Do people still believe in Hell?

[Tora Ziyal]

I've been rather interested, of late, of reading both Catholic doctrine, as well as the Jewish point of view on the OT. Been a very interesting journey to see how they regard the Tanakh. It's also why I have a Hebrew and Greek Bible. There is a lot more history than is realized at first glance.


I must have missed that "Screw Calvinists" in Catechism.

Ha! I missed that part, too.

I was Catholic for 60ish years. Even have an M.Div. degree from a Catholic seminary. Am currently studying Judaism and Hebrew.

(Sorry for the double post. Just noticed Fireproof's comment and don't want to edit my previous one again.)

 

[Redfern]

I've heard certain relatives (I won't list names or exact lineage) proclaim the "kingdom of heaven is only accessible only through accepting Jesus Christ as one's lord and savior". But even as a child, I saw a dreadfully "exclusive" aspect of that verse. Precocious lil' bugger I could be at times, I would occasionally ask, "What about the millions of people across the world who never even heard OF the Bible, let alone read it?" they would usually dismiss my query with a flawed "pat" answer. "Don't you think otherwise; They KNOW about the Bible. They just CHOOSE not to follow it!" These relatives seem to honestly believe missionaries had somehow managed to contact EVERY single "heathen" on the planet. I would counter," Well, what about those people who died before the missionaries got there?" This is when the replies occasionally turned particularly loathsome. "Well, they made the mistake of dying before the missionaries got there. They just went to Hell." And they would say this with no more remorse than if these "damned" souls had missed a limited time coupon special.

 

[BillJ]

...I would occasionally ask, "What about the millions of people across the world who never even heard OF the Bible, let alone read it?" they would usually dismiss my query with a flawed "pat" answer.

I would have gotten knocked on my ass for asking such a question in my house.

 

[fireproof78]

See, the problem there is that it does two things: One, it makes it look like God's holiness prevents him from allowing people whom he may otherwise want in heaven. This implies that God is not omnipotent. Two, it says that the way to holiness is to say the right words, which activate the transformation. Theoretically, one could murder millions, and as long as one recants at some point, one is in the clear. That makes the murderer acceptable to divine holiness.

It makes no sin greater or less than another. Sin was once described as "menstrual rags" before God. God's holiness is that high of a standard, which is why the Levitical law is so detailed. That's the standard, and it's impossible to keep every letter of that law.

Beyond that, I leave it to God's judgement. My goal is summed up with Jesus' summation of the law:

Matthew 22:36-40New American Standard Bible (NASB)
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.”

And I love Jesus very Rabbinic teaching question to the Pharisees when he was accused of eating with sinners:

On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

And a commentary I came across while searching that verse.
[

Jesus longs for us to move beyond the idea of sacrifice—what we feel obligated to give up to be perceived as religious. He wants us to get our hearts involved, tangled up with other people’s lives, so the word sacrifice drops out of our vocabulary, so that all we know is the passion to love others as he loves us.

Jesus ate with Matthew and his friends because he wanted to. He loved them. I envision laughter, jokes, backslapping, and joy. Especially joy.

The Pharisees couldn’t conceive of that kind of camaraderie between the pious and the publicans, the upright and the upended, the moral and the maligned. But Jesus didn’t label people. So he loved Nicodemus as genuinely as he loved Zacchaeus, and Mary of Bethany as he loved Mary Magdalene. He always looked beyond a person’s history toward a person’s future.

I don't know if that answers your questions or not, but there are many that I think will be in Heaven that will surprise even me. But, that's not my judgement to make. So I don't. I sleep better now.

I've heard certain relatives (I won't list names or exact lineage) proclaim the "kingdom of heaven is only accessible only through accepting Jesus Christ as one's lord and savior". But even as a child, I saw a dreadfully "exclusive" aspect of that verse. Precocious lil' bugger I could be at times, I would occasionally ask, "What about the millions of people across the world who never even heard OF the Bible, let alone read it?" they would usually dismiss my query with a flawed "pat" answer. "Don't you think otherwise; They KNOW about the Bible. They just CHOOSE not to follow it!" These relatives seem to honestly believe missionaries had somehow managed to contact EVERY single "heathen" on the planet. I would counter," Well, what about those people who died before the missionaries got there?" This is when the replies occasionally turned particularly loathsome. "Well, they made the mistake of dying before the missionaries got there. They just went to Hell." And they would say this with no more remorse than if these "damned" souls had missed a limited time coupon special.

And that's why I hold to God holding people to what they would know, including people before Christ, before Moses, or what-have-you.

 

[Amaris]

It makes no sin greater or less than another. Sin was once described as "menstrual rags" before God. God's holiness is that high of a standard, which is why the Levitical law is so detailed. That's the standard, and it's impossible to keep every letter of that law.

Beyond that, I leave it to God's judgement. My goal is summed up with Jesus' summation of the law:


And I love Jesus very Rabbinic teaching question to the Pharisees when he was accused of eating with sinners:

And a commentary I came across while searching that verse.
[
I don't know if that answers your questions or not, but there are many that I think will be in Heaven that will surprise even me. But, that's not my judgement to make. So I don't. I sleep better now.

And that's why I hold to God holding people to what they would know, including people before Christ, before Moses, or what-have-you.

Why would menstrual rags be seen as an embodiment of sin? Why would something natural, a simple biological process, be seen as filthy to the one who created it? If God's holiness standard is so high that it excludes his own creation, one that he called "good," then God is both limited, and incapable of being outside his holiness. He doesn't have the power to save his own creation, from a system he designed and called good, and has to jump through hoops just to get them where he wants them, and he'll still lose billions of lives/souls in the process. That does not inspire confidence.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Sin was once described as "menstrual rags" before God.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but in Isaiah 64:6, it's actually all our good deeds that are described as "menstrual rags." It's like we are that unworthy.

 

[fireproof78]

Why would menstrual rags be seen as an embodiment of sin? Why would something natural, a simple biological process, be seen as filthy to the one who created it? If God's holiness standard is so high that it excludes his own creation, one that he called "good," then God is both limited, and incapable of being outside his holiness. He doesn't have the power to save his own creation, from a system he designed and called good, and has to jump through hoops just to get them where he wants them, and he'll still lose billions of lives/souls in the process. That does not inspire confidence.

I don't think I have a good answer for you, at least not one that will satisfy. I don't think its a lot of hoops, because God did the hoop jumping by setting the standard, recognizing that humans couldn't make the standard, and made the sacrifice Himself.

God's also not going to hold everyone accountable beyond what they could have known, nor is He going to force people to be in His presence, i.e. "Heaven" if they didn't want to be with Him in the first place.

People still have freedom of choice.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but in Isaiah 64:6, it's actually all our good deeds that are described as "menstrual rags" before God. It's like we are that unworthy.

Thank you.

 

[Amaris]

I don't think I have a good answer for you, at least not one that will satisfy. I don't think its a lot of hoops, because God did the hoop jumping by setting the standard, recognizing that humans couldn't make the standard, and made the sacrifice Himself.

God did no hoop jumping for that which he did not choose to create Himself. Not only that, but hoop jumping is seen as an inconvenience because it consumes time and effort. God has an unlimited supply of both, and loses nothing from the jumping He has chosen to do, because it is the system He chose to create. He does not have to abide by its rules, because by His very nature, everything He does is the new rule. If God says the sky is orange, it's orange. For that reason, God both can and cannot lie. A lie instantly becomes the truth, unless the lie is willed into existence, because God is the creator of both good and evil, of life and destruction (His words).

If there is evil, it's because God wishes it to exist.

God's also not going to hold everyone accountable beyond what they could have known, nor is He going to force people to be in His presence, i.e. "Heaven" if they didn't want to be with Him in the first place.

If God is omnipresent, there is no place without Him. Not even oblivion would be beyond His presence.

People still have freedom of choice.

That's the same thing politicians say when they use terms like "economic freedom," and "right to work." They're ways to hide the fact that what is actually happening is poor people are going hungry and staying sick because the people at the top withhold resources that would benefit those poor, because it eats into their own profits. God is (allegedly) omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. There is no such thing as excess anything, nor does God suffer any kind of risk. There doesn't need to be a choice, if God didn't will it to be so. That their is a choice means that God has not only decided to withhold resources that he could freely give without any risk, but that he has also prevented anyone from being 100% certain of which choice it is they need to make. You have been handed a gun with a million rounds in the chamber, and only one of them is empty. You only find out you choose the right one after you're dead and no longer able to learn from the choice made.

If there is a hell, it's because God wishes it to exist.

 

[fireproof78]

Hell wasn't meant for mankind. Evil, by it's nature, is the opposite of God's nature. God's holiness is the key point.

One writer puts it this way:

If we regard hell as a divine overreaction to sin, we deny that God has the moral right to inflict ongoing punishment on any humans. By denying hell, we deny the extent of God’s holiness. When we minimize sin’s seriousness, we minimize God’s grace in Christ’s blood, shed for us. For if the evils he died for aren’t significant enough to warrant eternal punishment, perhaps the grace displayed on the cross isn’t significant enough to warrant eternal praise.

I go back to C.S.Lewis, who writes better than I:

In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a question: “What are you asking God to do?” To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But he has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what he does.

Thank you for the thought provoking post!

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Asbo, just to clarify, the RCC does not teach Biblical literalism at all. Both Old Testament and New are open to interpretation.

Presumably as long as the interpretation doesn't conflict with that of the church in the case of the NT. I watched a BBC interview with a Jesuit priest astronomer at the Vatican who explained the RCC's views on the creation story and evolution. And yes, it's only very silly people who take the Bible to be literally true - some of them were members of my family when I was a child and were royal pains in the arse.

 

[fireproof78]

Presumably as long as the interpretation doesn't conflict with that of the church in the case of the NT. I watched a BBC interview with a Jesuit priest astronomer at the Vatican who explained the RCC's views on the creation story and evolution. And yes, it's only very silly people who take the Bible to be literally true - some of them were members of my family when I was a child and were royal pains in the arse.

It depends on the portion of Scripture

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

It depends on the portion of Scripture

I asked awkward questions like who begat Cain's wife who dwelt in the land of Nod (Genesis 4:16-17). She wasn't Cain's sister. Why did Cain need to build a city there? Where did all the people come from needing housing? I think their only child was Enoch. Where did he find his wife?

 

[fireproof78]

I asked awkward questions like who begat Cain's wife who dwelt in the land of Nod (Genesis 4:16-17). She wasn't Cain's sister. Why did Cain need to build a city there? Where did all the people come from needing housing? I think their only child was Enoch. Where did he find his wife?

I hate weird questions like that
My uncle would ask similar ones like, "If twins are formed from one fertilized egg, what happens to the soul? Is it split in two?"

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

I hate weird questions like that
My uncle would ask similar ones like, "If twins are formed from one fertilized egg, what happens to the soul? Is it split in two?"

If evolution is accepted, when did we evolve a soul, seeing as animals don't have souls and so cannot be saved? (I was previously assured that they don't.) The answer given me was that evolution is a false idea put in men's heads by the Devil. This was contrary to the doctrine of the church of which I was a member.

We recognise science as a legitimate interpretation of God's natural world. ... We find that science's descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology.

 

[fireproof78]

If evolution is accepted, when did we evolve a soul, seeing as animals don't have souls and so cannot be saved? (I was previously assured that they don't.) The answer given me was that evolution is a false idea put in men's heads by the Devil. This was contrary to the doctrine of the church of which I was a member.

Those conversations must have been fun.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Those conversations are why I realised that I needed to get the hell out of Dodge.

 

[Amaris]

Hell wasn't meant for mankind. Evil, by it's nature, is the opposite of God's nature. God's holiness is the key point.

One writer puts it this way:
"If we regard hell as a divine overreaction to sin, we deny that God has the moral right to inflict ongoing punishment on any humans. By denying hell, we deny the extent of God’s holiness. When we minimize sin’s seriousness, we minimize God’s grace in Christ’s blood, shed for us. For if the evils he died for aren’t significant enough to warrant eternal punishment, perhaps the grace displayed on the cross isn’t significant enough to warrant eternal praise."

Evil is a part of God's nature. God claims that he is the creator of good and evil. Evil only exists because God created it. Sin only exists because God created it. Sin is only serious because God says it's serious. To sin means to miss the mark, those marks created by God who is not limited to any guideline or universal law.

Now, this means that God cannot abide imperfection, yet created imperfect creatures. If God is God, and is what he claims to be, then imperfection is a non-issue. Non-compliance is a non-issue, because none of these issues matter to a perfect, incorruptible being who controls all of space and time. It's not grace if you stab a man merely for existing, then leave the scene of the crime, along with a note that gives him directions to the nearest emergency room.

I go back to C.S.Lewis, who writes better than I:
In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a question: “What are you asking God to do?” To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But he has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what he does.


Thank you for the thought provoking post!

I had to unquote those in my response, because Xenforo removes multiple embedded quote dialogues, which is annoying. Anyway, Lewis' response here makes no sense. He's claiming God is God, but also denying God from owning up to his own responsibilities. The reason sin exists is because God created it. The reason people have to follow this convoluted method of salvation is because God set it up that way. If a wealthy man creates poverty by his actions, it is his responsibility to compensate those whom he wronged. God, instead, chose to be the rich man who demands fealty from those who wish to rise out of the poverty he created, and if they don't, well they can die in a ditch for all eternity, even though the wealthy man has unlimited resources with which to lift all of those he put into poverty back out of it again.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Evil is a part of God's nature. God claims that he is the creator of good and evil. Evil only exists because God created it. Sin only exists because God created it. Sin is only serious because God says it's serious. To sin means to miss the mark, those marks created by God who is not limited to any guideline or universal law.

Now, this means that God cannot abide imperfection, yet created imperfect creatures.

Meh, Catholicism pretty much accepts that we're all imperfect creatures and that God gave us the ability to be imperfect when he gave us free will. I'm not a believer but I grew up in a Catholic environment and nowhere was it ever mentioned that God expects us to be perfect. In fact, we were taught that we're all imperfect and that Jesus/God loves us even when we fail.

It sounds like your former brand of Christianity was very fundamentalist and not quite as relaxed.

It's kind of amusing that I'm looking like the big defender of Christianity here. But in all honesty my experiences with Catholicism weren't negative. Tolerance/acceptance and love were the values everybody kept stressing the most.

 

[Amaris]

Meh, Catholicism pretty much accepts that we're all imperfect creatures and that God gave us the ability to be imperfect when he gave us free will. I'm not a believer but I grew up in a Catholic environment and nowhere was it ever mentioned that God expects us to be perfect. In fact, we were taught that we're all imperfect and that Jesus/God loves us even when we fail.

It sounds like your former brand of Christianity was very fundamentalist and not quite as relaxed.

It was oppressive, and still is, because the effects of it still ripple outward. Even so, the fact that a hell exists in some theologies still speaks volumes. It says that a god who would create a hell wants a hell. If God truly did not want anyone to go to hell, it would not exist. If it wasn't made for mankind, then mankind wouldn't be at risk of it. Yet according to most forms of Christian theology, mankind is destined for it if it does not bow and submit. That's not grace for such a god to offer a chance out of something he created on purpose.

 

[{ Emilia }]

It was oppressive, and still is, because the effects of it still ripple outward. Even so, the fact that a hell exists in some theologies still speaks volumes. It says that a god who would create a hell wants a hell. If God truly did not want anyone to go to hell, it would not exist. If it wasn't made for mankind, then mankind wouldn't be at risk of it. Yet according to most forms of Christian theology, mankind is destined for it if it does not bow and submit. That's not grace for such a god to offer a chance out of something he created on purpose.

Well, even the pope doesn't seem to mind atheists all that much:

Pope Francis delivered another criticism of some members of his own Church on Thursday, suggesting it is better to be an atheist than one of "many" Catholics who he said lead a hypocritical double life.
"There are those who say 'I am very Catholic, I always go to Mass, I belong to this and that association'," the head of the 1.2 billion-member Roman Catholic Church said, according to a Vatican Radio transcript.

He said that some of these people should also say "'my life is not Christian, I don't pay my employees proper salaries, I exploit people, I do dirty business, I launder money, (I lead) a double life'."

"There are many Catholics who are like this and they cause scandal," he said. "How many times have we all heard people say 'if that person is a Catholic, it is better to be an atheist'."

In my own Catholic upbringing it was always stressed that it's important to be a good person and show compassion. Being a Grade A believer was secondary at best.

And by the way: I always like the Catholic Church best when it criticizes capitalism. That does seem like a very Christian thing to do. Being a voice for the poor.