Hell, Hell, Hell, Hell, Life is what we dont have anymore of......

[riddle kat† 0]

Alright here's one, a very big one. Hell what's it like? What's there exactly? Is it our individual fears and pains and different for each of us or is it like silent hill? Aka the echo side? Is there venom soldiers there to make sure you're not getting any ideas there? Does it have hell hounds along the side of venom soldiers? You tell me.

 

 

venom soldiers: http://bestgamewallpapers.com/files/return-to-castle-wolfenstein/venom-soldiers.jpg Aka if u seen the silent hill movie you'll probably recognise these guys minus the guns

[riddle kat† 0]

You need to define "Hell" first.

 

Do you mean Sheol/Hades or do you mean Gehenna or do you mean the Lake of Fire or are you asking the fate of unbelievers after death and Judgement?

 

So' date=' let me know about what you're asking and I can try to help you with an answer.

[/quote']

 

 

silent hill like all rusty, dark, lonley, bloody, alone,

[riddle kat† 0]

Nothing like that in the bible so far as I've read' date=' so I can't help you. Sorry.

[/quote']

 

 

lol maybe there'll be another bible?

[Guest]

Deleted

Edited May 5, 2020 by Guest

[riddle kat† 0]

i thought it looked like this:

the venom soldiers r in there

[koshi† 0]

It's my personal opinion that Hell/Sheol/Gehenna/Lake of Fire is a metaphor for total annihilation. That doesn't mean it's any better than burning for eternity, and I'm not trying to sugar coat it. If anything, it might be better to burn forever, because then at least you would still exist and still be able to feel something at all.

 

Of course, there is absolutely no Biblical evidence for or against (that I can think of right now) my position. So keep in mind that this is all just my opinion and speculation. I'm not so sure of my position myself, but it doesn't negate or lessen the fact that we really need to be reaching the lost so they won't have to go there/be annihilated.

[riddle kat† 0]

i thought it looked like this:

the venom soldiers r in there

 

A boring' date=' mediocre game with poorly rendered cutscenes, choppy graphics, clunky controls, terrible writing, and insufferably bad acting... Probably not.

 

Maybe this is more like trailing a fishing line behind a slow-moving boat.

[/quote']

 

im talknig about the map silly nothing else more, like i said, rusty, bloody, very hot, lonley, sad, etc

[riddle kat† 0]

i thought it looked like this:

the venom soldiers r in there

 

A boring' date=' mediocre game with poorly rendered cutscenes, choppy graphics, clunky controls, terrible writing, and insufferably bad acting... Probably not.

 

Maybe this is more like trailing a fishing line behind a slow-moving boat.

[/quote']

 

im talknig about the map silly nothing else more, like i said, rusty, bloody, very hot, lonley, sad, etc

 

I think probably not.

 

 

 

 

okay than hell isnt all that bad !

[Flechmen 0]

I would think a floor made of fire would be far worse than a floor made of rusty steel

[DeltaK9 0]

Physical pain is something you'd get used to, but I'm sure Hell would be something far more than physical, so no.. Hell would be like.. hell.

[Flechmen 0]

I'm not even sure what this thread is about

[Hybrilynx† 0]

i dont feel like looking for the thread here but i really believe its just like what this guy said in, 23 Minutes In Hell Reference Edition

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/852697/23_minutes_in_hell_reference_edition/

[HuskyDog† 0]

I think when discussing "eternal" it would help to also note that it is not a place in our universe, so I would think that it would be eternal in the same way that God is eternal.

 

The way I look at hell is that it is a place of ultimate separation from God. Sin is the mechanism of this separation. I don't think hell has to be anything physical, but simply being separated from God completely would certainly be the highest form of punishment there is, as being one with God is the highest form of fulfillment there is.

[Wally Bear† 0]

I read the book, 23 minutes in Hell, and if what he described wasn't hell...then it's much much worse...

[riddle kat† 0]

I read the book' date=' [i']23 minutes in Hell[/i], and if what he described wasn't hell...then it's much much worse...

 

 

 

there is worse?

[Fahn† 0]

I posted a thread on the book already. Here is a video clip from MetaCafe of the author giving a sermon on what he saw in Hell. Whether an actual trip to Hell or a vivid dream its a place nobody would ever want to go.

 

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/852697/23_minutes_in_hell_reference_edition/

 

It's about an hour long, but you can skip through.

[riddle kat† 0]

I posted a thread on the book already. Here is a video clip from MetaCafe of the author giving a sermon on what he saw in Hell. Whether an actual trip to Hell or a vivid dream its a place nobody would ever want to go.

 

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/852697/23_minutes_in_hell_reference_edition/

 

It's about an hour long' date=' but you can skip through.

[/quote']

 

 

 

It's funny cuz i had a dream just like this though much differnt things are weridier things happened

[Jude 0]

I'm probably late to the party, but Reconciliationism and Annihilationism do not fall into orthodox Christian faith. Since Jesus left the work of the Kingdom to us Christians some 2000 years ago, we've generally only held to the view of conscious, eternal punishment as the destiny of the wicked. People who've believed that everyone gets saved in the end, or that the wicked go out of existence have been in the smallest minority.

 

The other two views are only "Biblical" if one fails to account for things that God has already showed us.

 

Hell is a real place that brings tears and celebration to anyone who has God's heart.

 

Tears because any suffering, especially that which could have been prevented should pierce our hearts with compassion. Celebration because hell is where God's Justice is complete, where sin is rightfully judged and condemned. The devil has spent all of history trying to overturn God's rule and hurt, destroy and pervert everything that God delights. He and everyone else who rebelled, really do fairly deserve hell.

 

Hell is more than separation from God, as horrible as that state of being would be in itself. But hell is also God's actively punishing and judging people for their sin.

 

We tell of the Gospel to keep people from going there, and we live our lives in a way to demonstrate that the penalty of hell has no claim over us anymore.

 

If you can't talk about hell with tears in your eyes, pleading with people not to go there by grabbing hold of God's provision and grace, then it's very likely you don't quite understand heaven.

[HuskyDog† 0]

Foxbunny, any commentary on the usage of "Earth" as a synonym for hell? I forget where in the Bible that falls, but I believe it had to do with Satan being cast to Earth for having rejected God. It was always an interesting wording and has led me to muse about how hell could be here on Earth, in a sense, and what the ramifications would be. Do you know to what I am referring (and can get the passage) and do you have any thoughts on that?

[Jude 0]

As much as it is important to delineate between the intermediate state and the eternal state, it's just as important to realize that once you're in one place or another, you're "set." If a person dies and ends up in the present heaven, they'll be looking forward to the Eternal Heaven (the New Earth). If a person dies and ends up in the present hell, they'll end up in the Lake of Fire when the eternal state begins.

 

That being said, I was being as sloppy in order to be brief. Generally whenever I talk about Heaven or Hell, I'm referring to the Eternal states not the intermediate states we have now.

[HuskyDog† 0]

Foxbunny' date=' any commentary on the usage of "Earth" as a synonym for hell? I forget where in the Bible that falls, but I believe it had to do with Satan being cast to Earth for having rejected God. It was always an interesting wording and has led me to muse about how hell could be here on Earth, in a sense, and what the ramifications would be. Do you know to what I am referring (and can get the passage) and do you have any thoughts on that?

[/quote']

 

Other than post-modern ideas I'm not familiar with a biblical reference.

 

Maybe you're thinking of Luke 10:17-20?

"The seventy-two returned with joy, saying, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name!" And he said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing shall hurt you. Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.""

 

If this is the one you're thinking of I don't think that this was a "casting out" of Satan, but more of a symbolic way of saying "Yeah, dudes! I know. You did great. I totally saw the enemy get scared." (I don't know why I wanted to write it like that.)

 

Now that I'm at a computer (was posting from my phone and the battery died immediately after the post was made), I had the opportunity to try and Google the passage. I believe that what I was thinking of is in Isaiah 14, and Ezekiel 28.

 

(Note: For easy copy-paste, I grabbed them from the NIV translation, on biblegateway.com.)

 

From Isaiah 14:

12 How you have fallen from heaven,

morning star, son of the dawn!

You have been cast down to the earth,

you who once laid low the nations!

From Ezekiel 28:

17 Your heart became proud

on account of your beauty,

and you corrupted your wisdom

because of your splendor.

So I threw you to the earth;

I made a spectacle of you before kings.

 

And this appears to be about Lucifer (which may be deemed relevent to the Lucifer thread). Curious about what the footnotes say in my Bible, I looked them up. Regarding Isaiah 14:12, it says: "Morning star: the king of Babylon. The Vulgate has "Lucifer," a name applied by the church Fathers to Satan. It doesn't have a note for Ezekiel 28:17.

[Jude 0]

I was actually talking about the difference between different words used for hell' date=' not eternal versus temporal concepts. Hades and Sheol are both used for hell, Tartarus (or Tartaroo), the Lake of fire, Gehenna etc.[/quote']

 

I understand that, but you'd have to go over again why the differences are relevant. Acknowledging that there are different words that carry different nuances is important for gathering the historical concept, but I'm not seeing how it's crucial to this particular discussion.

 

 

I have no problem with the eternal punishment concept, but I don't think that's the only possible view.

 

Also views on hell have varied throughout church history. It's just that it is an "err on the side of caution" issue.

 

I will agree with you about erring on the side of caution. However, the churches view on hell has not really varied at all. It's only been in the last 200 years or so that views have "varied" but that comes from other cultural movements influencing people, and not necessarily from God bringing things to light.

 

The basics of eternal, conscious punishment has always been held as orthodox, while the other views have been seen as anywhere from heresy to being somewhat in error.

[HuskyDog† 0]

I think that it makes sense. I did read through the beginning of the chapters and I would agree with you on that. Though now I am curious, why does tradition have Lucifer associated with Satan?

[Jude 0]

I think that it makes sense. I did read through the beginning of the chapters and I would agree with you on that. Though now I am curious' date=' why does tradition have Lucifer associated with Satan?

[/quote']

 

The Hebrew has helel ben-shakhar, (“Helel son of Shachar”). Helel was the name they gave to the planet Venus in the sky. When this was translated to Latin years later, they used one of the Latin names for the planet - Light Bringer, Lucifer.

 

The wiki article on Lucifer is surprisingly balanced.

 

A lot of times when we read the Bible, we're hundreds of years and thousands of miles separated from the local contexts that God used to communicate exactly what he wanted. So just looking "plainly" at the text, or importing our modern ideas into the text is a bad idea. This is the Word of God, and with some study, with the legacy of the Church and with the Holy Spirit, we can get to the meaning of the passage.

 

So what is the deal for the imagery in verses here? Well the whole section is directed to the king of Babylon and it's pointed out and displayed that this king is most definitely a human ruler. Other kings talk to him, he is called "the man" and he has a physical body.

 

But the imagery in those three verses have led some to see that more than "meets the eye" here. We may not realize it in the 21st century United States, but this passage draws almost exclusively from Canaanite mythology, and is an example of the "taunt song" of Ancient Middle East cultures.

 

There's a myth of Helel, a demigod at best, who tried to take over Zaphon - the assembly of the gods that took place on their mountain. He failed and instead he was cast down into the Underworld. This king of Babylon is being being taunted for having similar aspirations and frustrations.

 

It's only been tradition and our human desire to "explain" the devil that associated the Isaiah passage with him. But there's nothing immediately here, that says that this is the devils story. (Though given what we do know about him and his future judgment, and also given that associating this passage with the adversary happened very early in church history, something like this probably did happen in a way.)

[HuskyDog† 0]

I think that it makes sense. I did read through the beginning of the chapters and I would agree with you on that. Though now I am curious' date=' why does tradition have Lucifer associated with Satan?

[/quote']

 

The Hebrew has helel ben-shakhar, (“Helel son of Shachar”). Helel was the name they gave to the planet Venus in the sky. When this was translated to Latin years later, they used one of the Latin names for the planet - Light Bringer, Lucifer.

 

The wiki article on Lucifer is surprisingly balanced.

 

A lot of times when we read the Bible, we're hundreds of years and thousands of miles separated from the local contexts that God used to communicate exactly what he wanted. So just looking "plainly" at the text, or importing our modern ideas into the text is a bad idea. This is the Word of God, and with some study, with the legacy of the Church and with the Holy Spirit, we can get to the meaning of the passage.

 

So what is the deal for the imagery in verses here? Well the whole section is directed to the king of Babylon and it's pointed out and displayed that this king is most definitely a human ruler. Other kings talk to him, he is called "the man" and he has a physical body.

 

But the imagery in those three verses have led some to see that more than "meets the eye" here. We may not realize it in the 21st century United States, but this passage draws almost exclusively from Canaanite mythology, and is an example of the "taunt song" of Ancient Middle East cultures.

 

There's a myth of Helel, a demigod at best, who tried to take over Zaphon - the assembly of the gods that took place on their mountain. He failed and instead he was cast down into the Underworld. This king of Babylon is being being taunted for having similar aspirations and frustrations.

 

It's only been tradition and our human desire to "explain" the devil that associated the Isaiah passage with him. But there's nothing immediately here, that says that this is the devils story. (Though given what we do know about him and his future judgment, and also given that associating this passage with the adversary happened very early in church history, something like this probably did happen in a way.)

 

I think that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for explaining that. Do you have any links to further reading, or is the Wikipedia article enough, in your opinion (as you did reference it)?