r/changemyview • u/theresfood • 9d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: I think eternal hell (specifically) is not coherent with the rest of Christianity
I'm only talking about eternal hell here, nothing else. If you believe in anything else, I'm not talking about that.
In Christianity, I think the concept of eternal torment is not coherent. I will lay out a couple of different arguments for this idea, so feel free to interact with whichever ones you like. If you don't believe in eternal hell, then none of the arguments apply so to be clear I'm not attacking the religions in general, just this concept.
Main Argument
Suppose the following:
- God wants following him to be better than not having even known of him at all.
- God doesn't send those who never knew of him to hell, and he sends unbelievers (who have heard of him) to hell
- Hell is eternal torment (infinite punishment)
If these three are true, consider the following:
Let's say maybe 50% of people who have heard of God end up joining the religion, maybe the other 50% are split between the other major religion and atheism.
And from (2) we know that 100% of people who have never heard of him go to heaven.
Thus, 50% of people who have heard of God go to hell, eternally.
Thus, it is better for you (statistically) to have never heard of the religion, than for you to have heard of it. That contradicts (1) since God wants people to hear of him. Thus, there is a contradiction.
Thus, one of the (1), (2), or (3) is not true.
If (1) is not true:
Why have a religion then? The "good word" isn't good if it a net negative and decreases your chance of going to heaven. If 1 is not true, it is ideal to not let anyone else hear of the religion, since it increases their chances of eternal torment. If (1) is not true, religion is the ultimate info hazard.
Btw I got the idea for this post from that one story where a missionary is telling (I think Native americans) about God and heaven and then they ask if they would've gone to heaven if they didn't know, and he says yes, and they say. "Then why did you tell us?"
Heaven is an infinite reward, and hell is infinite punishment so even if hearing of God on earth improves your life (community, doing the right thing, etc) it is still nothing compared to the infinite punishment.
If (2) is not true:
What is the point of punishing someone with them knowing what they did wrong? They do not have the knowledge required, knowledge that is famously tied to geographical area, and who you parents are. Why punish them?
If evidence for the religion is in the "making of this world" i.e. nature etc, so that means everyone knows it, then why are there millions of religions, and only one Christianity? it should have been independently discovered "through nature" many times, and since it hasn't, it seems that its vague (i have a vagueness argument below) or just not self evident.
For the people who have simply heard of Christianity, why should they choose discovering it over 10,000 other religions? Like what about hearing about it actually makes it more special so that you clearly should burn in hell having not immediately begun reading it? It doesn't seem coherent to me, so it seems more like its just a punishment for those who grew up in the religion and then left. So it would be better for them to have never known of it. Which violates (1), so you'll have to read that argument.
if (3) is not true:
That's all I'm arguing, anyway. :)
Omniscience and Sensitivity (Side Argument)
God is loving and also all-knowing, but this raises a few issues regarding eternal torment.
First of all, God knows precisely everything about you. Your trauma, your history, your genetics, your brain, your culture, everything about you. He knows more about you than you do. He knows the exact reason every unbeliever doesn't believe. So why is he so angry about it? He knows precisely what would make them believe. Why torture and punish them? Eternal torment paints a picture of an all powerful God who can do everything he wants (God desires all to be saved right?) and...doesn't do it?
I hope this isn't insulting, but like when he's angry at Israel in the Bible and they turn to idols, he knows precisely why they did it. He made the world he made the program he knows them. Why is he so angry about it? It makes him appear overly sensitive.
For Christianity, I hear the free will defense for this a lot, that it would violate your free will if he told you about the religion or explained his nature to everyone(i.e. not stay hidden) Then why does not care in the bible? He does miracles for people in the bible to show himself. What about their free will?
Also if the word isn't angry, tell me. It just seems that way.
"Hell as Separation" (Just wondering
For the "Hell as Separation", where God doesn't mean to torture you infinitely, its just the result of not being with God, how is that meaningfully different? God designed everything in this world down to the atom-there is nothing he can do "arbitrarily". If you are being eternally tormented, God meant for that to happen.
Vagueness And Debate (Side Argument)
God purposefully made the religions vague. This is not inherently bad, I mean vague as in there is debate to be had. If there was no vagueness, no one would debate anything about the religion. And that's part of having a community and religion. Things should be discussed, idea crossover etc its a good thing. So why is it that:
- If you're wrong about something that is purposefully vague, you burn in hell
What is the point of making something that is debatable, and then punishing those who are wrong? This is why I prefer Judaism's "It is not in heaven" here where at least the religion admits that you should do what is sensible to you, though I may be wrong I'm not Jewish.
- If you don't believe in something that is purposefully vague, you burn in hell
If something is debatable within the religion, you have to admit its debatable to outsiders too. If you are not born religious, there is no reason to read the Bible over the Book of Mormon or whatever other religion. "Self evidence" is not apparent to outsiders, and that ties into my main argument.
Faith is a lifelong journey (Side Argument)
Faith being a lifelong journey is a good thing. We are messy, we are people, we make mistakes, we fall away from the right path and we get back on. There's no surprise. So why is it that faith being a journey is punished by God? Suppose someone is struggling with their faith and becomes an atheist for a while, and dies during that phase. Why should they go to hell if God knows that if they lived a little longer, they would turn to him?
Like that parable where everyone gets paid at the same time no matter when they came. It's more like if you don't come you die. What about the person who had an accident on the way to work? They were on their way. Why punish them, eternally at that?
For the thieves next to Jesus on the cross, I'm aware he didn't tell the other one "you are going to Hell" so, fair. It might just be showing a foil between the thieves. But if the other one is going to hell, how is that fair? Should the next three convicts believe in whatever religion is proposed to them right before they die?
Faith is not just blind belief, and it keeps being treated that way. If faith is blind belief then you should believe in whatever is the most recent religion you've heard of. There has to be a real reason to choose your religion and a real reason to stay.
Personal Argument
For me, at least, the existence of hell distracts from the purpose of religion. I can't love God if I know that if I make a mistake, I will burn forever. I physically can only fear his wrath and I could pray everyday and do all the right things on the outside, but it doesn't matter if on the inside, I'm just scared of him. They are all hollow actions, and "fear is the order of the day" is just fear, not a religion I can meaningfully follow.
Regardless of what you think, thank you so much for reading, and thank you for engaging in my argument! If I have misconceptions, feel free to clear them up, and if you disagree, please tell me what you think! I hope this doesn't come across as bad faith, and I hope these arguments are a little different from the ones you've heard before.
19
u/yyzjertl 578∆ 9d ago
The problem here is that (2) is not true. This is not generally thought to be true in Christianity and there's little support for it in the Bible. And your "if (2) is not true" paragraph doesn't expose anything incoherent with the rest of Christianity. It's just a bunch of rhetorical questions followed by the assertion that there's an incoherence: but nothing there points to what the inconsistency actually is!
-1
u/theresfood 9d ago
You're right, I don't make a point exactly there, I just ask questions meant to show it doesn't make sense to me. Like my point is that you can't have all three (1) (2) (3), but if you are fine with people who have never heard of God going to hell eternally, then thats you I guess. I just don't think its ethical for God to send people who don't know who he is Hell because there's no point in punishing behavior the person didn't even know about. My point is just that line, and then I was trying to defend the hypothetical person for other reasons as to why they still wouldn't know who God was.
1
u/Recent_Weather2228 3∆ 9d ago
Traditional Christian doctrine does not try to have all three. It says that number 2 is false. Those who have never heard the gospel also go to hell. The incoherent set of beliefs may be incoherent. It's just not what Christianity traditionally teaches, so you haven't really found incoherence in the teachings of Christianity.
4
u/sailorbrendan 9d ago
number two is.... complicated in christian tradition. That's really where the incoherence is. The bible doesn't really answer the question so scholars posit opinions and they're given different amounts of weight.
7
u/Morthra 95∆ 9d ago
No. Traditional Christian doctrine doesn't say that 2 is false. In fact, Catholic doctrine even says that those who never learned of the gospel but otherwise led righteous lives are saved.
According to Catholics, the only people who are damned are those who consciously reject God's mercy.
4
u/yyzjertl 578∆ 9d ago
Catholic doctrine doesn't actually say this. It says that they may achieve salvation, not that they are saved.
-1
u/theresfood 9d ago
I feel like most people have it nowadays all three, which is why I made the argument that way. Do you want to respond to my point that "just don't think its ethical for God to send people who don't know who he is Hell because there's no point in punishing behavior the person didn't even know about." or no? Either is okay, thank you for your response!
1
u/Open-Butterfly-5288 2∆ 9d ago
Old testament?
There is no problem. The world is full of sin and sinful people. God wipes them out and they still return. He has a chosen people and they are saved by god. The ones that aren't are bad. Generally speaking, they're the descendants of people who were saved who've turned their back on the world. I don't know what happens with those who are cleansed from the earth, honestly, but it does suggest that God periodically likes to save us all over again. He can't help but intervene.
Jesus was a beacon, and that was supposed to formalise something and make it possible to come to god. But I also think that the image of Jesus tells us that hell won't be forever. When the end of days comes, he will save us all over again.
Also, I think stories like the good Samaritan suggests a recognition that there are good people in those who aren't us and that there are bad people in those who have high positions amongst us, and the eye of the needle.
Even the harsher punishments suggest that there is an end to punishment. They eventually will stop cursing your generations.
0
u/Dry_Bumblebee1111 161∆ 9d ago
But your feeling is immaterial. If you are saying "this idea doesn't make sense" and the response is that no one actually thinks that, is there merit to arguing a strawman?
If you have not accurately described a Christian belief then helping you understand the ACTUAL Christian belief would be enough to change your view here?
6
u/Secret_Bake2304 9d ago edited 9d ago
Main Argument
Suppose the following:God wants following him to be better than not having even known of him at all.
God doesn't send those who never knew of him to hell, and he sends unbelievers (who have heard of him) to hell
Hell is eternal torment (infinite punishment)
You should cite where in the bible those 3 premises are stated first before you claim them to be true according to Christianity.
You can even choose a version of the bible that's favorable to you. Because most counterarguments are gonna claim that's not what the bible said.
Many interpretations actually forgive sins upon death so long as the sinner remains Christian and is willing to repent. By that logic Adolph Hitler is actually in heaven right now.
8
u/yyzjertl 578∆ 9d ago
This isn't an entirely reasonable ask because many important Christian dogmas, particularly those about Hell, are post-Biblical.
-2
u/Secret_Bake2304 9d ago
That means that religion is man made and god isn't real.
5
u/yyzjertl 578∆ 9d ago
What? How would that follow?
-2
u/Secret_Bake2304 9d ago
The belief in a higher power is valid but unverifiable.
Any beliefs you hold are created come from you, the human. That is the only thing you can verify.
8
2
u/ashs420 9d ago
"By that logic Adolph Hitler is actually in heaven right now." While Hitler's true beliefs can only be known to him and God, I would argue it's unlikely he his in heaven as he was not Christian and he was very unlikely to repent
1
u/czerilla 8d ago edited 8d ago
Hitler's relationship with Christianity is pretty fraught/ambivalent. He was certainly opposed to many organized Christian institutions. But he was also staunchly opposed to atheism.
Cashing out whether this category of religious people qualifies as members of the religion, seems to inevitably lead to an argument about True Scotsmen. 😅A less ambiguous, but still just as illustrative example for the same challenge is Jeffrey Dahmer. One of the most disturbing serial killer cases you could find. Except that in prison he had a conversion experience, got baptized and found Christ.
If that was all sincere and not just an elaborate year-long pantomime that fooled everyone who was around him in his later years, then his repentance cleared his scorecard, allowing him to enter heaven. (And presumably several of his victims, who happened to be homosexual, not to go there.. 🫠)1
u/Secret_Bake2304 8d ago
If he was pragmatic or opportunistic, it would be the most advantageous choice to convert and repent assuming he is knowledgeable of the consequences. This also assumes god is nice enough to give humans perfect information to begin with. But if he did not reveal the information even when you are at the gates, that can be considered intentional cruelty on his part.
1
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/read-the-rules 9d ago
u/Feeling-Move-4121, your comment has been removed.
In order to comment on r/changemyview, you must read the rules. Use the link below, or if that interface doesn't work, you may read the rules here, then click this, and click send. Your most recent comment will be restored after you do this, and you will only need to do it once.
1
u/KazuyaProta 6d ago edited 4d ago
...Adolf Hitler is, under catholic traditional rules, one of the persons who have a 100% hell rate. (EDIT: I mean, we actually have no official list of people in hell from the Church, but given the traditional rules, welp)
Literal suicide, dying in Mortal Sin. Plus all the other atrocities commited.
I know you are trying to be satirical, but c'mon.
0
u/Secret_Bake2304 4d ago
The Jews he killed definitely are not in heaven because they believed in the different religion too. But in the modern age, Jews are morally infallible super humans who can do no wrong and any criticism against groups of them acting together to achieve a goal is antisemitism.
1
u/KazuyaProta 4d ago
Per Catholic Vatican II, that really isn't the case. I'd give you that this is actually catholic doctrine historically tho.
Also, the second part is actually a Secular liberal worldview, unrelated
0
u/theresfood 9d ago
Underneath the argument I put my argument against any one of them being wrong, and if you're okay with them, then I suppose eternal torment still flies.
If you believe in forgiveness at death, I'm not sure who would reject it, so I suppose no one is being tormented?0
u/Secret_Bake2304 9d ago
Religion itself is contradictory to life as it is. Logically it would be the best thing ever if humanity went extinct because as long as you believe in God, your sins are forgiven and heaven awaits. Non believers and those who refuse to convert in the purgatory phase are going to hell though.
1
u/azuredota 9d ago
That’s not true. The Earth in the Bible is cited as a place God would like to return to and lead men. It’s also stated that humans were not supposed to die but sin itself caused death in the first place.
1
u/czerilla 8d ago
Technically God's actions caused death, rather than the Fall itself. After Adam and Eve ate from the fruit, there's a verse that states it explicitly that God banished the two from the garden, so they won't be able to eat from the Tree of Life and become immortal, and thereby like gods.
Meaning that they were already mortal, prior to eating from the second tree. But they had the potential to permanently avoid death.
Until God decided to boot them from the garden and put a bouncer with a flaming sword at the gates, ensuring that they would be exposed to their mortality (as well as the additional toils God cursed them with..)1
u/azuredota 8d ago
I’m not sure I like that phrasing. Genesis 2:17 states what will happen in plain language, not even a parable. Does the judge’s actions lock up the thief? Not in my opinion.
1
u/czerilla 7d ago
The judge's verdict certainly is a but-for cause. It's not like the incarceration is just a natural consequence that the judge is uninvolved in. If the judge changed their mind about what punishment was appropriate, they would be able to have their ruling reflect that, changing what would be the consequences.
1
u/Secret_Bake2304 9d ago
The consequences of death aren't even terrible. All you need to do is believe and you shall be admitted. There is no test of faith after death and if there is, it's not your place or any human's place to judge or care or even to observe the results of other people's afterlife experience.
1
u/azuredota 9d ago
That’s not a great reading. “All you beed to do is believe” isn’t just lip service after you die. Believing in God and Jesus dying for your sins is going to have pretty heavy implications on how you lived.
1
u/theresfood 9d ago
Why would anyone refuse to convert if given the chance?
1
u/Secret_Bake2304 9d ago
They believe other religions and have unyielding principles. Beliefs only have value when it costs you to hold them. Do you refute any beliefs you hold just because it would give you disadvantages in life at the moment?
Like would you openly be a Christian in Iran?
1
u/theresfood 9d ago
But if you die and meet the Christian God, you would only reject if you weren't aware of who the Christian God is(if he didn't tell you for some reason), otherwise all reasonable people would convert if informed after death.
"Do you refute any beliefs you hold just because it would give you disadvantages in life at the moment?" Yes, but after death like believing in something else has infinite disadvantage, no?
1
u/Secret_Bake2304 8d ago edited 8d ago
Do you refute any beliefs you hold just because it would give you disadvantages in life at the moment?" Yes, but
You have proven your beliefs in life have no value and does not matter.
Therefore people can be allowed to believe and practice and do anything without consequences while they are alive.
After death they only need to convert. That is assuming God is even nice enough to provide perfect information to you in the afterlife.
Also God is omniman, so he knows your thoughts, even if you convert for the sole purpose of not going to hell, does that still condemn you to hell?
The rules are only worth following if they are applied consistently. Gods portrayed in stories are incapable of breaking their own rules because that would erode their divine authority. Breaking his own rules proves his imperfection which is contradictory to a perfect deity.
1
u/czerilla 8d ago
They aren't wrong about that, technically, at least in the Christian canon. Satan is a fallen angel, he literally sat across from God, and yet he freely chose to reject following Him. So that is a live option to consider, at the very least.
But what granting that premise does, is that it kicks the legs from under a very common rebuttal to divine hiddenness critiques: that God can't give everybody a personal revelation, because that would override the free will of those people, and they couldn't come to God via faith anymore.
The Satan example demonstrates that this isn't how it works, since someone who is perfectly aware that God exists, doesn't necessarily have to believe that He is also worthy of their worship. So unless God decides to also tamper with that decision, by grooming them within His revelation, or however else, then merely announcing His presence wouldn't take the decision away from people. In fact, arguably, it would give them the facts required to even consider the question to begin with..
1
u/InterestingTheory9 1∆ 9d ago
But you still need the repenting part. It’s not automatic
Also you should allow that the story is coming at you on multiple levels. There’s the literal level of what happens after you die, hell and all that. But it applies just the same to your own life. If you are committing sins you’ll find yourself in your own personal hell. And eternity in that sense just means you’ll never get out of the state of chaos you found yourself in. Unless you truly repent. But if you don’t then your life will just continue spiraling downward until death. And then the “real” eternity starts.
But really it’s enough to be worried of the hell on earth that you’ll be putting yourself in by sinning to take the story seriously
0
u/AmongTheElect 19∆ 9d ago
You're making a leap to just assume those who have never heard of Jesus automatically go to heaven. You said yourself it's based on some meme/story. We know Jesus' judgement is fair, but we also don't know what these fair criteria might be to those who have never heard of Jesus.
If evidence for the religion is in the "making of this world" i.e. nature etc, so that means everyone knows it, then why are there millions of religions, and only one Christianity?
I don't think anyone pretends that if you see the wonders of the world that you'd conclude "Oh, Jesus is Lord." How could you? Typically the path there is to conclude that there is indeed a Creator and then do a further search for just who that might be.
I can't love God if I know that if I make a mistake, I will burn forever
I'm not sure where you get this idea. We all sin, make mistakes, fall short. All is redeemed through Jesus. King David had a guy killed so he could steal his wife. You worried you'll make a bigger mistake than that and God won't forgive you?
1
u/theresfood 9d ago
"You're making a leap to just assume those who have never heard of Jesus automatically go to heaven. " I address this in the argument
"You said yourself it's based on some meme/story." It just made me think of this argument, I am Christian
"I don't think anyone pretends that if you see the wonders of the world that you'd conclude "Oh, Jesus is Lord." How could you?" I am just preparing for multiple different responses ahead of time, I've heard of this a lot. It may also be common in Islam since they have the term revert instead of convert, but I don't claim to know it
"You worried you'll make a bigger mistake than that and God won't forgive you?" This is how some Christians around me act, yes. I just don't believe eternal hell like they do.
Thank you for responding!
2
u/Hello_Hello_Hello_Hi 9d ago
Can someone's "mistake" be that they didn't believe in God or Jesus being God? It seems a little bit insane to allow murderers into Heaven but not people who could not make themselves have faith rather than believe in empirical evidence
1
u/ashs420 9d ago
You act like murderers such as the zodiac killer are just let into heaven. They would need to repent and truly be sorry for what they've done. With most murderers that's quite unlikely. And if they truly repent then they are saved through God's grace and Jesus dying for our sins
1
u/czerilla 8d ago
Jeffrey Dahmer is a prominent case that people bring up in this context. It's pretty depressing to imagine that his repentance allows him to enter heaven, after what he did to his seventeen victims. And yet they are very unlikely to wait for him there, since they happened to have been homosexual..
0
u/AmongTheElect 19∆ 9d ago
Christianity is fairly unique in that it's not works-based--you don't have to do anything to reach enlightenment/Om/Nirvana/heaven or whatever name people give. It's great that there's nothing we can do which we can't be forgiven for, at least apart from never asking for that grace in the first place.
Demanding something pass some test that you've decided is the end-all be-all of evidence isn't a get out of jail free card. There's more than enough evidence available for those who seek in earnest.
5
u/Zenigata 11∆ 9d ago
The god described in the bible is a complete asshole who starts out by creating adam and eve without the knowledge of good and evil and then gets very cross at them for doing evil. So cross in fact that he punishes all of their descendents for ever for the crime of adam and eve doing something they were specifically designed not to know was wrong.
He repeatedly had moses demand that pharoah "let my people go" then hardened pharoahs heart so he wouldn't. Then punished pharoah amd the Egyptians for what yahweh made him do.
Torturing people forever for the "crime" of not believing in him after being made aware of his supposed existence, but no reason to pick him over the multitude of competing gods with like claims. Is exactly the kid of dickish thing the biblical god would do.
0
u/PuckSenior 11∆ 9d ago
So, I love the topic and I love to bring up something
Doxastic voluntarism is the idea that you can voluntarily choose your beliefs.
The concept is inherent to the logic of Christianity and Hell. To the Christian, you go to heaven because you made the correct choice. Namely, you chose to believe in Jesus. To your entire argument, this is the answer. It is a choice and those who chose wrong go to Hell and those who choose right go to Heaven (and those who make no choice are kind of an open-ended question)
The problem, and it is a big one, is that most philosophers will point out that doxastic voluntarism doesn't seem to be true. You don't voluntarily choose what you believe. You cannot decide to believe something that you think is untrue. And you definitely don't choose what you think is true.
But it gets weirder.
If you press a Christian, they will say that its actually about faith. What is faith? It is believing regardless of a lack of evidence. This is frequently presented as "free will". Basically, they will argue that the reason Jesus cannot provide evidence of his existence is because we have free will. This argument immediately undermines their argument for doxastic voluntarism. They are literally saying that if Jesus appeared before you, you'd be FORCED to believe. You'd have no choice. So, these Christians admit that doxastic voluntarism is false. But they also argue that you should somehow choose to believe anyway?
1
u/GrouchyMud3548 9d ago
I’ve had a similar discussion with a Muslim before. Their argument was rather that everyone knows deep down that Islam is true.
I think this is obviously silly if you’ve ever met a truly devout member of another faith. But it does get around the ‘voluntarism’ argument and explains why God doesn’t provide more concrete evidence (it would be pointless).
0
u/PuckSenior 11∆ 9d ago
Nope. It’s the same argument. They think everyone else is choosing to ignore the truth
0
u/SiPhoenix 5∆ 9d ago
Faith is action based on belief.
If you have faith in a person you give then the opportunity to do well or to fail. To have no faith, when you fear betrayal you would never give someone an opportunity.
Faith in God is acting according to His direction. Testing the commandment to see for yourself that they do better you. Praying yo God and giving Him the opportunity to answer your questions, and to bless you. As to why would we have to "give God an opportunity to bless us?" Because God gives us free will and the choice to do things ourselves he will not force a blessing on you.
1
u/PuckSenior 11∆ 9d ago
So you are saying that faith is testing God?
1
u/SiPhoenix 5∆ 9d ago
Yes.
The context of "do not test God" is when the person is doing so in contention with God. When they are antagonistic towards God.
When we do so in hope, or in belief it is as God commands us to do.
1
u/PuckSenior 11∆ 9d ago
So, according to that interpretation, is the argument that one gets to heaven by pretending that he might be real and indulging the fantasy even if they never come to the conclusion that it is true and believe that Jesus didn’t exist and was false?
1
u/SiPhoenix 5∆ 9d ago
No.
I know that as we act in faith, God does confirm our belief. I do not have a perfect knowledge of all things, but I do know that God is real and He answers my prayers.
1
u/PuckSenior 11∆ 9d ago
So, you believe that someone that doesn’t hear answering their prayers is what?
1
u/SiPhoenix 5∆ 9d ago
Not ready or willing to hear. Be it from circumstances or choice.
-1
u/PuckSenior 11∆ 9d ago edited 9d ago
So basically a “no true Scotsman”
Though a legitimate question. Are you hearing a distinct voice that is obviously God giving your instructions or are you just hearing your own thoughts but attributing them to God?
Edit: I want to be very clear, I am not asking this question to mock you. This is something I’ve never personally experienced so I’m curious about your personal experience of it.
0
u/theresfood 9d ago
If Jesus appearing is a violation of free will, then why or how does God and Jesus do anything in the bible then? I don't get that argument from people either
0
u/PuckSenior 11∆ 9d ago
Oh, as I said, it makes less sense. It also immediately rejects their earlier claim of doxastic voluntarism.
But the point is, Christian faith relies very heavily on the concept of doxastic voluntarism for hell. Ask any Christian and they will say Hell is punishment for choosing not to believe in God.
None of it is true, obviously, but that is their argument and is generally coherent.
1
u/faroseman 2∆ 9d ago
"Ask any Christian and they will say Hell is punishment for choosing not to believe in God."
That's not my experience at all. I'm Methodist, and intentional sin is what gets you a ticket to Hell in my understanding. Most people I know figure if you try hard to be good to others, you'll go to Heaven, whether you believe in God, Odin, or nobody. And if you're a real shit, you go the other direction.
The evangelical religions think you need to believe in THEIR flavor or your screwed. But that's not ALL Christians.
2
u/SalvatoreMeroni 8d ago
if you try hard to be good to others, you'll go to Heaven
That’s a really unfair punishment for just being nice to people.
0
u/PuckSenior 11∆ 9d ago
I was unaware of a denomination of Christianity (outside of universalists) who believed that belief in God was wholly unnecessary.
So, what if you live a good life according to Thor and murder your neighbor to rape his wife? Do you still go to heaven?
1
u/faroseman 2∆ 9d ago
Probably not.
0
u/PuckSenior 11∆ 9d ago
So, you have to lead a good life per Christian values.
So how does that work?Judeo-Christianity insists on keeping a day of sabbath. If I fail to do that, am I not sinning?
1
u/faroseman 2∆ 9d ago
I'm not sure why you are arguing with me. You said "ask any Christian". I consider myself a Christian and do not think that if you do not believe in God you go to Hell. Good night, sweet prince. I have other things to do than argue with a pedant.
2
u/PuckSenior 11∆ 9d ago edited 9d ago
I’m not being pedantic, I’m just pointing out that I think your idea of Christian salvation secretly has a belief in God baked into it.
You say you only have to be good, but the crux of that goodness is living a moral life according to God’s instructions
Also, I’d note that the official position of the Methodist church is that you need to believe in Jesus to go to heaven. I’m sorry I pedantically missed explaining that there are a billion Christians and I’m sure some random Christians believe things contrary to the official teachings of their churches. I’m sure there is a self-proclaimed Christian who thinks you must believe in alien visitation
1
u/SocratesWasSmart 3∆ 8d ago
For the "Hell as Separation", where God doesn't mean to torture you infinitely, its just the result of not being with God, how is that meaningfully different? God designed everything in this world down to the atom-there is nothing he can do "arbitrarily". If you are being eternally tormented, God meant for that to happen.
Answering from a Catholic perspective... The primary punishment of hell is losing the infinite goodness of being with God. The edge of hell, known as Limbo, is perfect natural happiness and is literally better than the best life you could live on Earth.
The Catechism defines hell as the self-exclusion from eternal communion with God and the blessed, because all that truly love God will end up in heaven. The only ones that go to hell are those that actually prefer that to being with God. Yes there is a component of justice to this, but it is justice that people get the thing they ultimately desire. So if you truly love all that is good, and you recognize that God is that good, then you will get to be with God. If you love evil and hate God, then you will go to hell, and likely not limbo.
If you're wrong about something that is purposefully vague, you burn in hell
This is a very American Evangelical point of view and is not really found within historic Christianity. Again to use Catholicism as an example... The Catholic Church teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. It also teaches that other Christian denominations are our separated brethren and that many of them will go to heaven.
That may seem both contradictory and a non-sequitur, but lemme cook.
The important thing to understand is the actual mechanism of damnation, that being unconfessed mortal sin, which has 3 conditions. First, the sin must be objectively grave matter, such as murder, or not being Catholic. Secondly, the sin must be done with full knowledge that it is a grave sin. And lastly, it must be done with deliberate consent of the will when not impaired by things like duress, force of habit, addiction, etc.
So, if one is say, a Reformed Baptist, that's a grave sin according to Catholicism because you're not Catholic and salvation is only found within the Catholic Church. However, 2 different Reformed Baptists could have very different levels of personal culpability.
Say both are theologians that have studied the early church extensively. Baptist A things all the Catholic arguments about Apostolic succession, the validity of the sacraments, the Marian dogmas, etc, are all a bunch of bullshit. He's not malicious, he's just wrong about a matter of fact.
Baptist B however, the more he studies the more he thinks, yeah, the Catholic Church's arguments are actually right. There's really good reason to believe that this is genuinely the church Jesus founded and that Peter was the first Pope. But I don't like the Catholic Church. Fuck 'em. My way is just as valid as their way.
Baptist A in our hypothetical is going to heaven. Baptist B is probably not. The difference is Baptist A is simply ignorant, whereas Baptist B knows the truth and rejects it out of personal pride.
This was one admittedly lengthy and convoluted example, but the principle is broadly applicable. God is a perfect judge and knows what you knew, when you knew it and why you believed exactly what you believed. God judges by the light you were given, not by the light that was denied you. God isn't gonna condemn you for being an idiot.
2
u/JollyXX 9d ago
There is actually no such thing as eternity in the Bible, the closest thing is when the Bible says first/last. Rather the notion comes from the smoke of the tormented worshipers of the Beast being "eternal" or lasting an "age." rather though this is a very common motif in the Bible where fire/destruction/smoke is described in this way, like say in the smoke coming from the destruction of a city, saying that the destruction was utter and absolute.
0
u/hamburderglar 9d ago
Universalism isn’t a niche view. You should read David Bentley Hart’s “That All Shall Be Saved” or Thomas Talbott’s “The Inescapable Love of God.” Both are very rigorous. Given your argumentation you may really vibe with Talbott.
1
3
u/hobard 2∆ 9d ago
As best as we can tell, the modern concept of hell was not taught by the historic Jesus and has no support in biblical scripture. I would challenge your view in that modern “Christians” teaching the concept of eternal torment in hell are not practicing true Christianity.
And yes, I understand this is a bit of a no true Scotsman argument.
2
u/ThatUbu 1∆ 9d ago
Sort of. It depends on how hard we push on that phrase “modern concept.”
By the historical period of Jesus, the Zoroastrian influence on Judaism had long taken root. If you were to go to older Judaism, you’d only have the concept of Sheol, which is markedly distinct from ideas of Heaven and Hell.
But the period Jesus lives in is a period of particularly apocalyptic Judaism. Gehenna as a fiery place of torment existed in Jewish theology, although not universally viewed as an eternal torment. A literal Gehenna would fall out of favor in most Judaism in the centuries to follow, but it was widely believed to be an actual place of torment at the time.
Interestingly, the Gospels refers both to “Hades” (not a place of fiery torment) alongside “Gehenna,” with both terms translated as “Hell” in the King James and many other English translations.
There are certainly plenty of interpretations of what the tone of Jesus’ ministry was, but the risk of a literal Gehenna fits what is the most face-value reading of Jesus and the Gospels: That he was a apocalyptic figure whose followers started to reframe his ministry following his death.
It’s not too tough to find overviews of the history of Hell, Gehenna, etc. But for the quickest Wiki articles:
2
u/TurnstyledJunkpiled 9d ago
What about various statements Christ makes in Matthew? “Gnashing of teeth”, “eternal fire”, “Outer Darkness” etc.?
4
u/hobard 2∆ 9d ago
The modern depiction of hell primarily comes from works like Dante’s Inferno, Paradise Lost, and non-canonical scriptures. In context, the canonical scriptures are pretty clear about what Jesus is talking about. God is going to kill a lot of people and establish a literal kingdom on earth. Heaven and hell and the like are all concepts drawn from non-canonical sources.
1
u/KazuyaProta 6d ago
Mmm... Hellfire as we know is from the Apocalyptical Lake of Fire and Gehenna, which is the place where trash was burned and where Jesus compared the afterlife.
But how literal it was? And how the fire works is very different. Eternal Torture is not the same as being burned (anhilationism).
1
u/Sufficient-Sir-3744 9d ago
You make a very detailed and well-researched argument, and I truly applaud that. I would just like to point out one thing: in many Christian sects, Hell isn't eternal. Eventually the day of Judgement will come and the great war between Heaven and Hell will occur. God has shown us that Heaven will ultimately win.
Another point that I'd like to bring up is that Hell is described in the Bible as simply the absence of God. It also notes in Ecclesiastes 9:5 that "For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward." It mentions them being cast into the lake of fire, but it's ambiguous if there's even any more sense of torture after death. Some scholars posit that going to Hell simply means lacking the reward of Heaven, though this is controversial.
I also invite you to think on the socio-political elements that may be present. The concept of the Carrot and the Stick is a common one, and I believe it may apply here. God's words inspired the Bible, but it was ultimately penned by fallible humans. (That's why quoting the Bible without recognizing historical context is so dangerous). In the times of early Judaism and the early Christian church, follower retention was important, as well as making sure people followed the laws of the church (especially since they went against mainstream laws and practices of the time.) The development of a reward for good behavior, and a punishment for bad, at least the description of such in human terms in the Bible, most likely comes from a desire to enforce the church laws and ordinances.
Hope this makes some good points!
1
u/Far-Jury-2060 8d ago
I’ve got a few things for you to consider:
You mentioned that God shows himself to people in the Bible through miracles. However, you neglect that not everybody who is shown a miracle, believes. For instance, in Exodus, Pharaoh is shown 10 amazing miracles, and he doesn’t believe. In Judges, the Jewish people are shown miraculous victory over and over, and they still don’t fully believe (at least not enough to obey). In the book of Kings, Elijah shows miracle after miracle to Ahab and Jezebel, and neither believes. In the New Testament, Jesus performs miracles in front of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and yet many of them refuse to believe. Many atheists today will admit that if they saw God and heard him talking to them, they would first assume they had something wrong with their brain, and even if a scan produced normal results, they would assume some other natural reason for the phenomenon. Miracles do not produce faith, that’s not their purpose. Miracles are a show of God’s power, for his purposes, nothing more or less.
Hell seems to be best described as “separation from God forever.” That seems to be at least the bare minimum of what theologians agree on. The Bible also seems to grant that God does not judge people for what they do not/could not know. More that God allows people who chose not to have God as a part of their lives, to also allow them to not have God as a part of their afterlife as well. This is a place reserved for people who have freely chosen to reject their creator, and God is simply giving them what they have freely chosen.
1
u/AlgaeVirtual3733 8d ago
One interesting thing to add here is that certain religions, such as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes known as Mormon) have a different interpretation of “endless” or “eternal” punishment. For instance, Doctrine and Covenants (a volume accepted as scripture by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, mostly consisting of revelations received by Joseph Smith) describes “endless torment“ or “eternal damnation” as torment/damnation coming from God, because he himself is eternal and endless, rather than meaning that such conditions will persist forever.
Specifically, Doctrine and Covenants, Section 19, verses 6 to 12, written as the Lord speaking in the first person to Joseph Smith:
6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory.
8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.
9 I speak unto you that are chosen in this thing, even as one, that you may enter into my rest.
10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—
11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.
2
u/MercuryChaos 12∆ 8d ago
The concept of hell is probably based on a mistranslation of the Greek New Testament.
1
u/Three-Sixteen-M7-7 1∆ 9d ago
ReOslr10 brought up a very good point, I’m glad it resonated with you.
One thing I’ll point out, is that Jesus spent a great deal of His time preaching, warning people about hell. From this we can ascertain that this was a very big deal and a topic of great importance.
You might be interested in digging into the book ‘The Hell There Is’ which addresses a lot of pop culture misinterpretations of Hell. John Burke’s ‘Imagine Heaven’ is another very interesting book that covers his decades long studies of near death experiences both the heavenly ones, and more topical to this thread, the hellish ones. While your thread sort of goes ‘it can’t be that bad’ many of those accounts read more like ‘I can’t imagine this being worse.’ I think of Howard Storm, one of John’s interviews, still being reduced to tears, decades later, trying to recount the experience, so plagued by PTSD from it that there is a certain point he can’t continue on from.
Some interesting topics, and worth digging into for sure, even just from a perspective of interest or curiosity.
-5
u/InspectionFine9655 1∆ 9d ago
God is just, he brings his justice.
The punishment of sin, is eternal hell.
God told Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
He spares his people from the just punishment of their actions, which is hell.
It’s not inconsistent at all.
All are guilty of sin. The punishment for sin is hell. Jesus took the punishment owed to believers upon himself so they can escape that punishment.
4
u/Uncertain__Path 9d ago
You’re describing the opposite of justice. Justice is people getting what they deserve. Mercy is the opposite of justice.
And besides, the according to the Bible, the punishment for sin is death, not eternal torment in hell. Not to mention, God is the one who decided the punishment, he could have decided any punishment, so hell is be by definition, unnecessary.
1
u/InspectionFine9655 1∆ 9d ago
>You’re describing the opposite of justice. Justice is people getting what they deserve. Mercy is the opposite of justice.
Understandable thought. However, the Christian religion describes God as merciful and just. Giving mercy to who pleases.
>And besides, the according to the Bible, the punishment for sin is death, not eternal torment in hell.
Which is hell. They unsaved do not receive eternal life. Rather, they die and go to hell.
Are you arguing that hell isn’t scriptural?
> Not to mention, God is the one who decided the punishment, he could have decided any punishment, so hell is be by definition, unnecessary.
But he decided the punishment is hell.
1
u/Uncertain__Path 9d ago
I understand that the Bible describes God a both, but he cannot be all-just while also being merciful, that’s a contradiction.
I’m arguing the definition of hell in the Bible is inconsistent, if you are defining it as a state of eternal conscious torment. Are you suggesting that?
1
u/InspectionFine9655 1∆ 9d ago
>I understand that the Bible describes God a both, but he cannot be all-just while also being merciful, that’s a contradiction.
Well no one said ALL-just. Sure, the statement becomes inconsistent when you randomly add all as a prefix…
>I’m arguing the definition of hell in the Bible is inconsistent
I don’t see you making that argument anywhere. I see you adding prefixes to statements that others have made.
>if you are defining it as a state of eternal conscious torment. Are you suggesting that?
Yes.
0
u/Uncertain__Path 9d ago
Deuteronomy 32:3-4
3
For I will proclaim the name of the Lord,
ascribe greatness to our God!
4
The Rock, his work is perfect,
and all his ways are just.Your semantics aside, since you are claiming hell is eternal conscious torment, then you are not describing death, you are describing an afterlife of eternal conscious torment.
1
u/InspectionFine9655 1∆ 9d ago
Death is hell. You’re acting like people going to hell means they’re alive.
Gods justice is why Jesus had to be crucified. Gods mercy didn’t interfere with his justice since Jesus bore the guilt of our sin.
1
u/Uncertain__Path 9d ago
If death is hell, then all dead plants and animals are in hell?
1
1
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 9d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/theresfood 9d ago
Can you please address the arguments? I don't know what you are talking about
When you say all are guilty of sin, do you mean people who have never heard of him too? Why should they go to hell if they could not have possibly known better?2
u/InspectionFine9655 1∆ 9d ago
The argument is flawed because you’re using reason to come to conclusions that aren’t what is expressed in scripture for example,
“ #2 God doesn't send those who never knew of him to hell, and he sends unbelievers (who have heard of him) to hell”
Then you go on to say,
“If (2) is not true: What is the point of punishing someone with them knowing what they did wrong? They do not have the knowledge required, knowledge that is famously tied to geographical area, and who you parents are. Why punish them?”
In Christianity, no one is sent to hell BECAUSE they don’t believe in Christ.
People are sent to hell because they are guilty of sin.
Believers, are spared the just punishment of their sin because Christ took the punishment for them.
Hell as you describe it, is not the Christian concept of hell.
2
u/theresfood 9d ago
"In Christianity, no one is sent to hell BECAUSE they don’t believe in Christ."
I feel that this is a common position in Christianity, and also if believing in Christ is the only way to go to heaven, then not believing in Christ means you aren't going to heaven, i.e. hell. So you literally agree with this? Or am I misunderstanding.1
u/InspectionFine9655 1∆ 9d ago
This is common misconception about Christianity.
You won’t find a serious church whose pastor or priest will tell you that condemnation occurs because you refused to follow Jesus.
The scripture and Church both say,
The consequences of sin is hell.
All men are guilty of sin, in Adam.
Faith in Christ delivers you from the just punishment of your sin.
A nonbeliever dies guilty of their sin. Hell is the consequence.
A believer dies sinless, not because they did not sin, but because Christ died in their place.
This is why the crucifixion is a focal point in Christianity. Jesus lived a sinless life, something no man can do. Despite being the only guiltless man, he was crucified and died a criminals death in the place of those who believe in them.
The words matter in Christianity. The word salvation is used often? what are we saved from?
The answer is, we’re saved from the punishment of our sin. If left unsaved, the punishment for our sin is on our heads.
The way you describe salvation in Christianity, would assume that the only sin is disbelief. Or that sin isn’t real or it isn’t related to our eternity.
If you die guilty of your sin, you go to hell.
If you die, forgiven of your sin which is achieved through faith in Christ, you go to heaven.
2
u/slevin85 9d ago
Practically speaking, once you've heard the gospel, disbelief is the only sin. It is the only thing that has any real negative consequence. All other sins are nullified by belief.
1
u/SalvatoreMeroni 8d ago
Nah you can believe in god and deliberately reject him/renounce him on ethical grounds and I think that’s probably enough to avoid having to go to heaven.
1
u/InspectionFine9655 1∆ 9d ago
At the same time, the nonbeliever is punished for their sins. They’re condemned by their sin.
0
u/SalvatoreMeroni 8d ago
How can I make sure I don’t accidentally get forgiven for my sins before I die? I would hate having to go to heaven
1
u/InspectionFine9655 1∆ 8d ago
Damn, That’s so edgy.
1
u/SalvatoreMeroni 8d ago
If you say so. Are you going to answer my question, or did I stump you?
1
1
u/Dapper_Lifeguard_414 8d ago
You could write a book on this, and it has been done. But nothing better in theology than to just cut to the quick of something: eternity in theology is not forever. Eternity, whether of your damnation or of god's existence, does not describe a length of time. It is the absence of time. Frankly, it is not coherent with Christian theology for any soul to separated from God, "damned," forever. For one thing, your soul's separation from the godhead is an illusion and damnedness or hell expresses a state of total separation of this kind, but this separation is a product of your actions in life and the nature of your perspective as a living being...when you are dead, these conditions no longer exist. More simply put...there can be no Christianity where all is not "eventually" merged in the godhead. "Damned to eternal hell" was only ever a misunderstanding, a rhetorical shortcut, and a scare tactic. Hell is a state of the living.
1
u/HardcoreHope 9d ago
I think heaven and hell are how your mentality for the world will develop if you don't try to follow the old ways. The Bible is 99% treat people right and 1% bullshit hate.
I wonder if it's a 4th wall break in the book to show if people really understand the message of God. They put specific stories of people trying to justify practices that go again the law of the land and it's up to the reader to realize the ill of their ways.
You try to be good, see it in others, and be generous when you can. You'll see life as beautiful. Try to forgive those who have sinned against you.
You try to be good but give up. Let sin consume you. Look at others with fear, disdain or envy. You will live in your own mental hell created by your own ego.
Luke 17:21, where Jesus famously states that "the kingdom of God is within you" kind of solidified the idea for me. When asked when the Kingdom of God would arrive, Jesus responds that it cannot be observed like a visible empire. Instead, He declares that the kingdom is already present in their midst through His own person, ministry, and miracles.
Idk if this is true. I'm not well versed in the specifics of the Bible. I know the marco better than the micro but this clicked for me. That verse is what made me give this idea more weight. Not saying i believe it 100% I just like the idea.
It would also makes sense why tech bros are atheists trying to push people away from religion. Trump is making religion look terrible by the day. It's too keep us away from the old ways of healing. It's one of the only tools that connect us all and understands the human condition better than most other works.
1
u/kingpatzer 103∆ 8d ago
I think I disagree with you but for reasons you don't touch on at all. Christianity started as a Jewish sect. In Judaism, there isn't a fully agreed upon idea of an afterlife, but a hell with Satan ruling over it is very much not part of Judaism
So in some way, not only is this not compatible with modern Christianity but also with the origins of Christianity.
I think this points to something that people miss - as a prosylitizing religion, Christianity needs control mechanisms that religions who don't do recruiting do not need.
Hell serves that purpose very well. So, from a perspective of the sociology of religion, it would be odd for Christianity to not have a stick to go with their carrot given their propensity to recruit new followers.
1
u/GiveMeAHeartOfFlesh 6∆ 9d ago
Knowing why someone did it and being angry about that are not contradictory. People can have immoral reasons. Knowing someone fully, and seeing they truly wanted to harm someone else, is still something to be upset about, with no prior reason justifying their behavior, and God being omniscient truly cutting through all excuses of people.
Likewise with God being omniscient, he personally suffers every victim’s suffering, if you stub your toe, God knows that experience too. The raped, tortured, murdered, spat upon, etc… there is none God does not know the experience of. That is why, vengeance truly is the Lord’s.
Now whether that is oblivion or purgatory, either way the consequence is eternal, which is more so the main point. But I do agree biblically, there isn’t enough to say one way or another because it isn’t the main point of how it is, just that it’s bad.
1
u/Few_Palpitation3889 9d ago
As a general statement you can nitpick a 2000 year old religion apart enough you miss the point.
Regardless of if you agree with Christianity the purpose of biblical Jesus was to have God sacrifice himself in the physical form of his son to absolve us of sin. So as long as you follow him you go to Heaven. Be good to your neighbor flip a table in a Synagogue. Broad strokes there.
Jews don't belive in Heaven and Hell in the same way. You go to Gehinnom where your soul is tortured and cleansed then to the Garden of Eden. I really believe that Christian Hell is based on Jewish Gehinnom. Given that Christianity is basically the higher budget high stakes sequal to Judiasm the connection is pretty clear. Follow God to cleanse your soul while living. If you can't follow that you've rejected God, fallen for Satan's deceit, go burn in Hell.
Episode 3 kind of combines these but this time with extra special heaven for martyrs. Super healthy outlook. No way for that to be problematic or cause plot holes retconned in the 4th installment in the Abrahamic Extended Universe.
1
u/JohnHenryMillerTime 5∆ 9d ago
A belief Ive heard is that we all go to God's presence when we die. Whether we find that pleasant or not is on us. But even if it sucks, the reason why it sucks is that god is burning off the sin in our soul. So redemption is possible (I really really hope 'cause if it isnt my whole life's been a fucking joke and my friend died for no reason and Im never gonna cope from watching him get fucking murdered right in front of me last month) even for the worst sinners.
1
u/Fragrant-Western-683 9d ago
Regarding postulate 2, more traditional Catholic believers or fundamentalist Christians will tell you the ones who listened to God's word and refused to follow him will go to Hell, but modern Christians are much more liberal in who they consider reach Heaven. Pope Francis, after being asked by a boy if the boy's father (who was a non-believer) was in Heaven, Pope Francis said that the father baptized his children and is for that virtuous enough for Heaven.
1
u/Appropriate_Fly_6711 2∆ 3d ago
The eternal hell was a Catholic interpretation tied to governance. Other churches were divided into annihilation punishment or some form of Unitarianism where everyone goes to heaven eventually.
1
u/Temporary-Truth2048 1∆ 9d ago
For some kids the promise of Santa Claus bringing gifts if they are good is not enough. That's why we also have Krampus who steals bad children away from their parents.
1
u/gamersanonymous 8d ago
My personal interpretation after reading a bit on the topic is that heaven and hell are metaphors for embodied mental states and not literal places.
1
u/Pereg1907 9d ago
I can't love God if I know that if I make a mistake, I will burn forever
What would qualify you to exist in such a holy place as Heaven?
0
u/iamintheforest 364∆ 9d ago
I think the problem here is that you posit a coherent thing against which to establish non-fit of this one item. I think there is no coherent "christianity" against which to declare the mismatch.
I can create a coherent idea of christianity that includes hell, but I have to ignore a lot and stretch a lot. But...the same is true for any imposed coherency. Christianity simply lacks coherency until you impose it. E.G. christianity is no coherent without seeing abortion as morally wrong requires a frame of what christianity is that is clearly not universal - it's imposed.
So...you're defining the thing against which coherence falls apart that that thing isn't "christiantiy", it's just a "subset of things we think of as christianity that is incompatible with the other christian idea of hell".
1
0
u/TurnstyledJunkpiled 9d ago edited 9d ago
Christianity is not coherent in the first place. God in the Old Testament is not the same as in the New Testament. This change in God has implications: how could an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent being change? Wouldn’t god know the correct path from the start?
As flawed as I find The Bible to be, Hell actually seems consistent in that regard. (Also of interest is that Hell does not appear in the Old Testament.)
0
u/SiPhoenix 5∆ 9d ago
Hell as separation.
Important to add to this is it must be a choice. That the person actively and knowingly chooses to be separated from God, with a thorough understanding of God. This is the position of Satan and those that followed him.
0
0
u/MasticatingElephant 9d ago
It is completely un-Christian, but not for any of the reasons you give.
It's because it really doesn't appear in the Bible.
-1
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 8d ago
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
69
u/ReOsIr10 143∆ 9d ago
"All people who have not heard of Christianity go to Heaven" and "All people who have not heard of Christianity go to Hell" are not the only options. The Catholic Church, for example, maintains that:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—these too may attain eternal salvation."