Christianity With No Hell

[Mythra]

Oh, and p.s. I resent your term "walked away from it"

 

To me, I got free from it.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

If hell were not part of the Christian Faith, would you have still walked away from it?

 

What else would have to go for you to be able to accept it?

 

Tap

TAP, Hell played no part in my decision to stop believing. I stopped believing because I see no evidence.

 

However, Hell does play a part in making christianity nonsensical from a purely logical standpoint. Without hell, at least the part about a just and loving god would not be in conflict with the doctrine of eternal torture for sincere non-belief.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

Christianity With No Hell, Would it matter?

 

My first thought when I read the title of the thread is that yes, it would matter.

 

Christianity would be a much smaller, much less potent religion without the fear factor. Hell is one of christianity's strongest sales (and retention) tools.

[bob]

If hell were not part of the Christian Faith, would you have still walked away from it?

I didn't walk away because of the idea of hell. Actually, after I walked away, I had some residual fears of going to hell (for a few minutes at least).

 

What else would have to go for you to be able to accept it?

It really has nothing to do with what has to go. It's what needs to come, namely...proof.

[Mythra]

TAP - some of these answers are not exactly what you expected, are they?

 

The doctrine of hell is one of christianity's greatest weaknesses (the point you were making with your starting of this thread) -

 

This is true. The thought of the Holocaust Jews screaming in eternal torment because they died without Jesus was a problem for me. It didn't help my opinion of God much.

 

However, the other side of the coin is that the doctrine of Hell is one of Christianity's greatest strengths - the point some of us countered with - (in terms of making new converts and keeping em once you get em)

 

Fear is a powerful emotion.

 

But, that's a hell of a way to try and get people to love you.

[white_raven23]

My question is actually a result of what some other Christian members are posting currently on Ex-C.

 

I see the Christian doctrine being softened to attempt to make it more appealing to everyone. So I decided to ask the question. 

 

Another example of how important it is for christians that people believe. If people don't believe, funny how the religion gets tweaked and doctored to make it acceptable to the hesitant audience.

 

How is that supposed to work if christianity is supposed to be truth? Flexibility of the doctrine for the convinience of the intended worshippers makes the religion in question even less believable to people who've left it, not more believable.

 

It seems really PC and cool that religion can change and "grow" to fit the needs of the people.....but if the intolerant biblegod were the true god.....HOW is that tweaking or the "true" religion OKAY?

 

If christians really believed in their own god, they wouldn't dare to change a thing.

[been borg again]

Another example of how important it is for christians that people believe. If people don't believe, funny how the religion gets tweaked and doctored to make it acceptable to the hesitant audience.

 

How is that supposed to work if christianity is supposed to be truth? Flexibility of the doctrine for the convinience of the intended worshippers makes the religion in question even less believable to people who've left it, not more believable.

 

It seems really PC and cool that religion can change and "grow" to fit the needs of the people.....but if the intolerant biblegod were the true god.....HOW is that tweaking or the "true" religion OKAY?

 

If christians really believed in their own god, they wouldn't dare to change a thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thats why fundies hate the liberal christian movement, they think its a perversion of Truth

[been borg again]

That is so very true~~  Where does one get off changing the nature of biblegod and his laws?  Read the torah, does it look like god is soft???  Does it look like he is giving an option without consequence?  SOME Christians just keep on adding to the ever progressing changes and believing them because of something that was supposedly "revealed",to another in christianity that supposedly "walks with god".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think the term with the fueding christian denominations

is Progressive Revelation vs. Revealed Truth... or something along those lines.

Most fundies think any progressive revelation is from the devil

[Totallyatpeace]

Since you obviously consider me a fundie, I will respond to this.

 

I have a problem with the faith being watered down because it strikes me as a way of bringing people into the faith under false pretenses. You either accept it as the Bible says or you object it in it’s entirety.

 

But hate the liberal movement? No........just disagree.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

You either accept it as the Bible says or you object it in its entirety.

TAP,

 

Why do you think the bible (as put together around the 4th century) is the final word of your god? Do you believe those catholics were divinely guided to pick the proper books and discard the heretical ones?

 

Do you think your god no longer reveals additional insight to his followers, or no longer changes the rules as he did with divorce between the old and new testaments?

 

In other words - why do you think you must accept the bible in its entirety to be a true christian? According to the bible itself, the Judeo-Christian religion evolved significantly from the time of Abraham to the time of Paul - why wouldn't it continue to evolve beyond what the bible says?

[Barnacle Bill]

If hell were not part of the Christian Faith, would you have still walked away from it?

 

What else would have to go for you to be able to accept it?

 

Tap

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

In my opinion, if hell were not a part of the christian faith...there would presently be no christianity (or new testament, for that matter). So, in effect, at this point in time I wouldn't have had to walk away from something that I've never been associated with. But, <sigh> unfortunately for those that still cling to the christian belief system, the "no hell" doctrine is not a viable option.

 

What would be the point of having a saviour? What would we need to be saved from if there was no eternal damnation to fear? Would we still have the same motivation and passion to adhere to all of the rules, guidelines and examples set forth in the bible? Would our unquestioned faith in all of the incredibly unrealistic stories in the bible still be as strong without the fear factor of hell lodged firmly in our minds? Personally...I doubt it VERY seriously.

 

Aside from hopefully being able to perform a few cool parlor tricks and acquiring the ability to morph from one dimension to another, like Jesus has been allegedly credited with doing...what would be the point of worshiping the biblical version of god as our creator if we weren't afraid of retribution by way of fire and brimstone if we faltered? If we did worship such an entity, in my opinion, given the "evidence" in the bible...we certainly WOULD be children of a lesser god.

 

What possible desire could Ultimate Deity actually have for eternal damnation? What could possibly be the need of Ultimate Deity to administer punishment for infinity that is so horrid we can't even begin to fathom it? In my construct, Ultimate Deity would BE the pinnacle and the epitome of ethereal splendor...not an all encompassing tyrant exemplifying the dregs of human ego.

 

 

As far as "what else would have to go before I could accept it"...pretty much everything except 1 Corinthians 13...and the great grub at those summer BarBQ's.

[Lokmer]

If hell were not part of the Christian Faith, would you have still walked away from it?.

 

Yes. I stopped believing in hell a LONG time before I was forced to give up my Christianity. I started doubting the doctrine at first when I realized that Judaism had no doctrine of an eternal soul or eternal punishment, and that the idea we have of hell comes from Persia. I then undertook an extensive study in the Greek and learned that the "hell" taught the New Testament is "Destruction" - i.e. the snuffing out of the soul. The "eternal firey punishment" is reserved only for the demons, the false prophet, and the Beast, and is mentioned only in Revlation 22. This was far more in line with earlier Judaic doctrine, so it was a no-brainer to change my beliefs in that way.

 

Moreover, I found that Christitianity works *better* as far as internal consistancy of doctrines without hell. There is still salvation from death and judgement, and the rest of the religion is doctrinally uneffected by removing hell from the equation.

 

My reasons for walking away from the faith were far more funamental than hell. Two of the main ones (not the only ones, but the real deal-breakers) follow:

 

1) God's promises regarding his involvement with people and answering prayers would have to be true - they're not.

2) Jesus would have to have been *at least* the prophet of God. The gospels (partly from their contradictions, partly internally) all portray Jesus as a liar (gospel of John), criminal (synoptics), and a false prophet (synoptics and John) according to the law of God laid down by Moses. Would God be so unutterably stupid as to tell his people how to spot a false prophet and then show up and behave like one? I think not. Jesus, even if he existed, is not the messiah - is not even from God - IF any of the Torah is to be believed as the word of God. If the Torah is wrong, Jesus loses anyway, since he cites it as being true, correct, good, and from the hand of God. Slam dunk, Jesus is a false prophet. Your only other alternative is that God is a trickster or a fool, and I'd be hesitant to defame any diety thusly - although nature reveals a very odd sense of order and a tinkerer's approach to creation, if there is a God nature still reveals one that is big on consistancy and structure.

 

What else would have to go for you to be able to accept it?

 

It would need to be true - that's it. My approach is not consumerist in nature. It could be utterly hideous, grotesque, and unpleasant - it wouldn't matter if it was true. I might fight against it, but I would still believe - I'd have no choice. I believe in the Holocaust - it doesn't mean I approve of it. Chistianity is simply not true - it has failed every test of truth I have ever been able to devise for it, both external and internal. That it fails several moral tests is interesting, but only obliquely related to whether or not it is true.

 

You see, when I was seventeen and having a rollicking good time exploring all sorts of things (this was about the time I discovered my love for comparative relgious and mythological studies) I read The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis. There is a passage in one of the letters where he is talking about the academic approach to ancient knowledge:

 

"...when a learned man is presented with any statement in an ancient author, the one question he never asks is whether it is true. He asks who influenced the ancient writer, and how far the statement is consistent with what he said in other books, and what phase in the writer's development, or in the general history of thought, it illustrates, and how it affected later writers, and how often it has been misunderstood, (specially by the learned man's own colleagues) and what the general course of criticism on it has been for the last ten years, and what is the "present state of the question." To regard the ancient writer as a possible source of knowledge-to anticipate that what he said could possibly modify your thoughts or you behavior-this would be rejected as unutterably simple-minded...[consequently]great scholars are now as little nourished by the past as a common mechanic who holds that 'History is bunk.'"

 

This passage shamed me - shamed me to the core. Because I had been studying all manner of things and enjoying them, thinking about them, but never once - NEVER ONCE - asking that most important of questions: "Is it true." Furthermore, growing up in an academic world I recognized that it was very possible to walk one's whole life in the company of dead giants and never once give them the time of day. I vowed, then and there, that "Is it true" would be the first and last question I asked of everything, including my most dearly held beliefs and authorities (Christianity and The Bible, repsectively). All the other questions are important, but they all are important in service to the main question - they help one figure out whether "it's true" or not.

 

"Truth is a river, and God is the mouth of the river" -J. Michaels Straczynski, atheist. If there is a God, then truth must flow from God. One does no honor to any diety that may exist by spending one's days in devotion to a demonstrably false doctrine. I would rather be damned for my pursuit of truth in integrity than be saved because I was too afraid to go on the quest in the first place. Any god of integrity will reward the honest seeker sooner and more fully than the fideist. And if there is no personal god (as I think more likley), then why would I want to waste the precious gift of life in service to another man's lies and delusions?

 

-Lokmer

[Alice]

Terms like 'watered down' - may be how liberal christianity 'appears' to those who are more fundamentalist in their approach ... but its not a case of 'watering' down the religion in question - its about seeing the religion completely differently.

 

its not about saying 'ooo if you really believed in biblegod you wouldn't dare change anything' - its only if you believe like a fundamentalist that you wouldn't dare change anthing!

 

Its about saying - 'the Bible is collection of stories and accounts that illustrate some of the searchings and ponderings of a group of people in their search to find god and I'm joining the search'

[Lokmer]

Then there is the whole creation story of Genesis... I could never swallow that. Adam living to 900 years old?? I heard some people believe he was 90 feet tall... with Eve being a standard female.

 

The 90 feet tall thing is a Muslim doctrine, and is unique to Islam.

 

-Lokmer

[bob]

Since you obviously consider me a fundie, I will respond to this.

 

I have a problem with the faith being watered down because it strikes me as a way of bringing people into the faith under false pretenses. You either accept it as the Bible says or you object it in it’s entirety.

TAP, is this how you actually feel? If so, then, to be honest, you do meet the requirements for membership in the fundie club...don't you?

[Lokmer]

TAP, you have no idea how courageous the people are here.  To look past the fear of hell and start to examine the evidence with an open mind. 

 

We believe so much that Christianity is a deception and a man-made falsehood, that we are willing to risk eternity on it.  Every one of us knows that if we are wrong, we will pay a horrible price.  And it's scary sometimes.

 

Indeed - I didn't fear hell until after I left. And I didn't believe in hell beforehand. In fact I knew for a fact that it wasn't a biblical doctrine. Still, there was the occasional flash of "If I'm wrong about the rest of it, I could be wrong about hell too, and then I'll go there."

 

But I must follow the truth, wherever it leads. And, although there are many things I do not know, and I will never be certain about what the truth is in an ultimate sense, I am utterly convinced that Christianity (while containing some laudable elements and some true ideas) is ultimately utterly false.

 

-Lokmer

[Totallyatpeace]

TFT~

 

I simply meant that the Word of God says it does not change. My understanding of it may change but the words do not.

 

It’s really pointless on my part to discuss this anymore. Being here was never about apologetics to me. The original question in this thread does have to do with why I came here.......for greater understanding of why you are an Ex-C.

 

Thanks for all of your good answers.

 

Tap

[Cerise]

Welcome

[Totallyatpeace]

I think I'll go take me in a Haiku.

 

 

Peace, peace, peace.........

[Godless Dave]

I see the Christian doctrine being softened to attempt to make it more appealing to everyone. So I decided to ask the question. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You could see it as being softened, but if you did some research into early Christianity you would find that the whole concept of hell was added by the early Catholic church. As has been pointed out, punishment and separation from God are mentioned in the New Testament, but not in terms of an afterlife. And it's not in the Old Testament at all, nor has it ever been a Jewish belief.

[white_raven23]

Since you obviously consider me a fundie, I will respond to this.

 

Obviously??? Obviously???

 

I never said any such thing TAP darlin'. You are implying that I meant to consider you a fundie. But nothing in my post indicated anything of the kind.

 

I was quoting your post to point out the one true thing that has kept Christianity around so long. My usage was not meant to reflect on you personally.

 

The religion has lingered not because christianity represents any sort of real truth....but because the truth seems to change with the times, despite the notions put forth in the bible (can't remember specific verses...sorry) that the god being worshipped through this truth is unchanging.

 

So....how is it the truth can change, when the being it's centered around has not? Because we've somehow become more able to understand that being? Okay....then where are the new books to be added to the bible? Where are the updates? And the apocrypha is not an update (nor is it material included in the bible). That material was written around the same time as the other books that did make the bible.

 

The NT is our only update so far.....aren't we overdue for some new text in light of our supposed growing understanding of god?

[nightflight]

I take it that when you say "hell" you mean the traditional eternal hell.

 

I have to say that I might be a christian if it wasn't for the hateful doctrine of hell. Maybe I would have sown some wild oats first, but life has a way of humbling you. There is plenty in our existence to be "saved" from; death, meaninglessness, hopelessness, lack of love, loneliness.............I don't understand the christian who cries "if there is no hell then what did jesus save us from??!!" other than their own need to have other people be excluded and to suffer.

[Totallyatpeace]

Obviously??? Obviously???

 

I never said any such thing TAP darlin'. You are implying that I meant to consider you a fundie. But nothing in my post indicated anything of the kind.

 

I was quoting your post to point out the one true thing that has kept Christianity around so long. My usage was not meant to reflect on you personally.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was referring to Bob's post.

[chefranden]

Without hell, what would be the point? Being Christian doesn't provide any benefits outside of membership in a paranoid, controlling community in this life. Why bother with a savior if there is nothing to be saved from?

[nightflight]

TAP, would you stay a christian if it wasn't for hell? It would be quite telling if you said no. It would take the mask off of xianity; show its true colors.

 

Christianity (the traditional/evagelical/fundamentalist kind) is based in fear, it is built on fear. It is a threat, its a mugging, its extortion, its a hold-up, its terrorism. To call it "good news" does violence to the English language.