Exactly who will dwell in the pits of the Christian hell?

Exactly who? You mean you want names and stuff?

Here's my question- why does a non-Christian even care what a Christian thinks about who's going to hell? No, that's not a good question, because you don't care. How about, why even ask the question?

OOHHH I can answer this one... but like all of my posts according to Catholic doctrine. This is not a "I think post" In fact this is exactly what you are asking. This is the Catholic stance on hell....


When we were created God made us in his immage and likeness. This does not however mean that we are created physically like him (after all God is a spirit and has no parts so would not have any physical attributes.... thats another lesson..) we are bestowed with the powers of Free Will and Intelect. Now when we die we do not loose these gifts. We can still think and we still have free will. That means that you can be in heaven and decide to deny God through sin.... all beings are created with the intention of the "Beatific Vision" or seeing God in his true form. Thats what we believe we get in Heaven. ANY WAY when you die you are granted full knowldge of God and Gods love for you. You understand that it is through his love you are created and that through his love you stay in existance. You understnad this. However we still have free will and can decided to go against this... Just as a human needs food to surivive we need GOds Love to keep our soul healthy. However our soul cannot die.

Lets look at the coditions for a mortal sin.... You have to have FULL KNOWLDGE OF THE ACT, it has to be your decision alone and you must be int eh right mind... Ok now A mortal sin is what breaks you and you loving relationship with God completly off. When we die we have this full knowldge of Gods ultimate infintite undendign love for us. We are poised with the decision.. Except God or not. We know that if you do not decided to take Gods love your soul will suffer because of it you have full knowldge that even though you do not except it he is still greater than you. It will do us good to see what sin actually stems from. Pride, selfishness, and greed. We know that God loves us entirely and that he is the supreme of supremes but out of selfishness and pride for ourselves we deny him. In death we know this we know that it is entirely futile to deny God but you have such a ammount of pride foryouself you do it anyway. And that is what grants you damnination.

You are damed becaus you have FULL KNOLDGE FULL CONSENT AND ARE PERFECTLY SANE (sanity= knowing the world as it is) your decision is perfect according to you infinite knowldge of the situation. But you deny God anyway even though you know your soul will suffer because you are not in the Beatific Vision.

That is the Catholic teaching on geting to Hell. People do not get to hell for stealing, or for murders, they get there because of pride and selfishness. Pick up the satanic bible.. It doesnt try to get you to kill people all it talks about is pride. The ultimate sin.

Hope that all makes sense. (of course if you kill someone or steal out of pride, greed and selfishness which most of the tiem it is you are in a tough luck situation but you ultimately have to have so much pride for yourself you deny God FULLY)

Originally posted by yeahright
Exactly who? You mean you want names and stuff?

Here's my question- why does a non-Christian even care what a Christian thinks about who's going to hell? No, that's not a good question, because you don't care. How about, why even ask the question?

You're right, I don't care...

The problem is I have to deal with Christians telling me I'll be eternally tortured if I don't follow their religion. I don't go around telling people that the giant spaghetti monster will torture you forever if your spiritual beliefs don't match mine. I don't like having to hear this crap from people, so I ask them questions like this, to see how far their belief goes.

Unfortunately, I will continue to hear this crap from people. C'est la vie, I guess...:bnghd::bash:

Mizar, you just got a WATS vote from me, excellent post. Those were things that still weren't clear to me after 5 years so far of Catholic schooling, explained in a single post. Thank you.

--Kit.

Originally posted by spamandham
Considering that hell is cast into the lake of fire in Rev 20:14, it doesn't make sense to equate the lake of fire with hell. The Bible certainly never equates them, so you are not on solid ground (from your perspective) with such a presumption.

From what I have learned. Before the cross when someone died they went to hades. Hades had 2 compartments, one for the unsaved and one for the saved. After the cross the saved side was emptied and now saved people go directly to be with God at their death. The unsaved side still continues to admit those who die without Christ.

The devil does not currently reside in hell either.

The Lake of Fire will be the permanent place for those outside of Christ and death and hell will be a part of the Lake of Fire(symbolically or in reality.

[edit on 14-12-2005 by dbrandt]

Originally posted by yeahright
Here's my question- why does a non-Christian even care what a Christian thinks about who's going to hell?

I would like to answer the reverse of this question. If we, as christians, really believe what God tells us in the Bible, then we don't want anyone to end up with this fate for all eternity.

Originally posted by truthseeka

You're right, I don't care...

The problem is I have to deal with Christians telling me I'll be eternally tortured if I don't follow their religion. I don't go around telling people that the giant spaghetti monster will torture you forever if your spiritual beliefs don't match mine. I don't like having to hear this crap from people, so I ask them questions like this, to see how far their belief goes.

Unfortunately, I will continue to hear this crap from people. C'est la vie, I guess...:bnghd::bash:

So you don't want to hear about it, and you don't care, but you continue to ask about it.

Just a suggestion- you might want to give a thought as to where that comes from.

I'll never tell anyone what they ought to believe. Everyone has to figure that out for themselves. Someone asks what I think because they really want to know, I'll more than likely tell 'em. Someone just baiting to pick a fight, no time for that. But plenty of people do. So, good luck with whetever it is you're trying to accomplish.

Originally posted by dbrandt
From what I have learned. Before the cross when someone died they went to hades. Hades had 2 compartments, one for the unsaved and one for the saved. After the cross the saved side was emptied and now saved people go directly to be with God at their death. The unsaved side still continues to admit those who die without Christ.

None of this is Biblical. You know that don't you?

Originally posted by dbrandt
The Lake of Fire will be the permanent place for those outside of Christ and death and hell will be a part of the Lake of Fire(symbolically or in reality.

I really don't see how death can be part of the lake of fire. Death is neither a thing nor a place, but merely a synonym for formerly-aliveness. There is no way to make sense of that passage literally. You are compelled by the text itself to interpret the lake of fire metaphorically. Fire consumes absolutely. The lake of fire is a metaphor for absolute destruction. Take note that no-where does the Bible claim that the lake of fire is eternal.

Rev. is saying that both death and Hades (/tartarus/hell/the grave/gehenna) will cease to exist. Biblically, hell is not a place of eternal torture, because hell is not eternal. "the worm does not burn" is not the same as "the worm will live forever". "gnashing of teeth" is the grimace of death.

The problem is that you are taking multiple references to different things and assuming thay are all references to the same thing. Sheol is the grave. Gehenna was an actual garbage heap outside of Jerusalem where fires burned continuously, and where the bodies of criminals were dumped. Hades, Tartarus, and Hell were Greek concepts added in the New Testament, while the lake of fire is a metaphorical representation for complete destruction. These are all unique ideas, not representations of a single idea. This perspective is not anti-Christian in the least, although it may cause contention among those who commit idolatry of the Bible.

Only ask questions when you're willing to hear the answer.

I've noticed a lot of this "Christian" heaven and "Christian" hell stuff going on, as though each religion on Earth has its own heaven and hell. Sounds remarkably like On A Pale Horse, where the author (can't remember his name ) proposed, essensially, that you go where you want to go, and athiests simply cease to be. It also sounds as though all religions are right...Well, except for Christianity, as so many members lately have insultingly pointed out (meaning they not only pointed this out, but made a point to slam Christians for either their intelligence, their intolerance, their belief that they're right (that one is VERY ironic, no?), etc).

If this question is a legitimate issue, if there really is a question of who's going to go to the "Christian" hell, then you need to consider the idea that Christianity may be right. If Christians are right, the Bible is true, and God did offer us salvation through Christ's sacrifice, then the answer is that everyone who doesn't accept Christ is going to Hell. If, on the other hand, Christians aren't right, the Bible is false, and God didn't offer us salvation through Christ, but there is a God, we're boned if He's just. Finally, if Christians are wrong and there is no God, then what's the point? Why live? What is the purpose of life except to create biomatter to feed other life until the sun finally turns the Earth into a ball of ooze before going out. Why bother with this conversation, there is no end result to it.

Originally posted by junglejake
If Christians are right, the Bible is true,

If christianity is correct, then their interpretation of scripture and professed doctrine might certainly prove to be correct, as well.

If, on the other hand, Christians aren't right, the Bible is false,

If christianity is not correct, then there is a good chance that the associated scriptural interpretations are erroneous, as well.

This does not prove the bible false, only the interpretations of one group thereof.

There would have to be additional testing regarding the bible irrespective of christianity.

Finally, if Christians are wrong and there is no God,

If christianity is wrong, then it is very possible that it was created and approved of men rather than God, as was presumed by so many.

God's existence does not hinge on whether the religion of christianity is truth or not.

The bible's reliability as sound doctrine and worthy instruction is directly and solely associated to the question of God, and nothing outside of that.

The bible's trustworthiness has no dependency, whatsoever, resting on the validity of the christian religion.

The question of God, as being true and real, has absolutely no dependency or burden of proof resting on any other concept, literary work, human being, or anything that exists.

Let God be true and every man a liar.

I say that in all seriousness and sincerity. And 'every man' includes both you as well as myself, Jake.

We are not the Potter, we are the pots. This is a point to be remembered at all times.

in revelations 20:12-15....it talks about the books and the book of life.....then it says that the dead will rise and sit before god in judgement....it states that they will be judged on the works..judged according to there works....then it cast hell and death into lake of fire.....then anyone who is not in the book of life is thrown in too.....
to me that doesnt mean if you dont believe in christ you go to the lake of fire...that means no matter what you claim or think, it was your deeds and heart that get you into the book of life.....

basically its like this.........christian hell=non believers in christ
bible hell=those who have made themselves
unworthy of the book of life

Originally posted by queenannie38
If christianity is wrong, then it is very possible that it was created and approved of men rather than God, as was presumed by so many.

God's existence does not hinge on whether the religion of christianity is truth or not.

That was the reason I made the second point. The second point stated that God existed, but He wasn't the Christian God as the Bible states. I wasn't saying God doesn't exist if the God described in the entire Bible isn't real in the second point, nor in the third. I was saying if Christianity is wrong but there is a God in the second point, and if Christianity is wrong and there is no God in the third.

I'm curious, though, because I haven't been able to tell from your posts. Do you believe the Bible to be true, factual, inerrant, and accurate?

Christian Pride*

Originally posted by junglejake
It also sounds as though all religions are right...Well, except for Christianity, as so many members lately have insultingly pointed out (meaning they not only pointed this out, but made a point to slam Christians for either their intelligence, their intolerance, their belief that they're right (that one is VERY ironic, no?), etc).

If the shoe fits, eat it. The “slams” listed above are only slams if they are based in truth, otherwise they are meaningless.

Far too many Christians hold up their vanity as “righteousness” and condemn others for failing to worship their false idols -- delusive icons fashioned from specious declarations of their own unfounded certainty.

Hence the ridicule, since it is well-deserved.

If this doesn't apply to you, then you have no need to worry about it -- except perhaps to warn others away from it.

If it does apply to you, awareness of this fact can help you grow.

Your claim that Christians are singled out for this is false -- in my case, at least. I call it like I see it, regardless of religion.

That includes the Marxist religion, whose adherents aren't even honest enough to admit it's a religion, though it bears every trapping of religion, from scripture to dogma to declarations of faith. “There is no god but social justice, and Marx is its prophet.”

The affront all aggressive religions commit is that of disrespect for the sanctity of our spirits and birthrights as children of the Creator, who gifted us with our own volition.

The demands of the aggressive religions of gods and demons are always the same: serve or suffer.

Without exception, they insult the worth of the Creator's greatest blessing, which exposes their roots in darkness and deceit.

Our opinions are for us to choose, not for others to dictate.

Not even the Creator is arrogant enough to say otherwise.

Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't

Originally posted by junglejake
If this question is a legitimate issue, if there really is a question of who's going to go to the "Christian" hell, then you need to consider the idea that Christianity may be right. If Christians are right, the Bible is true, and God did offer us salvation through Christ's sacrifice, then the answer is that everyone who doesn't accept Christ is going to Hell. If, on the other hand, Christians aren't right, the Bible is false, and God didn't offer us salvation through Christ, but there is a God, we're boned if He's just.

This is a false dichotomy based on the fallacy that only these two cases can be correct. There are many other possibilities.

Unlike those who insist that they have the power to determine truth by declaration, I accept the possibility that I can be wrong. In fact, I depend on it. Everything I say or post should be considered in light of this.

I am probably more convinced of the existence of the Christian gods and Jesuses (Jesi?) than most Christians I know of. This comes from having personally experienced the possession of the Holy Spirit and communing many times with God and Jesus -- the Baptist versions mainly, but others as well.

They are powerful spirits, but they are not universal, hence the need for them to recruit followers, like every other god does.

Since most Christian doctrines insist that their gods are the only One True Gods, adherents of those doctrines deny the existence of other gods. However, they do so in opposition to the Bible itself, to words they themselves attribute to their own god:

Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

What this means is: according to God, other gods exist.

Either that or God was mistaken, jealous for no reason, ordered people not to worship gods that do not exist and in doing so, falsely implied that they do. Denying the existence of other gods means implying the Second Commandment was given on the basis of nonsense, and that God is effectively a paranoid nut case.

Was God wrong to suggest other gods exist?

You decide.

There are plenty of other biblical references confirming the existence of other gods, but this is the most succinct. The evidence is there for those who look, and choose honesty instead of deceit.

For my part, I am aware of many of these gods -- and there are a lot of them.

What I repeatedly “see” in my meditations is that all systems of belief are generally correct in their fashion, but that none of them are universal.

They are “universal” only within the contexts they define: their own realities.

Spiritual Outsourcing

Originally posted by junglejake
Finally, if Christians are wrong and there is no God, then what's the point? Why live? What is the purpose of life except to create biomatter to feed other life until the sun finally turns the Earth into a ball of ooze before going out.

This assumes that finding meaning in our lives is someone else's responsibility.

It's our job, and shirking it will never bring fulfillment.

The Tedious Bother Of Learning

Originally posted by junglejake
Why bother with this conversation, there is no end result to it.

This could only be true only if those who engage in the conversation choose not to think about what is being discussed.

Even in such cases, self-imposed ignorance cannot be eternal.

We all figure it out eventually.





*A point to ponder: should the expression “Christian Pride” be considered an oxymoron, or not?

Submitted for your consideration.

'christian pride,' IMO, is a redundancy.

'christian humility' is the oxymoron in my view.

I am defining 'christian' in the strictest sense of the religion itself and nothing else, BTW.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by dbrandt
From what I have learned. Before the cross when someone died they went to hades. Hades had 2 compartments, one for the unsaved and one for the saved.

None of this is Biblical. You know that don't you?



I really don't see how death can be part of the lake of fire. Death is neither a thing nor a place, but merely a synonym for formerly-aliveness. There is no way to make sense of that passage literally. You are compelled by the text itself to interpret the lake of fire metaphorically. Fire consumes absolutely. The lake of fire is a metaphor for absolute destruction. Take note that no-where does the Bible claim that the lake of fire is eternal.

Rev. is saying that both death and Hades (/tartarus/hell/the grave/gehenna) will cease to exist. Biblically, hell is not a place of eternal torture, because hell is not eternal. "the worm does not burn" is not the same as "the worm will live forever". "gnashing of teeth" is the grimace of death.

Read Luke 16:19-31 for the 2 compartments.

Death and hell being thrown into the Lake of Fire means that they will no longer exist outside of the Lake of Fire.

The beast and false prophet are thrown into the Lake of Fire 1000 years before anyone else and are still there when satan enters it, so it is forever as well as the verses saying that the unsaved will be tormented forever.

Mark 9:44
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

9:45
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

9:46
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

9:47
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

9:48
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.


Appears like it's eternal from these verses also.

dbrandt--
Now that I know that in all likelihood that you have access to a concordance, from your own suggestion that I look up something in another thread...

You have absolutely no excuse for such misguided assumptions such as these--because there is a wealth of clarity at your disposal and still you opt for confusing contradictions which don't make sense except to your own soon-to-be-raptured-or-so-you-are-betting-on-it-anyway self!

The Holy Spirit always insists on proper exegesis, and I know that for a fact.



All I can say is that I hope you see the prudence of a 'plan B' in this situation...


[edit on 12/15/2005 by queenannie38]

Just a few notes:

First off, Majic, I do hope you see the irony in your own post in saying I'm being vain thinking I'm right, but the reality is you're right and therefore my religion should be insulted. I especially liked this comment: "Our opinions are for us to choose, not for others to dictate. " Unless the other is you?

Second, What other possibilities are there? I stated that either Christianity is right or wrong. I also stated that there is either a God or there isn't. Three options. Christians are right and there is a God, Christians are wrong and there is a God, or Christians are wrong and there is no God. There's something else?

Third, I would hope that people reading my posts don't think of them as gospel truth, as well. I, by no means, am an authority in Biblical studies, nor am I the Pope speaking on behalf of God infallibly when I post on this website. I express my opinion and interpretations. Often I've been wrong or have changed my mind on issues due to debates here on ATS. As of yet, though, someone calling me names for doing something they do in the very post where they call me names hasn't convinced me I'm wrong yet. Maybe you'll be the exception to that rule, but I highly doubt it.

Fourth, Your interpretation of Exodus 20:3 may or may not be right, and I suspect, through the rest of scripture, that it is not right. Throughout scripture it talks of people making false idols and Gods out of things, from a golden calf to worshipping the law instead of God. God is also called the true God, which would indicate that others are false Gods. You could claim that Exodus 20:3 proves that television is, in fact, a God, but the rest of the Bible indicates that anything that you worship and focus on more that God would be the false god you're "having".

Finally, if there's no God, and humanity is going to be doomed, what possible effect will your actions have on eternity? What is your goal in life, and why?

QueenAnnie, If you have been chosen by God to be granted wisdom into the Bible to know which parts are true and which are false and to finally understand Christianity in a way that no one has ever understood it before, you need to write books, get a television show, and expose this truth to the entire world, because 6 billion people don't get what you know, and we're all being far too arrogant in thinking we understand when, in fact, it is only you who really understands what's going on.

Side note: I may be a little cranky today; I'm rather ill

Originally posted by junglejake
That was the reason I made the second point. The second point stated that God existed, but He wasn't the Christian God as the Bible states. I wasn't saying God doesn't exist if the God described in the entire Bible isn't real in the second point, nor in the third. I was saying if Christianity is wrong but there is a God in the second point, and if Christianity is wrong and there is no God in the third.

Good try.

Your use of 'finally' in what you obviously considered the only remaining viable possibility gives you away. Your choice of words and phrasing demonstrates the confidence you have that what you believe is the unmitigated truth and so therefore, if your beliefs turn out to be wrong, then God doesn't exist. And this is a very clever way for you to subconsciously keep yourself from questioning the possibility that you might indeed be a little misled. Because, by your line of proposed reasoning, if you are mislead, then God does not exist. Since there are far more souls who believe in God, in general, than they are that wholly subscribe to christian theology, this is a convoluted affirmation to your unconscious that what you believe to be proven is, indeed, proven.

Methinks you are backpeddling. But it doesn't matter.

I say these things with an impartiality that in no way judges you as 'wrong' even though I make frequent, and often harsh, criticisms of the christian religion--it is the religion I criticize, not it's proponents. The religion is a deceiver of the worst kind, but it would be far from appropriate for me to judge any person because of this. Especially since the whole situation is a fulfilling of prophecies and is part of the work toward the full revelation of Christ.

Our subconscious is a part of ourselves that we rarely detect, much less are able to monitor in the same manner we perform our self-checks on a conscious level. What we do not see of ourselves, however, is often easily seen by others. If we see something we err if we do not make it known.

I'm curious, though, because I haven't been able to tell from your posts. Do you believe the Bible to be true, factual, inerrant, and accurate?

In all honesty, I am somewhat surprised that you 'haven't been able to tell' from my posts what my personal stance on the bible is...I figured it was glaringly apparent to the point of many perhaps wishing I would just take my continual scriptural references and get the heck out of Dodge.

Is it because my references to scripture don't match up with what is acceptable as 'christian' proof-texting, making it seem as if I have an ulterior motivation far removed from the direction one would expect the Spirit to lead me if I did, in fact, have a sincere and wholehearted trust in the Living God?

Or is it because you really just have never paid much attention to the things I post, since we hardly ever electronically conversate with each other on this forum?

Once again, it doesn't matter. I'll give you an answer, every time you ask me something.

Do I consider the bible to be?

• true
  
• factual
  
• inerrant
  
• accurate

I hope you weren't expecting a one-syllable blanket answer for a four part question

1. Yes. Completely. But I daresay your definition of true is = to 'factual'. Mine is not. True is more valuable than factual but factual is good, too. I believe the bible is 'true' as defined in Webster's New World Dictionary:
   faithful; loyal; constant, reliable; certain, agrees with reality; not false
   
2. For the most part, yes. I cannot say anything definitely, because how can I say something agrees with all known facts when I, myself, do not know all known facts. I believe the people it tells of were real people and not fictional characters--I believe that the resurrection did indeed take place very much as is described, that is, there might be a few discrepancies in the details given in the various gospels and other sources, but overall I have no doubt that Christ truly died a literal human death by crucifixion and I also have no doubt whatsoever that He was resurrected and truly left his borrowed tomb and never looked back.
   
3. No. A bible, as an inanimate object that cannot make choices for itself, cannot be described as either 'making a mistake' nor 'inerrant.' The bible does not 'err,' but men certainly do. Any error connected with the bible in that way is an error of the reader, not the bible, itself.
   
4. Only as accurate as the spirit that is leading the reader. For a good part of the time, it is sadly rendered to a state of negligible accuracy. I find the traditional christian interpretation to be the source of a great deal of this tragic misrepresentation.
   

On the flip side, though--speaking also in the sense of 'before' and 'after' in my own life--I have found the bible to be unequaled in its harmony, consistency, and order. But the degree to which I see the indescribable genius in the bible remains hidden to most, because the true beauty of the bible lies in its prophecies regarding the rise and fall of the christian religion, of which so far we have only witnessed the rise, but the fall is imminent. Revelation is so much more valid than even the rapture fan club could even guess, but the attachment to something as un-Christ-like as being whisked away in hide-saving divine swoop is a selfish view that blinds many eyes to the truth because God plainly says more than just once that He will hide His truth from those who practice iniquity. Iniquity is obviously another all too often misunderstood word.

Originally posted by queenannie38
You have absolutely no excuse for such misguided assumptions such as these--because there is a wealth of clarity at your disposal and still you opt for confusing contradictions which don't make sense except to your own soon-to-be-raptured-or-so-you-are-betting-on-it-anyway self!

And I could say the same thing about your interpretations of the Bible. You believe one way and I believe another. I will continue to tell others that without using their free will to accept what Christ has done on their behalf that they are lost and headed for an eternal seperation from God. One of us is wrong. If your right then no one has anything to worry about because eventually everyone will get to heaven and eternity.

On the other hand if I'm right and I believe I am because The Holy Spirit confirms to me each day that He has revealed the truth to me and millions of others. Then what you preach is dangerous and eternally deadly because people are dying without Christ and will be eternally seperated from Him.

Originally posted by dbrandt
Read Luke 16:19-31 for the 2 compartments.

Are you saying that the bosom of Abraham where Lazarus was carried by angels is actually a chamber of hell!?? The great chasm is not a wall between two compartments of hell, its a chasm between heaven and hell.

Originally posted by dbrandt
Death and hell being thrown into the Lake of Fire means that they will no longer exist outside of the Lake of Fire.

Please explain what it means for death to exist within the lake of fire. Not to mention, you have just added to the Bible by saying that it doesn't mean what it says. It says that death will be cast into the lake of fire. It doesn't make sense to interpret the passage half literal and half symbolic. You're just making it say what you want it to say rather than what it actually says.

Originally posted by dbrandt
The beast and false prophet are thrown into the Lake of Fire 1000 years before anyone else and are still there when satan enters it, so it is forever as well as the verses saying that the unsaved will be tormented forever.

1000 years isn't forever (not to mention, isn't the afterlife timeless?). You should go back to the greek in question regarding the passages you think mean "tormented forever". I think you'll find that to be a poor translation.

Originally posted by dbrandt
Mark 9:44
Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

9:45
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

...and what is the Greek word that has been translated here as 'hell'? Gehenna right? Now show me the passage where the Bible tells us that Gehenna, an actual place outside Jerusalem, was really a metaphor for a spiritual realm of torture.

Even worse, the words translated as "that never shall be quenched" are properly translated as 'unquenchable'. The eternal concept is not even in the Greek.

You have no scriptural basis for equating Gehenna with hell in the original texts, nor is there a case to be made that the fires of Gehenna are eternal in the original Greek.

All you are doing is resting on the decision the KJV translators made to equate Gehenna with hell. They had only their preconceptions to base such a decision on, and you are simply aligning yourself with their preconceptions. You're making it say what you want it to say, rather than what the original texts actually said.