

“The word parable (Hebrew mashal; Syrian mathla, Greek parabole) signifies in general a comparison, or a parallel, by which one thing is used to illustrate another. It is a likeness taken from the sphere of real, or sensible, or earthly incidents, in order to convey an ideal, or spiritual, or heavenly meaning. As uttering one thing and signifying something else, it is in the nature of a riddle (Hebrew khidah, Gr. ainigma or problema) and has therefore a light and a dark side (“dark sayings”, Wisdom 8:8; Sirach 39:3), it is intended to stir curiosity and calls for intelligence in the listener” - newadvent.org/cathen/11460a.htm

So then. Did you ever go on that bible study course? :coffeeread:
 
Lucy107 said:
This could indeed be taken to mean that the doctrine of heaven and hell is a kind of reward-and-punishment didactic strategy.

And on a very base level, it is; some people just don’t understand anything more refined, and cannot be moved to good action in any other way but through promise of rewards and punishments.

Someone with a bit more sensibility can understand that doctrine in some other way. For example, thinking about it, they could get the insight that you describe above.
Click to expand...
Oh. So you intellectual types use heaven and hell as a device to keep us plebs in order?

Quite.

I once knew a girl, Amanda, who was an atheist but who thought religion is definitely a good thing, for much the same reason. Stops the natives from getting restless.

Or are you sailing right over my head here?
 
inocente said:
Re the Apostles’ Creed, see post #312. The CCC renders two different versions, one He descended into hell and the other He descended to the dead. Perhaps the authors are playing with legalists, and have got them jumping from one foot to the other trying to decide whether they must recite the first, the second, or in Ned Flanders style, diddley diddley both diddley.

I see you think freedom of conscience is a most terrible thing. There should be a law against it! The very impertinence of not obeying Mao Tse-tung’s little red book! You don’t get that kind of decadence in North Korea!

However, you have aroused yourself prematurely as I haven’t yet actually said whether or not I believe in hell because I wanted you to read the SEP article. Please get on with it, I can’t hold my breath much longer.

What’s not to like in the parable of the sheep and goats?

btw, here’s the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the word parable:

“The word parable (Hebrew mashal; Syrian mathla, Greek parabole) signifies in general a comparison, or a parallel, by which one thing is used to illustrate another. It is a likeness taken from the sphere of real, or sensible, or earthly incidents, in order to convey an ideal, or spiritual, or heavenly meaning. As uttering one thing and signifying something else, it is in the nature of a riddle (Hebrew khidah, Gr. ainigma or problema) and has therefore a light and a dark side (“dark sayings”, Wisdom 8:8; Sirach 39:3), it is intended to stir curiosity and calls for intelligence in the listener” - newadvent.org/cathen/11460a.htm

So then. Did you ever go on that bible study course? :coffeeread:
Click to expand...
Okay I feel I must comment on your interpretation of the creed. You claim it renders 2 different versions. IT does not. Here is what the Church teaches.

Before Christ rose from the dead and opened heaven, (remember the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? He wanted Lazarus to give him water, but they were separated, Remember?).

Anyway there was hell and hades, they were both the same place. But at that time divided into levels. Anyway hades was for the dead. When Jesus went to hell it was to release the souls from hades and let them enter heaven. He pretty much cleaned out hades, and the lower level, or hell is what was left. Hope this helps.
 
rinnie said:
Okay I feel I must comment on your interpretation of the creed. You claim it renders 2 different versions. IT does not. Here is what the Church teaches.

Before Christ rose from the dead and opened heaven, (remember the parable of the rich man and Lazarus? He wanted Lazarus to give him water, but they were separated, Remember?).

Anyway there was hell and hades, they were both the same place. But at that time divided into levels. Anyway hades was for the dead. When Jesus went to hell it was to release the souls from hades and let them enter heaven. He pretty much cleaned out hades, and the lower level, or hell is what was left. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
See links to the two versions in the CCC in post #312.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Emphasis my own

IMHO much better terminology here. The labels “right” and “wrong” are not theological. “Sin” is.
Click to expand...
How about living in the Light (out of sin) or in the darkness (in sin) better.

Rather you consider right or wrong theological or not it is still the same as sin.

TO sin, is to know what is right and wrong and do what is wrong anyway.

To not sin, is to know right from wrong and pick what is right.

So how could you possibly not label or define sin without using right and wrong?🤷
 
inocente said:
So then. Did you ever go on that bible study course? :coffeeread:
Click to expand...
When you have no respectable answer, you do like to change the subject, don’t you? 😉

Jesus gives two reasons in Matthew 25 to desire heaven and fear hell. Yet you go at St. Paul as a refutation of Jesus. I’m sure Paul would be appalled your nerve!

I believe in following my conscience. I don’t believe I am free to inform my conscience with beliefs contrary to those taught by Christ. One should read one’s Bible and listen to the teachings of Christ when they contradict one’s so-called conscience. 🤷
 
inocente said:
The Apostles taught two different versions? Why did they do that then, couldn’t they agree the wording?
Click to expand...
I am telling you the wording is the same.

In the creed it said Jesus went to Hell, Hades, Death. It was considered in those days all the same place. As I stated there were different levels. One for the Righteous waiting with Father Abraham, the other for the Un-righteous.

Just like Jesus taught us about 2 different kinds of death.

One is to be death in a physical sense.
One is to be death in a spiritual sense.

The Righteous were dead only in a Physical sense waiting for God. The un-righteous were dead in both body and soul.

Since the resurrection of Christ there is no longer a hell, hades etc as there was before his resurrection. Because he cleaned out the waiting place, and opened up heaven. Lazarus and Abraham went to heaven. The rich man stayed in hell. He was dead in body, and dead in sin, His soul.
 
inocente said:
The Apostles taught two different versions? Why did they do that then, couldn’t they agree the wording?
Click to expand...
Again, you have failed to show me where using different words changes the version.

SO you are saying if I call God Jesus, or Father, or the Holy Spirit I am changing the version of the One true God? Or as I said rather I address God by the Father Son or Holy Spirit I am addressing the One True God.

You have failed to show me how a change of a word changes the meaning. You must be more clear.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
When you have no respectable answer, you do like to change the subject, don’t you? 😉

Jesus gives two reasons in Matthew 25 to desire heaven and fear hell. Yet you go at St. Paul as a refutation of Jesus. I’m sure Paul would be appalled your nerve!

I believe in following my conscience. I don’t believe I am free to inform my conscience with beliefs contrary to those taught by Christ. One should read one’s Bible and listen to the teachings of Christ when they contradict one’s so-called conscience. 🤷
Click to expand...
Go back and read the Catholic Encyclopedia description of what a parable is. You cannot read parables literally, they didn’t happen, Jesus made them up for teaching. It would be really beneficial for you to go on a bible study course to learn these things, does your church not run one?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Sometimes we hear unbelievers say they cannot respect the idea of a God who would prepare for us a place of everlasting suffering. Such a God is petty and vindictive. How would you answer this critique of the Christian hell? :confused:
Click to expand...
Here is my thought that I have written in another post concerning this question.

Hell is the absence of God. Hell is the absence of good. There are those who would say, “I would rather go to Hell that to have anything to do with God.” “I would rather go to Hell than to give up my life to the service of others.” “I would rather go to Hell rather than give up my Ferrari” “I would rather go to Hell than to say I am sorry.” “I would rather go to Hell than to relinquish my anger and hatred.” “I would rather go to Hell than to accept God’s goodness.”

There are many reasons why a person will prefer an eternity in the absence of God, - prefer the absence of good - rather than an eternity with God.

This is the choice we make. We make this choice daily. And at the end of our lives we will make this choice with full knowledge of what it means. And, there are those who will say, “I am not afraid of Hell so…To Hell with it.”

God wants our love but He will not force it on us. If we choose a life without God and choose an eternity without God, He will respect our choice.
 
rinnie said:
Again, you have failed to show me where using different words changes the version.

SO you are saying if I call God Jesus, or Father, or the Holy Spirit I am changing the version of the One true God? Or as I said rather I address God by the Father Son or Holy Spirit I am addressing the One True God.

You have failed to show me how a change of a word changes the meaning. You must be more clear.
Click to expand...
Well yes, you keep saying that but the apostles obviously didn’t speak in modern English, yet the English version of the CCC uses two different wordings, He descended to the dead and He descended into hell. Does the CCC say anywhere why it uses two different wordings? The Apostle’s Creed “is the faith of the Church professed personally by each believer” (CCC 167), it’s purpose is to be completely unambiguous, so why are there two different wordings?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Sometimes we hear unbelievers say they cannot respect the idea of a God who would prepare for us a place of everlasting suffering. Such a God is petty and vindictive. How would you answer this critique of the Christian hell? :confused:
Click to expand...
The possibility of a condition of hell exists with the possibility of a free will. God had taken a risk by giving us free will. Since He wanted our yes to come from a free will there had to exist the possibility of rejecting Him. God knew the grief beforehand what would had happened so that it was incredible that He still went on with creation. What motivated Him to continue on with creation was those who with their free will had chosen to be part of His Creative Heaven. It is very sad that by rejecting Him fully would bring a condition of hell to them. Yet I believe the Lord had given us great warnings in this matter so that there is no excuse for those who do fully reject their vocation. God must have warned the Angels about Hell if they had chosen to sin so it was incredible that some of them ignored this warning. With man came a warning also but it was somewhat different than what given to the Angels. Man has a possibility to repent which the Lord in His rich Mercy has only given to man and not to the Angels. The spiritual nature of man and of Angels were never created to be without God. Some thing happens to this spiritual nature that can have eternal or temporal consequences when sin touches our spiritual nature. With Angels it has an eternal consequence meaning a hell exists in them while in man it can shift back and forth as long as he lives. Since God has given us much warnings on this by revealing His enormous Mercy then there is no excuse for those who do reject His great Mercy.
 
rinnie said:
How about living in the Light (out of sin) or in the darkness (in sin) better.
Click to expand...
Possibly more ambiguous as those are also metaphors for knowledge levels, emotional climates, and other things.
rinnie said:
Rather you consider right or wrong theological or not it is still the same as sin.
Click to expand...
This tells me that you use “wrong” the same as “sin.” Not everyone does. I feel that for messages that are intended to also speak to non-religious members of an audience the word “sin” might not be very persuasive. When speaking to other Catholics or people that share some other similar religious disposition it will probably be effective enough though.
rinnie said:
TO sin, is to know what is right and wrong and do what is wrong anyway.
Click to expand...
And some tell me that “sin” can be actions that someone performs that are a violation of divine commands regardless of knowledge of if those actions being a violation Ex: even if someone doesn’t know that masturbation, sex without a marriage license or using contraception is a violation of a what Yahweh wants and if the person does not have bad feelings about these he/she may still considered by some to be committing a “sin.” If you speak to the masturbator, the committed unmarried sexually active couple, so on and find out their attitudes you might find that they are perfectly fine with it. Even if they are religious individuals they might not feel that it’s “wrong.” By the definition you’ve provided above these people have not sinned. But according to the usage of the word “sin” by some others they have.
rinnie said:
So how could you possibly not label or define sin without using right and wrong?🤷
Click to expand...
I think you’ll get better milage with moral terms than theological terms. I’m not telling you to not associate the two with each other if you already do. But consider that others may not share that association. The word “sin” has been used to label a lot of different things.

My sister and I went into a church by invitation. She was seen as sinful because her head was not covered. I Was seen as sinful because my hair was longer than some prescribed length. They informed us of our sins without actually convincing us of them. At another church I heard the pastor lamenting over the sins that people were committing today such as murder, theft, and women wearing pants and makeup. Also exercising certain words within one’s vocabulary is by some considered “sinful” especially certain words of germanic origins.

See how this word “sin” has been used? Do you see how what is seen as “sinful” doesn’t always coincide with what one sees as “wrong”? How do you think someone that has encountered various usages of the word reacts to being told that something is sinful?

More related to this thread, “hell” seems to be described in lots of various ways too. The conditions that will get someone to hell also vary depending on religious disposition. I’m not sure if hearing of the variations of Gehenna, Sheol, Hades, ταρταρῶ, and so on strengthens or weakens the concept. I will say though that I’m glad that hellfire sermons are not as common in my area as they used to be. To hear someone sounding angry and yelling about torture for over an hour is anything but an edifying experience.
 
HelenRose said:
There are those who would say, “I would rather go to Hell that to have anything to do with God.” “I would rather go to Hell than to give up my life to the service of others.” “I would rather go to Hell rather than give up my Ferrari” “I would rather go to Hell than to say I am sorry.” “I would rather go to Hell than to relinquish my anger and hatred.” “I would rather go to Hell than to accept God’s goodness.”
Click to expand...
When people say that do you think they are being literal or invoking an idiom? Is it really an indication that person prefers as you called it “an eternity in the absence of God.” I’ve gotten the feeling it is being said for the same reasons people use hyperbole.

Showing my age, but in the movie “Edward Scissors-hands” there was a part where Edward was electrocuted on live TV. A person not friendly to him said “I would give my left [insert organ name here] to see that again!” I didn’t take that to indicate that the character was willing to go into surgery to have a [insert organ name here]-ectomy for the opportunity of recreating the circumstances that lead up to the electrocutaion. Similarly, I don’t think that people that are saying they would rather go to hell are communicating that they would prefer to be in a place that matches what ever their hell-concept is (As these also differ significantly).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top