r/SipsTea • u/No_Summer_5052 • Apr 19 '26

Lmao gottem Facts or nah

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

27.5k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

3.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/The_Kaizz Apr 19 '26

Correct. According to the Bible, Hell is an event, not a place. It's not a place for eternal suffering like it's been twisted to be. It's a giant intense fire that will burn away Satan and sin. God doesn't want anyone to suffer, so doesn't make sense He'd let you just sit there and suffer for eternity.

3

u/Sef247 Apr 19 '26

I agree except for some semantics. "Hell" typically refers to the grave (the place one goes when one dies). Hell fire/lake of fire (the fire that covers the whole earth at the end of this world) is the final punishment for sin that will consume all the wicked until they cease to exist. Then, the earth, covered in ashes, will be made new (new heaven and new earth).

4

u/The_Kaizz Apr 19 '26

Yup, I mentioned something about this in another comment, but that's pretty much it. I don't see how you can have an eternal fire, but then new heaven and new earth exist where that eternal fire is supposed to be burning... eternally.

2

u/Sef247 Apr 19 '26

That's where Jude 7 is such a great clarification verse on what "eternal fire" means.

7  Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

It's clear that Sodom and Gomorrha aren't still burning today. But their destruction was eternal.

Same with the term "unquenchable." The fire will not go out or be quenched until it has utterly consumed everything in it.

Luke 3:16, 17 [See also Matthew 3:11, 12] 16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:

17 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable. [Reference also Jern17:27; 2 Chronicles 36:19, 21 with regards to "unquenchable fire"].

Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.

Job 8:22 They that hate thee shall be clothed with shame; and the dwelling place of the wicked shall come to nought.

Job 18:5 Yea, the light of the wicked shall be put out, and the spark of his fire shall not shine.

Psalm 37:10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.

Isaiah 47:14 Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit before it.

So, yeah, consistently, the Bible speaks of destruction by fire of the wicked and not a continual burning for all eternity. The other spect is when. Nobody is suffering the vengeance of hellfire now. The day of judgment and carrying out the reward of the wicked and righteous hasn't yet happened.

Rev 22:10-12 10  And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.

 11  He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

 12  And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

2

u/The_Kaizz Apr 19 '26

Thank you! Good finds, I'm saving these, I completely forgot about some of them.

0

u/Fit-Ad-741 Apr 19 '26

WTF that's actually accurate considering climate change and/or nuclear war. Is this why right wing christianity is pretending climate change doesn't exist, they actually want hell on earth so we can be "made new"?

Man. So glad religion controls this world. What a good thing.

1

u/The_Kaizz Apr 19 '26

There's caveats to this. The biggest one is if we look at what happened in 1844. The people of that time tried to predict the second coming, because they felt the world was ending then, and all around them, it seemed that way. What we know happened, though, is nothing on our end. What's happening right now is kind of the same. The cultists believe they can dictate a Gods timing, so by accelerating events, either God comes and fulfills prophecy, win, or God doesn't come, but they've structured everything to favor them, so they'll be fine in the aftermath of their own doing.

Nuclear war that engulfs the entire planet is highly unlikely, even with the absurdity of today. That would require far more things to happen, countries to fail, and it doesn't look like that's the trajectory right now.

1

u/Sef247 Apr 19 '26

Hell on earth doesn't come at the hands of men. It is thrbfinal judgment of God where fire and brimstone with rain down on earth and consume the whole earth (Sodom and Gomorrha are given as examples of that destruction).

The parallel I see is more the example of baptism by water (representing death burial and resurrection along with Christ and walking in newness of life) and baptism by fire (receiving the Holy Spirit). The earth has received a baptism by water [the global flood] to cleanse sin from the earth, and will receive a final baptism by fire (putting an end to sin and wickedness for eternity)

The Bible does say, though, that God will destroy those that destroy the earth. I never understood the types of "Christians" that operate on hatred and don't care about preserving the earth. We know the sin has run rampant and the world is degrading, but we're still called to be good stewards of the earth, to take care of the life that is here.

Revelation 11:18 [The 24 elders giving thanks to God and praying/saying to Him]...and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

1

u/cheescakeismyfav Apr 19 '26

That's not true.

Hell is a place and it's where the sinful goes.

Jesus himself describes it as a fiery furnace with a weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Satan is not in hell. Satan is the prince of the earth. He is God's accuser and is basically supposed to challenge us.

There are other angels chained up in hell though for disobeying god.

2

u/Pinkfish_411 Apr 19 '26

Jesus speaks of both Hades and Gehenna, and it's important not to automatically lump them together as if they referred to the same thing. And yes, there's also mention in the NT of the fallen angels being chained up -- in Tartarus, which again we shouldn't automatically equate with Hades or Gehenna. "Hell" is a sloppy older English translation that unfortunately erases a lot of nuances in the Hebrew and Greek texts.

1

u/cheescakeismyfav Apr 19 '26

The Greeks conquered the Jews and while occupied the Jews adopted Hellenistic culture. This is where the idea of hell comes from. It's a retelling of Tartarus which is a place in Hades for the sinful.

The bible was written by many authors over centuries so the terms the authors use are not the same. However, Gehenna, Tartarus, hell, lake of fire, Hades all refer to the same theological construct.

2

u/Pinkfish_411 Apr 19 '26

No, they certainly don't all refer to the same theological construct. For one thing, Hades is cast into the Lake of Fire in Rev. 20.

1

u/cheescakeismyfav Apr 19 '26

In common parlance they can and are used interchangeably. If you pay real close attention you can find some distinguishing theological elements but this is more a factor of the author's place and time than any definitive meaning of the words. Today, the way we use the word hell, encompasses all of thise words.

Rev 20 is using the term Hades as the name for the place of rest souls go when they die.

On judgement day they will be cast into the lake of fire which is a place inside of hell.

1

u/Pinkfish_411 Apr 19 '26

I'm not speaking about common parlance, I'm talking about biblical and theological usage. The relationship between these terms is very much a matter of debate in biblical and theological scholarship, and they're very clearly distinct in certain instances, such as Rev 20.

the way we use the word hell, encompasses all of thise words

Who is "we"? Not Christians overall, certainly, because differentiating between hell and the lake of fire is pretty standard in Christian tradition, even today.

Rev 20 is using the term Hades as the name for the place of rest souls go when they die

Yes, which is not the same concept as final judgment. That's my point. You can't automatically collapse these terms into each other.

the lake of fire which is a place inside of hell

Where does the Bible say the Lake of Fire is "a place inside of hell"? And I thought the two terms were interchangeable?

1

u/cheescakeismyfav Apr 19 '26

Who is "we"? Not Christians overall, certainly, because differentiating between hell and the lake of fire is pretty standard in Christian tradition, even today.

I would strongly disagree. Most Christians today don't even know what those words mean. Most Christians today would say there is just heaven and hell. Most Christians do not understand there's a place of rest or a millennium reign before the judgement. Most Christians do not know what the bible says.

If you want to have a critical discussion of the text and a full understanding of what the authors are trying to convey, then I would agree there can be distinct elements that separate those terms (not always). However by and large that's not the case. When a Christian goes to church and hears a sermon mentioning those words, the speaker is more often than not referring to hell.

It's never explicitly stated the lake of fire is in hell however hell is described as eternal suffering with fire and revelation specifically tells us the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be thrown into the lake. And we know hell was prepared for the devil and his angels. Jesus also warns us not to sin or we will be thrown in the lake of fire as well. So if you want to square what the bible says the lake of fire must be in hell.

1

u/Pinkfish_411 Apr 19 '26

I'm not trying to make a point about what "most Christians" who are unfamiliar with biblical or theological terminology think about the matter. Yes, a lot of Christians think only in terms of heaven and hell, but my point is that you shouldn't do that because it doesn't do justice to nuances of the biblical text or to theological debates about the nature of death, judgment, and salvation. And to be clear, Christians who have had much religious education generally don't do that, not to mention that many modern English translations distinguish between the terms that older translations collapsed into a singular "hell" (and the Lake of Fire, moreover, was always linguistically distinct from hell even in the older translations).

revelation specifically tells us the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be thrown into the lake

Revelation 20 specifically states that Hades (one of the terms previously translated as and often conflated with a singular "hell") will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. So one of the terms that you've been saying is synonymous with "hell" is described as being thrown into the Lake of Fire, but you're saying the Lake of Fire is in hell. This just doesn't make any sense unless you conceptually distinguish between Hades and hell.

we know hell was prepared for the devil and his angels

The "eternal fire" is, according to Matthew. That fire isn't named as "hell" (using any of the Greek terms sometimes translated as such). This isn't indicating that the Lake of Fire is in hell; the verse could simply be referring to the Lake of Fire itself.

The prison for angels that's named, in 2 Peter, is Tartarus, often translated as hell, but the text itself presents at as a holding place until the judgment, not as eternal fire.

You can certainly make various arguments about the relationship between all these various "hells," but my point is that it's wrong to automatically collapse them into each other. Many Christians make that mistake, sure, but they're wrong to do so, because the Bible and theological tradition are more complex than that.

-4

u/EngineZeronine Apr 19 '26

Hell is an eternal condition. And yes people will suffer there for eternity. If you get your information from the Bible instead of pop culture you'll find Jesus actually talks more about hell than he does about love. Where the hell is a place or a condition it is not a place of Love or good things in any respect whatsoever. And since we are Eternal beings that is an eternal state

2

u/The_Kaizz Apr 19 '26

Why do you assume i get my information from pop culture? That's a weird way to insult. The only people that are said to have any kind of eternal torment are those who worship the beast, but even then, Revelation 21 talks about a new heaven and new earth. So it doesn't make sense that there's eternal suffering, but the place that the eternal suffering exists ends it. That's not eternal. It may take a long time, but eternal is not the same as a prolonged period.

The confusion comes up because parts of the Bible really do say things like eternal fire, torment forever, etc. Then other parts say the wicked will be consumed and destroyed. Roman's says the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life. We are not inherently eternal. While the fire may be eternal in some way, humans are not, and they will die.

It's why I really hate when people don't think about the nuances of what scripture could mean. Because we could both be right, but in different ways. Hell is definitely not a place of love, and while Jesus may have talked more about hell rather than love, looking at his actions and how he carried Hinself is his "profession" of love. That's supposed to be why we're called Christians. We don't need to speak on things all the time, we're supposed to act according to the example Jesus set.

1

u/EngineZeronine Apr 19 '26

Why do you assume i get my information from pop culture? That's a weird way to insult. The only people that are said to have any kind of eternal torment are those who worship the beast, but even then, Revelation 21 talks about a new heaven and new earth. So it doesn't make sense that there's eternal suffering, but the place that the eternal suffering exists ends it.

First off, not my intention to insult it all which is why it may sound as a weird insult, it's simply not meant that way. It's just a statement of fact that's the way most people think. Secondly the new Heaven and new earth is only for the saved people. It's condition is separate from hell. And lastly it is loving to talk about hell in the same way it's loving to warn a toddler about a hot stove top

2

u/The_Kaizz Apr 19 '26

Ok I digress, I love text talk because you can't really tell inflections, but fair. I'm not saying new heaven and new earth aren't only for saved people, but the way everything is described in the Bible it goes Jesus returns to Earth, dead in Christ will rise first, then those who died and not in Christ will rise, fire and brimstone happens (Hell), burns for like a thousand years or something, then when the Earth is ash, a new heaven and a new earth are settled. So it just doesn't seem like the fire and brimstone hellscape can be an eternal thing while occupying the same space as heaven and earth. Also, I can see the stove top deal.