• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Why do people believe in hell?

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.

:facepalm2:

It really isn't. If we are meant to believe that the apocalyptic "Son of Humanity" referenced in this text is God, why doesn't it just say so?
 
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.

:facepalm2:

It really isn't. If we are meant to believe that the apocalyptic "Son of Humanity" referenced in this text is God, why doesn't it just say so?

Oh ffs, it's in the bloody text who it refers to.
 
It's not good doctrine and never was.....

More apparent silliness.
You ever talk to a Protestant about this? For them it's faith that saves, not good conduct. In Catholic doctrine, it's more complex, but still not a simple rubric of "good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell". That's popular culture, not church teachings.
 
It's not good doctrine and never was.....

More apparent silliness.
You ever talk to a Protestant about this? For them it's faith that saves, not good conduct. In Catholic doctrine, it's more complex, but still not a simple rubric of "good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell". That's popular culture, not church teachings.

So what? It is daft to say that eternal suffering in hell is not doctrine and never was. How would you even know? How far back are you going? Who cares if it was RCC or just early Christianity? It was and is the RCC in any case.

Have another:

:facepalm2:
 
It really isn't. If we are meant to believe that the apocalyptic "Son of Humanity" referenced in this text is God, why doesn't it just say so?

Oh ffs, it's in the bloody text who it refers to.

You think just saying that somehow makes it true? :confused:

I think you're getting a bit confused about the difference between "text" and "interpretation of text".

Why, in your opinion, would God be referred to as the "Son of humanity" in the first place? Since you feel it is obvious that this is so, you should be able to explain it. Elsewhere, we are described as the children of God. Are we both the children and the father of God?
 
You ever talk to a Protestant about this? For them it's faith that saves, not good conduct. In Catholic doctrine, it's more complex, but still not a simple rubric of "good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell". That's popular culture, not church teachings.

So what? It is daft to say that eternal suffering in hell is not doctrine and never was.
That is, of course, not what I said in the post you were supposedly referring to. I see your literacy issues extend beyond the pages of Scripture.
 
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.

:facepalm2:

It really isn't. If we are meant to believe that the apocalyptic "Son of Humanity" referenced in this text is God, why doesn't it just say so?

Who cares? It's the fucking Son of Man, the king, coming in glory and sitting on a mighty sky-throne. It's not Gordon from number 23 down the road, is it?
 
You ever talk to a Protestant about this? For them it's faith that saves, not good conduct. In Catholic doctrine, it's more complex, but still not a simple rubric of "good people go to heaven, bad people go to hell". That's popular culture, not church teachings.

So what? It is daft to say that eternal suffering in hell is not doctrine and never was.
That is, of course, not what I said in the post you were supposedly referring to. I see your literacy issues extend beyond the pages of Scripture.

You're just being a silly twit and I have no time for it. I can read about church doctrines for myself and not have to listen to your pathetic obfuscations. Have a nice evening.
 
It really isn't. If we are meant to believe that the apocalyptic "Son of Humanity" referenced in this text is God, why doesn't it just say so?

Who cares? It's the fucking Son of Man. It's not Gordon from number 23.
You do, apparently. I mean, you're the one proclaiming him to be "obviously" God, here. If you have no interest in the subject and have nothing substantive to contribute to it, why are you barging into the conversation at all?
 
So, can we get back to talking about hell and stop the silly insults? Please. :D

I was doing a little of my own exploration regarding how hell became part of the Christian ideology. While I am an atheist, it always bothered me that my mother was burdened with the belief that people like me were going to hell. And, apparently the author of the article is correct. Hell was added later to the Christian belief, and perhaps Poli will correct me if what I read was wrong, but some articles said it was a pagan concept, originally used, to "keep the rabble in line."

I encourage the Christians here who take hell as a literal place where nonbelievers will spend eternity while feeling like they are on fire, to open their minds a little and do some DD on their own. Go visit a variety of sites, not the ones that support what you currently believe, and see what you can find.

http://www.hellhadesafterlife.com/hell/hell-early-christian-church


Because adherents of eternal torment have a difficult time finding legitimate biblical support for their position they naturally resort to extra-biblical arguments based on religious tradition and Judeo-Christian history. This chapter is devoted to exploring Judeo-Christian history as it relates to the topic of human damnation to see if there is any validity to these contentions. Let’s start with…

At the end of the previous chapter we discovered that the popular saying “you will spend eternity in either heaven or hell” does not match the biblical descriptions of eternal life and damnation. How did Christendom lose the exciting biblical picture of a tangible new earth and new universe and replace it with the unscriptural picture of an ethereal spirit realm where we’ll float around on clouds playing harps forever? How did the church come to officially adopt the unbiblical doctrines of the immortal soul (apart from Christ) and eternal torment? These unfortunate errors can be traced to one of the most influential theologians in Christian history: Augustine of Hippo, who lived from 354-430 AD. Augustine is hailed by many Christians today as “the father of orthodoxy.”

I didn't read the entire chapter, but I will try later if I have the time. Apparently, there are many sources that give evidence to the claim that eternal hell was never an original part of Christianity. I said earlier that everyone cherry picks and what I meant was, even if one takes a certain Biblical translation literally, they've already cherry picked which translation to support. Plus, these days, it seems to me that White evangelical Christians are obsessed with the nastier parts of their Bible instead of the more humanistic ones. I wonder why?

While Politesse was right when he said I over simplified how the KJV came about, I stand by my simple explanation, even though it doesn't include all of the details. Basically, a bunch of men got together and decided which books and scripts should be included in the KJV. Of course, it's more complicated than that, buy you get the idea.

The translation wasn't even done until 1611, but one of the Christian posters here said that he preferred the older translations. The older Biblical translations or scriptures were around in the 2nd and 3rd Century, so why would anyone consider a translation that was manufactured in 1611, an early translation? That's closer to modern times than it is to the 1st Century AC. Even if I was still a Christian, I'd be highly skeptical of a translation that was put together over 1600 years following what Christians refer to as the nativity. Please give that some thought.

So, if any Christians or former Christians would like o reply, please tell me why do you put so much faith in the KJV? I was simply told as a young child that it was the most accurate translation. I was a child who rarely questioned what adults told me, but I would hope that thinking adults would be more skeptical than that.

I'm not in the least concerned about spending eternity in hell as I have no beliefs in an afterlife, and if I did, I could only belief in a god who was less cruel than the one that many Christians support. There certainly are other options. :)

Y'all might think it's crazy for me to say this, but I feel bad for good Christians who are burdened with the belief that some of their friends or family will be sent to an eternal place of torture. Keep your Christian beliefs if they satisfy you and help you be a better person, but consider that some of the things that you've been taught had nothing to do with the original teachings of the Jesus that you claim to love.
 
You get into some awkward questions if you keep following translations back earlier and earlier in time, though. I think a lot of people feel comforted by the idea that there is and always has been one and only one Canon, even if they have encountered the idea that there isn't. The KJV is especially comforting because
1. It's in English, but very grandiose and poetic English that makes it sound very official.
2. There's just the four editions of it, and especially if you are a committed Protestant then the differences seem minor.
3. Most fundamentalist grew up with this translation, and they are more interested in maintaining, say, their grandparents traditions than learning anything about the 3rd century.
4. It allows them to avoid the uncomfortable truth that the Bible lacks a single authoritative autograph.​

There are some specific problems with the KJV when it comes to Hell, as it translates a number of different words from three different languages as "Hell", all of which have been challenged by scholars of a more skeptical bent. The original scriptures, of course, would not have named the afterlife after a Nordic Pagan goddess. But the differences may run deeper than the merely nominative.
 
Part of it is Christianity is a cult of pain and suffering. In the church I went as a kid there was a huge crucix with a porcelain white Jesus with bloody wounds contrasted the white and face in agony.

In Catholicism offering up your sufferings to Jesus is common. Bear your cross.

I'd say the thing about hell is the same reason why people like dark movies. Hell is part of the fantasy adventure of Christianity.

I suspect that for many Christians it is like Lord Of The Rings. A real life adventure with super beings, demons, saints, and evil spirits. It is not academic beliefs, they are living it.
 
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"?

Doesn't that verse and other related verses describe the ultimate Judgment and fate of humankind? If so, which clearly they do, they can only refer to judgment by God or Jesus.
 
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"?

Doesn't that verse and other related verses describe the ultimate Judgment and fate of humankind? If so, which clearly they do, they can only refer to judgment by God or Jesus.

"Can only" because of something in the text, or because of your cosmological assumptions?
 
Doesn't that verse and other related verses describe the ultimate Judgment and fate of humankind? If so, which clearly they do, they can only refer to judgment by God or Jesus.

Apparently, just because he's referred to as a king, coming in glory, with all (not even just some) of the angels, and he's on a mighty sky-throne, to judge all of mankind, you have this daft idea that he's got divine or heavenly authority. You and your ridiculous cosmological assumptions. Lol.
 
Y'all might think it's crazy for me to say this, but I feel bad for good Christians who are burdened with the belief that some of their friends or family will be sent to an eternal place of torture.

My dear, departed mum, who played the organ in her (our) little local Presbyterian church, used to tell a joke, about worry. It was one of her favourite jokes and is quite famous so you may know it:

”There are only two things to worry about, either you are healthy or you are sick.

If you are healthy, then there is nothing to worry about.

But if you are sick there are only two things to worry about, either you will get well or you will die.

If you get well, then there is nothing to worry about.

But if you die there are only two things to worry about, either you will go to heaven or to hell.

If you go to heaven, then there is nothing to
worry about.

And if you to go hell, you'll be so darn busy
shaking hands with your friends you won't have time to worry.“
 
Doesn't that verse and other related verses describe the ultimate Judgment and fate of humankind? If so, which clearly they do, they can only refer to judgment by God or Jesus.

"Can only" because of something in the text, or because of your cosmological assumptions?

The references are in the narrative. The judgment and fate of those being judged is being described in the text.
 
Back
Top Bottom