Jump to content

The Concept Of Hell As Eternal Punishment (Did You Know?)


Recommended Posts

Most of what we believe about hell comes from Catholicism and is incorrect. I should clarify here that I didn't mean to say that Augustine invented the concept of hell. I meant to say that Augustine invented the concept of hell as eternal punishment.

 

The concept of ‘eternal punishment in hell' is a doctrine embraced and christianised by the Roman Catholic Church in the early centuries of Christianity, and made official when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in 400 A.D.

 

Jerome mistranslated and misinterpreted several key Hebrew and Greek words into the Latin Vulgate in support of the already established doctrine of hell of the Roman Catholic Church. The Latin Vulgate, as translated by Jerome, had such an overpowering dominance for over a thousand years that many subsequent Bible versions, especially the King James Version (KJV), have simply carried forward the translation and interpretation errors to varying degrees in support of the doctrine of hell.

 

The doctrine of everlasting punishment in hell is founded upon a combination of mistranslations and misinterpretations of the following Hebrew and Greek words.

  • Mistranslations of the Hebrew word sheol and the Greek words hades, tartarus and gehenna, to mean hell.

  • Mistranslations of the time-related Hebrew word owlam and the time-related Greek words aionand aionios, to mean everlasting when relating to God’s future punishment of unbelievers.

In the third century, Origen of Alexandria formulated a teaching he termed apokatastasis(restoration). According to this doctrine, all sinners—and indeed all of the fallen angels, including Satan himself—would be, through Christ’s grace, brought to salvation in the end. There might be hellfire, Origen thought, but it cannot be everlasting, for if it were, sin would prove more powerful than grace. Well, the official church reacted against Origen’s universalism, for she saw it as insufficiently respectful of freedom, both human and angelic. If God’s grace is simply irresistible, then the real freedom to reject God’s love appears compromised.

 

In the wake of this condemnation, other theologians moved practically to the other extreme. St. Augustine, fifth century bishop of Hippo, held that original sin had produced amassa damnata (a damned mass) of human beings, out of which God, in his inscrutable grace, has deigned to pick a few privileged souls. Thus, Augustine clearly believed that the vast majority of the human race would be damned to hell. St. Thomas Aquinas followed Augustine in holding that a very large number of people are Hell-bound; he even taught that among the pleasures that the saints in heaven enjoy is the contemplation of the suffering of the damned!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: All Regularly Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
Guest Valk0010

Of course they sort of made themselves a binomial option. Either the god of the bible uses fallacious logic (appeal to the stick) and extortion or his grace is irresistible and thus the idea of free will or believe isn't incredibly important. Both options suck if your going to be a Christian. One is logically and ethically bad and one violates their golden goose. Though I don't get how one could say a persons free will is so valuable that one needs to burn for eternity to preserve it. Sure take away my free will, I would prefer that to burning.

 

Though speaking as a non-believer the idea of a not permanent hell is sort of consoling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it humorous when the people stand on the street corners with signs, screaming, "You're going to BURN IN HELL!" and they don't even know the history of the word or how it was changed over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stumbled upon this stuff in the last year of my de-conversion. Gehenna, a physical place on earth, right near Jerusalem also became hell? WHAT? When Jesus said Gehenna to the people he was talking to at that time knew damn well where Gehenna was so for him to say Gehenna but then mean this mythical place of eternal torments is extremely sketchy of him. It's like me telling you if you fuck up, you're going to Detroit. You'd be like, "I know where that is" but what I really meant was this other place I call Detroit that's a whole hell of a lot worse. It makes me dishonest and deceitful. And this is exactly what Christians claim Jesus did. So honest and loving of him.

 

Here's the systematic translations of physical places on earth in the King James Version to their English counterparts...

 

Hierousalem = Jerusalem

Kapharnaoum = Capernaum

Nazaret = Nazareth

Bethania = Bethany

Ephesion = Ephesus

Bethleem = Bethlehem

Bethsaida = Bethsaida

Kappodokia = Cappadocia

Beroia = Berea

Gomorra = Gomorrah

Galilaia = Galilee

Damaskos = Damascus

Geenna = Hell (should be Gehenna)

 

Anyone see a problem here? Geena, should be translated into Gehenna. Not fucking HELL!

 

Not only is that not a translation, it's a horrendous interpretation. Someone - whoever it was, did that on purpose with an agenda and it still stands today.

 

I call bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stumbled upon this stuff in the last year of my de-conversion. Gehenna, a physical place on earth, right near Jerusalem also became hell? WHAT? When Jesus said Gehenna to the people he was talking to at that time knew damn well where Gehenna was so for him to say Gehenna but then mean this mythical place of eternal torments is extremely sketchy of him. It's like me telling you if you fuck up, you're going to Detroit. You'd be like, "I know where that is" but what I really meant was this other place I call Detroit that's a whole hell of a lot worse. It makes me dishonest and deceitful. And this is exactly what Christians claim Jesus did. So honest and loving of him.

 

Here's the systematic translations of physical places on earth in the King James Version to their English counterparts...

 

Hierousalem = Jerusalem

Kapharnaoum = Capernaum

Nazaret = Nazareth

Bethania = Bethany

Ephesion = Ephesus

Bethleem = Bethlehem

Bethsaida = Bethsaida

Kappodokia = Cappadocia

Beroia = Berea

Gomorra = Gomorrah

Galilaia = Galilee

Damaskos = Damascus

Geenna = Hell (should be Gehenna)

 

Anyone see a problem here? Geena, should be translated into Gehenna. Not fucking HELL!

 

Not only is that not a translation, it's a horrendous interpretation. Someone - whoever it was, did that on purpose with an agenda and it still stands today.

 

I call bullshit.

 

Go back and read the OP, where I explained all this in detail.

 

Specifically: Jerome mistranslated and misinterpreted several key Hebrew and Greek words into the Latin Vulgate in support of the already established doctrine of hell of the Roman Catholic Church. The Latin Vulgate, as translated by Jerome, had such an overpowering dominance for over a thousand years that many subsequent Bible versions, especially the King James Version (KJV), have simply carried forward the translation and interpretation errors to varying degrees in support of the doctrine of hell.

 

So, it was the Catholic Church you have to thank for this. They wanted to "sell salvation." That's all. And they are still doing it today.

 

Christian Universalists believe that when Jesus died on the cross that he saved all of mankind. Not just the ones who "accept him as their savior."

 

I made up an analogy that I like. Supposed you owe a debt to "XYZ company" at ABC Bank. And I go in and pay that debt. It's PAID in FULL and you don't have to go into the bank or do anything else to accept this gift. It's done. Same thing with Universalists. That's what they believe. But there's no money in that. So, it's not a popular ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that explains it well... I read that but was just generally speaking about the agenda involved by the translator.

 

I wish more people knew this. The fear hell creates is the glue that keeps Christians loyal and without questions. It's sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of what we believe about hell comes from Catholicism and is incorrect. I should clarify here that I didn't mean to say that Augustine invented the concept of hell. I meant to say that Augustine invented the concept of hell as eternal punishment.

 

The concept of ‘eternal punishment in hell' is a doctrine embraced and christianised by the Roman Catholic Church in the early centuries of Christianity, and made official when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in 400 A.D.

 

Jerome mistranslated and misinterpreted several key Hebrew and Greek words into the Latin Vulgate in support of the already established doctrine of hell of the Roman Catholic Church. The Latin Vulgate, as translated by Jerome, had such an overpowering dominance for over a thousand years that many subsequent Bible versions, especially the King James Version (KJV), have simply carried forward the translation and interpretation errors to varying degrees in support of the doctrine of hell.

 

The doctrine of everlasting punishment in hell is founded upon a combination of mistranslations and misinterpretations of the following Hebrew and Greek words.

  • Mistranslations of the Hebrew word sheol and the Greek words hades, tartarus and gehenna, to mean hell.

  • Mistranslations of the time-related Hebrew word owlam and the time-related Greek words aionand aionios, to mean everlasting when relating to God’s future punishment of unbelievers.

In the third century, Origen of Alexandria formulated a teaching he termed apokatastasis(restoration). According to this doctrine, all sinners—and indeed all of the fallen angels, including Satan himself—would be, through Christ’s grace, brought to salvation in the end. There might be hellfire, Origen thought, but it cannot be everlasting, for if it were, sin would prove more powerful than grace. Well, the official church reacted against Origen’s universalism, for she saw it as insufficiently respectful of freedom, both human and angelic. If God’s grace is simply irresistible, then the real freedom to reject God’s love appears compromised.

 

In the wake of this condemnation, other theologians moved practically to the other extreme. St. Augustine, fifth century bishop of Hippo, held that original sin had produced amassa damnata (a damned mass) of human beings, out of which God, in his inscrutable grace, has deigned to pick a few privileged souls. Thus, Augustine clearly believed that the vast majority of the human race would be damned to hell. St. Thomas Aquinas followed Augustine in holding that a very large number of people are Hell-bound; he even taught that among the pleasures that the saints in heaven enjoy is the contemplation of the suffering of the damned!

 

Thanks for quoting this - I'm finding it helpful but a question came up from my 'programming' as I'm only just coming out of Christianity now, and its about the rich man in hell.

 

Can anyone help me out with understanding what was really meant then with the passage in Luke where it talks about the rich man being in hell :-

 

“And in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.' Luke 16:23

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops that came out a little tiny (!!) and I can't see how to edit my post - here it is again easier to read:

 

'And in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom' Luke 16:23

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of what we believe about hell comes from Catholicism and is incorrect.

Or to further qualify, it's incorrect relative to earlier judiac and proto-christian myths about the afterlife which evolved over time.

 

It's interesting to read through the bible and other literature to kind of track who the hell concept evolved. It's interesting to read what the Koran says about hell, which was influenced by xianity a few centuries later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no coincidence that the two largest religions on earth, with over 4 BILLION ADHERENTS, are the only religions (of any consequence) that use the eternal hell doctrine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of what we believe about hell comes from Catholicism and is incorrect. I should clarify here that I didn't mean to say that Augustine invented the concept of hell. I meant to say that Augustine invented the concept of hell as eternal punishment.

 

The concept of ‘eternal punishment in hell' is a doctrine embraced and christianised by the Roman Catholic Church in the early centuries of Christianity, and made official when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in 400 A.D.

 

Jerome mistranslated and misinterpreted several key Hebrew and Greek words into the Latin Vulgate in support of the already established doctrine of hell of the Roman Catholic Church. The Latin Vulgate, as translated by Jerome, had such an overpowering dominance for over a thousand years that many subsequent Bible versions, especially the King James Version (KJV), have simply carried forward the translation and interpretation errors to varying degrees in support of the doctrine of hell.

 

The doctrine of everlasting punishment in hell is founded upon a combination of mistranslations and misinterpretations of the following Hebrew and Greek words.

  • Mistranslations of the Hebrew word sheol and the Greek words hades, tartarus and gehenna, to mean hell.

  • Mistranslations of the time-related Hebrew word owlam and the time-related Greek words aionand aionios, to mean everlasting when relating to God’s future punishment of unbelievers.

In the third century, Origen of Alexandria formulated a teaching he termed apokatastasis(restoration). According to this doctrine, all sinners—and indeed all of the fallen angels, including Satan himself—would be, through Christ’s grace, brought to salvation in the end. There might be hellfire, Origen thought, but it cannot be everlasting, for if it were, sin would prove more powerful than grace. Well, the official church reacted against Origen’s universalism, for she saw it as insufficiently respectful of freedom, both human and angelic. If God’s grace is simply irresistible, then the real freedom to reject God’s love appears compromised.

 

In the wake of this condemnation, other theologians moved practically to the other extreme. St. Augustine, fifth century bishop of Hippo, held that original sin had produced amassa damnata (a damned mass) of human beings, out of which God, in his inscrutable grace, has deigned to pick a few privileged souls. Thus, Augustine clearly believed that the vast majority of the human race would be damned to hell. St. Thomas Aquinas followed Augustine in holding that a very large number of people are Hell-bound; he even taught that among the pleasures that the saints in heaven enjoy is the contemplation of the suffering of the damned!

 

Thanks for quoting this - I'm finding it helpful but a question came up from my 'programming' as I'm only just coming out of Christianity now, and its about the rich man in hell.

 

Can anyone help me out with understanding what was really meant then with the passage in Luke where it talks about the rich man being in hell :-

 

“And in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.' Luke 16:23

 

It's a parable. It's not a real vision or account of an event.

 

Fundies have made it more than a parable. It is not.

 

Also, can someone pinpoint where God/Jesus established what exactly hell was? I mean, fundies seem to believe God/Jesus just all the sudden start referencing it, but where is it established as to what it is?

 

It's not. Not once is God or Jesus clear in stating that there is a place that you will stay forever to be burned alive and tormented. I mean, a just and compassionate God would want to make this very clear, wouldn't he?

 

"Listen peeps, there's this place you will go for being bad... It's really hot, there are flames, and it's dark and there's screaming and there's chains and torture devices and it lasts forever."

 

Not once, is it EVER clearly established what exactly hell is. The concept is left so open to interpretation that it's plainly ridiculous to conclude what modern Christianity has concluded. Top that off with the OP's post on the agenda behind that translation of a few words and it's clear that hell is clearly a mechanism used by the church for fear. It is not scriptural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of what we believe about hell comes from Catholicism and is incorrect. I should clarify here that I didn't mean to say that Augustine invented the concept of hell. I meant to say that Augustine invented the concept of hell as eternal punishment.

 

The concept of ‘eternal punishment in hell' is a doctrine embraced and christianised by the Roman Catholic Church in the early centuries of Christianity, and made official when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in 400 A.D.

 

Jerome mistranslated and misinterpreted several key Hebrew and Greek words into the Latin Vulgate in support of the already established doctrine of hell of the Roman Catholic Church. The Latin Vulgate, as translated by Jerome, had such an overpowering dominance for over a thousand years that many subsequent Bible versions, especially the King James Version (KJV), have simply carried forward the translation and interpretation errors to varying degrees in support of the doctrine of hell.

 

The doctrine of everlasting punishment in hell is founded upon a combination of mistranslations and misinterpretations of the following Hebrew and Greek words.

  • Mistranslations of the Hebrew word sheol and the Greek words hades, tartarus and gehenna, to mean hell.

  • Mistranslations of the time-related Hebrew word owlam and the time-related Greek words aionand aionios, to mean everlasting when relating to God’s future punishment of unbelievers.

In the third century, Origen of Alexandria formulated a teaching he termed apokatastasis(restoration). According to this doctrine, all sinners—and indeed all of the fallen angels, including Satan himself—would be, through Christ’s grace, brought to salvation in the end. There might be hellfire, Origen thought, but it cannot be everlasting, for if it were, sin would prove more powerful than grace. Well, the official church reacted against Origen’s universalism, for she saw it as insufficiently respectful of freedom, both human and angelic. If God’s grace is simply irresistible, then the real freedom to reject God’s love appears compromised.

 

In the wake of this condemnation, other theologians moved practically to the other extreme. St. Augustine, fifth century bishop of Hippo, held that original sin had produced amassa damnata (a damned mass) of human beings, out of which God, in his inscrutable grace, has deigned to pick a few privileged souls. Thus, Augustine clearly believed that the vast majority of the human race would be damned to hell. St. Thomas Aquinas followed Augustine in holding that a very large number of people are Hell-bound; he even taught that among the pleasures that the saints in heaven enjoy is the contemplation of the suffering of the damned!

 

Thanks for quoting this - I'm finding it helpful but a question came up from my 'programming' as I'm only just coming out of Christianity now, and its about the rich man in hell.

 

Can anyone help me out with understanding what was really meant then with the passage in Luke where it talks about the rich man being in hell :-

 

“And in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.' Luke 16:23

 

It's a parable. It's not a real vision or account of an event.

 

Fundies have made it more than a parable. It is not.

 

 

So true, how did you figure that out?

 

Yes, the doctrine of ever burning hell is lucrative for some churches. We have an ex atheist pastor who showed this to another pastor and he admitted that the people won't go to church if he showed that to them. People are going to church for wrong motives, i.e. avoiding hell.

 

Hell is ultimately the grave, just like the garbage in the garbage dump outside Jerusalem, sinners will be like refuse and they will burn up and be destroyed. That's the analogy Jesus was giving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because through my research I concluded that Hell was a myth. So naturally, the parable of the rich man was/is exactly that. A parable. What furthered the idea to me that it was indeed a parable is that nothing about a faith is mentioned here.. Are we to take away from it that if you're rich, and don't give to people you're going to hell? And if you're a poor, beggar, you're going to heaven? After all, those are all we know about these people in this story.

 

To get "hell" out of it and that the rich man wasn't a believer and that the poor man was a believer is a grossly reading into it. Something fundies just love to do. Nothing even remotely close to those ideas is expressed within the parable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no coincidence that the two largest religions on earth, with over 4 BILLION ADHERENTS, are the only religions (of any consequence) that use the eternal hell doctrine.

 

Actually I was reading that the Islam hell is only temporary. Once you've paid for your sins, Allah hooks you up with your Muslim swag (the 40 virgins), and you're good to go...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because through my research I concluded that Hell was a myth. So naturally, the parable of the rich man was/is exactly that. A parable. What furthered the idea to me that it was indeed a parable is that nothing about a faith is mentioned here.. Are we to take away from it that if you're rich, and don't give to people you're going to hell? And if you're a poor, beggar, you're going to heaven? After all, those are all we know about these people in this story.

 

 

Oh

 

 

To get "hell" out of it and that the rich man wasn't a believer and that the poor man was a believer is a grossly reading into it. Something fundies just love to do. Nothing even remotely close to those ideas is expressed within the parable.

 

 

 

 

The Jews had an idiom - apparently they were figuratively in Abraham's bosom, a place of comfort-- and they saw themselves as a favored race, they were a self righteous bunch. The more affluent Jews saw themselves better than the less affluent or the mixed breeds etc. Their idiom basically stated that the Jews were rich (meaning they were God's privileged people because they were BORN Jewish and/or because some were affluent or physically well or pure bred) and other people were inferior. Jesus used their idiom to teach them (He's so witty, I adore Him) that it's faith and sincerity that causes one to be rich and that the supposed poor people will take their place and their self righteous attitude will cause them to take the place of the poor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no coincidence that the two largest religions on earth, with over 4 BILLION ADHERENTS, are the only religions (of any consequence) that use the eternal hell doctrine.

 

Actually I was reading that the Islam hell is only temporary. Once you've paid for your sins, Allah hooks you up with your Muslim swag (the 40 virgins), and you're good to go...

As an outsider, I recently read the koran cover to cover. It goes on about hell at great length and very repetitively. I saw nothing to indicate to me that the muslim hell was really like a catholic purgatory and it says straight out that hell is eternal (a quick refresher search turned up 2:167, 5:37, 32:14, 39:40, 41:28--I'm sure there are many more). Apparently Thumbelina must have some muslim counterparts who do not think that hell is eternal. The koran also repeats ad naseum about 1) how allah does what he wants and 2) how allah is all merciful and most forgiving, either one of which I suppose could be grasped at as fodder for those who are looking for an "out" to allah's banishment of the infidels to hell.

 

By the way, accounts of hell in the koran are numerous and graphic, and are more developed, specific, and leave less to the imagination than biblical accounts. You can tell that the hell doctrine had had a few centuries to fester, evolve, and solidify by the time Mohammed ran with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

St. Thomas Aquinas followed Augustine in holding that a very large number of people are Hell-bound; he even taught that among the pleasures that the saints in heaven enjoy is the contemplation of the suffering of the damned!

 

Isn't that a little bit, oh I dunno, sadistic? (Then again, doesn't god himself sound like a bit of a sadist in the xian portrayal of him as well?)

 

And then there's this logic: If the "wages of sin is death", shouldn't that mean no eternal life? Why would sinners be granted eternal life, even in hell? But I went to a church that taught soul sleep and second death, what do I know? Wendyshrug.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no coincidence that the two largest religions on earth, with over 4 BILLION ADHERENTS, are the only religions (of any consequence) that use the eternal hell doctrine.

 

Actually I was reading that the Islam hell is only temporary. Once you've paid for your sins, Allah hooks you up with your Muslim swag (the 40 virgins), and you're good to go...

 

Interesting. Never heard that.

 

But still generally true in a sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of what we believe about hell comes from Catholicism and is incorrect. I should clarify here that I didn't mean to say that Augustine invented the concept of hell. I meant to say that Augustine invented the concept of hell as eternal punishment.

 

The concept of ‘eternal punishment in hell' is a doctrine embraced and christianised by the Roman Catholic Church in the early centuries of Christianity, and made official when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin in 400 A.D.

 

Jerome mistranslated and misinterpreted several key Hebrew and Greek words into the Latin Vulgate in support of the already established doctrine of hell of the Roman Catholic Church. The Latin Vulgate, as translated by Jerome, had such an overpowering dominance for over a thousand years that many subsequent Bible versions, especially the King James Version (KJV), have simply carried forward the translation and interpretation errors to varying degrees in support of the doctrine of hell.

 

The doctrine of everlasting punishment in hell is founded upon a combination of mistranslations and misinterpretations of the following Hebrew and Greek words.

  • Mistranslations of the Hebrew word sheol and the Greek words hades, tartarus and gehenna, to mean hell.

  • Mistranslations of the time-related Hebrew word owlam and the time-related Greek words aionand aionios, to mean everlasting when relating to God’s future punishment of unbelievers.

In the third century, Origen of Alexandria formulated a teaching he termed apokatastasis(restoration). According to this doctrine, all sinners—and indeed all of the fallen angels, including Satan himself—would be, through Christ’s grace, brought to salvation in the end. There might be hellfire, Origen thought, but it cannot be everlasting, for if it were, sin would prove more powerful than grace. Well, the official church reacted against Origen’s universalism, for she saw it as insufficiently respectful of freedom, both human and angelic. If God’s grace is simply irresistible, then the real freedom to reject God’s love appears compromised.

 

In the wake of this condemnation, other theologians moved practically to the other extreme. St. Augustine, fifth century bishop of Hippo, held that original sin had produced amassa damnata (a damned mass) of human beings, out of which God, in his inscrutable grace, has deigned to pick a few privileged souls. Thus, Augustine clearly believed that the vast majority of the human race would be damned to hell. St. Thomas Aquinas followed Augustine in holding that a very large number of people are Hell-bound; he even taught that among the pleasures that the saints in heaven enjoy is the contemplation of the suffering of the damned!

 

Thanks for quoting this - I'm finding it helpful but a question came up from my 'programming' as I'm only just coming out of Christianity now, and its about the rich man in hell.

 

Can anyone help me out with understanding what was really meant then with the passage in Luke where it talks about the rich man being in hell :-

 

“And in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.' Luke 16:23

 

It's a parable. It's not a real vision or account of an event.

 

Fundies have made it more than a parable. It is not.

 

 

So true, how did you figure that out?

 

Yes, the doctrine of ever burning hell is lucrative for some churches. We have an ex atheist pastor who showed this to another pastor and he admitted that the people won't go to church if he showed that to them. People are going to church for wrong motives, i.e. avoiding hell.

 

Hell is ultimately the grave, just like the garbage in the garbage dump outside Jerusalem, sinners will be like refuse and they will burn up and be destroyed. That's the analogy Jesus was giving.

 

Thumby, your pastor was never a "TRUE ATHEIST". If he was, he never would have converted to christinsanity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

As an outsider, I recently read the koran cover to cover. It goes on about hell at great length and very repetitively. I saw nothing to indicate to me that the muslim hell was really like a catholic purgatory and it says straight out that hell is eternal

 

Is it eternal for everyone? Maybe I misunderstood it, I thought that the time spent there depended on the "sins" in question. But I could be wrong...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thumby, your pastor was never a "TRUE ATHEIST". If he was, he never would have converted to christinsanity.

 

Oh the double standard. I'm sure you won't like someone to say that to you about your Christian walk now, would you? Yeah, he believed in evolution and felt that creationists were stupid, he said he pitied the creationists.

 

That ever burning hell has made many people atheists.

 

 

P.S. If the OP is interested, this is a post I made which shows that everlasting hell is a fallacy: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/48147-a-question-for-thumbelina/page__st__20#entry693365

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thumby, your pastor was never a "TRUE ATHEIST". If he was, he never would have converted to christinsanity.

 

Oh the double standard. I'm sure you won't like someone to say that to you about your Christian walk now, would you? Yeah, he believed in evolution and felt that creationists were stupid, he said he pitied the creationists.

 

That ever burning hell has made many people atheists.

 

I wasnt being serious.

 

well, kinda i was.

 

Just believing in evolution does not one an atheist make, though. There are christian evolutionists.

 

Im willing to bet he never learned half as much as many on here know about the origins, context and evolution of the bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thumby, your pastor was never a "TRUE ATHEIST". If he was, he never would have converted to christinsanity.

 

Oh the double standard. I'm sure you won't like someone to say that to you about your Christian walk now, would you? Yeah, he believed in evolution and felt that creationists were stupid, he said he pitied the creationists.

 

That ever burning hell has made many people atheists.

 

I wasnt being serious.

 

well, kinda i was.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an outsider, I recently read the koran cover to cover. It goes on about hell at great length and very repetitively. I saw nothing to indicate to me that the muslim hell was really like a catholic purgatory and it says straight out that hell is eternal

 

Is it eternal for everyone? Maybe I misunderstood it, I thought that the time spent there depended on the "sins" in question. But I could be wrong...

 

That was how I read it, although I am by no means an expert on what muslims actually believe. Maybe they are like xians and get creative with their sacred text, making it more palatable to reconcile that their god is supposed to be merciful. Maybe they get a different spin from the hadiths. Maybe different muslims believe differently on this subject. I didn't find anything directly in the koran that even suggested to me that different people would have different length sentences in hell based on their sins, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.