Literal Hellfire According To Catholic Teaching V Emerging View Of Hel

[dairygirl4u2c]

 

 

according to the catholic encyclopedia:
 

Poena sensus

The poena sensus, or pain of sense, consists in the torment of fire so frequently mentioned in the Holy Bible. According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct. [...] Some few of the Fathers also thought of a metaphorical explanation. Nevertheless, Scripture and tradition speak again and again of the fire of hell, and there is no sufficient reason for taking the term as a mere metaphor. [...] It is quite superfluous to add that the nature of hell-fire is different from that of our ordinary fire; for instance, it continues to burn without the need of a continually renewed supply of fuel. How are we to form a conception of that fire in detail remains quite undetermined; we merely know that it is corporeal. The demons suffer the torment of fire, even when, by Divine permission, they leave the confines of hell and roam about on earth. In what manner this happens is uncertain. We may assume that they remain fettered inseparably to a portion of that fire.

 

 

 

according to a recent Time article:
 

 

5 Reasons Christians Are Rejecting the Notion of Hell

 

More and more Christians are beginning to reject the traditional view of hell which states the unjust will experience “eternal, conscious torment”. Perhaps you’ve seen this change in the Christian landscape and grown confused as to why so many of us are experiencing shifting beliefs. While my Letting Go of Hell series goes further in-depth on many issues surrounding hell, here are 5 key reasons to help you understand why we are rejecting the notion of “eternal, conscious torment”:

1. Something in our spirit tells us that torturing people is morally wrong.

During the historically recent debates over whether or not it’s okay to torture people, it has only been the most sick and twisted minds among us who have defended torture as being anything less than morally reprehensible. In fact, we know that torturing is such an egregious offense to morality that we even have laws against doing it toanimals. The assertion that God himself would not only torture people but take great pleasure in it, is something that many of us in Christianity are finding utterly offensive.

2. The concept of eternal, conscious torment runs contrary to the whole testimony in scripture.

Part of the reason why a growing number of us are rejecting the traditional view of hell, is that we’ve actually re-read the scriptures without our prefabricated evangelical filter, and find scripture describe something different than a traditional hell. Yes, there are some verses that seem to hint or describe eternal torture, but like many issues, the Bible is inconsistent on the matter. However, when we look at the entire testimony of scripture, we most often see the disposition of those who refuse to enter into God’s love described as a “second death”. Traditional hell isn’t death at all; traditional hell is instead an eternal life of torture. This simply isn’t what the Bible describes when taking into account the entire testimony. Instead, we find that those who ultimately reject God– the one who sustains life– to be granted their wish: their names are blotted out of the book of life and it is as if they never existed.

3. The final judge of each individual is Jesus, and torturing people seems contradictory to his character.

We believe in a coming judgement, and believe each one of us will have to stand before the “judgement seat”. However, we often forget that this judge will be Jesus! Most of us still affirm those who refuse to be reconciled to God’s love through Christ will ultimately be eternally lost, because we believe love must always be chosen– it cannot be forced. However, the idea that the end result of rejecting God’s love will be a slow-roasting eternal torture session with Jesus at the controls, is almost asinine. This isnot the Jesus we find in the New Testament. The Jesus we find in the New Testament is loving and just– but not dementedly cruel. In fact, in the New Testament we see a Jesus who notices suffering all around him and repeatedly states “I have compassion for them”. That compassion consistently moves Jesus to action, often breaking the taboos of his day to alleviate their suffering. The Jesus of scripture is hardly the type of person who’d enjoy torturing people.

4. Jesus would become a hypocrite, demanding that we nonviolently love our enemies while he does the complete opposite.

Remember, Jesus is the ultimate judge of humanity so anyone who ended up being tortured in hell would only go there by the decision of Jesus himself. This is the same Jesus who pointed out in the Bible of his day the permissiveness of using a tit-for-tat system of justice (an eye for an eye) in dealing with enemies as being wrong. Instead of affirming we should follow this part of scripture, Jesus taught his disciples to no longer obey this part of their Bible– instructing that they should become nonviolent enemy lovers instead (Matthew 5:38). In fact, Jesus goes as far as telling them that loving enemies is a requirement of becoming a child of God. If Jesus commands that we love our enemies, refuse to use violence, and that we actually do good to those who hate us yet– eternally tortures his own enemies– he’s guilty of hypocrisy. I don’t believe this is the case– I believe Jesus commands we love our enemies because he loves his enemies… and torture is never loving.

5. We simply can’t get past the idea that we are more gracious and merciful than Jesus himself.

This is the key area I cannot reconcile with eternal torment: I have been wronged by a lot of people in my life, but I have absolutely zero desire to torture anyone. I could never make the call to sentence one to torture or “pull the switch” to commence torture, because seeing people suffer is something that disrupts my spirit. I want no part in the causation of suffering, but instead want to be an agent who helps to relieve suffering. Furthermore, the longer I follow Jesus the more and more I desire that people be shown mercy. If I were to sit on the judgement seat (something I never will), there’s just no possible way I could ever sentence people to eternal torture– especially for things like being born into an Amazonian tribe who never heard the message of Jesus. If I were judge, I would always lean on the option of radical mercy.

The question then becomes: am I, a hopelessly flawed and sinful human being more merciful and compassionate than Jesus? There’s no possible way that is true, which tells me there might be more mercy than I can even fathom dished out at the final judgement.

As more and more Christians return home to a radical faith centered squarely on Jesus, we will continue to see a growing number of bible believing, soundly orthodox Christians, reject the evangelical concept of “eternal, conscious torment”. This should be viewed as a beautiful thing, not a travesty, as we rediscover that God actually is altogether wonderful, altogether lovely, and altogether like Jesus.

Benjamin L. Corey is an Anabaptist author, speaker, and blogger. His first book is Undiluted: Rediscovering the Radical Message of Jesus (Release date, August 2014).

 

[veritasluxmea]

What? How does an Anabaptist know what Catholics are doing? How does a Time article know anything about Catholics? That's like quoting tabloids for accurate information on science- or anything, for that matter. Sure, a broken clock may be right twice a day but knowing when is the tricky part. 

 

 

 

bible believing, soundly orthodox Christians

 lol, the irony. 

 

Hell isn't there because Jesus wants to torture people and make them suffer. 

[Credo in Deum]

[truthfinder]

I like how all the reasons are about conforming religion (and Jesus, apparently) into what we judge to be right and good.

[Credo in Deum]

You didn't hear? We are the standard bearers of Truth, not Christ and the Church He instituted.  Apparently no one read the verse: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord."--Isaiah 55:8.  Plus I usually find the same people who have a problem with the doctrine on hell are at the same time completely fine with Satan being there.  They just don't want to be there.  It's also interesting that these same individuals hold the belief they should be rewarded with eternal, conscious bliss for following the commandments, but do not accept eternal, conscious torment for not following them.   Especially considering in this life we live out this heaven and hell before we get there.  Those who follow God's commandments with trust and love have peace, while those who do not are filled with anger and hatred for all things holy that challenge their hardened hearts. 

 

 

[KnightofChrist]

Shaka, when the walls fell.

[John Ryan]

The reject the premise of the bifurcation. 

[anglefire]

When I was younger I was taught by the sisters that hell is very real. That at the last judgement when we go before the Lord to answer and we are shown what we did was either right or wrong. But that the earth will be made clean and beautiful for all. That was just one sister. Another taught me purgatory sometimes for people who are presently living now on earth before they pass that God is sending them a lesson. I know that heaven is very real and so is God having experienced a life after death experience 7 years ago and it was a najor life changing experience for me. I have always believed in God and Mary the saints and angels. So when I hear someone saying there is no hell I tell what makes you so sure there's not and if so prove it

[chrysostom]

 

However, the idea that the end result of rejecting God’s love will be a slow-roasting eternal torture session with Jesus at the controls, is almost asinine.

 

You're welcome, PM. My artistic skillz are second to none on a scale of 100 to zero.

 

And comma splice, man, comma splice. This is torture.

Edited August 30, 2014 by chrysostom

[Socrates]

It's ironic that this Anabaptist writer claims to base his rejection of the dogma of Hell on Jesus and the Bible, while Jesus Christ Himself explicitly speaks of the torments of Hell and the need to avoid them numerous times in the Gospels.  (And the language Christ uses is not of simple non-existence.)

 

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/hell-yes-part-i

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/hell-yes-part-ii

 

While there are many good Christian arguments for the reality of Hell, the first and most obvious is that it is what Jesus Himself taught us.

 

If there is in fact no hell, then Jesus was either a liar or mistaken about Hell.

 

And if Christ was lying or mistaken about the reality of hell, why should we trust Him on anything else, much less consider ourselves Christian?

 

[dairygirl4u2c]

why is it that most people when talking to them, even it might seem at phatmass, downplay the literal fire aspects of hell? but here in the poll, they agree with the catholic encyclopedia?

 

a couple theories. one is i drew the question to ask if the authority of the catholic encylopedia should be questioned, a high standard of authority. another, is the title of the 'alternative' view acted as if hell didn't exist. reading it further, it was just down playing the literal and torturous nature of traditional hell views.