Is the doctrine of hell something to be ashamed of?

[Unknown Soldier]

One day a Jewish man named Eddie who did not practice his religion and did not believe its claims asked a Christian apologist named Frank where Eddie's deceased mother was. Eddie had explained that she was Jewish, never was a Christian, and was a good mother and wife to Eddie's father. She was also a death-camp survivor. Frank looked Eddie in the eye and explained that since Jesus is the only way to the Father, then no unbeliever can attain salvation. Since Eddie's mother had died without faith in Jesus, then at that very moment she was burning in hell with no hope of ever escaping.

This story is true up to the italicized text. Frank actually danced around the issue saying that he didn't know where Eddie's mother was. If Frank had been more direct, then he could have answered the way I said in the paragraph above. After all, that's what Jesus and his followers reputedly preached which anybody can verify by reading the New Testament.

So why didn't Frank just come out and tell Eddie what most of Christianity tells people? I think that Frank was too ashamed of his belief in hell to admit what he really believes. Eddie's mother was a good woman who deserved no punishment at all much less an eternity in hell. The Christian dogma of perdition is simply cruel and unjust. That's why hell is being spin-doctored and reinvented. Perhaps in older and more violent cultures hellfire for one's enemies was just the ticket, but in our modern, secularized age people are no longer so quick to believe such terrible things. Or if they do believe in horrors, then they are not quick to admit it.

 

[abaddon]

The Christian dogma of perdition is simply cruel and unjust. That's why hell is being spin-doctored and reinvented.

Then maybe the reformation of the idea should be encouraged.

The literal-minded take is cruel and unjust. The metaphorical take would make it talk about transforming one's experience of life. We experience psychological hell if we're addicted to hateful beliefs, money, material goods, identity issues, et al. We can experience a more superlative life if we let go the things that cause us hell.

Is that what Jesus meant? Yes, I think it's a real possibility. But if he didn't then he should have. And if some people aren't going to drop their fascination with these old myths, it's better to revise their meaning than only literal-mindedly decry the literal-minded interpretation.

 

[Politesse]

One day a Jewish man named Eddie who did not practice his religion and did not believe its claims asked a Christian apologist named Frank where Eddie's deceased mother was. Eddie had explained that she was Jewish, never was a Christian, and was a good mother and wife to Eddie's father. She was also a death-camp survivor. Frank looked Eddie in the eye and explained that since Jesus is the only way to the Father, then no unbeliever can attain salvation. Since Eddie's mother had died without faith in Jesus, then at that very moment she was burning in hell with no hope of ever escaping.

This story is true up to the italicized text. Frank actually danced around the issue saying that he didn't know where Eddie's mother was. If Frank had been more direct, then he could have answered the way I said in the paragraph above. After all, that's what Jesus and his followers reputedly preached which anybody can verify by reading the New Testament.

So why didn't Frank just come out and tell Eddie what most of Christianity tells people? I think that Frank was too ashamed of his belief in hell to admit what he really believes. Eddie's mother was a good woman who deserved no punishment at all much less an eternity in hell. The Christian dogma of perdition is simply cruel and unjust. That's why hell is being spin-doctored and reinvented. Perhaps in older and more violent cultures hellfire for one's enemies was just the ticket, but in our modern, secularized age people are no longer so quick to believe such terrible things. Or if they do believe in horrors, then they are not quick to admit it.

You should chat with a universalist sometime. This perspective on Hell is not universal, nor as "new" as you seem to think. Yes, anyone who thinks it's okay to smile at the thought of someone else's torture should be ashamed, and I think they usually are when confronted directly.

 

[James Brown]

One can tell a position is untenable due to the large numbers of loopholes invented to get around it. Purgatory, Age of Accountability, no punishment for the mentally handicapped, etc.

Hell only is satisfactory for those truly evil people who go through life unpunished. But since those people are relatively rare, we have to come up with ad hoc explanations to allow the vast majority of others off scot-free.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The Christian dogma of perdition is simply cruel and unjust. That's why hell is being spin-doctored and reinvented.

Then maybe the reformation of the idea should be encouraged.

The dogma of the Christian hell should be completely trashed.

The literal-minded take is cruel and unjust. The metaphorical take would make it talk about transforming one's experience of life. We experience psychological hell if we're addicted to hateful beliefs, money, material goods, identity issues, et al. We can experience a more superlative life if we let go the things that cause us hell.

The hell you're discussing here is different from the Christian hell. You're talking about hell as a logical consequence of foolishness or immorality. The Christian version of hell is a punishment deliberately imposed on people by a vengeful agent (i.e. God) who wishes to harm those who disobey him.

I should stress that hell, as spelled out in the New Testament, is imposed on people by the Christian God and is not what they want or seek. Many Christian apologists lie about that hell claiming that people choose to go to hell which is ridiculous considering that most people don't believe in hell. How can they choose hell if they don't believe it exists?

Is that what Jesus meant? Yes, I think it's a real possibility. But if he didn't then he should have. And if some people aren't going to drop their fascination with these old myths, it's better to revise their meaning than only literal-mindedly decry the literal-minded interpretation.

According to what we read in the New Testament, Jesus meant what he said. Hell was no mere metaphor for him but a real place with tormenting flames. Of course, many people prefer a kinder, gentler Jesus than that, so Jesus, like the hell he preached has been reinvented to make him more inline with modern sensibilities.

 

[abaddon]

... Of course, many people prefer a kinder, gentler Jesus than that, so Jesus, like the hell he preached has been reinvented to make him more inline with modern sensibilities.

Good for them!

You say the religious folk themselves are making their tales "more inline with modern sensibilities". How is that not GOOD?

I'm not here to argue bible interpretation with you. I don't give much of a damn what the original gospel writers may have intended. My only point is, you added "they're reinventing" into the complaint. So I'm saying that I see that as a good thing. If it's shame that motivates them, then good! So long as the non-literal interpretation happens.

 

[steve_bank]

Another one of those Eddie and Frank stories.


Region and culture which religion is part of always changes with time. The RCC accepted evolution with the caveat it may be part of god's plan.

Gay marriage in a church ad female pastors. On the flip side the new 'success gospel', god wants you to be rich. Region has inertia. Is it Mennonites or Pennsyvania Dutch who still speak in Old English from an old bible translation into English. King James?

Religion is an old way to cope with problems of living. Today it is recreational drugs, mass entertainment, and pharmaceuticals. Sad, see the doctor for a happy med. Anxious take a pill to calm down. Bored? Tale LSD and out on the headphones.

The reformation opened the door to personal interpretation without a priest or pope in between the believer and god. The result, the word Christian has no meaning compared to Jewish or Muslim or Buddhist.

 

[Elixir]

Bernard Shaw sez the evil love it in hell - it was made for them. Not cruel at all. Or even unpleasant.

 

[steve_bank]

A man dies and goes to hell.

He is met by Satan who says there are options for eternity, it is not really that bad.

He takes the man to a cave where spears are raining down on people tearing flesh. He declines.


In the next cane people are rolling around on broken glass screaming in agony. He declines.

In te next cave there are people standing in a vast sea of fresh stninking shit drinkibg coffee. He says this isn't too bad, grabs a cup of coffee, and wades in.

As Saten leaves he says, 'Coffee break is over everybody back on their heads'.

 

[southernhybrid]

Anyway, we've had previous discussions about the concept of hell before, but until today I never looked up the percentage of contemporary Christians who still believe in a literal hell. As it was during my childhood, it's still the evangelicals that maintain a believe in a literal hell at a higher percentage than others, but more Christians than I thought still do believe in some type of hell.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/10/most-americans-believe-in-heaven-and-hell/

Among religiously affiliated Americans, the belief that there is a heaven is even more widespread, with 82% holding this view, about the same as in 2007. Belief in hell has held relatively steady in this group.
Compared with non-Christians and the unaffiliated, U.S. Christians are more likely to believe in both afterlife destinations. The existence of heaven is almost universally accepted by Mormons (95%) and members of historically black Protestant denominations (93%), as well as by about eight-in-ten or more evangelical Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox Christians and mainline Protestants.
Meanwhile, 82% of evangelical Protestants and members of historically black Protestant churches say they believe in hell. Somewhat fewer Catholics, Mormons, mainline Protestants and Orthodox Christians also hold this view.

Sadly, a high percentage of Christians still hold onto this horrible belief. I guess they really don't think too much about it. How can an all loving and forgiving god condemn the very creatures that his followers believe he created, also believe that this loving god would punish people with eternal torture. It's a very primitive belief, so it's hard for me to understand how so many people still believe this. It was actually the belief in hell that caused me to suffer cognitive dissonance as a child raised in a conservative Christian home.

If humans can forgive others for some of the awful things they do, what the fuck in wrong with a god that wants to eternally punish anyone simply for not recognizing it as a powerful entity! Why does an otherwise decent person deserve to spend eternity in a hellish afterlife? Why does even the worst human being deserve to spend eternity endlessly suffering? An eternal sentence to hell seems far more cruel than the worst crimes ever committed. One can't be all loving and also sentence people to eternal punishment, sometimes for the tiny crime of non believing or forgetting to ask for their "sins" to be forgiven. Some Catholics even believe that they may spend time in hell or limbo if they don't confess to a priest prior to death. How crazy is that! I think that belief caused one of my husband's late aunts a lot of distress.

I'm not including Christians who have chosen to cherry pick the better parts of their theology and see hell as a symbol. For the most part, I see liberal believers as allies who for a reason which I don't understand, need or are attracted to religious mythology. As, abaddon recently posted, "good for them". I've never understood atheists who insist that Christians must interpret their scriptures in the most conservative way. We should appreciate those who pick the sweetest cherries while throwing out the rotten ones.

It's extremist religions that are potentially harmful to society, not those that promote good character, love and forgiveness.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

... Of course, many people prefer a kinder, gentler Jesus than that, so Jesus, like the hell he preached has been reinvented to make him more inline with modern sensibilities.

Good for them!

I agree assuming they actually accomplish any good by reinventing hell. It's best not to assume.

You say the religious folk themselves are making their tales "more inline with modern sensibilities". How is that not GOOD?

Did I say it wasn't good? A better inquiry is to ask how revamping dangerous dogma is any real good. If something is bad, then making it less bad leaves it still bad. For example, many Christians have reinvented hell to make it the annihilation of unbelievers rather than eternal torment. That's not much of an improvement as I hope you can see.

I'm not here to argue bible interpretation with you. I don't give much of a damn what the original gospel writers may have intended. My only point is, you added "they're reinventing" into the complaint. So I'm saying that I see that as a good thing. If it's shame that motivates them, then good! So long as the non-literal interpretation happens.

I'm not saying that the motivation to reinvent hell is bad. In fact, shame is good if it's appropriate. So I'm not criticizing Christians for feeling shame over their belief in hell. They should be ashamed. I'm just pointing out that they are ashamed over that belief. That shame I think results from their knowing that their beliefs are evil in some ways, and they don't want to admit it.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

You should chat with a universalist sometime.

Is chatting with you not good enough?

This perspective on Hell is not universal...

Yes. I pointed that out in the OP.

...nor as "new" as you seem to think.

How old is the practice of contradicting Jesus regarding what he said about hell?

Yes, anyone who thinks it's okay to smile at the thought of someone else's torture should be ashamed, and I think they usually are when confronted directly.

I have met some Christians who like the idea of hell, or at least they like their own idea about hell.

Anyway, smiling at the idea of hell isn't really the issue I meant to discuss. Regardless of how the individual Christian reacts to her or his dogmas about hell, they hold the doctrine of hell as a tenet of their religion. Considering how they tone that doctrine down when speaking to unbelievers about it, it looks to me that Christians do feel shame over their belief in hell.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Bernard Shaw sez the evil love it in hell - it was made for them. Not cruel at all. Or even unpleasant.

Who knows? Maybe Eddie Van Halen, John Bonham, Jim Morrison, and John Entwistle formed a band there and are rockin' as we post. It sure beats listening to boring sermons from Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell for all eternity.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

If humans can forgive others for some of the awful things they do, what the fuck in wrong with a god that wants to eternally punish anyone simply for not recognizing it as a powerful entity!

If a perfectly moral God exists, then she wouldn't damn anybody. By contrast, a God created by crafty men seeking to control people might very well spout descriptions of hellish punishment inflicted on doubters those words stuffed into his mouth by his creators, ventriloquist style. If the God of damnation was created by men that way, then the trick has been very effective suckering countless millions into belief.

I'm not including Christians who have chosen to cherry pick the better parts of their theology and see hell as a symbol. For the most part, I see liberal believers as allies who for a reason which I don't understand, need or are attracted to religious mythology. As, abaddon recently posted, "good for them".

Liberal Christianity does appear to be less harmful than the conservative version. I've often wondered, though, how anybody can believe in a God who authored a book full of mythology.

I've never understood atheists who insist that Christians must interpret their scriptures in the most conservative way. We should appreciate those who pick the sweetest cherries while throwing out the rotten ones.

I say be an honest cherry picker picking all the cherries from the tree admitting the tree yields rotten cherries as well as ripe cherries. I'm not sure what you mean by interpreting scriptures in "the most conservative way," but in the same way we should pick cherries, we should recognize what the Bible says not interpreting it to fit what we say. So for example if the Bible describes an ocean in the sky held back by a firmament, then I think it's dishonest to try to explain away such an obvious error as a metaphor, a common practice among apologists. In other words, if a Bible passage is obviously wrong if interpreted literally, then apologists interpret it figuratively to save the day!

It's extremist religions that are potentially harmful to society, not those that promote good character, love and forgiveness.

Which religions fall into the two categories? I don't know of any examples from the latter category.

 

[Politesse]

You should chat with a universalist sometime.

Is chatting with you not good enough?

Well, you're welcome to chat with me. I'm a known heretic, though.

This perspective on Hell is not universal...

Yes. I pointed that out in the OP.

...nor as "new" as you seem to think.

How old is the practice of contradicting Jesus regarding what he said about hell?

What Jesus thought and said is a matter of some debate, but as far as we know there have always been differring interpretations of his teachings, as the earliest Christian documents all agree that there were varying schools of thought within twenty years of his death. Hell has always been a matter of contention, and it has been variously interpreted. The earliest systematic Christian theologians, St. Origin and St. Iraneus, were both universalists. They believed in Hell, but more as a state of being than an eternal prison cell; rather all matter was understood as destined for eventual reconciliation with God, including all beings.

Yes, anyone who thinks it's okay to smile at the thought of someone else's torture should be ashamed, and I think they usually are when confronted directly.

I have met some Christians who like the idea of hell, or at least they like their own idea about hell.

Yes, so have I. Nasty business.

 

[Politesse]

Liberal Christianity does appear to be less harmful than the conservative version. I've often wondered, though, how anybody can believe in a God who authored a book full of mythology.

Humans write mythology. God may inspire us to do so, but it is very clear that no living person has the whole Truth within them.

 

[southernhybrid]

If humans can forgive others for some of the awful things they do, what the fuck in wrong with a god that wants to eternally punish anyone simply for not recognizing it as a powerful entity!

If a perfectly moral God exists, then she wouldn't damn anybody. By contrast, a God created by crafty men seeking to control people might very well spout descriptions of hellish punishment inflicted on doubters those words stuffed into his mouth by his creators, ventriloquist style. If the God of damnation was created by men that way, then the trick has been very effective suckering countless millions into belief.

I'm not including Christians who have chosen to cherry pick the better parts of their theology and see hell as a symbol. For the most part, I see liberal believers as allies who for a reason which I don't understand, need or are attracted to religious mythology. As, abaddon recently posted, "good for them".

Liberal Christianity does appear to be less harmful than the conservative version. I've often wondered, though, how anybody can believe in a God who authored a book full of mythology.

I've never understood atheists who insist that Christians must interpret their scriptures in the most conservative way. We should appreciate those who pick the sweetest cherries while throwing out the rotten ones.

I say be an honest cherry picker picking all the cherries from the tree admitting the tree yields rotten cherries as well as ripe cherries. I'm not sure what you mean by interpreting scriptures in "the most conservative way," but in the same way we should pick cherries, we should recognize what the Bible says not interpreting it to fit what we say. So for example if the Bible describes an ocean in the sky held back by a firmament, then I think it's dishonest to try to explain away such an obvious error as a metaphor, a common practice among apologists. In other words, if a Bible passage is obviously wrong if interpreted literally, then apologists interpret it figuratively to save the day!

It's extremist religions that are potentially harmful to society, not those that promote good character, love and forgiveness.

Which religions fall into the two categories? I don't know of any examples from the latter category.

Perhaps you haven't been around any religious people other than conservative Christians. There are plenty of good, liberal versions of religion. We once had a member here who was the pastor of a very liberal Baptist church in ATL. He said that at least half of his congregation were gay men. Some of us met him and his wife in person. They were both lovely people. My ex was a Baha'i. Although, imo, he was too fanatical about his religion, that religion promotes racial and sexual equality. The people who were members that I met while I was married to him were very caring people. Politesse has mentioned Universalists. I assume he's referring to the Unitarians. Unitarians have many atheist members. In order to be a UU, one only has to adhere to any religious belief, as long as it's a very liberal few of that religion. For years, I had hoped to join a UU group in Florida, thinking that we would retire there, but we changed our minds and sadly the closest UU group near me is over an hours drive away. I've personally known quite a few atheist UU members, when our Georgia Humanist group was intact. Speaking of Humanists, the IRS considers Secular Humanism to be a religion. It's an atheist religion, but it does have a philosophical ideology, and a very idealistic view of things. Humanists believe in the equality of all gender identifications, as well as sexual orientations, racial equality, etc You may know the slogan, "Good without God". So, it's obvious to me that just like just about everything else that humans invent or develop, there are both good and bad versions of religion. I hope that you come to realize this eventually. Embracing people with different beliefs has made my life a happier one.

Like you, I despise the more hateful versions of religion. I don't hate the members as I see most of them as victims of indoctrination. For example, I have a nurse friend who is a conservative Christian and a Republican. We aren't close friends but we do care about each other. She has many problems and I do a little bit to try and give her some emotional support. I prefer to see what I have in common with others, rather than allow our differences to pull us apart. Of course, there have been people in my life who were too hateful for me to love. I just try not to allow their hate to hurt me personally. Plus, since I don't believe in free will, it's usually pretty easy to not take what such people say about me personally.

Anyway, sorry for being so lengthily. I'm just telling it like I see it, since you don't seem to understand that there can be value for some people in religious mythology. There is even value in Humanist mythology. I refer to it as that because despite my love of the principles of Humanism, it is really idealistic.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Perhaps you haven't been around any religious people other than conservative Christians.

I'm not sure. Most Christians don't come labeled.

There are plenty of good, liberal versions of religion. We once had a member here who was the pastor of a very liberal Baptist church in ATL. He said that at least half of his congregation were gay men. Some of us met him and his wife in person. They were both lovely people. My ex was a Baha'i. Although, imo, he was too fanatical about his religion, that religion promotes racial and sexual equality. The people who were members that I met while I was married to him were very caring people.

I wouldn't necessarily judge a philosophy or set of beliefs by some of the people who hold those beliefs. If some "good" people belong to a religion, then it's possible they are good despite their religion rather than because of it. I didn't arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is evil because some of its members are evil. I arrived at that conclusion by studying the Bible and Christian theology. So it does not logically follow that a religion is good or bad because its members are good or bad. To sensibly judge the religion, I say learn its theology and its scriptures.

...there are both good and bad versions of religion. I hope that you come to realize this eventually.

Why is it important to you that I agree that some religions are "good"? If it's true that some religions are arguably good, then I would think that I would know that by now. I'm not even sure what a good religion is. I don't know why people need religion except for those who earn a living from them. I do just fine without religion and have no desire at all to adopt any religion.

Embracing people with different beliefs has made my life a happier one.

I befriend anybody regardless of their religion, and yes doing so helps me to feel more positive about life and people.

Like you, I despise the more hateful versions of religion.

I don't really like any religion.

I don't hate the members as I see most of them as victims of indoctrination. For example, I have a nurse friend who is a conservative Christian and a Republican. We aren't close friends but we do care about each other. She has many problems and I do a little bit to try and give her some emotional support. I prefer to see what I have in common with others, rather than allow our differences to pull us apart. Of course, there have been people in my life who were too hateful for me to love. I just try not to allow their hate to hurt me personally. Plus, since I don't believe in free will, it's usually pretty easy to not take what such people say about me personally.

Yes, I definitely see many of the religious as being wronged by their indoctrination. I'm in that same camp except I managed to escape. And like you I avoid butting heads with my religious friends because I know they're too far gone, and no reasons or facts will change their minds.

Anyway, sorry for being so lengthily. I'm just telling it like I see it, since you don't seem to understand that there can be value for some people in religious mythology. There is even value in Humanist mythology. I refer to it as that because despite my love of the principles of Humanism, it is really idealistic.

I will let you know what I do or do not understand, thank you, and I would suggest you keep a more open mind to ensure your own understanding.

In closing, I'd suggest you read The Transcendental Temptation by Paul Kurtz. Kurtz is one of those secular humanists you mentioned, and he argues I think persuasively that nobody really needs religion to find purpose and hope in life. I know I don't need or want religion.

 

[Politesse]

Perhaps you haven't been around any religious people other than conservative Christians.

I'm not sure. Most Christians don't come labeled.

If you disagree with but can easily understand what they're talking about, they're probably conservative. If you're frustrated and confused at how "inconsistent" they're being, they're probably liberal.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Perhaps you haven't been around any religious people other than conservative Christians.

I'm not sure. Most Christians don't come labeled.

If you disagree with but can easily understand what they're talking about, they're probably conservative. If you're frustrated and confused at how "inconsistent" they're being, they're probably liberal.

If I ask them if they're liberal or conservative, and they answer that they don't know the difference, then what?