The hells nature debate - Research Paper Example

The debate about the nature of hell is covered in consideration of three main aspects about hell: the duration of hell; the main reason for hell and finally the felling in hell (is the feeling experienced in a state of consciousness or unconsciousness) From this point of view; it is definitely clear that hell’s nature is far much more complicated to understand that one could easily think. As a matter of fact, with the rising of new knowledge each and everyday, it becomes very confusing as to what exactly is hell made up of.

This paper approaches the topic of the nature of hell with much criticism so as to clearly analyze two main approaches that are used in an attempt to explain the nature of what is believed to be hellii. In doing effectively doing this, the classical view and the annihilationist view about hell have been critically analyzed with their strengths and weaknesses being closely assessed against the benchmark offered by the Biblical explanations about the nature of hell. Classical View Despite the fact that the classical view regarding the nature of hell is mostly pegged on the Biblical teachings, it is very important to take note of the fact that the classical view explaining the nature of hell has different versions which are mainly differentiated as per the interpretations that arise from the Biblical teachings regarding hell.

The first version is the literal view of hell’s nature. . Hells nature will be so rough according to this version that the people who will be damned to be in hell will be forever having regrets of their lives. They will be wishing that they move out but on realizing that hell has no way out, and then it will forever be an eternal psychological suffering to them. From this interpretation, it can be clarified that hell is actually a place with only the way in but it totally has no way out. This is due to the fact that the people who will be damned to be suffering in this place will be wishing that they repent their sins and move out but all this will be in vain as they would be damned to stay in the place eternally.

The second version is the psychological interpretation of the Biblical teachings. This version sharply contradicts with the initial interpretation as it argues that the nature of hell ought not to be literally taken from the Biblical teachings. On the contrary, this version sees the darkness and fires that are used to describe the nature of hell as merely symbols and metaphors that are strategically used to depict the suffering that is in helliv. The fundamental argument that is used by the proponents of this line of thought is the fact that human beings were made by God.

It is therefore in their nature that whatever they desire most is to be with God eternally. Once this aspect is withdrawn then humans are bound to suffer (endure hell’s nature-withdrawal form God’s presence). According to this version, the nature of hell is therefore basically total withdrawal from the presence of God eternally. The darkness and fires that are used o describe the tough nature of hell simply