The Pit of Hell

21,316 Views | 552 Replies | Last: 4 days ago by Zobel
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 3:15p, 1/28/26
AG
Aggrad08 said:
I don't know that that necessarily helps in any way. To experience thought is to experience time Or causation in some way. Are heaven and hell thoughtless, experienced? If there is any equivalent then the arguments hold once again and if there isn't the idea of existence at all is highly questionable.

The ignores also the idea of afterlife as described in the early church is that of physical resurrection. So this weird timeless state is at best temporary and we are back where we started argument wise.

You're just saying that if we experience time the same way we experience time.

I don't see why this is so. Time is variable by experience, we all have felt this. If experience changes, so can perception.

Again, there is no reason that it has to be a linear succession of moments. Even physical resurrection into a changeless state doesn't require this -as we experience it now-.
Reply Quote
1
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:57p, 1/28/26
AG
This thread has a lot of Job 42:3 in it......
"Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 5:07p, 1/28/26
AG
Zobel said:
Aggrad08 said:
I don't know that that necessarily helps in any way. To experience thought is to experience time Or causation in some way. Are heaven and hell thoughtless, experienced? If there is any equivalent then the arguments hold once again and if there isn't the idea of existence at all is highly questionable.

The ignores also the idea of afterlife as described in the early church is that of physical resurrection. So this weird timeless state is at best temporary and we are back where we started argument wise.

You're just saying that if we experience time the same way we experience time.

I don't see why this is so. Time is variable by experience, we all have felt this. If experience changes, so can perception.

Again, there is no reason that it has to be a linear succession of moments. Even physical resurrection into a changeless state doesn't require this -as we experience it now-.


No I'm saying if we experience anything at all resembling a succession of events. And again a physical resurrection very much implies this.

Any alternative you might argue for that makes hell less consequential or problematic makes heaven have the same issue

A changeless state is a thoughtless one
Reply Quote
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 5:32p, 1/28/26
AG
You have zero basis to make that statement. What is it like to live as a being not subject to time? We can barely speculate. We can't know.

For example. What if it is essentially being able to move through time at will and experience at will? Eternal life now may well mean that experience of eternity is experience of all the good in this life, to the full. And still that doesn't require succession of moments as we know it.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 5:41p, 1/28/26
AG
No you could replace "time" with some other causation be thought requires a non static state. Explain how you see it working otherwise.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 5:45p, 1/28/26
AG
Why does thought require change? You keep making absolute, positive statements about things that are not only unknowable but literally unfathomable.

You can't out the burden of proof on me. I'm saying "we don't know, justify the assumption" and you're saying no U prove. Doesn't work.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 6:40p, 1/28/26
AG
Describe a fully static system with thought.

I find the idea of dismissing the clear theological difficulties with hell by inventing an unnamed indescribable system by which experience isn't experience so hell isn't really bad to be basically handwaving.

Especially when we talk of resurrection of bodies.

If you want this thread to have a caveat that heaven and hell have experiences that are meaningfully similar enough to human experience that moral and logical problems of suffering still persist….i mean fine i guess. Just really doesn't have much to do with the discussion.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 6:55p, 1/28/26
AG
I don't have to describe anything to point out that affirmative statements about what it is like to experience an unchanging eternal life outside of time are incomprehensible absurdities.

I never said anything about hell not being so bad. It's described in the worst possible terms because it's decidedly ungreat and I really recommend that no one should wind up condemned if they can at all help it.

I just pointed out that there is a very specific imaginative framework at play here that, frankly, sort of unveils the lack of serious consideration being given. If we're going to give all kinds of weight to the theological significance of eternal conscious torment, shouldn't we examine more than the eternal torment part? Why is it irrelevant to interrogate the presuppositions?

We also link our -extremely limited- affirmative statements about the life of the age to come to what we see of the Resurrected Christ. Who, apparently, doesn't interact with time and space the same way we do. So you tell me how experience of time works in that case, and then we can talk about what ECT means.

Quote:
If you want this thread to have a caveat that heaven and hell have experiences that are meaningfully similar enough to human experience that moral and logical problems of suffering still persist….i mean fine i guess.

Yeah dude. Why are you assuming that? Why should logic apply in a situation that is like inherently meaningfully different from anything you ever have experienced or have any frame of reference for??
Reply Quote
3
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 8:58p, 1/28/26
AG
I don't agree the it's an inherently absurd framework to discuss implications of eternal torment. Any ideas about time working differently or causation being different have far less basis in scripture than even hell. And for hell it's already desperately wanting on description.

By the same vein you could discuss the meaninglessness of eternal bliss. And any thread discussing heaven should be caveated that since time is different "because no stated reason whatsoever"

And I do think you need to put together some sort of coherent framework for how it could work to discuss how that meaningfully impacts the conclusions of rational arguments based on lived experiences being similar.

I think you'd be so far removed from even putting together an alternative framework that we could examine that it's not worth bothering with. That is to say a framework that works reasonably close to what we have is the only time we are really capable of examining.

And I'll point out you are the only one who mentioned the afterlife as unchanging .
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
The Banned
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 10:17p, 1/28/26
Aggrad08 said:
I don't agree the it's an inherently absurd framework to discuss implications of eternal torment. Any ideas about time working differently or causation being different have far less basis in scripture than even hell. And for hell it's already desperately wanting on description.

By the same vein you could discuss the meaninglessness of eternal bliss. And any thread discussing heaven should be caveated that since time is different "because no stated reason whatsoever"

And I do think you need to put together some sort of coherent framework for how it could work to discuss how that meaningfully impacts the conclusions of rational arguments based on lived experiences being similar.

I think you'd be so far removed from even putting together an alternative framework that we could examine that it's not worth bothering with. That is to say a framework that works reasonably close to what we have is the only time we are really capable of examining.

And I'll point out you are the only one who mentioned the afterlife as unchanging .

Just throwing this out there without giving too much thought to it, which may be a mistake:

"Eternal" isn't really measurable, is it? You have to pick a point A and point B in order to make a measurement. So, what I think is to Zobel's point, why does "eternity" HAVE to have two measurable points? If not, then there is no "need" for change to exist. Can it not be statically experienced in it's entirety in a way we can't currently fathom?

To your credit, I do think pointing to a physical resurrection may have some merit, as there is theoretically brain wave activity of some kind. Even if the thought is "I like this place", that thought, theoretically, has both a beginning and an end inside of our physically resurrected brains. Unless, in the presence of the eternal and almighty God, you never stop thinking "I like this place" and the thought stretches on endlessly, making it immeasurable by definition.

Your post has given me something interesting to consider.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 10:33p, 1/28/26
AG
First, you don't believe in scripture so your appeal to it is kind of meaningless. And scripture doesn't work like that, like we have to weigh sums of verses. Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection, He is what we will become. He is not bound by space explicitly - and therefore time.

The afterlife as beyond repentance is part of orthodox theology. In fact mortality itself is, in theology, a way to charge and is itself the means of repentance. You can't repent after death because you're no longer malleable in that way. The demons can't repent for the same reason.

And no matter how many times you keep flipping the burden of proof, I don't have to present an alternative framework to point out the incoherence of yours.
Reply Quote
2
AozorAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 11:05p, 1/28/26
Silent For Too Long said:
There is nothing absurd about it. It is the trolley problem writ large.

If you don't want to wrestle with bigger and deeper questions I'm honestly not sure why you are posting on the Religion and Philospohy board to begin with.

No it's not. You're taking the moral dilemma of the trolley problem and importing it into a situation where it has no application. The entry to heaven or hell is itself the result of moral decisions already made, So among other absurdities, your hypothetical (1) requires me to make a decision after that decision has already been made, which is logically impossible, (2) requires me to make a decision for somebody I am unable to make a decision for, which is logically impossible, and (3) requires me to assume that God is willing to allow the same people into both heaven and hell, which is logically impossible.

I'd also add, you're setting up a hypothetical in which Christianity is true (heaven is real; St. Peter is there waiting for me), and yet I have to go to hell so that other people can go to heaven, even though Jesus already died so that all of us can go to heaven and none of us have to go to hell.

That's like asking me to assume that all circles are also squares, and then telling me I must choose to get rid of either all circles or all squares, but not both. It makes no logical sense. It is absurd.

The trolley problem hypothesizes that you are on a trolley headed toward five people on one track, and you have the option to pull the lever and shift the trolley to another track where there is only one person. In the trolley problem, you are the driver, and it is your decision. You are not being asked to pull the lever after it has already been pulled, because that would make no logical sense. You are not being asked to make a decision for some other driver you can't make a decision for, because that would make no logical sense. The trolley problem is logically possible. Your hypothetical is not. It is absurd.

But if I have to give you an answer, it's still the answer I already gave, which is the only answer. Jesus says that the first commandment is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'" I would choose to be with God, because that is the ultimate good according to God himself, so there is no logical way that evil could result from my decision even though you've set your hypothetical up that way (yet another reason why it is absurd).
Reply Quote
1
2 edits
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:58p, 1/28/26
AG
Zobel said:
First, you don't believe in scripture so your appeal to it is kind of meaningless. And scripture doesn't work like that, like we have to weigh sums of verses. Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection, He is what we will become. He is not bound by space explicitly - and therefore time.

The afterlife as beyond repentance is part of orthodox theology. In fact mortality itself is, in theology, a way to charge and is itself the means of repentance. You can't repent after death because you're no longer malleable in that way. The demons can't repent for the same reason.

And no matter how many times you keep flipping the burden of proof, I don't have to present an alternative framework to point out the incoherence of yours.



Appeal to scripture to show the problem with your own argument isn't meaningless. That's just silly. Hell itself is a NT invention, and you do believe in scripture. Of course I don't believe in scripture when has that ever mattered when discussing religion?

Ok weigh the "sum of the verses". I don't see much weight behind an endless locked "moment."

A physical resurrection implied space. Space implies time, and we are right back to the arguments in this thread.

Whether the afterlife is beyond repentance is something your fellow Christians will disagree to some extent on let alone the supposed mechanism for that. If the demons can't repent because they are not "malleable" how were they malleable enough to fall?

My framework isn't incoherent in any way. At best you can try to argue it's incomplete but certainly not incoherent. And it's not just mine, it's the basic premise of this entire thread on both sides. Your premise however is so incoherent you can't actually put forth an example. And as a matter of fact yes you do have the burden of proof to say that there exists another framework which undermines the reasoning used in the thread. You have only postulated there could be such a thing.


Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AozorAg • 2:32a, 1/29/26
The vast majority of philosophical hypotheticals have no real world application.

You think there's a literal tea pot floating on the opposite side of the sun?

You think there's a literal cat that is both in, and not in, the box?

You think there's a literal cave where we are chained to the wall and can only see the shadows of the rest of the world on?

You are also assuming all sorts of things about my motives that are simply unsubstantiated.

I was just curious how you conceived your priorities. Personally, I would probably go to hell. How I personally conceive the divine, the greatest extension of love is to sacrifice for others. For God so loved the world...after all.

Your answer seems selfish to me, but I respect what you said about placing God's love above all. I suppose it boils down to how one might live that out.

So, thank you for at least answering the question. Next time, try not to waste your time with all the mental backflips.
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 7:23a, 1/29/26
AG
You can't even be bothered to read what I wrote - it isn't like we have to weigh the sum.

And again, direct and clear scriptural evidence shows that Jesus is not bound by space or time. So, when we can understand that, we can apply it to ourselves.

Quote:
And as a matter of fact yes you do have the burden of proof to say that there exists another framework which undermines the reasoning used in the thread. You have only postulated there could be such a thing.

lol this is not how burden of proof works. You have assumed a premise, something like "eternity is experienced in a manner similar to how we experience time now as a procession of moments." I have simply asked why this assumed to be so, and shown that it may not necessarily be so. I don't have to provide an alternative system. YOURE making positive statements about eternity, YOU should be the one to justify them.

If your answer is "I can't imagine it any other way therefore it must be so" - well ok. But that's not anything anyone should value.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
AozorAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Silent For Too Long • 8:05a, 1/29/26
Silent For Too Long said:
The vast majority of philosophical hypotheticals have no real world application.

You think there's a literal tea pot floating on the opposite side of the sun?

You think there's a literal cat that is both in, and not in, the box?

You think there's a literal cave where we are chained to the wall and can only see the shadows of the rest of the world on?

You are also assuming all sorts of things about my motives that are simply unsubstantiated.

I was just curious how you conceived your priorities. Personally, I would probably go to hell. How I personally conceive the divine, the greatest extension of love is to sacrifice for others. For God so loved the world...after all.

Your answer seems selfish to me, but I respect what you said about placing God's love above all. I suppose it boils down to how one might live that out.

So, thank you for at least answering the question. Next time, try not to waste your time with all the mental backflips.

They aren't mental backflips. It's not a logically possible hypothetical. A hypothetical doesn't have to be practically possible in the real world, but it has to be at least logically possible. Yes, the greatest extension of love is to lay down one's life for a friend because it is what Jesus did. In this situation your life is already gone. You're dead. That concept has no application. We know that sin is separates us from God, and the greatest possible sin is to permanently separate yourself from God. You're saying you would commit the greatest possible sin because it's the greatest extension of love, but in the hypothetical you've set up, it's not, it's just the opposite.

Funny that you reference Schrodinger's cat, which was intentionally constructed to be absurd and nonsensical. The entire reason Schrodinger came up with that thought exercise was to criticize a certain strict interpretation of quantum mechanics (the Copenhagen interpretation) by demonstrating that applying quantum rules to everyday objects leads to absurd results and makes no sense. Your hypothetical is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. It might make sense in one context (during our lifetimes), but it just leads to absurd results in a Christian afterlife situation and is logically invalid.
Reply Quote
2 edits
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AozorAg • 8:06a, 1/29/26
AG
AozorAg said:
dermdoc said:
If I believed as you, I would never have had kids if there was even a chance they could end up in ECT hell. And I would wish I had never been born to miss that possible agony.
In fact, I wish I had been aborted. No way I miss heaven then.


I'm just restating Jesus's own words. They clearly signal permanence. I would suggest you pray for help grappling with that fact if it causes you problems with your faith. I think it's certainly better to be born and have the free opportunity to spend eternity with a loving God than to never have been born at all.


You keep saying this as if my view on ECT hell affects my faith. I do not question your faith because your view is different than mine.
My faith is great. And is strong enough to not have to be "right". And say I don't know.
My ministry of witnessing and prayer in my office everyday is strong and vibrant.
I will pray for you my brother in Christ.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1 edit
AozorAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 8:12a, 1/29/26
dermdoc said:
AozorAg said:
dermdoc said:
If I believed as you, I would never have had kids if there was even a chance they could end up in ECT hell. And I would wish I had never been born to miss that possible agony.
In fact, I wish I had been aborted. No way I miss heaven then.


I'm just restating Jesus's own words. They clearly signal permanence. I would suggest you pray for help grappling with that fact if it causes you problems with your faith. I think it's certainly better to be born and have the free opportunity to spend eternity with a loving God than to never have been born at all.


You keep saying this as if my view on ECT hell affects my faith. I do not question your faith because I think your view is different than mine.
My faith is great. My ministry of witnessing and prayer in my office everyday is strong and vibrant.
I will pray for you my brother in Christ.

If it doesn't affect your own faith, great. But if you're evangelizing a version of Christianity where everybody goes to heaven even if they reject God, you're leading others astray, letting them believe there are no eternal consequences for rejecting God. That is the primary problem.
Reply Quote
6
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 8:17a, 1/29/26
AG
10andBOUNCE said:
Does that include the Canaanites that the Israelites destroyed - men, women, and children?


Again there is no mention of eternal torment. They were just dead.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AozorAg • 8:41a, 1/29/26
AG
AozorAg said:
dermdoc said:
AozorAg said:
dermdoc said:
If I believed as you, I would never have had kids if there was even a chance they could end up in ECT hell. And I would wish I had never been born to miss that possible agony.
In fact, I wish I had been aborted. No way I miss heaven then.


I'm just restating Jesus's own words. They clearly signal permanence. I would suggest you pray for help grappling with that fact if it causes you problems with your faith. I think it's certainly better to be born and have the free opportunity to spend eternity with a loving God than to never have been born at all.


You keep saying this as if my view on ECT hell affects my faith. I do not question your faith because I think your view is different than mine.
My faith is great. My ministry of witnessing and prayer in my office everyday is strong and vibrant.
I will pray for you my brother in Christ.

If it doesn't affect your own faith, great. But if you're evangelizing a version of Christianity where everybody goes to heaven even if they reject God, you're leading others astray, letting them believe there are no eternal consequences for rejecting God. That is the primary problem.

Never had that come up. Most people I talk to, if not believers, they are so broken the last thing I would do is say "They are sinners in the hands of an angry God". They need to repent, change their mind and lives. The Holy Spirit will convict them. And it is amazing how it works.

I feel like often the "turn or burn" guys are doing it for themselves and their own edification. Rather than actually loving the person and let the Spirit work. But that is just me.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2 edits
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zobel • 8:50a, 1/29/26
AG
I'm not the only one the can't imagine it an another way, you can't. Which is the whole issue. You are appealing to something you can't even articulate.

The scripture doesn't make reference to being outside space or time. That's not a clear reference that it's your interpretation. And even still that's for someone you consider god, and so you can argue a dominion over space and time. That's different for a resurrected human body.
Reply Quote
2 edits
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGC • 9:26a, 1/29/26
AG
AGC said:
dermdoc said:
AGC said:
dermdoc said:
AGC said:
dermdoc said:
AozorAg said:
light_bulb said:
dermdoc said:
light_bulb said:
dermdoc said:
light_bulb said:
dermdoc said:
light_bulb said:
dermdoc said:
light_bulb said:
dermdoc said:
light_bulb said:
dermdoc said:
BonfireNerd04 said:
Martin Q. Blank said:
We have a tiered justice system. We understand it.

If I get a speeding ticket, the fine is $200.
Reckless driving is more severe and necessitates a stricter punishment - maybe a higher fine or revoking license.
Trespassing, shoplifting - jail time?
Drunk driving, domestic violence, car theft, drug possession - prison less than a year.
Aggravated assault, grand larceny, drug distribution - 5-10 years.
Human trafficking, rape, attempted murder, manslaughter - 20+ years.

At some point you get to the point that no amount of time satisfies the crime - first degree murder, murder of a child, terrorist attack, etc. - and requires death.

What kind of punishment correlates to Christ's punishment on the cross? What amount of time can we say "ok, that's about what Christ endured"? Whatever hell is, I don't have any problem with the idea of it being eternal. And Jesus called it eternal.

Again, what sin deserves eternal conscious torture?

Suppose, for example, than after Adolf Hitler killed himself, God told him, "Because you have the prime responsibility for starting World War 2, in which almost 100 million people died, I'm sentencing you to 1000 years of hellfire for each count of murder. See you in 100 billion years."

That's a long amount of time, more than any mainstream scientific estimate for the age of the universe. But it's still a finite amount of time. Do you think it would be enough? How about a trillion years? A quadrillion years? A googol years?

I am convinced that the vast majority of infernalists have not really thought about this at depth.

It is far beyond what any of the most evil people have ever done. And they want to say God ordains this and administers the punishment.


And if, contrary to the boundaries you establish for God, He does ordain and administer this?

I am not putting any boundaries on God. I do not think the God of love as described in Scripture would do this.

There are a lot of verses in the OT where God ended the lives of people. Nothing about ECT hell. Not a whisper.


You lose at the words "I don't think".

I have no idea what you are saying.


You don't think God will send someone to ECT hell. What if he does?


He can do whatever He wants. I firmly believe He will send no one to hell.


To be clear, no one, meaning not one single human being to have ever been born will go to hell. Not one soul?

First of all, define hell.


If I outright reject God, do you think I will experience Hell?

Yes. But it is corrective not punitive. And not eternal.

Can you define hell?


Then why should I give a damn about what your God has to say?

You're exactly right. If hell was neither punitive nor eternal, then there would ultimately be no need for you, as a non-Christian, to care about anything Jesus teaches or make any effort to adhere to it. Things would suck for a while, but eventually you would get into heaven anyway. That's not consistent with Christianity.

If you want nothing to do with Jesus/God, you will get exactly what you want for eternity. God is the source of all love, all goodness, and all mercy. Whatever hell is, we know it will be entirely devoid of those things. If you don't believe in God or Christian teachings, I would urge you to at least be open-minded to it. If you earnestly seek the truth and ask God, "if you exist, help me come to know you," I believe he will. If you're not open to it, I understand, but I do hope you'll try.


Ultimate reconciliation had a lot of backing in the early church. St. Gregory of Nyssa, the other Gregory, Clement of Alexandria, etc.

I strongly recommend Keith Giles's book "Jesus undefeated, condemning the false doctrine of eternal torment", David Bentley Hart "That all shall be Saved", or Julie Ferwerda "Raisinf hell".

Or read any of St. Gregory, George Macdonald, or a lot of others.

Avoiding ECT hell should be the biggest thrust of the Gospel if it exists. Yet Paul never used the word hell. Hell is not mentioned in the Acts of the apostles.

Jesus mentioned eternal punishment once possibly in Matthew 25:46 but that is a debated translation topic.

The sheep were praised for their actions visiting prisoners, feeding the hungry, giving to the poor, etc. The goats were damned for not doing those things.

Exact same theme in Lazarus and the rich man. No sinner's prayer. No altar call. No mention of baptism or sacraments. No mention of church attendance. In fact, I would wager you the rich man went to synagogue than Lazarus did. No
mention of correct theology.

And if ECT hell exists, why did Jesus not preach he came to save us from it? There is no Scripture that says Christ came to save us from ECT hell.

Scripture says the wages of sin is death. Not ECT hell.

Where is ECT hell in the OT. Or in Judaism?

I get a little perturbed when people say I am not a Christian because I do not believe in ECT hell when there are saints and great theologians who did not believe in it either. And that is what you insinuated.

Sorry for the rant.


You've thrown his name around a few times, but David Bentley Hart is not your friend and will lead you astray. He's been called out specifically by someone who declined to write a review of that book on a very prominent EO podcast. If an EO priest can quote St Gregory of Nysa and say hart is wrong, I'd caution you in reading them together as coherent.

Do you read Jonathan Edwards? I would say the same about him.

And who called out Hart and praised St. Gregory of Nyssa? Was it because of theology or Hart's bombastic tone?


Fr. Stephen de Young on the basis of his theology. It's not that he praised St. Gregory and condemned Hart, it's that he's well versed in orthodox theology and knows Hart doesn't mix with it. So if St. Gregory has something to say, it's likely different than Hart.


I am not disputing DeYoung as I respect him. Will do some reading but St. Gregory was an ultimate reconciliation guy like Hart. So DeYoung might not think St. Gregory is compatible with traditional Orthodox teachings either.


https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lord-of-spirits/id1531206254?i=1000625635424


Actually 2/3 through it. And no mention of that dastardly David Bentley Hart by name.
I love it. Thanks. I would love to debate them on Matthew 25:46.
A little disappointed they did not discuss the original Greek and how it was translated.
Anyway overall excellent. Their presentation is awesome.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
TeddyAg0422
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 10:13a, 1/29/26
AG
I read through the 45 New Testament occurrences of the greek word "aiwviov" (which is what's translated into eternal both times in Matthew 25:46) and every single time it is translated into english either as "eternal," "everlasting," or "forever." What am I missing? There's no indication of it being used in a way other than everlasting as in either eternal Heaven or eternal Hell.
https://biblehub.com/greek/aio_nion_166.htm
Reply Quote
3 edits
10andBOUNCE
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 10:16a, 1/29/26
AG
dermdoc said:
10andBOUNCE said:
Does that include the Canaanites that the Israelites destroyed - men, women, and children?


Again there is no mention of eternal torment. They were just dead.

That comment was more so directed at the idea we can simply sum up "God is love" while not also attributing to Him his perfect and holy justice.
Reply Quote
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 10:26a, 1/29/26
AG
Aggrad08 said:
I'm not the only one the can't imagine it an another way, you can't. Which is the whole issue. You are appealing to something you can't even articulate.

The scripture doesn't make reference to being outside space or time. That's not a clear reference that it's your interpretation. And even still that's for someone you consider god, and so you can argue a dominion over space and time. That's different for a resurrected human body.


Where is Jesus right now, in time and space? Or Elijah? Have we spotted them in outer space? Are they in another galaxy? Hidden behind clouds?
Reply Quote
1
one MEEN Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 10:33a, 1/29/26
AG
Aggrad08 said:
Zobel said:
First, you don't believe in scripture so your appeal to it is kind of meaningless. And scripture doesn't work like that, like we have to weigh sums of verses. Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection, He is what we will become. He is not bound by space explicitly - and therefore time.

The afterlife as beyond repentance is part of orthodox theology. In fact mortality itself is, in theology, a way to charge and is itself the means of repentance. You can't repent after death because you're no longer malleable in that way. The demons can't repent for the same reason.

And no matter how many times you keep flipping the burden of proof, I don't have to present an alternative framework to point out the incoherence of yours.



Appeal to scripture to show the problem with your own argument isn't meaningless. That's just silly. Hell itself is a NT invention, and you do believe in scripture. Of course I don't believe in scripture when has that ever mattered when discussing religion?

Ok weigh the "sum of the verses". I don't see much weight behind an endless locked "moment."

A physical resurrection implied space. Space implies time, and we are right back to the arguments in this thread.

Whether the afterlife is beyond repentance is something your fellow Christians will disagree to some extent on let alone the supposed mechanism for that. If the demons can't repent because they are not "malleable" how were they malleable enough to fall?

My framework isn't incoherent in any way. At best you can try to argue it's incomplete but certainly not incoherent. And it's not just mine, it's the basic premise of this entire thread on both sides. Your premise however is so incoherent you can't actually put forth an example. And as a matter of fact yes you do have the burden of proof to say that there exists another framework which undermines the reasoning used in the thread. You have only postulated there could be such a thing.



"Not believing" is not the same as "not understanding". 'Hell' is not a new testament invention.

There is a lot of unpack here.

What is death anyway? There are two. The physical death and the spiritual death. The physical death is the separation of your soul from your fleshly body. The spiritual death is separation of your soul from God. This is not a 'new' Christian understanding. The Israelites worldview was that all would go to Sheol (the grave) and there is hope for one day that the Messiah will save them from the grave. What happens in Sheol? Well its a place of soul separation from God. They've clearly experienced physical death to end up there.

In the OT we see Sheol is more than just one giant holding cell. There is some sorting going on. Most famously is the Abyss, a deeper part of Sheol where God sends those who he deemed unrighteous. This is where Jonah goes when he is swallowed by the fish. Leviathan takes Jonah beneath the pillars of the earth. (The eater of death takes Jonah to the Abyss). (When Christ says the only miracle that the pharisees will see is the miracle of Jonah is absolutely foreshadowing His coming resurrection.)

Another example is the book of Enoch. Where there are four caves. The righteous dead, the martyred, those held aside for punishment/judgement, and the truly wicked those already given their ultimate punishment now

So you can't make the case that idea of a place of separation from God is NT invention.
But ironically, you CAN make the case that heaven is a NT invention. Because Jesus as the Messiah gives us the resurrection and solves the problem of the spiritual death - separation from God. AND promises to restore the righteous with perfect bodies that won't die, solving the problem caused in Genesis through disobedience.


Your whole conjecture hinges on three points:
-That God is bound by space and time, so space and time are above God and actually God.
-That God is bound by logic, and more specifically your logical understanding
-That your understanding of God's nature, Christianity, and how we are to experience time once outside of time is full, complete, and 100% correct. Zobels helping you with these points.
Reply Quote
3
2 edits
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 10:39a, 1/29/26
AG
Onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.

You are asserting that eternity is experienced as an ongoing succession of moments without end. I am simply pointing out you have no basis for that claim, it is an unfounded assumption. There is no world where that puts the burden on me to affirm an alternative model. I'm perfectly happy to say that it is an incomprehensible thing for us who are limited in our experience of time in this way.

And yes, the scripture absolutely does. The Risen Christ appears within locked rooms (space) and appears and disappears in an instant (time). Further, less explicit but no less orthodox, He is understood to be the one who ate with Abraham, wrestled with Jacob, spoke to Moses face to face, stood before Joshua, and spoke to and touched other prophets. These all entered into human experience "before" the Incarnation. St John describes Him as the "lamb slain before the foundation of the world" even if His death is something that enters into human experience in a moment of time.

And, further, the scriptures don't say that He's somehow special in this regard. The scriptures say, variously

"When He appears, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is."
"We, who with unveiled faces all reflect the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into His image with intensifying glory"
"those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that He might be the firstborn among many brothers"
"The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven...We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible body must put on the incorruptible , and this mortal body must put on immortality"
"[He] will transform our lowly body to be like His glorious body"

So, no. He's the firstfruits and we are promised to be like Him. I mean, Christianity makes the radical claim that God became man so that man might become god - gods by grace, not by nature. St Maximos says that to the extent He lowered Himself to take on our nature, He will elevate our nature to His through the union of the nature of the divine to the nature of man in the God-man Jesus Christ. Whatever can be said about Christ's resurrected body can be correctly applied to what we will become.
Reply Quote
3
AGC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to one MEEN Ag • 10:46a, 1/29/26
AG
one MEEN Ag said:
Aggrad08 said:
Zobel said:
First, you don't believe in scripture so your appeal to it is kind of meaningless. And scripture doesn't work like that, like we have to weigh sums of verses. Jesus is the first fruits of the resurrection, He is what we will become. He is not bound by space explicitly - and therefore time.

The afterlife as beyond repentance is part of orthodox theology. In fact mortality itself is, in theology, a way to charge and is itself the means of repentance. You can't repent after death because you're no longer malleable in that way. The demons can't repent for the same reason.

And no matter how many times you keep flipping the burden of proof, I don't have to present an alternative framework to point out the incoherence of yours.



Appeal to scripture to show the problem with your own argument isn't meaningless. That's just silly. Hell itself is a NT invention, and you do believe in scripture. Of course I don't believe in scripture when has that ever mattered when discussing religion?

Ok weigh the "sum of the verses". I don't see much weight behind an endless locked "moment."

A physical resurrection implied space. Space implies time, and we are right back to the arguments in this thread.

Whether the afterlife is beyond repentance is something your fellow Christians will disagree to some extent on let alone the supposed mechanism for that. If the demons can't repent because they are not "malleable" how were they malleable enough to fall?

My framework isn't incoherent in any way. At best you can try to argue it's incomplete but certainly not incoherent. And it's not just mine, it's the basic premise of this entire thread on both sides. Your premise however is so incoherent you can't actually put forth an example. And as a matter of fact yes you do have the burden of proof to say that there exists another framework which undermines the reasoning used in the thread. You have only postulated there could be such a thing.



"Not believing" is not the same as "not understanding". 'Hell' is not a new testament invention.

There is a lot of unpack here.

What is death anyway? There are two. The physical death and the spiritual death. The physical death is the separation of your soul from your fleshly body. The spiritual death is separation of your soul from God. This is not a 'new' Christian understanding. The Israelites worldview was that all would go to Sheol (the grave) and there is hope for one day that the Messiah will save them from the grave. What happens in Sheol? Well its a place of soul separation from God. They've clearly experienced physical death to end up there.

In the OT we see Sheol is more than just one giant holding cell. There is some sorting going on. Most famously is the Abyss, a deeper part of Sheol where God sends those who he deemed unrighteous. This is where Jonah goes when he is swallowed by the fish. Leviathan takes Jonah beneath the pillars of the earth. (The eater of death takes Jonah to the Abyss). (When Christ says the only miracle that the pharisees will see is the miracle of Jonah is absolutely foreshadowing His coming resurrection.)

Another example is the book of Enoch. Where there are four caves. The righteous dead, the martyred, those held aside for punishment/judgement, and the truly wicked those already given their ultimate punishment now

So you can't make the case that idea of a place of separation from God is NT invention.
But ironically, you CAN make the case that heaven is a NT invention. Because Jesus as the Messiah gives us the resurrection and solves the problem of the spiritual death - separation from God. AND promises to restore the righteous with perfect bodies that won't die, solving the problem caused in Genesis through disobedience.


Your whole conjecture hinges on three points:
-That God is bound by space and time, so space and time are above God and actually God.
-That God is bound by logic, and more specifically your logical understanding
-That your understanding of God's nature, Christianity, and how we are to experience time once outside of time is complete. Zobels helping you with these points.


Lewis in Miracles refers to the naturalist/supernaturalist divide. The naturalist believes all things to be within 'nature' which includes God, thus He is always subordinate as part of the system, and we have arguments like this: all of nature now is bound by these laws, so all things must continue being bound by these laws. There is nothing outside of them.
Reply Quote
1
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGC • 10:53a, 1/29/26
AG
AGC said:
Aggrad08 said:
I'm not the only one the can't imagine it an another way, you can't. Which is the whole issue. You are appealing to something you can't even articulate.

The scripture doesn't make reference to being outside space or time. That's not a clear reference that it's your interpretation. And even still that's for someone you consider god, and so you can argue a dominion over space and time. That's different for a resurrected human body.


Where is Jesus right now, in time and space? Or Elijah? Have we spotted them in outer space? Are they in another galaxy? Hidden behind clouds?


Do they think? Do they experience thought?
Reply Quote
Zobel
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 10:57a, 1/29/26
AG
Probably? But the real question you're asking is actually "Do they experience thought like we do?"And the answer is obviously "I don't know".

You should read this.
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf
Reply Quote
1
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 10andBOUNCE • 11:01a, 1/29/26
AG
10andBOUNCE said:
dermdoc said:
10andBOUNCE said:
Does that include the Canaanites that the Israelites destroyed - men, women, and children?


Again there is no mention of eternal torment. They were just dead.

That comment was more so directed at the idea we can simply sum up "God is love" while not also attributing to Him his perfect and holy justice.

I do not disagree with you my friend. I disagree with the idea of ECT hell coupled with double predestination.

No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
2 edits
dermdoc
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TeddyAg0422 • 11:09a, 1/29/26
AG
TeddyAg0422 said:
I read through the 45 New Testament occurrences of the greek word "aiwviov" (which is what's translated into eternal both times in Matthew 25:46) and every single time it is translated into english either as "eternal," "everlasting," or "forever." What am I missing? There's no indication of it being used in a way other than everlasting as in either eternal Heaven or eternal Hell.
https://biblehub.com/greek/aio_nion_166.htm


If you really want to explore this with an open mind, I suggest googling kolasis aionios scholarly articles. You will find both sides.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
one MEEN Ag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Aggrad08 • 11:11a, 1/29/26
AG
Also, demons were 'malleable' initially and not now because they have free wills like you do, but they don't have the capability to repent. So angels fell because they rebelled. Those rebellious angels still have the same issues with God they did the day they fell.

So why does God make us able to repent and not the demons? Well for a couple reasons. First is, if humans didn't have the ability to repent in their nature than the demons would've won. We would be locked away from God forever. Secondly, humanity wasn't given the full revelation that the angels had. Part of the reason the angels rebelled was because of jealousy that man would grow into beings higher than the angels. A destiny that man, for all intents and purposes, did not fully understand when in the garden.

The orthodox church believes that ability to repent and turn to God is imbued directly into your fleshly body. That without your flesh, you cannot repent. Angels do not have flesh like we do. They cannot repent. Flesh was a gift not given to Angels.

This makes everything about the entropic nature of our bodies a purposeful design. That we are given time and space to repent within. That the left hand of God is there to stir us towards seeking out good as we feel the effects of evil.
Reply Quote
2
TeddyAg0422
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to dermdoc • 11:11a, 1/29/26
AG
Do you have any good recommendations from your POV? I'm open to any suggestion.
Reply Quote
Aggrad08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to one MEEN Ag • 11:13a, 1/29/26
AG
one MEEN Ag said:
Also, demons were 'malleable' initially and not now because they have free wills like you do, but they don't have the capability to repent. So angels fell because they rebelled. Those rebellious angels still have the same issues with God they did the day they fell.

So why does God make us able to repent and not the demons? Well for a couple reasons. First is, if humans didn't have the ability to repent in their nature than the demons would've won. We would be locked away from God forever. Secondly, humanity wasn't given the full revelation that the angels had. Part of the reason the angels rebelled was because of jealousy that man would grow into beings higher than the angels. A destiny that man, for all intents and purposes, did not fully understand when in the garden.

The orthodox church believes that ability to repent and turn to God is imbued directly into your fleshly body. That without your flesh, you cannot repent. Angels do not have flesh like we do. They cannot repent. Flesh was a gift not given to Angels.

This makes everything about the entropic nature of our bodies a purposeful design. That we are given time and space to repent within. That the left hand of God is there to stir us towards seeking out good as we feel the effects of evil.


Is there free will In heaven. Is a resurrected body not flesh?
Reply Quote
2 edits
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.