Will I be tortured forever in hell for my unbelief?

[chsalvia]

Jezz:

Yes, but there are two halves to my argument. The other half is "What exactly does cessation of consciousness mean?" Ultimately, the materialist must speculate as much as any spiritualist. So a materialist has no grounds to dismiss Christianity barbaric on the grounds that it teaches hell. Every world view (including materialism) has some form of hell.

Well, I think the materialist defines a cessation of consciousness as just that - not having a "self". This is more or less equivalent to before being born. One simply ceases to exist.

Materialists dismiss the Christian concept of Hell as barbaric because popular interpretations of Christian theology portray Hell as a place where one consciously experiences some form of torment for eternity. Obviously, nonexistence is preferable to eternal unpleasantness, and in general popular usage, the word "Hell" is not synonymous with "nonexistence."

Furthermore, the Christian concept of Hell is also dismissed as barbaric because with Christianity, an actual personality, i.e. God, is choosing to send people to Hell - whereas, with naturalism, death is simply a brute fact of life in an uncaring universe.

Why can't non-existence be a punishment? I personally would consider non-existence to be a punishment if there was an alternative. I happen to like existing!

Yes, I think you're right. After all, an atheist would consider the death penalty to be a form of punishment.

But the point I was trying to make was that the Bible teaches that both the saved and the damned will be resurrected on Judgment Day. (Daniel 12:1-3, Matthew 25:31-46) Thus, those who die as sinners do not simply cease to exist, but are resurrected to face some form of punishment. (The "second death.") If this punishment is nonexistence, then I suppose you could say that sinners are resurrected for a brief moment in order to be made aware that they will soon cease to exist because they failed to respond to the message of eternal life.

However, it seems to me that the New Testament warns us of some sort of horrible existence that awaits sinners in the afterlife. (As opposed to nonexistence.) Again, I refer to such passages as Mark 9:47, Revelation 20, etc. This could plausibly be interpreted as a metaphor for nonexistence, but it seems more naturally to refer to some kind of unpleasantness that the sinner will consciously endure. And of course, this interpretation is backed up by contemporary Jewish eschatology found in non-Biblical writings.

[Blake Reas]

Yesterday @ 05:56 AM post located here
jimbo:

Hello,

I am still interested in seeing if any Christian on this board believes that I, because I am an unbeliever, am so evil that I deserve to be and will be tortured for eternity.

Thank you.

Jimbo

Let me help you. I believe that everyone deserves hell even me. It is just that some are saved by grace through faith in the Son of God. So in essence everyone deserves it not just you. I know this is a rather emotional subject and I understand your outrage. I am just wanting to honest with you and what the scripture teaches.

Blake

[jimbo]

Blake,

It is just that some are saved by grace through faith in the Son of God.

I see. So if you believe in Jesus, you get into heaven. If you don't believe in Jesus, you are evil and deserve to be and will be tortured for eternity in hell.

Do you suspect that this this is con game of some sort?

Jimbo

[jesusreligion]

10-06-2003 @ 02:12 AM post located here
jimbo:

Blake,



I see. So if you believe in Jesus, you get into heaven. If you don't believe in Jesus, you are evil and deserve to be and will be tortured for eternity in hell.

Do you suspect that this this is con game of some sort?

Jimbo

Absolutely a con-game by men to frighten people for control.

This doctrine is not of God and finds its' origins in the minds of men. Christians will fight to the bitter end to defend this doctrine of hell, because if it is false, then their current beliefs about God and His relationship with mankind have to radically change and people fear change and the idea that they just may be wrong. So, they spew condemnation and guilt upon others, thinking they are saving them. Here is Jesus' warning to the religious and their false ideas they spread:

Mat 23:15 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves."

If Christians would logically think this "hell idea" through, they would see it doesn't make sense.

By their beliefs only a certain percentage of mankind would be saved. If so, then God failed and "the devil" they believe in would have more power than even God. God would not be all-powerful if He was not able to save all. Isn't God more powerful than man and man's unbeliefs?

And if God is all-knowing, He simply would not create beings that would not measure up and have to be destroyed. Otherwise, God would not be a God of Love and Mercy, but a God of Evil; and God is Love and Mercy.

Religion always says,"You are lacking and need something." God says, "Only believe." Separation has come to the minds of men...the ideas of separation from God and each other. Healing and salvation takes place in the heart of man by eliminating those ideas of untruth. Jesus showed us that "He is the Way..." How did He live and walk? He showed us the way, the truth and the life...no one comes to the Father but by the way Jesus showed us. Not through religion, a book, a church or a man.

The Kingdom of God IS within us. Christ IN you...

[ChrisChillin]

(just popping in)

Didn't we go over this in a debate already?

Cheers from London

[Jezz]

LakeGeorgeMan:
ahh, good ol' Jezz is at it again... trying so desperately to remove the speck of rhetoric from my eye, while ignoring the plank of overly verbose, incoherent assertions he calls “arguments” in his own posts.

On the surface, yes...although you seem overly concerned with the nuances of the term "torture" versus "punishment".

I'm only interested in the nuances of the word "torture" versus "punishment" because "Jimbo" is. He is blatantly using the former to try and add weight to his "argument by outrage".

"torture" implies undesirable treatment that is not deserved (ie, unjust). "punishment" implies undesirable treatment that is deserved (ie, just). Whatever hell is, the Bible teaches that it is perfectly just. If hell is not perfectly just, then it is not the hell of the Bible. Simple.

I’m sorry Jezz, I had no idea that all the myriad books of the Bible and their countless redactions weren’t written by humans. I also didn’t realize that when discussing concepts of Christianity such as “hell”, that the bible’s authorship and authority are completely irrelevant. I stand corrected…

It's irrelevant because what's in question here is not whether or not the Christian worldview is true or authoritative. What's in question is whether or not outrage is a valid reason to discount it.

I like you Jezz. You’re obviously a well educated, intelligent young man. I’m sure you fancy yourself a 21st century Pascal, part scientist, part apologist/evangelist.
But I submit you are more than just an honorary materialist, you are in fact a “real” materialist,

Tell you what: I'll admit that I'm a "real" materialist - just as soon as you tell me what sort of material the laws of nature are made out of. Deal?

and that everything you think and believe in, is a result of your genetic composition and the environment/culture you live in. Same for me.

Sorry, quantum physics doesn't back you up here. Quantum indeterminicity means that the actions of an individual are not completely determined by their genetic composition and their environment. In other words, according to modern physics, we have free will. About time you caught up on some of these concepts of modern physics, LGM - after all, they're not that modern anymore (having been around for nearly a century).

I’m sorry Jezz…I didn’t realize that your notions of hell were those of the “original Jews/Christians of NT times”.

I wasn't claiming to know what their beliefs about hell were, exactly. I was claiming to know what their beliefs weren't - ie, Dante's ("Jimbo's") version. chsalvia has backed me up on this.

Could you please produce the specific list of people who in your mind comprise the set of “original Jews/Christians”? Could you then also identify the epistemology by where you believe your views of “hell” and all of the views of these “original Jews/Christians” are in agreement? Then futher explain why even if they are in agreement, we should believe the religious views of these people more than any other first century cult (say Mithraism?). Thanks!
Perhaps if you actually provided me with supporting evidence of this nature, instead of your mere assertions, I wouldn’t be so inclined to poke fun of you with my famous “rhetoric”.

Partially in response to this request, I started a thread specifically to deal with the topic of epistemology which you have already chosen to participate in here.

The correct answer is 1.
It’s something that our biologists and paleontologists agree has been happening to all living organisms long before our species existed, and will continue long after we are extinct.

Right. So why care about extinction at all?

I’m sorry if you think your death is special Jezz.

I'm sorry if you think that yours isn't.

Poor Jezz, always confusing his redefinition of terms, and his non sequiturs as a “real argument”.
If I understand your position, If I believe in death (which I do) then I believe in your definition of “hell” (which is a synonym for death). So death = hell, for all biological organisms. Is this your position?

That'll do for now. I reserve the right to change my mind upon further contemplation.

If so, great. I suppose I could say my definition of Newark, NJ is death, then I could say if you believe in death, then you believe in the Newark, NJ I described. As long as I explain the way I choose to use language, I guess we can still be semi-coherent to each other.

Of course, your definition of hell fails the identity test, because not every living thing goes to Newark, NJ, and being in Newark, NJ is by no means a permanent state of affairs. It therefore lacks two of the key features that both hell and death have, and therefore is not a suitable definition of hell.

wrong, and incoherent. I have no idea what you mean when you say that “materialism teaches everything is imperfect”… this is a perfect example of you mixing science and your theist babbling. Imperfect in what way? Morally? Genetically? Mechanically? There is an incredibly broad spectrum of living organisms on this planet constantly adapting to the changing environment by a process we call evolution. The fact that reproduction, birth, and death are part of this natural process has nothing to do with some bizarre hominid fantasy about moral “imperfection”.

I didn't say moral imperfection. I merely said imperfect. Evolutionists like Dawkins like to make a big deal about the imperfection of certain biological designs as proof of evolution.

Imagine for a moment if all biological organisms reproduced but never “died” (perfect by your bizarre, implied definition), what would our “perfect” world look like then? (pretty crowded I would guess). Perhaps if you ever stopped to examine your own bizarre lectionary of ideas Jezz, you would realize just how incoherent they are to a plain speaking rational person.

As soon as you find me an example of a "plain speaking rational person", be sure and let me know. Please don't make me laugh by trying to claim that you are a representative of such - I think I would die laughing.

wrong again Jezz. As far as I know, Christainity teaches that it is just modern homo sapiens who are “fallen” or “imperfect” (not sure what Christianity thinks about our ancestors of 50,000 years ago). Your savior god is not concerned with saving dead viruses, or fish, or oak trees, or dolphins, or even your beloved pet cat or dog. But again, perhaps I’m wrong about this and Jezz can enlighten me as to what the “original Jews/Christians of NT times” thought about this.

I have no idea what they thought about non-homo sapiens. The Bible doesn't record their thoughts. Therefore, I don't presume to make a judgement on the matter.

You’ve asserted this, but by no means have you demonstrated it. As has already been pointed out to you in this thread, there are countless people who call themselves intelligent, well studied Christians who claim otherwise. And please don’t try to play semantic games between the definitions of eternal “torture” verse eternal “punishment”. Whatever the circumstances, you continue to contradict yourself by failing to admit that “hell” is some state of consciousness for the person experiencing it.

I haven't failed to admit it. I've admitted that it's a possibility. I've admitted that I don't know for sure. And I've admitted that I don't really care to know for sure, as it is irrelevant. Either it's a place you don't believe in, or it's a place that you're not going to go to.

And that is not what biological death is, despite your special pleading to the contrary. When a mammal dies and the electrical activity in its brain stops, it’s consciousness is over.

Ok - when you die, be sure to come back and confirm your hypothesis with experimental observation for you fellow materialists, ok?

No. If all any Christian on this board ever threatened me with (like Hamster demonstrates so well in this thread), is “…if you don’t believe in Jesus, you’re going to DIE!”…I would have to agree, …and of course retort…” “…if you believe in Jesus, you’re going to DIE!”. But alas, this is not what they say or mean. They mean that all modern homo sapiens experience some undefined, nebulous afterlife, in some undisclosed, immaterial realm, and there they have some form of “consciousness” that allows them to experience eternal “heaven” (cause I beleeve in Jebus…) or eternal “hell” (cuase yur an evul, god hating, atheeist).

You're threatening us with hell too (though perhaps a different version)... the only difference is, that you think your worldview is right and that ours is wrong. Ooops, did I say difference? Looks more like a similarity to me...

Clearly, the issue here is not whether or not the opposing camps like the others' doctrines about what happens after death. As a Christian, I find the materialist worldview to be morally outrageous because it denies the most fundamental moral law of them all. But I doubt you'd accept that as an argument for the invalidity of materialism. Why is it, then, that you consider outrage to be a good argument against Christianity?

The issue has nothing to do with outrage and everything to do with whether or not they are factually correct.

and the answer currently is none.

Then clearly, you don't understand what "logically possible" means. "Logically possible" is not the same thing as factually possible.

You clearly believe that the existence of eternal life is not a fact. But this has nothing to do with whether or not the existence of eternal life is logically possible. Eternal life is logically possible, even if not practically possible. But the only way it could be possible, is if there is a power that exists that is stronger than death. This is a fact. This is simple logic. You may not agree that the argument is sound, but it is definitely valid. And if you don't understand what the difference is between a "sound" and a "valid" argument, then ask John Powell.

I’m sorry if you think exploring your religious mythology or fantasies is in someway a scientific or logical “examination” of the possible conditions that a biological organism could escape death. I’m sorry that for some reason all those dead people who were reported by your mythology to have come back to life, and appeared to so many people, never stuck around long enough, or seemed to impress anyone other than the authors of your myths.

I'm sorry if you think calling fact mythology or fantasy will somehow change it from fact into fiction. I'm sorry that you can't see Truth when it stares you in the face. But most of all, I'm sorry that you feel the need to repeatedly resort to the patronising, psychologising "I'm sorry" routine because you lack a solid counter-argument.

So, here we have it. Many “holy” people who had died and decomposed, suddenly were spontaneously regenerated, walked out of there tombs and went into Jerusalem and appeared to many people…seems to me this would of got someones attention.

A completely self-defeating claim. Here we are, 2000 years later, and we are talking about it. Clearly, it did get someone's attention... how else would we know about it!!??

Seems to me, that Josephus, or some other non-Christian contemporaries would have been amazed by this unprecedented occurrence and it would of been widely known and reported. But I guess, it was more of an everyday occurrence back then… ho... hum…

Seems to me that if anyone did see such an event occur, they would have either doubted its factuality (and hence not seen fit to report it) or converted to Christianity. Demanding a non-Christian report of such a thing would be like demanding that someone draw a square circle.

I’m also wondering Jezz…what happened to all these suddenly newly regenerated dead people? Did they just head back to their family homes and start living again? Are they still alive today, just laying low? Did they all board the magic carpet to “heaven”? Did they eventually just die again? Again I would appreciate your well reasoned, biological understanding of how a formally dead, decomposed biological organism becomes alive again, and then what becomes of them? (of course the answer to everything is…it’s YHWH’s magic!)

Presumably, they died again later - although we don't have an account of what happened after their regeneration, so I am reluctant to draw any conclusion.

The idea of escaping death is incoherent.

Coherent: Marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of parts: a coherent essay.

Despite your rhetoric, the concept of escaping death (of the permanent variety) is logical and orderly. You've made no attempt to show the logical inconsistency and have therefore completely failed to demonstrate that it is incoherent. Argument by assertion does not count.

If you want to fantasize about your “soul” and/or “consciousness” somehow being preserved in an unknown, nebulous etherworld, despite your brain(where these concepts exist) turning to dust back here in the reality of our universe, by all means knock yourself out. But please don’t claim that these childish assertions somehow equal a logical argument, and that you’ve explored or proven any point.

If you want to fantasize about there being no such thing as a soul, then by all means knock yourself out. But please don't claim that this childish assertion somehow equals a logical argument, and that you've explored or proven any point.

Wow. It's so easy to write so much and not say anything. I may write long posts, but I generally try to make a logical argument instead of wasting it with rhetoric like this.

I agree. And as I already stated, the only force more powerful than nature, is the ego and stupidity of man.

Oh, the irony in that statement...

[markporter]

I myself would not go either for eternal active torment or annihilationism, I think that the kind of view that Miller writes about at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/gr5part2.html is probably more accurate. A kind of middle view.

[mickiel]

The doctrine of eternal torture is a mainstream belief of christianity. A horrible insane doctrine, but loved by many of its believers. People worship this belief, and defend it with all their being. They actually WANT it to occur. When Christ said "in vain do they worship me", he was referring to christian believers, unbelievers do not worship Christ. This truth i am about to explain is offensive to christians, they do not want to picture themselves as teaching heresey. The doctrine of eternal torture is a teaching of men, or a DESIRE of men, not a desire of God. God desires that all men be saved, christians desire differently. So in vain do they teach limited atonement, or eternal hell torture, which are doctrines of men. Jesus ignores this worship, these unholy desires comming from believers in him.

[markporter]

God desires that all men be saved, christians desire differently

huh? since when? Last I saw of it was that both God and Christians desire that all men be saved (perhaps calvinists have a slightly different take on the doctrine) but that there are people out there who of their own free will choose not to be.

[mickiel]

Today @ 05:06 PM post located here
markporter:



huh? since when? Last I saw of it was that both God and Christians desire that all men be saved (perhaps calvinists have a slightly different take on the doctrine) but that there are people out there who of their own free will choose not to be.

But every christian church i have been to, every major tele-evangelist, and most minor ones, all teach and preach what they believe and desire for mankind. They teach eternal hell torture for the majority of mankind, and their ancestors taught and believed it. They are interested in the misery of hell because they think God is. Christianity does NOT desire that all men be saved, do not believe in it nor hope for it. They consider that hope blasphemus. You can simply read the responsive post of your christians to my post on salvation on this website if you think this untrue. Anything that adds to hell they endorse, any doctrine that takes away from the misery of hell, they dislike.

[Bill the Cat]

An interest in showing people the Way out of Hellfire is not an interest IN hellfire...get your terms straight...

Oh, and here's one for that elephant hurl...:elephant:

[mickiel]

[
An interest in showing people the Way out of Hellfire is not an interest IN hellfire...get your terms straight...


We preah and teach what we are interested in, and we hope for the same. Christians are not interested in mankinds salvation, they are content or interested in their own. The only group of religous people i have examined that show a legitimate intrest in communicating seriously to others about salvation, are the Jehovahs witnesses. They have thousands of foot soldgiers out there every day trying to reach others, christianity is nowhere even near this. Don't misunderstand, i hold no intrest in the JWs doctrine , it is severly limited even more than christianity. But their behavior suggest at least a concern for others knowing what they interpit as truth by THEIR EFFORT to reach them.

Christian doctrine is far to full of hell to give a picture of life. We all are destined to be salted with fire, it is part of the cleaseing process of the eternal change of life. You simply misunderstand this. Mark 9:49, as you misunderstand the truth of the lake of fire. Thinking God is a creator of losers, you believe men have been created by a God of life and power, only to be alive forever in a state of failure and misery because that was their choice. As powerful as God is, he will not influence this choice, prefering rather to let his children decide for themselves to accept this horrible existance of sin and pain forever. And you consider me a false prophet because i reject this view of God. This is one reason i dislike christianity, it is a posion to the mind that would know the true and living God of power.

[Bill the Cat]

Disagree all you like, it's fact. You don't want to see anyone elses perspective nor are you interested in meaningful debate. you think you know Christianity, but in reality, all you have is your convoluded opinion, which that, plus 50 cents may get you a cup of weak coffee.

[nonbeliever]

Jimbo, when you see pictures of aborted babies, are you guilted out of your pro-choice position? (this is assuming you ARE pro-choice, btw). If you aren't pro-choice do you think that an emotional response to the images of aborted babies is grounds alone for abandoning the pro-choice movement in favor of the pro-lifers?

Do the Christians reading this board think that unbelievers deserve to be and will be tortured for eternity in hell?

Since you linked to Tektonics, I'll quote it:

• Well, let's see. My guess is I'm supposed to do one of two things here: 1) Fudge and fumble and compromise by saying "no", because I'm supposed to be ashamed of a God who condemns to hell anyone who went through something so awful on earth; 2) Say "yes" and thereby justify your view of the Biblical God as a cruel and vicious beast who unfairly sends to Hell anyone who went through something so awful on earth. I'll answer closer to #2, although "torture" implies a sense of direct activity where Christian theology actually avers that Hell is esentially a person's own choice (so that God's role in "sending" someone there is more passive rather than active). It also seems to assume a Dante-esque vision of eternal torment; I doubt if things in Hell are that variable and creative.

I think that it is absurd to say that a person would "choose" eternal torment. What if one simply is unable to believe in the basic doctrine of "salvation by grace," where Christ's death on the cross somehow atones for ones "sin," but only if that person "accepts Jesus," whatever that means? I do not believe that God would sacrifice "His" own "son" in such a revolting manner, and it is not believeable to me that such a sacrifice would atone for anybody's "sin" anyway. Is this how I would "choose" eternal torment? By being unable to believe in something as non-sensical as "He died for your sins?"

[Luffy]

I think that it is absurd to say that a person would "choose" eternal torment. What if one simply is unable to believe in the basic doctrine of "salvation by grace," where Christ's death on the cross somehow atones for ones "sin," but only if that person "accepts Jesus," whatever that means? I do not believe that God would sacrifice "His" own "son" in such a revolting manner, and it is not believeable to me that such a sacrifice would atone for anybody's "sin" anyway. Is this how I would "choose" eternal torment? By being unable to believe in something as non-sensical as "He died for your sins?"

Exactly. The whole 'died for my sins' idea is a joke. Why on earth would God require a blood sacrifice (his own blood, apparently) in order to atone for our sins? What kind of idiot God is this meant to be? Next he'll be asking us to build a huge pyramid and sacrifice people on top of it.

If any Christian has an explanation of how the blood of Jesus can possibly atone for anything, I've never heard it. They seem to have this romantic idea of Jesus dying to save mankind... for some reason. Presumably God will fill them in on the details when they float up to heaven.

Every day I read posts in this forum, I become more and more convinced that religious fundamentalism is a mental illness. This thread certainly indicates such. To think that some of you guys think that you (and worse, others) deserve to burn in agony for eternity is absolutely incredible. I would say 'evil', but it's probably a lack of intelligence or education rather than anything else.