A logical explanation for why Hell is not literally fire and brimstone.


person0
 Share

Recommended Posts

ANSWER:  Because being fully and completely cut off from God and the Light of Christ is already the worst pain and torment that is possible.

During a sacrament talk today, the speaker was discussing how he explained the plan of salvation to a colleague who asked if Latter-Day Saints believe in Hell.  He did not address this particular issue, but I started pondering on the difference between our understanding of Hell and that of the traditional Christian world.

I started considering what would be a simple way to explain to someone why it is unnecessary to view Hell as a torment of literal fire and brimstone; this thought is what followed.  It rang very true to me and was, in a way, a small epiphanic moment, so I thought I'd share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Esoteric opinions to follow.

I like the theory that Hell is a black hole:

Outer Darkness

No Escape, except for Hawking Radiation which means anything that that goes in only comes out as radiation.

No one knows the fate of these Sons of Perdition.  Once you pass through the event horizon no one knows what is going on in there.

Not sure about fire and brimstone, but I assume the pressure from Gravity would be uncomfortable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Not sure about fire and brimstone, but I assume the pressure from Gravity would be uncomfortable.

They would still have perfect, immortal bodies and, from what we understand, should not experience physical pain.  As for the non-embodied, well, they would yet lack the capacity for physical pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Gravity sucked (<--see what I did there?), but Europa Report was released the same year and was actually quite good.

Dude Sandra Bullock.

Gravity was good, basic science and space walk photography was on point.  

 

Europa report was an hour worth of suspense with garbage science.  Space horror?  Nah

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite the opposite, my friend.

23 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Gravity was good, basic science and space walk photography was on point.

Gravity was an eye-rolling laugh-fest. In Gravity, low-earth orbit and outer space in general is just one big room. Their portrayal of Kessler syndrome (chain-reaction satellite destruction from debris) was not even close; apparently, the whole concept of orbitals was simply beyond the writers' wits. Sandra Bullock's entire reentry sequence was absurd, and nothing more than an excuse for what amounts to her soft-porn exit from the capsule. The movie was beautifully produced and had two very pretty costars, but scientifically speaking, it was a hot mess. On a science accuracy scale from one to ten, I'd give it a two. Possibly a three, no higher.

Quote

Europa report was an hour worth of suspense with garbage science.  Space horror?  Nah

The science in Europa Report was mostly spot-on, with only occasional lapses (e.g. "the temperature is absolute zero"—yeah, actually, that never happens, literally never). And the **SPOILER (select to see)** bioluminescent space octopus **SPOILER** was a bit of a weak ending point, but not at all unscientific. On a science accuracy scale from one to ten, I would give it a solid 8, maybe even a 9. In scientific rigor, only 2001: A Space Odyssey compares to it.

I will agree that their marketing Europa Report as a horror movie was a huge, bone-headed mistake. It should be noted that that was a studio marketing decision; the writers, director, and actors themselves never saw it as a horror flick, but more of an SF suspense film.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two toughts:

1:  being burned alive is one of the most (if not the most) painful way to die. now, doing that in fire and brimstone eternally is quite a strong picture for not being in God's precence. Only one who really despise God would wish for that

 

2:  It's indicated that Gehenna was used as a rubbish heap at the time of jesus. If it's true, a pile of waste burning day and night would make people think twice about risking being compared to that

 

 

Edited by Nordic saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mikbone said:

Esoteric opinions to follow.

I like the theory that Hell is a black hole:

Outer Darkness

No Escape, except for Hawking Radiation which means anything that that goes in only comes out as radiation.

No one knows the fate of these Sons of Perdition.  Once you pass through the event horizon no one knows what is going on in there.

Not sure about fire and brimstone, but I assume the pressure from Gravity would be uncomfortable.

 

I doubt that the habitation of the sons of perdition exists anywhere in this universe. All things that are created by God bear a degree of glory in their respective kingdoms. There would be no place for they who have no glory anywhere in these kingdoms.

 

It seems far more likely that their final habitat is in the expansive abyss of nothing outside of all creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nordic saint said:

2:  It's indicated that Gehenna was used as a rubbish heap at the time of jesus. If it's true, a pile of waste burning day and night would make people think twice about risking such a punishment

My understanding is that this is the origin (or at least the popularizer) of the "fire and brimstone" imagery associated with hell. I think it's meaningful that Dante represented Hell as a frozen icescape with Satan himself at its core, and that Brigham Young spoke of God's domain and the glory of His kingdoms as "eternal burnings".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

My understanding is that this is the origin (or at least the popularizer) of the "fire and brimstone" imagery associated with hell. I think it's meaningful that Dante represented Hell as a frozen icescape with Satan himself at its core, and that Brigham Young spoke of God's domain and the glory of His kingdoms as "eternal burnings".

It's quite interesting because Brigham Young's (and Joseph Smith's) descriptions COULD indicate what has been told that heaven for one person would be hell for another (eternal burnings vs fire and brimstone)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Moonbeast32 said:

Question: was Dante a poet or a mystic? Did he acknowledge his books as being a work of art, or did he try to pass them off as a literal experience?

Dante was no mystic. He never presented his Commedia as anything but his own work, the poetry of a devout believer. He wove all sorts of 13th-century political and religious references into his books, including placing a Pope and other religious leaders of the time firmly in Hell. It's a truly outstanding work, perhaps even inspired, but it's not some mystical production. Too bad that we miss many or most of the popular references and wordplay today. If you're not a 13th or 14th century Italian literate, a lot of the fun of the work will be lost on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
6 hours ago, Jedi_Nephite said:

My understanding is that the concept of Hell as a literal fire and brimstone originated from Dante’s Inferno.

It was before Dante, though he may have popularized it. Early Middle Age artwork (pre-Dante) sometimes portrays hell with fire.  So does early Islamic artwork.

Of course Revelation 19-21 makes several references to the lake of fire and brimstone, though when people started taking this literally is unknown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The doctrine of hell is difficult today. Perhaps this is a healthy correction to the preaching of decades past, in which ministers almost seem to enjoy describing the eternal torment of sinners. Still, Jesus' description in Mark 9 seems awfully...well awful. Also, Jesus' recollection of the fate of the rich man (vs. the beggar, Lazarus) is just too detailed to be taken figuratively. Even non-believers seem to accept that good people will receive reward and bad people punishment after death. Very few truly believe this life is all there is. So, the safest course would seem to be to take Jesus at his word, adhere to the warning, repent, and embrace God's plan of salvation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

The doctrine of hell is difficult today. Perhaps this is a healthy correction to the preaching of decades past, in which ministers almost seem to enjoy describing the eternal torment of sinners. Still, Jesus' description in Mark 9 seems awfully...well awful. Also, Jesus' recollection of the fate of the rich man (vs. the beggar, Lazarus) is just too detailed to be taken figuratively. Even non-believers seem to accept that good people will receive reward and bad people punishment after death. Very few truly believe this life is all there is. So, the safest course would seem to be to take Jesus at his word, adhere to the warning, repent, and embrace God's plan of salvation.

It is certainly a testament to the state of things that most people acknowledge some form of eternal consequences for actions in this life. The only thing I don't understand is why mainstream Christianity and most other abrahamic theologies fixate so much on the eternal punishment aspect.

There were many 1st generation members of the church of Christ who left their old sects because the ministers there seemed yo relish the thought of watching sinners suffer. 

 

Why do you suppose that is, @prisonchaplain? My upbringing had very little mention of Hell and damnation, do you have any insights that I may have missed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Moonbeast32 said:

Why do you suppose that is, @prisonchaplain? My upbringing had very little mention of Hell and damnation, do you have any insights that I may have missed?

During the Dark Ages hellfire scared people into behaving well, so authority encouraged such teaching. Even some of our less religious founding fathers believed that religion--Christianity in particular--was necessary for democracy to work. People had to have a reason to pursue the good. Modernity might have dampened the fear factor, but still, with rapid progression, most still accepted the notion that goodness should be rewarded and evil punished. Until the last century or so few questioned the righteousness of the death penalty, for example. Of course government must have the means to destroy evil! It is only with post-modernism that hell has come to be problematic. With our sense of right and wrong greatly diminished (after all, since there is no absolute truth, must we not pursue our own...but only for ourselves?), it no longer seemed proper to damn others to hell simply because we did not agree with their perception of religion. And so, quite a few religious entities have either openly abandoned belief in eternal punishment or allowed it to disappear via neglect. Christians of Evangelical and Fundamentalist stripes continue to teach/defend the doctrine, because of our pesky insistence that scripture is God's word and is mostly literal and mostly historical. Plus, we've always been adept at being counter-culture (just not in a hippy-ish sort of way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Just_A_Guy Ironically, the first time I heard that was from a Jehovah's Witness (they absolutely deny eternal punishment--teaching annihilation instead). Jesus tells of the rich man being in the fires of punishment, asking for a drop of water. He says, in Mark 9, that simply being murdered is not something to fear. Being punished by God, in hell, is. It's not sadism nor pride that drives today's teaching of hell. I'm in my 50s and have been thoroughly trained in post-modern thinking. I don't enjoy or feel comfortable about the doctrine of hell. It rubs against my grain. But I'm not God. I was not consulted when the New Testament was written. The passages seem literal to me. The story of the rich man and Lazarus read as Jesus' recollection--not as a parable. So, imho, the safe interpretation is the simple one--that those passages are mostly literal and mostly historical (or prophetic).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott
1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

The story of the rich man and Lazarus read as Jesus' recollection--not as a parable. So, imho, the safe interpretation is the simple one--that those passages are mostly literal and mostly historical (or prophetic).  

I guess it is possible, but my belief is that the passages are a parable.  Some Biblical scholars believe that Jesus was speaking out against the Pharisees using this parable, and I agree with them.

Let's take a look at the story and verses.

Luke 16:

19  There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:

20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

The first key and the audience to whom the parable was spoken to preceeds the actual parable.   The second key is the last sentence in the parable.

Let's take a look at the preceeding verses:

14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Notice that the Parisees were listening (and deriding) Jesus during this sermon.  Also notice that verse 14 says that the Pharisees were covetous and had their hearts set on riches (see verses 11-13 as well).  Other versions of the Bible translate verse 14 as "The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus", but the meaning is still the same.

In the parable Jesus was warning the Pharisees than they had their heart set on riches and had no compassion for those they considered to be lower than them.  

Also, at the end of the parable Jesus says the following:

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Jesus is prophesying that even if someone rose from the dead (such as Jesus would do in the resurrection), they still would not believe.   Also, Jesus also brought Lazarus of Bethany up from the dead which was a representation of things to come (that both were named Lazarus in both stories is probably not a coincidence).  The reason why Lazarus is mentioned by name in the parable and not the rich man is because the rich man is meant to represent the Pharisees.

The parable is a strong warning to the Pharisees or anyone else with a similar heart (including us in modern days).   

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Just_A_Guy Ironically, the first time I heard that was from a Jehovah's Witness (they absolutely deny eternal punishment--teaching annihilation instead). Jesus tells of the rich man being in the fires of punishment, asking for a drop of water. He says, in Mark 9, that simply being murdered is not something to fear. Being punished by God, in hell, is. It's not sadism nor pride that drives today's teaching of hell. I'm in my 50s and have been thoroughly trained in post-modern thinking. I don't enjoy or feel comfortable about the doctrine of hell. It rubs against my grain. But I'm not God. I was not consulted when the New Testament was written. The passages seem literal to me. The story of the rich man and Lazarus read as Jesus' recollection--not as a parable. So, imho, the safe interpretation is the simple one--that those passages are mostly literal and mostly historical (or prophetic).  

Whether the particular mode of suffering as portrayed in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was intended as a literal doctrinal exposition, or merely represented Jesus riffing off the common Jewish perception of hell that had already developed centuries before, is less certain to me.  Certainly I have no intention of trying to downplay the sufferings of hell, whatever they may be; and I’m not prepared to state that there’s no physical aspect to the sufferings of the damned (though I am inclined to disagree with the idea that God goes out of His way to make it extra-painful; I think it’s just a truth of existence that life without God *is* pain—and the more thoroughly we separate ourselves from His Self and love and virtues and truths and law and light, the less compatible our existence becomes with the well-ordered universe that God holds together and more tortuous our existence naturally becomes).

But frankly, from a practical standpoint I’m not convinced it’s particularly relevant.  Whether the suffering is physical, emotional, intellectual, existential . . . It’s clearly something to be avoided.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I thought the idea of hell as a place of burning went back to ancient Israel, when trash (and occasionally, human sacrifices) were burned in the Valley of Gehenna/Hinnom? 

You are correct.

4 hours ago, Nordic saint said:

a pile of waste burning day and night would make people think twice about risking being compared to that

3 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

So, the safest course would seem to be to take Jesus at his word, adhere to the warning, repent, and embrace God's plan of salvation.

I don't disagree that the imagery of fire and brimstone is an effective descriptor of eternal punishment.  Because of the abstract nature of the idea, I doubt we can ever truly comprehend what it is like to be completely cut-off from God in every way; hence, I think imagery is needful to get the message across.  Despite that, I think that such separation would most certainly be worse than burning alive for all eternity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, person0 said:

Despite that, I think that such separation would most certainly be worse than burning alive for all eternity

I don't think most mentions of hellfire are referring to the fate of the sons of perdition. Remember that there are so very few of them in this world.

Consider these verses from section 19:

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.

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

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink

20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

 

Contrast this with the harrowing decrees in 76:

33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come

38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath.

 

So it seems to me, that the traditional Christian view of going to hell after death is largely correct. They who do not repent must suffer, but not for all eternity. Eventually they will be redeemed unto a kingdom of glory.

I grew up thinking that we don't believe in hell except for a few exceptions. I was wrong, hell is very real, and quite common among men. But it isn't, as you put it, for all eternity. In this way, it can be likened to a fire that burns you alive because the fire will only burn until it has nothing left to burn, and then comes the ressurection.

Wether or not we go to hell is less of a concern to us as much as it is our concern what happens to us after hell. 

Edited by Moonbeast32
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Moonbeast32 said:

I don't think most mentions of hellfire are referring to the fate of the sons of perdition. Remember that there are so very few of them in this world.

The whole point of the OP is about a clear and concise, logical way of conveying to a mainstream Christian that Hell is not a litteral torment of fire and brimstone. Typically, one would likely not immediately dive into a discussion about the differences between Hell and Outer Darkness.

Edited by person0
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add onto my last post:

The suffering of hellfire is not everlasting, but it's purpose is to fulfill the demands of justice and cleanse us of our sins. The atonement and ressurection of Jesus Christ allows man to be redeemed to a kingdom of glory, elsewise the punishment really would last for all eternity, as is the case with those sons of perdition. After all, Jesus suffered and paid for all our sins, not just the ones we repented of. This redemption is not, and indeed cannot be stopped

Though hellfire purges sins, it does not change who you are. If you aren't capable of abiding the laws of a kingdom, then you cannot enter. That is why God prepared several different kingdoms of several different glories.

But there is only 1 celestial glory; only 1 kingdom in which our Father dwells. The sanctification of man that they may enter this kingdom is the true purpose of this life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share