CC - If you've changed beliefs in theology...

[abba12]

I have recently, after a month of thought and a couple of days dedicated to study, changed my beliefs on a fairly major aspect of Christianity (not a salvation issue, but a major theological point). The belief I now have is not the popular view today, however is still taught by some churches and has waved and waned in popularity over the centuries, with writings about it from as early as the second century. So I haven't just made this up in my head, it's a well debated, well studied train of thought. 

 

But I feel... strange. Like, my original beliefs were popular and what I was taught as a child, and they feel like the undeniable truth. No matter how much I believe in what I do now, it feels like I'm just making it up in my head because what I was taught is still the default correct answer in my head. What I now believe feels silly and impossible (even though I felt very at peace with it when I studied and decided) and what I was originally taught seems like fact right in front of me, even though the only thing in front of me is a number of churches teaching it, with not a lot of biblical backup. 

 

I've never really changed my thoughts on anything major before. Is this feeling normal and will pass? It's really.... unsettling. Like I don't even believe myself. Am I crazy? lol

[Rosie_0801]

No, you are not crazy.

 

Giddy with hedonistic thinking maybe. :lol:

[Guest]

I think we need to be humble about our theology and realize the limits of what we, as men, can know. If we study scripture, sit under sound teaching, work on apologetics and supplement with solid commentary - and something changes? Consider that Christ growing you in grace and holiness. Seriously, I know it feels weird but I'd only be concerned if the teaching came from men and extra biblical sources, not if you gleaned it and came to it through careful bible study.

[Guest]

It is typical and is called "cognitive dissonance." It will resolve, but probably not quickly. It may lead to further changes in beliefs.

[PrincessMommy]

I have recently, after a month of thought and a couple of days dedicated to study, changed my beliefs on a fairly major aspect of Christianity (not a salvation issue, but a major theological point). The belief I now have is not the popular view today, however is still taught by some churches and has waved and waned in popularity over the centuries, with writings about it from as early as the second century. So I haven't just made this up in my head, it's a well debated, well studied train of thought. 

 

But I feel... strange. Like, my original beliefs were popular and what I was taught as a child, and they feel like the undeniable truth. No matter how much I believe in what I do now, it feels like I'm just making it up in my head because what I was taught is still the default correct answer in my head. What I now believe feels silly and impossible (even though I felt very at peace with it when I studied and decided) and what I was originally taught seems like fact right in front of me, even though the only thing in front of me is a number of churches teaching it, with not a lot of biblical backup. 

 

I've never really changed my thoughts on anything major before. Is this feeling normal and will pass? It's really.... unsettling. Like I don't even believe myself. Am I crazy? lol

 

I think I may have had a similar change as you.  After much study and reading of early church writings as well as writings about the history of those times I also had some pretty significant changes in my theology. 

 

I think it's more than just a change in theology - it is a paradigm shift as well.    Even after 15years I still often find myself falling back to some of the old patterns and I have to catch myself.  It sounds to me like that is where you are.  Your brain is adjusting away from a long-held belief...probably a belief held by many of your friends/family?--- it doesn't shift gears easily. 

 

If you need to talk via PM, I'm happy to do so.   What you're saying does resonate with me even if the particulars may be different. 

[6packofun]

Do you feel comfortable sharing?  I have changed my theology on hell--not that there isn't one, but the characterization that has been/is so popular is no longer what I think accurately describes the experience of separation from God after this life is over.  I am still firmly a Christian and I believe in the reliability of the Bible, as well, so my core beliefs have not really changed.  But I continue to scrutinize many aspects of my beliefs.  :)

[VaKim]

I had a major change like that quite a few years ago, but instead of feeling the way you do about my former beliefs, I felt more like I had been lied to for all the time before and was sort of angry for awhile. I think your new feelings will eventually subside and ease into a new "normal."

[Mimm]

Yes, I've changed my thinking a lot, and actually I have the Hive to thank for it. :) We had some wonderful threads years ago when I first started homeschooling (five years ago) about various aspects of Christianity that had me reading and thinking and reevaluating a LOT of what I thought about. I didn't even post much or at all in those threads, but I was greatly affected by them. So I know how you feel. You'll be more comfortable in your new beliefs soon. It's like moving into a new house. You like it and it's interesting, but unfamiliar and you don't quite feel like you belong, but after a while, it becomes your home. :)

[texasmama]

I've had significant changes in my theology over a period of many years.  At times, I have pretty much thrown it all up in the air and looked closely at it one piece at a time.  As I did that, the chaff blew away and what I actually needed was left.  It was a process.  A long process.  More than anything, I have loosened my grip on theology and whereas I began with a long list of "stuff I believed", it has shortened considerably through the years until my core beliefs are very basic, and the rest is in an "I don't know" category.  It is one of the reasons I don't enjoy theological debate.  Mostly, I just sit and say, "I don't know" and smile.  If people try to make me know, I become annoyed.  I'm good at skirting, smiling and nodding, etc.  Because I have arrived at the place that it really does not matter to me, and I do not have extra time and energy to devote to things that I have come to believe are mostly unknowable.  I'm fine living in the gray area.

 

I don't know if that helps you or not.

[MercyA]

If the Bible clearly says it, it doesn't matter if it's popular or not.  Trust the Word.  Men are fallible.

[texasmama]

If the Bible clearly says it, it doesn't matter if it's popular or not.  Trust the Word.  Men are fallible.

But interpretations, denominational differences, translations, etc.

 

It is not always possible to know exactly.  I have decided not to study Greek and Hebrew and try to obtain the original texts so some things will remain unknown for me until heaven.

 

I sometimes wish I was black and white.  It would be easier.  I am not, though. 

[Ipsey]

If the Bible clearly says it, it doesn't matter if it's popular or not.  Trust the Word.  Men are fallible.

 If it were really that easy, there wouldn't be so many denominations that claim to be based solely on the Bible. There would be no disagreements between people who believe Sola Scriptura, and yet....

 

 It's possible that Abba12 believed she was firmly based in the Bible on her first belief and now feels that she was wrong and now she has the correct Biblical belief.

 

(I could be totally wrong, but it's a very very common happening.)  

[mommaduck]

If the Bible clearly says it, it doesn't matter if it's popular or not.  Trust the Word.  Men are fallible.

 

Who and where was the canon of Scripture determined? Where was it literally, humanly laid out and put together? Or did it fall out of the sky?

[MercyA]

But interpretations, denominational differences, translations, etc.

 

It is not always possible to know exactly.  I have decided not to study Greek and Hebrew and try to obtain the original texts so some things will remain unknown for me until heaven.

 

I sometimes wish I was black and white.  It would be easier.  I am not, though. 

 

Sure.  I actually agreed with most of what you wrote upthread. I'm fine not knowing a lot of things. I'm talking about the things that are very clear, of which there are many.  

 

I don't get upset or bothered by debates on things like Arminianism vs. Calvinism, for example. I've read a lot on both sides. I've attended churches that very firmly taught one position or other. The thing is, there is Scripture that supports aspects of both positions.  I'm good with that. I no longer feel any compulsion to make it all "fit" into any man-made system. Someone once suggested I look at it like this: there are two pillars of truth, reaching up to heaven. I don't see where they meet now.  I will later, and that's okay.   :)

[texasmama]

Sure.  I actually agreed with most of what you wrote upthread. I'm fine not knowing a lot of things. I'm talking about the things that are very clear, of which there are many.  

 

I don't get upset or bothered by debates on things like Arminianism vs. Calvinism, for example. I've read a lot on both sides. I've attended churches that very firmly taught one position or other. The thing is, there is Scripture that supports aspects of both positions.  I'm good with that. I no longer feel any compulsion to make it all "fit" into any man-made system. Someone once suggested I look at it like this: there are two pillars of truth, reaching up to heaven. I don't see where they meet now.  I will later, and that's okay.   :)

Now that you have explained, I think you are much less black and white than I originally assumed.  

[Guest]

If it were really that easy, there wouldn't be so many denominations that claim to be based solely on the Bible. There would be no disagreements between people who believe Sola Scriptura, and yet....

 

It's possible that Abba12 believed she was firmly based in the Bible on her first belief and now feels that she was wrong and now she has the correct Biblical belief.

 

(I could be totally wrong, but it's a very very common happening.)

That's where debating and apologetics some in, I think :). Good, Christ loving people can disagree firmly on theology, both with evidence. Evaluating those arguments critically and seeing whose premise, presuppositions, and follow through maintain the most consistency is what we must do beyond that point. And even then there isn't usually a clear 'winner' on most of these topics. But it does help believers in deciding where they, personally, sit on the issue.

[MercyA]

Who and where was the canon of Scripture determined? Where was it literally, humanly laid out and put together? Or did it fall out of the sky?

 

:)  :)  :) I have Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic friends, mommaduck, so I can guess what you're getting at. I've also taken courses on the formation of the canon, so I'm not ignorant. However, I don't have the time or inclination to get into it with you here. Peace. 

 

p.s.  I like your covering.   ;)

[MercyA]

Now that you have explained, I think you are much less black and white than I originally assumed.  

 

Possibly.   :001_smile:

 

ETA:  I suppose it depends on the issue.  I am very black-and-white on some.

[MercyA]

It's possible that Abba12 believed she was firmly based in the Bible on her first belief and now feels that she was wrong and now she has the correct Biblical belief.

 

(I could be totally wrong, but it's a very very common happening.)  

 

Yes, I've been in that position before. It turned out that what I thought was based on the Bible was really largely based on the teachings of people who predetermined their position and then went looking for support for it. There's a lot of cherry-picking and twisting of Scripture going on out there. I try to avoid that in my own beliefs, but I'm sure I fail sometimes.  :)

 

I think most (not all; Revelation, anyone?) of the New Testament is pretty clear. Obviously not everyone shares that belief, and that's okay.

[mommaduck]

:)  :)  :) I have Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic friends, mommaduck, so I can guess what you're getting at. I've also taken courses on the formation of the canon, so I'm not ignorant. However, I don't have the time or inclination to get into it with you here. Peace. 

 

p.s.  I like your covering.   ;)

 

I figured. My point was simply that the two are not necessarily exclusive of eachother (and, yes, we believe all men are fallible also). 

 

p.s. thank you.

[6packofun]

If the Bible clearly says it, it doesn't matter if it's popular or not.  Trust the Word.  Men are fallible.

 

There are intelligent men and women of good conscience who think that there is biblical support for more than one view on a few non-salvation issues and simply pick the one for which they think there is MORE or better support.  It's not always clear and it does NOT necessarily undermine traditional, foundational Christian belief.

 

The annihilationist view of hell is one example.  Here is an article (and do read the 3 linked posts for biblical support for both eternal conscious torment and a terminal/annihilationist view):  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/02/my-terminal-blog-on-the-terminal-punishment-of-hell/

 

The author is simply saying that both views CAN be considered by people of faith who trust in God's Word.  And those aren't the only 2 possibilities, either! Is it important for us to know for certain which is correct?  I'm not convinced it is.  Not a salvation issue, per se, except to believe that there IS a hell.

 

I give this example because I think it sort of fits what the OP is struggling with, but may not be the exact topic, of course.

 

EDIT:  Annnnnd...now I'm reading what was posted while I crafted this post and see that you may agree with my point!  LOL :P

[abba12]

Well at least I know I'm not the only one! I guess I naively thought that once someone changes their opinion on something, well, that's it, they just believe something else. I hadn't realized I'd have to also work to let go of the old belief which is still very ingrained in my mind. I suppose I'm probably showing my (young) age here, I didn't realize it would be such a 'paradigm shift' as another poster put it. But it entirely changes my perspective on a number of things. 

 

I didn't mention the belief specifically because I didn't want to cause a debate on it, but I have changed my thoughts about hell. My original beliefs.... I thought they were biblical, they were what I was taught, but they never felt right and I always avoided it mentally. Whenever I asked questions at church the answers were things like 'we don't know Gods ways, just trust him' or 'isn't it lucky we don't have to worry about that'. They were never good enough for me but I just accepted what everyone was telling me and went with it. And for some people that's easier to do, but for me, the majority of my family and friends are not Christian, it's often on my mind.

 

Edited to add: lol, 6packofun, apparently we're on the same track!

 

You can skip this long-winded paragraph if you don't want to know what I actually came to decided lol. God has been throwing the concept of hell (and the verses about him 'hardening their hearts' at various points, which I also have a new perspective on, thank you so much whoever posted the 'sun softens wax and hardens mud' analogy in another thread! That is, apparently, actually a quote from Charles Spurgeon) in my face on a weekly basis for months now, and I couldn't just keep telling myself what I'd been taught. I began to study the scripture and look online and found concepts like soul sleep and that the 'second death' of revelations is annihilation, thoughts which are primarily, right now, held by Seventh Day Adventists (which I am not)  but have come and gone through history, with even Martin Luther writing in support about it (and John Calvin against it). When the connection was made that hell is described as everlasting/consuming fire, AND God is regularly described as the everlasting/consuming fire, and some connections were made about the use of the word everlasting meaning the fire could not be stopped, rather than people will stay alive in it forever (and it was pointed out that the saved are promised everlasting life, so why do we assume sinners will have everlasting life as well, in hell?) things just made so much more sense for me. The descriptions of hell is a description of what it's like to be in the presence of God as an unsaved sinner. I still think sinners will be judged and punished, but not with eternal torment. God has also been placing the concepts of childlike faith and truth hidden from the wise but revealed to little children on my heart, and him as my father. A child can imagine and comprehend ceasing to exist, that makes sense to a child (not pleasant, but, comprehendable). But I don't think children would imagine their own parent who loves them, sinner or not, would let them suffer for all eternity. Complete death is merciful! God still loves sinners, and while he is Just I don't think he's vindictive. Not to say there wont be some suffering involved, the bible certainly talks about such, but I've come to believe it will end in a complete death, not eternal life in torment. 

 

Anyway, the topic of the belief change itself aside, I guess it'll just take time to settle into new thoughts. Part of me was concerned that perhaps it was something trying to tell me my new beliefs were wrong, but I feel very comfortable in them, even typing them above they feel right to me, so I guess it's just an adjustment period and letting go of the old defaults. I like the analogy above of moving into a new home. I hope it feels like home soon because it's kind of unsettling right now, and I've had enough study/change/questioning for a little while now! I basically took the week off school to look at this last week lol. 

 

[texasmama]

Thank you for sharing your thought process and the conclusion you have come to.  Very interesting!  I will ponder it myself.

 

I once took quite a bit of time to ponder the age of the earth and came up with - wait for it - "I don't know".  So it's good to come up with an answer.  Mostly, I just get more questions.  :)

[abba12]

There are intelligent men and women of good conscience who think that there is biblical support for more than one view on a few non-salvation issues and simply pick the one for which they think there is MORE or better support.  It's not always clear and it does NOT necessarily undermine traditional, foundational Christian belief.

 

The annihilationist view of hell is one example.  Here is an article (and do read the 3 linked posts for biblical support for both eternal conscious torment and a terminal/annihilationist view):  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theologyintheraw/2015/02/my-terminal-blog-on-the-terminal-punishment-of-hell/

 

The author is simply saying that both views CAN be considered by people of faith who trust in God's Word.  And those aren't the only 2 possibilities, either! Is it important for us to know for certain which is correct?  I'm not convinced it is.  Not a salvation issue, per se, except to believe that there IS a hell.

 

I give this example because I think it sort of fits what the OP is struggling with, but may not be the exact topic, of course.

 

EDIT:  Annnnnd...now I'm reading what was posted while I crafted this post and see that you may agree with my point!  LOL :p

 

Seems we are on the same page lol, because that is actually what I was questioning. Thank you so much for your link above, I've read through the 4 articles and while it didn't say anything I hadn't already come across (except the worm thing, which is a question answered) all of the sources I had found so far were from Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, neither of which get much respect from the few family and friends I have who are Christians. An article from a mainstream Christian point of view may be something I can pass on to them if the topic comes up. 

[6packofun]

 

 

Edited to add: lol, 6packofun, apparently we're on the same track!

 

Complete death is merciful! God still loves sinners, and while he is Just I don't think he's vindictive. Not to say there wont be some suffering involved, the bible certainly talks about such, but I've come to believe it will end in a complete death, not eternal life in torment. 

 

 Yes!  I think that God is merciful even to those who fully reject Him, while still being completely just!  And here's a thought that I had that sort of sealed the deal for me (I'm STILL not 100% on my view, btw):  After Adam and Eve sin in the garden and bring spiritual death to humanity by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, God casts them out BEFORE they can eat from the tree of life.  Why?  I think it is so that they will not have to live in their sin forever!  So, to me, God is being merciful to them by not letting them live an eternal life in the flesh suffering the effects of their sinful choices.  So why do we think that God would not be as merciful at the END of a person't life?

 

This isn't some slam-dunk evidence that the annihilationist view is correct, but it sort of clarified some things for me about God's character.  I don't want to believe something because I WANT it to be true, but at the same time I want to believe that which can be biblically supported AND supports the character of God!  I think this view may do that--and be true.  ;)

[Guest]

Ladies, how do you reconcile Jesus's preaching relating to hell? Especially the beggar Lazarus and the rich man?

 

Genuinely curious.

[abba12]

Ladies, how do you reconcile Jesus's preaching relating to hell? Especially the beggar Lazarus and the rich man?

 

Genuinely curious.

 

The story of Lazarus was a parable, and like any parable shouldn't be taken entirely literally. I hope you don't mind if I just copy and paste something I read about this question rather than try to answer it myself, as I am still figuring this out a bit.

 

 

The Rich Man and Lazarus

Many will try to use Luke 16:19-31 as proof that there is conscious life after death, and that there is a place of eternal torment (Hell). It is important to point out that Luke 16:19-31 is the fifth in a series of parables as follows -

1. The lost sheep - Luke 15:3-7

2. The lost coin - Luke 15:8-10

3. The lost boy - Luke 15:11-32

4. The unjust steward - Luke 16:1-13

5. The rich man and Lazarus - Luke 16:19-31

Parables are designed to teach great moral principles. Each feature of the parable is not to be taken absolutely literally. The question in each parable is what are the great moral lessons. We get into deep trouble if we attempt to take each detail of the parable literally rather than seek the lesson that Jesus is trying to teach. Let's go ahead and assume for a moment that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a literally true story-

• Do people actually have conversations between Heaven and Hell?
• Can those in heaven see people burning in Hell?
• Can they hear their screams?
• Would a finger dipped in water actually lessen the torment of another?
• Abraham must have a very large bosom to contain all the individuals who go there!

Heaven would be a terrible place if we beheld the constant, ever present suffering of our friends for all of eternity. So, why did Jesus use this story and tell it as He did? What lesson(s) was He trying to teach?

The Jews had a common story describing death as passing through a valley of darkness and they pictured salvation as fleeing to the security of Abraham's bosom. The Jews also believed that riches were a sign of God's favor and poverty a sign of His displeasure. The rich man living sumptuously represents the Jews, who had access to the word of God but refused to share it. They were squandering and wasting the spiritual riches for which they were the stewards, as in the previous parable of the unjust steward. The Jews were the fig tree that bore no fruit (Mark 11:13-14, 20, Luke 13:6-9), and the husbandmen of the unproductive vineyard (Matt. 21:33-45, Mark 12:1-12, Luke 20:9-19). Lazarus represents the Gentiles, who the Jews would not minister to. So the rich man in the story, whom the Jews thought blessed of God, ends up in Hell, while the poor Lazarus is saved and greeted by Abraham. Jesus had reversed the outcome from what the Jews expected. This is why Jesus used the parable of the rich man and Lazarus in the way he did. It was not intended to convey the exact circumstances of Heaven or Hell, but rather to show to the Jews that they had grave misconceptions about who was saved and who was lost.

 

These are the main points the parable teaches:

1. Like the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30), the unprofitable servant who squanders what the Lord has given him will be lost.

2. Riches gained by greed, dishonesty or oppressing the poor are not a sign of God's favor. Wealth is simply not an indicator of one's salvation.

3. The parable describes a great fixed gulf between the saved and the lost. Jesus clearly communicated that there is no second chance after death. The decision made in life determines our eternal destiny, and it simply cannot be changed after death.

4. Jesus points out that if the Pharisees rejected the clear teachings of God's word regarding salvation, they would also reject such a mighty, supernatural spectacular miracle as one being raised from the dead.

Note that a short while later in John 11:11-14,43,44 Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. As a result the Pharisees and chief priests plotted to kill Jesus (John 11:53) and Lazarus (John 12:10). So the words of Jesus in Luke 16:31 were indeed prophetic and fulfilled.

So parables are not meant to be taken literally as written. You must read beyond the literal text to see the important principle or lesson(s) being taught.

 

If you're interested, the article this came from is here - http://biblelight.net/hell.htm- Note that I do NOT agree with this person in general, they are a 'pope is the antichrist 666!!?!?' kind of person lol. But on this SPECIFIC article, they explained things so well and thoroughly and made connections I'd never recognized, and it really helped me (my husband did point out a few errors in his thinking, the article is not perfect, and he's not a fan of the section where the author takes it back to greek/hebrew as DH feels he has swapped words without good cause.) But, for this specific article he had a lot of good, convincing points. 

[Guest]

:)

[happypamama]

OP, I think I can relate. There's at least one point (age of the earth, if anyone cares) where my best answer for whether or not I believe exactly as I was taught as a child is, "I really don't know because I wasn't there, and I can see how the words of the Bible are a little vague and can be interpreted in many ways." Whenever people from different sides present their interpretation of the Bible and their scientific evidence, I can easily see why any of them might be right. But I feel a little guilty saying that I'm not sure I completely agree with what I was taught as a child. I don't believe it's a salvation issue, but I still don't want to have gotten it wrong, nor to have steered my children in the wrong direction! I think it's also particularly scary to me because in general, and in big things, I'm really not that all different in my overall beliefs and lifestyle than my parents (I parent a lot like them, etc., etc.), so potentially differing from them on this point seems magnified to me.

[livetoread]

FWIW, I was raised SDA and when I could no longer be an SDA and went shopping for other churches, I never could get on board with any other view of hell. There is some stuff I deeply disagree with SDAs over (especially since now I'm an atheist, lol), but I think their view on hell, the Sabbath, and their healthful living are keepers.

[Guest]

I came to believe in annihilation after growing up with the eternal torment model. It was actually one of the easier paradigm shifts in my evolving beliefs. A friend of mine once pointed out that the extremely famous verse, John 3:16, is much more easily understood in the annihilation model than in the eternal torment view. Does it say, "...that whosoever believeth in him shall not burn in eternal torment but shall have everlasting life in the Presence of God? no, it simply says, "...shall not perish..."

[sbgrace]

I've changed in 3 major ways. I'm thankful for the changes, but some of those were very painful changes for me.

 

Time helps. You'll settle in. I think someone upthread mentioned cognitive dissonance, and I think that's a big part of what makes it hard from my experience.

 

About your change specifically, the best book I read on that subject was Brad Jersak Her Gates Will Never Be Shut, and I've read many of them!

Oh, also there was a podcast recently with Robin Parry interviewing Ilaria Ramelli. http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2015/08/an-interview-with-ilaria-ramelli-on.htmlShe's fascinating because she has studied extensively studied the early church background for this:

Dr Ramelli is a distinguished Professor of Patristics - “Patristics†meaning the study of the writings and thought of the early Church Fathers. She has written the 900 page monograph, “The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasisâ€, that has caused such excitement among Universalists.

 

The podcast involves a lot of information, but there is a small summary here. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cUPDztr4JM8JjgJZ-1RX3WU3Lv2JB6ve9wHF6HgJbBY/edit#Some people are more interested in the early church foundation than others of course. But if you are, she is a gold mine.

[KrissiK]

I grew up in an Arminianist Church and as an adult turned Calvinist/Reformed. I think because my change wasn't on a whim but because it's truly what I believe the Bible teaches, I haven't had any doubts or strange feelings. However, what I think you are feeling is normal. What we are taught in those formative years tends to stick with us.

[6packofun]

Ladies, how do you reconcile Jesus's preaching relating to hell? Especially the beggar Lazarus and the rich man?

 

Genuinely curious.

 

First, I think that all people are judged, so I'm not skipping that aspect of the afterlife, just to be clear.  I think there IS an afterlife for those who reject God, I just question whether or not theirs is an eternal one, and I do believe that there are consequences for not choosing Him.  I just don't feel sure at ALL that physical torture forever is it.

 

About Lazarus and the rich man...I think this sermon by Tim Keller is helpful, even though I know Keller is not an annihilationist!  (I'm not sure I technically am, either, because I do believe there will be SOME consciousness of being without God which will cause mental anguish over the choice(s) made in one's life.)  http://sermons2.redeemer.com/sermons/hell-isnt-god-christianity-angry-judge

 

The most striking thing to me in this parable is that the rich man's anguish (physical only? mental only...or both?) isn't enough for him to say or ask anything about getting OUT of this place himself.  Keller touches on this a bit.  Where is the rich man?  My ESV bible say Hades, which is "the grave" or place of the dead and not necessarily interchangeable with hell, the place of punishment.  Why is he in anguish before he gets to actual hell?  That part is not clear to me.  Does the rich man just know he can't get out so he doesn't bother asking?  It's nice that he's asking for his brothers to be spared from whatever it is he's experiencing, but does this indicate he will experience it forever?  

 

I do understand abba12's hesitancy to express this viewpoint when it is shared by sects and faith traditions that we do NOT agree with on so many other things!  LOL  But honestly, I just don't care.  I'm still working it out and don't need to bring it up in conversation.  :P  If it comes up, I can share about the questions that I have.  Not many people really study what the Bible actually says about hell, including myself.  That's why I'm questioning.

[Lawana]

I've had significant changes in my theology over a period of many years. At times, I have pretty much thrown it all up in the air and looked closely at it one piece at a time. As I did that, the chaff blew away and what I actually needed was left. It was a process. A long process. More than anything, I have loosened my grip on theology and whereas I began with a long list of "stuff I believed", it has shortened considerably through the years until my core beliefs are very basic, and the rest is in an "I don't know" category. It is one of the reasons I don't enjoy theological debate. Mostly, I just sit and say, "I don't know" and smile. If people try to make me know, I become annoyed. I'm good at skirting, smiling and nodding, etc. Because I have arrived at the place that it really does not matter to me, and I do not have extra time and energy to devote to things that I have come to believe are mostly unknowable. I'm fine living in the gray area.

 

I don't know if that helps you or not.

Wait... Are you saying you konmaried your beliefs? :)

[texasmama]

Wait... Are you saying you konmaried your beliefs? :)

Apparently so. :D

[goldberry]

What I've found with changing beliefs is that for me, the process leading up to the change was the most painful.  Someone else mentioned cognitive dissonance.  That is what I felt leading up to the change, a hugely uncomfortable, agitated, confused state of trying to keep believing what I previously believed when different conclusions were forcing themselves into my brain.  When I finally reached the conclusion that the belief needed to change - ah, it was like a weight off my shoulders and a wave of peace.  Because I was no longer trying to hold on to contradictory ideas.  The act of "letting go" of the old belief was a huge relief to me and an incredible happy feeling.

 

Maybe you need to give yourself permission to fully "let go" of the previous belief without fear or doubt.

[Bluegoat]

I have recently, after a month of thought and a couple of days dedicated to study, changed my beliefs on a fairly major aspect of Christianity (not a salvation issue, but a major theological point). The belief I now have is not the popular view today, however is still taught by some churches and has waved and waned in popularity over the centuries, with writings about it from as early as the second century. So I haven't just made this up in my head, it's a well debated, well studied train of thought. 

 

But I feel... strange. Like, my original beliefs were popular and what I was taught as a child, and they feel like the undeniable truth. No matter how much I believe in what I do now, it feels like I'm just making it up in my head because what I was taught is still the default correct answer in my head. What I now believe feels silly and impossible (even though I felt very at peace with it when I studied and decided) and what I was originally taught seems like fact right in front of me, even though the only thing in front of me is a number of churches teaching it, with not a lot of biblical backup. 

 

I've never really changed my thoughts on anything major before. Is this feeling normal and will pass? It's really.... unsettling. Like I don't even believe myself. Am I crazy? lol

 

I think it makes perfect sense that you would feel this way.  A lot of the time our ideas about things like this are actually pretty integrated into other things we think, even if they don't seem all that related.  I would say for example that my view on the communion of saints is closely related to my views on ecology, though they don't seem to be immediately connected.  And it took me quite a few years myself to really think a lot of those connections out.

 

When you change something pretty significant in your system, it probably isn't really totally integrated into the rest of your thinking yet in a really organic way - its like there is a sort of seam around it, or a lens and the perspective is a bit off.  So - as if you are trying on an idea that you haven't yet made your own.

 

Of course it could be something else, but that's my thought on it.

[Bluegoat]

Seems we are on the same page lol, because that is actually what I was questioning. Thank you so much for your link above, I've read through the 4 articles and while it didn't say anything I hadn't already come across (except the worm thing, which is a question answered) all of the sources I had found so far were from Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses, neither of which get much respect from the few family and friends I have who are Christians. An article from a mainstream Christian point of view may be something I can pass on to them if the topic comes up. 

 

You might try looking at some Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic resources and see what they say about Hell.  They are generally also compatible with the way the western apostolic churches think, but it would probably be more useful to you at this point to look at the eastern way of speaking about it.  I would say that you probably should not assume that either SDA or JW views will be compatible with more mainstream Christianity on this - as in, you can't always just swap in that part and have it work.

 

This webpage discusses the question, but there are lots of others as well if you just google the relevant terms.  One of the more important ideas in this way of thinking (from the webpage) that can seem strange to people from Protestant traditions:

 

Consequently, paradise and hell are not a reward or a punishment (condemnation), but the way that we individually experience the sight of Christ, depending on the condition of our heart. God doesn't punish in essence, although, for educative purposes, the Scripture does mention punishment. The more spiritual that one becomes, the better he can comprehend the language of the Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Man's condition (clean-unclean, repentant-unrepentant) is the factor that determines the acceptance of the Light as "paradise" or "hell".

 

ETA - He's quite negative in the article about the Latin church, and unfairly so IMO, but it really isn't important to get the idea about what he is saying about Hell.

[Denise in Florida]

I've had significant changes in my theology over a period of many years.  At times, I have pretty much thrown it all up in the air and looked closely at it one piece at a time.  As I did that, the chaff blew away and what I actually needed was left.  It was a process.  A long process.  More than anything, I have loosened my grip on theology and whereas I began with a long list of "stuff I believed", it has shortened considerably through the years until my core beliefs are very basic, and the rest is in an "I don't know" category.  It is one of the reasons I don't enjoy theological debate.  Mostly, I just sit and say, "I don't know" and smile.  If people try to make me know, I become annoyed.  I'm good at skirting, smiling and nodding, etc.  Because I have arrived at the place that it really does not matter to me, and I do not have extra time and energy to devote to things that I have come to believe are mostly unknowable.  I'm fine living in the gray area.

 

I don't know if that helps you or not.

 

the bolded is exactly how I feel.  I deeply enjoy studying the Bible, but find fewer and fewer 'hills to die on' as I go. 

[happi duck]

Wait... Are you saying you konmaried your beliefs? :)

This is funny & useful & awesome!!!