The Orthodox teach that hell is not the absence of God, but the exact opposite: the all-consuming fire of His presence, which is the same for the good and the evil alike. The good will be purified and become radiant like gold in a fire, while the evil will be burned up like straw and chaff. The “eternal fire” prepared for the devil is the same presence of God that will be paradise for the just.
With all due respect, Buck, the question was not ist it Christian but is it in the Bible. It is not.
There is no evidence they believed in an eternal hell, but they had adopted some concepts of punishment from the Greeks. Still, in the end, they believed in a resurrection of the dead, a final judgement and the annihilation of the wicked.
First of all, Revelation is a heavily allegorical book with strongly hyperbolic images and phrases and was not meant to be taken literally. Also, the words translated as “forever and ever” don’t literally mean that in Greek. The actual Greek phrase is [symbol]aiwnas aiwnwn[/symbol] (aionas aionon). Aionas literally means “for an age” or “for a long time.” When it’s phrased as aionas aionon it means “for a long, long time” or “ages and ages.” The amount of time is indefinite but not literally infinite.
Another thing to take note of is that while it is promised that Beast worshippers will suffer in the presense of God, it does not actually designate a special place for this to happen. There is a difference between saying “God will punish you” and saying “you will go to Hell.”
Finally, I would reiterate that this passage needs to be read metaphorically.This punishment is contingent on worship of the Beast. It’s a symbolic way of saying that as long as anyone turns away from God, they will suffer, not that they will suffer forever as God’s retribution.
It’s true that Revelation is the inspiration for the Christian image of Hell but if you read it carefully (especially in Greek) you will see that it’s not really in there.
Brandus:
I didn’t say it wasn’t Christian, I said it wasn’t in the Bible.
[url=http://www.ovrlnd.com/Cults/poprejectshell.htmlThe Pope: “Hell is not a punishment imposed externally by God, but the condition resulting from attitudes and actions which people have done in this life. More than a physical place, Hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God,” the Pope said at a weekly audience."
So is The Pope a New-Ager now? And if being anti-choice, anti-birth control and pro-Chicks being silent in church means being liberal… I’d hate to see what conservative is.
The bible does refer to hell although there is certainly many different intrerpretations as to it’s existence and meaning. Almost every bible has the word “hell” somewhere, although different translators have different renderings of the root word. Nonetheless, careful consideration of the word, in it’s context and use suggests that hell is the common grave, or simply non-existence. It is the state a human is in after death. While some texts might suggest a state of eternal torment, the overall weight, context and use of the root word, as well as the history (such as ‘Hinnom’ or ‘Gehenna’) suggests it’s the place where you go when you die.
Here are some biblical cites that may offer some perspective. As always, treat them with due caution. Don’t get your truth (especially biblical truth!) from me or anyone else on the internet. We’re a convincing bunch, but half of us are nuts. The problem is that you don’t which half I belong to. (or the other denizens here…)
If this is a topic of interest to you, pick up the bible and look up the cites. The underlined parts refer to the different translations that have been cited so you can see the various renderings of the word/term.
The word “hell” is found in many Bible translations. In the same verses other translations read “the grave,” “the world of the dead,” and so forth. Other Bibles simply transliterate the original-language words that are sometimes rendered “hell”; that is, they express them with the letters of our alphabet but leave the words untranslated.
The Hebrew she’ohl´ and its Greek equivalent hai´des, which refer, not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind; also the Greek ge´en·na, which is used as a symbol of eternal destruction. However, in many Christian religions it is taught that hell is a place inhabited by demons and where the wicked, after death, are punished (and some believe that this is with torment).
Does the Bible indicate whether the dead experience pain?
Eccl. 9:5, 10: “The living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all . . . All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol,* the place to which you are going.” (If they are conscious of nothing, they obviously feel no pain.) (*“Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB; “the grave,” KJ, Kx; “hell,” Dy; “the world of the dead,” TEV.)
Ps. 146:4: “His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts* do perish.” (*“Thoughts,” KJ, 145:4 in Dy; “schemes,” JB; “plans,” RS, TEV.)
Does the Bible indicate that the soul survives the death of the body?
Ezek. 18:4: “The soul* that is sinning—it itself will die.” (*“Soul,” KJ, Dy, RS, NE, Kx; “the man,” JB; “the person,” TEV.)
“The concept of ‘soul,’ meaning a purely spiritual, immaterial reality, separate from the ‘body,’ . . . does not exist in the Bible.”—La Parole de Dieu (Paris, 1960), Georges Auzou, professor of Sacred Scripture, Rouen Seminary, France, p. 128.
“Although the Hebrew word nefesh [in the Hebrew Scriptures] is frequently translated as ‘soul,’ it would be inaccurate to read into it a Greek meaning. Nefesh . . . is never conceived of as operating separately from the body. In the New Testament the Greek word psyche is often translated as ‘soul’ but again should not be readily understood to have the meaning the word had for the Greek philosophers. It usually means ‘life,’ or ‘vitality,’ or, at times, ‘the self.’”—The Encyclopedia Americana (1977), Vol. 25, p. 236.
What sort of people go to the Bible hell?
Does the Bible say that the wicked go to hell?
Ps. 9:17, KJ: “The wicked shall be turned into hell,* and all the nations that forget God.” (*“Hell,” 9:18 in Dy; “death,” TEV; “the place of death,” Kx; “Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB, NW.)
Does the Bible also say that upright people go to hell?
Job 14:13, Dy: “[Job prayed:] Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell,* and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt remember me?” (God himself said that Job was “a man blameless and upright, fearing God and turning aside from bad.”—Job 1:8.) (*“The grave,” KJ; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Sheol,” AS, RS, NE, JB, NW.)
Acts 2:25-27, KJ: “David speaketh concerning him [Jesus Christ], . . . Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,* neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” (The fact that God did not “leave” Jesus in hell implies that Jesus was in hell, or Hades, at least for a time, right?) (*“Hell,” Dy; “death,” NE; “the place of death,” Kx; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Hades,” AS, RS, JB, NW.)
Does anyone ever get out of the Bible hell?
Rev. 20:13, 14, KJ: “The sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell* delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.” (So the dead will be delivered from hell. Notice also that hell is not the same as the lake of fire but will be cast into the lake of fire.) (*“Hell,” Dy, Kx; “the world of the dead,” TEV; “Hades,” NE, AS, RS, JB, NW.)
Why is there confusion as to what the Bible says about hell?
The King James Version rendered she’ohl´ as “hell,” “the grave,” and “the pit”; hai´des is therein rendered both “hell” and “grave”; ge´en·na is also translated “hell.” Today’s English Version transliterates hai´des as “Hades” and also renders it as “hell” and “the world of the dead.” But besides rendering “hell” from hai´des it uses that same translation for ge´en·na. The Jerusalem Bible transliterates hai´des six times, but in other passages it translates it as “hell” and as “the underworld.” It also translates ge´en·na as “hell,” as it does hai´des in two instances. Thus the exact meanings of the original-language words have been obscured.
[B*]Is there eternal punishment for the wicked?***
Matt. 25:46, KJ: “These shall go away into everlasting punishment [“lopping off,” Int; Greek, ko´la·sin]: but the righteous into life eternal.” (The Emphatic Diaglott reads “cutting-off” instead of “punishment.” A footnote states: “Kolasin . . . is derived from kolazoo, which signifies, 1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune. 2. To restrain, to repress. . . . 3. To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment;—hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death. See 2 Thess. 1.9.”)
2 Thess. 1:9, RS: “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction* and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” (*“Eternal ruin,” NAB, NE; “lost eternally,” JB; “condemn them to eternal punishment,” Kx; “eternal punishment in destruction,” Dy.)
Jude 7, KJ: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (The fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah ceased burning thousands of years ago. But the effect of that fire has been lasting; the cities have not been rebuilt. God’s judgment, however, was against not merely those cities but also their wicked inhabitants. At** Luke 17:29**, Jesus says that they were “destroyed”; Jude 7 shows that the destruction was eternal.)
What is the ‘fiery Gehenna’ to which Jesus referred?
Reference to Gehenna appears 12 times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Five times it is directly associated with fire. Translators have rendered the Greek expression ge´en·nan tou py·ros´ as “hell fire” (KJ, Dy), “fires of hell” (NE), “fiery pit” (AT), and “fires of Gehenna” (NAB).
Historical background: The Valley of Hinnom (Gehenna) was outside the walls of Jerusalem. For a time it was the site of idolatrous worship, including child sacrifice. In the first century Gehenna was being used as the incinerator for the filth of Jerusalem. Bodies of dead animals were thrown into the valley to be consumed in the fires, to which sulfur, or brimstone, was added to assist the burning. Also bodies of executed criminals, who were considered undeserving of burial in a memorial tomb, were thrown into Gehenna. Thus, at Matthew 5:29, 30, Jesus spoke of the casting of one’s “whole body” into Gehenna. If the body fell into the constantly burning fire it was consumed, but if it landed on a ledge of the deep ravine its putrefying flesh became infested with the ever-present worms, or maggots.** (Mark 9:47, 48) **Living humans were not pitched into Gehenna; so it was not a place of conscious torment.
At Matthew 10:28, Jesus warned his hearers to “be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” What does it mean? Notice that there is no mention here of torment in the fires of Gehenna; rather, he says to ‘fear him that can destroy in Gehenna.’ By referring to the “soul” separately, Jesus here emphasizes that God can destroy all of a person’s life prospects; thus there is no hope of resurrection for him.
What does the Bible say the penalty for sin is?
Rom. 6:23: “The wages sin pays is death.”
After one’s death, is he still subject to further punishment for his sins?
Rom. 6:7: “He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.”
I’m not sure Diogenes’s meaning when he says that the concept of ‘hell’ is not found in the bible.
Surely the concept of hell is in the bible; the question is whether the concept of a burning, never ending, torturing hell is consistent with the bible’s teachings. If that is indeed Diogenes’s point I would agree, and agree with his assesment of the cite at Revelation 14.
IMHO, a burning hell is inconsistent with God’s qualites of Love, Justice, Wisdom and Power. It is certainly neither just or loving to sentence an evildoer who may have practiced abject evil for virtually his whole to an eternity of torture.
I also think that the overall weight and context of the use of the word indicates that it is simply human non-existence and the place to which you will go when you die. (Presumably to wait for your ‘salvation’ or ‘condemnation’ as you perceive them)
If that’s true, it can be said that Jesus was in ‘hell’ for 3 days, and that Job at his most trying time sought the ‘comfort’ of hell rather than the misery he was suffering. (He of course noted that he hoped that God would remember him and recall him from hell)
I wouldn’t call the Pope a New Ager. Recently, within the last few years the Pope has called upon the Cardinals and Bishops to soften the role of Hell, and the Devil in their religion. I read a letter proposed to be from the Pope to this extent.
I believe what the Pope said is true in every since. It could be He had a near death experience or similar spiritual experience, or that He recognizes the self-defeating nature of past teachings.
There are no outside events that save us from ourselves. We must understand our responsibility for ourselves. Jesus showed us the path, and we made Him God, while paying little or no attention to His teachings.
The law is simple: “you will reap whatsoever you sow.”
The path is simple: “love one another.”
As for conservatives, yes they still teach the horrors of hell to their members as they always have. I would like to think the true path is winning the hearts of more people than they do, but am not sure. Fear is a powerful motivator.
“Love casteth out fear, and unconditional love conquers all fear.” Reach that point and you will have no trouble seeing God.
Love
I think one problem in these discussions is that many people seem to have an assumption that “the Bible” must be internally consistent. (For some Christians this assumption is quite explicit, of course.) I have no problem with the idea that some portions of the Bible speak of the afterlife as simply non-existence, or as something more like the Homeric conception of Hades, while other portions of the Bible speak of an afterlife which includes a place or state of eternal punishment for the “wicked”. If you try to read all the places where the Bible talks about death together, you’re going to come up with a different view of things than if you read it one book at a time. Of course, whoever wrote Revelation was presumably aware of and influenced by earlier Jewish thought, but the writings which make up the New Testament pretty clearly depart dramatically from earlier Jewish thought in a lot of other ways (if not always clearly in exactly the ways later Christians interpret them to).
Yes, that’s what I meant. Hell as a physical place where souls are eternally tortured or burned is not in the Bible.
We agree on something. Write down the date. 
Can you believe it?
The Bible may indeed be inconsistent or vague as to different views of the afterlife, but the concept of a place of eternal torture for the wicked is not something which is expressed anywhere in it. I know the temptation to infer such a place is strong in some passages but if they are read without an a priori knowledge of such a place (and if they are properly translated) the perceived implications of “Hell” disappear.
I do this!
What is “pro-Chicks”? Surely you don’t mean Chick Tracts? (Considering that Jack Chick is violently anti-Catholic)
As we say in the Church of the SubGenius, “The difference between Hell and Heaven is which end of the pitchfork you’re on!” [ur]www.subgenius.com And don’t try to tell us we’re not “Christians”! Remember, the Fightin’ Jesus is on our side! Most of the other Jesii are pimping for the Conspiracy, but who gives a holy rat’s ass? Praise “Bob”!
Tsk . . . www.subgenius.com
us “christians” messed up your link the first time.
don’t mess… 
The intended phrase was “pro-Chicks being silent in church,” i.e., women should shut up and sit down, (although, aside from a stone wall approach to the ordination of women, Pope JP II has not been antagonistic to women participating in or speaking out in the church).
Aha, we’ve found one!
Ok, just fill us in on the hell thing and we can call it a day!
Didn’t it take him something like 16 years (from 1979, at any rate) to more or less allow women in American parishes to be acolytes? I don’t recall the exact wording but it was something like “that’s a decision each Bishop will have to make for himself”. IIRC a year or three later only two Catholic parishes in the entire country didn’t have female acolytes; one in Lincoln, Nebraska and the other in Fairfax, VA.
More on-topic, though, my father (who is at least as sophisticated as folks who can’t incorporate any non-black into their wardrobe) has said more than once that Hell is A) the absence of God and/or B) the presence of that in whose presence one does not wish to be. Given B, it seems almost amusing that some hypothetical person’s version of Hell could actually include God:D
Matter of perspective, I guess. Acolyte is(was) actually an order in the process of becoming a priest (although the servers at mass were simply given the same title for their tasks) so allowing any woman into the sanctuary for the purpose of serving mass was a big step forward (from his perspective). It took him 16 years? It took the church (through him) almost 2,000.
Another way to look at the situation: the practice of permitting women (usually girls) to serve at mass actually began in the 1970s. While one might say that it took him 16 years to give permission, from the other side one would have to note that he spent 16 years not openly condemning a practice that was clearly forbidden by church rules.
I am no fan of this pope, but on the issue of women in the church, he is actually pretty progressive–with one absolute stopping point.
The common thread here being that it is not so much a specific mechanism of penal retribution, as it is how the soul that enters eternity in a state of spiritual alienation and guilt will react to the nature of that “other world”.