The Christian Hell

[Redzeppelin]

Well I guess that's a matter of opinion. But to me, anyone who believes our creator will burn us all in hell because we're not bending at the knees is slightly delusional, not as a person, but in their beliefs.

A colossal misunderstanding of God on the highest order. Have you even read the Bible? Hell is a chosen destination - it is God's acknowledgement of humanity's prerogative to reject Him and His provision of a place for them away from His presence - which is what they desire; for those who wish only to serve themselves, heaven would be "hell" for them. By the way, Hell may not necessarily be a place of "burning" - at least in the physical sense we think.

As well, what qualifies you to decide that others are "delusional" in their beliefs? Your inability or unwillingness to understand their beliefs equals them having the problem? Perhaps it is you who are delusional by pretending that all that is around you simply came into being on its own. That strikes me as the epitome of delusional, wishful thinking.

I'm sick of the politically correct nonsense we have to stick to these days. No one can say what they really feel or what everyone is thinking because it's not "right" to do so. Things would be solved a lot quicker if people didn't tip toe. I don't tip toe. It may offend you but atleast i play it straight, i see no point in adding a silver lining.

Feel better, having vented away? Most people who support being "brutally honest" are generally more interested in brutality than honesty.

Damn - okay that there, really is my last post..

Your withdrawal is accepted.

[Zee.]

Feel better, having vented away? Most people who support being "brutally honest" are generally more interested in brutality than honesty.

And there's nothing brutal about telling people they're going to Hell, right?

I really don't care what people say to try and soften it up or try and justify it.
Creator of all of us sends us to hell because we dont believe in him?
i'm not buying that. It's a ridiculous concept. Would you burn your own children simply because they didnt agree with you? it's unnatural and it's sick.

[Zee.]

I'm not talking in fact.

I find their beliefs delusional, like im sure some find mine. End of story.

[Delta40]

I think brutally honest is when you have no concern about what impact your statements will have upon another person. It's where you take no personal responsibility for what you say. It's a buck passing strategy.

Heaps of people cloak themselves this way.

Consider the following example:

'You're going to burn in Hell if you don't accept God as your saviour. By the way, I am not responsible for the hurt, fear and distrust that I invoke through my statements.....but I will (coz I'm doing the Lord's work, afterall) if you turn to God and accept him'

[Redzeppelin]

And there's nothing brutal about telling people they're going to Hell, right?

Depends: if I am placing myself in the judgment seat by deciding that I think you'll be in hell, then that is wrong; only God can determine that. However, if I tell you that the logical consequences of rejecting God lead to hell, I'm doing the same thing that a pack of cigarettes does by telling you that smoking leads to cancer.

I really don't care what people say to try and soften it up or try and justify it.

OK - you've already established your intent to speak as you wish.

Creator of all of us sends us to hell because we dont believe in him?
i'm not buying that. It's a ridiculous concept. Would you burn your own children simply because they didnt agree with you? it's unnatural and it's sick.

Hell is a chosen destination. God doesn't "send" people there - they choose to go there by default in their rejection of God. It's not about agreement; it's about choosing death over life. The Bible makes clear that God is the source of all Life in the universe; if you reject Him, you choose death - just as if you choose not to eat, you starve. Hell isn't an arbitrary punishment - it is the logical end for those who choose to serve themselves instead of God.

Again, you should read the Bible if you intend to attack the theology contained within it.

[Rush_of_Blood]

And there's nothing brutal about telling people they're going to Hell, right?

I really don't care what people say to try and soften it up or try and justify it.
Creator of all of us sends us to hell because we dont believe in him?
i'm not buying that. It's a ridiculous concept. Would you burn your own children simply because they didnt agree with you? it's unnatural and it's sick.

i have said it before but i will definitely say it again:

we are all NOT God's children. we are all his creation.

[Zee.]

Depends: if I am placing myself in the judgment seat by deciding that I think you'll be in hell, then that is wrong; only God can determine that. However, if I tell you that the logical consequences of rejecting God lead to hell, I'm doing the same thing that a pack of cigarettes does by telling you that smoking leads to cancer.



OK - you've already established your intent to speak as you wish.



Hell is a chosen destination. God doesn't "send" people there - they choose to go there by default in their rejection of God. It's not about agreement; it's about choosing death over life. The Bible makes clear that God is the source of all Life in the universe; if you reject Him, you choose death - just as if you choose not to eat, you starve. Hell isn't an arbitrary punishment - it is the logical end for those who choose to serve themselves instead of God.

Again, you should read the Bible if you intend to attack the theology contained within it.

How is it a logical consequence that not accepting leads to Hell? How is that logical at all - you have not one ounce of proof, with the exception of what, the bible?
That's like me saying that wizards are real because i have Harry Potter to prove it.


You're assuming i haven't read the Bible. At no point have i ever stated that i haven't.

[Zee.]

i have said it before but i will definitely say it again:

we are all NOT God's children. we are all his creation.

Yet again someone who speaks as if this is fact.
You are no closer to God than i am, my friend.

[Rush_of_Blood]

How is it a logical consequence that not accepting leads to Hell? How is that logical at all - you have not one ounce of proof, with the exception of what, the bible?
That's like me saying that wizards are real because i have Harry Potter to prove it.


You're assuming i haven't read the Bible. At no point have i ever stated that i haven't.

have you read it?

[Rush_of_Blood]

Yet again someone who speaks as if this is fact.
You are no closer to God than i am, my friend.

closer in what sense?

[Rush_of_Blood]

First off, I'd never give you a hard time; while we disagree on many things, your views are honest & heartfelt, and I have no trouble with people holding views which are different or opposite from mine.

I hope you get to play with some dolphins some day, because I'd guarantee that it would confirm for you that they are cognitively smart.

I just wish we could figure out how to communicate with them. And you're right about mammals - most of them are indeed social animals.



Just on the border of long enough



And no, your posts don't come over as self-centred in any way. Like most people with zen-like persuasions, I find your attitude commendable and I've said on many occasions that the world would be a much better place if everyone were Buddhist. I believe that's true, because I admire the non-violent, conciliatory inclusiveness of Buddhism.

I just could never get by without steak.





Wasn't me was it?



I said that to a couple of people yesterday.

Quite seriously, the whole theism/atheism debate is one where a little naivete is a good thing. Every single person on the planet has their own doctrine and every one of them is based on personal experience, so why should you take notice of anyone else's doctrine.

One of the smartest blokes ever, Bertrand Russell, said we should question all philosophies, even our own. Well, if you're naive, you sure haven't been tainted by someone else's doctrine, and that's got to be good.

Are dolphins atruistic? We can't say for certain, but based upon quite extensive evidence from studies in the wild, it seems that they are. Altruism exists alright - the disagreement is about why it exists. I say evolution, theists say god...



Depends who you talk to. Some sects say there will be animals in heaven, and in the bible, Jesus himself says that not a sparrow farts without his old man knowing about it.

(Or words to that effect )



They aren't frustrated by that alone. You have - as I showed - repeated the same line about non-believers going to hell several times. That's what gets people upset. I accept that you're just speaking your mind, but is anything served by repeating it?

When it is repeated several times, it can look insulting.

It doesn't bother me; I've had my spot as Satan's right hand man picked out for years. That's why I'm The Atheist and not some other kind of atheist.





Well. some can and some can't. I think you should at least try to see how someone repeating that they will be tortured eternally for not believing in your god can be hurtful, though. What you're doing is describing a religion which lives on fear - fear of being sent to hell if we don't act the prescribed way.



You talk about the values of christianity as being identical to your thoughts, but there is no agreed "values of christianity". Heaven is certainly about 100% belief among christians, but hell is viewed very differently by sects, so you can't say that your views agree with wider christianity. I'm not saying either one is better than another, just different, but if your personal view matches your church's view, then that's good.



That's an admirable attitude, but you need to understand that to non-theists, your view of your god, heaven and hell is the least attractive version of christianity. A god who punishes people eternally - for whatever reason - isn't all that appealing.

I've been talking to atheists for decades and I'm 100% certain that today's militant atheism was spawned by yesterday's rise of fundamental christianity.



I'm interested to know what constitutes "full christian knowledge" and why that's important, because so far, the only reason you've advanced is that god says so, so it must be true. Given that no evidence exists other than what the bible says, regarding hell, there's little else to know. Plus, I must reiterate that the bible is read very differently between differing sects.

Based on that, and allowing that you're not even the millionth person to repeat god's rules in that way, it's actually quite easy to understand why people dismiss it without going any further.



I'm not going to get too involved in this because it calls for a history of religion lesson. Suffice to say that there isn't anything in the christian religion which hasn't been borrowed from elsewhere - virgin birth, resurrection, miraculous happenings, god-on-earth.... all of them have earlier origins. To me, and many atheists, the bible is a collection of just-so stories of little or no value.

Once we get through that, I'd have to list the inconsistencies and oturight contradictions of the bible, of which there are hundreds. Do you eat shellfish or pork? Do men in your church shave their beards? These things are expressly prohibited in the bible, and in the very same chapters I've heard used in sermons against homosexuality at fundamental churches. And that's just the tip of the iceberg... the she-bears, the iron chariots... there are just so many that I find it impossible to accept that anyone can interpret it consistently.

It is a mockery to then insist that the book is infallibly right.



Not what I meant, I'd seen that post, but no problem.

You are taking things waaay too far out of context.


1)you said:
"Depends who you talk to. Some sects say there will be animals in heaven, and in the bible, Jesus himself says that not a sparrow farts without his old man knowing about it."

Jesus is not talking about heaven at all! he is talking about love!

Here is the passage you are talking about:

Matthew 10: 29-31
Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

In Jesus' day, sparrows were the most worthless kind of bird you could get. But Jesus shows that he loves those sparrows so much, how much more so humans! So this is not about heaven whatsoever. it is about love.


2) have you ever thought that history "stole" from the bible, and not the other way around?

You said:
"I'm interested to know what constitutes "full christian knowledge" and why that's important, because so far, the only reason you've advanced is that god says so, so it must be true. Given that no evidence exists other than what the bible says, regarding hell, there's little else to know. Plus, I must reiterate that the bible is read very differently between differing sects."


3)
point 1)of course there's no way evidence that exists outside of the bible of hell! it's something outside of this world, this universe.

point 2) this is where much misunderstanding happens. you have to look at the bible yourself. not compare it to how others interpret it. many sects strongly go against biblical doctrine, i completely agree. Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness, and Penecostals all have things to address because of very different interpretations, just to name a few. But look at the Bible yourself. have you read it in your free time at all? i can not emphasize this point enough!



4)

You said:
"Once we get through that, I'd have to list the inconsistencies and oturight contradictions of the bible, of which there are hundreds. Do you eat shellfish or pork? Do men in your church shave their beards? These things are expressly prohibited in the bible, and in the very same chapters I've heard used in sermons against homosexuality at fundamental churches. And that's just the tip of the iceberg... the she-bears, the iron chariots... there are just so many that I find it impossible to accept that anyone can interpret it consistently.

It is a mockery to then insist that the book is infallibly right."

i'd have to look specifically at what contradictions there are that you are talking about (if you'd like to send them to me, please do) but this again has somewhat to do with interpretation. the "do you eat shellfish or pork?" question i can answer for you right now. let's look at the two references:

To see the whole list of what was restricted in the Old Testament, go to biblegateway.com and look up Leviticus 11.

Then:


Jesus addresses this issue in Mark 7: 18-20:
"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")

He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "



Talking about the apostle peter:

He [peter] saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.


The Jews were trying to justify themselves because they were following the food codes given in the Old Testament, but Jesus is saying that that is not what is important. It is the internal that is important, not the external. There are a few other reasons, but this is one of the main ones.

[NikolaiI]

Well I guess that's a matter of opinion. But to me, anyone who believes our creator will burn us all in hell because we're not bending at the knees is slightly delusional, not as a person, but in their beliefs. I'm sick of the politically correct nonsense we have to stick to these days. No one can say what they really feel or what everyone is thinking because it's not "right" to do so. Things would be solved a lot quicker if people didn't tip toe. I don't tip toe. It may offend you but atleast i play it straight, i see no point in adding a silver lining.

Damn - okay that there, really is my last post..

You say you have come from a Buddhist family - now this doesn't necessarily mean you are Buddhist but if you are, I'd remind you of something the Buddha said in the dhammapada- that only by loving kindness can hate be defeated.

Damnit I always post in reply to something I thought was the last reply but then there's a awhole new page of posts.

[Redzeppelin]

How is it a logical consequence that not accepting leads to Hell? How is that logical at all - you have not one ounce of proof, with the exception of what, the bible?
That's like me saying that wizards are real because i have Harry Potter to prove it.

One of the fundamental problems that many nonbelievers struggle with is the idea that God's character defines good and bad, right and wrong; He does not arbitrarily arrive at the definitions of those two things. As such, God could not make sin "good" - sin is contrary to the nature of God. As such, because God is the source of all creation and all life, and He is the sustainor of all creation and all life, to reject Him is to reject life itself. Just because the person doesn't immediately die doesn't mean what I've said isn't true - God continues to sustain the lives of those who don't believe in Him because it takes a sustained rejection of God over time for Him to finally let the sinner have his/her way. Hell is the only logical destination for those who ultimately and finally reject God - the rest of the universe is filled with His presence - for those who reject Him, His presence would be sheer torture. Hell provides a place for those who reject God to live in eternity out of His presence. But - since God is love, and the source of all goodness, hell won't be very pleasant - not necessarily in a Dantean way, but a way best described by sheer emptiness, and nothingness.

Second, the Bible has to be the authority, because without it we have no stable "ground" upon which to make statements about God; your attack upon Him is largely made based upon what the Bible says (or you think it says) - you can't discredit the source of your argument - that's contradictory.

You're assuming i haven't read the Bible. At no point have i ever stated that i haven't.

I am assuming - just as I would assume you'd not read the instructions for assembling something if you put that something together wrongly.

[The Atheist]

I think brutally honest is when you have no concern about what impact your statements will have upon another person. It's where you take no personal responsibility for what you say. It's a buck passing strategy.

Heaps of people cloak themselves this way.

Consider the following example:

'You're going to burn in Hell if you don't accept God as your saviour. By the way, I am not responsible for the hurt, fear and distrust that I invoke through my statements.....but I will (coz I'm doing the Lord's work, afterall) if you turn to God and accept him'

That's very good!

Jesus is not talking about heaven at all! he is talking about love!

I was making a light-hearted response - I know exactly what it says. Despite that, there are lots of christians who believe animals have a soul and go to heaven when they die.

2) have you ever thought that history "stole" from the bible, and not the other way around?

No. There are several myths which pre-date the bible. It's not possible for them to have stolen ideas from the bible.

Nice try, but Egyptian gods didn't exist long before the christian and Jewish ones failed to exist.

3)
point 1)of course there's no way evidence that exists outside of the bible of hell! it's something outside of this world, this universe.

Yes, which confirms my point - hell exists in a book. So does Magrathea, but I don't believe that exists either.

have you read it in your free time at all? i can not emphasize this point enough!

I've read the bible several times in several different versions.

i'd have to look specifically at what contradictions there are that you are talking about (if you'd like to send them to me, please do) but this again has somewhat to do with interpretation. the "do you eat shellfish or pork?" question i can answer for you right now. let's look at the two references:

Which confirms the contradiction. One part of the bible specifically says some food is unclean, Jesus says it isn't. That's what a contradiction is - the same book saying two opposed things.

If you want other inconsistencies, read the book yourself, but keep both eyes open. Here's a good place to start: Internet Infidels' list. As I said, there are literally hundreds.

[NikolaiI]

First off, I'd never give you a hard time; while we disagree on many things, your views are honest & heartfelt, and I have no trouble with people holding views which are different or opposite from mine.

I hope you get to play with some dolphins some day, because I'd guarantee that it would confirm for you that they are cognitively smart.

I just wish we could figure out how to communicate with them. And you're right about mammals - most of them are indeed social animals.



Just on the border of long enough

And no, your posts don't come over as self-centred in any way. Like most people with zen-like persuasions, I find your attitude commendable and I've said on many occasions that the world would be a much better place if everyone were Buddhist. I believe that's true, because I admire the non-violent, conciliatory inclusiveness of Buddhism.

I respect your opinions as well. I don't share your enthusiasm for Bertrand Russell though I haven't read anything completely by him yet. Sometimes you can find literature to be better than philosophy.

I was an atheist until I was around 17. At some point I began to read Bhagavad-Gita, Song of our Lord. Bhagavad-Gita, or Gitopanisad, is a 700 verse, 18 chapter song, which is spoken by Krsna to Arjuna on the battlefield of Kurukshestra. It covers the topics of jiva, the living entity; karma, activities; time; prakriti, nature; and isvara, the supreme controller. Nature is part of the inferior energy of isvara, the supreme controller, and the living entity is part of the superior energy. The jiva is part of the superior energy because it is transcendental. All jivas are part of the supreme, the isvara. So the natural position of a jiva is fulfilling the function of the supreme. Isvara is Bhagavan, and it is the root of existence. Just like as a hand which is separated from the body may resemble a hand but does not carry out the functions of a hand, if a person is separated from Krsna, who is the root of existence, then he ceases to function as well. Or if you do not succeed in acting for Krsna, then your actions do not matter at all. You only matter insofar as you matter to the root of existence. But the flip side - the good part - is that you do matter. You are infinite, since you are an eternal servant of the supreme. You are not meant to try to become God in this life, but rather to try to serve him and do everything for him.