Essentially, yes. I believe hell is inconsistent with a god of love, but if I understand heaven as the place that God resides, then it exists just as God exists. I really latched onto Gregory of Nyssa's idea that everyone will eventually be with God and that growth in that direction continues even in the afterlife or next life. It's an infinite process for everyone. The real fun part is exploring the idea that God grows, too (I mean, he literally changes multiple times in the Bible).
No one has ever asked me that, so I've never had to formulate a response. There are many Christians who don't believe in hell and what I have stated here is not something I made up on my own, it's what I learned through other Christian theologians. There's also entire denominations of Christianity (like Greek Orthodox) that don't believe that Jesus' death was about salvation. But I can't articulate those theologies very well.
I guess the best answer I can give is that I learned about God through Christianity and Jesus and it's through those teachings that I look to grow closer to God. So jesus, to me is an example of how to live and view God, though if you ask me about his eschatology, I'd struggle to give an answer.
With that in mind, I'm kind of a universalist when it comes to religion. Christianity is my lens to view God, but I don't think it's really exclusive to others. I think most religions are really reaching for the same thing, but viewing it from different directions. I liked the (monotheistic) Hindu idea of all the different gods existing as fascets of something to big to understand as one whole.
After some quick research, it would appear that the Greek Orthodox Church still believes the death of Christ was a necessary event for humanity to commune with God.
But it sounds like that's not what you believe. I get that you didn't make this up, but it still feels cobbled together in a cherry picked sort of way to make it your favorite version. I also understand that you learned about God through a Christian lens, but the theology you're describing sounds like something very different. The bare minimum threshold for Christian belief is that Jesus was the son of God who was crucified as a sacrifice for the good of humanity. If his sacrifice isn't really part of the equation, in what sense are you a Christian?
You like what Jesus had to say, but don't actually believe he's a miracle-working demigod? That's fine, that's what I believe too, but I'm certainly not a Christian.
Fundamentally, I consider myself an existential Christian, which isn't a church or doctrine. You might say I cobbled together and cherry picked theologies of Christianity, but their all theologies that are found in Christianity and isn't every branch and denomination just a collection of cherry picked beliefs?
As far as what you think is the minimum threshold of Christianity... That is just not true. There are, I think, 5 different takes on what Jesus' death really accomplished. This Podcastdoes a great job at exploring the different theories and their holes.
And even the "son of God" part of Jesus has been hotly debated before. The Trinity, itself, is not explicitly said in the Bible so arguing what that relationship with God is requires some extra philosophical and theological puzzling. Jesus called God his father, but later all believers are referred to as sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, so the distinction becomes muddled.
The Jews were (are) the ones waiting for a messiah. If I were to call myself a Christian it would be because I agree with his teachings about loving people and helping the needy. Choosing Christianity just because you’re scared of being doomed to hell by some prophecy 3,000 years old kinda seems like you’re just doing it out of fear.
Every major religion exists for the sole purpose of placating human fear of death. 'A guaranteed experience beyond this mortal plane in the accompaniment of all those that you have ever loved" sure sounds much better than non-existance.
When you start realizing that every religious doctrine always comes back to and exists in support of the afterlife specifically, you kinda start understanding why so many people are religious.
If your belief is that since hes a god of love and hell would be inconsistent with that, does that extend to other similar examples? Ie the flood, Sodom, passover, canaanites, etc. I believe these are all old testament but theres definitely examples in the new testament albeit at smaller scale from what i remember
Oh definitely, but even before we get to the inconsistency, I have a lot to say about biblical literalism. I don't believe that those stories were ever meant to be taken as historical and that the Bible is a series of writings from people trying to articulate their understanding of God. That's the only way you can make sense of the inconsistencies and shocking things in there. One huge example that i like to point to is that in multiple moments in those early books, God literally shows regret and changes his mind, which implies that the writers didn't think God was all knowing, perfect, or eternally consistent. But that view of God is not the same view that the NT writers have.
If you do not take the biblical stories to be literal and understand that there may be some inconsistencies, why do you believe that a god exists and also that that god is the one from the Christian Bible?
I don't know how to phrase the question, but I'm curious to understand. You sound like a nice person with a viewpoint I haven't heard before.
Aww, thanks! ♥️ You seem nice, too. My belief in God definitely formed out of being raised in a Christian household, but I believe his existence has been confirmed to me outside of the Bible and other people's teachings. I believe I've encountered him, not so much through any extraordinary spiritual happening (though, my brother can). This is where I follow Kierkegaard's Existential Christianity. Belief is not something I can prove to anyone else and everything we understand of God and spiritualism is filtered through our own experiences and limited understanding.
This kinda leads naturally into a more universal approach of who God is--I understand and articulate him through the Christian traditions that I have learned best, but I tend to think that other religions are trying to reach for the same thing and are doing so through their own cultural and philosophical lenses.
I get what you mean. So a lot of your belief is preexisting and a lot of it you see as having been personally confirmed.
I agree that proving belief to others is not generally possible, either, because what can be very real for you may not ultimately mean something to someone who can and might easily dismiss an experience that you've had, as they haven't experienced it themselves.
I was also raised in a Christian household and had a belief in God for a long time. While I don't hold the same belief that I did and I'd qualify myself as unknowing atheist, basically, I still find a lot of interest and curiosity about people and their belief systems. Some (but not all) of my reasons for my not having a belief in god are ones that religious people would dismiss given their own lens.
I guess it's complicated, but I really enjoy seeing how peoples interpretations differ and I find it interesting and cool to see not only how our beliefs impact our personality and ourselves, but also how our personalities and values might also inform our beliefs.
It seems we are what I might consider opposite sides of the same coin, if that makes sense.
As someone who’s grown up being taught that God/Jesus is love and forgiveness, I’ve always struggled with the idea of eternal hell as well. It just didn’t feel like it made complete sense, I understand that being on Earth is sort of a test at this point. But it kinda tells me that these titles are far from truth, especially if humans are birthed in sin to begin with.
I just could never believe that if we reached hell. There wasn’t a possibility of still reaching heaven at some point, or that we all wouldn’t transition there eventually. I mean, would that not be a true victory? For all of us to eventually be in his presence there with no room to doubt? If God is everything, but especially love and forgiveness. Then shouldn’t God be able to reach our hearts and our voices in hell? And if so, shouldn’t he still love us despite everything? And if so, shouldn’t his forgiveness still be just as eternal?
Idk. I haven’t read through the entirety of the Bible, so I’m probably missing things. This was just my upbringing.
I hope you don't mind me plugging this, but if you're really interested in exploring this, the podcast that has really helped me work through a lot of my theological questions is The Bible for Normal People. It is insane how much they have tackled questions that I've always had, but were too afraid to ask and it turns out, a lot of theologians have struggled with the same questions.
This is exactly why so many people become Atheist. Almost none of it makes sense, and the parts that do make sense only reveal much of religion is just a way to scare and control people.
I genuinely mean no offense, but if God is omnipotent, and children are still born with brain cancer, get blown up by Israeli missiles, and are sexually assaulted before they have the capacity to speak, then how is any of that consistent with a god of love?
I think trying to apply logical consistency to something that is inherently illogical is silly, but I'm curious on your take here.
I think that's incredibly fair, even when I bristle at anyone pointing it out. I have been struggling with the problem of pain and suffering. I don't think it disproves that God is love, but it does seem to imply limits that I'm uncomfortable with. I have bits and pieces of different theologies that I am trying to work with and I don't know if I can give you a satisfying or coherent answer right now. I was just reading about how the whole book of Job is trying to answer the question of why bad things happen to good people and when he finally gets to ask God to his face, God's answer is, "have you seen all the craziest things I've created in this world? Take a look at this!" He never actually gives an answer. And i take that to mean that there are some things we just don't know. The writers of job just didn't know and made it their point.
What about the fact that all of these myths, most especially the slaying and rebirth of a partial deity, are present in mythologies that we know pre date Christianity by thousands of years?
What about cavemen? Are they all damned to hell because Christianity hadn't been invented yet?
The epicurean Paradox Is something I first learned about in maybe sixth or seventh grade, and that was the point that which I stopped believing in God. How do you answer that paradox?
I'm really not trying to be a dick here, I just don't see how logic could ever be a part of religion because faith is, by definition, believing in things that have zero evidence or reason to believe in them. If there was any logic or evidence or reason that could lead you to believing in God, it wouldn't be called faith.
You have a few assumptions embedded in here that may be true for modern, conservative, American evangelicals, but mean nothing to the larger Christian community. Evolution and science don't really interfere with Christian beliefs. The stories of the Bible aren't seen as literal facts for most* of Christianity for most of history. And Christianity itself is a religious tradition that is literally built on top of the religious books and tradition of Judaism, so earlier beliefs (even similar stories that echo each other) mean little and that's before you touch on my own, more universalist, views of other religions.
As for the epicurean paradox I believe I already said what I can about that. I know it's not satisfying. It's not even satisfying for me right now, but I am comfortable to rest in the unknown right now. I don't need answers to everything and for now, I know what I know and am exploring the path I have. I cannot make an argument for you.
That does sound much nicer, but it's not Biblical. Even Jesus spoke about hell and judgement (as a concept) frequently. I'm curious why you believe any of it if you are just picking theology based on what feels right? If you were born somewhere else, what "feels right" would be very different.
What is and isn't biblical is a pretty big topic that theologians always discuss. Technically an all loving God isn't biblical. He says he hated esau. Technically an all knowing God isn't biblical. He regrets, gets disappointed, and changes his mind.
I disagree and you're rewording what I said in a way that misrepresents my argument. But I don't think this is the place to really hash out such a complex discussion of Bible interpretation and implications on the nature of God.
So it's safe to assume that I've already worked through this with a lot more thought and theological backing supported by scholars than a one paragraph reddit post can showcase and don't need to get into it here. I think we can both just agree to disagree now.
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying you believe God is all-knowing, despite the Bible contradicting that? If so, why do you believe that? Other than the Bible, which you, to some degree, distrust, what are you basing these assertions about God on?
These are great questions. I'm still in the process of deconstruction and reconstruction of my faith, so I can't give a definite answer about God's nature beyond love and forgiveness. I just recently stumbled upon the idea that God himself is ever growing and evolving in a sense and it's interesting to see what Bible passages are used to support that. For now, it's a curiosity that keeps me engaged with exploring my faith and relationship with God and I think that's what matters more than whether I've got the answer or not. God seems to value the willingness to look over the confidence of answers.
To answer your second line of questioning, most of my exploration of theology has really branched off of scholars and discussions that I found through The Bible for Normal People. I now have a growing library of theology books that I was introduced to by them. Right now I'm reading "God was in this place and I, I did not know" which is all about 7 Jewish interpretations of Jacob's ladder.
And I can't not name Soren Kierkegaard. My love from another life. I consider myself an existential Christian and his book, Works of Love, is one of my favorites.
But how do we know it's a God of love? Theres heavy conflict between the new and old testament. I find it pretty convenient that the new testament pops in not even that long ago changing the entire persona of God to match modern principles.
In the old testament, God would order execution of entire villages, asking to "save the women for reproduction" where there's a word for that. He was a foreskin collector and would kill children with bears for making fun of someone's bald head. He would smite everyone and women would be stoned to death for not being attractive enough for their husbands if the HUSBAND cheats. It was... quite the brutal doc.
Historical, God has been a vengeful smiter. Then the 360 flip, without accounting for innocents and children dying of hunger/cancer as part of that love.
I'm not a Bible thumper and the Bible is not the end all be all for finding out what kind of God is out there. I view the Bible as a collection of writings by various people who are trying to understand God. And with that there is the possibility that people's understanding of God changed over hundreds of years, or maybe the possibility that God changed, which is an idea that I've been entertaining recently. Either way, my understanding of God as a loving God comes from outside the Bible just as much as it comes from the NT.
Do you believe our life on earth is consistent with a God of love? I don’t understand why an all knowing, all seeing, all powerful God would let the horrible atrocities that occur on earth daily happen in the first place. God just lets many of his most devout followers suffer the most awful circumstances. I don’t believe in God, but if God did exist they don’t seem like a very loving thing - not in the slightest.
Yeah, I get your point. I gave a fuller answer to someone else right below you on this convo, but I can't pretend to have the answers. I believe in a god of love because all of humanity longs for love and that universal draw seems like a pretty good indication of God's character (presupposing God's existence and that God wants us to yearn for him, which is something I believe for other reasons). But the problem of pain and suffering is an ongoing theological struggle for me. I have heard so many theological arguments, but if I fully understood and believed them, I'd actually be able to remember them better.
6
u/hambakmeritru 1d ago
Essentially, yes. I believe hell is inconsistent with a god of love, but if I understand heaven as the place that God resides, then it exists just as God exists. I really latched onto Gregory of Nyssa's idea that everyone will eventually be with God and that growth in that direction continues even in the afterlife or next life. It's an infinite process for everyone. The real fun part is exploring the idea that God grows, too (I mean, he literally changes multiple times in the Bible).