Eternal torment and Hell fire is not a necessary part of Christ belief. But also it can't be ruled out.
DBT: The very same source material that you believe tells you ''Christ offers us a way to escape annihilation at death,'' tells you about eternal damnation. You accept one but reject the other because it doesn't suit the image of Godly compassion.
I hope there's no eternal torturing or infliction of pain. But if there is -- well, then what I hope for is not the case. The possibility that there might be such a thing as eternal torment in Hell is no argument for not believing, or no reason to reject Christianity.
Sure it is...According to you.
You said that the way to pick a religion was to START with one that's believable. Infinite torture for finite crimes is not a believable premise.
Whatever that means, one can still be an agnostic on whether there is some "infinite torture" awaiting humans. Hopefully there's not, and it seems unlikely, and still there's no need to insist that it cannot be. There's no need to insist that it's an impossibility ruled out by logic.
What about torture that extends for a million years, or a billion, and finally ends. That's more believable? No, we just don't know if there's any infinite or extremely long torture after we die. Leaving open that possibility, though it's unlikely, does not somehow negate all the other beliefs one holds.
And it's not unreasonable to consider whether there might be a way to escape it, in case there is some such fate awaiting us.
You, for some reason, want to cherry pick through Christain doctrine to find (or create) a religion that has the possibility of eternal reward without eternal torture.
Wouldn't anyone think that's a better possibility? But if there is eternal torture also, nothing you or I want can change it. Our theories about what God should do are irrelevant. Maybe he's not 100% "nice guy" but also has a "mean guy" part to him.
It's probable that the eternal torment idea is not from Jesus himself but was added from the general culture, where such ideas were common.
Unfortunately, i know too much about Christainity to pretend that this is a Christain teaching.
According to which version of Christianity? (or "Christainity") There are different versions of Christian teaching on it, not one only. One common sentiment is to play down the afterlife and emphasize the present, and the traditional fire-and-brimstone preachers are often not taken literally even by their followers.
If anything, it is even further reason to believe, and to promote the "good news" of the escape from the torture.
But by that logic, you'd have to believe and promote every religion that has the possibility of a negative afterlife resolution program.
Yes, any which offers evidence of connection to a life source, or eternal life source. Such as we have with the miracles of Jesus, which show a power source great enough to conquer death.
It is not an automatic absolute fact that there can be no other such power source outside the one Jesus was connected to. It's just that we don't have evidence of any other, such as we have in this one case.
You're right that a Christ believer, to be totally objective, cannot rule out the possibility that another power source might exist. But if some Christ believers do rule out that possibility, that's just a logical error they commit, which does not negate their Christ faith, even though they might be guilty of a logical fallacy. Perhaps the real reason they rule out any other such life source is that there is no evidence for any other, such as we have in the gospel accounts describing the Jesus miracle acts.
One can be a Christ believer and still have some thoughts that are logically incorrect. Christ belief does not automatically erase all erroneous thoughts.
If there's evidence of a different power source in addition to that which Jesus demonstrated, then one has to consider it. But so far there's no other case of it for which we have evidence.
The reason to believe in the possibility of eternal life is the life-giving power Christ showed.
Even if he did exist, and even if the tales of his power were credible, how do you make the jump from healing bodies to giving eternal sanctuary for a soul?
I agree there is a "jump" -- but the evidence is more than only healing bodies. There's also the resurrection, showing a power to overcome death, and also the accounts of him raising humans from the dead.
It's appropriate to make some "jumps" from what we know more definitely to what is less definite but possible and for which there is some evidence. That's something special which humans do, with our reasoning faculty. Some of these "jumps" turn out to be true, others not.
The "jump" to the eternal life possibility is not unreasonable, though it's an uncertainty. Such power as in those recorded miracle acts is like a power to extend life far into the future, possibly without end, but it requires extending that power farther than what he demonstrated in those acts, so the "jump" is to hope that the power goes farther. It's impossible to calculate the length of this "jump" from those healing acts he performed to the power which would extend life indefinitely. This "jump" might not really be very far.
Doesn't it seem from the gospel accounts that the Jesus mission goes beyond that of only healing people at that time? Isn't it likely that he had in mind some healing on a grander scale not limited to those particular victims he encountered at that time and place?
Would you say that someone who makes great sand castles is qualified to build a skyscraper in downtown NYC?
Maybe not.
A better analogy might be the ability to duplicate objects, like duplicating a one-celled organism in comparison to duplicating a complex animal, like a mammal. If a superhuman could somehow perform the more simple duplication, might we not assume he could also do the much more complex duplication procedure, using the same power or following the same principles?
it's reasonable to assume that there's more than only the healings of those people back in 30 AD. Whatever "jump" we make will not be provable scientifically, but we have to assume there's more to this than simply a limited healing crusade to benefit those hundreds or thousands he healed back then. It's reasonable to think that there's more to it.
It's a reasonable hope. I.e., that he did show this power, and that there's more to it than only healing those particular victims at one point in history and that's all. I.e., that he was demonstrating a much farther-extending power to create or revive life.
If this power is great enough, it leads logically to the possibility of eternal life, or overcoming of death.
No, it does not. Even if you accept that this power is real, you've got to add a belief in souls that persist after death, . . .
Maybe, but perhaps also the body is preserved or reproduced or duplicated or whatever. It isn't necessary to get bogged down in the souls philosophizing. That can be left to Plato and others.
. . . and a belief that there are rules to their disposition, . . .
Perhaps, but it isn't necessary to formally establish that there are such "rules" or what the rules are. There are different beliefs about the rules. Christ asked humans to believe. If someone thinks extra "rules" are necessary, it's OK for them to follow whatever rules they think a reasonable God would want -- hopefully God does not cast out Christ-believers who hypothesized extra "rules" which were not really necessary.
. . . and eliminate the non-Heaven afterlife models (ghosts, reincarnation, etc.) before you have a logical chain.
No, we don't have to worry about that or be able to explain how it happens or what "models" to eliminate. There are billions of possibilities or "models" or afterlife narratives floating around.
Hopefully life resumes in some other dimension or some form different than now, but we don't need to explain how it could be possible. The Jesus miracles give us a glimpse of the power that could make it happen, so that we can recognize the existence of this power.
Your "logical chain" theories don't disprove this. Obviously there's no certainty, only a hope based on some evidence. Of course it would be nice to have absolute proof or complete process of logical steps and answers to everything imaginable.
You haven't established that connection.
Not with certainty. Just that there's a life-giving power beyond what normal humans can perform, which was demonstrated at that point in history, which is recorded for us. There's nothing else from the historical record indicating a superhuman power that would make eternal life possible. In this case, the "jump" is only that the power which was demonstrated would need to extend farther than what happened in those recorded events. I.e., that same power would be magnified to a higher degree.
The hope is that it extends far enough to make eternal life possible, and we don't know how far that would be. That healing power already demonstrated by him is itself a very large extension beyond what's now known, so maybe the additional extension to the possibility of eternal life is not so much farther.
So this is a basis for believing in eternal life, as a reasonable possibility.
No, it's a desperate, emotional hope.
An element of desperation and emotion does not negate the reasonable possibility element. One can pursue a desired goal, or flee from a threat, with emotion and desperation, and yet have a good reason for this pursuing or fleeing and reasonable hope of success. Like a drowning person desperately grasping a lifesaver.
There is reasoning here -- power to heal is similar to a power to extend life, or protect against death. If such power is shown to exist, it increases the possibility of extending life or creating it or reproducing it after death. That same power which healed might also extend to bringing back life after death. Just because it's not proved with scientific certainty does not undermine this as a reasonable possibility.
However, the possibility of eternal torment or eternal pain doesn't seem to follow as a necessity.
Only by ignoring parts of your sourcebook.
I hope those parts are erroneous. Christ belief does not require a belief that every sentence in the Bible is true. But if those parts are correct and there is eternal pain or torment, we don't change it by hoping it's not true. And if it is true, then Christ is our hope of being saved from it. A more pleasant scenario is that believers gain eternal life, escaping annihilation, while non-believers are annihilated, which is what they expect anyway in their assumption that everyone is annihilated at death.
There's nothing unreasonable about hoping for an escape from this annihilation, and from the torment also -- if there is any -- while at the same time acknowledging that we don't know for sure or that it's only a possibility we take into consideration.
It's a reasonable possibility that the hell fire and damnation theme is simply borrowed from the culture that predates Jesus and was not really taught by him. I hope that's the case. Isn't that a reasonable hope?
You keep using 'reasonable' as if you had used reason to get to your conclusion. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There's nothing unreasonable about the possibility that the hell-fire and damnation words were put into his mouth by the later writers.
We know that some later ideas were added to the real events and real sayings of Jesus -- this is surely known from all the evidence. That's a conclusion based on evidence.
But still, if hell-fire and eternal torment is the truth, then OK -- I don't like it, but what's the point? You don't disprove Christ-belief by hammering away at the hell-fire and damnation idea.
The logical conclusion, if any, is to hope we can be saved by Christ, however much doubt one has, and maybe that hope alone is enough "faith" needed to rescue the doubting one.
I know, you can "hope" for anything imaginable, or join every salvation cult out there, but in this one case we have evidence from the historical record that he did have power, whereas for other reputed "saviors" there is no evidence.
There is nothing about the hell fire and damnation idea that leads to the conclusion that one ought not believe in Christ.
Except IAW your statement that we start with a 'believable' religion, then learn about it from a member.
Whatever "statement" you mean, we should listen to anyone who claims to know a way to be "saved" from damnation or whatever hell awaits us, or who claims there's a way we can gain eternal life, etc. We should ask them for some evidence for their claims.
Do you know of such a salvation source? or someone else claiming to know of it? Tell us about it. Don't keep it a secret.
Muslims apparently believe Allah will save us if we pray toward Mecca several times a day and some other requirements, but they have no evidence. Mohammed did not have power to perform miracle acts, so we have no reason to believe those claims. Hearing "voices" is not evidence. Normal humans with normal human limits hear "voices" and utter revelations.
Who else in history did miracle acts on a large scale and for whom there is evidence?
The worst problem here would be that he taught hell fire and damnation and yet the truth is that there is no such thing. But we don't know whether there is any such thing as hell and damnation. So the only conclusion is that we don't know.
Then why isn't that the conclusion for Heaven and Salvation?
It mostly is, i.e., we don't KNOW with certainty, but we have some evidence, because of his power to heal and raise the dead.
If Jesus had also struck down disbelievers and scoffers, bringing down fire from Heaven to consume them, that would be some evidence of hell-fire and damnation. So he gave us some evidence for the eternal life possibility, but not for hell-fire and damnation.
(this Wall of Text to be continued)
