NP Rank:
Eternal Punishment In Bible Does Not Mean Eternal Torment
Although I am a conservative Christian theologian (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches or supports the traditional view of hell with its doctrine of eternal torment or suffering.
The Bible does teach eternal punishment, but that eternal punishment ultimately is not eternal suffering.
Few in society realize just how much ancient Greek philosophy influenced early Christian thought on hell.
The ancient Greeks believed and taught that the human soul is immortal and indestructible. When early Christianity adopted this belief then it became only logical to believe that those who go to hell must suffer eternal torment.
More than anyone else, the early Church bishop Augustine influenced early Christianity's adoption of this ancient Greek belief about the nature of the soul. Augustine was a great admirer and follower of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato even after converting to Christianity. It was Plato who systematically formulated ancient Greek belief and thought concerning the nature of the human soul.
The prevalent view of the early Church Fathers (during the first and second centuries at least) was that the human soul was not created immortal. However, the influence of ancient Greek philosophy on early Christianity was so strong that it was not long before the prevalent view had changed to that of the universal immortality of the human soul.
The Bible, however, teaches that man by nature is completely mortal and that immortality is a gift of God to be realized only on Resurrection Day for those who have put their faith and trust in God's Son Jesus Christ for salvation because Christ's death on the Cross fully paid for our sins and His resurrection from the grave is the guarantee of future immortality for all who believe in Him.
Just as a co-signer to a loan takes upon himself the moral and legal responsibility to pay the debt on the loan should the borrower default, Jesus Christ, by prior arrangement with God the Father, took the moral and legal responsibility to pay for the sins of mankind.
Although the wicked in hell, for a period, will suffer consciously for their individual sins, the ultimate penalty for sin itself will be the eternal death of soul and body and the eternal loss to immortality. That is what the Bible means by eternal punishment - the eternal loss to immortality and life. Interestingly, even Adam and Eve were not created as immortal from the beginning. That is why there was placed the Tree of Life in the midst of the Garden of Eden.
If pain is necessary for punishment then why do some societies have the death penalty? When a murderer is put to death he no longer feels pain. If he did then he wouldn't be dead. One thing for sure is that a murderer put to death by society no longer feels any pain from society. Does that then mean that society has not punished him since he no longer feels any more pain from society?
In Genesis 2:17 God told Adam not to eat the fruit of a certain tree (the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) and God also told Adam that if he did eat of it he would die on that very day. Specifically, God said to Adam, "For in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." But the Biblical record shows that Adam did not physically die on the very day he disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit. Because Adam did not physically die on the very day that he disobeyed God most Christians believe that God was referring to spiritual death and not physical death.
However, in the original Hebrew, in which the Old Testament was written, the grammatical tense of the word "die" in Genesis 2:17 is in the imperfect mood. The imperfect mood denotes a process. Thus, what God was actually saying to Adam is that he would start dying on the day he ate the forbidden fruit. The literal translation from the Hebrew of what God said to Adam is: "Dying you will die." God was not, therefore, referring to spiritual death but to physical death. The fact that God later prevented Adam and Eve from having access to the tree of life (Genesis 3:22-24) so that they would not live eternally proves that God was referring to physical death and not spiritual death.
There are good Scriptural reasons to believe that the soul also is physical but distinct from the rest of the body, but that is another subject. Whether physical or not physical, man's soul, along with the rest of man, was created completely mortal and that is the primary point being addressed here.
The penalty for sin, then, is the death of both soul and body so that man will not live for eternity in sin. Not only is God not cruel in His eternal justice, but a holy God will not allow His moral creatures to exist eternally in sin. God will not immortalize sin and evil by making the wicked in hell immortal! In fact, Jesus Himself emphasizes in Scripture that both the soul and body of the wicked will be destroyed (not kept alive) in hell (Matthew 10:28). All of this contradicts the traditional doctrine and teaching, taught in most churches, about the wicked having an immortal soul and body in hell.
What about "eternal fire", "unquenchable fire", "weeping and gnashing of teeth forever and ever", the account by Jesus about the Rich Man and Lazarus, and other similar passages in the Bible that seem to teach eternal torment? The key, in many cases, is in understanding the context in which these and other similar phrases are used in various parts of Scripture.
For example, figures of speech such as "unquenchable fire" are used in the Bible to mean that the process of destruction is unstoppable or irreversible. We see an example of this in the Old Testament book of Ezekiel 20:47-48 where God says that when His judgment comes on the land even every green tree will burn and that the fire "will not be quenched". Obviously, those trees are no longer still burning. It is important to understand just why God uses such terms in Scripture as "unquenchable fire".
In the Bible, there were some judgments of God in which His wrath was quenched or stopped such as in the case when Moses interceded and pleaded before God for the rebellious Israelites in the desert. When Moses did this God stopped or quenched His wrath against the rebellious Israelites. Thus, when God says, in Scripture, that the wicked in the end will be destroyed with unquenchable fire what He simply means is that nothing can intervene to prevent Him from carrying out His wrath fully through to its completion. Over and over in the Scriptures God is described in judgment as being a consuming fire. God's righteous wrath in judgment is not an end in itself but, rather, a means to an end.
Unlike the burning bush in Exodus that Moses observed was not consumed by the fire but was preserved by God, the Scriptures teach that God, in the end, will not preserve the wicked in the fire of hell but instead will completely consume and destroy them!
The word "forever" is another example. In Scripture the word "forever" does not always mean endless or eternal duration. For example, in Exodus 21:6 (KJV Version) we read that certain people were to be servants "forever". Obviously this cannot mean eternity. The word "forever" or "everlasting", in the original Hebrew and Greek languages of Scripture, simply means the entire length or duration of something. If that something is immortal then the word "forever" must mean eternity. But, if that something is mortal or temporary in nature then, obviously, the word "forever" cannot mean eternity.
Thus, when the Bible teaches hell as being "forever" it cannot mean eternity because the same Bible teaches that those who go to hell are mortal and will be totally consumed or destroyed. The word "forever" in this case must mean the entire length that the wicked suffer consciously for their individual sins before they are finally and eternally destroyed. Hell is not eternal but the result produced by hell is eternal!
What about Revelation 14:9-11 where it says: "the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever; and they have no rest day nor night"? Doesn't this passage in Scripture prove eternal torment? No. We also read in Isaiah 34:10 that while Edom was burning day and night the smoke of the city would ascend up forever and ever. Does that mean that Edom would never stop burning? Of course, not! The language simply signifies that the burning of Edom will ultimately end in permanent (or irrevocable and eternal) destruction.
We know that Edom doesn't exist anymore. Similarly, we are to understand the same from the passage in Revelation 14:9-11. The smoke of their torment arising "forever and ever" in the passage does not mean that the torment of the wicked will never end. The language simply signifies that the torment of the wicked will lead to their permanent (or irrevocable and eternal) destruction. During the process of their destruction the wicked will be tormented but that process will ultimately end in their eternal annihilation, which is what is signified by the use of the figure of smoke arising "forever and ever". This is the only interpretation of Revelation 14:9-11 that would be consistent with how the rest of Scripture uses such language and with what the rest of the Scriptures teach concerning the final and ultimate end of the wicked.
Scripture says in Jude 7 that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by eternal fire. These cities are no longer still burning. How, then, can the fire be called "eternal"? Because the result that the fire produced is eternal - these cities have never existed again, nor will they (Please see my larger article, link provided below, for in-depth analysis of this particular point and refutation of arguments to the contrary).
Contrary to popular belief and interpretation, the phrase in Scripture "where their worm dieth not" is not a reference to the undying human soul or conscience. We have already seen statements in Scripture that God will destroy, not preserve or keep alive, the bodies and souls of the wicked in the Day of Judgment. The worm and fire were figures that people in Jesus' time could readily identify and understand because in that time the dead bodies of those who suffered dishonor in society were all commonly thrown into a certain valley where fire and worms devoured these bodies. Jesus simply seeks to convey, in figurative language, that in hell (gehenna) neither the fire nor the worm will cease until the wicked are totally consumed or destroyed!
Phrases such as "gnashing of teeth" used in Scrpture to describe the end of the wicked have also been misinterpreted. Wherever Scripture uses "gnashing of teeth" such as in Acts 7 it is always in the context of the wicked being angry or jealous of the righteous. In the Day of Judgment when the wicked see the ultimate blessed and happy state of the righteous they will, indeed, weep, wail, and gnash their teeth as they realize what they have lost and as they are finally destroyed and cease to exist forever. The weeping and wailing will be similar to the bitter weeping that Esau, in the Old Testament, experienced when he realized what he lost by selling his birthright and inheritance to Jacob for a mess of porridge. So, too, the wicked in hell will weep and wail bitterly, even while they are being destroyed, when they realize what happiness and bliss of heaven they had given up because they chose to live their lives on earth for only money and themselves.
When the Bible talks about eternal judgment, or eternal damnation, or eternal destruction, it is in reference to the result and not the process! It is not the punishing that is eternal but rather the punishment! It is not the destroying that is eternal but rather the destruction! It is not the dying that is eternal but rather the death! Just as eternal redemption in the Bible does not mean that the process of redeeming is eternal but rather its result (no one would be saved if the process of redeeming were eternal) so too the eternal judgment of the wicked refers to the result of their judgment being eternal and not the process. It is not the judging that is eternal but rather the judgment!
The context of Holy Scripture teaches that the eternal punishment of the wicked is ultimately their eternal annihilation and not eternal torment or suffering as the traditional doctrine of hell teaches. As one preacher has put it: "Eternal punishment is the eternal loss of life not an eternal life of loss".
Eternal life in Scripture has the same meaning as immortality (i.e. Romans 2:7) which Christians will possess only in the future on Resurrection Day. Various Scripture passages teach immortality and eternal life to be a future possession for Christians. Why then did Jesus use the present tense when saying those who believe in Him have eternal life? The answer is that sometimes in the Bible the present tense is used to describe future events for the purpose of demonstrating their certainty. Scripture says God "calleth those things which be not as though they were" (Romans 4:17).
The Bible says Jesus Christ "hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:10).. The opposite of eternal life (or immortality) is eternal death (the eternal and literal death of soul and body) - not eternally living in torment and suffering! "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 6:23). "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting (eternal) life" (John 3:16). The issue is not what we think eternal punishment ought to be. The issues are God's character, God's definition of ultimate justice, and God's eternal purposes. It's absolutely amazing how Fundamentalist Christianity doesn't wish to be literal when it comes to the eternal death and destruction of soul and body!
Some have argued that because man was created in the image of God then all humans must possess an immortal soul. However, being created in the image of God doesn't necessarily mean that we must possess every attribute or even possible attribute possessed by God. For example, God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent - but we are not. The Bible is clear that immortality is an attribute that will be given only on Resurrection Day for those who have put their trust in Christ for salvation.
We must base our views of hell and the after life on what the Bible teaches, not on tradition or mere human philosophies and opinions. We must not impose our philosophy of what God ought to be upon Holy Scripture! Not many people realize the fact that in the New Testament there are different Greek words for the word "hell." But unfortunately the English Bible translates these different words for hell as one word, and this has been a cause of much confusion for those who wish to study the subject. The New Testament Greek words for hell are "hades" and "gehenna" and they both have different meanings. Hades means the unseen world of the dead and is only a temporary abode. It has nothing to do with punishment or reward. It is equivalent to the Hebrew word "sheol" in the Old Testament in its meaning. Gehenna, on the other hand, is the abode of eternal punishment of the wicked.
The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16 has often been used by many Christians, especially preachers, as a depiction of the punishment that the wicked will suffer in hell. But this is not the case. In the first place when Jesus refers to the Rich Man being in torment in the flame of hell the Greek word for "hell" in the passage is not "gehenna" (the place of final and eternal punishment), but rather it is the Greek word "hades" (which in Scripture is the temporary abode of the dead).
The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, like the other series of parables before it, was used of the Lord to illustrate or depict the end of the rule of the Pharisees and to depict the end of the Jewish Era and dispensation (as represented by the Rich Man being in torment) and it was also used of the Lord to depict or illustrate the elevation of Gentile Christendom (as represented by Lazarus). Actually, Lazarus represented the poor Jews of Jesus' time who were ignored by the self-righteous Pharisees and religious rulers of Israel and he also represented the gentiles who, although rejected by the Jewish rulers, would nevertheless be accepted into the bosom of Abraham through their new found faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah. The religious leaders of Israel had lived only for themselves and ignored the spiritual needs of the spiritually sick and starving people around them.
The concept that hades was a place divided into two compartments, one of suffering for the wicked and the other of bliss for the righteous, was a Jewish belief that had developed during the intertestamental period, the period of time in between when the Old and New Testaments were written. Thus, this particular view of hades was not canonical, that is it was not something that God Himself had revealed to the Jews through Scripture. There is no evidence in Scripture that hades is a place where the wicked suffer while awaiting their final and permanent judgment in gehenna. Such a concept of hades developed as a result of ancient Greek influences on Jewish thinking about the nature of the soul.
In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, Jesus was simply borrowing this popular Jewish folklore of hades to use as an illustration to make a point to the Pharisees and religious leaders of His day, but He was not necessarily endorsing the folklore as being doctrinally valid or correct. There are various passages in the Old Testament, such as in Psalms, that tell us that there is no consciousness in sheol (the Hebrew equivalent of hades in the Old Testament).
Some argue that the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is not a parable because Jesus did not formally introduce it as a parable. But, Jesus did not always formally introduce His stories as parables, and there are various examples of that in the Gospels. Now, it is true that in His parables Jesus used things that actually existed to fill in for illustrations and figures, but in the particular case of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus the Lord used a popular existing Jewish myth about hades for the purposes of constructing a story. Jesus simply used the Pharisees' own superstitous belief about hades against them!
Why didn't Jesus rebuke the Pharisees' belief about hades as being wrong? Jesus didn't go around always rebuking every wrong doctrine. For example, in Jesus' time it was a common Jewish belief (from the influence of Greek philosophy) that souls could commit individual sins before birth. That is why we read in John 9:1-3 that Jesus' disciples believed a certain man was born blind because he may have committed some great sin before his physical conception in the womb. Jesus didn't respond by telling His disciples that such a belief is doctrinally wrong but instead healed the blind man.
By no means is all of this new teaching. A minority of Christians, of various denominations, have held to this view of hell throughout the centuries. Even some very prominent Christians of the past have held to this view and there are a number (albeit a minority) of Christian theologians and scholars in the present who hold to this view. However, this view on hell, unfortunately, is known so little outside the Christian community and even inside the Christian community for that matter.
Many of the early Protestant Reformers, including Martin Luther, held to the view that man, by nature, is entirely mortal (including the soul), but the great Reformer John Calvin opposed this view and specifically wrote against it and insisted that all of the Reformers present a united front. An excellent Internet site containing information on all of this is Champions of Conditional Immortality In History
(http://www.specialtyinterests .net/champions_of_conditional _immortality.html).
I highly recommend to all readers Dr. Edward Fudge's thoroughly biblical and scholarly work The Fire That Consumes (http://www.iuniverse.com /bookstore/book_detail.asp? &isbn=0-595-14342-3). The book is foreworded by the great evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce. This book should be required reading in every seminary and Bible school.
Another excellent book is Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi's highly acclaimed biblical and scholarly work Immortality or Resurrection?
(http://www.biblicalperspectiv es.com/books/immortality_resur rec tion/).
I further encourage all to read my larger article "The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell" at www.religionscience.com for more comprehensive and in-depth coverage of this subject. Other questions and arguments, not raised here, are answered thoroughly in my larger article. I also hope that this information will shed new light in reading the New Testament, particularly the Gospels.
Some other articles by the author: "The Natural Limits of Evolution", "Life on Mars Could Have Come From Earth", "God, Heaven, and Sex"
*The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his B.A. with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East for his writings on science and religion. Mr. Ranganathan also has completed two years of full-time graduate study at Western New England College School of Law. The author's articles may be accessed at www.religionscience.com.
Crowd Power
Recommendations (7)

Anonymous users (5)


Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (27)
at 21:48 on June 22nd, 2008
Babu G. Ranganathan, I like this story. It's good stuff.
amazing commentary on the subject although i am not interested in religion or any form of ism.
at 00:34 on August 7th, 2008
Hello.
at the risk of sounding nit-picky ...
Hell (as a place of unending torment) is a teaching, like purgatory, that has no basis in scripture. It is a tradition that has become orthodox, but scripture as in most cases runs contrary to tradition. Consider John 3:16 ... "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that as many as believe in Him may not PERISH but have Eternal Life."
Life is a gift ... we are not owed life, but we each have it for a time. But it is inherently TEMPORARY ... having a beginning and an end. The doctrine of hell depicts no end ... no "PERISHING" ... but continued and unending conscious torment.
In reality, to accept the very Life of God is to be made alive by His life ... a Life that is unending and unbeginning .. .ETERNAL. To reject that Life is to remain temporal ... having no Eternal destiny.
To perish is to be UNFORMED to nothing .. and those that receive the second death to be made "no more" will have no thoughts to realize they have received it or not. Thoughts perish with the perishing
The serpent said: "You shall surely not die." ... and the church has been repeating the refrain, even when such teaching goes against the most popular verse ... John 3:16.
Perish means perish.
Consider this:
1/14/06 - From God the Father
...Shall I, even I, torment My beloved, they who are tormented continually by he who is, and has, torment in his vesture? Satan is the tormentor. ... Become, again, a child of God, and learn to walk uprightly, leading others into love, by love, not fear.<a href="http://trumpetcallofgodonline.com/index.php5?title=Proclaim_NOT_the_Hell_of_the_Church_of_Men...In_Their_Word_is_No_Mercy_Found%2C_Only_the_Makings_of_Satan">MORE of this letter about unbiblical "hell" HERE</a>
<a href="http://gracehead.com/index.php/2007/10/28/p287">18 reasons why in a single verse</a>
<a href="http://gracehead.com/index.php/2007/10/27/theological_myth_unending_conscious_tort_1">Theological Myth - Unending conscious torture</a>
at 21:09 on September 16th, 2008
It is sad to see a false convert such as yourself professing to be a follower of Jesus Christ and yet proclaim to know the truth while promoting your heresy.
Since Jesus is God in the flesh (John 1:14) we should look at what Jesus said and instead of reading into the scriptures your own meaning as you have done repeatedly we should observe what the scripture says and not add or take away from it to suit an idolater's view of God's Word.
And besides all this, you haven't shared the gospel in your post. Instead your goal is to preach something that is not taught in scirpture and what Jesus didn't teach us to preach. Jesus said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15).
Jesus said, "Unless you repent, you will perish" Luke 13:3,5 The reason is that we've broken Gods law. The 10 commandments are Gods perfect standard and all of us can look at the mirror of God's law and see that we are guilty when we stand before God. If we've lied then we are liars, if we steal then we are theives, if we look with lust then we commit adultery in our hearts, if we hate someone then we are murderers, if we create a god in our mind that we are comfortable with then we break the 1st & 2nd commandments by commiting Idolatry.
Since it is appointed for us once to die and then comes judgement. Because God is Holy, Righteous and Just, He cannot simply let us into heaven because we say we are sorry, prayed a prayer or asked Jesus into our hearts which is not found any where in scripture. If God finds us guilty we will end up in hell forever.
But God has provided a way that few may be saved from the lake of fire. God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ, fully God & fully man, lived a sinless, holy life on earth and died a horrible bloody death on the cross to take upon Himself the punishment we rightly deserve for breaking His law and then God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day, defeating death and now sits at the right hand of God.
What did Jesus say must happen? Jesus said, "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish" Luke 13:3,5 We must by faith turn from our sins and by faith, receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We don't simply believe in Jesus, we put Him on like scripture tells us.
"But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh in regard to its lusts."Romans 13:14
"God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to the humble" James 4:6
So repent & believe while you still have time.
Jesus said, "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire." Matthew 18:8
Jesus said, "...cast into the eternal fire"
"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;" Matthew 25:41
Jesus said, "...accursed ones, into the eternal fire"
"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Matthew 25:46
Jesus said, "...go away into eternal punishment"
"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire," Mark 9:43
Jesus said, "...go into hell, into the unquenchable fire"
"where THEIR WORM DOES NOT DIE, AND THE FIRE IS NOT QUENCHED.]" Mark 9:44
Jesus said, "...the fire is not quenched"
"And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Revelation 20:10
The Apostle Paul wrote, "...tormented day and night forever and ever"
"And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name." Revelation 14:11
The Apostle Paul wrote, "...their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night"
at 15:22 on June 27th, 2009
So are you saying that either way we have eternal life - one joyful in Heaven, and the other sorrowful in hell?
at 14:54 on September 18th, 2008
Do not let any "refuting" or contrary arguments in the Comments Section confuse you. Read Mr. Ranganathan's larger article "The Bible Vs. The Traditional View of Hell" on his website at www.religionscience.com. He more than answers his critics.
at 06:07 on January 27th, 2009
Wonderful article-wish I had written it. "thy word is trruth." "All thy commands are righteousness." Detractors may also want to read Acts 5:29 about obeying God...rather than man. Also Ecc5:18...and Ecc12:12-13. Godly sorrow results in wisdom.
Now...if you really want to upset the modern Phaisees, write an article about the fact that there is no Bible teaching that the reward of the saints is that they go to Heaven. If they did, what's the reasrrection of the dead to the Kingdom of God (Matt calls it the Kingdom of Heaven-could just as easily be intrepreted as Kingdom IN Heaven) as (one) with Jesus the Kof H. had arrived on Earth and will return with Christ and (two) the Jews did not pronounce the name of God. Matt was a Jew writting to Jewish believers and "believers to be". Christ will bring to earth at the last Trumpet (1 Thess and Rev) and, if not why do we pray Thy Kingdom come thy will be done ON Earth....as it is in Heaven....
Matt15:9 syas Howbeit in vain do they worship me...for laying aside the commandments of God they teach the doctrines of men... The concepts of eternal punishing Hell and all the other nonsense about Heaven and harps and staring at the face of God all day are "doctrines of men-if they are ANY !!! That sounds boring (sorry). A kingdom of God on E arth sounds like exactly what we need...
Rick
at 05:19 on October 4th, 2008
We should indeed look at what jesus said, what he said 81 times in the Bible "I am the son of man". Hell is eternal for those that are bad. If jesus died for our sins then why is hell mentioned in the Bible?
at 03:26 on October 8th, 2008
The Bible does teach eternal punishment, but that eternal punishment ultimately is not eternal suffering.
Your first half of the sentences is right, but not the other half.
After man dies, he goes to either Paradise or Hades. He does not go straight to Heaven or Hell. All who are dead, will be waiting for the Day of Judgement. It is only after the Day of Judgement then it determines whether one go to Heaven or Hell. They will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead (1 Peter 4:5).
Revelation 20:10 They will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
God's words are so clear. Don't fool yourself with your own understand.
at 03:52 on October 23rd, 2008
There is no heaven, there is no hell. All your scriptures and sacred writings mean nothing without proof that these things exist.
at 13:55 on November 11th, 2008
Why don't you prove it? show us how talented you are.
at 21:23 on November 11th, 2008
I don't have to prove anything, that's the whole point. The burden of proof is on those who propose these things and try to force others to believe them also.
at 06:55 on November 19th, 2008
You yourself just proposed that there is no heaven or hell...It sure sounds like to me the burden of proof is in your court Chimp.
at 20:09 on November 19th, 2008
If you can't see the duck, can't hear the duck, can't touch, smell or taste the duck, then there isn't any duck.
If the duck is in a hermetically sealed, sound-proof, smell-proof box, the box must be opened. And don't give me any of this crap about having to believe the duck exists first before I can perceive the duck. Nor any crap about the box being my mind and the duck will enter it if I open it!
So, show me the duck! Prove that the duck exists! Then I'll believe*.
Until then, THERE IS NO DUCK! And I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING!
*Of course, if the duck exists, its existence is a fact and belief is not required.
at 11:21 on November 24th, 2008
Chimp, Chimp, Chimp....Listen. You used a presuposition by using the word "If". The word if represents a possible reality. The duck could or could not be in that smelly box. If that duck is in there, you have one smelly duck on your hands. The same applies to God. If God doesn't exist then your fine, everything is just an illusion...ie... nothing gained, nothing lost. But, if there is a God, your up ships creek without a paddle...ie...nothing gained, everything lost! A fool says in his heart there is no God. Go for it! Take a nice hike in the mountains and look over that beautiful ridge overlooking Gods awsesome landscape. He created it all!! Look at the pleiades and orion, they weren't put there by accident. God did it, He created it all! God is an awsome God. Come join his team, He loves you!
at 16:04 on November 24th, 2008
No, the word 'if' represents a condition that must be met, in this case a negative condition, - can't see, can't hear, etc. - that has been satisfied.
Where is the duck? Show me the duck? You can't. So you insist that because you don't understand how all this came about, it must have been the duck that did it (this is called the Argument from Incredulity). That's fine, that's your right as a human being with free will to believe that. But ask me for money, devotion, belief, worship and sacrifice, and I want independent, verifiable, incontrovertible proof that there is, actually, a duck and that I'm not wasting my time in church when I could be out in those mountains of yours, marvelling at the majesty and wondrousness of the natural processes that produced them.
Your second argument is simply Pascal's wager. The rest of your diatribe is a pathetic attempt at evangelism.
at 15:02 on November 25th, 2008
Firstly, I'm not a christian, nor would I say I am of any "religion".
I probably shouldn't even bother responding to your posts, talentedchimp, but I can't resist. Let's play the game.
Firstly, since you demand proof, I demand proof for the system of proof. Why is your method of reasoning going to be the one which determines something's truth value? Would not anything reasoned to be true or false from your perspective be entirely influenced by your own belief in yourself to be able to reason and the perceived results which come by this reasoning?
Incontrovertible? Verifiable? Is anything so?
I demand proof for the axioms on which you base your reality. Do you know what the word axiom means? Would it be fair to say axiom is analogous to assumption? An axiom is something which is taken for granted as true, typically for an argument or debate to be able to be made. However, logic shows us that anything based on assumptions cannot be taken to be true (or false), since it is still an unknown. If that weren't so, then we could just say "There is an elephant behind you" and it would be not be contrary to logic regardless of whether there actually was an elephant behind you. Fundamental stuff, really, but I feel we should quickly touch on it.
If you ask for proof for whatever these people believe, then I guess I have to ask for proof for the axioms of logic, fundamentals of math, the world around us, the sky being blue, there being ground beneath your feet, you existing, etc.
Hypocrisy is evident in any human thought or reasoning; indeed, it exists in these statements as well. Being aware of one's hypocrisy is perhaps what defines the character and intelligence of the person, though. Or will you be so bold as to attempt to prove the laws of logic? Or that you exist? Please, please do. I so enjoy hearing statements like "I do exist because I exist" or "The sky is blue because obviously it is blue". How is that any different from "God exists" which is often heard from various faiths? In any of those statements, the statements truth values would be entirely relative to the individual -- completely subjective and utterly worthless. Your beliefs say that you have X amount of senses and whatever is perceived through those must be true. Someone else's beliefs might believe in different senses and in what they sense through them.
Mostly I'm responding to the ignorant post you made: "There is no heaven, there is no hell. All your scriptures and sacred writings mean nothing without proof that these things exist." Without proof, that statement is meaningless :) You are making a claim, aren't you? And apparently the burden of proof is on those who make a claim. I would ask you to prove that the burden of proof is on those who make a claim, but I assume you'll be struggling to make a solid claim that your original post was not a claim. Or do you want to just say that you weren't claiming anything? Wouldn't that mean that the statement was gibberish and had no significance? God, how can there be anything more enjoyable than talking to people like you?
If logically logical results cannot be based on assumptions, then results based on assumptions are illogical. If the laws of logic are unproven but assumed to be true, then the laws of logic itself are illogical. Yay for logic! So then what? "Oh, but axioms are exempt from that condition. The laws of logic are not subject to themselves." When people have to make excuses or exceptions for specific things, you know it isn't objective. It's so their beliefs won't be challenged.
What I see is people setting up a playground. It's their playground and everyone must abide by their rules. It's a box of existence, and everything must abide by their understanding, their boundaries, their rules. This is the very depth of human stupidity. If you demand that I must obey your rules, your understanding, your beliefs, then aren't you being just as foolish as you believe those religious people are? You are demanding they explain themselves by your terms. Oh, the arrogance! Unfortunately, most human beings are like this -- mentally handicapped, completely locking themselves in their own little box, and rejecting all things which contradict it.
I am a hypocrit, just like everyone else. I will never say that I am right, or that I don't believe in anything, or that everything I know is fact. I am completely subjective to my own beliefs, and I can never know if I am right or wrong. Don't take what I've said be as claims of truth; rather, they are simply words. If I assumed correctly about you, I will trigger a defensive response, typically very dedicated to protecting what you hold to be true. You won't be able to prove the fundamental bases which you argue on top of, but you will attempt to attain peace in your own mind after being challenged in such a way. You know everything, and it isn't possible for you to be wrong. That is how the mind functions. It protects what you hold dear, regardless of objectivity. Ideally you would learn what it is like to be on the receiving end, however most people cannot learn. Most people are pigheaded imbeciles incapable of deep thought. Do you seek the truth or do you seek what is comfortable? However, I am a fallible being, whose mind is imperfect, and my assumption may be wrong. I'm very rarely wrong about my assumptions of a person's personality and mindset if I debate in person, but online it can be hit and miss, especially if I didn't bother but to glance over your words. I'm sure it doesn't matter, though, since most probably I will forget I ever even bothered to write this in an hour or so.
It is just a game, though :)
at 17:26 on November 25th, 2008
Yes, you are absolutely correct, thank you for pointing it out, I had never thought about it this way. But I'm not asking for logical proof. I'm asking for empirical proof. Do you know what "empirical" means?
It would not be contrary to logic to say it, just incorrect if indeed there was no elephant behind me.
And here, by your logic, we could just go round in circles, viz; prove that I have to prove that the burden of proof is on those who make claims - ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
I agree with you completely that logically nothing can be proven. In all honesty, you are probably more knowledgeable in this than I am - I found parts of your commentary a little difficult to follow.
But we don't live in a logical construct, we live in, to all intents and purposes, and as far as we perceive it with our (according to you, untrustworthy) senses, a physical world. And this is the one we have to deal with. So for all practical and sensible purposes we exist, the world exists, the sky is blue and there is no elephant behind me.
You're right, I was making a claim by saying "There is no heaven, etc. ..." - an unguarded moment of hubris on my part. Perhaps I should modify it slightly to "There is probably no heaven, etc. ...". However, there is one curious thing. I don't see you commenting on the opposite claims, made with equal certainty, of the other posters. Why pick on the poor atheist? You may not be a Christian, or of any religion, but I think you are a deist or a theist, but of course I have no proof! :-)
Thank you for your post. I enjoyed it very much. It made me think more than the other posts, which is a good thing for a Wedesday morning.
at 12:25 on November 28th, 2008
I assume that's rhetoric. I assume you know that I know what empirical means simply because you said "according to you, [our senses are] untrustworthy". As I believe I mentioned (perhaps not, I never know), whatever I might say doesn't necessarily mean anything in respect to me. I might say things just to solicit a reaction or encourage people to think more openly. In fact, I do believe senses are trustworthy for "practical" living. But that is the point: It requires trust, faith, in those senses to believe what it is perceived to be true. That same trust and faith is present in any devout follower of any religion. What atheists take for granted in their senses and understanding of reasoning, people of various faiths do in their belief in god or gods. Interestingly, atheists are actually theists in my view: they believe in the truth of their senses and perception of reality in the same way people of various faiths believe in their respective gods. The physical world as defined by science adheres to logic. If something does not make sense in the physical world, obviously it must be due to lack of knowledge and not a flaw in the basis of our reasoning abilities. To me, that means an atheist's god is either him/herself or practicality (a logical, rational existence, not limited by the understanding of any individual, and admitting the individual has a limited understanding -- giving reason to the unknown as being due to the lack of knowledge).
That actually brings me to something else you mentioned: practicality and sensibility. What is practical to one person's set of beliefs may be impractical to another's. You can attach meanings, concepts to words, you can define categories and limit what fits into them. In the end, though, the means by which you achieved this are through your biases. Again, forcing someone to accept one's reality as the basis for discussion and debate already determines the winner.
While I may speak of the infinite paradoxes which hold together reality, that which we choose to ignore for the sake of sanity, it doesn't mean that I believe that is how one must view the world. I know I know nothing. And I know that simply because I cannot truly understand anything, or have to attach words like "paradox" to things which do not make sense, it does not mean that they are unreal or not true (is not true == false? is not false == true? -- the possibility of a third, or somehow even more possible answers is so often overlooked; assumption is the fundamental flaw in human reasoning -- this statement, along with all others, makes enormous, glaringly obvious assumptions, which, if one spends too much time thinking about it, will never end except in confusion).
I am human. The trigger which made me respond was the small initial post you made regarding whether or not there is a heaven and hell. It was a very "religious" statement for someone who later commented on requiring proof. If I apply the reasoning which I have been, then it would seem every human statement is self-contradicting, but the fact that I am human means some things appear more hypocritical.
at 19:45 on March 4th, 2009
If I could ever say Amen, I say Amen to your comment dude.
at 16:13 on November 5th, 2008
As a Baptist preacher I believed and preached eternal torment for many years. Recently reading about the atonement as I have a hundred times before and I saw it differently than I have ever seen it before. The penalty for sin is not torment, it is death. Rom 6:23 When Adam sinned he died a spiritual death that day, and that same spiritual death has been passed on to us. A new birth is necessary to produce a spiritual life that was not in us before. Jesus said, Follow me, Let the dead bury the dead. Meaning the spiritual dead bury the physical dead. When a lost individual dies physically in this life there is nothing else to live on to see, feel, or know anything At the resurrection he is given physical life once again, taken to the judgement and judge in his body for the sin he committed in that body. When found guilty he is cast into the lake of fire, which is called the second death. Do you know what has to happen before they can call that a second death? Right, he has to die.
at 12:12 on November 9th, 2008
This article is singularly the best handling of the topic of eternal torment that I have found to date. I don't believe the topic is particularly difficult and am confused about how our belief system could get to the point whereby we teach pagans that we have a loving God who, when rejected, will torment for all time. Not that I defer to logic as the way to find the truth on the subject but, as this author has done, when read plainly, the Bible OBVIOUSLY does not teach eternal torment but death, as being the result of sin and the reward for sinners. The reward of believers, of course, is the exact opposite, eternal life, with God. Well done Babu.
at 21:28 on December 7th, 2008
"to hear with my heart
to see with my soul
to be guided by a hand I can not hold
to trust in a way that I can not see
thats what Faith must mean"
a little song I learned from being a follower, but its the only way to think about it. when you cant use your physical senses, use your spiritual senses. our ability to feel and reason as humans sets us apart from other creatures. a pig would not believe that there is not a duck in that smell proof box, but as humans we are gifted with a higher level of senses, which some ignore and some live day to day by. let go of the physical senses of the physical body and rely on your spiritual senses to find truth. it is human to question, but use a different criteria when questioning things not of the physical world. let go of the chains and allow not your mind but your spirit to wander until you find truth. that is what i have had to do.
as a child i was so happy. my happiest memories were at a magical place called camp Ridgecrest. it is a christian organization, but i attended during the highest points of my faith. it was a blast. i love every moment i spent there and wish to find that happiness again.
now i am in college. i am miserable. i miss the the happiness and bliss i experienced as a child. most will say that this happiness was experienced by all children, and its just growing up. i disagree. i disagree because the people that worked there are full grown men, and love every second they spend there. they are experiencing the same Joy as their campers. even the gray haired director plays 4 square and enjoys his life. i know that it is the Joy of believing that makes this place amazing, because as I lost faith and fell away from Christ i found the marvelous place of my youth less appealing.
now in college, i have been searching for similar bliss. drugs, alcohol, sex, tobacco, pills, marijuana, and fasting from eating and sleeping are things i have tried to find a euphoric state comparable to this of my youth. all worked for a bit, but left me so unsatisfied. success in classes is bitter to the taste, the touch of a woman unappealing, everything in my life gray and empty. meaningless and worthless. some call it depression, but i do not. i do not believe in depression because it is manufactured by man to allow people who are indeed unhappy to feel normal and get cooler more powerful pills. no i believe that that there is no happiness because of my lack of faith and my lost relationship with God.
so i spent some time meditating, thinking about life, death, meaning, purpose, things of that nature. existence in general. i allowed my mind to wander in search of truth and solace. my thoughts happened upon the happy memories of my youth. then among the happy people i know. not the artificially happy because even they have periods of being down and out. no the purest forms of happiness. the ones that shine and are unmistakable as anything but the real thing. i thought of a person who will, for these purposes be called Mema. an elderly woman who i have never seen loose her temper, be sad, or angry, or anything but happy.
she is a follower, of Jesus. like i once was. her Joy is what i have been searching for. so i experimented with the idea. i might have been the only one on my hall to be strumming praise music in my room, but i sang and remembered how i once felt, the Happiness i once knew, and it came back. its more than just an association between a song and a happy period of time in my life, because i have listened to the same songs and been angry or sad. no this Joy was the Joy of Jesus coming back. i opened my Bible and began to read, and i read all night.
since that night i have been happy again. even as i share this story i feel Joy, because even though this is just a post, someone might read this and be inspired to give God another chance, and be pleasantly surprised. i hope this post is not attacked, because this is just my testimony for those who want proof. the unfaithful might see this as God being used as a security blanket to make me feel comfortable, but it is not. it is more, because it has changed my life like i can not believe and i am thankful for this.
so let go, hear with your heart and see with your soul. allow God a chance to make a difference. open your mind and let him in. not just half way, or you will be unsuccessful. fully commit, 100% to the idea, and you can find true Joy and Happiness.
Let the glory be to God for ever and ever, Amen.
at 16:53 on April 27th, 2009
Praise God! James 5:19-20 =)
at 05:52 on February 10th, 2009
Satan is a liar and this kind of "intellectual" thinking is astounding. Better get your house in order and examine your beliefs again, Dr. Ranganathan...I believe you have missed the words of the Christ and will find out what lies beyond death to your horror. God have mercy on your soul. Leading masses to Satan will not serve you well on your Curriculum Vitae with El Shaddai. You are so deceived. Very sad.
at 19:00 on February 12th, 2009
Even if Dr. Ranganathan has misinterpreted the words of Christ in references to hell, is he leading people astray? Is one saved based on his/her understanding of the afterlife? If so, I think we would all be in trouble! I think Dr. Ranganathan's article serves to cause one to reexamine his/her beliefs on the matter in light of the scriptures and to create important conversations on the subject.
at 19:41 on March 4th, 2009
Listening to pseudo-intellectualls debate fake issues and fairy-tales makes me feel better about myself.
at 19:45 on June 27th, 2009
Wow..reading the folks trying to Bibically prove eternal torment is sad. It's obvious most didn't even read the article. They did what most fundamentalist do..found out someone disagreed with them, and threw a fit. Just to claiify a few of their "points". Yes, the SMOKE of their torment gioes up forever. That's very different then saying "They are in torment forver." That's actually a reference back to Sodom and Gomorrah. It is said that smoke goes up forever, yet there hasn't been a puff of smoke there for 4,000 years. It's called "apocalyptic language." Yes, they get thrown into the lake of fire..but guess what..HELL also gets thrown into the lake of fire. How can hell be the lake of fire if hell gets thrown into it? As a recovering fundamentalist, I can tell you there's a big difference between studying the Bible, and just re-hashing what some guy told you in a sermon. Eternal torment believers are re-hashers. They WANT to believe in eternal torment for those different then them. That's what makes them feel special, feeds their martyr complexes of having "us" and "them" and gives them comfort to think that those not like "them" will be sorry one day.