I understand that this website isn't really the best picks of any group, but I always was curious about this. How is Hell's eternal aspect justifiable? Does a finite crime justify eternal punishment? This has always bothered me with Christianity and Islam specifically because it comes off as cruel. If God is all loving, why does he rely on the threat of eternal torture?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
I don't believe it's eternal torture. Jesus describes Hell and punishment in multiple different ways, some involving torture, some not.
>Does a finite crime justify eternal punishment?
The justification I have heard is that sinners continue to sin in hell, so it is infinite punishment for infinite sin.
was this when you were sucking the priest's dick or when the priest was fricking you in the ass?
kekmao
So essentially the crime of a finite crime is eternal because you might repeat again?
But most sins involve self gratification in some way at the expense of your own character and other people, so if its possible to sin in Hell, that means Hell isn't even a bad place for people who already sin, so it fails its role as a place for punishment.
God puts you in hell because you sinned with the expectation that you will become a repeat offender and thus stay down there? Is God running a for-profit prison here?
The idea of Hell being (A) a place of unending torment and (B) a place where God sends you as if a sentence for a crime are both dubious from both a biblical as well as theological point of view. In fact, many of the early Christians now accepted as church fathers were Universalists, meaning they believed in eventual redemption for all. Viewpoints which contest the traditional ones were also widespread among early Christian groups (e.g. the Gnostics), many of whom believed in reincarnation and viewed sin not as a moral wrong but rather as Error.
>Viewpoints which contest the traditional ones
Also pre-Talmudic Judaism, which is probably where the idea comes from. I would also argue the idea of Hell probably didn't really take off until the Crusades for its importance as a tool for conversion.
It's not dubious at all, moron. And no, the overwhelming majority of church fathers believed in eternal hell. Most people will cite Gregory of Nyssa as one example of an early universalist, but that's HARDLY a consensus.
>gnostics
Not Christians. Even the Bible itself directly refers to and condemns the gnostics.
>It's not dubious at all
I said "dubious from a biblical and theological point of view". Yes, I acknowledge most mainstream Christians accept the mainstream view. However, most mainstream Christians are are just repeating patterns and have never thought critically about the views which were imposed on them from a very young age.
>HARDLY a consensus.
There are many more besides Gregory of Nyssa, and there are many more still who give no definitive thoughts on the matter, leaving open the possibility they held a view of Hell other than as a never-ending torture chamber. Universalism was, in the early church - if nothing else - a strong undercurrent. Here's a survey of the views of many early Christian figures: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66776/was-universalism-the-majority-belief-of-the-early-church
>Even the Bible itself directly refers to and condemns the gnostics.
It condemns the idea salvation is from knowledge alone, and it is correct in doing so. "Gnostic" is an umbrella term referring to many early Christian movements. However, the term "gnosis" itself generally does not mean an intellectual knowledge but a direct understanding and apprehension of God. Clement of Alexandria, as one prominent example held in regard by mainstream Christian sects, encouraged seeking out this kind of gnosis.
>I said "dubious from a biblical and theological point of view". Yes, I acknowledge most mainstream Christians accept the mainstream view. However, most mainstream Christians are are just repeating patterns and have never thought critically about the views which were imposed on them from a very young age.
It literally tells you on MANY occasions that hell is eternal. Quite plainly. stop being moronic.
>Here's a survey of the views of many early Christian figures:
That same survey even admits that ireneaus, polycarp, ignatius - people who knew the apostles directly - taught eternal hell. And it also counts fricking heretics and people who weren't even church fathers, as well, as well as forgeries and apocryphal works. I'm sorry, but your sources are shite.
2 John 1:7. Won't spoonfeed you anymore, cuck.
>muh heretics.
>muh authority
You're the heretic because in my church for being ignorant :^)
>Irenaeus
>knew the apostles directly
He was born in 130AD anon. For him to have known an apostle directly at age 16 would have required an apostle to be 120+ years old.
You're terrible at debating your point and you should quit while you're behind.
>mad cuz BTFO'd
stay mad, heretic
>Even the Bible itself directly refers to and condemns the gnostics.
No it doesn't.
God says non believers deserve eternal wiener and ball torture and being fricked with spears and ill get that too if i dont join in with him in laughing at them.
Its above my paygrade to question these things.
Idk but I always liked the way C.S Lewis described hell, it always sounded logical to me
the idea is that Christians don't go to it and that those who go, go on their own volition because it's what happens to a free soul that wanders out of the safe zone(think fish out of water).
God just takes responsibility over what happens to you, as your creator since he has made you failible.
the same way Jesus takes responsibility for what happened in his own name and declared that those who die because of his name shall be saved.
In practice they don't. They just don't like thinking about it. Outside of IQfy psychopath LARPing the idea that friends and family are going to burn forever while you sing around with a halo is genuinely discomforting.