Was Hell a Mistake?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Would religions be better off without the people who only believe in them in order to escape hell?

That would depend on what the purpose of the religion is. If one takes the cynical view that a religion's purpose is to grow as large as possible to control as much wealth and wield as much social and political power as possible, the more brought into the fold the merrier, whatever the method.

Do people who join or stay with a religion out of fear of hell tend to corrupt that religion?

No. The religion is already corrupt if its trying to frighten people into compliance. It's the religion that has harmed those people, not the other way around.

 

[David T]

No, in this context, I meant people who are members of a particular religion only or mostly because they fear going to hell if they were not members.

Like OCD....

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Both Christianity and Islam hold out the threat of eternal torture in hell as a reason to adopt their religion. But was hell a mistake?

Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions.

Instead, all that matters to them is they are saved (and that, of course, homosexuals and folks who've had abortions "get what's coming to them"). Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?

It's religious hucksterism as Hitchens called it. Anyone who has to threaten you in order to get you to believe something is obviously trying to get you to believe Bulls***. If there was any evidence for the truth of either of these religions, they wouldn't have to threaten people with hell for disbelieving in order to get them to believe. Think about all of the "conversions" to Christianity after some old preacher reads the Rich Man and Lazarus parable. These are clearly not intellectual conversions, and these people have clearly not made the decision to believe the claims of Christianity because they examined the evidence. Instead, they believe out of fear, which most likely means their belief is not even genuine.

 

[MonkeyFire]

God doesn't torment Hell, it naturally suffers on its own if your passive to it.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Both Christianity and Islam hold out the threat of eternal torture in hell as a reason to adopt their religion. But was hell a mistake?

Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions.

Instead, all that matters to them is they are saved (and that, of course, homosexuals and folks who've had abortions "get what's coming to them"). Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?

Better off without? Absolutely. As successful at recruiting victims? Not so much.

As P.T. Barnum pointed out, there is a sucker born every minute, (and the rest is often left out) it would be a shame of we didn't take advantage of them, as someone will.

Problem with Infinite Torment? Is that is Infinite Evil. And like in a True/False question? If any part of the question is False, the whole question is False.

Thus, the Being Responsible for allowing/creating Infinite Torment? Is also Infinitely Evil.

Which is, of course, in direct conflict with the claim of "All Good"-- clearly, a god who allows or created hell, is not All Good-- cannot be All Good. In fact, such a being is Mostly Evil.

So right off the bat, we see two of their claims cannot co-exist.

Which claim is the False Claim? Both of them?

They cannot have both be true, but they can both be entirely wrong.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

God doesn't torment Hell, it naturally suffers if you passive to it.

Just by permitting such Suffering, proves to 100%, that such a being is at least in part, Evil. For being complacent. An All Knowing Deity would know exactly what it would take, to convince people to avoid such a fate-- but obviously chooses not to Be Convincing.

Therefore? Complicit. And? Evil. Ooops!

 

[whirlingmerc]

Both Christianity and Islam hold out the threat of eternal torture in hell as a reason to adopt their religion. But was hell a mistake?

Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions.

Instead, all that matters to them is they are saved (and that, of course, homosexuals and folks who've had abortions "get what's coming to them"). Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?

Technically the term hell is a temporary place and the lake of fire permanent where God's wrath is described as 'the smoke of their torment goes up into the ages of the ages'
One one level it is a place where the enjoyment of God if not there rather the wrath of God and although the lake of fire could be a symbol it would be a symbol of something stronger not weaker

Not sure where you see a mistake... can you elaborate?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

I can show, with quotes, that Christianity does NOT teach Hell. Ask me, and I'll tell you more.

Hell is btw a borrow-word from Norse myth. Helheim.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Just by permitting such Suffering, proves to 100%, that such a being is at least in part, Evil. For being complacent. An All Knowing Deity would know exactly what it would take, to convince people to avoid such a fate-- but obviously chooses not to Be Convincing.

Therefore? Complicit. And? Evil. Ooops!

They are murderers and maggots, and if they weren't nothing would happen to them. I can't take evil and make it something else, it must nature into Heaven.

 

[Trailblazer]

They are murderers and maggots, and if they weren't nothing would happen to them. I can't take evil and make it something else, it must nature into Heaven.

We reap what we sow.
If God does not sow it God should not reap it.

 

[Trailblazer]

These are good replies so far, but most of them fail to address the question posed in the OP: Would religions be better off without the people who only believe in them in order to escape hell?

I cannot address Islam because I do not know enough regarding their beliefs about hell.

Since being “saved” by the blood of Jesus is a primary doctrine of Christianity hell has to stay because people need something to be saved from. You cannot dissociate hell from Christianity even if some Christians want to deny it or make light of it.

If there was no threat of hell and reward in heaven and Christianity would shrink markedly, so in that sense the religion would not be better off, since Christianity is already growing slowly compared to some of the other Abrahamic religions, and it is shrinking in the Western world.

The growth rates of the Abrahamic religions from 1910-2010 were as follows: Judaism .11%, Christianity 1.32%, Islam 1.97%, and Baha’i Faith 3.54%.
Statistics from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_religion

Would Christianity even survive if there was no motivator such fear of hell and a reward in heaven? I doubt it.

But Christianity might be better off without believers who believe only to avoid hell and get to heaven, because that is really selfish.

 

[MonkeyFire]

These are good replies so far, but most of them fail to address the question posed in the OP: Would religions be better off without the people who only believe in them in order to escape hell?

Yes. Technically escape is part of Hell's nature.

 

[Jumi]

Do people who join or stay in religions solely out of fear of hell corrupt their religions?

I think they do, unless the religion is founded on the fear in the first place. Either way, it's not positive for them or others. I don't think eternal hell is a necessary part of any major religions when you look into them though many of them have branches where they believe it a reality of eternal torture for "failing the test".

 

[Earthling]

Both Christianity and Islam hold out the threat of eternal torture in hell as a reason to adopt their religion. But was hell a mistake?

Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions.

Instead, all that matters to them is they are saved (and that, of course, homosexuals and folks who've had abortions "get what's coming to them"). Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?

You understand that hell isn't an original Christian teaching?

 

[Sunstone]

You understand that hell isn't an original Christian teaching?

Is that relevant here?

 

[nPeace]

Both Christianity and Islam hold out the threat of eternal torture in hell as a reason to adopt their religion. But was hell a mistake?

Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions.

Instead, all that matters to them is they are saved (and that, of course, homosexuals and folks who've had abortions "get what's coming to them"). Would either or both religions not be better off without them? Do they not corrupt the religions they profess to support?

Imo, not if the teaching is true. I don't believe truth should be watered down to suit the masses.
On the other hand, if there is no truth to the teaching, they actually are misrepresenting and smearing their god with lies, and misleading the masses.
However, it wouldn't stop honest hearted people from finding the way to truth... imo.

 

[Earthling]

Is that relevant here?

Yes. You said: "Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions." Which is also relevant.

If hell wasn't an original Christian teaching and most Christians are Christian in name only, both of which are IMHO true then hell would definitely be a mistake, wouldn't it.

 

[Sunstone]

Yes. You said: "Consider this: Numerous people -- both Christians and Muslims -- are Christian and Muslim in name only because they simply ignore, dismiss, or do not adhere to the more humane teachings of their religions." Which is also relevant.

If hell wasn't an original Christian teaching and most Christians are Christian in name only, both of which are IMHO true then hell would definitely be a mistake, wouldn't it.

You seem to be basing your reasoning on a value judgement about the worth of believing in a derivative concept.

 

[Earthling]

You seem to be basing your reasoning on a value judgement about the worth of believing in a derivative concept.

What does that even mean?

 

[Deeje]

Do people who join or stay in religions solely out of fear of hell corrupt their religions?

I think you've hit the nail on the head there Sunny.....if you merely "join" a religion out of fear of punishment, or just for the benefits of some heavenly reward, and not because you desire to worship God whole-heartedly and unconditionally (whomever you perceive him to be) then what kind of God would accept you? He knows our motives and judges on them, not just on our actions. Those who do not genuinely love God, I believe corrupt themselves and taint the religions they adopt. God hates insincerity.

Isn't being a benevolent god enough of a reason for people to want to devote themselves to him? I mean, if you have done your homework and learned enough about that god to want to worship him, aren't any fringe benefits just a bonus?

Fear is a terrible incentive to worship God. Contrary to popular belief, "salvation" for Christians means getting through the end of this world system of things with your life. We are not getting "saved" from hell, but forfeiting a gift that was unappreciated and used in a wrong way.

In God's plans, he will allow the devil relatively free reign over this earth until he has tested every soul on this planet as to worthiness to keep the gift of life that he gave us...or to forfeit it. In the Bible there is only life and death....not heaven or hell.

God requires love and "love throws fear outside."
You can't love someone you're afraid of.

I believe that the God of the Bible gives incentives because, who would come through this life intact if there was no good reason for all the trauma and suffering....and nothing to look forward to?

There should be no fear in serving the true God. Like the love you feel for a parent and the healthy fear of displeasing them that comes with that kind of love.

For JW's the rewards or punishments are not the main focus of our worship....we are upholding the sovereignty of our God, and waiting for the time when there will not be a soul on earth who reproaches his name or who, like satan, slanders him and opposes him.

Was hell a mistake? No.....hell (death and the grave) are a consequence of Adam's mistake.