Hell is human creations

Hel was created and taught to control people not to commits crimes such as Theft, murder, terrorist attaks, and so on

it was created to scare people from murder and to make everyone good and peaceful.

But how do people knoe if they go to hell....

im sorrt, but killing someone is sometimes must be done if it is completely nessacery ( revenge, if and individual is going mad and kiling, riots, terroists, etc )

but no, im not a criminal and i dont murder people

wat do u guys think?

One thing i often notice when i listen to atheist podcasts or read atheist forums is how they talk about hell. That they seem more aware of the actual implication of being condemned to hell than most theists seem to be.

 I think the stability of a society, and empaty serves the purposes that you mentioned just as well as hell.

But how do people knoe if they go to hell....warrenmats

[QUOTE="warrenmats"]But how do people knoe if they go to hell....ChiliDragon

Wait, so what do you think hell is?

Wait, so what do you think hell is?

bean-with-bacon

I can't speak for ChiliDragon, but I'm of the opinion that the entire doctrine of eternal torture in hell in Christianity was very likely a fabrication of, or at the very least something seen as useful by, the early Roman government and Roman Catholic Church, whose political and religious leaders were more than happy to use it as a weapon against their enemies.  There is ample evidence available, in the form of surviving writings from around the second or third century, that tells us that the vast majority of the earliest Christians - both the masses and the learned teachers - believed that all things would eventually be reconciled to God and that Jesus Christ was the savior of all.

It wasn't until the widespread propagation of the officially sanctioned Latin translation of the Bible (the Latin Vulgate), and until the declaration of the doctrine of universalism as heresy, that the doctrine of eternal damnation of the wicked really began to take root.  And, rather coincidentally, the Latin Vulgate contained the first unequivocal description of "eternal punishment" (supplicium aeternum) in Matthew 25:46.  The original Koine Greek version of that verse only mentions aionion kolasin, which is more properly translated as "corrective punishment spanning an unspecified length of time"; "eternal punishment" would be rendered as aidion timoria.

When I say I follow Christianity, I mean what I believe to be the original form of the religion, untainted by political influence, which preached that what we call hell is a place not of eternal torment of the damned, but of purification, where souls who died without having recognized the beauty of Jesus' message and instructions are given a corrective punishment whose ultimate goal is to reconcile that soul with God, not just to sadistically cause suffering for all eternity.

There's a parable in the Bible that spans Luke 15:4-7 in which Jesus describes a shepherd who has lost one sheep out of a hundred, and says that that shepherd will not rest until he has found that sheep, and that there will be much rejoicing when he does.  I believe that Jesus was not lying when he told this parable, that indeed there is no statute of limitations on God's love and mercy, and that God will not settle, as is often said today, with only finding ten or fifteen sheep out of a hundred.

I can't speak for ChiliDragon, GabuEx

There's a parable in the Bible that spans Luke 15:4-7 in which Jesus describes a shepherd who has lost one sheep out of a hundred, and says that that shepherd will not rest until he has found that sheep, and that there will be much rejoicing when he does. I believe that Jesus was not lying when he told this parable, that indeed there is no statute of limitations on God's love and mercy, and that God will not settle, as is often said today, with only finding ten or fifteen sheep out of a hundred.GabuEx

[QUOTE="bean-with-bacon"]

Wait, so what do you think hell is?

GabuEx

I can't speak for ChiliDragon, but I'm of the opinion that the entire doctrine of eternal torture in hell in Christianity was very likely a fabrication of, or at the very least something seen as useful by, the early Roman government and Roman Catholic Church, whose political and religious leaders were more than happy to use it as a weapon against their enemies.  There is ample evidence available, in the form of surviving writings from around the second or third century, that tells us that the vast majority of the earliest Christians - both the masses and the learned teachers - believed that all things would eventually be reconciled to God and that Jesus Christ was the savior of all.

It wasn't until the widespread propagation of the officially sanctioned Latin translation of the Bible (the Latin Vulgate), and until the declaration of the doctrine of universalism as heresy, that the doctrine of eternal damnation of the wicked really began to take root.  And, rather coincidentally, the Latin Vulgate contained the first unequivocal description of "eternal punishment" (supplicium aeternum) in Matthew 25:46.  The original Koine Greek version of that verse only mentions aionion kolasin, which is more properly translated as "corrective punishment spanning an unspecified length of time"; "eternal punishment" would be rendered as aidion timoria.

When I say I follow Christianity, I mean what I believe to be the original form of the religion, untainted by political influence, which preached that what we call hell is a place not of eternal torment of the damned, but of purification, where souls who died without having recognized the beauty of Jesus' message and instructions are given a corrective punishment whose ultimate goal is to reconcile that soul with God, not just to sadistically cause suffering for all eternity.

There's a parable in the Bible that spans Luke 15:4-7 in which Jesus describes a shepherd who has lost one sheep out of a hundred, and says that that shepherd will not rest until he has found that sheep, and that there will be much rejoicing when he does.  I believe that Jesus was not lying when he told this parable, that indeed there is no statute of limitations on God's love and mercy, and that God will not settle, as is often said today, with only finding ten or fifteen sheep out of a hundred.

Yeah I knew what your view was, but I didn't know Chilli's, the corrective punishment is a much nicer idea then eternal torture, I wish it was a much more widespread view, why don't the so called 'bible believer's' follow this? Considering if it really was the original idea behind hell then you can't really argue with it.

Yeah I knew what your view was, but I didn't know Chilli's, the corrective punishment is a much nicer idea then eternal torture, I wish it was a much more widespread view, why don't the so called 'bible believer's' follow this? Considering if it really was the original idea behind hell then you can't really argue with it.bean-with-bacon

It wasn't until the widespread propagation of the officially sanctioned Latin translation of the Bible (the Latin Vulgate), and until the declaration of the doctrine of universalism as heresy, that the doctrine of eternal damnation of the wicked really began to take root. And, rather coincidentally, the Latin Vulgate contained the first unequivocal description of "eternal punishment" (supplicium aeternum) in Matthew 25:46. The original Koine Greek version of that verse only mentions aionion kolasin, which is more properly translated as "corrective punishment spanning an unspecified length of time"; "eternal punishment" would be rendered as aidion timoria.GabuEx

wat do u guys think?

warrenmats

I disagree, obviously. Once again it comes back to how you view the Bible. If you view it as made up: hell was made up. If you view it as the true inspired Word of God: Hell's very real.

[QUOTE="warrenmats"]

wat do u guys think?

Lansdowne5

I disagree, obviously. Once again it comes back to how you view the Bible. If you view it as made up: hell was made up. If you view it as the true inspired Word of God: Hell's very real.

Murder= prison

isnt prison what people call hell?

Murder= prison

isnt prison what people call hell?

warrenmats

Eh?

According to currently prevailing Christian doctrine, hell is the place where the unrighteous are sent when they die, where they are tormented forever thereafter.

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="warrenmats"]

wat do u guys think?

warrenmats

I disagree, obviously. Once again it comes back to how you view the Bible. If you view it as made up: hell was made up. If you view it as the true inspired Word of God: Hell's very real.

Murder= prison

isnt prison what people call hell?

Not exactly sure what you're getting at here. Perhaps you could elaborate?

I've always viewed the concept of hell as an eternal torture chamber where you go if you're bad (or, even worse, if you believed the wrong thing) to be quite possibly the sickest thing ever imagined, and I cannot understand how people can properly function while truly believing that the vast majority of humanity will go there.GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]I've always viewed the concept of hell as an eternal torture chamber where you go if you're bad (or, even worse, if you believed the wrong thing) to be quite possibly the sickest thing ever imagined, and I cannot understand how people can properly function while truly believing that the vast majority of humanity will go there.MrPraline

Even if it was an intimidation tool, it's not very coercive now seeing as we have two mainstream religions going the One True Way route. Mormons don't see it as punishment as much as them getting what they want, mixed in with a little of what they deserve. The two are somewhat inseparable when it comes to an eternal abode after the resurrection... if you are resurrected.
Android339

Ive always liked the idea of the three Mormon kingdoms better than the binary, black and white system of heaven or hell.

Yeah I pretty much agree. Hell just seems to be a manifestation of our fears utilised in the service of religion.domatron23

This is my line of thinking also.

Yeah I pretty much agree. Hell just seems to be a manifestation of our fears utilised in the service of religion.domatron23

See, this is why I'm not that active a poster. Other people always post the same opinions as me, but better worded.

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

[QUOTE="Android339"]Even if it was an intimidation tool, it's not very coercive now seeing as we have two mainstream religions going the One True Way route. Mormons don't see it as punishment as much as them getting what they want, mixed in with a little of what they deserve. The two are somewhat inseparable when it comes to an eternal abode after the resurrection... if you are resurrected.
Android339

Ive always liked the idea of the three Mormon kingdoms better than the binary, black and white system of heaven or hell.

As have I, when I learned about it. Even murderers, adulterers, liars, theives, and the typical names of wicked people, will obtain the lowest degree of glory, and this will be the most numerous. Only the worst go to Outer Darkness, complete separation from God, which I'm sure isn't going to be very pleasant. It will be very rare, I'm sure, for someone to completely reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ after having heard it in the spirit world after death. I mean, come on. Anyway, the lowest degree is said to be so wonderful, that if any man were to see it now, they would immediately kill themselves to go there. The honorable men and women will obtain the second degree of glory, and those who have received the ordinances of the Gospel in their fulness will obtain the highest degree of glory, the Celestial Kingdom. Yet you don't necessarily have to be living to be able to receive these ordinances. I like that it's more lenient than mainstream Christianity and Islam.

As atheists, since you don't believe in the afterlife, you obviously don't believe in hell.  But one general message you also seem to be saying is that the idea of hell being used as a fear tactic is very similar to the idea of God being used as a fear tactic, almost as if they were one in the same.  If one is imaginary, so must be the other one.  Am I wrong?

Yet you don't necessarily have to be living to be able to receive these ordinances.

Android339

Interesting.  Personally, this is the part that I was never able to stomach about mainstream modern Christianity: the idea that you only have seventy or eighty short years to repent and accept Jesus as your lord and savior, and then after that God basically gives you the middle finger and has you tortured forever thereafter, even if you later sincerely wish to repent for your sins.  I see nothing wrong with punishing those who have been terrible their whole lives, but it's the whole "haha, **** you, you're now abandoned for all eternity" bit that I found a little, erm, incompatible with the idea that God is love.

As atheists, since you don't believe in the afterlife, you obviously don't believe in hell.  But one general message you also seem to be saying is that the idea of hell being used as a fear tactic is very similar to the idea of God being used as a fear tactic, almost as if they were one in the same.  If one is imaginary, so must be the other one.  Am I wrong?

Alter_Ego

We don't need to compare hell to God to see that it is a fear tactic. The threat of hell is pretty much equivalent to "now you behave yourself young man and do as I ask otherwise the boogieman will come out from under your bed and eat you up".

Now the boogie man in this case has similarities with hell. On the one hand it is a threat used to direct behaviour on the other it is obvious to see that it is talked about for that end, not because it actualy exists. I suppose God does share the same kind of role as a fabricated agent used as a means to an end but I don't think his role is explicitly threatening like hell is.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"][QUOTE="Android339"]

Yet you don't necessarily have to be living to be able to receive these ordinances.

Android339

Interesting. Personally, this is the part that I was never able to stomach about mainstream modern Christianity: the idea that you only have seventy or eighty short years to repent and accept Jesus as your lord and savior, and then after that God basically gives you the middle finger and has you tortured forever thereafter, even if you later sincerely wish to repent for your sins. I see nothing wrong with punishing those who have been terrible their whole lives, but it's the whole "haha, **** you, you're now abandoned for all eternity" bit that I found a little, erm, incompatible with the idea that God is love.

Haha, yes. I always had the question in the back of my mind, when not thinking about it, "If someone never heard about Jesus Christ in their lifetime, then do they go to Heaven or Hell?" There really are only two options: They go to Heaven and the whole purpose of Jesus' Atonement is essentially nullified, and they go to Hell and the God that is love that I know does not exist, and the God of hate reigns the universe. I cannot accept either, of course, and I have found an answer to such a problem in Mormonism. Nobody else could give me an answer to that question.

There really are only two options: They go to Heaven and the whole purpose of Jesus' Atonement is essentially nullified, and they go to Hell and the God that is love that I know does not exist, and the God of hate reigns the universe. I cannot accept either, of course, and I have found an answer to such a problem in Mormonism. Nobody else could give me an answer to that question.Android339

Pssst, Gabu! Tell him about that translation error...! :)ChiliDragon

It's the eighth post in this very thread; I'd feel a little strange restating it already. :P

Although I can perhaps expand a bit more on the phrase aionion kolasin, since that phrase is ultimately at the very heart of this entire matter. If you search on the internet, you will inevitably find people claiming that aionion does mean "eternal", or at least sometimes means "eternal" (rather convenient, that, considering that aionion is the description of the time Jonah spent inside the fish used in the Septuagint). This is, I am afraid to say, a case of people attempting to determine the meaning of Greek words based on their already etched in stone interpretation of the Bible - which is rather backwards from the correct direction of determining the meaning of the Bible from the meaning of the Greek words used therein. And I must say that this is problematic for a number of reasons:

1. No one I know of attempts to contest the idea that kolasin refers to punishment with the intent to correct behavior, in contrast to timoria which refers to punishment with the intent to cause suffering. Yet, how can punishment with the intent to correct behavior be eternal? Such a punishment would by definition end when the person in question has changed. If it never ends, then the person never changes. And if this punishment has been ordained by God, then that would mean that God will inevitably fail to do what he wants to do - not exactly something I imagine that stalwart Christians would wish to assert. Although, considering that the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ was the savior of all men (1 Timothy 4:10), and considering that we are told that only a tiny minority of humanity will actually be saved - they pretty much have to tell us every single day that God will ultimately fail.

2. Koine Greek is an exceptionally precise language. There are no fewer than eleven Greek words that are translated in the King James Version of the Bible into the singular English word "destroy". For every single sense of the English word - to ruin, to cause to cease, to destroy utterly, to cleanse, to prepare for a replacement, etc. - there is a separate Greek word. No word in the language was without a specific purpose that was not fulfilled by any other word. Yet if we are to claim that aionion "sometimes" means "eternal" (I'd like to see them find another Koine Greek word that changes meaning with context, by the by), then this means that, whoever coined the word (signs point to Plato) invented an utterly useless word for no apparent reason whatsoever - the Greek word aidion (the actual word that means "eternal") predates aionion. So why would the Greeks invent an utterly pointless synonym for a concept for which they already had a word?

3. Josephus, a first century Jewish scholar, had this to say of the Pharisees:

"They believe the souls of the bad are allotted aidios eirgmos (eternal imprisonment) and punished with adialeiptos timoria (unceasing vengeful punishment)."

And he had this to say of the Essenes:

"(They allot) to bad souls a dark, tempestuous place, full of adialeiptos timoria (unceasing vengeful punishment), where they suffer athanaton timorian (deathless vengeful punishment)."

No use of aionion. No use of kolasin.

Here we begin to see the true meaning of the very deliberate wording in Matthew 25:46. The Pharisees and Essenes are said to believe in eternal imprisonment and unceasing vengeful punishment. This sounds identical to the modern Christian view of hell. Yet, if Jesus intended to affirm this doctrine, then why did he not use this wording?  Instead of aidion or adialeiptos, he used aionion, and instead of timoria, he used kolasin. Surely he chose his words such that all who heard him speak would understand precisely what he was telling them. So if we are to understand that the Greek text of the New Testament affirms the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell as understood by the Jewish teachers and authorities of that day, then why do we not see the wording that Josephus uses to describe the Pharisees' and Essenes' belief of unending imprisonment and punishment?

We instead see the contrary: just as Jesus went against the teachings of the Pharisees on several other occasions, so too here is Jesus telling us that instead of eternal torment, no, God loves you, and will always love you, and any punishment for wrongdoing will be corrective and temporary. This fits in perfectly with his message of unconditional and unending love for all mankind - the idea of eternal torment of the damned, not so much.

The bottom line is that it just plain makes no sense whatsoever on many, many levels to assert aionion kolasin to mean anything other than "corrective punishment spanning an unspecified length of time". The doctrine of eternal punishment is basically fallible men dragging the Bible down to their level, nothing more. That we have now come full circle and are now back among the Pharisees, believing in eternal punishment and really caring more about tradition than anything else (even going so far as to attempt to redefine Koine Greek words to fit our preconceptions of what the Bible says), is a pretty sad reflection of the human condition.

It's the eighth post in this very thread; I'd feel a little strange restating it already. :P

GabuEx

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]Pssst, Gabu! Tell him about that translation error...! :)GabuEx

It's the eighth post in this very thread; I'd feel a little strange restating it already. :P

Although I can perhaps expand a bit more on the phrase aionion kolasin, since that phrase is ultimately at the very heart of this entire matter.  If you search on the internet, you will inevitably find people claiming that aionion does mean "eternal", or at least sometimes means "eternal" (rather convenient, that, considering that aionion is the description of the time Jonah spent inside the fish used in the Septuagint).  This is, I am afraid to say, a case of people attempting to determine the meaning of Greek words based on their already etched in stone interpretation of the Bible - which is rather backwards from the correct direction of determining the meaning of the Bible from the meaning of the Greek words used therein.  And I must say that this is problematic for a number of reasons:

1. No one I know of attempts to contest the idea that kolasin refers to punishment with the intent to correct behavior, in contrast to timoria which refers to punishment with the intent to cause suffering.  Yet, how can punishment with the intent to correct behavior be eternal?  Such a punishment would by definition end when the person in question has changed.  If it never ends, then the person never changes.  And if this punishment has been ordained by God, then that would mean that God will inevitably fail to do what he wants to do - not exactly something I imagine that stalwart Christians would wish to assert.  Although, considering that the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ was the savior of all men (1 Timothy 4:10), and considering that we are told that only a tiny minority of humanity will actually be saved - they pretty much have to tell us every single day that God will ultimately fail.

2. Koine Greek is an exceptionally precise language.  There are no fewer than eleven Greek words that are translated in the King James Version of the Bible into the singular English word "destroy".  For every single sense of the English word - to ruin, to cause to cease, to destroy utterly, to cleanse, to prepare for a replacement, etc. - there is a separate Greek word.  No word in the language was without a specific purpose that was not fulfilled by any other word.  Yet if we are to claim that aionion "sometimes" means "eternal" (I'd like to see them find another Koine Greek word that changes meaning with context, by the by), then this means that, whoever coined the word (signs point to Plato) invented an utterly useless word for no apparent reason whatsoever - the Greek word aidion (the actual word that means "eternal") predates aionion.  So why would the Greeks invent an utterly pointless synonym for a concept for which they already had a word?

3. Josephus, a first century Jewish scholar, had this to say of the Pharisees:

"They believe the souls of the bad are allotted aidios eirgmos (eternal imprisonment) and punished with adialeiptos timoria (unceasing vengeful punishment)."

Here we begin to see the true meaning of the extremely precise wording in Matthew 25:46.  The Pharisees are said to believe in eternal imprisonment and unceasing vengeful punishment.  This sounds identical to the modern Christian view of hell.  Yet, if Jesus intended to affirm this doctrine, then why did he not use this wording?  Surely he chose his words such that all who heard him speak would understand precisely what he was telling them.  So if we are to understand that the Greek text of the New Testament affirms the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell as understood by the Pharisees, then why do we not see the wording that Josephus uses to describe the Pharisees' belief of unending imprisonment and punishment?  We instead see the contrary: just as Jesus went against the teachings of the Pharisees on several other occasions, so too here is Jesus telling us that instead of eternal torment, no, God loves you, and will always love you, and any punishment for wrongdoing will be corrective and temporary.  This fits in perfectly with his message of unconditional and unending love for all mankind - the idea of eternal torment of the damned, not so much.

The bottom line is that it just plain makes no sense whatsoever on many, many levels to assert aionion kolasin to mean anything other than "corrective punishment spanning an unspecified length of time".  The doctrine of eternal punishment is basically fallible men dragging the Bible down to their level, nothing more.  That we have now come full circle and are now back among the Pharisees, believing in eternal punishment and really caring more about tradition than anything else (even going so far as to attempt to redefine Koine Greek words to fit our preconceptions of what the Bible says), is a pretty sad reflection of the human condition.

Very interesting post, Gabu. I've never seen this argument.

Needless to say, I think you just owned the idea of eternal damnation in Christianity. :P

Needless to say, I think you just owned the idea of eternal damnation in Christianity. :P chessmaster1989

Oh, how I wish it were so. :P

The idea of hell being an eternal torture chamber is a human creation. However, hell itself is not. It is actually a place of eternal shame and seperation from God. Because God is the source of all goodness, there will be no goodness there. Thus, his "common graces" given to all people on earth will not be there either. Furthermore, God sends people there for two reasons.

1) Sins - God's holy and moral character demands that he punish it. People go there because of their sins (moral crimes), with rejection of the Gospel just being one of those sins. Also, by the time people that go to hell die, they have already committed thousands of sins in their lifetimes.

2) Love honors choice - This one is a bit more important. Romans 1 says God's wrath is essentially honoring a person's choice by giving them over to the sins they choose. Sin is also a way of saying to God that "I don't want anything to do with you." God expresses his wrath in this life, and it is made final in eternity. He gives them the seperation they asked for. If someone can't bring themselves to choose him after 30-70 years, I don't see any reason to be upset they won't have the chance to for the rest of eternity.

2) Love honors choice - This one is a bit more important. Romans 1 says God's wrath is essentially honoring a person's choice by giving them over to the sins they choose. Sin is also a way of saying to God that "I don't want anything to do with you." God expresses his wrath in this life, and it is made final in eternity. He gives them the separation they asked for. If someone can't bring themselves to choose him after 30-70 years, I don't see any reason to be upset they won't have the chance to for the rest of eternity.MatrixSamurai27

Now that I think about it, I'm a bit surprised that no other Christian in this thread has brought up that point before. If a person persists in rejecting the Judeo-Christian God their entire life, why are they so opposed to not being allowed to be in his presence for all eternity? (Note that I disagree that Hell is eternal. I believe it is intended to be corrective punishment, not vindictive.)ChiliDragon

Having been a non-Christian for the majority of my life, I can answer that one.  Contrary to what many fundamentalist Christians will claim, those who do not believe that God exists or such like do so sincerely, not just because they hate God or Christianity or whatever.  I don't buy the claims that they are literally "rejecting" God as if they knew he existed and just hated him.  If God actually existed and could offer a satisfactory answer to all of their concerns, I would be more than a little surprised if they then said "no, I hate you!" anyway.

It basically boils down to the perception of being subjected to eternal punishment purely for having made incorrect conclusions based on the evidence.  And if I truly believed that that was the way things went, I highly doubt I would be a Christian.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]Now that I think about it, I'm a bit surprised that no other Christian in this thread has brought up that point before. If a person persists in rejecting the Judeo-Christian God their entire life, why are they so opposed to not being allowed to be in his presence for all eternity? (Note that I disagree that Hell is eternal. I believe it is intended to be corrective punishment, not vindictive.)GabuEx

Having been a non-Christian for the majority of my life, I can answer that one.  Contrary to what many fundamentalist Christians will claim, those who do not believe that God exists or such like do so sincerely, not just because they hate God or Christianity or whatever.

I don't buy the claims that they are literally "rejecting" God as if they knew he existed and just hated him.GabuEx

It doesn't have to be that strong. It can be more that they refuse to become a Christian because they don't want to change their lifestyle.

If God actually existed and could offer a satisfactory answer to all of their concerns, I would be more than a little surprised if they then said "no, I hate you!" anyway.GabuEx

I wouldn't be surprised, since Scripture teaches that humans are totally depraved.

I wouldn't be surprised, since Scripture teaches that humans are totally depraved. MatrixSamurai27

[QUOTE="MatrixSamurai27"]I wouldn't be surprised, since Scripture teaches that humans are totally depraved. ChiliDragon

Well, we're talking about hell here, so it would probably be better to make that discussion its own thread.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="MatrixSamurai27"]I wouldn't be surprised, since Scripture teaches that humans are totally depraved. MatrixSamurai27

Well, we're talking about hell here, so it would probably be better to make that discussion its own thread.

You're probably right abut that part. I still disagree with you on the theological part of that though :DChiliDragon

About hell or total depravity? If hell, are you talking about it where I said it was eternal? Or something else?

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]You're probably right abut that part. I still disagree with you on the theological part of that though :DMatrixSamurai27

About hell or total depravity? If hell, are you talking about it where I said it was eternal? Or something else?

I'm talking about the part where you said holy Scripture teaches that all humans are depraved, and disagreeing. :)ChiliDragon

I can make another thread to discuss that. Want to? Also, why do you think Hell is not eternal and the punishment is corrective, instead of retributive?

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"] I'm talking about the part where you said holy Scripture teaches that all humans are depraved, and disagreeing. :)MatrixSamurai27

I can make another thread to discuss that. Want to? Also, why do you think Hell is not eternal and the punishment is corrective, instead of retributive?

Because I think the notion of a loving God who allows his only son to be tortured to saved all of mankind is incompatible with the idea of that same god allowing a large part of mankind to be tortured forever just because they made an uninformed decision at some point in their life. By all means, make a thread about it. I'll be there as soon as I've refilled my drink! :)ChiliDragon

I contend God let his Son suffer shame to save all mankind, and that some (not a large part) of mankind will suffer shame and seperation from God (not physical pain by the way of torture) forever because of all their sins (not just rejection of the Gospel).

Also, you didn't explain where you got this idea that hell is a place of corrective punishment for a limited amount of time.