MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Do you believe in a literal Hell ? If yo...

Do you believe in a literal Hell ? If you do, who do we believe is going there ?


Do you believe in a literal Hell ?

If you do, who do we believe is going there ?

reply

I believe in the Bible, and the Book of Revelation lists who will end up in the lake of fire:

Chapter 21
5 And the one who was seated on the throne said, ‘See, I am making all things new.’ Also he said, ‘Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.’
6 Then he said to me, ‘It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give water as a gift from the spring of the water of life.
7 Those who conquer will inherit these things, and I will be their God and they will be my children.
8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, the murderers, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars, their place will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.’

reply

Thank you!

reply

Damn, so people who "fornicate" are going to hell? God seems way too demanding and quite frankly comes across as a bully.

reply

THAT'S HOW YOU COVER ALL YOUR BASES...SO YOU ONLY HAVE TO LET YOUR FRIENDS IN...ACT THE BIG MAN TURNING PEOPLE AWAY AT THE DOOR FOR WHATEVER REASON POPS INTO YOUR HEAD.

reply

It's also ironic sorcery is listed when thats exactly what Christianity is.

And I'm not throwing shade on religious folks, but people need a reality check when they take the Bible word for word as fact.

reply

MY DAUGHTER IS RELIGIOUS...I AM SO NOT...SHE IS RATIONAL IN HER FAITH THOUGH...WHICH IS AMAZING FOR ME...HAS NEVER CREATED A SINGLE ISSUE BETWEEN US.

reply

That's cool. I too have famly who are religious and respect that, but they also are reasonable people like your daughter.

I guess I fall into the agnostic category. I don't believe right now, but my mind is open if proof is presented.

reply

YES...THAT WOULD BE ME AS WELL.

reply

There would never be enough "proof". You love sin so your carnal mind rejects God.

reply

Not true. Any evidence which could be confirmed by the scientific community would be fine with me.

reply

There has never been any proof, and there won't ever be any, because you are peddling a bunch of mumbo-jumbo nonsense from thousands of years ago.

reply

Revelation was written by John The Apostle/Evangelist who, I'm guessing, was raised to be a good Jew.

What happened to bad Jews before "Revelation?"

reply

"I will be their God and they will be my children."

There it is, as they say, in a nutshell.

reply

Its one of the most ridiculous propositions I've ever heard. As for what effect it had on my early psyche, who can say, since we were fed this fear-mongering at a tender age.

reply

Thank you for that.

reply

No, but if it does exist, that has Kowalski's name written all over it.

reply

In Hell, he will be tasked to pull the tapes out of VHS cassettes, scratch perfectly good DVDs and BluRays... while being forced to watch on streaming services muahahhahahahahahah!

reply

Don't forget to unrewind the VHS cassettes.

reply

People tend to create their own Hell on Earth.
But don't believe in a Hell where humans get punished for their deeds during life.

reply

Hitler?

reply

Stalin?

reply

If life continues, I'm going to be disappointed if there's no payback for those two.

reply

Means, you believe in Hell?
Then have many more names for your list.

reply

Not necessarily. But, I'd hate to think they'd be able to hobnob with Mother Theresa or their victims.

reply

What about Princess Diana?

reply

Di was cool.

So can regular folk spirits hobnob with celebrity spirits in the Afterlife?

reply

That would be a real hellish punishment if Diana continues yammering about her soooo hard life. 😵‍💫​

reply

She complained about her crappy treatment from Charles. The guy did bring his mistress on their honeymoon. Diana should've pushed the both of them overboard.

reply

Very much in doubt if Charles did that on their "honeymoon".
He strayed, yes, as she did.
Diana's main strategy was to victimize herself.
An ugly attitude.

reply

Charles cheated first. 19-year-olds are stupid and naive. Diana was no different. She likely thought he would be faithful. When the interviewer asked him if he loved her his reply should have sent her running.

Everyone I knew predicted her life would be horrible when they married. There's nothing happy nor normal about the British royal family lifestyle. No privacy nor freedom. Completely regulated worse than the military. A bunch of behind-the-scenes palace officials completely running their lives. People repeatedly bolt for a reason.

Diana knew how to fight back. Good for her!

reply

Ok, I'll give it to her that she was perhaps naive when she married. But she wasn't naive anymore when the divorce-fight started.

Yep, to victimize yourself is a kind of "fight back".
As already said...an ugly strategy.
Did she ever think at her children when she started the 'mudslinging'?

reply

Queen Elizabeth didn't allow them to divorce for a long time. Remember? The Taj Mahal pose and Morton book were impressive.

Speaking the truth is "mudslinging"?

"Yep, to victimize yourself is a kind of "fight back"."
Actually, it is. She was very clever. Kudos to her!

Megan and Harry are amateurs. They're both idiots.

reply

Meghan is an experienced manipulator.
And an expert in victimizing herself also.
Harry is the fool in this game.

Playing the crybaby (Diana) isn't "speaking the truth". She conveniently skipped in the interviews what she did.

reply

"Playing the crybaby (Diana) isn't "speaking the truth".
He treated her like crap. She went public with the details.

You have to admit her tactics won public and media support. She played weak, but she wasn't. Fighting powerful people isn't easy. She mastered it.

Did she skip? She spoke about her affairs, bulimia, crying fits and suicide attempts.

Their housekeeper wrote an interesting book about their marriage. At first, they were romantic and close, but then she details the fighting, affairs, later manipulation and coldness by Diana who appeared to completely give up on the marriage.

Meghan is a narcissist, sociopath and manipulator. She thought Queen Elizabeth would allow them to commercialize their titles. Harry is a dolt who will be screwed if she dumps him for a multi-billionaire. He gave up everything! I assume "bros before hoes" isn't a British saying?

reply

Diana was beloved as a Princess.
She pretended to be a selfless person.
In real she abused her popularity to win this ugly mudslinging she started. Wasn't it touching when she reported with tears in her eyes how badly she was treated? The 'bad treatment' was that Charles ignored her. That's really not nice but wouldn't drive anybody "powerful" into bulimia and suicide attempts.
She conveniently skipped her own affairs until she couldn't deny them anymore.
With her crybaby strategy she didn't care at all about her both sons and how they must've felt...and how much she damaged the (royal) family in the whole with it.
In fact, Diana was a selfish person.

About Meghan already said she's a manipulator and an expert in victimizing herself also. I don't think she expected the Queen to allow the commercialisation of the titles.
Meghan isn't stupid.
Maybe she didn't expect the tough reaction, because the Queen loved Harry. He was a sympathic and funny man who inherited the (betimes bad) humour from his grandfather Philip.
But to let the family know about their freedom plans via yellow press was too much. Right on time for Princess Kate's birthday btw.
And if they named their daughter "Lilibet" to honour the Queen is doubtful. It was leastwise careless to use a nickname as an official name, maybe only another provocation for the next media headlines.

reply

Marriage to a royal means you marry the family, institution, courtiers, media and a 24/7 career complete with office politics. Normal people get relief when they're home. No such luck for a royal.

The media and public were obsessed with Diana's looks at a time when she was considered the only attractive royal. She was heavily criticized for wearing a dress twice even though she attended 100+ events each year. No surprise that she became bulimic.

"Bad treatment" is a jealous, uncaring and cheating husband. Plus nothing in common. Normal people can divorce. She was trapped at the time. Hopelessness = suicidal.

She had mental health issues, but that doesn't mean she wasn't compassionate. She made the royals more relatable by doing normal things like hugging her children in public and bringing them to hospitals, shelters and McDs. Empathy and being able to relate to common folks are important qualities for a leader. William will be a better king because of her. It's common knowledge that Di was a good mother.

Meghan's narcissism has made her overconfident about her abilities to charm. She's a horrible liar and her plan to make money in the U.S. while attending royal events part-time to reinforce the royal brand for commercialization blew-up in her face. Harry's title was downgraded to duke from prince. Meghan didn't realize how boring and unglamorous royal work can be until after she married Harry.

Furthermore, morons Meghan and Harry don't appear to realize their titles can be removed. They sucked up to the Queen while bad-mouthing Charles who is now in charge and William who will be next. Dumb move. Harry should ditch the autobiography.

reply

Diana --> we'll need to agree to disagree.
Btw. William and Harry went both to boarding school when they had been 8 years old. Normal education for the royals, nothing special. But don't try to tell me that mother Diana sacrificed herself for them.

Meghan and Harry --> we agreed before.
No need to throw more mud on them.

reply

Not normal. Charles was the first British royal to go to boarding school which he hated. Both William and Harry were sent to a different school which was closer and less harsh than their father's.

Sacrificed? That's an odd word. I wrote that she was a good mother. Charles and Anne didn't see their parents for 6 months and were greeted with a handshake. At least William and Harry received plenty of hugs and kisses.

re: Diana. I believe we're already in 95% agreement. Charles, Elizabeth, etc. appear to have become better people. (except Harry).

reply

We're even not in 50% agreement.
We even don't fully agree with Meghan and Harry.

You can continue to believe that Diana was the great Messiah.
A Messiah who slapped her son...out of 'love' of course. And no, that didn't happen at McDonalds where mother Diana showed her sons the big, big world.

Neither Diana nor Meghan were and are able to destroy the Queen and the King...with "hugs and kisses". ♥

reply

Now you're making up stuff in order to argue with yourself. Not cool!

reply

Nope I didn't.
Diana slapped William.
May've been only one time but it happened.

You did make "stuff up".
What was that with the "95% agreement"? ☻

reply

I believe the Bible too. Anyone not "born again" will be going to hell.

reply

Do you believe that the old world monkeys and then apes are remote ancestors of humans ?

reply

nope

reply

How old do you think the earth, solar system, universe is ?

reply

No idea. Not billions of years old though.

reply

Why not, since you have no idea. Why not trillions ?

Anyhoo, cosmologists say the universe is 13.7 or so B, our planet around 4.6B.

Which is, presumably, long enough for primordial ooze to turn into a buffalo.

Its WAY older than the bible.

reply

[deleted]

i do not. we're born, we live, we die.

reply

I hope it’s not like in The Sentinel. Well, except maybe I’d be ok with it, if it were like the scene with Clark Griswold’s wife. 😎

reply

no purgatory for me.

reply

No. I also think any entity that would consign anyone to "eternal torment" would itself be far more evil than those they adjudge.

reply

That says more about your pride/ego than the immorality of the "entity".

reply

That's nonsensical.

reply

No it isn´t. In a paradigm where the Christian God exists, you are judging an omniscient being with infinitely more knowledge than you as well as perfect morality as being "evil/immoral" based on what you believe to be evil, when your knowledge is miniscule and moral standards corrupted in comparison.

reply

Understood. Thanks for the clarification.

reply

👍

reply

I do not. I think either when you die, that is the end of you. If there is some kind of afterlife, I think it's probably much different than anything human being have dreamed up.

reply