Is hell too harsh?

[SkepticThinker]

At least not in the strict or fundamentalist form. I think you can find good things in the Christian message, and the focal points should be those good things, and reject the things that are outdated and immoral.

For instance, forgiveness is a very strong message in Christianity. It's better and more powerful than the message of love.

Forgive as God forgave you. That's the message, and it was sent before Jesus supposed death. If you can forgive people's transgressions, your blood pressure will decrease, you will have less drama, you will be more content with life, and so on... And now you can learn how to love too.

I don't think the original message from Jesus was "I will die. Believe in me. Then God will forgive you." But rather, God has already forgiven you. Come back home. And home is not Christianity specifically, but you being in harmony with Nature. The kingdom of God is within you...

Agreed. I like your way of thinking on this.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You do realize your going against your own religion by not believing in a literal Hell?

Not at all.

Going against a particular doctrine that some churches believe but not all. THe interpretation of hell has always varied throughout christianity.

It has been interpreted as a place of torture

a state of being

compete annihalation

Even who goes there has been debated.

In my mind you kind of have a to have a sadistic nature or an uncaring one to believe that some people are going to hell and revel in it (as you'll see some people do).

Even the idea of a literal hell in and of itself stems more from a societal point of view, as I pointed out "we have a desire to see people punished for their crimes" and that was the viewpoint that has been carried on for years.

People want to see good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people.

 

[Ouroboros]

Not all take the Bible Literally or even Believe in Hell.

That's because you/they are reasonable and use your intuition for moral guidance, in other words, you use your brain.

To some, we find the bible as mans attempt at understanding God and making sense of the world. The individual books giving a glimpse into those attempts as well as the failures.

I think that's a much healthier way to look at Christianity.

 

[Titanic]

Not at all.

Going against a particular doctrine that some churches believe but not all. THe interpretation of hell has always varied throughout christianity.

It has been interpreted as a place of torture

a state of being

compete annihalation

Even who goes there has been debated.

In my mind you kind of have a to have a sadistic nature or an uncaring one to believe that some people are going to hell and revel in it (as you'll see some people do).

Even the idea of a literal hell in and of itself stems more from a societal point of view, as I pointed out "we have a desire to see people punished for their crimes" and that was the viewpoint that has been carried on for years.

People want to see good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people.

Have you ever heard of Pastor Arnold Murray? He is a sadistic Hell believer, he tells people who do not believe have a nice ride to Hell. It is pathetic. I have a honest question and please excuse my ignorance, why is the concept of Hell even in the Bible If most christians do not believe in it?

 

[Titanic]

Have you ever heard of Pastor Arnold Murray? He is a sadistic Hell believer, he tells people who do not believe have a nice ride to Hell. It is pathetic. I have a honest question and please excuse my ignorance, why is the concept of Hell even in the Bible If most christians do not believe in it?

Shouldn't it be taken out or something?

 

[ChristineES]

I will give you a response.

I think it's very encouraging to hear about Christians who reject the idea of eternal torment and punishment. People like you give a little hope to our future, a little light in the darkness. I'm not Christian, but I respect anyone in any religion who takes a reasonable, tolerant, and kind stance to their faith.

I just wish there were more of you, or at least the group you represent were more outspoken and influential. Unfortunately, the loudest Christians are those who preach damnation, hell, fire, brimstone, and a vengeful God. They tend to get the most attention. Probably because it's more fun to read about the wacky ones instead of the reasonable ones. I'm certain this is the case for any religious or non-religious group. The squeaky wheels get the grease, as the phrase goes.

Thank you. :angel2: Makes me feel better.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

That's because you/they are reasonable and use your intuition for moral guidance, in other words, you use your brain.


I think that's a much healthier way to look at Christianity.

Christianity has changed a lot since it's conception and there have been many movements. What it was in the beginning and what it is now, I'm not sure are the same thing, but perhaps that was the point. For it to grow and diversify to be able to fit the needs of the people. Unlike some of the religions in the area at the time it was very open to everyone. Be you rich or poor, slave or free. It didn't matter it gave you an opportunity to be looked at as an equal to everyone, because Gods love was unconditional and had no bounds.

 

[Ouroboros]

Thank you. :angel2: Makes me feel better.

Good. I wanted you to feel better and not ignored.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course its a choice.

You keep saying that while every time not explaining exactly HOW it is a choice.

Arent you? Are you saying that at that moment you are unable to make a choice? Can you choose not to give him the money? Of course you can. He might kill you but you can make that choice can you not?

I don’t think so. How am I supposed to be able to exercise my free will when it’s being usurped?

.

How about the traffic law, would that be a nicer choice selection? The point is, whether you like it or not, whether you think its fair or not, you didnt make up the rules. It is what it is. You can kick and scream all you want but it doesnt change the law.

If I’m not being coerced, I don’t see how it’s comparable.

And in the traffic law example, I can probably understand the reasoning behind it. I have to wear a seatbelt because when people don’t wear seatbelts and get into accidents, they usually end up dead. If I have to signal 100 yards before my turn, it’s probably so the guy behind knows what I’m doing and has time to make his own decisions about where he’s going to go. I can’t really understand the reasoning behind “believe in me and do what I say or face eternal punishment.”

And so how does the Christian God treat His children?

By locking them in the basement (hell) forever when they disobey his commands.

Im one of his children. Do you care to tell me how He treats me?

I have no idea how a thing I don’t think exists treats you. But according to what we’re all talking about here, I suppose he sends you to heaven as a reward for your blind obedience.

He left His heavenly place, was born a human being, was tortured, and beaten beyond recognition and was nailed to a cross. At the time, it was the most cruel, horrifying, agonizing and humiliating death know to exsist. And he sacrificed himself in that way because he loved you and knew that it was the only way, the shedding of his blood was the only payment for our sin that would satisfy the Father. Thats what he sacrificed for you and everyone! There is your answer.

He’s god. He should be able to do anything. That includes snapping his fingers (or whatever he has) and making everything right. Yet that never happens. Why do you suppose a blood sacrifice was the ONLY way all the wrong could be righted? That seems kinda sick to me.

I don’t see how spending a couple of days on earth (a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things) and being crucified really amounts to that much of a sacrifice. He didn’t give anything up. He’s still god, he still gets to exist for eternity and rule over the world. For all you know, he didn’t feel a thing – he is god, after all. What is it that he actually gave up?

Does his sacrifice and love mean nothing to you?

I don’t believe in your god, I don’t see that he’s sacrificed much of anything and I see nothing loving about the god of the Bible. So, no.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Have you ever heard of Pastor Arnold Murray? He is a sadistic Hell believer, he tells people who do not believe have a nice ride to Hell. It is pathetic. I have a honest question and please excuse my ignorance, why is the concept of Hell even in the Bible If most christians do not believe in it?

I wouldn't say most dont' believe it.

To some it's about interpretation.

For instance when you say Hell, to some christians it does mean a place of eternal torment (but then you get into the issue of what exactly is that torment?)

For others it is a place of temporary cleansing (you go to hell as an answer for your crimes and then are brought to heaven)

For others hell is simply the grave (the very act of dying)

I believe and think from what I've read in the bible and from other sources that the reason it is mentioned in the bible is because the bible is a series of books. It isn't one book. So since it is a series it talks about the different ways that mans belief of God has changed.

Mind you the book that talks about the end times and hell at lengths is revelations and that had a debatable entry into the bible. But even its apocalyptic portrayal can be interpreted as a "take that" to the time of persecution that it was written.

I think the book of Daniel which also has such an apocalyptic view is also similar in that regards (though I might be wrong)

Even things like the rapture were drawn from a verse in Thessalonians if I remember correctly and was not a doctrine taught until the 1800s.

I could of course be completely wrong and there is a literal hell though lol, but honestly if a God is Omnimax, for me to attempt to understand morality in the eyes of such a being would just end up in failure.

 

[Ouroboros]

Christianity has changed a lot since it's conception and there have been many movements.

Oh, I know. I went to "Bible school". There's a large Christian church in Europe, akin to Oral Robert's university, that I went to for a year. We studied the historical evidence for the Bible for instance, and one course was focused on the history of the church and all deviations.

What it was in the beginning and what it is now, I'm not sure are the same thing, but perhaps that was the point. For it to grow and diversify to be able to fit the needs of the people. Unlike some of the religions in the area at the time it was very open to everyone. Be you rich or poor, slave or free. It didn't matter it gave you an opportunity to be looked at as an equal to everyone, because Gods love was unconditional and had no bounds.

I think that's one of Christianity's strong points. It can change and modify itself according to society, and I think it should. In some sense, I'm still a Christian by following and believing some of the core principles, like the golden rule or forgiveness. It's a shame that many Christians don't follow but have an "anti" attitude towards modern science and tolerant theology. Sometimes you can catch more flies with honey.

 

[Titanic]

Shouldn't it be taken out or something?

Which got me thinking, If someone is too throw out one doctrine, why not just throw out the whole Bible? I just don't see anything appealing about the Biblical God. I guess thats why I don't believe in Him. I am not trying to insult anyone, I am just stating my beliefs. Also one more thing it seems kind of Hypocritical to believe in one part of the Bible and not the other. Or is that just me thinking?

 

[Ouroboros]

You keep saying that while every time not explaining exactly HOW it is a choice.

It's an annoying discussion, isn't it? My experience is that the loss of my faith was not a choice at all. I didn't want to lose my faith, but the doubt overwhelmed me to such a degree that I couldn't ignore it anymore. And I can't choose to believe in the things I don't believe in.

 

[ChristineES]

Originally Posted by Ouroboros
I think it's very wrong too.

A serial killer can spend an eternity in heaven for just becoming a believer, while an atheist (or other non-believe of the "special" religion) who wouldn't hurt a fly is spending an eternity in torture. It's not right.

Exactly. What on earth is moral or just about that????

It doesn't really work that way. Before a person is saved (as we put it), a person has to repent in his/her part. If a serial killer were to repent totally (has that ever happened?) then the person would no longer be a serial killer.

It's like a criminal getting out of prison and actually turning over a new leaf, rather than going back to his/her old ways. That person is called an "ex-con" but he or she isn't a convict anymore. He paid the price for his crime. If he or she breaks the law again, then he or she will be put back in prison.

As for our belief serial killer getting off Scot-free while someone innocent gets punished, I don't think it works like that, either. Jesus said that people will be judged "according to what he or she has done", not that they are automatically punished for anything. Just a little thing people often don't pay attention to. (Sorry, I can't recall which verse it was that said that, I will look it up and post it later, if you like).

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Which got me thinking, If someone is too throw out one doctrine, why not just throw out the whole Bible? I just don't see anything appealing about the Biblical God. I guess thats why I don't believe in Him. I am not trying to insult anyone, I am just stating my beliefs. Also one more thing it seems kind of Hypocritical to believe in one part of the Bible and not the other. Or is that just me thinking?

It (the bible) has a rich history and maybe there is coming a time when people might actually move away from it (doubt it though)

But belief is a strange thing.

Like I said the Bible is a collection of books, if you want to you can say that each book builds off the other directly, if you want you can say that the books contradict, and if you want you can say that the books are rebuttals.

I see nothing wrong about going back and reading through the bible in the light of our times and seeing what was meant and how it applies to now.

You don't need to change words in it, you simply need to read it with understandings that we have now. Remember Doctrine is what you read out of the bible.

But to each their own of course

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's an annoying discussion, isn't it? My experience is that the loss of my faith was not a choice at all. I didn't want to lose my faith, but the doubt overwhelmed me to such a degree that I couldn't ignore it anymore. And I can't choose to believe in the things I don't believe in.

That's the way it went for me. When I started really thinking about it all, with all the stuff we're talking about (plus much more), my faith kind of just melted away. I didn't really want to go that way, but that's where I went because I didn't really have much of a choice.

I don't think anyone can really force themselves to believe in something they don't believe in.

 

[Titanic]

It (the bible) has a rich history and maybe there is coming a time when people might actually move away from it (doubt it though)

But belief is a strange thing.

Like I said the Bible is a collection of books, if you want to you can say that each book builds off the other directly, if you want you can say that the books contradict, and if you want you can say that the books are rebuttals.

I see nothing wrong about going back and reading through the bible in the light of our times and seeing what was meant and how it applies to now.

You don't need to change words in it, you simply need to read it with understandings that we have now. Remember Doctrine is what you read out of the bible.

But to each their own of course

Thank you for answering.

 

[Titanic]

I wouldn't say most dont' believe it.

To some it's about interpretation.

For instance when you say Hell, to some christians it does mean a place of eternal torment (but then you get into the issue of what exactly is that torment?)

For others it is a place of temporary cleansing (you go to hell as an answer for your crimes and then are brought to heaven)

For others hell is simply the grave (the very act of dying)

I believe and think from what I've read in the bible and from other sources that the reason it is mentioned in the bible is because the bible is a series of books. It isn't one book. So since it is a series it talks about the different ways that mans belief of God has changed.

Mind you the book that talks about the end times and hell at lengths is revelations and that had a debatable entry into the bible. But even its apocalyptic portrayal can be interpreted as a "take that" to the time of persecution that it was written.

I think the book of Daniel which also has such an apocalyptic view is also similar in that regards (though I might be wrong)

Even things like the rapture were drawn from a verse in Thessalonians if I remember correctly and was not a doctrine taught until the 1800s.

I could of course be completely wrong and there is a literal hell though lol, but honestly if a God is Omnimax, for me to attempt to understand morality in the eyes of such a being would just end up in failure.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[Titanic]

It doesn't really work that way. Before a person is saved (as we put it), a person has to repent in his/her part. If a serial killer were to repent totally (has that ever happened?) then the person would no longer be a serial killer.

It's like a criminal getting out of prison and actually turning over a new leaf, rather than going back to his/her old ways. That person is called an "ex-con" but he or she isn't a convict anymore. He paid the price for his crime. If he or she breaks the law again, then he or she will be put back in prison.

As for our belief serial killer getting off Scot-free while someone innocent gets punished, I don't think it works like that, either. Jesus said that people will be judged "according to what he or she has done", not that they are automatically punished for anything. Just a little thing people often don't pay attention to. (Sorry, I can't recall which verse it was that said that, I will look it up and post it later, if you like).

Ted Bundy claimed to have repeated the night before his execution.

 

[ChristineES]

Ted Bundy claimed to have repeated the night before his execution.

Do you mean repented? Whether Ted Bundy really repented or not would be speculation.