Since the earth is solid or semi-molten all the way to the core, it would seem unlikely that humans even the souls of the damned would be able to live there. Atheists love to use the King James Version KJVsince it uses the English word "hell" in lots of different places in the Bible—even where it doesn't really belong. So, let's see what the Bible really says hell and where it is.
Three Primary Eschatological Views Let theism in general be the belief that a supremely powerful, supremely wise, and supremely good loving, just, merciful personal being exists as the Creator of the universe.
Christian theism is, of course, more specific than that, and Christian theists typically make the following two-fold assumption: Although most Christians would probably agree with this, some may want additional clarity on the nature of the union and the separation in question here.
But in any case, whereas heaven is in general thought of as a realm in which people experience the bliss of perfect fellowship and harmony with God and with each other, hell is in general thought of as a realm in which people experience the greatest possible estrangement from God, the greatest possible sense of alienation, and perhaps also an intense hatred of everyone including themselves.
The ideas of heaven and hell are also closely associated with the religious idea of salvation, which in turn rests upon a theological interpretation of the human condition.
Even the non-religious can perhaps agree that, for whatever reason, we humans begin our earthly lives with many imperfections and with no conscious awareness of God.
We also emerge and begin making choices in a context of ambiguity, ignorance, and misperception, and behind our earliest choices lie a host of genetically determined inclinations and environmental including social and cultural influences. As young children, moreover, we initially pursue our own needs and interests as we perceive or misperceive them.
So the context in which we humans emerge with a first person perspective and then begin developing into minimally rational agents virtually guarantees, it seems, that we would repeatedly misconstrue our own interests and pursue them in misguided ways; it also includes many sources of misery, at least some of which—the horror of war, horrifying examples of inhumanity to children, people striving to benefit themselves at the expense of others, etc.
But other sources include such non-moral evils as natural disasters, sickness, and especially physical death itself. Clearly, then, we all encounter in our natural environment many threats to our immediate welfare and many obstacles, some of our own making and some not, to enduring happiness.
So one way to organize our thinking here is against the backdrop of the following inconsistent set of three propositions: Almighty God will triumph in the end and successfully reconcile to himself each person whose reconciliation he sincerely wills or desires.
Some humans will never be reconciled to God and will therefore remain separated from him forever.
If this set of propositions is logically inconsistent, as it surely is, then at least one proposition in the set is false.
In no way does it follow, of course, that only one proposition in the set is false, and neither does it follow that at least two of them are true. But if someone does accept any two of these propositions, as virtually every mainline Christian theologian does, then such a person has no choice but to reject the third.
So that leaves exactly three primary eschatological views. Because the Augustinians, named after St. So here, then, are three quite different systems of theology. For if we think of such separation as a state of being estranged or alienated from God, or if we think of it as simply the absence of a loving union with him, then 3 is equally consistent with many different conceptions of hell, some arguably milder than others.
It is equally consistent, for example, with the idea that hell is a realm where the wicked receive retribution in the form of everlasting torment, with the idea that they will simply be annihilated in the end, with the idea that they create their own hell by rejecting God, and with the idea that God will simply make them as comfortable as possible in hell even as he limits the harm they can do to each other see Stump This lack of specificity is by design.
For however one understands the fate of those who supposedly remain separated from God forever, such a fate will entail something like 3. Alternatively, anyone who rejects 3 will likewise reject the idea of everlasting torment as well as any of the supposedly milder conceptions of an everlasting separation from God.
Now when the Fifth General Council of the Christian church condemned the doctrine of universal reconciliation in CE, it did not, strictly speaking, commit the institutional church of that day to a doctrine of everlasting conscious torment in hell.
But it did commit the church to a final and irreversible division within the human race between those who will be saved, on the one hand, and those who will be hopelessly lost forever, on the other. If there is to be such a final and irreversible division within the human race, just what accounts for it?
These two very different explanations for a final and irrevocable division within the human race, where some end up in heaven and others in hell, also reflect profound disagreements over the nature of divine grace. Because the Augustinians hold that, in our present condition at least, God owes us nothing, they also believe that the grace he confers upon a limited elect is utterly gratuitous and supererogatory.
But the Arminians reject such a doctrine as inherently unjust; it is simply unjust, they say, for God to do for some, namely the elect, what he refuses to do for others, particularly since the elect have done nothing to deserve their special treatment.
The Arminians therefore hold that God offers his grace to all human beings, though many are those who freely reject it and eventually seal their fate in hell forever.
But for their part, the Augustinians counter that this Arminian explanation in terms of human free will contradicts St. The Augustinians also challenge the Arminians with the following question: More important for our purposes is his pattern of argument, as illustrated in the following comment: It is as simple as that.
Nor should one suppose that this Augustinian understanding of limited election is totally bereft of contemporary defenders.Today many atheist, antic religion, sceince of homo sapiens, believers are trying to destroyed the faithful religious person, even some cults believe Heaven Hell, religion believe their's heaven and hell, even though not evidence proof but it's to his/her strong belief.
According to the Bible, heaven and hell are real places, in one of which all people will spend eternity after death. Aug 13, · Like this one question, the person said "There is no evidence for heaven, hell, or god.
So why the hell do people believe it?" A lot of people put, "There IS evidence," or, "I have the proof I need."Status: Resolved. There is evidence of God in the physical Universe. John 4: 24 “God is a Spirit, and those worshipping him must worship with spirit and truth”.
Romans 1: “Is there any proof of heaven or hell?”. Is there any evidence for heaven, or are people just deluding themselves?
What the Media Would Have You Believe The popular media, through books, films and records, would have you believe 1) that heaven is a boring place that is not worth going to, or 2) that it doesn’t exist anyway. May 19, · Proof of heaven popular, except with the church. Heaven used to be a mystery, a place glimpsed only by mystics and prophets.
But popular culture is filled with firsthand accounts from all sorts of people who claim that they, too, have proofs of heaven after undergoing near-death experiences.
A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the.