Christian THINK: What About Your Friends and Family Who Will Be In Hell?
On Facebook I became a fan of the group "I may be going to hell but at least all my friends will be there." It's just a fun group and I can do fun. But then a Christian friend of mine and I got into a brief conversation about it:
M said: I won't be.
John: Hi M. It's a joke, okay? There's no hell.
M: Funny ... just wanted you to know that some of your friends won't be there.
John: Well, if I'm correct that we won't wake up after we die then you will never know I was right. Come on now, would you really want me to be in hell? Am I that bad of a person? Rather than regurgitate the standard Chick Tract answers to me, which I once believed, wouldn't you think a God who would do that when I cannot believe differently is barbaric? You see, I can't believe differently. For me to do so would be a massive sacrifice of intellect. No, I do not reject God because I want to live a sinful lifestyle. I'm the same person I've always been except that I no longer go to church or pray or tithe or evangelize. What merit do these things have when compared to being a good person?
Think, don't defend. If you get into defensive mode you end up doing nothing but regurgitating Chick Tract theology to me. Come on now. You cannot bring yourself to think of me in hell. And if I was there along with some of your other friends and family members, wouldn't you be unhappy in heaven because of this? Can you really be happy in heaven when you think to yourself they are suffering in hell?
M: [Silence]
M said: I won't be.
John: Hi M. It's a joke, okay? There's no hell.
M: Funny ... just wanted you to know that some of your friends won't be there.
John: Well, if I'm correct that we won't wake up after we die then you will never know I was right. Come on now, would you really want me to be in hell? Am I that bad of a person? Rather than regurgitate the standard Chick Tract answers to me, which I once believed, wouldn't you think a God who would do that when I cannot believe differently is barbaric? You see, I can't believe differently. For me to do so would be a massive sacrifice of intellect. No, I do not reject God because I want to live a sinful lifestyle. I'm the same person I've always been except that I no longer go to church or pray or tithe or evangelize. What merit do these things have when compared to being a good person?
Think, don't defend. If you get into defensive mode you end up doing nothing but regurgitating Chick Tract theology to me. Come on now. You cannot bring yourself to think of me in hell. And if I was there along with some of your other friends and family members, wouldn't you be unhappy in heaven because of this? Can you really be happy in heaven when you think to yourself they are suffering in hell?
M: [Silence]
46 comments:
I'm not sure the Bible teaches humans will suffer forever.
Satan and his angels will be tormented forever. While humans are thrown into the eternal fires of everlasting shame and contempt of the demons they will suffer awhile but eventually go extinct.
Matthew 10:28
Do not fear them who can kill the body and not the soul. Rather fear Him who can destroy both the soul and body in hell.
Jude 7
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
2 Peter 2:5-9
If by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly.
Sodom and Gomorrah serve as an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly. They will be punished with eternal fire and go extinct. The lake of fire is the second death for humans.
Revelation 20:13-14
Death and hades gave up the dead who were in them and they were judged each one of them......Death and hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
"You see, I can't believe differently. For me to do so would be a massive a sacrifice of intellect. No, I do not reject God because I want to live a sinful lifestyle. I'm the same person I've always been except that I no longer go to church or pray or tithe or evangelize."
You just described me (and every other former sincere believer) perfectly. Yet, many christians simply will not accept this at face value. In order to protect their notion of god being just and fair, they must either call us liars (that is, it's not that we can't believe but that we won't believe) or cling to some hope that we're just going through some kind of "phase" and will return to the faith eventually.
Many christians (calvinists not included) can't accept a god who will send people to hell simply because they are unable believe, so they'll say stuff like "Nobody will be in hell who didn't choose to be there."
The implication is that everyone who's ever lived has not only understood perfectly the crux of the christian message, but has also been convinced of it's veracity yet freely rejected it, because they're willing to accept an eternity of burning alive in agony for a few years of being "sinful".
It's ridiculous, but this is what many christians will convince themselves of in order to justify the notion of so many regular people like you and me being tortured for eternity.
I'm sure you know that there are three main different beliefs in hell - one that it will be eternal torment; two that hell is simply annihilation; and three that hell will only last temporarily, as a type of remedial / chastising process (taken from Jesus' use of the word 'kolasis', which means to chastise, in Matt 25 and other places).
All three are plausible, but I feel and believe that eternal torment is least plausible. The others have been held by Christians of all types throughout the centuries and are only considered heresies depending on your circle.
I have a feeling that most Christians actually DO hope that hell is not forever, but are too scared to say so, due to the pressure given from *institutional* church that the other viewpoints are some sort of damnable heresy (logic would say they are not).
If one believes in hell as remedial, your argument falls to pieces -- I can't see how it would work under those circumstances.
Cole I'm not sure Luke 16: 19-31 supports that notion. But like a lot of things, I think the bible as a whole is ambiguos about it, which is why there are so many differing opinions within christendom. I have a tendency to post out of my own experience of christianity which was southern evangelical (SBC, PCA). I don't think I ever ran into anybody that didn't believe in eternal suffering for the lost, not that that proves anything of course. I'm just saying it depends on which particular interpretation you go by. Here's one by rc sproul: http://www.bible-researcher.com/hell6.html
Either way, as a former christian who no longer sees the bible as reliable, I reject the notion as a whole.
Ehhhh, you're overlooking one thing --- what about the family members that try to send one another to hell and curse and condemn one another??????" Unless you live in some idyllic world or put denial into daily practice, family members are the ones that are responsible for indoctrinating one another into cooperating with hellish behavior.
BTW, what makes you believe those who claim Christianity would be in heaven? What would a person need to do to promote a God who condemns ppl? Jesus Himself said that there would be those using His name that would be assigned a place with the nonbelievers.
At any rate, while Jesus acknowledged a place of eternal suffering, He also bridged the gap for anyone who was willing to cross over it -- also, He intimates that there will be mercy for OT villains, so one should be prepared to see who will be in heaven not vice versa - He isn't the One condemning ppl.
3M
Lee,
The way I see it is that the man in hell in the parable was being tormented by the eternal fires of hell. He just wasn't dead yet. People in the lake of fire are tormented for awhile but then go extinct. Satan and his angels are tormented forever.
"Think, don't defend."
How I wish Christians would do this! I posed a questions on my blog a while back about whether or not neanderthals were part of the human family that Christ died to save, or if they were just animals. And instead of answering the question, a Christian friend came back with, "Well, can you explain the evolution of adenine?"
I ask a "Think about it" question every week, and he never answers, just changes the subject. It usually ends up in a stalemate about the universe coming from nothing.
*sigh* We shall persevere, nonetheless.
Cole, we could argue all day about the "correct" biblical interpretation of hell. The point is it's a punishment for unbelief and it's gonna suck no matter how long it lasts. The bigger point is why anybody will be there in the 1st place. I.e, why is their unbelief? For the calvinist this is easy: those who are not chosen are unable to believe because god hasn't opened their eyes to the truth. The arminian has to assume that those in hell "believed", but rejected it anyway. So we end up with this shouting match, with the unbelievers on one hand shouting "We can't believe, because it doesn't make sense!", and the (free will) believers on the other hand shouting "No, you just refuse to believe because you'd rather be (fill in the blank - arrogant, lustful, etc).
Lee,
As I se it they are there for their sin and unbelief. People in hell were resposnsible for their actions. The punishment is so severe because all sin is ultimately sin against God. Sin against God carries alot more weight than if it was only against others.
Lee posed this thought, "The bigger point is why anybody will be there in the 1st place."
I believe ppl who condemn one another will not be comfortable in a place where that practice is no longer available. And it's true, some religions have condemnation incorporated into their doctrines - elitism, hypocrisy, castigation, etc. etc.
3M
MMM,
The Bible teaches condemnation. That's why it's in their doctrines. Yes God does allow Satan and others to condemn each other. But I think humans will experience soul death. While satan and his angels continue on forever.
In the Old Testament we see this. When God decided to punish people He would allow evil men to have their way with the objects of His wrath. But God didn't always do it this way. Sometimes He would rain down fire from heaven and destroy people.
MMM,
This doesn't mean we are to condemn each other. God says: Vengeance is mine I will repay. Rather if your enemy is hungry feed him.
MMM,
I'm sorry. I guess you could also say that God allows Satan to rain down fire from heaven. Satan is the one who destroys. God gives life.
Cole you have repeated shown me you don't think. You are continually in defensive mode here. Answer the question, although you don't know me personally. Even if I go extinct I will suffer for a long period of time before doing so. Some Christian theologies like Preterism are now claiming, in the absence of the return of Jesus for 200 years, that he will never come back and that the end of the known universe be be the final judgment. That's a long long time for me to suffer, right? A long long time. If we were friends you would not want that of me, so think of the friends you do have.
John,
I think you will eventually perish if you don't repent. If you were suffering in agony I would like to see you be put out of your misery. Or you could come to heaven with me.
This whole think don't defend idea, that defending a belief doesn't qualify as thinking is a bit of a presumption from the get go yes no? Does this mean that John is sneaking in his own uncritical bias of modernism that neutrality is possible and even desirable (also part of the OTF).
John, how does an unsupported reference to one interpretation of preterism create a dilemma here, that we should actually accept that torment will last till the projected assumed end of this universe (which in terms of Christian theology is a bit presumptious since in God's omnipotent providence, he can maintain this universe and keep it from heat death). Shouldn't you also give us reasons to think that this branch of preterism is even correct about this claim before demanding us to explain it away?
Think John, don't attack.
But here's my answer. Actually, here's my setup to the answer (before I give my answer). I almost lost my faith over a similar topic, reprobation (guaranteed damnation before birth) which I found deeply repugnant. I have since found excellent evidence to believe that reprobation (as an extension of individualistic predestination) is not implied by scripture. Not only are the typical predestination passages not what they may seem at first glance, reprobation is itself at odds with two central teachings of Jesus.
Those are the two greatest commandments, to love God with all ones being and love the neighbor as ones self. If you love God with all your being, without reservation, you will or you will seek to love all that God does. If you love your neighbor as yourself, you would identify his needs as if they are your own. What is your neighbor's greatest need? It is to benefit from the love and grace of God and to return that love. But if they are reprobate, then it is God's will, even if by omission that they are damned. If you love your neighbor as yourself and identify their greatest need as if it were your own greatest need, then you will have reservations on God's omission. That is not a small reservation, that is one based upon the thwarting of a need that you identify as your greatest, hence in that situation, you cannot love God with all your being. Hence God's two greatest commands are thwarted by God's own actions if he reprobates and does not give everyone a chance.
(I do not by the way claim to follow those two commands perfectly, but that is my own shortcoming and cannot be attributed to God's shortcoming. I don't even claim that I follow them more than just any Calvinist who believes in reprobation, but this still highlights a substantial obstacle that they have in spiritual growth)
NOW, my love for myself (that is as appropriate for the second greatest commandment) is not so great that I don't also feel that I am not personally responsible to respond to God's grace, thus I also recognize that my neighbor also has this responsibility in a love for them that would approach the same quality as a love for myself. Hence their damnation, as it is their responsibility to avoid since God's grace made it possible for them to avoid, is on their own heads. I do not necessarily have to have reservations in loving God because of actions that I or my neighbor is ultimately responsible for yet fails to perform.
Rob you said:
"I have since found excellent evidence to believe that reprobation (as an extension of individualistic predestination) is not implied by scripture."
I have to disagree here. Not only is reprobation implied by election (it is the logical reverse of the coin), it is explicitly stated throughout scripture:
"The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble." (Prov 16:4)
"They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do." (1 Pet 2:8)
"...but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock." (John 10:26)
"Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, 'He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them.'" (John 12: 39-40)
Then there is of course, the entire chapter 9 of Romans in which Paul is answering the hypothetical question "Since Israel has been waiting so long for their Messiah, why is it that so many of them rejected Him when he finally showed up?" This is why Paul goes on the defensive: "But it is not as though the word of God has failed." He follows with a straightforward explanation of why those who reject christ do so: "...God's purpose of election (v.10)".
Paul gives two examples of reprobation straight out of the OT: Pharaoh and Esau. He then goes on to say: "What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—(vv22-23)".
I don't see how you can get any more explicit and straight forward than that. In order to deny that the bible teaches reprobation you must either completely ignore passages like these or assert that they mean the opposite of what they clearly state, and then call it interpretation.
Like you, I too find the notion of election/reprobation abhorrent and at odds with how we normally understand ideas of fairness, justness, and lovingkindness.
Of course, calvinists will say stuff like "Well, we can't judge god by our standards of fairness and goodness." Or "God didn't have to choose anybody, the fact that He does choose some, shows how merciful He is, since we all deserve hell." Sorry, but that just doesn't fly with me any more.
Instead of trying to figure out how to justify your idea of God as Love by trying "interpret" the straight forward teaching of passages such as Romans 9 into meaninglessness, could it be that maybe, just maybe, the bible is not a coherent, cohesive, divinely inspired book after all, and that it is often ambiguous if not downright contradictory with itself on many topics?
Lee, predestination is a huge issue that goes well beyond the bounds of this topic. I refuse to spend much time on it that will distract from the main topic. I only brought it up to mention that my thinking had arisen from a similar concern.
I will briefly point out though that reprobation is not entailed by corporate election and that's what I hold to (of course individuals are selected for a task, not . Of course it isn't entailed in election from a universalistic perspective either though that is moot to the problem of this thread that is for people who do believe in damnation.
All of those passages have been dealt with by free will theists as well as determinists who just don't find any prooftext valid on exegetical grounds especially romans 9 (which has completely dissolved for individualistic election when considered the broader context of 9 through 11 including considerations from the new perspective on Paul which tremendously strengthens the interpretation of corporate election.
As for the others, try opentheism.info, or Greg Boyd's site (both of which dealt with those passages). But I'm sticking close to the topic.
As I said, I have almost lost my faith and I spent years discussing and researching this topic.
As for one more off topic comment,
could it be that maybe, just maybe, the bible is not a coherent, cohesive, divinely inspired book after all,
yes. could it be that there is no perfect objective path to truth on this subject. You deny the infallibility of scripture, I deny the infallibility of a neutral perspectiveless approach to the question or that such an approach is the best path to truth. I will approach it as a believer which is the most appropriate as scripture was written for believers.
Now I have refuted John's topic. Can you demonstrate otherwise? Let us not lose cite of points that have been made by endlessly throwing out red herrings.
It's always amusing to me when some Christian like Rob says he's refuted one of my arguments. It reveals the simplicity of his mind. In the areas we argue here there are very few refutations of any arguments. Even where there are refutations then many times one person's modus ponens is another person's modus tollens.
Cheers, simpleton.
So I'm perhaps wrong about the technical definition of refutation and I meant rebuttle as I built up a case for my position rather than tearing yours down.
I apologize for saying something to spur people on to continue focus on the topic that you brought up.
By the way, John, thanks for calling my critiques insightful elsewhere!
On the side you know, according to the science on it, you are actually worse off for having called me a simpleton. source
You could deny it, but I can't accept your personal experience now can I!
One more thought on that last thought. You know by your own standards that you are immoral to call me a simpleton John. You made happiness the goal of morality, science says getting even doesn't make one happy, it of course doesn't make me happy, ergo you do not follow your own standard for moral realism.
Again, that's all on the side. Anyone else want to deal with the topic apart from John's own red herrings in his own topic?
Rob,
Although I agree with you that defending a notion doesn't necessarily imply a refusal to think, I nevertheless don't think you refuted John's topic, which is as I understand it: Is it reasonable to accept the notion of a god who will send average people to hell for simply not being able to believe the christian message?
Of course, what has been manifested, is that there is no universal consensus among christians and theists about what hell is and how long it lasts, or if it even exists, not to mention why ultimately people will be there. Go figure. Far be it from God to make the idea of hell clear enough in "his word" for his followers to be able to be united on the subject.
Again, we could all argue all day about how to properly interpret and reconcile the various references to hell in the bible. However, John was referencing a conversation he had with a believer who (apparently) has a pretty specific and common (among fundamental and evangelical christians) belief about hell. That is that it is a place or state of eternal agony for unbelievers.
The core issue, unless I'm mistaken, isn't really what is and how bad is hell, but if hell is reserved for unbelievers, why do so many not believe?
Your answer as far as I can tell seems to assert that we have a responsibility to respond to God's grace, and that if we don't, we deserve hell. But doesn't this imply a belief in Gods' grace (i.e. the notion of redemption from sin) to start with? What about those of us who can't accept the notion that presupposes a need for god's grace, that is, that we are sinners in need of a savior, and that that savior is jesus?
Again, the calvinists simply answer: "You don't understand your sinfulness and need for redemption, because god has not opened your (spiritual) eyes to see it."
Free willers however, in order to be consistent with their idea of a fair chance for all, cannot allow for a human inability to believe, but rather must assume at some point every person in hell understood and believed "the gospel", but stubbornly refused to "accept" it.
They must charge unbelievers with being "stubborn", "arrogant", "lovers of sin", etc, in order to explain their "refusal" to believe.
The result is a sense of contempt for unbelievers (pity if you're a calvinist), that to me is one the most insidious and harmful aspects of christianity.
post 1 of 2
Lee,
I nevertheless don't think you refuted John's topic,
There are two different uses of the term refute. One is to suggest that the position has been utterly defeated and the final word has been made. The other is in contrast to rebuttle. John treated what I said as a claim to the former. I was thinking of the latter though i think what I was thinking was wrong. I believe that a refutation is a direct attack on the position you disagree with to tear it down, but a rebuttle is building up the opposite case. I understand why that would be misunderstood, but either way, the point was to spur people to deal with what was said on the topic. John asks if I could stand to see him or family in Hell. As I am now, no, but my point is that it is such a regretable situation is not God's fault as he has made it possible as I accept that as it is my responsibility to respond to God to avoid this for myself, I also accept that it is the personal responsibility of others to respond to God's grace and avoid the situation.
Of course, what has been manifested, is that there is no universal consensus among christians
Whether Christians have a consensus on an answer is irrelevent to whether there is an answer. I offer an answer, deal with the answer. That others don't agree does not deal with it. That's an issue in and of itself, but lets deal with one issue at a time.
However, John was referencing a conversation he had with a believer who (apparently) has a pretty specific and common (among fundamental and evangelical christians) belief about hell.
It seems to me that the reasonableness of annhilationism (amongst other considerations such as I gave) is a perfect consideration here in response to the problem that this believers view creates.
The core issue, unless I'm mistaken, isn't really what is and how bad is hell, but if hell is reserved for unbelievers, why do so many not believe?
No, that isn't the issue here. The issue is what John Loftus posted. Why do we always have to answer the questions that weren't posed. And when we do answer an issue, why do we have to give a complete defense of every problem posed against Christianity. Look, there's only one way to do this. We take it one issue at a time. Just because there are a host of other related problems doesn't mean that we should ignore the points that can be made as we look at it in the only way that we can, incrementally.
post 2 of 2
But doesn't this imply a belief in Gods' grace (i.e. the notion of redemption from sin) to start with? What about those of us who can't accept the notion that presupposes a need for god's grace, that is, that we are sinners in need of a savior, and that that savior is jesus?
Well, if you don't believe that you need God's grace, that we aren't sinners to be saved from hell, then you don't have the conceptual issue to be resolved that John posted. It's that simple. Now I am a Christian and I do believe that we need God's grace and there will be a judgement, thus I offer an explanation.
Free willers however, in order to be consistent with their idea of a fair chance for all, cannot allow for a human inability to believe, but rather must assume at some point every person in hell understood and believed "the gospel", but stubbornly refused to "accept" it.
I believe that everyone has a chance to respond to God's grace and that chance doesn't always take the form of the gospel. But God will judge us on the best form of grace that was made possible. If you heard the gospel and the holy spirit urged you to accept it, then that is the grace upon which you would be judged for accepting or refusing.
They must charge unbelievers with being "stubborn", "arrogant", "lovers of sin", etc, in order to explain their "refusal" to believe.
The minimum is this. They do not want to be reconciled to God. However that works out, God won't force them but allows them to live out the tragedy of that refusal which will end in judgment and destruction.
The result is a sense of contempt for unbelievers (pity if you're a calvinist), that to me is one the most insidious and harmful aspects of christianity.
Jesus died for contemptable unbelievers, and that is a matter of love.
I'll try to give my two cents on this topic, because as far as I'm concerned, if everyone in the world abandoned their belief in an eternal hell, I'd probably leave believers alone. It is the breaking point between unverifiable beliefs that don't cause anyone harm and the type of beliefs that have led and will lead to some of the worst atrocities this world has ever known.
There are a couple angles to the hell (from now on, when I say hell, I mean eternal hell) issue, concerning God, that I never see brought up often enough. When I left Christianity because of the utter repulsion that the idea of hell caused in me, everyone tried to give me justifications for hell, or kept touting that "We can't know why God sends people to hell; we just have to trust him!". But what I could never get past was how God could stand it.
As far as I understand the Standard Model of God, he is to maximally represent all virtuous characteristics, and one of those virtuous characteristics would be compassion. Compassion is a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering. In a God of infinite compassion, that desire would be infinitely strong, and therefore irresistible. If God were infinitely compassionate, he could not stand to have his creations, which he loves, suffer unto all eternity.
I liken it to the ending of Of Mice and Men. When George shot Lenny, he had a genuinely justifiable reason for doing so, and very few, if any would question him, but George would do anything in his power to never have to come to that situation. If he could change the course of history leading up to that point, he would. Obviously he can't.
But God can change the course of history to avoid damning people in hell, even going so far as to never creating us in the first place. If it were so that God could not guarantee that people would saved, and in WLC's view, if he were to create multiple people, there would be a chance some would perish, there's no way, given God's infinite compassion, he could orchestrate and perpetuate hell. I just don't see it.
Furthermore, those who believe in a God who condemsn people to hell actually disprove Anselms' argument, since I can easily think of something greater than a God who sends unbelievers to hell. A God who saves all his creatures. This raises the issue of desirability, and I've heard it said on many occasions, even by WLC, that he would prefer if God saved all people, but this would necessitate that God is lacking in appeal, and thus lacking in perfection. To a man, this sealed the issue for me when it came to trying to force my mind to accept that a maximally good God could send people to hell for all eternity.
As an aside, although I don't endorse Christian Universalism as truth, I learned a lot about the holes in Christianity concerning hell and general exclusivist theology when I studied Universalism. Also, Thomas Talbott and WLC had a great series of written debates concerning hell, and how, as Talbott puts it, it diminishes God's appeal.
The argument I gave above in my first post against reprobation and which ironically formed the basis for my acceptance of condemnation comes from Thomas Talbott. Of course For me, the argument as i have constructed it does not support eternal torment but annihilation at the most. In my love for myself, I accept that I have the responsibility to receive God's grace and avoid damnation, but that this is to avoid eternal torment, I find that a stretch.
For anyone who is remotely concerned about the role of Hell in Calvinistic thought and its implications, I recommend a sober reading of "The Doom of All Mankind" (it's on Google Books), where Samuel June Barrows makes the Case from the Westminster Catechism that not only is the majority of mankind going to spend eternity in hell, but also the majority of infants (the "non-elect infants") also.
The book has in it what has to be one of the most sick pieces of poetry ever written, where non-elect infants plead their case before God at the final judgment. Alas, at the end, God casts them from his presence for the sin of Adam only, though he does give them the "easiest room in hell".
Now this was one of the most popular pieces of literature taught in American Sunday Schools for nearly one hundred years. Imagine that! Teaching a your children a God who will act such a capricious (not gracious) way!
Of course WLC, for instance, believes in infant salvation (before that horrific Rubicon is crossed, the baffling 'age of accountability). When defending the Israelite slaughter of children on one ocassion, he says, more or less, Well, they're going to go to heaven so what's the problem? But think about this, heaven must be then populated with every child who has died in history, every abortion and every miscarriage (and gets filled with another 30,000 every day according to World Health figures). Okay, then those daily deaths aren't really much of a problem then either. Since better thay go to heaven than reach that "dreadful" age of accountability, which pretty much gives you a 20% (if that) chance of heaven.
Like Rob and others, while Calvinism has much logic to commend it, it thereby proves the moral argument for God but thereby disproves his benevolence ipso facto. Very troubling!
What simply amazes me, as shown here in this post, is the fact that 3 billion people read the Bible and come to completely different conclusions on the "doctrine" of hell. The ambiguity of the Bible makes it to where anyone can simply pick up the good book and pick and choose verses here and there and make it fit any view they want. The fact that there are so many versions of what "hell" is and is not supposed to be simply astounds me. It doesn't add to the credibility that there is even a hell either.
Also what I find absolutely repulsive is sometimes talking to evangelicals (which most evangelicals do believe in a everlasting literal hell) they toss around the joke that someone is going to hell or whatever and simply laugh about it. I mean am I mistaken or is hell supposed to be the worst place imaginable. Isn't that their mission, to save people from hell? But yet they toss it around like it is no big deal.
To pull this post back to its original intent. What John said here is absolutely brilliant! "No, I do not reject God because I want to live a sinful lifestyle. I'm the same person I've always been except that I no longer go to church or pray or tithe or evangelize. What merit do these things have when compared to being a good person? I too haven't changed who I was since my deconversion and if all Jesus wants is my alliegence then he should have given more evidence that he was the "one true god". Other than that I agree also with John when he says, "[W]ouldn't you think a God who would do that when I cannot believe differently is barbaric? You see, I can't believe differently. For me to do so would be a massive sacrifice of intellect.
There is my opinion for what it is worth.
@DevinWL
"The ambiguity of the Bible makes it to where anyone can simply pick up the good book and pick and choose verses here and there and make it fit any view they want. The fact that there are so many versions of what "hell" is and is not supposed to be simply astounds me. It doesn't add to the credibility that there is even a hell either."
Anyone can pick up ANY book and make it mean what they want it to say if they quote things out of context.
Hell is actually a secondary doctrine. If you do some study as to what they believed in the early church, there were many different viewpoints of hell; it only became dogma when the church became institutionalised, like many other things too.
The fact of the matter is that *some* form of punishment is clear in the Bible and in what Jesus says. That is unmistakable. But we also are dealing with an English translation which often translates a number of words as 'hell' - for instance, in Greek the NT speaks of "Gehenna", "Hades" and "Tartarus". The OT speaks of "Sheol". These are concepts you have to study, because the word 'hell' isn't always the right word to use as translation.
Likewise, the word 'eternal' (aionion) in Greek can mean both a perpetual time or a measure of time that is simply not known. It means 'age-abiding', signifying a certain amount of time that is just not known. OR it can mean 'forever' but the context is what matters.
The Nicene creed mentions nothing about hell being eternal or not, it simply says that Jesus will judge mankind - the basics that all Christians believe.
The Bible is clear on the basics, it is unclear on the secondaries and things like hell. To be candid, you may have missed the point of the bible, thanks to how many evangelicals and dogmatic christians may have used it; as you probably know, that's not the bible's fault.
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!
Hell is a secondary doctrine? You say it like it's as insignificant as infant baptism or transubstantiation. Come on. if an eternal literal hell is really what the Bible teaches, than it's of equal importance to the doctrine of salvation.
Imagine someone on judgement being sent to an eternal hell, and God explaining that he didn't delineate without equivocation the truth of eternal hell because it was, as you say, as "secondary doctrine". That's laughably ridiculous.
Even if Hell is not eternal, it is certainly still not a secondary doctrine, since its purpose would be for the refining of the believer, and would therefore be the greatest instrument of the sanctification process that God has at his disposal. Beyond that, even being temporal, it's still something EVERYONE would want to avoid, so its ambiguity in the scriptures definitely calls the scriptures into question.
One thing is certain; believers need tospend a lot more time studying this doctrine, and if they come to the decision that an eternal hell is taught in the scriptures, to be so flippant about it clearly shows how little they actually believe in it.
Hell is a secondary doctrine? You say it like it's as insignificant as infant baptism or transubstantiation. Come on. if an eternal literal hell is really what the Bible teaches, than it's of equal importance to the doctrine of salvation.M
I don't have much time so I'm only going to comment on this. Hell is indeed a secondary doctrine. You may assess that it is of primary importance because of the emphasis by American evangelicals on the bible as the acronym for Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth, but this is a historical mistake. The Jews to whom Jesus came were not looking for salvation from hell. They were looking for salvation from the oppressive roman boot and Jesus teachings arguably did not ignore this but addressed a new way of opposing evil of even the oppressor (If a Roman soldier demands you go one mile... Love your enemy... Turn the other cheek... )
Scripture is very much about this world and the restoration of this world. Salvation is not primarily about escaping hell but gaining this redemptive relationship with God which is salvation from the world's current brokenness. Ressurection is not just about getting to live forever but it is about vindication for the righteous against the oppressors (as for the significance of ressurection of Jesus was not primarily so we could live forever but it was the ultimate vindication of his message and his claims about himself as Israel's Messiah).
Against such a backdrop, the idea that it all boils down to living forever in heaven vs. being tormented forever is quite an oversimplification. It is even doubtful that the phrase "eternal life" used in John was simply about living forever as it is a stand in for and ought to be considered fairly parallel with the phrases from the synoptics of "the kingdom of God" or "the kingdom of heaven".
Let me first say, Jesus came to the meek and mild, not to the Biblical scholars, and to those skilled in the arts of exegetical gymnastics, of which you seem to be very proficient. This esoteric gospel that some people try to preach is so arrogant.
The scriptures, if they are clear about one thing, it is this. Salvation is about restoring the broken relationship between god and man; that would entail the restoration of the earth and mere temporal things because, it is by nature, greater than those things. What you are saying, essentially spits in the face of almost every denomination of Christianity I've ever heard.
God is concerned in Scripture about the enmity between God and man. Everything he teaches about this world is a manifestation of how we would act if we were restored to God, but they must be seen in light of our restoration to God. Given this, if our not being restored to God results in us being sent to hell, temporally or eternally, than this is most certainly not a secondary doctrine, but is hopelessly entangled with the doctrine of salvation.
When I was leaving my church and studying the doctrines of Universalism, and telling my pastors about how hell might not be eternal, they were revolted, because, as far as they are concerned, hell is an integral part of the doctrine of salvation.
@Anthony
You're missing the point I think. "hell" is a secondary doctrine, 'judgement' is not. These words do not mean the same thing.
You said: "Beyond that, even being temporal, it's still something EVERYONE would want to avoid..."
Well, now I think perhaps you haven't missed the point. The point is that believing its duration (perpetual / temporal) is what is secondary. There will be a type of punishment, but it's presumptious to know EXACTLY in every detail what it will look like, and the Bible doesn't give us those details. Does it need to? As you've stated, it wouldn't matter either way because everyone should want to avoid any kind of punishment from the Almighty. What if some people will be annihilated and others won't, depending on how what they've done in their lives? What if God's hell doesn't fit ANY of our boxes? There's no reason why it would/should, not from the bible at least.
Check out the Nicene creed - do you see anything about an eternal perpetual torment there? Go earlier and check out the Apostles creed. Nothing there either. My point is that the exact nature of hell is secondary, and historically this has been the case until institutional church wanted to put a dogma stamp on everything.
Rob R gives some great answers above.
You've also said: "One thing is certain; believers need tospend a lot more time studying this doctrine, and if they come to the decision that an eternal hell is taught in the scriptures, to be so flippant about it clearly shows how little they actually believe in it."
I also think that non-believers ought to spend more time studying this doctrine and Christianity's vast teachings of it. Do you know that the Eastern church have always disagreed with the Western church's stance on this, even back to Roman Catholic rule days? What (I presume you) and other non-believers here are kicking against is a Westernized form of Christianity, usually and in particular an Americanized one.
People need to keep that paradigm in mind when critiquing Christianity or making a statement on the ambiguity of the Bible - maybe they've just grown up in a particular culture that has taught them a particular way to read the Bible, and that way doesn't make sense to them - but that doesn't rule out the bible, that rules out their culture. There's no doubt that background and culture causes projection over the actual text of the Bible.
I don't believe that the Bible teaches hell to be eternal at all. I believe that has been interpolated by "great" Biblical scholars like Augustine (I really don't like that guy). I also understand that there are several different interpretations of hell, just like there are several interpretations of every single Christian doctrine imaginable. Even its greatest prophet, Jesus H. Christ, can hardly be agreed upon by people within the same congregation, so don't act like there's simply no ambiguity in the Scriptures. Their ambiguity is as clear as day.
Beyond that, the whole of Christianity, as far as Christians are concerned, is getting people to know Christ. (I've heard it said before, the one thing you can't do in Heaven is evangelize). If it is true that people should know Christ, than it is equally important that there be no equivocation concerning what should happen to those who refuse Christ. But, of course, it is just as hard to harmonize in the Scripures what happens to those who reject the godpel as it is to harmonize how to get saved in the first place. Some infallible book!
As much as I conclude that the Scriptures don't teach eternal damnation, I can certainly understand how some people will get that picture. I mean, in our standard english translations, it does say everlasting, does it not. Of course, you can look at the Greek and dispute if that really means eternal, but how many people can read Greek, and how many people even know that there is that discrepancy. Most people can only go by the Bible in their hands, and most people have a Bible that teaches eternal damnation.
All this does for me is seriously undermine any claims to divine authority, and thus I vehemently criticize the teaching of eternal damnation, because so many, at least here in America, believe it is what God is going to do the VAST majority of people who have ever lived on this Earth.
And, let's not be entirely chauvinistic about Christianity. There are plents of other religions that teach eternal damnation, and they should be criticized just as vociferously. My arguments above (in my first post) hold water, regardless of scripture being referred to.
This is slightly off-topic but I want to say thanks to Anthony for his humility and honesty. I appreciate it. I love your writing man and would love to know if you are blogging anywhere. Thanks.
Ryan you said:
"There will be a type of punishment, but it's presumptious to know EXACTLY in every detail what it will look like, and the Bible doesn't give us those details."
Isn't it more presumptious to assert that there will be a punishment?
Outside of the bible what evidence do you claim to assert this absolute?
And I don't reject Christianity, I reject supernatural claims as a basis for universal human morality.
Christian mythology (like all mythology) can help us better understand what it means to be human but, like all mythology, it is a very bad model for predicting what will happen or how reality operates.
Hey Chuck,
I don't have my own blog. I left Christianity about 2 years ago, and spent a long time far away from even thinking about religion, because it literally almost drove me to suicide. Now that my mind is not in complete shambles, I decided it was time to speak out against something I saw as a cancer to society. Nothing that could seem that innocuous and cause that much pain and suffering should be tolerated.
For the time being, I am visiting other blogs and learning as much as I can about the peripheral disiciplines that seem to come up so often in debates (evolution, cosmology; I've been reading the Qur'an, so on and so forth), but for the time being, I don't feel like I have enough to speak intelligently about to maintain a blog. When it comes to the doctrine of hell, though, I, just like anyone else, need no formal training. Just basic human morality and compassion show this doctrine, in nearly all its forms, to be merely a human creation, and certainly not the orchestration of an omnibenevolent god.
Thanks for the kind words.
Anthony,
You are awesome. I'm sorry that your struggles came to wrestling suicide. I've been there.
Part of my deconversion story is how I felt my Calvinist theological perspective was coming true when I suffered clinical depression which convinced me I wasn't one of the elect.
I make the practice of reason a major part of my recovery from depression. The type of supernaturalism advocated by guys like Rob only works to empower what I perceive to be unhealthy attachments to hurtful people. It seems to work for him. It doesn't for me.
And being a person who blogs with sometimes little to say I'd still encourage you to lend your voice to the blogosphere.
Be well. I hope our paths cross some day.
Anthony, I want to join Chuck in encouraging you to start a blog someday. So what, if you don't have answers. You ask interesting questions.
I especially liked your comment that you'd probably leave the wackos alone, if it weren't for this eternal Hell thing. Same here.
It was exactly the same problem that caused me to take a step backward also. God hates most of the same neighbors we're told to love as ourselves, I finally realized I was being taught. But fortunately you've also found out that these people don't really believe what they're telling you. Imagine putting such a purported believer in front of an audience (preferably while they're slobbering and raging about moral relativism), and giving them an example of a nonbeliever who their human side would normally have great compassion for - say Anne Frank. Tell her story, jacking their sympathy levels up, up up... and then - BAMMO: "but of course you want her in Hell - right...? You suddenly seem so ashamed. I don't understand..."
I'm sure they don't want God to get the impression that they don't really believe what they're saying. So won't they join you in a prayer of repentance and condemnation of her, so that all might be forgiven? What - no enthusiasm? Geez, and you'd thought you were among believers. Hmphf. Looks like there will be some surprises when we get to the other side.
You're probably already familiar with Gary Amirault's site:
http://www.tentmaker.org/
I doubt he really knows what's going on either, but his experience of leaving his church over the idea of eternal Hell is similar to yours. He talks about this in one of his videos.
To me, it doesn't matter what's really true, as long as there's something on the other side about which everyone can say that it may not have been what they expected, but that it's better than anything they could have imagined.
I doubt we can ever know, so what's wrong with hoping and acting on the idea that that's how it will all turn out? It seems better than the extremes of believing your friends and family will be punished eternally/annihilated, or will simply not exist at all.
There's nothing to debunk about a mere guess.
Ismellarat,
I think finaly someone understands my mindset a little, not that it's that original, just not often vocalized.
Again, I don't believe that Christian Universalism, or any other brand of Universalism is true, but the teaching of Universalism would be the one that most fluidly coalesces with the notion of an omnibonevelent God, and would still keep intact the unsearchable nature of God.
I've never once mourned that I couldn't trick myself into believing Unversalism, because its teachings are pretty untenable given the overall exclusivist nature of teachings in the Bible, but I do sometimes find myself mourning that Christian Universalism isn't actually true, as strange as that sounds. I've never once felt that way, since becoming a funcional atheist, about evangelical Christianity. The only difference between the two that would make me feel that way. The teaching of eternal hell/annihilationism (mostly the former).
Thanks for the kind words, both of you, and I'll take into consideration putting my voice out there in the blogospher. John Loftus is doing such a great job here, I'm not sure if it needs another one.
P.S. I'm very aware of Gary Amirault's site. It's a very interesting site and helped me a lot. There was a long time where Gary Amirault and Thomas Talbott were the only beacons of hope in my life. It's strange to say that now, but it's true.
Well, that's the great thing about Universalism - you don't even have to be convinced of it. Maybe God will kick our asses just a little for harboring some doubts, and then we'll still be alright, as long as we were good to our fellow man. (Your understanding of it may be a little deeper than mine.)
Paul McCartney's last words to Linda always moved me:
http://marriage.about.com/od/entertainmen1/a/mccartneylinda.htm
""So it suddenly came to me at the moment when she was just about to die. I have no idea why, I just thought, "I've just got to say this." It was as if I was guided and I said, "You're up on your beautiful Appaloosa stallion; it's a fine spring day, we're riding through the woods. The bluebells are all out, and the sky is clear blue." And she just drifted off.
It beats having to say this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VscVP_Gt_s
Let me first say, Jesus came to the meek and mild, not to the Biblical scholars, and to those skilled in the arts of exegetical gymnastics,
Scripture shows Jesus going to people at all levels and his disciples where at various educational levels. Jesus and the gospel writers show that they were familiar with the esoteric ways of thinking common amongst the rabbi's of his day and yet his teachings were often used common language. And it is no surprise that the chief promoter of the gospel to the world at the time was one trained by the pharasees and demonstrated familiarity with Hellenic paganism and philosophy. And this one, Paul spoke to the short sightedness of your vision of Jesus flock which is in fact varied with various gifts, abilities and functions.
Of course this is all a red herring, but one on a valuable topic.
Daniel, I found the book I think you mean
http://books.google.com/books?id=PuFGAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=doom+mankind&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
and it appears that Barrows was actually speaking *against* what you're talking about (unless I misunderstood you). The book was put out by The American Unitarian Association.
Barrows seems to have had other good qualities as well, supporting equality for Indians, opposing the Spanish-American War, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_J._Barrows
There's always Christian Universalism: everyone goes to heaven
Post a Comment