Most people are going to Hell

[Jamie123]

Many Christians believe - or say they believe - that most people are going to Hell when they die. And yet they don't seem to get overly depressed at the thought.

Oh yes - they're happy enough that they're going to Heaven! "We are His Elect! Praise ye the Lord! Let's not spoil the mood by thinking about the plight of our poor Reprobate neighbours."

Do these people really believe it? Or do they just paying lip-service to the idea, because it's the orthodoxy of their religious group - like that Darwin has been "scientifically disproven"! (We're not quite sure how, but look at all these leaflets written by "real scientists" with letters after their names!)

Peer pressure is a powerful force.

[FunkyTown]

Many Christians believe - or say they believe - that most people are going to Hell when they die. And yet they don't seem to get overly depressed at the thought.

Oh yes - they're happy enough that they're going to Heaven! "We are His Elect! Praise ye the Lord! Let's not spoil the mood by thinking about the plight of our poor Reprobate neighbours."

Do these people really believe it? Or do they just paying lip-service to the idea, because it's the orthodoxy of their religious group - like that Darwin has been "scientifically disproven"! (We're not quite sure how, but look at all these leaflets written by "real scientists" with letters after their names!)

Peer pressure is a powerful force.

If you want to know the answer to why a group believes what they do, you're better off asking them rather than going on a website of people who believe like you.

Peer pressure is a powerful force.

[Jamie123]

If you want to know the answer to why a group believes what they do, you're better off asking them rather than going on a website of people who believe like you.

Thanks Funky - I'm not entirely sure what I "believe like" at the moment. I'd say in my defence that not everyone who comes here is LDS, and many of those who are have (I suspect) been a part of this kind of group in the past. So I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for people's opinions.

It's precisely because I find this sort of thing so troubling that I was drawn to the LDS as soon as I learned something about their beliefs. The idea that people of the "wrong" religion - or of no religion at all - may have a hope for eternity of something other than hellfire (and unpleasant little guys with toasting forks) is quite a comfort to me.

Of course, according to James White and his sort like him that can only mean I have a heart of stone. (But now I am moaning to the wrong people!)

[Bini]

Funkytown, is right. Best off inquiring from those particular groups.

So I don't know the answer but I think the Jehovah Witnesses believe that only a specific number of people will enter heaven? I may be wrong, could very well be a different faith. Anyway, I guess when you're raised (from birth to adulthood) in one particular faith, the "plan" (whatever your faith believes in) isn't so shocking and scary. But I think it may be a lot more to swallow, so to speak, for someone on the outside of the faith looking in, and or someone potentially investigating that faith.

[Blackmarch]

Many Christians believe - or say they believe - that most people are going to Hell when they die. And yet they don't seem to get overly depressed at the thought.

Oh yes - they're happy enough that they're going to Heaven! "We are His Elect! Praise ye the Lord! Let's not spoil the mood by thinking about the plight of our poor Reprobate neighbours."

Do these people really believe it? Or do they just paying lip-service to the idea, because it's the orthodoxy of their religious group - like that Darwin has been "scientifically disproven"! (We're not quite sure how, but look at all these leaflets written by "real scientists" with letters after their names!)

Peer pressure is a powerful force.

dunno IMO most people don't really start studying and pondering the things they are taught until they come to sort of crises. (Hence why God always has to humble people physically in manner or another).

[Guest]

Catholics pray a lot for other people. To get them out of purgatory into heaven... Because, most people go to purgatory before they go to hell.

But, personally, I'm too busy getting myself and my kids out of the path to hell to find time to constantly worry about other people...

[Bini]

Blackmarch, makes a good point. I also think that until you reach a certain age, and of course that age varies from person to person, that you don't really understand the fullness of your faith and it's teachings right off the bat. I know that when I was a child, I went through the motions of attending church and participating in church related activities (service projects etc etc) but didn't really understand the importance of it at that age. All I knew was that we should serve others and that the Lord wants us to be charitable.

Personally, I'm not worried about going to hell. I just don't think I'm quite that evil enough to make it.

[Traveler]

I cannot answer for what anyone else believes. But I am not sure I can believe someone understand honesity that claims G-d is merciful in one breath and then in the next expresses the belief that G-d would excimunicate a soul forever from heaven that dearly desires in their heart to be there.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Oh, come now...there are a few of us evangelicals here that can answer the question--even Catholics. So, I'll give you my best shot.

First, I am aware that the doctrine of hell has always been difficult. It is my understanding that the Jehovah's Witnesses came into being primarily because young Charles Taze Russell could not abide the doctrine. His quest to disprove it led to many associations that ultimate became the JWs. I would hazzard to guess that Joseph Smith found the teaching difficult as well.

I cannot approach the doctrine in a vacuum, and come to terms with it. Instead, I start with the doctrine of God. God is good and just. That is foundational truth. If I do not believe this then I will avoid Him--even if He is the one living God.

Since God is good and just, I come to the biblical descriptions of hell with this as my context. Hell is a place of justice. God's goodness cannot be negated by it. So, what is this place? It is that part of the universe where God is not. Those who go there do so by choice. They reject God. They will not worship Him, nor submit to him. Should they be allowed into the heavenly realm, it would eventually become corrupt. Look at what evil humanity has accomplished in just 6000 years. Imagine if they had an eternity!

I don't relish the doctrine of hell. When I teach it, I speak with tears, not triumphalism. However, God is just. He is the divine Judge. We are his creation, and He can do with us as He wills.

Another truth though is indeed that heaven will be filled not with worthy, deserving achievers, but by humbled followers who simply glory in God's mercy and goodness.

[Backroads]

Funkytown, is right. Best off inquiring from those particular groups.

So I don't know the answer but I think the Jehovah Witnesses believe that only a specific number of people will enter heaven? I may be wrong, could very well be a different faith. Anyway, I guess when you're raised (from birth to adulthood) in one particular faith, the "plan" (whatever your faith believes in) isn't so shocking and scary. But I think it may be a lot more to swallow, so to speak, for someone on the outside of the faith looking in, and or someone potentially investigating that faith.

The way I understand JW is that it's not just a handful go to heaven and the rest go to hell. It's a certain small number of leaders in heaven.

[prisonchaplain]

I grew up around Jehovah's Witnesses, and so can answer for their theology. They believe 144,000 will rule and reign with Jesus, in heaven. That comes to about 1/20th of 1% of their membership. The rest will live forever on paradise Earth.

They reject the doctrine of hell, believing instead that the great battle of Armegeddon will result in all the rejectors of Jehovah being annihilated. Their souls will cease to exist.

What Really Is Hell? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

Edited April 20, 2011 by prisonchaplain

[Guest]

They reject the doctrine of hell, believing instead that the great battle of Armegeddon will result in all the rejectors of Jehovah being annihilated. Their souls will cease to exist.

Ouch!

The Jewish one is interesting - they don't believe in heaven nor hell...

[slamjet]

Would not this whole argument be predicated on the definition of Heaven and Hell?

[prisonchaplain]

Ouch!

The Jewish one is interesting - they don't believe in heaven nor hell...

You are mostly right...though there is some discussion of the topics beginning in the latter Old Testament era. Heaven and Hell in Jewish Tradition - My Jewish Learning

Still...Judaism is very earthly-minded.

[Traveler]

Oh, come now...there are a few of us evangelicals here that can answer the question--even Catholics. So, I'll give you my best shot.

First, I am aware that the doctrine of hell has always been difficult. It is my understanding that the Jehovah's Witnesses came into being primarily because young Charles Taze Russell could not abide the doctrine. His quest to disprove it led to many associations that ultimate became the JWs. I would hazzard to guess that Joseph Smith found the teaching difficult as well.

I cannot approach the doctrine in a vacuum, and come to terms with it. Instead, I start with the doctrine of God. God is good and just. That is foundational truth. If I do not believe this then I will avoid Him--even if He is the one living God.

Since God is good and just, I come to the biblical descriptions of hell with this as my context. Hell is a place of justice. God's goodness cannot be negated by it. So, what is this place? It is that part of the universe where God is not. Those who go there do so by choice. They reject God. They will not worship Him, nor submit to him. Should they be allowed into the heavenly realm, it would eventually become corrupt. Look at what evil humanity has accomplished in just 6000 years. Imagine if they had an eternity!

I don't relish the doctrine of hell. When I teach it, I speak with tears, not triumphalism. However, God is just. He is the divine Judge. We are his creation, and He can do with us as He wills.

Another truth though is indeed that heaven will be filled not with worthy, deserving achievers, but by humbled followers who simply glory in God's mercy and goodness.

I have learned better talking to you but in many cases there are phrases that seem to contradict. I thought I would point out some of these phrases so you could comment more - if you wish to do so. For example “God is good and just”; then the phrase “We are his creation, and He can do with us as He wills.” The question I have is (and I understand that his will is strongly associated with good and just) but which takes president. His internal will or the external foundation of good and just - which to my understanding what is good and just is unchangeable - even by G-d (but G-d will is changeable) - Jesus modified his will? So would G-d modify his will to be good and just or would G-d modify what is good and just to conform to his will?

The next contradiction. The statements “deserving achievers” verses “humbled followers”. This implies that becoming a humbled follower (even in the eyes of G-d) is not a deserving achievement. Hmmm. That can be most confusing.

My final point - if we are going to talk of heaven or hell it is my impression that we should have a very good understanding what each is. Can we come to a definition (beyond where G-d is which could mean and not mean many things) of what exactly we will be doing in heaven or in hell. I am not sure I can - but I am willing to listen to anyone that thinks they do - if they are willing to listen to and answer my questions.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

I have learned better talking to you but in many cases there are phrases that seem to contradict. I thought I would point out some of these phrases so you could comment more - if you wish to do so. For example “God is good and just”; then the phrase “We are his creation, and He can do with us as He wills.” The question I have is (and I understand that his will is strongly associated with good and just) but which takes president. His internal will or the external foundation of good and just - which to my understanding what is good and just is unchangeable - even by G-d (but G-d will is changeable) - Jesus modified his will? So would G-d modify his will to be good and just or would G-d modify what is good and just to conform to his will?

There is no contradiction between stating God's nature (good and just) and then stating his right (the creator "owns" His creation). It is our blessing that the one who created us is good and just. Why I state the latter is that sometimes our circumstances, or our understandings, do not make evident to us the underlying goodness and justice of our Creator. When our baby is born with Down's Syndrom, or when a drunk driver maims or kills our loved one, we do not see his goodness and justice clearly. Likewise, when we encounter a doctrine we do not like--such as hell. We can grapple with it and try to understand, but God deserves our trust. We ought to give him the lattitude that if something doesn't seem right to us, we do not jump to the conclusion that we wrong--God is not good and just. He is. That is who He is.

The next contradiction. The statements “deserving achievers” verses “humbled followers”. This implies that becoming a humbled follower (even in the eyes of G-d) is not a deserving achievement. Hmmm. That can be most confusing.

Really? I am spared the flames of hell, and yet I can take pride in my humble gratitude??? Is being humbled by mercy really a deserving achievement?

My final point - if we are going to talk of heaven or hell it is my impression that we should have a very good understanding what each is. Can we come to a definition (beyond where G-d is which could mean and not mean many things) of what exactly we will be doing in heaven or in hell. I am not sure I can - but I am willing to listen to anyone that thinks they do - if they are willing to listen to and answer my questions.

The Traveler

It is my understanding that most LDS and most Catholics/Protestants believe that Heaven is God's Kingdom, where we will live forever, without regrets, and with great responsiblity.

[skippy740]

Most other denominations misunderstand the scriptures when it pertains to Endless and Eternal punishment... as if it is the length of time (endless) for punishment instead of the characteristic of the punishment.

D&C 19:10-12

Quote:

10 For behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore -

11 Eternal punishment is God's punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God's punishment.

Once you have paid for your sins through God's punishment, you will then go to the appropriate kingdom.

Most churches would have you believe that you'll truly spend the rest of eternity in hell.

Just remember that Christ suffered an infinite atonement. And while our sins may be innumberable, they are finite. Once you have paid for your sins, you will be "released" from your hell to a place of rest for you.

Edited April 21, 2011 by skippy740

[HEthePrimate]

Most other denominations misunderstand the scriptures when it pertains to Endless and Eternal punishment... as if it is the length of time (endless) for punishment instead of the characteristic of the punishment.

Frankly, I think other denominations simply understand those terms according to their usual meanings. What it says in those D&C verses is not what you'll find in the dictionary.

[HEthePrimate]

I cannot approach the doctrine in a vacuum, and come to terms with it. Instead, I start with the doctrine of God. God is good and just. That is foundational truth. If I do not believe this then I will avoid Him--even if He is the one living God.

In my opinion, giving someone an infinite punishment for a finite crime is inherently unjust, and God wouldn't do that.

It is that part of the universe where God is not. Those who go there do so by choice. They reject God. They will not worship Him, nor submit to him. Should they be allowed into the heavenly realm, it would eventually become corrupt. Look at what evil humanity has accomplished in just 6000 years. Imagine if they had an eternity!

I like that explanation. I'm don't know that God is "into" punishing people, per se. Rather, they choose to cut themselves off from him spiritually, and suffer the natural consequences of their choices.

I don't relish the doctrine of hell. When I teach it, I speak with tears, not triumphalism.

Good. More people should adopt your attitude.

[jayanna]

The OP reminds me of this scripture in Luke 18

10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

I'm really more worried about me, sounds selfish, but whether or not someone else is going is none of my business.

[Traveler]

There is no contradiction between stating God's nature (good and just) and then stating his right (the creator "owns" His creation). It is our blessing that the one who created us is good and just. Why I state the latter is that sometimes our circumstances, or our understandings, do not make evident to us the underlying goodness and justice of our Creator. When our baby is born with Down's Syndrom, or when a drunk driver maims or kills our loved one, we do not see his goodness and justice clearly. Likewise, when we encounter a doctrine we do not like--such as hell. We can grapple with it and try to understand, but God deserves our trust. We ought to give him the lattitude that if something doesn't seem right to us, we do not jump to the conclusion that we wrong--God is not good and just. He is. That is who He is.

Thank you for engaging my questions. One of the problems I have had with religion in general - or perhaps I should say - problems I have with religious individuals is what I call “the Sunday School Answer”. This is when a direct question is asked but the answer is nebulous. As we approach in our understanding the character of G-d that we can have meaning in our worship of him we must deal with things that we can relate to that also apply to G-d and his nature.

What is meant by the terms just and good? You say G-d deserves our trust - why? Because he will do what he “wants” according to his will and pleasure or because he is willing to forgo his will and pleasure for what is good and just? If you do not understand the difference or the possibility of a difference you have missed the point.

If a child is in a home where the parent is more focused on their own desires and will and their “justice” and what is good for them without taking into account the child and what is good and just for the child - I do not believe that parent “deserves” the trust of the child - even if they were so smart and powerful to have created the child.

I believe we have in Jesus Christ the example of G-d. In the specific example of Jesus Christ we learn that G-d is willing to forgo his will and pleasure - even to the point of him having to endure suffering unjustly in our behalf. This is why he deserves our trust. Not because he is G-d, not because he is all powerful, not because he is just and good.

I believe you have missed the point - when our baby is born with Down’s syndrome or when a drunk driver maims or kills our loved ones - we have the possibility of understanding G-d and his ability to forgo his will, endure great suffering unjustly in order to embrace good in the long term. It is along the line of something my father told me. A kind person is not just kind when it seem appropriate - even the cruelest person can do that. A kind person is kind when it is not expected and when cruelty seems forever more appropriate.

Really? I am spared the flames of hell, and yet I can take pride in my humble gratitude??? Is being humbled by mercy really a deserving achievement?

Absolutely - and that is the point. It is the greatest achievement possible. By your own admission it is the great achievement deserving of Heaven despite all other achievements, even in the eyes of G-d. All other achievements possible for man are deserving of Hell. If this is not true then G-d is not just and does not reward that which is a truly deserving achievements but rather his pleasure and refuses to justly reward deserving achievements. My point here is that being humbled by mercy is really a most noble and great achievement and if we cannot understand that - then we do not understand G-d.

It is my understanding that most LDS and most Catholics/Protestants believe that Heaven is God's Kingdom, where we will live forever, without regrets, and with great responsiblity.

The question is - what does that mean. For example, in such a kingdom will we be served or will we serve? My point here is that if we have a problem with serving those that are ungrateful; will we be happy in G-d's kingdom? or will we find such an existence and occupation of our “eternal” lives a living hell for us?

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

In my opinion, giving someone an infinite punishment for a finite crime is inherently unjust, and God wouldn't do that.

You are not alone in that opinion. However, since I started with the premise that God is just and merciful, and I perceive the scriptures to teach an infinite punishment, then if I choose to grapple with this it would be to understand HOW such a punishment is just and mericiful, not to question God's character. The alternative is to do as some have, and reinterpret scriptures to fit my opinion.

I like that explanation. I'm don't know that God is "into" punishing people, per se. Rather, they choose to cut themselves off from him spiritually, and suffer the natural consequences of their choices.

It is our understanding that hell was originally created for Satan and his legions. Humans who go there do so by their own volition.

[prisonchaplain]

What is meant by the terms just and good? You say G-d deserves our trust - why? Because he will do what he “wants” according to his will and pleasure or because he is willing to forgo his will and pleasure for what is good and just? If you do not understand the difference or the possibility of a difference you have missed the point.

I presume that there is no difference. God, by definition, is good and just. Therefore, what he wants--what is his pleasure--is good and just. Thus I do question that there is a possiblity of a difference.

I believe we have in Jesus Christ the example of G-d. In the specific example of Jesus Christ we learn that G-d is willing to forgo his will and pleasure - even to the point of him having to endure suffering unjustly in our behalf. This is why he deserves our trust. Not because he is G-d, not because he is all powerful, not because he is just and good.

Ah, but Jesus became "a little lower than the angels." He became flesh and dwelt amongst us. He willingly subject himself to our limitations, and thus our temptations to selfishness, and personal preservation over the will of his Father. God, in his fullness, by his nature, does according to his nature--that which is good and just.

I believe you have missed the point - when our baby is born with Down’s syndrome or when a drunk driver maims or kills our loved ones - we have the possibility of understanding G-d and his ability to forgo his will, endure great suffering unjustly in order to embrace good in the long term. It is along the line of something my father told me. A kind person is not just kind when it seem appropriate - even the cruelest person can do that. A kind person is kind when it is not expected and when cruelty seems forever more appropriate.

You seem to suggest that God is wrestling against his own sin nature--his passions to do what is selfish and desirable RATHER THAN what is good. God is not engaged in this personal battle. We are, as a result of the Fall.

Absolutely - and that is the point. It is the greatest achievement possible. By your own admission it is the great achievement deserving of Heaven despite all other achievements, even in the eyes of G-d. All other achievements possible for man are deserving of Hell. If this is not true then G-d is not just and does not reward that which is a truly deserving achievements but rather his pleasure and refuses to justly reward deserving achievements. My point here is that being humbled by mercy is really a most noble and great achievement and if we cannot understand that - then we do not understand G-d.

What you call the greatest achievement I would define as sanity.

The question is - what does that mean. For example, in such a kingdom will we be served or will we serve? My point here is that if we have a problem with serving those that are ungrateful; will we be happy in G-d's kingdom? or will we find such an existence and occupation of our “eternal” lives a living hell for us?

The Traveler

You are surely on to something here. There is a religion that teaches that the vast majority of those "saved" from the Battle of Armaggedon will not go to any heaven, but will live forever on earth, as joyful slaves to YHWH and his cadre of a few select rulers. To my reckoning, this sounds like eternity in North Korea...okay, but with enough food.

[ResLight]

Oh, come now...there are a few of us evangelicals here that can answer the question--even Catholics. So, I'll give you my best shot.

First, I am aware that the doctrine of hell has always been difficult. It is my understanding that the Jehovah's Witnesses came into being primarily because young Charles Taze Russell could not abide the doctrine.

I came across this forum through Google searches for Charles Taze Russell. I have been studying Russell's works for more than 50 years.

Russell himself was never associated with, and did not believe in, an organization such the Jehovah's Witnesses. Nor did Russell ever believe in the message that is preached by the Jehovah's Witnesses; Joseph Rutherford actually formed the organization after Russell died, and in doing so, Rutherford rejected the central teaching of Russell concerning the ransom for all, and replaced that teaching with a doctrine that basically says, "Join us, or be eternally destroyed in Armageddon." Thus, this message is almost the very opposite of what Russell taught.

Charles Russell, in his sermon "To Hell and Back - Who Are There?", gave a summary of what he believed when he was 17, and how he came to see that the Bible does not teach what many generally think of as "hell". Russell stated in that sermon: "I thoroughly believed this doctrine you may know when I tell you that at 17 years of age it was my custom to go out at night to chalk up words of warning in conspicuous places, where working-men passing to and fro might see them, that peradventure I might save some from the awful doom." This sermon is online at several sites, such as mostholyfaith.com, and one can probably find others through searches of a search engine such as Google or Yahoo.

Russell came into contact with some of the Second Adventists who showed him what the Bible really says about hell, as well as how Christ's ransom sacrifice -- the ransom for all -- is the basis for the blessing of all the families of the earth when Christ returns. (This teaching of the ransom for all and restitution was not a general teaching amongst the Second Adventists.) Russell came to realize that the traditional "orthodox" teaching of man concerning hell was not what was found in the Bible, and greatly rejoiced at finding about how all who are dying in Adam will be blessed, thus reversing the effects of what Adam did.

[prisonchaplain]

The previous poster has obviously done more studying on Russell than I. It is my understanding that the Witnesses still claim him as a predecessor, though they do insist they are not "Russellites." Further, the general idea that Russell became an opponent of the doctrine of eternal hell seems to be sustained by the above post.

Just did a cursory search, and discovered that The Watchtower Society continued to publish Russell's works until 1927, and in its early years did consider him to be "the faithful and wise servant" described in the gospels. If I am not mistaken, the organization took that mantle upon itself organizationally.

Independent groups have continued with Russell's teachings, ironically including one near me called the North Seattle Bible Students.

Suffice to say that Russell was a strong influence on the early formation of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Edited April 22, 2011 by prisonchaplain