Why do people believe in hell?

[Horatio Parker]

So, when I read an article recently that asked why people believe in hell, I found it intriguing and disturbing. I'd like to know the thoughts of others, especially any Christian conservatives that dare to explain why they believe in hell.

I take the Bible seriously, even the parts that horrify, baffle, confound me.
That means that cherry picking is not really acceptable.
That means that hell is pack of the package, notwithstanding whatever I may feel about it.The Bible treats it seriously so I must too.

My attitude is the opposite. If something doesn't resound with you or speak to you, than it doesn't. If you like e.g. the Jesus stories but not hell, there's nothing to prevent you from accepting one and rejecting the other. An idea or rule that you have to do it one way or another to be "true" or "faithful", that's just someone's construction.

 

[Politesse]

Why would I willingly accept something I find both horrific and implausible? Fidelity is only a virtue when it is both earned and mutual.

 

[DBT]

Why is eternal torment even in the new testament? Especially given its own descriptions of a God of Love...which creates a contradiction.

 

[Politesse]

Why is eternal torment even in the new testament? Especially given its own descriptions of a God of Love...which creates a contradiction.

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.

 

[Tigers!]

So, when I read an article recently that asked why people believe in hell, I found it intriguing and disturbing. I'd like to know the thoughts of others, especially any Christian conservatives that dare to explain why they believe in hell.

I appreciate your reply Tigers, I really do, but you haven't really explained how you can accept the evil parts of the Bible. Have you ever considered that the current translations may not reflect the original intentions of Christianity?
That's why I tend to favour older translations rather than the newer ones.
Nested quotes are such hard yakka.

Have you ever explored other, less dogmatic, less horrific versions of Christianity? Everyone does a little cherry picking, whether they realize it or not.

That is undoubtedly true. I am aware of it and do try to minimise or eliminate it.

After all, what you read in English is a translation from whatever original scriptures were available a couple of thousand years ago.

Plus, my limited understanding as one who was raised to believe in a very literalist version of Christianity, is that basically a bunch of men ( no women, just men ) decided what to put into the Bible. I'm sure they did plenty of cherry picking. I"m going by memory here, so feel free to correct me, but I was taught that these men were ordained by god to pick and choose what to put into the origin KJV Bible. That's nuts!

The translators of the KJV just translated what they had. They did not add nor subtract.

Doesn't it ever bother you to believe that some of your friends could end up being tortured forever.

Yes it does bother me. It can be gut wrenching at times. In 2016 the man I had known since kindergarten (>50 years) died rather suddenly. For decades he and I had discussed good, evil, does God exist?, heaven, hell etc. Ir grieves me greatly that he may be in hell. I do not know his spiritual state at death so I am loathe to speculate where he is. I pray he is in heaven.

I will say this. It must have bothered my own fundamentalist Christian mother, because about 10 years ago, my husband asked her if she thought I was going to hell, despite my being an atheist. My mother thought for a minute and then told my husband there was no way she could believe that I was going to hell. So, apparently, she had her own doubts, late in life, about the concept of eternal hell. Doesn't it ever bother you?

As Atheos noted in another post my opinion on hell does not change hell's reality.

 

[Tigers!]

Why would I willingly accept something I find both horrific and implausible? Fidelity is only a virtue when it is both earned and mutual.

Something being horrific and implausible might be true.

 

[DBT]

Why is eternal torment even in the new testament? Especially given its own descriptions of a God of Love...which creates a contradiction.

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.

Eternal torment is attributed to God.

 

[excreationist]

Why is eternal torment even in the new testament? Especially given its own descriptions of a God of Love...which creates a contradiction.

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.

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

 

[southernhybrid]

I've had a fun time reading the bible lately, and my reading of it leads me to believe that Christian theology isn't an external construction independent of human nature, but rather a reflection of human nature itself. Any reasonable person wouldn't write what they believed to be the word of God, and so Christian theology amounts to a kind of psychological projection of the people writing it.

With that in mind the concept of hell likely made it's way into Christian theology primarily because the people who introduced it liked the idea of sinners being punished. Ironically it was Jesus who said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone'.

Why Christians believe in it? Because they want the package (Christianity), and are willing to accept that part of the package to get the whole. Doubting hell leaves room to doubt their beliefs in there entirety. Easier to accept hell is real than live with the cognitive dissonance of their beliefs being inconsistent.

I like your response because it reminds me of my own cognitive dissonance as a child. When I was 18, after becoming an agnostic while attending a fundamentalist Christian college, I couldn't wait to tell my church friends that we had been duped. Young and naive, I felt they would listen to me with an open mind. Some of them didn't say a word, but I will never forget what one girl said. I think he name is Donna. Donna looked at me and said, "Oh don't think too much. You're thinking too much about it". That was such an eye opener. I guess that many conservative Christians don't think too much about some of there beliefs or they would lose them. They would also lose a lot of their friends, community and what many think is their purpose in life.

Of course, it's still very difficult for me to understand how so many intelligent, well meaning people can maintain these beliefs. And, I got the impression from the author of the article that I linked, that despite writing many books that were critical of certain aspects of Christianity, he was shocked that the most criticism he ever received was when he tried to deconstruct the concept of hell.

I know many Christians who don't believe in a literal hell, or they don't think that hell is for unbelievers. It's for people like Hitler and Trump. So, obviously, not all Christians are capable of holding onto such dreadful beliefs. The replies so far have been interesting, but the conservative Christians who have responded, seem to be saying, "it's in the Bible so it has to be true". I do appreciate their willingness to reply, but I really was hoping for something a little more than that.

I used to ask my father why god would send all my Catholic friends to hell, as well as all the people in foreign lands who never even heard of Christianity, and all he could ever say was, "God will explain it to us when we die." That might work on a 7 year old, but it doesn't do much for an adult who wants a better understanding of why that a loving god is also a nasty, revengeful god who. has such a big ego, that if you don't believe and ask forgiveness, he will doom you to burn in hell.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

Eternal torment is attributed to God.

Sometimes, one can only marvel at the way some theists actually doublethink.

 

[Politesse]

Why is eternal torment even in the new testament? Especially given its own descriptions of a God of Love...which creates a contradiction.

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.

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Who is "he"?

 

[Politesse]

Why would I willingly accept something I find both horrific and implausible? Fidelity is only a virtue when it is both earned and mutual.

Something being horrific and implausible might be true.

Indeed, many horrific things are true, regardless of one's position on religious matters. What remains to us to determine is not what ought to be true, but what is true.

 

[Atheos]

Part of the point of the NY Times article referenced in the OP is that doctrines about Hell and eternal punishment were a relatively "late" addition to Christian doctrine. I tend to agree. We certainly don't have access to all the stuff that was preached orally during those formative decades, but the writings that are available (mostly the epistles of Paul) never speak of anything remotely resembling Hell.

Paul never uses the term "Hell," and only ever speaks of unclear references to the wrath of god. He uses the term anathema a couple of times in Galatians 1:8-9 to talk of the fate of people who change the gospel Paul had preached, but it's an ill-defined word. No way to know if it means "completely destroyed" or "eternally damned." But Paul is more likely to refer to more immediate-sounding reprisal from Yahweh for sins:

Romans 1

:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them

In this passage the punishment is "receiving in themselves" due recompense or death. Nothing about eternal torment.

Later epistles that weren't written by Paul (II Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, etc) have something more like Hell in them. But not the authentic stuff.

"Matthew" is a relatively late christian writing, probably not even written in the 1st century. By then the doctrine of hell fire and eternal suffering had become more of a part of christian dogma. It is my belief that one of the reasons this happened is because of persecution of Christians by people who went on to live lives of ease and luxury. Sure, they eventually died, but everyone does that. There needed to be more. Reconciling their belief in a just god with this obvious lack of justice required some sort of afterlife in which the wicked would be punished for their misdeeds that they (otherwise) got away with.

Politesse is correct inasmuch as every passage in the New Testament can be interpreted in a way as to distance Yahweh from any culpability for the existence of Hell. But the same can truly be said for nearly every point of doctrine contained in its pages. Few, if any teachings in it are not interpreted in conflicting ways by sincere believers.

 

[ruby sparks]

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Who is "he"?

Wtf.

 

[ruby sparks]

It is my belief that one of the reasons this happened is because of persecution of Christians by people who went on to live lives of ease and luxury. Sure, they eventually died, but everyone does that. There needed to be more. Reconciling their belief in a just god with this obvious lack of justice required some sort of afterlife in which the wicked would be punished for their misdeeds that they (otherwise) got away with.

Sounds plausible. As you say, at some point there seems to have been a change from 'not getting something good' (missing out) to 'getting something bad' (hell) and forever.

That said, some older Jewish verses (and indeed some from other or older religions) can, I think, be interpreted as there being a place where existence continues after death and it's "really not very nice", so I'm not sure if the Early Christian idea was totally novel.

Worth noting that not only were unbelievers 'merely dying' (and escaping justice) but believers were too, and this was causing consternation, even in 1st Thessalonians.

 

[Politesse]

Matthew 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."

Who is "he"?

Wtf.

I'm not the one shilling for literalism here. But I wish those who did were more conscious of how much of themselves they read into the text. You're going to have to do better than "it's obvious" in cases where true consensus does not in fact exist.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think many religious types need some way to imagine a horrible fate that will be visited upon those with whom they disagree, or who disparage their superstitious beliefs. The fact that Hell is a basic fear/control mechanism to keep the collection plates full is beside the point for them.
The disconnect with any omni-benevolent superbeing is vast. Even flawed humans describe their confinement punishments as "correctional"; but the Xtian god doesn't torture people in the hope of rehabilitating them, it just likes to torture. Otherwise it would simply *poof* the evil out people of existence just like it *poofed* them into existence.

That's the obvious answer, and then hide behind how mysterious it all is.

 

[Politesse]

That said, some older Jewish verses (and indeed some from other or older religions) can, I think, be interpreted as there being a place where existence continues after death and it's "really not very nice", so I'm not sure if the Early Christian idea was totally novel.

It's obviously not a novel idea, nearly everyone in the ancient world believed in some form of afterlife. Indeed, a lot of the details often credited to Dante Alighieri are, in his text, largely cribbed from Greek classical works. Personally, I think that Greek precedent is the most likely explanation for why most people in Christian societies have some notion of Hell being punishment for bad behavior. It's not good doctrine and never was (the church has it's own idea on who or what can save the soul), but it's very much how the Greeks saw the fate of people confined to Hades' realm. Just reward or just punishment, for eternity.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't recall being introduced to the idea of Hell, but i have watched people around me bring it up to their kids. It seems to me that it first starts as something that happens to BAD people. It's a security blanket thing. No matter what bad thing has been done on TV, by the celebrity or fictional character or politician, the child can be assured that even if the cops don't 'get' them for what they did, they will pay the price in Hell, later on.
It appeals as a form of justice, as punishment, as a world where no one gets away with shit.

Technically, yeah, we're all deserving of hell, because we're all sinners, but this idea isn't expressed until after the kids understand that THEY are going to heaven, because they're practicing the correct religion, and doing it correctly, and eating all their vegetables and doing their nightly prayers.
It's introduced as a good thing, really. Hell isn't for family, it's for robbers and bombers and the people on the AM radio show that Daddy yells at, and Hillary, and Professor Screweyes.
Then, after they've accepted it as reality, they start getting introduced to the threat of hell, if they step out of line.

This part i do remember. I recall being okay with the concept of Hell, because at the time i agreed with the list of people that would end up there. Then, suddenly, there was this threat that I might end up down there, if i continued my 'rebellious' ways. I didn't think it was THAT sinful to ask, "Why would God do _____?" Certainly not on par with some of the other sinners i could name, the hell-bent ones like Hitler, Stalin, Castro... Suddenly, i had lots more questions. All of which were down-marks on my 'HeavenOrHell' status sheet.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm not the one shilling for literalism here. But I wish those who did were more conscious of how much of themselves they read into the text. You're going to have to do better than "it's obvious" in cases where true consensus does not in fact exist.

No, I don't have to do better than obvious, because it's obvious, and you are just being a silly twit.