Heaven and Hell

[SteveB28]

I'm not the only one who does

Take this as a piece of harmless humour......

My father had a saying that he particularly liked......."Fools seldom differ".......

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hell - Does it really exist, is it an actual place or is it where spirits. souls go.

This is where things can get even more complicated. In English we only have this one word "Hell" which has been used to translate several concepts from the Hebrew and Greek of the Bible, as well historic languages of the Church (Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc).

In what Christians call the Old Testament there exists very little in discussion about life after death, there is instead merely the concept of She'ol, which means "the grave" or "the pit" and was understood, effectively, as the common place of the dead. This term, in Greek, gets translated as Hades, the place of the dead in Greek mythology. By the first century popular Judaism understood She'ol to be divided into two parts, the abode of the righteous dead called Gan-Eden (literally, the Garden of Eden) translated into Greek as Paradeisos (itself a borrowing of a Persian word meaning "an enclosed garden") or "Paradise"; and there was also the abode of the wicked dead called Ge-Hinnom (literally, the Valley of Hinnom), transliterated into Greek as Gehenna.

The imagery that is brought to mind when one thinks of the Garden of Eden or Paradise is perhaps more obvious then that of the Valley of Hinnom. The Valley of Hinnom was an actual valley located outside of the old city of Jerusalem, in Israel's historical past it was the center for a lot of brutal and awful events, most notably it was the center of the cult of Molech, which according to the traditional view the god Molech was offered sacrifice by heating up an image of the god until it was red hot, and upon which human sacrifices were made--in particular offering children and infants. It seems that the valley, in Jesus' time, was largely used as Jerusalem's city dump, and where the bodies of dead criminals and lepers were deposed of, and possibly burned. Thus the imagery of Gehenna in the Gospels is of a place of fire, darkness, "where the worm does not die".

Both of these were understood, in Jewish religion at the time, as holding stations for the dead until the day of resurrection. This imagery was retained by Christians, in fact if you look at traditional Christian iconography of Christ's resurrection it depicts Christ in Hades/She'ol standing upon the gates of Hades, often there is a figure crushed under the gates, sometimes two, these represent death and the devil. Christ is depicted lifting from their sarcophagi Adam and Eve (sometimes it's just Adam, but usually both Adam and Eve) by their wrists and on both sides of Him stand all the saints past and present. This is known as the Harrowing of Hell in Christian tradition, that Christ has "trampled death by death, and to those in the tombs bestowing life" (the Paschal Troparion) and is confessed more expressly in the Apostles' Creed by the statement, "He descended into Hell" (in Latin, descendit ad inferos, that is, "descended into the depths").

Gehenna, however, isn't necessarily the final state of the wicked, because at the resurrection of the dead there will be a resurrection of all the dead, of both the righteous and the wicked. This is mentioned in the book of Daniel fairly explicitly, and is echoed in its own way by St. John of Patmos in the Apocalypse where he describes the sea and Hades giving up their dead and speaks of the wicked being cast into a lake of sulfur and fire.

Which gets us to the hardest part to answer: Are these actual places? States of existence? What does all this language actually mean?

The problem is that while the Christian Church, historically, has been more clear in how we have taught about the future resurrection of the body, the life everlasting, etc there has never been anything particularly dogmatic said about the ultimate state of the wicked.

Throughout the history of Christianity there have been lots of ideas, and there continues to exist a lot of discussion. A very popular idea in the modern west tends to be that "Hell" is this literal(ish?) place where the wicked go and are there for all eternity outside of the presence of God. Sometimes there is something more like "Hell is the absence of God's presence" that is a very common view today where the more graphic "fire and brimstone" language is viewed more figuratively than anything else. But then the Eastern Churches have a very different conception, the ultimate fates of the righteous and the wicked are not about location at all, but about how we experience the loving presence of God. That is, for many of the Eastern fathers, like St. Isaac of Nineveh, "Hell" isn't a different "place" or "destination" than "Heaven"; and it's certainly not the absence of God's presence: it's in fact the same place, destination, and experience which the righteous have, the flames of Hell, writes Isaac, are the flames of God's love,

"It would be improper for a man to think that sinners in Gehenna are deprived of the love of God. Love is the offspring of knowledge of the truth which, as is commonly confessed, is given to all. The power of love works in two ways: it torments those who have played the fool, even as happens here when a friend suffers from a friend; but it becomes a source of joy for those who have observed its duties. Thus I say that this is the torment of Gehenna: bitter regret. But love inebriates the souls of the sons of Heaven by its delectability." - St. Isaac of Nineveh

We could also take the route which C.S. Lewis takes, which is it see Hell as the slow shrinking of our humanity until there is little more than a grumbling noise, like a machine, and which there is almost nothing about me that is really left. This is a view which, from what I've seen, New Testament scholar and retired Anglican bishop N.T. Wright takes; that Hell is largely not a thing to be feared, but to be regarded as immeasurably sad, it isn't where "bad people" go to suffer, it's what happens when people wish to stop being people, to refuse the place God has for them in His good future world, which is to say they choose to in a sense cease being human, to cease--in a sense--being real. It is to say I will be angry until there is no I left and only the angry remains, in that sense.

From C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce:

"Hell is a state of mind - ye never said a truer word. And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind - is, in the end, Hell. But Heaven is not a state of mind. Heaven is reality itself. All that is fully real is Heavenly. For all that can be shaken will be shaken and only the unshakeable remains."

"The whole difficulty of understanding Hell is that the thing to be understood is so nearly Nothing. But ye'll have had experiences ... it begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it: perhaps criticising it. And yourself, in a dark hour, may will that mood, embrace it. Ye can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no 'you' left to criticise the mood, nor even to enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine."

If I go to Hell, is that also for eternity?

Some say yes, some say no, some say maybe, some say we don't and can't know. This is another one of those parts of the discussion on Hell in the history of the Church that has never seen anything resembling some resolution. Some of the ancient fathers seem to suggest yes, Hell is perpetual; others have indicated that Hell may indeed have an end notably Origen of Alexandria and St. Gregory of Nyssa articulated a view in which Hell's function was ultimately to be part of the process of God redeeming creation. St. Gregory, for examples, describes the fires of Hell as a refining fire, a purgatorial flame, that refines and purifies creatures of their spiritual dross.

More-or-less, the closest thing to an orthodox consensus would be this: It is quite orthodox to hope and pray that all will, ultimately, be saved; but we can't say for certain, it is unorthodox to dogmatically claim that all will be saved; but the hope and prayer that all will be saved has remained a constant prayer and hope down through the ages within the Christian Church.

I speak of this as an approximate orthodox consensus, as there absolutely will be many different views. The reality is, as I stated in the beginning here, there simply is no orthodox, dogmatic position. Individual churches may have their own positions, some more dogmatic than others; but in terms of historic, broad traditional Christianity no such thing exists or has ever existed; and so views on Hell are incredibly diverse and varied.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Noxot]

A litany of loopholes and lame excuses.........

'tis to thou

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I'm not the only one who does

The number of people who believe something has no bearing on whether it's true or not. The majority of people on the planet don't agree with you, so by your logic that makes it less likely to be true. So I don't think you want to play the numbers game.

 

[miknik5]

The number of people who believe something has no bearing on whether it's true or not. The majority of people on the planet don't agree with you, so by your logic that makes it less likely to be true. So I don't think you want to play the numbers game.

Exactly. It doesn't matter whether one believes or not. What does matter is if it is TRUE and TRUTH and remains TRUE and TRUTH regardless of how small or large the numbers

 

[miknik5]

oh and I don't have to play any games to argue or force anyone to believe the TRUTH

The TRUTH is THE TRUTH

 

[HitchSlap]

oh and I don't have to play any games to argue or force anyone to believe the TRUTH

The TRUTH is THE TRUTH

Some might think using all caps, is in fact, playing games.

 

[miknik5]

Some might think using all caps, is in fact, playing games.

Well that was already discussed. I did state that I use caps for all the things pertaining to GOD but if one thinks I am lying about myself and can not believe this to be true than why is it not surprising that one has difficulty believing when one testifies to the TRUTH of another?

 

[HitchSlap]

Well that was already discussed. I did state that I use caps for all the things pertaining to GOD but if one thinks I am lying about myself and can not believe this to be true than why is it not surprising that one has difficulty believing when one testifies to the TRUTH of another?

There's only one truth. No need to capitalize.
What's under discussion is how to determine what's true.

 

[miknik5]

There's only one truth. No need to capitalize.
What's under discussion is how to determine what's true.

Yes there is only ONE TRUTH

I did not charge you to follow any rules with regards to what you should say what you should write how you should say it and how you should write it.

Please don't require me to do these things

If your ears can discern the ONE TRUTH from the half truths and the relative and selective and fickle and flexible truths than your ears will be able to make that distinction. Regardless of the "style" of the one speaking or writing

 

[bhsmte]

oh and I don't have to play any games to argue or force anyone to believe the TRUTH

The TRUTH is THE TRUTH

Yep, the truth is the truth.

Now, demonstrate to us you know the truth.

 

[miknik5]

Yep, the truth is the truth.

Now, demonstrate to us you know the truth.

I know the TRUTH
Like I said I do not have to do anything


You do

 

[bhsmte]

I know the TRUTH
Like I said I do not have to do anything


You do

What do i have to do and why?

Please be specific.

 

[bhsmte]

I know the TRUTH
Like I said I do not have to do anything


You do

If you cant demonstrate this truth you claim to know, it is only an empty claim.

I am quite certain though, it makes you feel better to keep repeating it.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes there is only ONE TRUTH

I did not charge you to follow any rules with regards to what you should say what you should write how you should say it and how you should write it.

Please don't require me to do these things

If your ears can discern the ONE TRUTH from the half truths and the relative and selective and fickle and flexible truths than your ears will be able to make that distinction. Regardless of the "style" of the one speaking or writing

It seems you're using semantics (i.e. "playing games") when you put "truth" in all caps. As I said, there's only one truth. The question is, what's the best way to determine truth.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Exactly. It doesn't matter whether one believes or not. What does matter is if it is TRUE and TRUTH and remains TRUE and TRUTH regardless of how small or large the numbers

Your claim of truth is just another in a sea of claims that aren't being substantiated. There's no reason to believe it's true unless you present a reason to believe it's true.

But don't take my word for it. Let's throw this out to the general population:

If there's any non-Christians out there that have decided to convert to Christianity due to the testimony of miknik5, please let her and I know here, so that we can gauge how effective her testimony is.

And conversely, if any non-Christians are not swayed at all by her testimony, it's probably a good idea to say that as well.

 

[SteveB28]

I know the TRUTH
Like I said I do not have to do anything


You do

Like Socrates, I "know" nothing. But I do have certain understandings. And those understandings arrived largely as a result of evidence that has presented itself.

 

[miknik5]

Your claim of truth is just another in a sea of claims that aren't being substantiated. There's no reason to believe it's true unless you present a reason to believe it's true.

But don't take my word for it. Let's throw this out to the general population:

If there's any non-Christians out there that have decided to convert to Christianity due to the testimony of miknik5, please let her and I know here, so that we can gauge how effective her testimony is.

And conversely, if any non-Christians are not swayed at all by her testimony, it's probably a good idea to say that as well.

They don't have to do anything of the sort


I'm not The Lord

 

[HitchSlap]

They don't have to do anything of the sort


I'm not The Lord

I haven't been swayed.

 

[miknik5]

I haven't been swayed.

That's quite alright. I don't need to know anything. I was simply told to preach THE TRUTH

He who has ears to hear will hear

And GOD doesn't have to run anything by me

HE knows who has ears to hear and will hear

Not me