The Ghastly Dogma of Everlasting Torment
Warm words on the cheerful and comforting doctrine of eternal damnation.
"The idea of a hell was born of revenge and brutality on the one side, and cowardice on the other. In my judgment the American people are too brave, too charitable, too generous, too magnanimous, to believe in the infamous dogma of an eternal hell. I have no respect for any human being who believes in it. I have no respect for any man who preaches it. I have no respect for the man who will pollute the imagination of childhood with that infamous lie. I have no respect for the man who will add to the sorrows of this world with the frightful dogma. I have no respect for any man who endeavours to put that infinite cloud, that infinite shadow, over the heart of humanity." -Col. Robert G. Ingersoll
"If there is a God who will damn his children forever, I would rather go to hell than to go to heaven and keep the society of such an infamous tyrant. I make my choice now. I despise that doctrine. It has covered the cheeks of this world with tears. It has polluted the hearts of children, and poisoned the imaginations of men. It has been a constant pain, a perpetual terror to every good man and woman and child. It has filled the good with horror and with fear; but it has had no effect upon the infamous and base. It has wrung the hearts of the tender, it has furrowed the cheeks of the good. This doctrine never should be preached again. What right have you, sir, Mr. clergyman, you, minister of the gospel to stand at the portals of the tomb, at the vestibule of eternity, and fill the future with horror and with fear? I do not believe this doctrine, neither do you. If you did, you could not sleep one moment. Any man who believes it, and has within his breast a decent, throbbing heart, will go insane. A man who believes that doctrine and does not go insane has the heart of a snake and the conscience of a hyena. -Robert Ingersoll-
Jesus Christ holds the keys to death & hell
Aionios kolasis is one thing, Aidios punishment another. When aidios is added to punishment, we have a serious problem.
Justinian, described as a half-heathen made an ET declaration, but didn't just use kolasis (punishment) aonian, but qualified it with the word ateleutetos - which means endless.
He said The holy church of Christ teaches an endless aeonian (ateleutetos aionios) life to the righteous, and endless (ateleutetos) punishment to the wicked.
If he supposed aionios denoted endless duration, he would not have added the stronger word to it. The fact that he qualified it by ateleutetos, demonstrated that as late as the sixth century the former word did not signify endless duration. Thereby admitting that kolasis aonian was NOT considered eternal at the time.
However, as his (Julian) contemporary, Olympiodorus wrote,
Do not suppose that the soul is punished for endless ages in Tartarus. Very properly the soul is not punished to gratify the revenge of the Divinity, but for the sake of healing. But we say that the soul is punished for an aeonian period, calling its life, and its allotted period of punishment, its aeon. It will be noticed that he not only denies endless punishment, and denies that the doctrine can be expressed by aionios declares that punishment is temporary and results in the sinners improvement."
Two Rules
Rule #1: The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases, never at any time, it is oudepote.
Rule #2: When in doubt refer to rule #1.
The sons of God shouted for joy, as they contemplated creation; but they should have wept had the popular creed been true.
For that creed represents the present life as darkened by the prospect of evil triumphant; our present sorrows made keener by the prospect of a future life, which will be, not to the wicked merely, but to the whole race of man, an evil and a curse - a life which every good man would, if he could, bring to an instant end. To prove this, I will take a definite example. Further, I will concede to the advocates of the popular creed one point of very considerable importance (to which they have no right), e.g., that the number of the saved greatly exceeds the lost.
Suppose it were offered to the father of three children to take his choice whether two should be received into heaven and one condemned to hell, or the whole should be annihilated in death. What would a parent say? Where is the father who would dare to secure the bliss of two children at the cost of the endless misery of one? Which of the family would he select as the victim, whose undying pain should secure his brothers immortal joy? Is there any one living who would not suffer himself and his children to sink back again into nothingness, rather than purchase heaven at such a price? Now, if so, if we should so act in the case of our own children, we are bound morally to make the same choice with respect to every one. No moral being would consent to purchase eternal happiness at the price of anothers eternal woe. Hence it follows that a future life, on the popular view, is an evil to the human race, not to the wicked, but to all. For if annihilation of the whole race should be tendered as the alternative, no moral being could, as has been shown, refuse to accept it. - Barlow, Eternal Punishment.-
Who are we other than all the others who have made us who we are and to whom we belong as much as they to us. We are those others. To say that the sufferings of the damned will either be clouded from the eyes of the blessed, or worse, increase the pitiless bliss of heaven is also to say that no persons can possibly saved. For if the memories of others are removed or lost, or one's knowledge of their misery converted into indifference or, God forbid, into greater beatitude, what then remains of one in one's last bliss? Some other being altogether, surely a spiritual anonymity, a vapid spark of pure intellection, the residue of a soul reduced to no one, but not a person, not the person who was.
But it's not the logic of the claims that bother me; it is their moral hideousness... Currently, the most popular way of defending the notion of an eternal torment is an appeal to creaturely freedom and to God's respect for its dignity, but there could scarcely be a poorer argument, whether it's made crudely... by William Lane Craig or elegantly by Eleonore Stump, it is going to fail. It wouldn't if we could construct a metaphysics or phenomenology of the will's liberty that was purely voluntarist, purely spontaneous, though even then we would have to explain how an absolutely libertarian act, obedient to no rationale whatsoever would be distinguishable from sheer chance or mindless organic or mechanical impulse, and so any more free than an earthquake or embolism. But on any cogent account, free will is a power inherently purposive, teleological, primordially oriented towards the good and shaped by that transcendental appetite to the degree that a soul can recognize the good for what it is. No one can freely will the evil as evil. One can take the evil for the good. but that doesn't alter the prior transcendental orientation that wakens all desire. To see the good truly is to desire it insatiably; not to desire it is not to have known it and so never having been free to choose it. It makes no more sense to say that God allows creatures to damn themselves out of his love for them, or his respect for their freedom, than to say that a father might reasonably allow his deranged child to thrust her face into a fire out of a tender regard for her moral autonomy.
And the argument becomes quite insufferable when one considers the personal conditions – ignorance, mortality, defectibility of intellect and will – under which each soul enters the world and the circumstances, the suffering of all creatures, even the most innocent and delightful among them, with which that world confronts the soul. -Dr. David B. Hart-
"To say that sin, assuming it to be opposed to God, has the power of creating a world antagonistic to God as everlasting as He is, attributes to it a power equal at least to His; since according to this view, souls whom God willed to be saved, and for whom Christ died, are held in bondage under the power of sin for ever; and all this in opposition to the Word of God, which says that God's Son was "manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil..." --Andrew Jukes, The Restitution of all Things-
"To go on punishing for ever, simply for punishment's sake, shocks every sentiment of justice. And the case is so much worse when the punishment is really the prolongation of evil, when it is but making evil endless." -Thomas Allin, Christ Triumphant-
"The almighty maker of souls has various methods of restoring them to the divine image; it is impossible his power can fail; it is impossible for his image to be entirely obliterated; it is impossible that misery, sin, and discord can be eternal! –Alison R. Cockburn-
Amen! Absolutely! We all have our shock and the logic that proves the hell gospel is not true.. What an oxymoron! The hell good news?! :mshock:
I sometimes question translators.. Here’s what it also says about the Greek word kolazo - which to me is good news in the quest to vanquish hell from out of the “good news” -
1. properly, to lop, prune, as trees, wings.
2. to check, curb, restrain.
3. to chastise, correct, punish
Just because on the description of a word’s meaning, translators seem to prefer the most extreme usage, doesn’t mean they are right. If “properly” kolazo is to prune..
That gives for instance 2 Peter 2:9 a much gentler and more logical reading:
“..God knows how to preserve the unrighteous for correction/kolazo on day of judgment.”
Now if all who “die still in their sins” were despots, cruel terrorists, abortion drs, etc. “punishment” might make perfect sense.. But not forever! Annihilation would be better than burning alive forever.
And since the Lord said He “will draw ALL to Himself” we know even the worst of the worst will be, irresistably drawn to Him. And the Son being of the same substance as the Father, drawn to He who is love. “Love seeks not its own” (interests, etc). So it’s not hard to figure out wHy the tree of knowing both good and evil was in that infant garden of life.
And the fact HE put it there! Burn someone alive for a duration? Let alone the mythical and popular ‘forever’.
Well, I think “the judgment” is an age, anyone can pray and ask God about it.. And He never, ever, “misses the mark”! But “is perfect” Mt:5:48. To NOT successfully correct “all” could not be said to “perfect”.
Another fruit of the hell gospel that I don’t think we think about, is how it keeps believers locked into theirselves. Because no one is quite positive about His Good Will, has to keep examining and worrying about self. Everything is internalized.. Kind of missing the mark.. I don’t want my faith to be all about me.. God is glorious.. both Father and Son.. And what God is doing, and how, and why, is, as we know, utterly glorious. He IS the kingdom. Our eye should be single, fixed upon Him. Not fearfully shuffling through my own psyche. Or for that matter my ideas.. my dreams, aspirations.. etc. whatever it might be.. We present ourself a living sacrifice ..repeatedly. Grace.. every promise received through faith.. Has nothing to do with the lower character who hangs on the cross with the Lord.
And if He deals so with us, chosen for no good reason, no better or worse than others, then why would their day of atonement / repentance be any harsher in ‘punishment’ than ours was. Punished? Sure! There’s been plenty of evil done unto others by many. But “the end, and aim - telos” is I am sure, we can be sure, is “correction”. I even think “wrath of God” is consequences and results.. (speaking of a lake/mushroom? of fire!?)
The Lord said this, which I think is a very important point, also, regarding the (so called christian) hell myth (but it is wholly pagan) - He said “all in the tombs” (graves) “ will hear His voice, and will come forth” (out of the graves/tombs) “some in the resurrection of Life” (at the Lord’s return/appearing) “and some in the resurrection of judgment”. (Jn.5:28-29)
I had a weird dream :laughing7: that made me think..
Every day I take water and some treats out to our chickens and as I pass the brush pile I see rabbit trails going into it. Which I love the idea of providing some shelter for them during these cold months. Now with our chickens - one white rooster and thirteen hens, we've never considered taking their lives.. and having them for dinner! :faint:
So I dreamt I was holding this little brown bunny, petting it and thinking "no no.. I can't eat it!" While images of my harming it ran through my mind!
Yes, I wondered about such a deranged dream, lol. But what I realize is, not only does the hell doctrine cause much unbelief and scoffing in the world, but what about the vulnerable bunny in His hands? What image of God does the "ghastly" hell doctrine portray and present? Will He simply crush the bunny with no remorse?
I think not!! - "God is love" and "nothing is impossible with God". 1Jn.4:8; Lk.1:37.
:Peace2: Great posts! :thumbsup: He was a very reasonable thinker! Which all should be! Root word of logic is logos!
Eternal Hellfire..say it fast enough n it loses the horror and ramifications of what it truly means.....its a disgraceful doctrine