|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is hell really that important?
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
John Shore - Huffington Post
The writer of this article is explaining why he thinks emphasizing teaching on hell as a real place of suffering and torture is one of the main barriers of entry for non-Christians into the church. He makes a few points worth noting:
quote:
If you're a Christian, it does not matter whether you're right or wrong about hell.
And why not? Because if you're a Christian, then no matter what you think about hell, you are safe from hell.
Christians who believe in hell go to heaven; Christians who don't believe in hell go to heaven. Virtually no Christians, from the evangelical right to the progressive/liberal left, argue that. (Or, if they do, they don't via anything in the Bible.)
All Christians agree that if you are a Christian -- no matter what you believe about hell -- you go to heaven, and not hell, when you die.
quote:
Now let us take great care to ensure that we're here employing flawless logic.
If rejecting the Christian God condemns people to hell; and
If a Christian who is wrong about hell goes to heaven anyway; and
If preaching about hell significantly contributes to people rejecting Christianity;
Then evangelicals should shut-up about hell.
Some people argue that not teaching about hell lures in new believers on a "soft gospel" and makes weak or uninformed Christians. On the other hand, it could be said that once people come to know Jesus, they will develop in their faith over time and eventually have a correct understanding of the negative impact of sin and its potential consequences.
Thoughts?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
A few Christians do seem to argue that our doctrine needs to be more or less accurate or else we're in danger of hell. So, contrary to the article, for some Christians it's not enough that we believe in Jesus (or whatever 'being a Christian' means...).
However, I do agree with the main thrust of the article. I think that as more and more people (at least in my and seekingsister's country, the UK) have little concept of Jesus and Christianity, us folks seeking to share and explain our faith need to start a few steps further back from any talk about eternal destinies. In any case, I'm doubtful as to the effectiveness of scaring people into faith through threats of eternal consequences.
Finally, ISTM there's little talk of eternal destinies / consequences in the New Testament, except in dialogue with various Jews; i.e. people who thought they were already sorted with Yahweh. When Jesus, Paul and so on are talking to non-Jews (and even to Jews not in authority, on the whole?) they seem to take a more positive approach. If my memory serves me well...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I'm still wondering if the author is claiming that Christianity says that all Christians will go to heaven - which would be pig ignorant: at odds with pretty much all of historical Christianity and still to this day contrary to the official teachings of the vast majority of Christianity (RC and Eastern Orthodox, for one) - or that Christianity says that the belief whether there is a hell or not is not in and by itself significant for whether one goes to hell or not.
I think it is the former. But that would be so astonishingly stupid that I cannot quite believe it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
or that Christianity says that the belief whether there is a hell or not is not in and by itself significant for whether one goes to hell or not.
I think it is the former. But that would be so astonishingly stupid that I cannot quite believe it.
Umm... it looks to me like the latter. The author may believe the former (he is taking part in an intra-evangelical debate) - but his argument is explicitly only using the latter weaker belief, which is sufficient for his purposes.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm still wondering if the author is claiming that Christianity says that all Christians will go to heaven - which would be pig ignorant: at odds with pretty much all of historical Christianity and still to this day contrary to the official teachings of the vast majority of Christianity (RC and Eastern Orthodox, for one) - or that Christianity says that the belief whether there is a hell or not is not in and by itself significant for whether one goes to hell or not.
I think it is the former. But that would be so astonishingly stupid that I cannot quite believe it.
I think it depends on how you define Christian. I believe RCC and Eastern Orthodox consider anyone baptized into their churches to be Christians, regardless of whether they live out that faith.
I would strongly suspect John Shore's definition of a Christian is someone who actively has put their faith in Christ, if that makes any difference.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
IngoB, would it help for the purposes of seekingsister's question here if you read the statement in the article she quoted from as:
'Because if you [think that you]'re a Christian, then no matter what you think about hell, you [think that you] are safe from hell.'
The point ISTM is whether the accuracy of our beliefs about heaven, hell etc. have any effect on our eternal destiny. If not, the author says, then we should keep quiet about hell because (the author believes) speaking about hell turns people off from Christianity. I suspect he's right.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
'Because if you [think that you]'re a Christian, then no matter what you think about hell, you [think that you] are safe from hell.'
Uhh, that didn't really help. I think that I am a Christian, and I do not think that I am safe from hell. As it happens, if I were to think so, then according to my Church (the RCC) I would be guilty of the sin of presumption.
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
The point ISTM is whether the accuracy of our beliefs about heaven, hell etc. have any effect on our eternal destiny. If not, the author says, then we should keep quiet about hell because (the author believes) speaking about hell turns people off from Christianity. I suspect he's right.
First, I disagree with the premise. What we think about heaven and hell certainly can affect how we think, speak and act, and hence certainly can affect whether we in fact go to heaven or hell. Second, I disagree with the scope. Even if it were the case that belief in heaven and hell does not matter for the Christian, that does not tell us that they do not matter for the non-Christian. If for example all Christians go to heaven and all non-Christian go to hell (not something I believe in fact), then it would be important for the non-Christians to know this even though it would not be necessary for the Christians. Third, I disagree with the evaluation. While it may be the case that the Christian not speaking about heaven and hell is not lying, but rather employing "mental reservation", it is unclear that a non-Christian converting to Christianity without knowing about heaven and hell is actually becoming a Christian. If my employer hides from me a part of the contract which says that I have to run around naked, and once I have signed the document suddenly pulls out this extra section, then I'm not obligated to fulfil this part just because I have signed the contract. Trickery doesn't establish duties. Likewise, one cannot trick someone into faith and then hold them to it when the full picture is revealed.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If for example all Christians go to heaven and all non-Christian go to hell (not something I believe in fact), then it would be important for the non-Christians to know this even though it would not be necessary for the Christians.
If it doesn't help them come to know Christ, then how can we say it is important? Peter didn't speak of hell at Pentecost. His entire message was about the hope of overcoming death and experiencing the Holy Spirit through Christ's sacrifice.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Third, I disagree with the evaluation. While it may be the case that the Christian not speaking about heaven and hell is not lying, but rather employing "mental reservation", it is unclear that a non-Christian converting to Christianity without knowing about heaven and hell is actually becoming a Christian.
Well if you read through to his blog, you'll discover that he doesn't believe in hell as an actual place of eternal torment. I would agree with him that belief in that version of hell is not necessary before becoming a Christian. We know that heaven is where God is, and if we believe in Him then that is where we want to go. I don't care if it's a cave or a fiery pit or annihilation - I love God and I want to go where He is after I leave this Earth. Thinking that I'll be prodded with pitchforks by demons is not going to make me love God any more, and what compels me to follow Him is not the fear of punishment, but the fear of separation from Him.
I grew up in a church that taught hell was waiting around the corner for everyone. A faithful Christian who slips up and sins and then is immediately hit by a bus and dies before repenting is going straight to hell - that's what I was raised with. It turned me off of God entirely. So I profoundly disagree that emphasizing hell as a key concept is useful in evangelizing or conversion. It may be for some, but it wasn't for me or the many other drop outs from that church.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
In my experience, those with senses of guilt generally have too much. Those without that sense may require hell so as to understand what they may inflict on others. The rest of it? threats of hell and lakes of fire and torment and all that dearly loved awfulness of the armageddonist set? Probably better to consider that we must form ourselves to living a Christian life, and leave such matters to another time, avoiding the sin of pride. Pride in our presumed when dead destination.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I hear this a lot on the ship. "Hell scared me away from God. But I stopped believing in hell, and now I can believe in God again."
The question remains, though, whether that is the real God. The God of the Bible, at least, has never seemed to appreciate being redefined to suit the ethical fads of the age.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I grew up in a church that taught hell was waiting around the corner for everyone. A faithful Christian who slips up and sins and then is immediately hit by a bus and dies before repenting is going straight to hell - that's what I was raised with. It turned me off of God entirely. So I profoundly disagree that emphasizing hell as a key concept is useful in evangelizing or conversion. It may be for some, but it wasn't for me or the many other drop outs from that church.
The practical question is, do such churches attract more people than they repel? Do they hold on to more people than they lose? If they mostly lose and repel people, then the problem should resolve itself; those churches will eventually be weakened and marginalised, if they don't just fizzle out entirely.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I hear this a lot on the ship. "Hell scared me away from God. But I stopped believing in hell, and now I can believe in God again."
The question remains, though, whether that is the real God. The God of the Bible, at least, has never seemed to appreciate being redefined to suit the ethical fads of the age.
Many of the conceptions of hell that have terrified people over the years have more to do with Dante's "Inferno" than with the New Testament. Is that not an "ethical fad?"
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578
|
Posted
Well, I think we've got an obligation as Christians to believe and preach the truth, whether or not it's palatable.
It's one thing to stop believing in Hell, at least in the "traditional" understanding, because you don't believe that the Bible truly teaches eternal conscious torment. It's another entirely to drop a belief simply because you or the people you're trying to reach don't like it.
As Augustine said, "If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself."
Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I hear this a lot on the ship. "Hell scared me away from God. But I stopped believing in hell, and now I can believe in God again."
The question remains, though, whether that is the real God. The God of the Bible, at least, has never seemed to appreciate being redefined to suit the ethical fads of the age.
Many of the conceptions of hell that have terrified people over the years have more to do with Dante's "Inferno" than with the New Testament. Is that not an "ethical fad?"
There is a whole lotta space between Dante's inferno and "Hell doesn't exist."
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Here's John's actual position:
quote:
There is no support in the Bible for the morally repugnant idea that hell is an actual place to which God sentences people to spend eternity in mortal agony.
That's not the same as not believing in hell. He does think those who fail to follow God go someplace other than heaven. He just doesn't accept the conscious torment version of hell, from what I understand.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
IngoB
Please would you jot down a quick overview of what you believe about what happens to those of us who believe we are Christians after we die? This is a serious question, not a dig!
Thanks
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
If for example all Christians go to heaven and all non-Christian go to hell (not something I believe in fact), then it would be important for the non-Christians to know this even though it would not be necessary for the Christians. Third, I disagree with the evaluation. While it may be the case that the Christian not speaking about heaven and hell is not lying, but rather employing "mental reservation", it is unclear that a non-Christian converting to Christianity without knowing about heaven and hell is actually becoming a Christian. If my employer hides from me a part of the contract which says that I have to run around naked, and once I have signed the document suddenly pulls out this extra section, then I'm not obligated to fulfil this part just because I have signed the contract. Trickery doesn't establish duties. Likewise, one cannot trick someone into faith and then hold them to it when the full picture is revealed.
This all seems really rather different from what you were saying on another fairly recent thread:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
If everyone on the planet went through life acutely and entirely conscious that if they spurned God's advances, they would fall into a hideous pit of burning sulphur, and they could see this pit under their feet every moment - as if walking on a transparent surface - then who in their right mind would not comply? In reality, people would be 'mugged' into loving God. But then to argue that the choice is real and legitimate only because people don't know that this fate awaits them, is tantamount to saying that God's idea of true freedom is an illusory freedom, in which people are deliberately kept in a state of ignorance, unaware of the unspeakably serious peril they are in. What sort of sadistic trickster is this God?
You are now just making my argument for me. It is indeed near impossible for people to remain free in their choices if the eternal consequences of those choices are compelling present to them. And since love involves a choice, it is then near impossible to truly love God. One would have to love God in spite of being excessively forced to "love" God.
So, according to this argument, for people to make a genuinely free choice (and therefore truly to love God), we must keep them in ignorance about the possibility of their going to hell, because hell - if believed - is the ultimate deterrent, which, by definition, undermines the role of free will (except in the case of the extreme masochist).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
I find it utterly astounding that in this day and age, with the factual knowledge available, that anyone can entertain the idea that there is such a state or place as hell which spirits/souls can be transferred to after death. The ideas about hell which have built up over thousands of years, all of which of course are humanly created ideas, can be interpreted as a state of being while we live, but to maintain that such a state, or place, can actually exist beyond death has no place in reality except in religious doctrines or superstitions. To foster any such belief in people is surely detrimental to a person's mental health. It would, in my opinion, amount to telling them a falsehood, since there is zero evidence for an actual hell and no demonstration of its existence can be provided. It might 'work' as a temperorary curb on some behaviours, but that's all.
For those who do believe there is a hel, may I ask where, or how, you imagine it to be?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
What "factual knowledge" are we talking about, Susan? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
The ideas about hell which have built up over thousands of years, all of which of course are humanly created ideas, can be interpreted as a state of being while we live, but to maintain that such a state, or place, can actually exist beyond death has no place in reality except in religious doctrines or superstitions.
How do you know it has no place in reality?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris
I find it utterly astounding that in this day and age, with the factual knowledge available, that anyone can entertain the idea that there is such a state or place as hell which spirits/souls can be transferred to after death.
The factual knowledge is as follows:
1. The reality of moral conscience.
2. The reality of the validity of morality, which cannot be denied, given that 80-90%+ of our daily news concerns moral issues of one kind or another.
3. The reality of the concept of justice, which can never be eradicated from the human psyche.
The above three are all really one fact, of course.
4. While this may not count as a 'fact' for atheists, it cannot be denied that some people have very definite experiences of what they believe is 'God', which involves a strong conviction of sin. I am one such person. An atheist may think I am deluded, but in no way can he prove that, because he cannot prove that consciousness is nothing more than brain function.
5. The fact of the behaviour of billions of religious people throughout history (the vast majority of the human race) seeking to appease whatever they regard as God / god / the gods / the spirits / the ancestors etc, which testifies to an awareness of something undesirable after death directly relating to moral behaviour peformed on this side of the grave. Atheists can dismiss this in purely naturalistic terms, but only by resorting to special pleading.
I think that's enough to be getting on with...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
I find it really odd for anybody to view hell as an unimportant detail, given that all sides of the debate agree that it greatly affects our view of the character of God.
It is also the subject of a lot of woolly thinking with hardly any, even amongst the Clergy, being up front about what they believe.
I think that on this, the Church should be plain speaking about what it does believe. The article is just nonsense. The idea seemingly having been taken from New Labour that you define your beliefs by getting focus groups to decide what is nice.
FWiW I do not believe in the traditional doctrine of hell.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What "factual knowledge" are we talking about, Susan? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
What Zach said. What factual knowledge do we now possess that disproves Hell? Please give the facts, and the chain of reasoning.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I find it really odd for anybody to view hell as an unimportant detail, given that all sides of the debate agree that it greatly affects our view of the character of God... The article is just nonsense. The idea seemingly having been taken from New Labour that you define your beliefs by getting focus groups to decide what is nice.
I don't think the article was saying either that hell is an unimportant detail or that we should define our beliefs according to what focus groups tell us they approve of.
Rather, it was putting forward the idea that Christians shouldn't major on hell as we explain our faith to non-believers (the final line in seekingsister's quote was 'Evangelicals should shut up about hell). That's a separate question from what specifically we believe about the nature of hell and people's eternal destinies.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MrsBeaky:
IngoB Please would you jot down a quick overview of what you believe about what happens to those of us who believe we are Christians after we die? This is a serious question, not a dig!
Thanks
Just the same as to everyone: First there is a "Particular Judgment" by Christ, in which the individual soul will be assigned by Him to either heaven, or heaven after undergoing purification (purgatory), or hell. This happens instantly after death, and the resulting reward or punishment begins then and there, as far as this is possible for a disembodied soul. Then at the Second Coming of Christ, He will sit in "General/Last Judgment" over all humans together. For this all of humanity will be assembled in body and soul, i.e., this is the occasion for the General Resurrection. There will be no change in Christ's judgement on the individual at this point. Rather, this is where these individual judgements become public to all, including their social and communal aspects, revealing the Divine plan and how the injustices of the world have been judged. This is also the occasion for everybody bending their knees to Christ, whether gladly or against their will. Literally. (Well, I mean in an embodied manner. For all I know we will fall flat on our faces instead of bending our knees.) Furthermore, with this humanity becomes "complete" again as embodied beings, experiencing henceforth the pleasures of heaven and the torments of hell. (Whereas as disembodied souls these were more abstract states of fulfilment in God or loss of God.)
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So, according to this argument, for people to make a genuinely free choice (and therefore truly to love God), we must keep them in ignorance about the possibility of their going to hell, because hell - if believed - is the ultimate deterrent, which, by definition, undermines the role of free will (except in the case of the extreme masochist).
This is misrepresenting a discussion of the reasons of the hiddenness of God as having favoured obscurantism about the Four Last Things. Nothing could be further from the truth, since of course the exact opposite follows. It becomes our moral duty to inform others about the realities of death, judgement, heaven and hell precisely because God, and heaven and hell, are hidden from this world other than through Divine revelation and our free response to it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
What factual knowledge do we now possess that disproves Hell?
I anticipate the response that "the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, namely: 'hell exists'."
Wait for it...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
What factual knowledge do we now possess that disproves Hell?
I anticipate the response that "the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, namely: 'hell exists'."
Wait for it...
In that line, believing in hell isn't any less reasonable than believing that there is a God or that Jesus is risen from the dead.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
This is misrepresenting a discussion of the reasons of the hiddenness of God as having favoured obscurantism about the Four Last Things. Nothing could be further from the truth, since of course the exact opposite follows. It becomes our moral duty to inform others about the realities of death, judgement, heaven and hell precisely because God, and heaven and hell, are hidden from this world other than through Divine revelation and our free response to it.
OK, so I decide to fulfil my moral duty to go out on the street and tell all and sundry to "turn or burn" and "if you don't turn you will definitely burn", but... "please make sure that you turn only if you really want to, not because you have to".
Hmmmm... There's something about that, that doesn't quite seem right to me, logic-wise... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
In that line, believing in hell isn't any less reasonable than believing that there is a God or that Jesus is risen from the dead.
Correct. I think that there simply cannot be direct evidence for any of it. As soon as I am confronted with clear evidence, my freedom to believe or not is gone. I would have to believe from that point. Thus, an appearance of essentially 'no data' is required if the idea of 'faith' is to be meaningful at all.
The same issue makes me sceptical about those who claim to have seen or experienced miracles. I think that they interpreted what they experienced as miraculous, but the freedom to not believe means that either the other explanations were probable enough to support unbelief or they lack the appropriate "faith lens" with which to view the experience that is labelled miraculous by others.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
OK, so I decide to fulfil my moral duty to go out on the street and tell all and sundry to "turn or burn" and "if you don't turn you will definitely burn", but... "please make sure that you turn only if you really want to, not because you have to".
Hmmmm... There's something about that, that doesn't quite seem right to me, logic-wise...
The main problem is that you are there trying to do in your words what God is doing for all of us by remaining hidden. It is precisely because your words are really just your words that I can find them to be lunatic ravings, or threats forcing me into servile fear of hell, or reminders of my filial love of God. Well, depending on what you say you can do your bit in steering me to one or the other. But ultimately it is not you who can realise any of these visions, hence I remain in principle free to find my peace with God on these matters. (I'm not ignoring that our words have real power over others. But in the end that power is empty, since it cannot bring about its claims. Hence it can always be challenged in principle, even though for some this might be near impossible in practice. And for those who mislead the weak, millstones.)
Your words will be realised for me only in my faith, for the judgement of God remains largely hidden. There is no need for you to tell me what I should really want, or have to do, if thereby you expect my faith to happen. You can neither make heaven and hell appear, nor grant me the grace of faith. There is a need for you to tell me what I should really want, or have to do, as a matter of your own charity. And since it is out of charity, you will have to find an effective way how to get me from where I am to where I should be (according to the best of your own belief). Just as if you see someone drowning, you do not lecture them on the importance of swimming and the best swim strokes to use, you jump in and try to drag them to the shore. And if you wish your children to learn swimming and enjoy it, then you do not throw them in at the deep end, hoping that the utter fear of drowning will motivate them. You start them at the shallow end and let them splash, and build them up slowly into confident swimmers. Ot at least so think I.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
This is a good thread.
I have an impression that many people believe far more in Hell and Satan than in Heaven and God. I think this is a mistaken emphasis that does not make their lives richer, happier or wiser. It may be that it is easier to understand the idea of Hell than that of Heaven because so many people live in hellish conditions.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think that, while it's very easy to blow holes in much said in the article, the point that some non-believers are likely to be put off of Christianity for life by some of the hellfire and brimstone pushers is valid.
The good news Jesus spoke of, the hope and promise of an eternal life with God after physical death for those who follow Christ, is sound.
At the time of Jesus, it seems that the various beliefs about the afterlife were around that people speak of today: some thought death to be the end, some thought the spirit would leave the body and float off somewhere, some thought there would be a future day of the Lord when justice would be done (at which time the dead would be raised to face up to it) and some believed in reincarnation.
People converted to Christianity as they grasped the good news, which was better than all other possibilities, and which was shown to be true thanks to the experience of God they came to know through the Holy Spirit, whether directly or indirectly.
The hellfire and brimstone imagery is supposed to be the desirable outcome of evil, not the undesirable imagery of tortured souls who couldn't quite get their minds to see things the same way as a prominent theologian past or present.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
All postmodern people are put off by the woodenism of 'Evangalicalism'.
And Jesus had much better news than that. Twice.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
What factual knowledge do we now possess that disproves Hell?
I anticipate the response that "the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, namely: 'hell exists'."
I'm sure that's not what she means, because that is predicated on an absence of factual knowledge, and she is speaking about the existence of certain facts that make the concept of Hell untenable. There is a world of difference between "You can't prove that" and "I can disprove that," and her claim most clearly is of the second variety.
We can but wait and see, of course.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
The main problem is that you are there trying to do in your words what God is doing for all of us by remaining hidden. It is precisely because your words are really just your words that I can find them to be lunatic ravings, or threats forcing me into servile fear of hell, or reminders of my filial love of God. Well, depending on what you say you can do your bit in steering me to one or the other. But ultimately it is not you who can realise any of these visions, hence I remain in principle free to find my peace with God on these matters. (I'm not ignoring that our words have real power over others. But in the end that power is empty, since it cannot bring about its claims. Hence it can always be challenged in principle, even though for some this might be near impossible in practice. And for those who mislead the weak, millstones.)
Of course my words are my words, and you can take them how you like. But irrespective of whether I am a lunatic and pour forth lunatic ravings or not, what matters is what is actually objectively true. I think - though I may be wrong - that you believe that, in the final analysis, unbelievers go to hell. Correct me if I am wrong about that. I don't expect you to accept what I say, because why should you? What I am trying to do is understand what you believe, and whether it is coherent. Because I tend to think that logic is generally quite a good method in trying to ascertain truth, assuming we are using it on the correct presuppositions.
Now if God declares - whether to Himself in hiddenness or to us in openness - that it is objectively true that those who fail to believe in Jesus Christ go to eternal hell, then this speaks to the question of the validity of our free will, does it not?
We've been this way before on the other thread, and I don't think our discussion came to any kind of resolution. I cannot see how the love of God can be freely chosen, if the penalty for rejecting this love is so severe. I certainly believe in the love of God, but I don't accept that we choose it, in the sense that we choose a romantic attachment to, say, a future spouse. God's love is a necessity, like the law of gravity or the heat of the sun. God, as Creator, sustains the universe in every way, and since His character is love, then He sustains it as a God of love. The fact that evil people are sustained by the God of love - otherwise they would have no life at all - does not contradict my view. In this instance, the Creator is abused, not absent. We do have the ability to choose to reject this love, but only in the sense of rejecting a necessity, a bit like choosing not to eat or sleep. That is a rather different understanding of free will than that of freely choosing to love God without any element of compulsion or coercion, as one would freely romantically fall in love with another human being. If a woman said to me: "Freely fall in love with me otherwise I will arrange for you to thrown in the local incinerator", I think I would be more than a little puzzled at her use of the word 'freely'! And if I should go through life spurning the advances of this woman, but without any inkling of the consequences of doing so, and then there came a day when she informed me that I must now be thrown into the incinerator, because "you rejected me for all those years", then I would regard her as extremely devious. If she argued that she did not tell me what would happen to me if I rejected her, because she wanted me to respond to her freely and not under compulsion, then I would regard her as quite mad. She had been expecting me to freely love someone who is a deceiver. If free will can only work within the context of ignorance and false security, then free will is a sick joke.
Whether God is hidden or not is irrelevant as far as this point is concerned. I accept that overpowering evidence of God would... - as William Paley observed in his 'Evidences' - ... "restrain the voluntary powers too much; would not answer the purpose of trial and probation; would call for no exercise of candour, seriousness, humility, inquiry; no submission of passions, interests, and prejudices to moral evidence and to probable truth; no habits of reflection..." and so on. But this is a hiddennes that simply allows room for man to function without being overwhelmed. That is rather different from the idea that there is no element of coercion in the love of God. To use an analogy: much of the workings of nature are hidden, and are only revealed to scientists by great study and effort. This complexity and hiddenness facilitates and encourages human enquiry and intellectual effort and interest. But the source of this complexity and fascination is a 'given' - a reality forced on all of us - which if rejected and abused turns against us. We cannot freely choose nature. We simply have to accept it. But we can choose how much we wish to understand it and expose ourselves to different aspects of it.
Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. But when an atheist challenged me by saying that the gospel does not involve free choice, because of the threat of eternal hell if the wrong choice is made, he was right. Virtually everything else he said was utter nonsense, but when I am intellectually challenged on something, and I have no answer, then I must reconsider my position. Believe it or not (contrary to what some people on the Ship may think) I do actually admit when I am wrong, even if I fight tooth and nail before getting to that position. This was one such instance, and I told this atheist (with whom I had had many very heated arguments) that he had made a very good point. I cannot see how the reality of the threat of eternal hell does not involve God coercing people to love Him.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
How can we love the Persons of God adequately (let alone with our whole being) when we believe if we don't do so we will be sent to Hell? Sounds sort of like a catch-22.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
How can we love the Persons of God adequately (let alone with our whole being) when we believe if we don't do so we will be sent to Hell? Sounds sort of like a catch-22.
How can we love (or believe in) a God who would do such a thing - especially when we wouldn't do it ourselves?
Surely God is more loving than we are?
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Why do we insist on debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? On comparing what we believe and not how we believe? We do not question our epistemologies and those of the writers of the Bible. And Jesus.
What is the story of Hell? That's important in evangelism if it comes up. Otherwise, why bother leading with some wooden facet of it? Leading with a postmodern meaning, predicated on God being an effective, affective lover, fine.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chief of sinners
Shipmate
# 8794
|
Posted
Preaching salvation as an escape route from hell, is just selling fire insurance. People want to pay as little as possible for the maximum amount of cover. here is a little verse CH Spurgeon's Morning by Morning readings:
quote:
"Law and terrors do but harden
All the while they work alone;
But a sense of blood-bought pardon
Will dissolve a heart of stone."
If we really want to motive and empower people to live for Christ then they will be motivated by understanding God's love and responding to it
--------------------
If Jesus was half the revolutionary you claim, how come he is now represented by one of the most conservative, status-quo institutions on the planet?
Posts: 155 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Just a quick thought - I suppose threats of eternal damnation might prompt some people to investigate Christianity and the claims it makes, leading them on to learning about Jesus and growing in faith and commitment to following him? It's not how I'd choose to explain the good news of Jesus Christ but...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oscar the Grouch
Adopted Cascadian
# 1916
|
Posted
Never preached on Hell. Never will.
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that Hell is simply a scary bedtime story for those of a religious persuasion.
Faith that is based on fear of being condemned to eternal anguish is not the kind of faith I think Jesus wanted of people. Faith shouldn't be based on fear of something nasty, but on the overwhelming, irrepressible love of God.
--------------------
Faradiu, dundeibáwa weyu lárigi weyu
Posts: 3871 | From: Gamma Quadrant, just to the left of Galifrey | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What "factual knowledge" are we talking about, Susan? I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
My apologies; I was thinking of all that is known about the composition of everything, both in the universe and in the tiniest particle. When tried and tested knowledge of such things is available, and I see no reason to doubt the trustworthiness of this info, then where or what is hell? People used to think that God and heaven were 'up there' and raise their eyes to the skies, but those with access to the 'factual knowledge' I am referring to would not do that nowadays, would they?
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
The ideas about hell which have built up over thousands of years, all of which of course are humanly created ideas, can be interpreted as a state of being while we live, but to maintain that such a state, or place, can actually exist beyond death has no place in reality except in religious doctrines or superstitions.
How do you know it has no place in reality?
Ah, yes, fair question! Yes, of course, the idea of hell has had, and still has, a strong place in the reality that is human thought, but hell remains an idea which does not have a substance or reality which can be tested or measured.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
Yet that rests on the assumption that all that is can be tested and measured using the scientific method.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurelin
Shipmate
# 17211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
People used to think that God and heaven were 'up there' and raise their eyes to the skies, but those with access to the 'factual knowledge' I am referring to would not do that nowadays, would they?
Very likely not. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) I think those of us who believe in an after-life think of it as being in 'another dimension'.
quote:
Ah, yes, fair question! Yes, of course, the idea of hell has had, and still has, a strong place in the reality that is human thought, but hell remains an idea which does not have a substance or reality which can be tested or measured.
Well, obviously. Nobody has ever come back from the dead to prove the reality of life beyond death. Nobody, that is, except Jesus. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I can understand the logic of a purely materialist view of the universe, although it is not my view. But do 'materialists-only' folk seriously think that people with a religious faith are incapable of holding parallel views in tension together? E.g. that you can both accept science - i.e. how things work, the stuff that makes stuff stuff (as I heard the 'God particle' described the other day on Radio 4 ) and at the same time believe in a spiritual/metaphysical dimension that exceeds the physical dimensions of the universe?
Science tells us how. It cannot tell us why.
--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien
Posts: 545 | From: The Shire | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by SusanDoris:
substance or reality which can be tested or measured.
So?
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
...hell remains an idea which does not have a substance or reality which can be tested or measured.
Neither does God. Neither does God have a definite place in the universe.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
SusanDoris:
Human consciousness cannot be tested or measured by the scientific method. Does consciousness therefore not exist?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
EE Brief pause for gnashing of teeth ... I have been thinking about my reply while I've been out and about, checked it through a couple of times and, yes, accidentally lost it. I'll be back asap!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Yet that rests on the assumption that all that is can be tested and measured using the scientific method.
Which is not a scientific belief but a philosophical (or religious) belief. Materialism cannot be tested scientifically. Materialists who think they are thereby being "scientific" don't know what the word means.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think - though I may be wrong - that you believe that, in the final analysis, unbelievers go to hell. Correct me if I am wrong about that.
Seriously?! Not only have I stated my opinion on this umpteen times on these boards, I'm also quite generally never far from what the RCC teaches officially - and so here. No, I do not believe that all unbelievers go to hell. Neither do I believe that all believers go to heaven. I do believe that believing increases the chances of going to heaven, significantly. But both heaven and hell will have their share of believers and unbelievers alike. Of course, after death there is no more such thing as an "unbeliever". Or for that matter "believer". Everybody will be a "knower" then. Belief, or lack thereof, is a feature of this world, not of the next.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I cannot see how the love of God can be freely chosen, if the penalty for rejecting this love is so severe.
And yet, countless people all around make the apparently free choice to love God, or hate Him, or ignore Him, or any number of other choices with sentiment. Now, you can question how "free" their freedom really is. But it is clearly as "free" as usual, so you will end up with a general discussion of free will there, not with a discussion of the specific case. Or you can ask how people manage to come to a free choice in spite of an overwhelming threat / promise. And the answer is, and my point has been, that these matters are hidden. Not to the point where one would make no choice simply because one is not aware that there is one. But to the point where the mind is not forced by sheer instinct.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If a woman said to me: "Freely fall in love with me otherwise I will arrange for you to thrown in the local incinerator", I think I would be more than a little puzzled at her use of the word 'freely'!
But that's not quite how this works. It's more "Do X, and I will make you regret the day you were born. Do Y, and I will blow your mind with pleasures beyond your imagination. Of course, if you grow to really love me, then you will do Y and avoid X because of me, rather than because of what you get out of it. But I will take what I can get from you in the meantime..." The point is then that the more present punishment and reward are, the less it is possible to transcend them towards real love. If however these are distant promises for the future, you might just chat with that woman and find that you quite like her company.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But when an atheist challenged me by saying that the gospel does not involve free choice, because of the threat of eternal hell if the wrong choice is made, he was right.
He wasn't, as evidenced by the simple fact that he is an atheist. Clearly he does not in fact feel that his choice is forced by the gospel. Why not? Because he doesn't believe in it. Why doesn't he believe in it? Because God is hiding sufficiently to allow that.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I cannot see how the reality of the threat of eternal hell does not involve God coercing people to love Him.
The observational data shows clearly that God is not coercing anybody, at least not as a matter of course by virtue of the teaching of heaven and hell. People sometimes do, including people belonging to religious institutions. Perhaps in other times your atheist friend could have managed to get himself burned on the stake for his atheism. But that's not God doing anything in this world that would coerce your friend. The threat of hell arises with faith in hell. Your atheist friend can make hell become coercive for himself by starting to believe in it, but the teaching of hell cannot coerce him into believing. It is powerless other than by the power he gives it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
