Discussing Hell and Eternal Damnation

I refuse to believe that a loving God would send any of his children to eternal damnation in some made up fire pit.

Where is hell mentioned in the Bible? Before we get into the translation issue. Yes there are some Hebrew words that people translate to hell. The Hebrew word Sheol was sometimes translated to ‘hell’ but it sure doesn’t seem to have the connotation of a fiery pit of eternal damnation. Also in the early 1600s the King James Version translated a bunch of words to ‘hell’ where the Bible verses containing the word come from.

But let’s forget all that. We know God is eternally loving and merciful, would it make ANY sense for him to damn his creation? Or is it more likely that perhaps a purgatory type purification exists instead where our souls are purified through suffering depending on the severity of our sins?

Would any of you who have children damn them to eternal suffering? You wouldn’t, and God wouldn’t either.

There is no ‘hell’
This is by far one of the worst takes I've ever heard.

What's the point of any of the religious sacraments or even believing in God or acting in accordance within the Commandments ECT if we are good and there's not anything to worry about?

Why would Jesus come down to provide us salvation if Hades wasn't a thing?

God didn't damn us. He wants us to be good and live in a way that glorifies him. He knows that we are flawed, and has sent his son to die for us.

We still have free will to chose him or chose Worldly focuses.
 
I never knew that Pelagianism was condemned as a heresy in 418.

Anyways, the issue that Augustine faced with Pelagianism is the logical conclusion that if humans are not stained with original sin, then there is no need, theoretically, for the Church's sanctifying grace. Furthermore, if someone could be perfect without the Church, then there would be no need for Jesus's sacrifice because that person could be pleasing to God and worthy of heaven on his own. I don't see how the Orthodox position (which I still don't really understand, tbh) avoids that conclusion.

Additionally, I don't understand logically how you can still suffer the effect of original sin without being guilty of it. If you can, then it's unjust, as you are being punished for a crime that you didn't commit and bear no fault for. That's why in the Catholic dogma of Immaculate Conception, Mary (who was the only creature not born of original sin) did not suffer the pains of child birth and was assumed into heaven. Augustine and the Catholic Church realized, correctly, that it would be unjust to punish someone of original sin when she did share in its guilt.
If my mother and father are criminals, and wind up in jail.... I'm not guilty of their sin, but I suffer the consequences of their actions in being a foster kid or born into poverty. Same analogy here.

Forgive me, but Immaculate Conception is the self licking ice cream cone Catholics (namely though the Roman church) have to justify something that they developed outside of the beliefs of the rest of the Church at the time.

The whole point of Mary being chosen to carry the God-Man Jesus Christ is that she was pure, holy, and chose to live a life with out sin...not that she was born somehow different than the rest of us. Joachim and Anna were just like us, she was born just like us.

That's one of the things when I was in Catholic catechisms classes I couldn't square that made so much more sense once I found Orthodoxy.
 
The mystery imo is why must it be eternal? Why not eventually erase the existence of the wicked including all the evil angels?

Just spitballing here so forgive me if I'm off base, does Scripture actually support the idea that Hell is eternal torture? Revelation refers to the ultimate destination of the damned in the lake of fire as the "second death" which would seem to contradict that idea but maybe I am taking it too literally.
 
The mystery imo is why must it be eternal? Why not eventually erase the existence of the wicked including all the evil angels?
The classical answer you tend to get is that any sin is a transgression against an infinite being, therefore the punishment must be eternal.

While that may be true, I see a stronger argument to made in that there simply is no reason to believe that those in hell become repentant saints. They were in rebellion against God in this life, and they remain so in the next.
 
Can we even fathom "eternity"? No is the answer. Even the terms "existence" and "being" do we understand in our current, creature form. Since our mind's eye/heart is impure, even if it is somewhat clean and discerning (as in the Saints), we still only see a glimpse of what it is interact with realms that, let's just say, have less to do with "time".

Ultimately, what's the point in telling people that something is "eternal"? It's to get them to focus on aligning themselves with good and that is God, since there is something beyond this current state of affairs ("the world"), which is passing away. How do we align/unite ourselves to Christ? The Church guides us, looking to Christ as our example and Head ("the pioneer and perfecter of our faith" - Hebrews 12). That's all we really need to know.
 
The replies in this thread and the initial post are totally arrogant beyond belief. Do any of you know the will of God? No you don’t. I doubt any of you are theologians or priests either. Are you? So how can you speculate on who God will save and who he won’t? You can’t! So get out of here with this nonsense about good and bad takes on hell.

God will save who he wants. Period, end of story,
 
This is by far one of the worst takes I've ever heard.

What's the point of any of the religious sacraments or even believing in God or acting in accordance within the Commandments ECT if we are good and there's not anything to worry about?

Why would Jesus come down to provide us salvation if Hades wasn't a thing?

God didn't damn us. He wants us to be good and live in a way that glorifies him. He knows that we are flawed, and has sent his son to die for us.

We still have free will to chose him or chose Worldly focuses.

Then give up all your worldly possessions and money and choose him like St. Francis of Assisi. Your posts are very arrogant friend. The OP is probably way off base but I have not seen hell and neither have you. You and other members don’t know much better in deciphering God’s will or what hell is like or who God will save and who he won’t.
 
The replies in this thread and the initial post are totally arrogant beyond belief. Do any of you know the will of God? No you don’t. I doubt any of you are theologians or priests either. Are you? So how can you speculate on who God will save and who he won’t? You can’t! So get out of here with this nonsense about good and bad takes on hell.

God will save who he wants. Period, end of story,

The Bible, The Eastern Orthodox Church, The Roman Catholic Church, and most Protestant Churches all teach that those who repent towards God, believe in Jesus Christ, and get baptized will be saved.

God is the ultimate good and to fail to seek that for which is inferior, is a great sin. God will judge us all based on how we responded to the light we've be given. That's what I believe.
 
Last edited:
You and other members don’t know much better in deciphering God’s will or what hell is like or who God will save and who he won’t.
I'm with you on that. It always seems very off when I see people telling someone else they'll end up in Hell. We can't know that for sure, really for anyone, no matter how bad they might seem to us.

It reminds me of a scene from the Vikings tv show, one of my guilty pleasures. Ragnar Lothbrock seeks baptism from a Frankish bishop so that after his death he can see a Christian friend who was murdered by another Viking. The bishop recoils in horror, sternly telling Ragnar that he's destined for Hell, not Heaven. Ragnar replies "that...is not for you to decide."
 
Then give up all your worldly possessions and money and choose him like St. Francis of Assisi. Your posts are very arrogant friend. The OP is probably way off base but I have not seen hell and neither have you. You and other members don’t know much better in deciphering God’s will or what hell is like or who God will save and who he won’t.
No. That's a total cop out Absurd statement. I'm sure abandoning my 6 kids and wife is a great idea for my salvation.

Telling someone to take the route of an ascetic isn't necessarily a guaranteed path.

Fr. Seraphim Rose has some in depth writings and lectures on Assisi. We don't recognize him as a saint in the Orthodox Church...btw.

Here's the thing. You're correct we don't know God's will. He could save anyone for any reason. That said... Presenting an opinion and disagreement based off tradition of a set or rational doesn't mean you're arrogant.

I could just as easily say to you that we can't discuss anything since we aren't God, otherwise we sending arrogant to presume to know anything.

If you don't like how my posts read... Forgive me... But taking a firm stance based off a conviction or reasoning isnt arrogant... And sometimes being direct is the best way to point out a flaw for correction sake, especially when we are comparing individual takes on Hell to a Church Tradition.
 
The Bible, The Eastern Orthodox Church, The Roman Catholic Church, and most Protestant Churches all teach that those who repent towards God, believe in Jesus Christ, and get baptized will be saved.

God is the ultimate good and to fail to seek that for which is inferior, is a great sin. God will judge us all based on how we responded to the light we've be given. That's what I believe.

This is quite a reasonable belief friend and written with humility. Good post.
 
No. That's a total cop out Absurd statement. I'm sure abandoning my 6 kids and wife is a great idea for my salvation.

Sir you wrote this:

“We still have free will to chose him or chose Worldly focuses.”

It is not an ‘or.’ We can be from the world, but not in this world and put God first while living regular lives.

Telling someone to take the route of an ascetic isn't necessarily a guaranteed path.

Fr. Seraphim Rose has some in depth writings and lectures on Assisi. We don't recognize him as a saint in the Orthodox Church...btw.

So only the Orthodox saints count? Will the non Orthodox Christians be saved? Please tell me. Again you have no idea.

Here's the thing. You're correct we don't know God's will. He could save anyone for any reason. That said... Presenting an opinion and disagreement based off tradition of a set or rational doesn't mean you're arrogant.

Sir, you are correct. It is only my opinion from lurking here that some of your posts read like you are attempting to play an ‘alpha male’ from red pill ideology. In fact, many from the so called Ortho bro movement strike me the same way. It is simply a response to the mass feminization of males we see in our society, but the only real top dog male is Jesus Christ, not you or anyone else here.

I could just as easily say to you that we can't discuss anything since we aren't God, otherwise we sending arrogant to presume to know anything.

If you don't like how my posts read... Forgive me... But taking a firm stance based off a conviction or reasoning isnt arrogant...

Sir, your ‘firm stance’ may change on certain things with time or at worst lead to some sort of extremism. Discussion of hell not, since the OP seems totally off base with his assertion of Universalism.

And sometimes being direct is the best way to point out a flaw for correction sake, especially when we are comparing individual takes on Hell to a Church Tradition.

I agree that being direct on topics such as this where the poster seemed way off on the concept of hell you can be direct. But attempting to hit people who don’t agree with your stance with words like they are being punched in the face will not lead them to your side.
 
Sir you wrote this:

“We still have free will to chose him or chose Worldly focuses.”

It is not an ‘or.’ We can be from the world, but not in this world and put God first while living regular lives.

That's taking what I'm saying and not understanding the context of the meaning. You're arguing silly conclusions with out contextualizing. But since this is your 4th post... And I doubt you've investigated much the positions I'm coming from, let me explain:

Yes you live in the world... But prioritizing worldly pursuits at the expense of Christ and His Kingdom is wrong. That doesn't mean you can't live life well, give glory to God for all your blessings ECT.

I am pretty sure there's several biblical lessons about rich men and poor men. Maybe you can refer to them for context of what I'm getting at here.

So only the Orthodox saints count? Will the non Orthodox Christians be saved? Please tell me. Again you have no idea.
You told me to mirror St. Francis. I told you I don't accept him as a saint. You might as well have said "go live your life like Ghandi" to which I could take your absurd comment and say..."Go live like Ghengis Kahn" in both cases they were living out their values and faith. But in neither case do I accept them as spiritual examples applicable to me as an Orthodox Christian.

As far as salvation, as an Orthodox Christian, we believe that Faith is God, following the Sacraments of the Church, Repentance, and Good Deeds all lead to salvation. No one is saying God can't save someone outside the Church... Just we believe that the former is the way to salvation.

Sir, you are correct. It is only my opinion from lurking here that some of your posts read like you are attempting to play an ‘alpha male’ from red pill ideology. In fact, many from the so called Ortho bro movement strike me the same way. It is simply a response to the mass feminization of males we see in our society, but the only real top dog male is Jesus Christ, not you or anyone else here.
Nope... Not playing anything. Just calling em like I see them... I am hardly an OrthoBro. Again... No one is pretending that Jesus isn't the King (actually you might note that Christ is King is the name of the forum)

Sir, your ‘firm stance’ may change on certain things with time or at worst lead to some sort of extremism. Discussion of hell not, since the OP seems totally off base with his assertion of Universalism.
I have no idea what this means. So now if people disagree with your presentation it's Extremisim?
I agree that being direct on topics such as this where the poster seemed way off on the concept of hell you can be direct. But attempting to hit people who don’t agree with your stance with words like they are being punched in the face will not lead them to your side.
Did you consider that my audience might not be the individual? But other individuals reading the thread?

Here's the thing my friend... You're making a lot of claims about arrogance here whilst projecting to be some great debate teacher or thinking to be so arrogant to offer ME advice as though it's warranted or going to be well received.

I am simply not interested in your lecture of me...but I'd be happy to debate you on a point by point basis if that's what you'd like.

You've made a nonsense post about living like Francis of Asisi as though you had half an inkling of what I was speaking out by cherry picking context....then proceeded to accuse me of being an arrogant OrthoBro or imply that I'm playing a character. So no... I am not very interested in your attempts to batter down my argument with your non committal approach of saying "Because we are not God, we can't know anything" when in reality... We can know some things based off Faith/Tradition ect.


Thanks for catching up Mate!
 
Here's the thing my friend... You're making a lot of claims about arrogance here whilst projecting to be some great debate teacher or thinking to be so arrogant to offer ME advice as though it's warranted or going to be well received.
It's fine to have opinions on things. Get2choppaaa's point is that because we don't know everything does not mean that we don't know anything.

If that were true, there would be no point to "striving to live a Christian" life.

God will save who he wants. Period, end of story,

It is a speculation thread, but people can learn things from responses. You came out guns blazing and I'm not sure why - it was as aggressive as you claimed other were arrogant.

And God can't just do whatever He wants, because that's not who He is, otherwise he'd be like us flailing around down here trying to figure things out and "doing whatever we want".
 
Tattoos are probably the biggest red flag a woman can have. Probably even worse than being overweight (although not as gross of course.) I remember Roosh pointed out tattoos seem to seep into their soul.
I think the tattoos thing is very relative.

I don't like them ... But I do think there's a big difference between misguided woman whom make the mistake of getting crosses or Bible vs compared to women who get totally garbage tats like retarded Disney characters ECT.
 
Last edited:
Do Eastern Orthodox subscribe to Pelagianism? This isn't a rhetorical question btw. I honestly don't know. I'm only familiar with the traditional Catholic position (which is Augustinian-Thomism) and the position of the modern Catholic Church which seems to be implicitly endorsing a Pelagianism theology (via heretics like James Martin).
Officially no, but many Orthodox (both on the lay and clerical level) side with condemned Pelagian concepts against St. Augustine and our conciliar authorities in a number of ways. The videos from Fr. Panayiotis, on the Trisagion Films channel (which is otherwise great), are an especially egregious example of this unfortunate phenomenon.

We are either born saved until we sin at a later time (the absurd, incoherent idea promoted by Fr. Panayiotis and the condemned Pelagians) or we are born deprived of salvation until we are joined to Christ via Holy Baptism (the position affirmed by literally 100% of the Canons, Councils, Catechisms and Confessions - in the entire 2,000 year history of Orthodoxy - that have ever mentioned this topic in any way).

Many have sided with the Pelagians because of Romanides / Yannaras / Azkoul, but this is a modern anti-Orthodox movement that is thankfully getting a lot of pushback by those who trust the Saints and Councils over feelings and heresy. There’s a reason Fr. Panayiotis (or his social media team) have been deleting all the comments quoting Saints and Councils from the post about their newest video, and it’s not because those sources agree with them.
 
Last edited:
Note also that it is hard to say that humans are "guilty" for Adam's sin, since Christ is human. So you would have to then claim Christ isn't really human, or say he is also "guilty" or was guilty, which makes no sense.
We inherit Adam’s guilty nature, not his personal guilt. It’s more a sentence of “guilt” than personal culpability. Christ did not inherit Adam’s guilty / vitiated / damaged / fallen nature, since that is passed down through the normal manner of procreation (according to many Saints) and Christ was not conceived in the normal manner so He did not have either original or personal sin.

There is an excellent book called “Jesus, Fallen?” by Fr. Emmanuel Hatzidakis that is very long and detailed but also very worth the time and effort.
 
Back
Top