Most people are going to Hell

[jlf9999]

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.

Maybe some folks don't exercised about it because they don't believe a just God would keep them out just because of the "normal" life they have lived. Do you suppose that the lack of religious upbringing causes that or is there something else?

[jlf9999]

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 ....

I don't want to get too far into the weeds here about JW's but are you saying they resemble LDS thought on the matter? If so, that isn't what I understood JW's to believe. It seems I recall they believe there will only be 144,000 who are saved or go to heaven and the rest will have to find shelter elsewhere. Fix me up if I have gone astray there partner. :)

Edited April 22, 2011 by jlf9999

[ResLight]

I don't want to get too far into the weeds here about JW's but are you saying they resemble LDS thought on the matter? If so, that isn't what I understood JW's to believe. It seems I recall they believe there will only be 144,000 who are saved or go to heaven and the rest will have to find shelter elsewhere. Fix me up if I have gone astray there partner. :)

I am not sure exactly what is being asked as related to what I had stated. I studied the LDS literature many years ago but do not remember now exactly what the LDS thought is concerning the 144,000, the twelve tribes, the great multitude, Sheol/Hades and Gehenna, or the second death.

I am not with the JWs, but what Russell taught and what the JWs teach are not the same, and my beliefs, although very close that of Russell, are not exactly the same as that of Russell in all details, and my views are certainly a lot different from that of the JWs.

Russell taught that hades/sheol is the condition described in Ecclesiastes 9:10, which is the result of the condemnation of death that is in Adam. (Romans 5:12-19) He believed that Gehenna represents a second condemnation, that is, the second death, for which there is no ransom provided. He did not believe in any eternal conscious suffering of dead humans at all; he believed that the dead are dead and not conscious of anything while they are in the condition of sheol/hades. Those who receive the second condemnation are also oblivious, but for eternity, since there is no ransom provided for them.

The JWs believe similar, except that they would condemn many of the world to Gehenna who have never been released from the first condemnation in Adam, and who are still blinded by Satan, thus denying that they need to be enlightened and given opportunity by such enlightenment to obey. Not only this, they teach that children of such will be eternally destroyed without ever being enlightened. This is a major difference from Russell; indeed, it ends up presenting a message that is almost the opposite of that which Russell presented.

Russell taught that Adam and all who are dying in Adam are ransomed and will be enlightened before being finally judged as to worthiness of life or eternal destruction.

The JWs teach that Adam was not ransomed (which, in effect, negates the whole basis of the ransom sacrifice), and they further teach that not all who are dying in Adam are ransomed. Rutherford began introducing such doctrine in 1923; by 1929 he denied the basis of the ransom sacrifice by saying that Adam was not ransomed. He later, in effect, declared that all outside of his organization would be eternally destroyed in Armageddon. Oddly enough, the JWs claim that past generations will be raised in the resurrection of judgment, while the present generation, although under greater influences of deception than ever before in history, are now being judged as to whether they are worthy to live forever or to be eternally destroyed even thought they are still blinded by Satan.

Russell showed from the Bible that Adam did not lose life in heaven, but rather life on earth, and therefore, the ransom sacrifice provides only for what Adam lost, that is, life on earth. Thus, Russell believed that most of mankind will be raised in resurrection, not with spiritual bodies, but rather with physical, earthly bodies.

Russell concluded that the 144,000 as well as the great multitude are exceptions (he seemed not too sure about identifying the twelve tribes of Revelation 7); he believed that both of these groups -- the 144,000 and the great multitude -- would receive spiritual, celestial bodies in the resurrection. (His perspective led him to this conclusion; I differ in that I believe that the sons of God of this age are accounted life on the terrestrial plane until they attain the goal of the prize of the high calling; then they are accounted life on the celestial plane, and if they fail to attain that goal in this age, they are pictured either of the 12 tribes or the great multitude; the 144,000 sealed out of the 12 tribes gain the prize to rule as joint-heirs with Christ on heavenly Mt. Zion are pictured in Revelation 7 and 14 as 144,000. I believe that the remainder of the church pictured in the 12 symbolic tribes and the great multitude do not gain that prize of the high calling, and that thus, they continue to be accounted life on the terrestrial plane, not on the celestial plane.)

Russell believed that the church existed amongst all of the denominations that profess Christianity. He was not threatening people with a message of join us or be eternally destroyed as Rutherford did. Indeed, his message was that once the present subjection to vanity has done its work, God was about to bless all peoples -- both living and dead.

The JWs believe that the 144,000 are those who go to heaven, and all others that they judge to be worthy of life will receive life on earth. They believe that the last members of the 144,000 are in their organization, and they they constitute the faithful and discreet slave class, and that one has to come to that faithful and discreet slave if they wish to be saved from the coming eternal destruction. (Russell did not teach this.) Likewise, the JWs claim that the "great multitude" of Revelation are within their organization, and that these all survive Armageddon to live in new earth. Their publications generally confuse the 12 tribes of Revelation 7 with the 144,000 as though there were only 12,000 in each tribe, whereas in reality, the scripture shows that there 12,000 sealed out of each of the twelve tribes.

I have tried to present this as briefly and as clearly as I can, and I am not sure if this fully clarifies matters or not, as I have presented three sets of beliefs, or viewpoints, that of Russell, myself (which is very close to that of Russell's), and that presented by the JWs.

Christian love,

Ronald

[ResLight]

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.

Yes, independent groups in Russell's day studied Russell's works, and independent groups continued to study Russell's works after Rutherfordformed his organization that sought to take away the independence of the independent groups. Most of those who had been associated with the independent groups of Bible Students in the days of Russell rejected Rutherford's new organization. Thus, as a whole, the Bible Students movement, which was comprised of independent congregations in many countries, continued their business without subjecting themselves to the claimed rulership of Rutherford. In order to distinguish his new organization from the general Bible Students movement, in 1931 Rutherford had his followers adopt the name "Jehovah's Witnesses".

[jlf9999]

We don't study this stuff because it doesn't relate to us directly. Maybe we should be a bit more concerned because it is important to people who are important to us. But just to complete the thought, LDS theology teaches that all of had a pre-mortal existence with God the Father. we grew from an infant spirit to a mature spirit and then were placed on the earth in order that we learn some things we could not learn in His perfect sinless environment. Coming here however meant that in a sinful state we could not return to Father. Therefore someone would have to save us. Christ did that. But what He did was save us from eternal damnation allowing all of us to resurrect. However, we would resurrect to s a preparatory place, not the perfect home of Father. That place, spirit prison, is a place of separation. Separation means separation from God which is hell. Just like on earth Christ has set out missionaries to teach all who never heard of the gospel a chance to learn of Him and either accept or reject His gospel. But each will have an equal opportunity to learn and decide for himself. Not everyone will agree. And all will do so at his own pace. Some have also by their actions, chosen Satan and will be consigned to live in outer darkness with Satan and his followers.

In the end, each person will be assigned or allowed to choose one of three kingdoms, glories or places. Each is a sphere of existence or heaven where he feels most comfortable. The lowest of these places or kingdoms is where the inhabitants will never see Christ or God the Father in person again. They are those who were the liars, whore mongers, murderers and so forth. Without either God or Christ is considered hell in its final form except for those in outer darkness who have it worse.

The next or middle kingdom is for those who knowingly rejected the gospel in life but accepted it after death and those who knowing rejected it after death too.

Only in the highest kingdom can inhabitants live with God the Father and Christ. In both of the other two, there is certain pain and suffering the inhabitants will endure for eternity because they made their choices and have to live with them. That is its own kind of hell even in the best of the two lower places. They will only be allowed the ministering of Christ but not God the Father.

Edited April 23, 2011 by jlf9999

[ferretrunner]

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.

Then maybe Hell isn't all evil. I know a lot of non-Christians who are more good and just than some who profess Christian faith. I think that's the hard part for me. Why would good people be punished along with the truly evil? Not to mention, there's a lot of people who have done truly evil things who get to go to heaven because they "believe." How is that just?

[jlf9999]

Then maybe Hell isn't all evil. I know a lot of non-Christians who are more good and just than some who profess Christian faith. I think that's the hard part for me. Why would good people be punished along with the truly evil? Not to mention, there's a lot of people who have done truly evil things who get to go to heaven because they "believe." How is that just?

Well sir, that isn't LDS teaching. There is a very definite hell and it is eternal and earthly affiliation or accident of birth has nothing to do with it. People earn a spot. They don't get an invitation without knowing full well what the consequences of their choices are and yet they make the choice anyway. There is no literal fire and brimstone but confinement there has the same effect. It is not God choosing certain people for a ticket in advance of their birth as some speculate.

Edited April 23, 2011 by jlf9999

[prisonchaplain]

Then maybe Hell isn't all evil. I know a lot of non-Christians who are more good and just than some who profess Christian faith. I think that's the hard part for me. Why would good people be punished along with the truly evil? Not to mention, there's a lot of people who have done truly evil things who get to go to heaven because they "believe." How is that just?

I return to my basic premise about God's nature. He is good and just. "Good people" will not inhabit hell. Perhaps some people that mostly behaved well will. However, considering the nature of hell, those in it have a core of rebellion in them that is eternally punish-worthy. Also, many who claim to believe in grace alone, will find that they never knew Jesus. So, the idea that jerks "who said the prayer" will be overrunning heaven, while saintly agnostics will suffer eternal torment is inaccurate. God does know what He is doing. If I am right about hell, it will be just. So, my question is not how can God do such a thing, but "Is this what the Bible teaches?" If it does, I can accept it, being confident that whatever "it" ultimately is, will comport with God's nature.

[bcguy]

That is gods domain!

It is written, that anyone man who judges another man, ye he be judged to. When Jesus came across a small collection of men standing next to a woman who was about to be stoned, he said "Ye who have sinned, toss the first stone" They all dropped there stones because ALL mankind has sinned.

[bcguy]

Just because we have a atheist or, non church member needed me to replace electrical outlets and I could not finish it on a Saturday, does not give my wife a right to tell me to finish them because one of the board members in our complex wanted me to do them. she said, "its a service to our complex. Yes you volunteer to get that unit ready for occupancy, but it is still a service." It is not a service! it is work on a Sunday. Besides, its not paid work we as a co-op try to keep the cost down by doing our own work, other then hiring contractors.

Anyone ever have some member who tried to substantiate something like this? Especially on one Easter?

[pam]

Just because we have a atheist or, non church member needed me to replace outlets and I could not finish it on a Saturday, does not give my wife a right to tell me to finish them because one of the board members in our complex wanted me to do them. she said, "its a service to our complex. Yes you volunteer to get that unit ready for occupancy, but it is still a service." It is not a service! it is work on a Sunday. Besides, its not paid work we as a co-op try to keep the cost down by doing our own work, other then hiring contractors.

Is this really a question about doing this on Sunday? Or is it another attempt to poke jabs at your wife. Did you want us to say you are correct so you could go back to her and say see?

Your posting history clearly shows your attempt to discredit your wife in any way possible and to have you made out to be the victim.

Frankly it's getting old.

[Traveler]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Thank you for your kind considerations - allow me to summerize from your statements:

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.

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.

You have framed his nature or concern for self as sin nature. This framing, I believe, causes you to misunderstand the question. I would submit that G-d - as in the example of Jesus and Jesus being our example of G-d - did indeed wrestle with his own nature with great agony in Gethsemane and that he submitted his will for a greater good as recorded in Luke 22:42.

You can say his nature is just and good but that does not conform to what the scriptures testify. Thus I submit that even G-d must sacrifice his will to fulfill all righteousness. If Jesus - being the example of G-d had no nature to consider self then the testimony of Luke chapter 4 that Jesus was tempted of the devil is a lie and in reality it would not have mattered if Jesus did nor did not respond to the devil - The truth is that such a thought tat will and justice and good are all the same then the temptation would not be real but a false fabrication of reality. But if G-d must himself submit to what is good and just and resist the temptations of the devil despite his will - then much more need we all; if we would live happily with him in his kingdom. This may seem like a small point but I believe it to be a most important point that if not understood - then we do indeed understand G-d differently.

The Traveler

Edited April 24, 2011 by Traveler

[slamjet]

Just because we have a atheist or, non church member needed me to replace electrical outlets and I could not finish it on a Saturday, does not give my wife a right to tell me to finish them because one of the board members in our complex wanted me to do them. she said, "its a service to our complex. Yes you volunteer to get that unit ready for occupancy, but it is still a service." It is not a service! it is work on a Sunday. Besides, its not paid work we as a co-op try to keep the cost down by doing our own work, other then hiring contractors.

Anyone ever have some member who tried to substantiate something like this? Especially on one Easter?

I would answer that you and your wife have communication problems. Does your "wife have the right" to tell you anything? Yea, you're her husband. I would hope she would tell you a lot of things. This is an issue that would have been dealt with many moons ago if you two actually talked to each other rather than fight over who is the one with real "supposed" authority.

Thus, like in a real marriage, you two need to work it out amongst yourselves.

[prisonchaplain]

Traveler...I guess we do differ. Jesus struggle on earth was with the human flesh he took upon himself. He became human completely--and so wrestled with the same temptations we do. In this struggle, He was not here to represent the Father's eternal struggle with temptations and passions, but rather the Father's love and desire to be reconciled to us. He was fully God, yet fully human. He struggle against the temptation to self-preservation and sheer avoidance of pain and death was his human nature raging against his godly mission.

If you understand the Heavenly Father to be in an eternal struggle against his own selfish passions and desires, then we do indeed perceive him differently.

[Traveler]

Traveler...I guess we do differ. Jesus struggle on earth was with the human flesh he took upon himself. He became human completely--and so wrestled with the same temptations we do. In this struggle, He was not here to represent the Father's eternal struggle with temptations and passions, but rather the Father's love and desire to be reconciled to us. He was fully God, yet fully human. He struggle against the temptation to self-preservation and sheer avoidance of pain and death was his human nature raging against his godly mission.

If you understand the Heavenly Father to be in an eternal struggle against his own selfish passions and desires, then we do indeed perceive him differently.

Again it is your framing - Jesus is the example of G-d. He said that he does only what he was sent to do and that he has seen the Father do. Then too man is also the image and likeness of G-d. It is fallen man that is the enemy of G-d. And Jesus was never a partaker of the fall.

The point is that Jesus never had a "fallen" nature. His struggle with temptations and the agony of Gethsemane are nothing that any man has or even can endure. To say that such agony was because of his human nature cannot be accurate because no man could ever do such a thing. To attribute such a great sacrifice to anything human appears to be an error to me. There are hints in scripture that even the Father suffered and made sacrificed of his Son (which was the type and shadow of all ancient sacrifices of the firstlings of animals upon the alter of the temple).

For G-d so love the world that he gave his only begotten son. Thus the point is that the agony of Jesus was real and that even the very nature of G-d was brought to agony to suffer in a manner that no man can suffer. But the other point was that Jesus overcome and submitted his nature to the test brought on by the agony. In overcoming he was no longer held by the wages of sin but put all things into subjection - both for him and mankind. Thus showing that even G-d must submit to righteousness to fulfill what is necessary for good to prevail and for the salvation of man. If it were not so then Jesus would not have needed to submit even his divine nature to take upon himself agony and suffering - which he would not have done except that man is lost forever.

This discussion has been most interesting. I am beginning to understand why Evangelicals cannot believe that man can ever transcend from temptation and have power over sin, the same as Jesus transcended above sin by subjecting himself and his nature to a greater cause. Therefore because our basic nature cannot change and transend, man will remain forever separate from G-d and Jesus’ divine nature was not really present at Gethsemane but only his un-G-dly human and un-divine nature.

The Traveler