The Nature of Hell

[Mountain Man]

Hummm, looks like to me MM did show that the Pixie wasn't being quite forthright and only decided to highlight the parts of his quote that he thought proved his point. When MM showed it didn't prove what he though, you just ignored it.

That's because it's no fair using their sources against them. We're supposed to find our own.

[shunyadragon]

Next Church - Southern Baptists. They voted almost unanimously to confirm the long held belief over other alternatives. This includes other Christians that do not hold to the Baptist Doctrines. The major alternative was Rob Bell's proposal that a 'few' other Christians would be allowed into Heaven later, sort of a purgatory concept.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/so...on-hell-51221/

http://www.christianpost.com/news/southern-baptists-affirm-resolution-rejecting-rob-bells-view-on-hell-51221/

The messengers to the SBC meeting voted to “hereby affirm our belief in the biblical teaching on eternal conscious punishment of the unregenerate in Hell.”

The three-paragraph resolution also urged Southern Baptists to hold fast to the teachings on the reality of hell and salvation found in Christ alone.

© source where applicable

Right in line with the Roman Church, ah . . . except the Roman Church considers Southern Baptists going to Hell, and Southern Baptists consider members of the Roman church going to Hell.

[The Pixie]

Mountain Man

Sorry, but it's your burden to prove that the parts about fire and brimstone should be taken literally. Matthew 25 is one parable after another full of non-literal symbolic language, and the Revelation passage talks about the "wine of wrath" poured into "a cup of indignation", which is also not literal. And then it refers to "fire and brimstone", and suddenly you insist that this is literal. You're actually going to have to argue for that conclusion. I'm not going to just take your word for it.

Just to be clear, the issue is whether hell is eternal torment or not. I am not arguing that it is a literal sea of fire, but it is a place (perhaps in a spiritual sense) of everlasting pain.

Perhaps we should see some other verses:

Scripture Verse:

2 Thes:8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 1

This makes it clear that hell is a form of punishment, and that it will last forever.

Scripture Verse:

Mat 18:9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

More imaginery of hell as a place of pain.

47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where

“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’[d]

49 Everyone will be salted with fire.

50 “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”

Again, this is not presented as merely exclusion from God, it is presented as a terrible place.

So? I'm not going to just take their word it, either.

So you will understand if I do not take yours, right?

Pix: The issue at hand is whether or not modern Catholics subscribe to the doctrine of hell as eternal torture...

MM: Not based on the quote you provided which said that "The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."

Did you see this:

...1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."...

Even the part you quoted; you have the words "punishment" and "eternal" right there, and yet you say that it does not support my claim that modern Catholics subscribe to the doctrine of hell as eternal torture? I have to wonder what game you are playing here, MM.

[The Pixie]

That's because it's no fair using their sources against them. We're supposed to find our own.

Hey, if you find your own, they might actually support your position instead of undermining it!

[The Pixie]

You really have problems with reading comprehension don't you Pixie? It's ok, many fundies do because my main issue with Shuny is using a source that is over a century old to try to tell everybody what modern Catholics believe, which is a big no no since modern Catholics may agree with that article, but they may not, so it is a good idea to try to find more modern sources when discussing what modern Catholics believe since many of their views have changed over the past century.

Ah, right. So you are not disputing what Shunyadragon says about Catholics, you accept that Catholics believe hell is eternal punishment for those who die in mortal sin, right? What you are objecting to Shunyadragon supporting this claim (the claim you agree with) by citing a text over a century old.

Okay, I have to admit, I was confused. See, from the fact that you are objecting to Shunyadragon's reference, I thought that meant you also objected to his claim. But now we know differently; now we are all clear that you agree with Shanyadragon about what Catholics believe.

Have I got that right now? Can you clearly state whether you agree with Shunyadragon that Catholics believe hell is eternal punishment for those who die in mortal sin? I will not hold my breath, I have a feeling this is something you will do your utmost to obfuscate, but we shall see.

Yet again, your true self, in whom you try to imply every Christian is a liar, comes shining though again.

You are starting to sound paranoid, LPOT. Where did I suggest anyone is dishonest in any previous post on this thread?

Now re read what I said instead of the parts you wanted to hear and try again. I don't care what Catholics believe or don't believe since I am not bound to believe as the RCC believes, but I do care about using good sources.

Seriously?

So you really do not care one way or the other whether Shunyadragon is right, you just started posting on this thread to object to his using material that was over a century old?

Well, good news, LPOT. I found a reference that was far more up-to-date to help him. Now what was your response? "So what?"

To answer that question, so Catholic doctrine on hell is little changed today as it was a century ago. That is so what, LPOT.

Now do you have an actual argument written here or do you simply want to keep using appeals to authority and not reading what I said and instead hearing what you wanted to hear so you can distract readers from your lack of arguments, to deal with a thing that myself or FM has said?

Why is an apeal to authority a bad thing, LPOT? Do you actually understand the appeal to authority fallacy? I guess not. Let me help you...

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/...ies.htm#appeal

appeal to authority -- Known also as the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. An appeal to authority is ordinarily one good way to buttress a line of thought. The practice becomes fallacious when one of the following happens: the authority is not an expert in the field in which one is speaking; the allusion to authority masks the fact that experts may be divided down the middle on the subject; no explicit reference is made to the authority.

Possibly you knew that already, but thought it a good buzz phrase to throw into our post; may be you really are that ignorant.

Now, LPOT, this thread is about the nature of hell. A consideration of how Catholics view hell is certainly relevant. Whining about the age of references that support a claim that you agree with or that you do not care about is not relevant. If that is all you have to offer, please keep off the thread.

[lilpixieofterror]

If you have grounds for your claims beyond repetitive name calling and ranting please provide references. The wording of the 1890's catechism is virtually almost the same as the 2008 Catechism concerning this Doctrine, and I explained the difference in a reference. The 1890 Catechism is basically current and usable today.

.

And yet, you still haven't dealt with what MM said, but just asserted it. Nice, do you argue like this whenever your arguments are shown false all the time shuny or do you want hell to be a place of torture so you can keep using it as an emotional argument?

[lilpixieofterror]

Ah, right. So you are not disputing what Shunyadragon says about Catholics, you accept that Catholics believe hell is eternal punishment for those who die in mortal sin, right? What you are objecting to Shunyadragon supporting this claim (the claim you agree with) by citing a text over a century old.

Okay, I have to admit, I was confused. See, from the fact that you are objecting to Shunyadragon's reference, I thought that meant you also objected to his claim. But now we know differently; now we are all clear that you agree with Shanyadragon about what Catholics believe.

Have I got that right now? Can you clearly state whether you agree with Shunyadragon that Catholics believe hell is eternal punishment for those who die in mortal sin? I will not hold my breath, I have a feeling this is something you will do your utmost to obfuscate, but we shall see.

No, I do not agree with Shuny nor you because neither of you have provided enough evidence to make your point. MM properly pointed out that the full context of the statement you gave doesn't seem to imply that the current RCC doctrine on hell isn't quite the same as it was a century ago. The fact you simply ignore this and repeat yourself speaks volumes about you.

You are starting to sound paranoid, LPOT. Where did I suggest anyone is dishonest in any previous post on this thread?

You asked people about what their view of hell is and now it appears you want people to throw forth all this support for their view of hell. May I ask why you do that often? Make a thread and then change things around and ask other questions you didn't ask? No pixie, I am not paranoid and I base my comments on your interactions here since you have a history of doing this and implying directly or indirectly that those you disagree with you have some sort of problem (IE they are liars, paranoid, etc)

Seriously?

So you really do not care one way or the other whether Shunyadragon is right, you just started posting on this thread to object to his using material that was over a century old?

And do you have an actual argument here or are you just crying that you don't understand my main point? Shuny maybe right or maybe wrong, but the point is that one shouldn't use a source written back before my great great grandparents were born to try to claim what modern Catholics believe. A lot has changed in the past 120 years and the church's doctrine today may not be the same or the exact same as it was at that time.

Well, good news, LPOT. I found a reference that was far more up-to-date to help him. Now what was your response? "So what?"

As MM showed, it seems that there is more to it than your soundbite and judging by your past history here, I bet you didn't quote everything, but I can prove otherwise anyway why do I really care what the modern church teaches or doesn't teach? Am I a Roman Catholic? No. Am I bound to believe as the Roman Catholics do? No. So what does the church's belief on hell have to do with what I should believe or should somehow effect my belief on hell at all? It doesn't, so unless you got a point to your little rant of yours, it appears to me that you want hell to be eternal torture because it gives your arguments a better emotional position. So maybe you'll answer my question since shuny doesn't have to answer it, why should I really care what the Roman Catholics believe or don't believe about hell? I am not bound to believe how the church believes, so why does it matter?

To answer that question, so Catholic doctrine on hell is little changed today as it was a century ago. That is so what, LPOT.

And that remains to be proved, even if it proves to have changed little, how does that invalidate my point? Shuny may have just got lucky, but do you believe it's a good practice to consult century old sources on what modern people believe or don't believe? I don't think so because it might be right or it could be totally off and you end up looking foolish.

Why is an apeal to authority a bad thing, LPOT? Do you actually understand the appeal to authority fallacy? I guess not. Let me help you...

http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/...ies.htm#appeal

appeal to authority -- Known also as the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. An appeal to authority is ordinarily one good way to buttress a line of thought. The practice becomes fallacious when one of the following happens: the authority is not an expert in the field in which one is speaking; the allusion to authority masks the fact that experts may be divided down the middle on the subject; no explicit reference is made to the authority.

Possibly you knew that already, but thought it a good buzz phrase to throw into our post; may be you really are that ignorant.

Now, LPOT, this thread is about the nature of hell. A consideration of how Catholics view hell is certainly relevant. Whining about the age of references that support a claim that you agree with or that you do not care about is not relevant. If that is all you have to offer, please keep off the thread.

And child, am I bound to the authority of the church? No, so what relevance does the Roman Catholics church beliefs on hell have to do with me or my beliefs on hell? Nothing. Second, you show how stupid you really are since you didn't read your entire quote, so I will give you the relevant part that makes your little rant an appeal to authority:

" ....the allusion to authority masks the fact that experts may be divided down the middle on the subject..."

And making an appeal to once sentence, of a quote, and ignoring the rest of the context that seems to imply something else tells me that there is more going on than you want to let on and thus you only gave part of the quote and not the entire thing. Third, not every Christian believes hell is a place of eternal torture and there is a wide range of beliefs about hell that range from the eternal torture one, to the shame one, to simply the destruction of the souls of sinners, but no matter the answer, the fact remains that you seem to want hell to be a place of torture so you can keep up with your emotional doubts. Finally, all of this has quite a bit of relevance to your topic since the validity of sources and your partial quotes are both quite relevant on the discussion because one sentence, where the next sentence seems to imply somewhat of a more metaphorical view of hell tells me that you want hell to be a place of torture and could really care less if the nature of hell, isn't as uniform as you would try to lead others to believe. The bottom line is that it looks like that you are trying to deceive people into believing something else and why do I believe this? Here is a statement made by Pope John Paul II back in 1992 in Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell"

Hummm, that seems to tell me that the primary thing that the RCC is focusing on when it comes to hell is the eternal separation from the Lord element and while, as far as I can tell, you are correct that the RCC does believe in some sort of torture of hell, but there seems to be division about what kind of torture it is. Is it torture like something like in Dante's Inferno? Is it torture as in being shamed about their past sins? Is it more like a state where God's love is not returned to those in hell? If you think this is wrong, I found this book on Google seems to also tell me that it isn't quite as cut and dry as you and Shuny want us to believe. The bottom line is though, I can find nothing where the pope specifically goes into detail about just what is met by 'torture in hell' and there's different interpretations of just what John Paul II and others have said. This does beg the question though of how much 'research' you've done into this seems to tell me it's simply search for some soundbites and that is about it.

[Mountain Man]

Just to be clear, the issue is whether hell is eternal torment or not. I am not arguing that it is a literal sea of fire, but it is a place (perhaps in a spiritual sense) of everlasting pain.

Perhaps we should see some other verses:

Scripture Verse:

2 Thes:8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 1

This makes it clear that hell is a form of punishment, and that it will last forever.

Scripture Verse:

Mat 18:9 And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

More imaginery of hell as a place of pain.

Again, this is not presented as merely exclusion from God, it is presented as a terrible place.

First of all, you're falsely equivocating punishment with physical pain. A man in a jail cell is being punished, but he is not being subjected to pain. Secondly, the imagery of hell as a place of fire and darkness is in contrast to the imagery of God as water and light. If God is not literally water and light then I see no reason to assume that hell is literally fire and darkness.

You're right that hell won't be pleasant, but the reason has nothing to do with physical torment. Look at the 2 Thessalonians reference above which uses the phrase "everlasting destruction" and then qualifies it as being "shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might". There's no reasonable way to construe physical torment from that verse. Elsewhere in scripture hell is referred to as a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" which is imagery of shame rather than torment.

'Daniel 12:2 speaks not of everlasting pain, but of disgrace and everlasting contempt. The "weeping and gnashing of teeth" associated with punishment verses "describes a reaction of persons who have been publicly shamed or dishonored" (Malina and Rohrbaugh, Social Science Commentary, 76, emphasis added).'

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html

Then there's Matthew 18:9 which includes the obviously symbolic admonition to gouge out one's eye, so there's no reason to think that the following thought which continues the imagery is not similarly symbolic rather than literal.

Did you see this:

...1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."...

Even the part you quoted; you have the words "punishment" and "eternal" right there, and yet you say that it does not support my claim that modern Catholics subscribe to the doctrine of hell as eternal torture? I have to wonder what game you are playing here, MM.

Same problem as above, you're falsely equivocating punishment with physical pain. And "eternal fire" is in quotes indicating that it is not meant literally, and the following sentence offers further clarification that hell will be an eternal state of separation from God.

I suggest you read the tenet again, and this time don't force your a priori conclusions onto the text.

[shunyadragon]

And yet, you still haven't dealt with what MM said, but just asserted it. Nice, do you argue like this whenever your arguments are shown false all the time shuny or do you want hell to be a place of torture so you can keep using it as an emotional argument?

Are you referring to this?

Originally posted by The Pixie
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

It's clear from the above quote that modern Catholics do not believe in a hell of literal fire, just like lilpixieofterror said. Or did you really think we would all play along and ignore the sentence that follows the one you carefully put into bold font? Also that "eternal fire" is placed in quotes?

From the quote, literally the members of the roman Church believe in 'suffer the punishments of hell. eternal fire.'

Yes the 'eternal separation from God' from God' is the major part of the punishment, but that is acknowledged, no problem.

Nothing emotional here nor lost argument. The bottom line here is that the modern members of the Roman Church still believe in the punishment by eternal fire.

Southern Baptists have the same belief.

[lilpixieofterror]

Are you referring to this?

Originally posted by The Pixie
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm
1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

From the quote, literally the members of the roman Church believe in 'suffer the punishments of hell. eternal fire.'

Yes the 'eternal separation from God' from God' is the major part of the punishment, but that is acknowledged, no problem.

Nothing emotional here nor lost argument. The bottom line here is that the modern members of the Roman Church still believe in the punishment by eternal fire.

Southern Baptists have the same belief.

Did you read the next sentence shuny?

"The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."

Likewise, did you read the quote, which I also got from the same source that says:

We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell"

Also, did you bother to read what Spartacus (a Catholic) had to say about hell on the other hell thread? Sorry shuny, the issue isn't as cut and dry as you want it to be shuny and it's pretty dishonest to pretend as though all Catholics are in 100% total agreement that hell is eternal torture in the sense of physical torture and that simply isn't true. Now do you have an argument yet or do you think assertions count as arguments?

[shunyadragon]

Did you read the next sentence shuny?

"The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."

Likewise, did you read the quote, which I also got from the same source that says:

We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell"

Also, did you bother to read what Spartacus (a Catholic) had to say about hell on the other hell thread? Sorry shuny, the issue isn't as cut and dry as you want it to be shuny and it's pretty dishonest to pretend as though all Catholics are in 100% total agreement that hell is eternal torture in the sense of physical torture and that simply isn't true. Now do you have an argument yet or do you think assertions count as arguments?

Yes I read what Sparticus said, but he is an individual and does not represent the teachings of the Roman Church. I did refer to the next sentence as you said. Your problem is that you do not have any references of what the Roman Church believes that any different than what is cited in the Catechism which represents the teachings of the Roman Church, which is the same as the teachings of the Southern Baptists.

[The Pixie]

LPOT

No, I do not agree with Shuny nor you because neither of you have provided enough evidence to make your point. MM properly pointed out that the full context of the statement you gave doesn't seem to imply that the current RCC doctrine on hell isn't quite the same as it was a century ago. The fact you simply ignore this and repeat yourself speaks volumes about you.

Exactly what do you disagree with me about?

Do you think Catholics consider hell to be punishment?
Do you think Catholics consider that punishment to be eternal?
Do you think Catholics consider that punishment to be suffering?

I am claiming no more than these three, and the text I quoted clearly supports all three, so I am wondering what exactly your position is here.

Pix: You are starting to sound paranoid, LPOT. Where did I suggest anyone is dishonest in any previous post on this thread?

LPOT: You asked people about what their view of hell is and now it appears you want people to throw forth all this support for their view of hell. May I ask why you do that often? Make a thread and then change things around and ask other questions you didn't ask? No pixie, I am not paranoid and I base my comments on your interactions here since you have a history of doing this and implying directly or indirectly that those you disagree with you have some sort of problem (IE they are liars, paranoid, etc)

I have no idea what you are talking about LPOT. What is it about asking people to support their claims that you consider to be suggesting that you are dishonest?

As MM showed, it seems that there is more to it than your soundbite and judging by your past history here, I bet you didn't quote everything, but I can prove otherwise anyway why do I really care what the modern church teaches or doesn't teach? Am I a Roman Catholic? No. Am I bound to believe as the Roman Catholics do? No. So what does the church's belief on hell have to do with what I should believe or should somehow effect my belief on hell at all?

So get off the thread if the only topic you are debating is one that you claim you do not care about.

It doesn't, so unless you got a point to your little rant of yours, it appears to me that you want hell to be eternal torture because it gives your arguments a better emotional position.

Conversely, I think christians want hell not to be eternal torture exactly because it gives non-Christians' arguments a better emotional position.

So maybe you'll answer my question since shuny doesn't have to answer it, why should I really care what the Roman Catholics believe or don't believe about hell? I am not bound to believe how the church believes, so why does it matter?

If it does not matter, do not get into a debate on it!

It is not rocket science, LPOT.

And child, am I bound to the authority of the church?

When we are discussing what Catholics believe, then the authority of the Catholic church is spot on.

Second, you show how stupid you really are since you didn't read your entire quote, so I will give you the relevant part that makes your little rant an appeal to authority:

" ....the allusion to authority masks the fact that experts may be divided down the middle on the subject..."

So show a Catholic authority that disagrees with the one I presented. Otherwise you just have an empty assertion. Same old LPOT, I guess.

[Mountain Man]

From the quote, literally the members of the roman Church believe in 'suffer the punishments of hell. eternal fire.'

Like The Pixie, you're falsely equivocating punishment with physical pain. Secondly, the original source places "eternal fire" in quotes indicating that it's not meant to be understood literally and then follows up that phrase with further clarification that the chief punishment is eternal separation from God. I'm not sure if leaving out the quotation marks was a mistake on your part or if you tried to force your point by deliberately omitting them. Frankly, I'm not inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The bottom line here is that the modern members of the Roman Church still believe in the punishment by eternal fire.

No, they believe in punishment by "eternal fire" (notice the quotes) by which they mean "eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."

Southern Baptists have the same belief.

They also believe that dancing is evil and that the King James Version is the only translation worth reading. So what?

[The Pixie]

Mountain Man

First of all, you're falsely equivocating punishment with physical pain.

Absolutely not. Banging your thumb with a hammer is physical pain, sending a child to his room is punishment.

Secondly, the imagery of hell as a place of fire and darkness is in contrast to the imagery of God as water and light. If God is not literally water and light then I see no reason to assume that hell is literally fire and darkness.

Opinion noted.

You're right that hell won't be pleasant, but the reason has nothing to do with physical torment. Look at the 2 Thessalonians reference above which uses the phrase "everlasting destruction" and then qualifies it as being "shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might". There's no reasonable way to construe physical torment from that verse. Elsewhere in scripture hell is referred to as a place of "weeping and gnashing of teeth" which is imagery of shame rather than torment.

You are focusing on physical pain. I am only saying the verses indicate suffering, not necessarily physical pain.

Why do you believe torment will not lead to "weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

Do you think the shame will be painful?

Why do you think people in hell will have eyes to weep and teeth to gnash? You seem to be assuming a physical place.

Same problem as above, you're falsely equivocating punishment with physical pain.

The text says "suffer the punishments of hell". I am equating suffering with pain (and not necessarily physical pain).

And "eternal fire" is in quotes indicating that it is not meant literally, and the following sentence offers further clarification that hell will be an eternal state of separation from God.

Nice try.

Actually it is in quotes because... it is a quote.

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"616

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

See the last nine words of the first paragraph? They are quoting Jesus. And later, "eternal fires", taken from those nine words, are likewise quoting Jesus.


I suggest you read the tenet again, and this time don't force your a priori conclusions onto the text.

[Mountain Man]

You are focusing on physical pain. I am only saying the verses indicate suffering, not necessarily physical pain.

The problem is that words like "suffering" and "torment" and "torture", all of which you have used to describe hell, commonly refer to physical pain. What exactly are you referring to?

Why do you believe torment will not lead to "weeping and gnashing of teeth"?

Because that phrase is specifically a reference to shame and not torment.

Why do you think people in hell will have eyes to weep and teeth to gnash? You seem to be assuming a physical place.

I really have no idea if it's physical or not. I see no theological reason why it couldn't be, but I don't know any theological reason why it has to be, either. The point, of course, is that "weeping and gnashing of teeth" is imagery for shame, so whatever existence people have in hell, they will obviously be capable of experiencing shame and hopelessness.

Actually it is in quotes because... it is a quote.

Yes, they are literally quoting a metaphor. Seems to me that if they wanted to press the point that the "eternal fire" was literal then they wouldn't have bothered to put the phrase in quotes and qualify it with a follow-up explanation.