Why do people believe in hell?

[Keith&Co.]

Not that Politesse needs me to defend him, but I've never really understood it when atheists are critical of progressive versions of Christianity or versions that are different from the literalist point of view. There are so many different Christian sects and interpretations, and the more progressive versions are not all that different from secular humanism.

you don't find it at least a little humerous that people who insist that there is one and only one god, and they are the only arbiters of gender have eleventy-dozen flavors of their religion, based on forty-ten different versions of the exact same WORD from that one sole eight dozen discrete gods?
And get upset if anyone treats the concept of Christainty the way they treat the definition of marriage?

 

[DBT]

Depends on the nature of the book, satire, comedy, poetry, etc. What we have in the verses describing what God does is none of these things.....when it is stated that God creates both good and evil, it is not satire, poetry or metaphor for the opposite, intended to mean something else entirely.

The words and sentences describe what God does - create both good and evil.

Whatever evil is conceived to be, God creates it. God creates it because God is said to create all things.

So how do you decide which books we should think critically about, and which we should take at whatever "face value" happens to mean to us, even in translation? Is it just genre?

I'm not actually disagreeing with your point about the meaning of that verse, I just think your method is atrocious. Of course we should analyze texts in context, regardless of their subject, genre, or author.

My method? I made no mention of a method. A method was not even implied.

 

[Politesse]

Depends on the nature of the book, satire, comedy, poetry, etc. What we have in the verses describing what God does is none of these things.....when it is stated that God creates both good and evil, it is not satire, poetry or metaphor for the opposite, intended to mean something else entirely.

The words and sentences describe what God does - create both good and evil.

Whatever evil is conceived to be, God creates it. God creates it because God is said to create all things.

So how do you decide which books we should think critically about, and which we should take at whatever "face value" happens to mean to us, even in translation? Is it just genre?

I'm not actually disagreeing with your point about the meaning of that verse, I just think your method is atrocious. Of course we should analyze texts in context, regardless of their subject, genre, or author.

My method? I made no mention of a method. A method was not even implied.

Yes, I noticed. So why would we - ever - not have a well-considered approach to reading ancient texts?

 

[DBT]

My method? I made no mention of a method. A method was not even implied.

Yes, I noticed. So why would we - ever - not have a well-considered approach to reading ancient texts?

Nor did I say, or imply, that a well considered approach is not necessary. What is the nature of the bible? How is it to be considered? A collection of poems and allegories?

If so, what sort of information does the bible intend to convey when it says that God creates both good and evil, that God creates the evildoer for the day of Evil?

 

[Politesse]

My method? I made no mention of a method. A method was not even implied.

Yes, I noticed. So why would we - ever - not have a well-considered approach to reading ancient texts?

Nor did I say, or imply, that a well considered approach is not necessary. What is the nature of the bible? How is it to be considered? A collection of poems and allegories?

If so, what sort of information does the bible intend to convey when it says that God creates both good and evil, that God creates the evildoer for the day of Evil?

I mean that "just read it in plain English and assume that its meaning is obvious" is stupid advice.

As for poetry, the entire book of Isaiah is very obviously in verse, so that ought to be assumed in the first place. It also has an author- a book cannot "mean" anything, but an author always does. Do you actually want to learn something about Hebrew poetry, or are you just waiting to re-assert your point?

 

[DBT]

Nor did I say, or imply, that a well considered approach is not necessary. What is the nature of the bible? How is it to be considered? A collection of poems and allegories?

If so, what sort of information does the bible intend to convey when it says that God creates both good and evil, that God creates the evildoer for the day of Evil?

I mean that "just read it in plain English and assume that its meaning is obvious" is stupid advice.

Not at all. The written language is meant to convey information, and if it is meant to convey information clearly and concisely, it does mean what it says and describes.

So unless the bible is not meant to be taken literally, that God is a metaphor for God knows what and nobody understands what is meant by good and evil, the words 'god creates both good and evil were intended to convey the information that God is indeed the creator of good and evil.

As for poetry, the entire book of Isaiah is very obviously in verse, so that ought to be assumed in the first place. It also has an author- a book cannot "mean" anything, but an author always does. Do you actually want to learn something about Hebrew poetry, or are you just waiting to re-assert your point?

Irrelevant and patronizing. The issue is the meaning and significance of verses that tell us that God is responsible for both good and evil, more to the point, the latter.

Maybe you can explain what this says and means and what sort of picture it paints of God;

"And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? Or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? Have not I the Lord?" Exodus 4:11

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create
evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

''Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid? shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?" (Amos
3:6, KJV)

"Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? "
(Lamentations 3:38)

''The Lord is a man of war'' Exodus 15:3.

"The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, He shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: He shall cry, yea roar; He shall prevail against His enemies". Isaiah 42:13

"The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.'' Proverbs 16:4


If these verses do not mean what they clearly describe and say, what exactly do they say and mean? Can you explain?

 

[ruby sparks]

You're fighting against an imaginary foe, that's all I can say to that. I can't defend a position I never held, and have no interest in doing so. You literally cannot read anything I write without ascribing some weird ulterior motive of your own invention. I'm really pretty non-committal in matters of faith; I post on this forum because I find the conversations here interesting, not because I'm trying to
prove this and that abstract metaphysical point. It baffles me that you've known me online for something going on half a decade now, and still harbor a seemingly complete misunderstanding as to my basic personality and motivations. I really am just an odd little religious scholar who likes to talk about things.

I do have strong opinions about some things, and one of them is people who get their morality uncritically from a book rather than thoughtfully defining their own positions. Which seems to be what you think I ought to be doing with the Bible. Or not, I suppose you want me to abandon the book with equal thoughtlessness, because I don't agree with some of it. Most of it, even, perhaps? It might be. In any case, doing either of those things is not something I am constitutionally likely to do. I have never been a black and white thinker, and that isn't going to change. The world is complicated, and anyone who thinks they have "the answer" and no longer needs to consider things afresh is a fool, whatever label they are wearing when the lights of their intellect go out.

No, of course I don't want you to either accept the book at face value or abandon it with thoughtlessness. But I would quite like you, if possible, though of course it's up to you and ultimately none of my business, to at least not blatantly misrepresent it by only accepting the nice bits and eschewing the rest, because with that dubious methodology, 'scholarship' about it is more or less automatically going to be intellectually flawed no matter how thoughtful it is, and someone using that method will only end up confirming to themselves what they are already partial to accepting. As such, it's only pretend critical analysis, and what's the point of that? What's the point of digging into the minutiae of something that is complicated and nuanced if you're doing the digging with the sieve of personal preference? You're an anthropologist. You surely wouldn't recommend judging the veracity of anthropological evidence on that basis, so why do it with theological evidence?

 

[southernhybrid]

Not that Politesse needs me to defend him, but I've never really understood it when atheists are critical of progressive versions of Christianity or versions that are different from the literalist point of view. There are so many different Christian sects and interpretations, and the more progressive versions are not all that different from secular humanism.

you don't find it at least a little humerous that people who insist that there is one and only one god, and they are the only arbiters of gender have eleventy-dozen flavors of their religion, based on forty-ten different versions of the exact same WORD from that one sole eight dozen discrete gods?
And get upset if anyone treats the concept of Christainty the way they treat the definition of marriage?

I am not really sure what you are asking me, but sure I find religion a bit humorous. I just don't demand that Christianity be interpreted in the same way. I'd prefer the more liberal interpretations because I see them as pretty harmless. Isn't it common for people to read the same book of fiction but interpret it in many different ways? Hasn't mythology always had many different meanings and interpretations? It's those who take such things as literal truth that have the potential to be harmful.

 

[Politesse]

You're fighting against an imaginary foe, that's all I can say to that. I can't defend a position I never held, and have no interest in doing so. You literally cannot read anything I write without ascribing some weird ulterior motive of your own invention. I'm really pretty non-committal in matters of faith; I post on this forum because I find the conversations here interesting, not because I'm trying to
prove this and that abstract metaphysical point. It baffles me that you've known me online for something going on half a decade now, and still harbor a seemingly complete misunderstanding as to my basic personality and motivations. I really am just an odd little religious scholar who likes to talk about things.

I do have strong opinions about some things, and one of them is people who get their morality uncritically from a book rather than thoughtfully defining their own positions. Which seems to be what you think I ought to be doing with the Bible. Or not, I suppose you want me to abandon the book with equal thoughtlessness, because I don't agree with some of it. Most of it, even, perhaps? It might be. In any case, doing either of those things is not something I am constitutionally likely to do. I have never been a black and white thinker, and that isn't going to change. The world is complicated, and anyone who thinks they have "the answer" and no longer needs to consider things afresh is a fool, whatever label they are wearing when the lights of their intellect go out.

No, of course I don't want you to either accept the book at face value or abandon it with thoughtlessness. But I would quite like you, if possible, though of course it's up to you and ultimately none of my business, to at least not blatantly misrepresent it by only accepting the nice bits and eschewing the rest, because with that dubious methodology, 'scholarship' about it is more or less automatically going to be intellectually flawed no matter how thoughtful it is, and someone using that method will only end up confirming to themselves what they are already partial to accepting. As such, it's only pretend critical analysis, and what's the point of that? What's the point of digging into the minutiae of something that is complicated and nuanced if you're doing the digging with the sieve of personal preference? You're an anthropologist. You surely wouldn't recommend judging the veracity of anthropological evidence on that basis, so why do it with theological evidence?

You're confusing personal belief with interpretation of texts. I do not endorse everything I read personally, no, nor would I conclude that something is or is not present in a text based on what I personally believe. Those are entirely separate questions, or should be.

 

[ruby sparks]

You're confusing personal belief with interpretation of texts.

Are you sure it's me doing that and not you?

Consider me a bit skepitcal that you can keep the two sufficiently separate.

....nor would I conclude that something is or is not present in a text based on what I personally believe.

Ok, so is god, in the NT, supposed to be the source of suffering, specifically the suffering of those who fail to make the cut during the judgement, or isn't he?

I'm going to put my neck on the chopping block here and say this looks like a no-brainer, and as such, it seems a very odd thing to say it's not the case.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'd prefer the more liberal interpretations because I see them as pretty harmless. Isn't it common for people to read the same book of fiction but interpret it in many different ways? Hasn't mythology always had many different meanings and interpretations? It's those who take such things as literal truth that have the potential to be harmful.

Given the admirable levels of tolerance you're capable of, I would not be totally surprised if they give you an honorary sainthood.

As I understand it, that would qualify you for free public transport in the afterlife. I think I read that in the bible somewhere, though it's possible I may have misinterpreted a verse with the word 'free' in it.

 

[Politesse]

You're confusing personal belief with interpretation of texts.

Are you sure it's me doing that and not you?

Consider me a bit skepitcal that you can keep the two sufficiently separate.

....nor would I conclude that something is or is not present in a text based on what I personally believe.

Ok, so is god, in the NT, supposed to be the source of suffering, specifically the suffering of those who fail to make the cut during the judgement, or isn't he?

I'm going to put my neck on the chopping block here and say this looks like a no-brainer, and as such, it seems a very odd thing to say it's not the case.

And as for saying that eternal punishment was not good church doctrine, that looks like a case of you mixing your personal beliefs with what's written down.

The text is ambiguous on the matter. Or you'd be making your argument with quotations rather than personal insults.

 

[ruby sparks]

The text is ambiguous on the matter. Or you'd be making your argument with quotations rather than personal insults.

I previously quoted John 3 verse 36.

 

[ruby sparks]

It would be quite a task to gather up all the possibly relevant quotes. Some others have also been posted.

Try Jude 1 verse 7, for example. I don't think anyone else has posted that one yet. That does not cite god specifically, but cites the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (which god destroyed) as an example of those who would in turn suffer the punishment of eternal fire. How is that not referring to punishments by god? The second wouldn't be an example of the first otherwise.

In general, how would the son of god saying stuff about getting into god's very own kingdom be supposed to be doing other than god's work? Would god, when some of the souls didn't turn up, say, to Jesus, 'hey whose idea was it not to let everyone in?'

 

[Politesse]

You're confusing personal belief with interpretation of texts.

Are you sure it's me doing that and not you?

Consider me a bit skepitcal that you can keep the two sufficiently separate.

....nor would I conclude that something is or is not present in a text based on what I personally believe.

Ok, so is god, in the NT, supposed to be the source of suffering, specifically the suffering of those who fail to make the cut during the judgement, or isn't he?

I'm going to put my neck on the chopping block here and say this looks like a no-brainer, and as such, it seems a very odd thing to say it's not the case.

The text offers no clear and consistent cosmology. Other texts, and archaeological evidence, suggest that early Christianity was theologically diverse and not in any sense unified under an "orthodoxy". Rather, different factions likely had noticeably different ideas about God, salvation, the afterlife, and so forth. And our resources for learning about them are scant and piecemeal. Anyone who tells you that they certainly know the answers to these questions is not a scholar, nor have they ever studied the issue at any length.

I do agree that your approach is, as you say, a "no brain" one. I disagree that brainlessness is something to aspire to, however.

 

[Politesse]

The text is ambiguous on the matter. Or you'd be making your argument with quotations rather than personal insults.

I previously quoted John 3 verse 36.

That's in a different book than the one we were discussing...

 

[ruby sparks]

The text is ambiguous on the matter. Or you'd be making your argument with quotations rather than personal insults.

I previously quoted John 3 verse 36.

That's in a different book than the one we were discussing...

Except that we weren't discussing a particular book.

From page 3, where this mini-farce started:

The New Testament, if you restrict yourself to its pages and not later interpretations thereof, talks quite a bit about suffering but does not credit God as its source.

It's just not the case.

So, having finally, after an unnecessarily long discussion, established that, can you explain why you would say such a thing? I'm genuinely curious, as I have been throughout. I'll admit it completely baffles me. Do you actually read and study the NT and not see it? How is that even possible?

A part of me hopes you're not even going to answer. In fact please don't. But at least think twice next time before suggesting it's other people's interpretative methods that are awry.

 

[atrib]

God creates or does a thing. It is good.

"Good" compared to what?

Good compared to what flawed humans do.

God commits planetary genocide: Good
Humans commit genocide: Bad

What he is saying is that by definition, everything God does is good. For humans, the standards are different.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

God creates or does a thing. It is good.

"Good" compared to what?

Good compared to what flawed humans do.

God commits planetary genocide: Good
Humans commit genocide: Bad

What he is saying is that by definition, everything God does is good. For humans, the standards are different.

Well, it's said that everyone is the hero of their own story. If you apply that to an omnipotent person who can literally rewrite the rules of logic and reality to suit his mood, then his deciding that everything he does is good would mean that everything he does is, in fact, good.

 

[Politesse]

That's in a different book than the one we were discussing...

Except that we weren't discussing a particular book.

From page 3, where this mini-farce started:

The New Testament, if you restrict yourself to its pages and not later interpretations thereof, talks quite a bit about suffering but does not credit God as its source.

It's just not the case.

So, having finally, after an unnecessarily long discussion, established that, can you explain why you would say such a thing? I'm genuinely curious, as I have been throughout. I'll admit it completely baffles me. Do you actually read and study the NT and not see it? How is that even possible?

A part of me hopes you're not even going to answer. In fact please don't. But at least think twice next time before suggesting it's other people's interpretative methods that are awry.

We were discussing Matthew 25, which you claimed said in plain English something that it does not. If you now wish to discuss different verses from other books, you should probably make that clear. But I should warn you that I'll be interested in discussing those passages on their own merits as well, not just blindly accepting that they prove the existence of medieval theology in the Classical world.