Opinion Does Christianity really teach that some people will spend eternity in hell?

[franklinstower]

You may be correct and that would create a logical inconsistency with the Bible.

However, there is also the fact that the God of the Bible is in fact an amalgamation of earlier Mesopotamian gods, who, while not necessarily being described as humans, have many human fallacies. In this case, these earlier gods make more sense logically. For instance, in the original Sumerian telling of the flood, Enlil (God of the OT), is frustrated that humans, who were created to be his slaves, start to become unruly so he decides to wipe everything off the face of the planet with a flood. Enlil's brother Enki, feeling compassionate for mankind, takes pity, and instructs his follower, Ziusudra (biblical Noah) to build an ark and thus saves humanity.

Similarly, the Garden of Eden (Sumerian E.DIN) story makes more sense when you look at the original telling. Enlil created man as a slave, which he intended to keep as a secret from man (man = A.DAMU in Sumerian). Enki, who was Enlil's brother, was kind of like man's caretaker, sent down from the heaven's to watch over them. So Enlil was like the CEO sitting up in his boardroom, while Enki was the supervisor, working in the trenches alongside mankind.

Again, Enki felt sorry for man, and attempted to give A.DAMU *knowledge* of his true purpose - that being a slave species. This is represented with the "tree of knowledge" and the serpent (serpent actually represents knowledge in Mesopotamian culture). This is why Enlil punished mankind "for eternity" - because he didn't want them to know they were created for mundane purposes, and this one piece of knowledge was deemed as forever off limits. Enlil then goes crazy and wipes everyone out with floods, scatters people with different languages, commits genocide, demands blind unquestioning obedience, etc etc etc.

My first serious introduction to Christian theology was taught by a scholar of religion so all of what you posted here and much much more were presented not as contradictions to what is in the Bible or as robberies of other religions and cultures but as a certain peoples answers to other peoples stories.

Stories like the flood and the meaning behind the flood were heard from other cultures and religions and taken in and reworked to reflect that groups way of thinking philosophically and theologically.

The evolution of these kinds of stories also were presented as the evolution of peoples thinking about God and theology.

 

[mrbaapt]

We are talking about the bible..... and the God of the Bible.... If your not interested in discussing that why are you here? But I meant this post anyway.

I'm not interested in your nonsense about gods and all the crap.

I'm interested in the concept or free will vs determinism.

Here is the most concise version of why free will exists and determinism is bunk. Thank you Heisenberg for punching yet another massive hole in the Christian god myth.

 

[franklinstower]

I suppose this argument might work on the surface, however for this equivalency to work, we would have to assume that an artist creates a bronze sculpture, let's say, and then punishes it for all eternity for not being able to speak. The artist has defined the capabilities of his creation.

Eternal hell is a dumb idea. That theological question was settled for me by the Orthodox church and many of the earliest Christians and theologians who did not hold the tenet of eternal hell.

For me it is a settled question and I never give it any thought at all except to lament the kind of fear that it can create in people.

 

[franklinstower]

I'm not interested in your nonsense about gods and all the crap.

I'm interested in the concept or free will vs determinism.

Here is the most concise version of why free will exists and determinism is bunk. Thank you Heisenberg for punching yet another massive hole in the Christian god myth.

Ok well if you are not interested in God and all that crap then you are in the wrong thread. Have a good night.

 

[ShinkanPo]

When I studied Christian Values education in school we are taught about being good and compasionate we did not dwell so much about burning hell or the lakd of fire.

 

[mrbaapt]

Ok well if you are not interested in God and all that crap then you are in the wrong thread. Have a good night.

I'm not interested because your beliefs are irrational and perverse. Until there is actual proof there are no gods or heaven or hell. Christianity is one of the thousands of permutations of belief systems that does not have any basis beyond lore.

 

[helltoupee]

My first serious introduction to Christian theology was taught by a scholar of religion so all of what you posted here and much much more were presented not as contradictions to what is in the Bible or as robberies of other religions and cultures but as a certain peoples answers to other peoples stories.

Stories like the flood and the meaning behind the flood were heard from other cultures and religions and taken in and reworked to reflect that groups way of thinking philosophically and theologically.

The evolution of these kinds of stories also were presented as the evolution of peoples thinking about God and theology.

Sure, stories can be refined, misinterpreted, retold, abused for power, etc. etc. That's what makes them mythological folklore, which is exactly what we are talking about.

Men wrote the Bible, and men are not perfect (as defined in the Bible), therefore the Bible is not perfect.

 

[helltoupee]

Eternal hell is a dumb idea. That theological question was settled for me by the Orthodox church and many of the earliest Christians and theologians who did not hold the tenet of eternal hell.

For me it is a settled question and I never give it any thought at all except to lament the kind of fear that it can create in people.

I would agree with your statements above. I was more addressing your earlier post about artists, with the fact that the creator defines his creation, regardless of the process he uses to create.

 

[franklinstower]

I would agree with your statements above. I was more addressing your earlier post about artists, with the fact that the creator defines his creation, regardless of the process he uses to create.

This is in response to both of your last posts. Concerning the first one I think we are in a majority of agreement actually. The way I understand the Bible is that people really were interacting with God (I know you dont agree and am not trying to change that) and that they were making the best sense they could of their experience with God and the scriptures are reflective of that. Men wrote the Bible, but those men were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but those men were imperfect.

The way it was put to me is that the Bible is infallible in regards to helping someone attain salvation, but is filled with all the errors that are common with people of any age. It is also limited by the authors ability to put it all into language which is conditioned by life experience, religion, education etc.

Whether one believes in God or salvation aside-- it is the subjective experience of being saved, that is the goal of the New Testament.



I think I did not understand you point about the creator defining his creation but it may not matter because I was just spit balling with that idea and it is not the thought, as far as I am aware, of any Christian tradition.

 

[helltoupee]

This is in response to both of your last posts. Concerning the first one I think we are in a majority of agreement actually. The way I understand the Bible is that people really were interacting with God (I know you dont agree and am not trying to change that) and that they were making the best sense they could of their experience with God and the scriptures are reflective of that. Men wrote the Bible, but those men were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but those men were imperfect.

The way it was put to me is that the Bible is infallible in regards to helping someone attain salvation, but is filled with all the errors that are common with people of any age. It is also limited by the authors ability to put it all into language which is conditioned by life experience, religion, education etc.

Whether one believes in God or salvation aside-- it is the subjective experience of being saved, that is the goal of the New Testament.



I think I did not understand you point about the creator defining his creation but it may not matter because I was just spit balling with that idea and it is not the thought, as far as I am aware, of any Christian tradition.

There is nothing you wrote above that I would disagree with.

The way I see it, and this is just my opinion, all conventional religions, Christianity included, are based on the assumption that the universe is a perfect, harmonious whole, which is what people really mean by "God", "gods", or more abstract controlling principles such as the Tao.

Isolated consciousnesses, characteristic of humans, exercise perspective apart from this whole.

Christ is a personified representation of the presumed wish of the universe to include all things in itself: a messenger that we should return to, merge, become one, indistinguishable with God, or the whole. Only thus can the strain and the pain of our sense of distinction be ended.

To accomplish this, one would need to return to a pre-fall state of nonconsciousness and imperception: most simply, pure innocence - there is a quote somewhere in the NT where Jesus says that only when people return to the state of a child, shall they enter heaven.

Unfortunately for all those yearning for the "gift" of innocence ("Grace"), it is impossible to intentionally "undo" one's uniqueness. So conventional religions have sought to punish, destroy, sublimate, or numb it out of conscious awareness (and this was heavily utilized/embellished as a political tool). Failing that, some have ritualistically flung themselves on the mercy of the God/universe by committing themselves at least to its principle, ie "accepting Christ" (or similar).

 

[SwamiLeoni]

Although many in here don't like Sam and the majority of the people think he lost this debate against William Lane Craig, I feel like this 11 minutes has had more impact outside of the debate than it did inside. Sam of course had to resort to what WLC called 'red herrings' but I still feel like this is very powerful and very persuasive. I'm not a fan of WLC (mainly because of his debating tactics) but I have to respect his intellect. I have the opportunity at work to listen to podcasts and I've listened to more Religious debates than I'd like to admit. One things for sure, the theologians have never convinced me in any way. I've tried to keep an open mind, but I'm a man of Science and it just doesn't fit in with the way I'm wired.

 

[Phr3121]

There you go. I see you did some research. Now we can get into the part of religion that I like:

. Why does a 'good' God allow bad things to happen to good people - children?
. Einstein's view of God and the universe.

So God chooses evil, disgusting things to happen. Seems your standards are pretty low for your "god".

God will never choose evil over good. Again, evil comes from men, not God. The better question would be: Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people and children? That, my friend, is a question that has been around for about 2000 years and the one questions Christians struggle with the most. Including me. Why is a 10 year old girl raped, tortured, and killed, when God could have stopped it? Well, you would have to ask Him, but we can't can we?

First, that is the evil I believe exists in the world, no in hell. Second, man's free will to hurt other human beings. Third, from the moment God allowed man 'free will' without intervention He already knew bad things would happen. Fourth, who are we humans to questions God's plan. Fifth, He actually does intervene at times but not others. Why? The intervention comes in the form of other humans coming to help or 'miracles'. I don't have all the answers and never will. Faith plays a big part in this argument, but non-believers will not allow faith to be a factor.

"Those who deserve it". Are you the type of guy who breaks a dogs leg, and then punishes him for limping? "That damn dog doesn't deserve my love because he walks with a gimp!"

'Those who deserve it', as the rapist listed above. The 'evil' doers of the world. Rapists, murderers, and torturers.

God created man with the foreknowledge of every action that every man would take. In other words, he designed the system to fail. Or, God doesn't know everything, and is not all powerful. You decide.

He did not design the system to fail. Not sure how you came about that conclusion. God does know everything and is all powerful.

He is able to do both, which makes him not only malevolent, but a sadist, since he designed and allows for the existence of evil, suffering, etc. - knowing full well what would happen before it did.

Refer to my first post above...

That is one of many Einstein quotes. Einstein was controversial on his views of religion and God. His views have been widely studied and misunderstood. Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist". Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press)."

Regarding a belief in God: "Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations." Albert Einstein, 1930

 

[helltoupee]

There you go. I see you did some research. Now we can get into the part of religion that I like:

. Why does a 'good' God allow bad things to happen to good people - children?
. Einstein's view of God and the universe.



God will never choose evil over good. Again, evil comes from men, not God. The better question would be: Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people and children? That, my friend, is a question that has been around for about 2000 years and the one questions Christians struggle with the most. Including me. Why is a 10 year old girl raped, tortured, and killed, when God could have stopped it? Well, you would have to ask Him, but we can't can we? First, that is the evil I believe exists in the world, no in hell. Second, man's free will to hurt other human beings. Third, from the moment God allowed man 'free will' without intervention He already knew bad things would happen. Fourth, who are we humans to questions God's plan. Fifth, He actually does intervene at times but not others. Why? The intervention comes in the form of other humans coming to help or 'miracles'. I don't have all the answers and never will. Faith plays a big part in this argument, but non-believers will not allow faith to be a factor.



'Those who deserve it', as the rapist listed above. The 'evil' doers of the world. Rapists, murderers, and torturers.



He did not design the system to fail. Not sure how you came about that conclusion. God does know everything and is all powerful.



Refer to my first post above...



That is one of many Einstein quotes. Einstein was controversial on his views of religion and God. His views have been widely studied and misunderstood. Einstein stated that he believed in the pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza. He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. He clarified however that, "I am not an atheist". Pantheism is the belief that all reality is identical with divinity, or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent god.

"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press)."

Regarding a belief in God: "Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations." Albert Einstein, 1930

Research? WTF are you talking about? There's no need to be condescending.

As to your post, I'm afraid we are just going to have to agree to disagree, as I don't know how to make you understand that when you create something with certain design parameters, and have foreknowledge of what the results of this design will choose/do, then you are defining it's choices.

When God created Adolph Hitler, he knew when he created him that millions of innocents would be slaughtered - essentially that Adolph would commit evil. Same with Satan. God is all powerful and has not only allowed Adolph and Satan to torment millions, but created these two fine specimens himself, knowing full well what would happen.

It's literally impossible for me to reconcile the fact that you don't understand this logically. Likewise, I'm sure you feel the same about my views.

As to Einstein, his musings on a creator don't necessarily point to your creator. He was very specific in his opinion on the Bible and it's representation of God.

 

[Phr3121]

If I build a robot and program it to murder someone, and can in fact see into the future that my creation will do so, it is not the robot's fault or choice for committing murder due to the fact that his very nature and actions were already known while I was creating it.

Does everything happen according to "God's will" or "free will"? You can't have it both ways.

But God does not program humans does he? Yes, you can have it both ways. God gives you free will, the choice is yours to make, and God already knows what choice you will make.

 

[splendica]

I dont believe humans are in need of salvation, and I dont believe we are born sick, and commanded to be well.

Please answer the question I posed. Do you feel America as a nation is founded upon the christian religion or christian tenets?

 

[Phr3121]

Men wrote the Bible, but those men were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but those men were imperfect.

Good point. So why didn't Jesus write the Bible while he was alive?

 

[hillelslovak87]

The guy in the video quoted the declaration, not the constitution. This is a clear bias. The entire video was an assertion, backed with nothing. He even brought The Republic to bear, whilst neglecting to opine on what Socrates thought of the Athenian religious people.

He neglected to say what christian values are, or how they are unique to christianity in any way. Since no real values that society utilizes are unique to christianity, the values must, and obviously do, precede the religion. Nothing but assertions, and pretense as if all his work was not ahead of him actually explaining how this is a christian nation.

He brought one man's thoughts on needing religion. None of our laws, nothing about a man like Madison, a devout christian being the most ardent secularist aside from Jefferson.

Here is the first amendment of our constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And here is our first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by President John Adams

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], -- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Did you watch that video? That was some shiiiiiity apologetics.

 

[splendica]

Probably 10 or so pages in a row of bold sweeping assertions by @hillelslovak87 about what Christianity is, this and that, and not even a Bible verse.

I mean it wasn't that long ago we were discussing and you asserted that the New Covenant was a Pauline doctrine. And so I refered you to Jesus' words at the Last Supper:

Matthew 26:28, "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

 

[franklinstower]

Good point. So why didn't Jesus write the Bible while he was alive?

Tell me.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Probably 10 or so pages in a row of bold sweeping assertions by @hillelslovak87 about what Christianity is, this and that, and not even a Bible verse.

I mean it wasn't that long ago we were discussing and you asserted that the New Covenant was a Pauline doctrine. And so I refered you to Jesus' words at the Last Supper:

Matthew 26:28, "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

I am still waiting for you to show what a christian value is, how it's unique to your faith, and how this nation was founded upon explicitly christian values. Shitty video aside, you have provided nothing for your assertion.

I am also waiting for any of you religious folks to explain free will in a manner that coheres, given your God's abilities. Again, you have provided nothing but explanations that are not convincing even at a cursory glance.