Hell does NOT exist in the bible?

[Drich]

Hell is describes as a bottomless pit. Here: luke 8, luke 16, rev 9, rev 17. Bottomless pits are by nature dark.

Since humanity has never encountered a bottomless pit only very deep pits on the Earth that are mistakenly called "bottomless", how can we make assumptions about their nature?

Seems like you are just making individual interpretations here based on no real factual data. Like most Christians do about many aspects of their religion.

This is why there are so many denominations.

Read Jude 1 It says the pit was beyond dark and bottomless.

[Esquilax]

Hell is describes as a bottomless pit. Here: luke 8, luke 16, rev 9, rev 17. Bottomless pits are by nature dark.

Hell has fire as per these verses. Mat 5 and 18, mark 9, James 3, Jude 1(also describes hell being a dark place.)

Fire as we know it produces light. Hell is described as a bottomless pit, and yet has fire. This fire is not the typical fire that we know because the fire we know produces light. So this fire, hell fire is different.

Actually, according to Genesis, light is separate from its sources; given that night and day were created before the sun that causes them, it'd kind of have to be. So it's equally biblically consistent to say that it's the same kind of fire, just lacking the light.

Incidentally, since a bottomless pit could, by definition, never have enough light in it to fully illuminate it, it's entirely possible for light producing fire to be present, yet for it still to be dark. Want an experiment? Go outside at night and light a match: you've got some light, but it's still dark out, right?

And all that is just ignoring the fact that you're taking the single potentially confirmed way in which this fire is different from regular fire, and then assuming, based on that single data point, that it's also different in a bunch of other ways that you haven't justified. You actually do this a lot, taking verses that possibly confirm a single aspect of a larger claim you're making, and then assuming that because that single thing is consistent, the rest must be too. It's more than a little dishonest.

[Rahul]

Incidentally, since a bottomless pit could, by definition, never have enough light in it to fully illuminate it, it's entirely possible for light producing fire to be present, yet for it still to be dark. Want an experiment? Go outside at night and light a match: you've got some light, but it's still dark out, right?

Naw. If you take say a bottomless pit as big around as a basketball and the walls are coated with some kind of flammable substance, it would be a burning ring of fire all the way down.

I think we need to start a scientific study of burning bottomless pits before we can continue this discussion.

[Tonus]

No one has been to hell and no one has or could prove that there is a hell.. why believe something with no prooooooof.

I know how you can find out for yourself if you like.. However it may only be a one way ride.

"may"?

[Angrboda]

I understand why you do it, it makes the conversation safe for you. You know your version of Hell can not exist therefore you can argue from a safe area. Why else would you put such tight parameters on the subject?

I put such "tight" parameters because dreams and the inferential logic of twat brained morons are fundamentally unreliable as a guide to truth.

And you don't have the first fucking clue what makes me tick, so stop lying and claiming that you do. You know shit about my thinking because you don't think at my level. You can't understand my thinking because you can't understand in the way that I do. And your claiming you do is just more bullshit lies and head games from you.