(April 30, 2012 at 10:47 pm)Black Chakram Wrote: If people are willing, allow me to interject.
There are a lot of Christians (myself included), who view hell a little differently. When the Bible mentioned a "lake of fire", it's likely that what it was actually referring to was symbolism referring to an actual lake outside the Western gate of Jerusalem. This lake was surrounded by hills, upon which a number of pagan worshipers made sacrifices to their heathen gods. The light from their fires would reflect in the lake. This provided strong symbolism for the "lake of fire" being representative of a life devoted to heathen worship.
I personally don't believe that hell has anything to do with actual fire. After all, if God really took the mindset of saying, "You don't believe in me? Fine! Suffer for all of eternity!", He'd be pretty damn petty.
Instead, I take another view. Hell is a complete absence from God. Now, given that most Christians believe God is all around us, absence from Him would be pretty unpleasant. Hence the idea why hell is so bad.
...
So what about the people who've never heard of God/the Bible/etc? There are 2 ideas on that.
1) They go to hell because, after all, why hang out with some dude you've never heard of for all eternity?
2) They'll be given a chance to choose after death. i.e. jungle native dies, sees God, then says, "Ooooooh! You're the great spirit I've been worshiping that whole time? Dang! If I had known your name, I would have happily followed!"
You'll find a pretty solid split in the above point among Christians.
Fair enough, but the same arguments still apply, and this view still makes God look petty, as it still involves eternal suffering.
As to possibility 1, this seems completely unjust of God no?
As for number 2, can you support it biblically? And is it just? Why don't I get the same opportunity? I won't have a chance to know for sure god exists before I choose. According to the bible I have to choose now despite the lack of evidence.