No Hell

[rgraham666]

I hear what you're saying, but I still wonder why people must fear hell in order to do the right thing. Are you saying that you're only motivated by the idea of being consigned to hell and not by the rightness of Christ's teachings and promise of life in heaven?

~lucky

For many people lucky, you do need punishment along with reward to motivate them to do the good thing. Good just isn't enough for most people.

Unfortunately, people often forget about the reward part. Witness the complete fixation many people have on hell. They aren't hoping to go to Heaven, they're trying to avoid going to Hell, which isn't quite the same thing.

And the good thing to do is too often actually the proper thing to do. The idea that people who don't go to Sunday Mass is an example of this. As P pointed out, that puts a person in the same category as murderers and adulterers.

Shrugs. People will believe and act as they want. God will sort them out when the time comes.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Not a fair question as I am a fire insurance Christian

Honestly, without getting evangelical, my conversion event was coupled to a complete reading of revelations. So in all honesty fear of hell fire, far more than the promise of heaven was the primary motivator for me. I have grown as a christian since that time, but I would be lying if I said the Baptist version of hell fire and brimstone didn't lead me to where I am.

I appreciate the honesty.
What works for you shouldn't be discounted, but it's not working for me. I am much less oriented to respond to fear than I am to reward. Also, I have to agree with Zoot on the point of a loving father, making the whole idea of hell being his creation as deterrent, punishment, and abandonment rather unpalatable.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I appreciate the honesty.
What works for you shouldn't be discounted, but it's not working for me. I am much less oriented to respond to fear than I am to reward. Also, I have to agree with Zoot on the point of a loving father, making the whole idea of hell being his creation as deterrent, punishment, and abandonment rather unpalatable.

There is little point in debate if we cannot be honest with one another

Religion is so personal. that which works for one may well not work ofr anoyone else. I apply my mind to religion, but inthe end, I know it's a Gordian knot.

God as father woks well for me because my upbringing was one where my dad was the disciplinarian.

You, like I and everyone else, has to find their own path to whatever outcome they can live with. I had a very good catholic freind and she fucked like a bunny. Her view was fatalistic. I know I am sinning and I know I am going to hell, but I like sex too much to quit. I could never live with that, but she was comfortable with it.


Religion, whatever else it does, should give you comfort. If it dosen't work for you in one form, you have to find a form where it does. Even if that form is to not believe.

 

[Guest]

I had a very good catholic freind and she fucked like a bunny.

Colly, please use that as the opening sentence to your next story. You may call the main character Dita .

Perdita

 

[Pure]

Colly said,//if there is no hell, then there is no need for a savior to keep you from it.//

i like the Jewish solution to this. downplay hell (or save it for the very worst). then, as you say, there is no need for a savior.

indeed Christians implicitly admit this, since most believe that those good Biblical figures (and others) and people before Jesus time were saved/went to heaven.
-----

I know the MacDowell book is prized by evangelical persons; but I'd point out that its approach is unconvincing to those not already convinced.** it rather clear that, to 'prove' Christianity, you can't use the Bible (much), nor particularly (most of) the NT. since only a subset of Christians believe the NT to be fairly accurate.
---

**detailed scholary critiques of it abound.

 

[English Lady]

hello all, interesting reading to catch up on

I particularly liked the conversation between colly and Lucky, I like civil debate like that, and have learnt alot from reading their answers to each other.

my approach to Hell is completely different. I didn't become a Christian to avoid Hell, I, well I just literally made a friend in Jesus (I've been a Christian since being tiny) and couldn't be anything but a Christian even if I tried.

Anyhow, on the Hell front, I was thinking about what Lucky was saying, and yeah, that sounds pretty much like Hell to me. Death, the end, the body gone and nothing more. I guess thats pretty much a state without God. urgh.

 

[human_male]

How can you control people if you can't threaten them with something? Unless they bring back burning.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colly said,//if there is no hell, then there is no need for a savior to keep you from it.//

i like the Jewish solution to this. downplay hell (or save it for the very worst). then, as you say, there is no need for a savior.

indeed Christians implicitly admit this, since most believe that those good Biblical figures (and others) and people before Jesus time were saved/went to heaven.
-----

I know the MacDowell book is prized by evangelical persons; but I'd point out that its approach is unconvincing to those not already convinced.** it rather clear that, to 'prove' Christianity, you can't use the Bible (much), nor particularly (most of) the NT. since only a subset of Christians believe the NT to be fairly accurate.
---

**detailed scholary critiques of it abound.

It is Mcdowell, thanks j

I don't reccomend the work as a tool of evangelicalism. I always preface the reccomendation with a note it has an axe to grind. I reccomend it as a scolarly work that does a lot to answer questions of translation, corruption, and the authenticity of the bible as a book.

The premise is of course questionable, but the historiographical and bibliographical work are very good.

 

[Pure]

Hi Colly,

There is an online document rebutting much of McDowell "The Jury is In", by J. Lowder.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

Based on some re-reading, let me refine my position. There are some valid points in McDowell, e.g., regarding there being a few pieces of evidence for the historicity of Jesus, from non Christian sources.

Much of the book, however, makes arguments, like "The Gospel writers say Jesus is the Son of God," and they are accurate, so.... Or, "The Bible is a unique (accurate) book and it says...." Further the book argues from the early Christians' willingness to die for their faith, to the truth of what they believed.

Here are two objections to 'hell' as styled by the evangelical folks.

1) It appears NOT to be an effective doctrine, since Christians offend at about the same rate as non-Christians. There is no shortage of persons serving serious time who believed in hell at the time of their crimes. We do know of some persons who on an occasion were deterred by the thought, but we all know, too, of persons such as you mention who say "I'm doing X" and "I know I'm going to Hell for doing X." In places like Texas, predominantly evangelical Christian, there is often a high crime rate, more than say, in more secular France.

2) It may be a counterproductive doctrine causing or exacerbating crimes: There is a kind of glory in saying things like "I'm a Hell's Angel" or "I'm bound for Hell." There are several accounts of killers seeking the weird ('romantic') glory of being publically executed and 'going to Hell.'

 

[Colleen Thomas]

There is an online document rebutting much of McDowell "The Jury is In", by J. Lowder.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/

Based on some re-reading, let me refine my position. There are some valid points in McDowell, e.g., regarding there being a few pieces of evidence for the historicity of Jesus, from non Christian sources.

Much of the book, however, makes arguments, like "The Gospel writers say Jesus is the Son of God," and they are accurate, so.... Or, "The Bible is a unique (accurate) book and it says...." Further the book argues from the early Christians' willingness to die for their faith, to the truth of what they believed.

Here are two objections to 'hell' as styled by the evangelical folks.

1) It appears NOT to be an effective doctrine, since Christians offend at about the same rate as non-Christians. There is no shortage of persons serving serious time who believed in hell at the time of their crimes. We do know of some persons who on an occasion were deterred by the thought, but we all know, too, of persons such as you mention who say "I'm doing X" and "I know I'm going to Hell for doing X." In places like Texas, predominantly evangelical Christian, there is often a high crime rate, more than say, in more secular France.

2) It may be a counterproductive doctrine causing or exacerbating crimes: There is a kind of glory in saying things like "I'm a Hell's Angel" or "I'm bound for Hell." There are several accounts of killers seeking the weird ('romantic') glory of being publically executed and 'going to Hell.'

Even he admits the book has valid presentation on what I reccomend it for. Biblographical evidence in the case of the bible in comparrison to contemporary primary sources.

And that is why I reccomend it. Not for the religious POV expoused, but for the scholarly work.

 

[Sex and Death]

Is that the moon you're pointing to, or are you just glad to see me?

Even he admits the book has valid presentation on what I reccomend it for. Biblographical evidence in the case of the bible in comparrison to contemporary primary sources.

And that is why I reccomend it. Not for the religious POV expoused, but for the scholarly work.

What is the point of historical and/or theological hair-splitting?

CS Lewis made the point in his Screwtape Letters, among many other places, that the Devil works through such diabolical, trivial and useless distractions and debates as semantics, historical accuracy, and narcissitic subjectivism and relativism.

Meister Eckhart made the point that we must have a "leavetaking of God in order to find God." We so often get stuck and gaze at the finger that points to the moon instead of the moon herself.

Whatever one's name for God, whatever one's name for the Devil, or Hell, unless one wakes up to the truth that one's own heart is the heart of the Divine, the One Heart we all share, and the debate, historical or otherwise, is a rat wheel that keeps us separate from our true nature and bound in our own personal Hell.

The safety and comfort of "civil debate" is The Enemy (read, Devil, if you must) of the Divine.

Religion should move us out of our safety and comfort zones by any means necessary, otherwise is really is simply an opiate for the masses. When Neiztsche said God is dead, he meant that we are dead to God. The Eternal cannot die, it IS, simply and always. The Divine often names Itself "I Am." Neitzsche knew that we were and still are moving through a threshhold of development in our collectve and cultural spiritual development, or our evolution of collective consciousness, as is the more common term today.

God is wild and cannot be bound in any book or scripture. Any words can only be poetic referents. The primary organ of spiritual perception is the heart.

Joseph Campbell offers this: "My friend Heinrich Zimmer of years ago used to say, "The best things can't be told," because they transcend thought. "The second best are misunderstood," because those are the thoughts that are supposed to refer to that which can't be thought about, and one gets stuck in the thoughts. "The third best are what we talk about."

SD

 

[Colleen Thomas]

What is the point of historical and/or theological hair-splitting?

CS Lewis made the point in his Screwtape Letters, among many other places, that the Devil works through such diabolical, trivial and useless distractions and debates as semantics, historical accuracy, and narcissitic subjectivism and relativism.

Meister Eckhart made the point that we must have a "leavetaking of God in order to find God." We so often get stuck and gaze at the finger that points to the moon instead of the moon herself.

Whatever one's name for God, whatever one's name for the Devil, or Hell, unless one wakes up to the truth that one's own heart is the heart of the Divine, the One Heart we all share, and the debate, historical or otherwise, is a rat wheel that keeps us separate from our true nature and bound in our own personal Hell.

The safety and comfort of "civil debate" is The Enemy (read, Devil, if you must) of the Divine.

Religion should move us out of our safety and comfort zones by any means necessary, otherwise is really is simply an opiate for the masses. When Neiztsche said God is dead, he meant that we are dead to God. The Eternal cannot die, it IS, simply and always. The Divine often names Itself "I Am." Neitzsche knew that we were and still are moving through a threshhold of development in our collectve and cultural spiritual development, or our evolution of collective consciousness, as is the more common term today.

God is wild and cannot be bound in any book or scripture. Any words can only be poetic referents. The primary organ of spiritual perception is the heart.

Joseph Campbell offers this: "My friend Heinrich Zimmer of years ago used to say, "The best things can't be told," because they transcend thought. "The second best are misunderstood," because those are the thoughts that are supposed to refer to that which can't be thought about, and one gets stuck in the thoughts. "The third best are what we talk about."

SD

I'm an amatuer historian, with a BA in history. Historiographical/biblographical evidence mean a great deal to me. If, as the author posits, the bible has come down to us in a relatively intact translation from the original and if, many of the events described are coboborated by other, contemporary primary sources, then it must be examined in a certain light. If, as many claim, the translation is garbled or corrupt, or if the stories have no historical coboboration, then it must be examined in a different light.

I recommended it to Mismused, who has voiced specific concerns about the text. For those concerns, I know of no better source book to adress them.

Whatever your take on the bible or christianity in general, it is an excellent source book on the bible as a historical text. I reccomend it in that capacity only, with a cautionary note that the author has an axe to grind. What anyone takes from it is their own of course. But pro or con, the book arms you with knowledge of the veracity of the bible as compared to other primary sources.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Why must there be a counter to heaven? If it's as good as everyone says, that should be enough motivation to strive for admittance. Why must there be fear and punishment to dissuade wrongful acts when the supposed reward is eternal life free from that which ails us on earth?

Thank you. That's the point I was originally trying to make, and you made it much more clearly and succinctly than I did.

Why can't there be a religion based entirely on love? The idea of hell makes God petty and vindictive and ultimately hateable. It drags him down to our own miserable level.

Unfortunately, it seems like there are a lot of people who like it that way, and that makes them seem petty and hateable too.

 

[English Lady]

Thank you. That's the point I was originally trying to make, and you made it much more clearly and succinctly than I did.

Why can't there be a religion based entirely on love? The idea of hell makes God petty and vindictive and ultimately hateable. It drags him down to our own miserable level.

Unfortunately, it seems like there are a lot of people who like it that way, and that makes them seem petty and hateable too.

I've not been called petty and hateable before

Can someone point out to me where God sending his Son to earth to be killed to take the blame for all the things we do wrong is not all about love?

Hell is just the obvious opposite of Heaven. If theres a place with God, theres a place without him. For all the hell I know it's just Satan and his fallen angels who are there and every bugger else is in Heaven, I don't know. I just don't know.


And that's the point. God knows. There is a Heaven, a place filled with God's Love.
soooo if you don't believe in God you're more than likely going to the place without God, but if you don't care-why is that an issue? Is there a problem with facing an exsistance without God when you don't believe in him anyway?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thank you. That's the point I was originally trying to make, and you made it much more clearly and succinctly than I did.

Why can't there be a religion based entirely on love? The idea of hell makes God petty and vindictive and ultimately hateable. It drags him down to our own miserable level.

Unfortunately, it seems like there are a lot of people who like it that way, and that makes them seem petty and hateable too.

Why doesn't communism work doc? Why do liberals abnd conservatives squabble so incessantly, when liberals can see utopia if we just enacted certain measures?

A religion, or philososphy that is based only on love has no application, because it bears no resemblance to reality. For a small portion of the population, it might be possible to ascribe to it, but the average person needs a religious platform that at least mirrors what they know.

Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Megele, Dahmer. These people existed and the evil they did is manifest. If you try to tell people they must love these men, you will find yourself alone in the room by and large.

Religion must embrace at some point a conception of good and evil. If your response to good and evil is the same, then your religion lacks a morality people can identify with.

I do not know that a religion preaching love alone can cope with the reality of people of this stripe in a way the adherents to it could accept.

 

[English Lady]

Why doesn't communism work doc? Why do liberals abnd conservatives squabble so incessantly, when liberals can see utopia if we just enacted certain measures?

A religion, or philososphy that is based only on love has no application, because it bears no resemblance to reality. For a small portion of the population, it might be possible to ascribe to it, but the average person needs a religious platform that at least mirrors what they know.

Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Megele, Dahmer. These people existed and the evil they did is manifest. If you try to tell people they must love these men, you will find yourself alone in the room by and large.

Religion must embrace at some point a conception of good and evil. If your response to good and evil is the same, then your religion lacks a morality people can identify with.

I do not know that a religion preaching love alone can cope with the reality of people of this stripe in a way the adherents to it could accept.

Well said

 

[NoJo]

Well said

I'm not sure in Jesus was all that into Hell.

He would say that everything you do is being tallied up by God, like the teacher's stars and black marks. Follow the rules, a star. Break them, a black mark. And he spent his life trying teach people the rules and show by example what it takes to live by those rules.

But Hell didn't really feature.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm not sure in Jesus was all that into Hell.

He would say that everything you do is being tallied up by God, like the teacher's stars and black marks. Follow the rules, a star. Break them, a black mark. And he spent his life trying teach people the rules and show by example what it takes to live by those rules.

But Hell didn't really feature.

"I am the way, the truth and the Light. no one reaches the father, except by me."

that dosen't consign you to hell, but it is implied that you will go there if you do not go to the father joe.

 

[cloudy]

I dunno, Colly. I think Joe's right.

Everything Jesus supposedly said (because I'm not convinced either way) is all about love, and there's nothing loving about the hell that preachers try to convince us exists.

Personally, I don't believe it exists, unless we're in it now.

 

[NoJo]

"I am the way, the truth and the Light. no one reaches the father, except by me."

that dosen't consign you to hell, but it is implied that you will go there if you do not go to the father joe.

He talked about the Kingdom of Heaven, but I don't recall much description of the alternative.

The reason it seems obvious to me, is that Hell is just not a Jewish concept. Jews (even Essenes like Jesus, whose ideas were radically different from orthodox Jewish ideas of the time), just didn't talk about Hell. I really think that concept came much later, and only in Christianity.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

He talked about the Kingdom of Heaven, but I don't recall much description of the alternative.

The reason it seems obvious to me, is that Hell is just not a Jewish concept. Jews (even Essenes like Jesus, whose ideas were radically different from orthodox Jewish ideas of the time), just didn't talk about Hell. I really think that concept came much later, and only in Christianity.

Didn't the concept of Hell come about in the Middle ages?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

He talked about the Kingdom of Heaven, but I don't recall much description of the alternative.

The reason it seems obvious to me, is that Hell is just not a Jewish concept. Jews (even Essenes like Jesus, whose ideas were radically different from orthodox Jewish ideas of the time), just didn't talk about Hell. I really think that concept came much later, and only in Christianity.

I wish I were better versed. As is, I can only say I think hell was mention by some of the OT prophets?

It's been several years since I actually took a bible course, so my memory is a little fuzzy.

As to Abs, I think the conceptualization of Hell was pre middle ages. In the legend of Gregory I and Attilla, I seem to remember the Hun seeing cataclyptic visions as the reason for his leaving rome? Been way too long for me to try and debate this. I can't seem to marshal the verses like I once could.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I wish I were better versed. As is, I can only say I think hell was mention by some of the OT prophets?

It's been several years since I actually took a bible course, so my memory is a little fuzzy.

As to Abs, I think the conceptualization of Hell was pre middle ages. In the legend of Gregory I and Attilla, I seem to remember the Hun seeing cataclyptic visions as the reason for his leaving rome? Been way too long for me to try and debate this. I can't seem to marshal the verses like I once could.

My assumption was that some of the churches and the priests were getting a little out of control, eg mistresses, brothels and the Pope put the hammer down.
I could be stupid?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

My assumption was that some of the churches and the priests were getting a little out of control, eg mistresses, brothels and the Pope put the hammer down.
I could be stupid?

The popes were some of the worst offenders, see Cesare Borgia

the reformation was a backlash against the coruption in the church, but I don't think hell began with martin Luther.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

The popes were some of the worst offenders, see Cesare Borgia

the reformation was a backlash against the coruption in the church, but I don't think hell began with martin Luther.

Darnit, I watched the show on Hell on the history channel and now my mind is confuzzled.

There were some bad apples back when.