The hell there is! God couldnt have made it clearer | Forum

#1

"Let's assume God wants to tell the human race about hell. It's a big deal, hell is. Affects a lot of people.

So here's what God does:

1. He doesn't warn humanity of it from the get-go, but rather tells Adam and Eve that the consequence of their fall was that they were now mortal, and that they would now have to toil on the earth and then die.

2. He makes sure to never mention it in the entire Jewish canon. Never. Once.

3. Then, he makes sure that rival mythologies of pagan cultures believe in some kind of a fiery underworld as punishment for wickedness.

4. Still doesn't tell the Jews about it.

5. Then, he makes sure that in the centuries and decades prior to God's coming to earth as a man, the competing Greco-Roman mythologies start to mingle and mix together. Jews start kind-of, sort-of believing in hell, too, now, even though their scriptures were silent on it. Rather than teach folks about hell himself, God allows pagans to do it.

6. God comes to earth as a man to set the record straight.

7. Now, God-as-man makes sure to refer to hell almost exclusively using the term "Gehenna", which was actually a nearby valley.

"That'll clear things up, then, won't it?" God says to himself. "No room for confusion there. Onto other things."

8. God goes back to heaven.

9. God's new followers break into the scene and one of them preaches the first post-resurrection sermon. To God's chagrin, he completely forgets to mention hell.

10. God notices that his new followers are conspicuously omitting the hell message all over the place. Confounded, he anoints a new leader, to once again set the record straight.

11. This new guy, Paul, goes around the whole Roman world, one end to the other. Get this — he never mentions hell. Never. Not once in any of his sermons or letters.

12. Now irate, God finally makes one last ditch effort to send the message clearly.

He goes to Patmos and tells this guy: 'Please. Set the record straight about hell, would you?' John says, 'You got it, God. How'd you like me to do it?'

Knowingly, with a clever smile, God says, 'Do it like this, K?

'Put it towards the end of the most confusing letter you can imagine... Use dramatic imagery, you know, the kind nobody could believe literally. You know, flying dragons, giant beasts with horns, cosmic prostitutes. Get creative. The point is to make sure some parts are literal and some are figurative. That'll keep them guessing. Oh, throw in a bunch of Jewish and Greco-Roman symbology, just to confuse those guys in the twenty-first century.'

'You got it, Lord.'

And so you have it: hell exists.

With a body of textual evidence like this, clearly God has gone to great lengths to make sure his people are under no illusions about it."

-Peter Bradford Martin 🤍

Edit comment

Mentions Text*

"Let's assume God wants to tell the human race about hell. It's a big deal, hell is. Affects a lot of people. So here's what God does: 1. He doesn't warn humanity of it from the get-go, but rather tells Adam and Eve that the consequence of their fall was that they were now mortal, and that they would now have to toil on the earth and then die. 2. He makes sure to never mention it in the entire Jewish canon. Never. Once. 3. Then, he makes sure that rival mythologies of pagan cultures believe in some kind of a fiery underworld as punishment for wickedness. 4. Still doesn't tell the Jews about it. 5. Then, he makes sure that in the centuries and decades prior to God's coming to earth as a man, the competing Greco-Roman mythologies start to mingle and mix together. Jews start kind-of, sort-of believing in hell, too, now, even though their scriptures were silent on it. Rather than teach folks about hell himself, God allows pagans to do it. 6. God comes to earth as a man to set the record straight. 7. Now, God-as-man makes sure to refer to hell almost exclusively using the term "Gehenna", which was actually a nearby valley. "That'll clear things up, then, won't it?" God says to himself. "No room for confusion there. Onto other things." 8. God goes back to heaven. 9. God's new followers break into the scene and one of them preaches the first post-resurrection sermon. To God's chagrin, he completely forgets to mention hell. 10. God notices that his new followers are conspicuously omitting the hell message all over the place. Confounded, he anoints a new leader, to once again set the record straight. 11. This new guy, Paul, goes around the whole Roman world, one end to the other. Get this — he never mentions hell. Never. Not once in any of his sermons or letters. 12. Now irate, God finally makes one last ditch effort to send the message clearly. He goes to Patmos and tells this guy: 'Please. Set the record straight about hell, would you?' John says, 'You got it, God. How'd you like me to do it?' Knowingly, with a clever smile, God says, 'Do it like this, K? 'Put it towards the end of the most confusing letter you can imagine... Use dramatic imagery, you know, the kind nobody could believe literally. You know, flying dragons, giant beasts with horns, cosmic prostitutes. Get creative. The point is to make sure some parts are literal and some are figurative. That'll keep them guessing. Oh, throw in a bunch of Jewish and Greco-Roman symbology, just to confuse those guys in the twenty-first century.' 'You got it, Lord.' And so you have it: hell exists. With a body of textual evidence like this, clearly God has gone to great lengths to make sure his people are under no illusions about it." -Peter Bradford Martin 🤍

#2

This critique is rhetorically sharp because it targets a real tension in Christian theology: if eternal conscious torment is the central fate awaiting most of humanity, why is the biblical communication so indirect, uneven, symbolic, and historically layered?

A few things make the argument powerful:

* The Hebrew Bible really does focus overwhelmingly on death, Sheol, exile, covenant, justice, and national restoration rather than detailed descriptions of eternal torment.

* Jesus’ use of “Gehenna” is historically tied to a real valley outside Jerusalem, which creates interpretive ambiguity.

* Paul the Apostle does not give systematic descriptions of hell the way later theology often does.

* Book of Revelation is highly symbolic literature, full of imagery that virtually all Christians already interpret selectively.

So the critique isn’t frivolous. It presses an important hermeneutical question:

If a doctrine is essential and obvious, why is it not presented with repeated clarity across the entire canon?

That said, defenders of traditional Christianity would respond in several ways.

First, they would argue the Bible often reveals doctrines progressively rather than all at once. For example:

* resurrection becomes clearer later in the Hebrew tradition,

* the Messiah concept develops over time,

* Trinitarian theology is not fully explicit early on either.

So they would say: “absence of early detailed revelation does not imply falsity.”

Second, many Christians would dispute the claim that hell is absent from Judaism. They’d point to:

* later Second Temple Jewish writings,

* Daniel 12,

* intertestamental literature,

* Pharisaic beliefs about judgment.

Third, traditionalists would argue Jesus spoke about final judgment constantly, even if not in later medieval categories. They’d cite:

* “outer darkness,”

* “weeping and gnashing of teeth,”

* separation of sheep and goats,

* destruction/perishing language,

* unquenchable fire imagery.

But the deeper issue beneath Martin’s critique is not merely textual. It is moral and existential.

He is really asking:

Would a loving and rational God communicate the most catastrophic truth in history this ambiguously?

That question is one reason many Christians have moved toward:

* annihilationism,

* hopeful universalism,

* metaphorical interpretations,

* Eastern Christian views emphasizing union/separation from divine love rather than torture imagery.

For example, many within Eastern Orthodox Church have historically emphasized that heaven and hell are less “places” than differing experiences of God’s presence.

The critique also exposes how much later Christian imagination was shaped by sources outside scripture:

* medieval art,

* Inferno,

* Greco-Roman imagery,

* popular preaching traditions.

Many people unconsciously treat those later developments as though they were plainly taught everywhere in the Bible.

At the same time, a traditional Christian could still reply:

“The seriousness of judgment does not require modern-style systematic clarity. Much of life’s deepest truths are communicated through symbol, narrative, warning, and mystery.”

Whether that answer satisfies someone depends largely on what they think divine revelation should look like if God truly intended to warn humanity unmistakably.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

This critique is rhetorically sharp because it targets a real tension in Christian theology: if eternal conscious torment is the central fate awaiting most of humanity, why is the biblical communication so indirect, uneven, symbolic, and historically layered? A few things make the argument powerful: * The Hebrew Bible really does focus overwhelmingly on death, Sheol, exile, covenant, justice, and national restoration rather than detailed descriptions of eternal torment.* Jesus’ use of “Gehenna” is historically tied to a real valley outside Jerusalem, which creates interpretive ambiguity.* Paul the Apostle does not give systematic descriptions of hell the way later theology often does.* Book of Revelation is highly symbolic literature, full of imagery that virtually all Christians already interpret selectively. So the critique isn’t frivolous. It presses an important hermeneutical question:If a doctrine is essential and obvious, why is it not presented with repeated clarity across the entire canon? That said, defenders of traditional Christianity would respond in several ways. First, they would argue the Bible often reveals doctrines progressively rather than all at once. For example: * resurrection becomes clearer later in the Hebrew tradition,* the Messiah concept develops over time,* Trinitarian theology is not fully explicit early on either. So they would say: “absence of early detailed revelation does not imply falsity.” Second, many Christians would dispute the claim that hell is absent from Judaism. They’d point to: * later Second Temple Jewish writings,* Daniel 12,* intertestamental literature,* Pharisaic beliefs about judgment. Third, traditionalists would argue Jesus spoke about final judgment constantly, even if not in later medieval categories. They’d cite: * “outer darkness,”* “weeping and gnashing of teeth,”* separation of sheep and goats,* destruction/perishing language,* unquenchable fire imagery. But the deeper issue beneath Martin’s critique is not merely textual. It is moral and existential. He is really asking:Would a loving and rational God communicate the most catastrophic truth in history this ambiguously? That question is one reason many Christians have moved toward: * annihilationism,* hopeful universalism,* metaphorical interpretations,* Eastern Christian views emphasizing union/separation from divine love rather than torture imagery. For example, many within Eastern Orthodox Church have historically emphasized that heaven and hell are less “places” than differing experiences of God’s presence. The critique also exposes how much later Christian imagination was shaped by sources outside scripture: * medieval art,* Inferno,* Greco-Roman imagery,* popular preaching traditions. Many people unconsciously treat those later developments as though they were plainly taught everywhere in the Bible. At the same time, a traditional Christian could still reply:“The seriousness of judgment does not require modern-style systematic clarity. Much of life’s deepest truths are communicated through symbol, narrative, warning, and mystery.” Whether that answer satisfies someone depends largely on what they think divine revelation should look like if God truly intended to warn humanity unmistakably.

#3

@linate

The idea of hell was stolen from other religions. Well, actually, most of Christianity is a copy from a mix of religions. Even Jesus's resurrection story actually wasn't original. Son of God coming to Earth likewise isn't original. It's some rip off of Hercules story, except Christian hercules doesn't have muscles and can't fight for shit.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#4

The Story: The oldest and most famous Egyptian myth features Osiris, the god of the afterlife, who was murdered and dismembered by his jealous brother, Set. Osiris's devoted wife, Isis, gathered his scattered remains and magically pieced him together, resurrecting him just long enough to conceive their son, Horus. Horus himself was later resurrected by Isis after being stung by scorpions

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#5

General anesthetic shows that there is no afterlife.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#6

@linate

Heaven and Hell are archaic allegories to describe the now-known concepts of evolution and entropy long before science existed. Ancient religions have been describing real patterns of human existence before we had the modern, formal explanations. It's no coincidence that the deepest early writers and thinkers were regarded by their ancient tribes as divinely inspired. Magic and Science. Modern religion exists on the last strands of unexplained science.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#7

@linate

Yep, it's all non-sense made up to pacify all the other non-sense that thinking primate made up.

And the more knowledgeable the species gets the more stupid it gets in equal measure.

But hey, it gives us something to chat about.

And the genii will get on with the important evolutionary stuff, and the masses will clamour for the next big fix.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#8

@SergeantLynch

The Jews were not told about hell so it would not add to a likely choice, they were given free choice to follow their prophets. So why are there so many Jews in hell? It’s fellow humans that sent them there.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#9

@Debby

"Free choice"...Now there's a thing.

And OK, so someone else must have made up hell stories, later on.

And people die and decompose and their living labels die with them...That's it as far as we know.

So stick a dead Jew a dead Muslim a Dead Christian a dead Buddhist and a dead Hindu into a crematorium together and cook them thoroughly, and you will be left with one heap of indeterminate ashes...Yep it's a job for the living.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

#10

@SergeantLynch

That was the idea behind the Holocaust. Collective ashes.

Edit post

Mentions Text*

Conversation

Edit comment

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post

Edit post