Why do people believe in hell?

[James Brown]

The most contemptuous form of revenge is not to deem one’s adversary worth taking vengeance upon. Many have taken small injuries much more seriously to heart than they need, by revenging them: that man is great and noble who like a large wild animal hears unmoved the tiny curs that bark at him.”


--Seneca

It seems to me that "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" is more about becoming offended when something that we hold sacred is insulted. Witness the man who can happily swap insults with his friends, but as soon as you say one bad word about his mother he flies into a rage.

Of course, as Seneca teaches, the bigger person doesn't feel insulted by the smaller one. A wise man doesn't say, "How dare you insult me! You must be punished!" It's only the wise man's underlings who feel it necessary to take umbrage on their leader's behalf.

 

[Learner]

Some quotes from 2nd Century Christian leaders and/or texts:



Ignatius of Antioch
“Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil teaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him” (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1–2 [A.D. 110]).

(use just one from your example to shorten quote)
.......

It would seem difficult to make a reasonable case that hell as eternal torture was anything other than pretty central to early christian teachings and beliefs, whatever more palatable interpretations were made later, including by some people in recent times.

How much has scripture changed, from the times of those 2nd century leaders in your list (or earlier) to the scripture we have available to us now? It hasn't changed of course, so what makes them understand the bible more than theologians of today, who can scrutinizes and study the bible vigorously?
Gnosticism came about around then, and they seem to have read it differently with an alternative viewpoint of hell.

 

[ruby sparks]

How much has scripture changed, from the times of those 2nd century leaders in your list (or earlier) to the scripture we have available to us now? It hasn't changed of course, so what makes them understand the bible more than theologians of today, who can scrutinizes and study the bible vigorously?

Well, for one thing, theologians today are two thousand years removed from actual events. Under normal circumstances, that would be considered quite a big disadvantage, in historiographical reliability terms. Straight from the horse's mouth (well, not that much removed from it) and all that.

Gnosticism came about around then, and they seem to have read it differently with an alternative viewpoint of hell.

Yes. Different interpretations abound, and have done ever since almost day 1 of the cult, after the death of the founder, it seems.

My point was mainly about what became 'standard/mainstream christianity' and its doctrines. Gnosticism never really even got close to being that. Most of the quoted churchmen were apparently the forerunners of it. The texts that eventually made it into the bible are examples of it, by and large.

My other general point is that there is basically far too much evidence from early Christianity, both from the bible and from early church writings, of belief in hell as eternal torture, to make a convincingly reasonable case that it wasn't what was generally and commonly accepted.

It may have been, as I agreed before, that eternal torture in hell was not Jesus' belief, and it may not have been the belief of other early versions of Christianity which eventually lost out to orthodoxy, what Bart Erhmann calls "Lost Christianities".

 

[Atheos]

Even when I was a believer I didn't buy the "It's just a parable" line when it comes to the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

Name one other parable that described things that could not happen. You can't. A sower went forth to sow and the seeds fell in various places exactly like you'd expect them to in real life.

A man is journeying and falls among ruffians who beat him and leave him for dead. A couple of people walk by without getting involved. A 3rd person stops and helps the guy. Exactly the sorts of things that happen in real life.

Whether it's a bridegroom being late for his wedding while the maidens burn the oil lamps or a young man squandering his inheritance living large, not one single parable attributed to Jesus involves things that don't happen in real life.

Except of course this one, if you truly want to insist that it is a parable. In which other parable does the main protagonist have a name? When I was a preacher I adamantly taught that this was literal truth from someone who had seen all of these things happen. He was offering us a glimpse of what is beyond that veil behind which we cannot see.

Ironically I now am quite sure that none of this stuff actually happened. Sometimes irony can be pretty ironic, huh?

 

[Learner]

Even when I was a believer I didn't buy the "It's just a parable" line when it comes to the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

I go along with DBT who says "it reads what its says" i.e. parable. I share your irony.

 

[ruby sparks]

Even when I was a believer I didn't buy the "It's just a parable" line when it comes to the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

Name one other parable that described things that could not happen. You can't. A sower went forth to sow and the seeds fell in various places exactly like you'd expect them to in real life.

A man is journeying and falls among ruffians who beat him and leave him for dead. A couple of people walk by without getting involved. A 3rd person stops and helps the guy. Exactly the sorts of things that happen in real life.

Whether it's a bridegroom being late for his wedding while the maidens burn the oil lamps or a young man squandering his inheritance living large, not one single parable attributed to Jesus involves things that don't happen in real life.

Except of course this one, if you truly want to insist that it is a parable. In which other parable does the main protagonist have a name? When I was a preacher I adamantly taught that this was literal truth from someone who had seen all of these things happen. He was offering us a glimpse of what is beyond that veil behind which we cannot see.

Ironically I now am quite sure that none of this stuff actually happened. Sometimes irony can be pretty ironic, huh?

The thing about parables and allegory is, as DBT says, what are they about, even if they are parables and allegories..... about.....a scenario that is...... just horrible?

So, I can make one up. There was this guy and he did the wrong thing and then because of that he fell down a manhole into a sewer full of human excrement and never got out again and no one ever heard his cries. It's not exactly a suitable bedtime story for children, unless you're trying to scare the bejeezus out of them.

And let's face it, it would be one heck of an unlikely coincidence if all the nice stuff was meant literally and all the horrible stuff wasn't. Wouldn't that be convenient, for a production of Godspell maybe.

 

[Learner]

Chris Date gives his explanation, that does not mean he actually resolves the issue. And yes, Abraham and the rich man is a parable but the terms of parable do not entail annihilation but eternal torment, the rich man is not described in terms of dead in the grave, he is suffering for his sins. The dead do not suffer, the dead do not regret.

Plus the parable supports the other verses describing eternal torment for the devil and his minions, ncluding those standing on the left - the goats - stated to meet the same fate....so we are still left with a contradiction. To add, death as in annihilation is not eternal punishment. The dead, once dead, suffer no further punishment.

Well yes the physical body that is. The souls go to hades. It's well within the biblical concept of God, who could wake souls from their sleep or ressurect the dead.

No contradiction if it's both annihilation and eternal punishment, judged by the weightiness of their sins, so to speak (we are still learning with study of course).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

(we are still learning with study of course).

Why would you need to learn with study? If this is a thing that a guy is doing and he's interested in us knowing what he's doing, wouldn't he just ... tell us in a straightforward manner or something?

 

[Politesse]

How much has scripture changed, from the times of those 2nd century leaders in your list (or earlier) to the scripture we have available to us now? It hasn't changed of course, so what makes them understand the bible more than theologians of today, who can scrutinizes and study the bible vigorously?

Well, for one thing, theologians today are two thousand years removed from actual events. Under normal circumstances, that would be considered quite a big disadvantage, in historiographical reliability terms. Straight from the horse's mouth (well, not that much removed from it) and all that.

Gnosticism came about around then, and they seem to have read it differently with an alternative viewpoint of hell.

Yes. Different interpretations abound, and have done ever since almost day 1 of the cult, after the death of the founder, it seems.

My point was mainly about what became 'standard/mainstream christianity' and its doctrines. Gnosticism never really even got close to being that. Most of the quoted churchmen were apparently the forerunners of it. The texts that eventually made it into the bible are examples of it, by and large.

My other general point is that there is basically far too much evidence from early Christianity, both from the bible and from early church writings, of belief in hell as eternal torture, to make a convincingly reasonable case that it wasn't what was generally and commonly accepted.

It may have been, as I agreed before, that eternal torture in hell was not Jesus' belief, and it may not have been the belief of other early versions of Christianity which eventually lost out to orthodoxy, what Bart Erhmann calls "Lost Christianities".

Where do you get the idea that Gnosticism was "never close to mainstream"? The vast majority of the literature we possess from the 2nd-3rd centuries is Gnostic in character, and the orthodox gospels are shot themselves shot through with Gnostic termknology in places, especially true of Paul (who only rarely references Jesus as a material organism but constantly describes the cosmic role of Christ). Just because the Vatican later came out on top doesn't mean their theology was always dominant.

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't think non-stamp collecting is the same as blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
The color baldness doesn't violate the 1st Commandment.

Don't you need to 'believe in Jesus' in order to be saved?

I'd love to answer that but there's a no preaching rule here and I don't want to trigger any snowflake atheists.

 

[Lion IRC]

Prominent atheism proselytizer Hemant Mehta says atheists should tell children there is no afterlife - even if they aren't sure.

No such thing as discarnate consciousness. No such thing as alternate realms of space/time.

He seems pretty preachy....for an atheist.

 

[PyramidHead]

Prominent atheism proselytizer Hemant Mehta says atheists should tell children there is no afterlife - even if they aren't sure.

No such thing as discarnate consciousness. No such thing as alternate realms of space/time.

He seems pretty preachy....for an atheist.

 

[DBT]

Even when I was a believer I didn't buy the "It's just a parable" line when it comes to the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

I go along with DBT who says "it reads what its says" i.e. parable. I share your irony.

It was written both as a parable and a warning of what could happen if the message was not heeded...that being the purpose of the parable, to warn of the penalty of not doing what is expected.

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't think non-stamp collecting is the same as blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
The color baldness doesn't violate the 1st Commandment.

Don't you need to 'believe in Jesus' in order to be saved?

I'd love to answer that but there's a no preaching rule here and I don't want to trigger any snowflake atheists.

That appears to be just dishonest of you. You could easily have answered without preaching the answer.

The answer is yes. According to commonly held doctrine, one could and can apparently deserve hell for eternity merely for not believing in or worshiping the god that you believe in and worship.

Obviously you’re not 100% comfortable with that, or you wouldn’t have dodged answering.

 

[DBT]

Chris Date gives his explanation, that does not mean he actually resolves the issue. And yes, Abraham and the rich man is a parable but the terms of parable do not entail annihilation but eternal torment, the rich man is not described in terms of dead in the grave, he is suffering for his sins. The dead do not suffer, the dead do not regret.

Plus the parable supports the other verses describing eternal torment for the devil and his minions, ncluding those standing on the left - the goats - stated to meet the same fate....so we are still left with a contradiction. To add, death as in annihilation is not eternal punishment. The dead, once dead, suffer no further punishment.

Well yes the physical body that is. The souls go to hades. It's well within the biblical concept of God, who could wake souls from their sleep or ressurect the dead.

No contradiction if it's both annihilation and eternal punishment, judged by the weightiness of their sins, so to speak (we are still learning with study of course).

That's a creative interpretation. The Gnostics recognized the evil, which is why they relegated the bible god to evil demiurge status....that was their interpretation.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'd love to answer that but there's a no preaching rule here and I don't want to trigger any snowflake atheists.

That appears to be just dishonest of you. You could easily have answered without preaching the answer...

Which part of my post did you find dishonest?

 

[DBT]

I don't think non-stamp collecting is the same as blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
The color baldness doesn't violate the 1st Commandment.

Don't you need to 'believe in Jesus' in order to be saved?

I'd love to answer that but there's a no preaching rule here and I don't want to trigger any snowflake atheists.

A simple yes or no would be fine, thanks.

 

[ruby sparks]

Which part of my post did you find dishonest?

The reluctance to answer part.

Or more precisely the offering of false reasons for not answering.

It would have been perfectly easy to answer without preaching.

 

[Lion IRC]

I'd love to answer that but there's a no preaching rule here and I don't want to trigger any snowflake atheists.

A simple yes or no would be fine, thanks.

Do you want to be saved?

 

[ruby sparks]

Ok that’s weird.