Hell is a real place

The Bible version quoted from and referred to in my argument will always be the King James Version. The meaning and use of the Hebrew and Greek words for hell, as it is found in the Bible, are theologically contested and perpetually controversial. So, instead of employing original definitions which can easily be challenged from many different sources, I shall endeavor to apply logic and reason, using only the Bible as a reference in round two. However, I may employ other sources and definitions for the rebuttal in round three. To say that hell is not a place is, admittedly, not entirely accurate. When one is suffering, whatever location that person is in while they suffer, could, in fact, be called hell. But for someone else in the same location, who is not suffering, hell would be an unlikely epithet. For this reason, it is safe to say that "hell" is a relative term. For instance, for an abused slave, a plantation would have been hell. But for the plantation owner, who made a great deal of money from unpaid labor, aside from paying foremen, and providing the essentials, it was very likely a heaven. So it is fair to say that the plantation itself was not hell, but the conditions suffered by the abused slaves was indeed hell. As such, in this instance, hell is a condition, not a place, even when the place might be called hell. Continuing to apply that logic, no one would argue that war is hell, wherever that war might be raging. Torture is hell, wherever that torture may be inflicted. Regardless of the location, I believe it is safe to say that the victims of war and torture would say that they were in hell. In fact it is common knowledge that many victims of war and torture have been quoted as having "been in hell", or "already having done there time in hell." Now that I have established that the word "hell", outside of the Bible, is not restricted to any particular place, or even recognized as a place, I will show that the same logic can be applied to the word "hell" as it is found in the Bible. Looking at Jonah 2:2 which reads, "And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice." The "belly of hell" Jonah speaks of is inside a fish. Just like all other instances of the word "hell" in the Old Testament, the word "hell" in this verse is the Hebrew sheol. The fact that another Hebrew word is not used to differentiate from all the other instances of sheol that are translated, "hell", offers a very convincing argument that the Hebrew sheol does not necessarily indicate a place, but can certainly mean a condition. Because it is undeniably obvious that the "belly of hell" Jonah speaks of is not one that has a lake of fire, or any other definition usually assigned to the Hebrew sheol. Jonah isn't very happy in the fish's belly. So we see that in this biblical passage, "hell" is a condition, not a place. Otherwise, we would have to be contradictory and say that "hell" is not a lake of fire, but the belly of a fish. Since this instance of "hell" is clearly a condition, then it is not unreasonable to believe that other, or even all, instances of "hell" in the Bible are a condition, not a place. We know from the Bible that not all suffering will be the same. In Matthew 23:14, Christ tells the scribes and Pharisees that they shall receive the "greater damnation". It stands to reason if there is a "greater damnation" or greater punishment, then there must be a lesser punishment. However, there can be no greater or lesser punishment if all the bad boys and girls are tossed into the same lake of fire, where they would all suffer the same punishment. Of course it can be argued that God can make this lake of fire worse than that lake of fire, but there is no biblical support of varying lakes of fire, so it would be an empty argument. Another instance of varying degrees of suffering is found in Matthew 11:22, where Christ says that it will be more tolerable for one type of sinner than for another. Clearly not all sinners will suffer the same punishment. Each person will receive a degree of punishment to match their degree of sin. This cannot be done if they are all tossed into the same eternal lake of fire from which they will never escape. It is reasonable to believe that the lake of fire (and brimstone) is an allegory of the condition of suffering, or "hell" that sinners will be thrust into. A "hell" they will endure until they have paid the uttermost farthing. (Matthew 5:26) Further evidence that "lake of fire" is allegorical can be seen in James 3:6, where the tongue is a fire. And yet, people do not commonly have fire on their tongue. "Lake of fire" is an allegory for the suffering of a life that defiles, just as "tongue is a fire" is an allegory for words that defile. I have sufficiently shown that it is unreasonable to believe that God has created a lake of fire where sinners will burn eternally. Further logic shows that God would not create such a place. Again and again, the Bible tells of a "just God". Where is the justice of having people endure a lake of eternal fire forever for the sins of a short life time? Even David says that God will not leave his soul in hell. (Acts 2:27) He will suffer hell until he has paid the uttermost farthing, then he, like all other sinners, will receive a just judgment (Revelations 20:13-14), and will be placed in one of God's many mansions. (John 14:2) There is, of course, the argument that the Bible clearly tells us that there will be no end to the sinner's suffering. In light of what I have presented, it should be clear that the sinners cannot end their suffering. For them, it seems to have no end. Only God can end their suffering, and even then, it will continue forever as regret, because they will receive a lesser eternal reward than the more righteous. Or, perhaps, no reward at all. Finally, though this is admittedly superficial at best, it should be noted that "hell" is recognized as a pronoun in the Bible only once. Cities, like Jerusalem, are always capitalized, but not "hell". One might argue that "hell" should be capitalized, but erroneously was not in the King James Version, or that it need not be capitalized because it is not an established location. However, the "not an established location" excuse fails, because "Zion" and its transliterate "Sion" in the New Testament, is consistently capitalized despite not being an established location. The word "hell" is found in the King James Version 54 times. 5 of those times it is capitalized. 4 times because it begins a sentence, and once because Hell is made an entity along with Death, riding on a pale horse. The other 49 times, it is written with the lower case "h". Why? Could it be that the translators of the English Bible interpreted "hell" as not a place, but as a condition, and therefore made it a lower case noun, and not a capitalized pronoun? From what I have presented, I would have to say that it makes sense. I believe by using only the Bible that I have shown sufficiently well that "hell" is a condition, and not a place.