Discussion With Ordinaryclay On Eternal Hell And The Veracity Of The New Testament

[Bhim]

This thread is an offshoot of the "What evidence would make you believe again?" thread.  OrdinaryClay and I would like to discuss the topic of eternal hell, and the historicity of the New Testament.  I think both of us are perfectly amenable to other participants.  But as I've said before, I think the doctrine of eternal hell is a very serious issue and is not something that people should joke about.  Millions of evangelical Christians believe that we (i.e. those who practice other religions) are going to suffer eternal conscious torment in a lake of fire for failing to convert to a specific Western European religion, namely Chistianity.  That is to say, they would assign for us the worst of all possible fates ever conceived by man.  I often hear people make jokes along the lines of "hell is where all the cool people are" or "the party's in hell."  I don't think that a single person, no matter how insane, truly desires to suffer the fate of hell as the Bible describes it.  These jokes diminish the doctrine of hell and the absolute evil that it represents.  Therefore I think it's important for people here to not joke about the idea of hell or make light of it.  Hell is the most horrible idea in the history of ideas, and ought to be erased from human memory.  Joking about it will not prevent evangelicals from believing in it.  It will only lead to misunderstandings about what evangelicals believe, and will cause others to tolerate the evil of evangelical Christianity, when we should in fact be condemning it and regarding evangelical Christianity as a moral evil.  In fact, I will go so far as to say that joking about hell is the intellectual equivalent of Holocaust denial.  You are attempting to deny that evangelicals think it a moral good that God should inflict eternal conscious torment on non-evangelicals.  I think that's an apt analogy, given that in both cases humans are being burned alive.

 

Forgive me for the excessively long preamble, I'll get to my point.  For the sake of this conversation I am not interested in general forms of Christianity, but evangelical Christianity in specific.  Evangelicals today are engaged in a number of intellectual battles including creationism, ethics (specifically abortion and homosexuality), objective truth and morality vs. relativism, etc.  However, we as ex-Christians have all been to church (most of us for years).  I'm sure many of us have also had "coffeeshop evangelism" conversations.  Some of us were the evangelist, and some were the non-Christian.  Some of us have been both.  In my experience, the thing evangelicals care about most isn't the age of the earth or moral philosophy.  Evangelicals care about the salvation of souls from hell.  Christianity is often summarized by John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."  Implicit in this summary is the idea of hell.  To "perish" means to go to hell.  And we needn't speculate, because Jesus makes this clear in John 3:36, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."  If you believe that the gospel is the central message of Christianity (as per the standard evangelical definition of "the gospel"), then you believe that the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is central to Christianity.

 

I often hear Christians, especially Reformed Christians, claim that this is a moral good.  The basis for this belief is divine command theory, which states that any action is good if God commands it.  So then, because God commands that anyone who commits a single sin against him should suffer eternal conscious torment, the condemnation is thus just and good.  However, this conclusion presupposes that the New Testament is true.  For the purposes of this dicussion, I'm willing to stipulate that absolute good and evil exist (and for the record, I do believe in absolute morality).  I also do not specifically contest the accuracy of the Old Testament.  The doctrine of eternal hell is taught nowhere in the Old Testament, except perhaps in a very narrow reading of Daniel 12:2.

 

Evangelical Christians essentially would have me believe, on the basis of a realtively small set of documents, that I will suffer eternal torment for not discarding the religion of my ancestors to practice a faith based around an effeminate, Western European male. [Effeminate because he is depicted as such in the earliest of Christian iconography, and Western European because the character of Jesus seems heavily influenced by Greek culture.]  Now, even if Jesus did do all of the things the Bible claims he did, I could point to equally spectacular miraculous works by a Hindu figure by the name of Shirdi Sai Baba who was born after the age of photography and whose existence can thus be confirmed.  Indeed I've mentioned this to Christians in the past, and no Christian ever gives me a valid answer as to why I should believe in Jesus and not the Hindu figure.  I imagine some Christians would regard the latter as demon possessed, even though he taugh nonviolence and benevolence (unlike Jesus).  I'm sure OrdinaryClay sees the lack of logic in this line of reasoning.  If demonic activity is equated with "anything that doesn't agree with the New Testament," then accusations of demoniac activity are logically worthless.

 

However, I do not believe that evangelicals have even demonstrated their central premise that the New Testament is true.  When  I ask Christians to demonstrate this, they typically cite single passages by Flavius Josephus, Senator Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger.  One passage is thought to be a pious forgery, one is an innocuous statement of Jesus' execution which says nothing of his resurrection, and one is simply a statement on the beliefs and practices of early Christians.  I have not seen a convincing argument that I should believe sufficiently much of the New Testament to convince me to abandon my religion for Jesus.

 

Even the New Testament acknowledges that there exists a human conscience which helps us know right from wrong.  I know of no non-Christians who believe that eternal conscious torment is a moral good (and I doubt evangelicals want to bring up Muslims as a counterexample).  If a religious text teaches what we know to be evil, we should not redefine morality.  We should instead reject the text as not given by God, unless there is an exceedingly good reason to do so.  Even evangelicals will agree that the mind uninfluenced by Christianity will not approve of eternal conscious torment.  My question, then, is: why should I accept the New Testament on the basis of shoddy apologetic arguments, when there is a weighty moral case against it?

[Adam5]

Hi Bhim

 

If its ok to chime in, and play devil's advocate, I could explain the Christian position, even though I am not advocating it.

 

Quote - "Millions of evangelical Christians believe that we (i.e. those who practice other religions) are going to suffer eternal conscious torment in a lake of fire for failing to convert to a specific Western European religion, namely Chistianity."

 

I get this.  And to be honest this is one reason why I am not a Christian, amongst many, many others!  You are right on the general point.  Religion is a largely product of geography.

 

However for the sake of argument...

 

Many Christians would correct you, by saying, that hell is not a physical place where God sends people to torture in flames, but that it is a spiritual condition.  People chose to accept or reject God and those that reject him, eternally separate themselves from God. Those who die in an unrepentent state choose not to be with God, and as their souls are eternal.  So "hell" is their spiritual condition of excluding themselves from God's love.

 

The other point is that Christianity is not a Western European religion but a global, universal one, and that other non-christians can be saved through being ignorant of the Christian faith and worshipping God to the best of their ability and living a good life.

 

See I'm quite good at this!?  How messed up am I knowing all this rubbish!

 

The Christian arguments strikes me as "smoke and mirrors" to get around problematic dogma.

 

Now back to reality. There is no good evidence of any heaven or hell, so please, carry on are you were!  Cheers, Adam

[florduh]

As far as I can determine, there is no evidence that the Bible is valid nor is there any evidence that Shirdi Sai Baba was anything more than a popular "holy" scam artist in the time honored tradition of the area. People believe in such things because they want to or are simply gullible, not because it makes sense or has proof.

 

Christianity is based on the Bible. Once a Christian believes the Bible is the Word of God, the doctrine of Hell is accepted not because it makes sense but because it's what Jesus taught, like it or not. Of all the unfounded religious teachings we find in the world, Christianity is probably the most damaging simply because of this single doctrine. People who claim Christianity but discard the doctrine of Hell are being less than honest with themselves. Most like to see that as a kinder and gentler Christianity, but how many clearly taught major doctrines may one discard before it's no longer Christianity?

[Storm]

I agree with you Florduh. But I will say this. I think in this age of enlightenment and easy access to all sorts of information, the propagation of "accept god or you will burn in hell" christianity has been replaced with the converse "god loves you and wants a relationship with you" touchy feely experiential christianity. Mainstream speakers such as Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer and Rob Bell are all teaching love, not punishment christianity. Rob Bell is going so far as to preach that no one will go to hell, but that god will ultimately triumph. The younger generation, in my opinion, are getting away from the "this is what my parents believed" religiosity and moving towards their own belief systems. I grew up in a hellfire brimstone type preaching system in the 80's and I have watched it turn into a completely different system altogether. Christianity has learned to evolve and adapt (ironically) so that it is able to continue to be relevant in this changing world. I believe that at some point, it will be unable to evolve any more and it will die out. I just cannot see a scenario where it can be manipulated any more than it already has been.

[florduh]

Storm, if Christianity is no longer to be based upon the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, from where does the religion derive its authority? The infallible and inspired wisdom of Osteen? Is that still to be considered Christianity? Why?

 

Christians! Don't be pussies! Hell is a cornerstone of your outrageous religion!

[Storm]

Storm, if Christianity is no longer to be based upon the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, from where does the religion derive its authority? The infallible and inspired wisdom of Osteen? Is that still to be considered Christianity? Why?

 

Christians! Don't be pussies! Hell is a cornerstone of your outrageous religion!

Jesus doesn't want you to go to hell, florduh. He loved you so much that he died for you so you wouldn't have to go there. He loves you so much that if you accept him we wont have to talk about it and we can just focus on the love part. It sure feels good to be loved by god, doesn't it. Love, love, love. Touchy feely tingly , oh I feel the tingles, do you?

[par4dcourse]

"Therefore I think it's important for people here to not joke about the idea of hell or make light of it. "

 

I disagree, Bhim. Hell is simply a concept designed solely to control the flock, and bring in more bingo bucks for the controllers. It's a silly notion and maybe depicting it as such will steal some of the fear factor.

[amateur]

But xianity HAS changed and evolved over time.  The focus changes, interpretations change, and different parts are emphasized or ignored during different ages AND in different denominations AND among different churches AND among different preachers.  I remember in third grade reading about the Pilgrims and how they HAD to spend most of the day in church and there were people with rods that would whack anyone in the pew on the head if they fell asleep.  There was absolutely no working on Sundays, as per the bible.  They took hell seriously.  Contrast that with the rock concert type/entertainment type of church we have now.  Slick, over-produced videos with close-ups of the band (so much for worshiping god).  And that relationship theology we now have that Storm mentioned!  And what about the prosperity gospel???!!!  Can you imagine what one of those Pilgrim Fathers would think walking into one of these entertainment, non-denominational churches of today?  He would surely think he had ENTERED hell with all the loud music and flashing lights!

 

Because the bible is so loosely written, so full of stories and myths, so full of things that can be interpreted many, many ways, it is useless as an operating manual.  It is literature, it is poetry and parables and stories and myths -- IT IS ART.  As art, it can and is and will always be interpreted individually by people who read it.  And most people don't read it!  They rely on their pastor's interpretation, then they interpret the sermon with their own understanding and life experiences!  The bible is NOT written like your operating manual for your tv, which most people could interpret the same way so they can make their tv work.  The bible is written as literature and art, and anybody reading it or hearing it will read or hear it through the lens of their own personal lives and experiences, and will understand it differently.

 

Because Jesus spoke (or the imaginary character of Jesus was written to speak) in parables, using stories, saying things like "I have so much more to tell you, but you can't understand," and contradicting himself, all those denominations of xianity can pick things that Jesus said and say, "This is what he meant and this is how we're going to live our lives as xians."  Thus, hellfire and brimstone, relationship gospel, prosperity gospel, "believe in me and you will be saved," "cut off your hand if it offends thee," etc etc.

 

That's why I quit believing the bible as anything true.  It can't be definitively interpreted because it was written as literature and art and as such was meant to be individually interpreted.  If god was so all-fired omnibrilliant, he could have written a 10-page operating manual (in all different languages) outlining exactly who he is, who jesus is, who the holy ghost is, what we need to do while on earth, exactly what will happen when we die, if anything will happen after we die and exactly what that would be.  

 

I also very much believe that some denominations and preachers emphasize hell in order to control the flock, keep the guilt up in order to keep people coming to church and tithing.

[OrdinaryClay]

Bhim,

For some reason I thought you were going to engage in polemic. If you wish to address evil in the world open your eyes.

Look to the horrible persecution engaged in by Hindus this very day. This did not happen centuries ago. It happens today.
http://www.persecution.in/
http://www.persecution.org/category/countries/asia/india/
http://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/search/?q=india
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=+india+site%3Abosnewslife.com

Or the inhumanity allowed and perpetuated by the Hindu religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India
http://www.worldmag.com/2013/09/the_female_holocaust
"Preema, a young woman from a rural village in southern India, is the 12th daughter born to her parents. Yet, she has no older sisters. Each time Preema’s mother became pregnant and gave birth to a girl, she and her husband killed the newborn—disappointed it hadn’t been a boy. After 12 births, Preema (not her real name), was the only girl they allowed to live. "

Yes, indeed the god's of Hinduism are demonic. You are deceived.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pishacha

"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
(Mat 7:16)
 

[OrdinaryClay]

I agree with you Florduh. But I will say this. I think in this age of enlightenment and easy access to all sorts of information, the propagation of "accept god or you will burn in hell" christianity has been replaced with the converse "god loves you and wants a relationship with you" touchy feely experiential christianity. Mainstream speakers such as Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer and Rob Bell are all teaching love, not punishment christianity. Rob Bell is going so far as to preach that no one will go to hell, but that god will ultimately triumph. The younger generation, in my opinion, are getting away from the "this is what my parents believed" religiosity and moving towards their own belief systems. I grew up in a hellfire brimstone type preaching system in the 80's and I have watched it turn into a completely different system altogether. Christianity has learned to evolve and adapt (ironically) so that it is able to continue to be relevant in this changing world. I believe that at some point, it will be unable to evolve any more and it will die out. I just cannot see a scenario where it can be manipulated any more than it already has been.

I find this post the most interesting I've seen here in a long time.

 

There are many in the west who engage in feel good prosperity based marketing hype they then call Christianity. It is not, but I would say it is foolish to believe Christianity is doomed to fade out. Not by a long shot. It is booming across the world. Real Christianity is revolutionising Asia, Africa and South America. It is transforming China from the inside.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Beijing-Christianity-Transforming-Changing/dp/B00DPO815Y

 

[mymistake]

Bhim,

 

For some reason I thought you were going to engage in polemic. If you wish to address evil in the world open your eyes.

 

Look to the horrible persecution engaged in by Hindus this very day. This did not happen centuries ago. It happens today.

http://www.persecution.in/

http://www.persecution.org/category/countries/asia/india/

http://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/search/?q=india

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=+india+site%3Abosnewslife.com

 

Or the inhumanity allowed and perpetuated by the Hindu religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

http://www.worldmag.com/2013/09/the_female_holocaust

"Preema, a young woman from a rural village in southern India, is the 12th daughter born to her parents. Yet, she has no older sisters. Each time Preema’s mother became pregnant and gave birth to a girl, she and her husband killed the newborn—disappointed it hadn’t been a boy. After 12 births, Preema (not her real name), was the only girl they allowed to live. "

 

Yes, indeed the god's of Hinduism are demonic. You are deceived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pishacha

 

"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?

(Mat 7:16)

 

 

Uh, what does any of that have to do with Bhim's original post?  This is Bhim's thread and for his sake I will keep my comments to you, OrdinaryClay, polite and on topic.

 

I would be very interested in seeing you address the last two paragraphs of Bhim's OP.  With my own emphasis added:

 

 

"However, I do not believe that evangelicals have even demonstrated their central premise that the New Testament is true.  When  I ask Christians to demonstrate this, they typically cite single passages by Flavius Josephus, Senator Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger.  One passage is thought to be a pious forgery, one is an innocuous statement of Jesus' execution which says nothing of his resurrection, and one is simply a statement on the beliefs and practices of early Christians.  I have not seen a convincing argument that I should believe sufficiently much of the New Testament to convince me to abandon my religion for Jesus.

 

Even the New Testament acknowledges that there exists a human conscience which helps us know right from wrong.  I know of no non-Christians who believe that eternal conscious torment is a moral good (and I doubt evangelicals want to bring up Muslims as a counterexample).  If a religious text teaches what we know to be evil, we should not redefine morality.  We should instead reject the text as not given by God, unless there is an exceedingly good reason to do so.  Even evangelicals will agree that the mind uninfluenced by Christianity will not approve of eternal conscious torment.  My question, then, is: why should I accept the New Testament on the basis of shoddy apologetic arguments, when there is a weighty moral case against it?"

 

 

[slave2six]

Bhim,

 

For some reason I thought you were going to engage in polemic. If you wish to address evil in the world open your eyes.

 

Look to the horrible persecution engaged in by Hindus this very day. This did not happen centuries ago. It happens today.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, in your opinion does persecution of a particular group of people lend credibility to the faith for which they are being persecuted?

[slave2six]

...why should I accept the New Testament on the basis of shoddy apologetic arguments, when there is a weighty moral case against it?

 

This is something that flummoxes me every time I encounter it. The best (only) argument I ever receive from Christians is that you have to look at the Bible and the universe "through the lens of Christ." They insist that if you accept the premise then everything else makes sense. Nevermind that the premise is wrong, just believe...

 

With regards to the concept of hell, my only favorite Christian (George Macdonald) includes the following passage in his book Robert Falconer (emphasis added):

 

For now arose within him, not without ultimate good, the evil phantasms of a theology which would explain all God's doings by low conceptions, low I mean for humanity even, of right, and law, and justice, then only taking refuge in the fact of the incapacity of the human understanding when its own inventions are impugned as undivine. In such a system, hell is invariably the deepest truth, and the love of God is not so deep as hell.  Hence, as foundations must be laid in the deepest, the system is founded in hell, and the first article in the creed that Robert Falconer learned was, 'I believe in hell.'  Practically, I mean, it was so; else how should it be that as often as a thought of religious duty arose in his mind, it appeared in the form of escaping hell, of fleeing from the wrath to come?  For his very nature was hell, being not born in sin and brought forth in iniquity, but born sin and brought forth iniquity.  And yet God made him.  He must believe that.  And he must believe, too, that God was just, awfully just, punishing with fearful pains those who did not go through a certain process of mind which it was utterly impossible they should go through without a help which he would give to some, and withhold from others, the reason of the difference not being such, to say the least of it, as to come within the reach of the persons concerned.  And this God they said was love.  It was logically absurd, of course, yet, thank God, they did say that God was love; and many of them succeeded in believing it, too, and in ordering their ways as if the first article of their creed had been 'I believe in God'; whence, in truth, we are bound to say it was the first in power and reality, if not in order; for what are we to say a man believes, if not what he acts upon?

 

I think this speaks to the OP quite directly. Evangelical theology is based on a fear of hell and not the love of god. The love of god is only expressed in terms of his providing a way of escape from this horrid place that he created. Therefore, the theology is based in hell and not in god at all. As it says above, the whole thing is a logical absurdity.

[slave2six]

But xianity HAS changed and evolved over time...

 

This was a well stated reply. One of the fundamental ways in which it has evolved is by incorporating scientific discoveries that refute its previous claims. The most recent of these is a capitulation in favor of evolutionary theory by appending "intelligent design" to the topic. Now a literal seven days are not needed and we can all just get along with each other.

 

At some point, people are going to have to look at how often Christianity has flipped its position on things and wonder why they bother with it. 

[slave2six]

"Real Christianity is revolutionising Asia, Africa and South America."

 

"Real Christianity"? I don't even know what that means.

 

Also, I find it interesting that the areas you claim to be revolutionizing are by and large underdeveloped populations with long histories of mysticism. Why isn't Christianity revolutionizing countries where people are more highly educated? Isn't it because reason is the enemy of faith and people who are capable of checking out religious claims are less likely to believe it? (Too bad the Romans hadn't invented Snopes. Could have saved us all a lot of trouble.)

[Vigile]

I find this post the most interesting I've seen here in a long time.

 

There are many in the west who engage in feel good prosperity based marketing hype they then call Christianity. It is not, but I would say it is foolish to believe Christianity is doomed to fade out. Not by a long shot. It is booming across the world. Real Christianity is revolutionising Asia, Africa and South America. It is transforming China from the inside.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Beijing-Christianity-Transforming-Changing/dp/B00DPO815Y

 

 

 

Some guy wrote a book, so it must be true.

 

You really need to get out and travel.  What Americans call xianity and what exists elsewhere are entirely different animals.  Most Asians are completely ambivalent to the religion.  It is in no way booming across the world.  The rest of the non-islamic world is pretty much a reprieve from the insanity which exists in the US, especially bible belt regions. 

 

[LivingLife]

The whole concept of hell, particularly the one supposedly alluded to by Jesus is Gehenna. It was also known as the valley of Hinnom in the OT. Ess it was supposedly a rubbish dump where the have nots dumped dead bodies to be burned and hence the smoke that ascends forever. There was probably a body being burned daily. The affluent would have had tombs and burials. That place would be Sheol which is ess the realm of the dead and/or the grave.

 

When you understand hell in this context, it changes all the meanings of the parables.

 

Gehenna is now a grassy park and thus the eternal fires no longer exist.

 

 

Hades is derived from the Greek mythology and is the realm of the dead, the underworld and is also the name of the "god" in charge there.

 

The word Tartarus comes up only once in the NT and is also translated as hell. This is a place reserved for the devil and his angels

 

The hell doctrine was influenced by Dante's Inferno and this is why folk placed two coins on the dead folk eyes to pay the ferryman to gain access to the inner sanctum.

 

The eternal torment hell is a relatively new doctrine and if you look at the links, there are a myriad of traditions and folklore and none of them based on the bible.

 

Jesus allegedly spoke more of the kingdom of god and it would be fair to interpret that this was not some ethereal place in the sky but was in fact right here on earth. Rejoice for this day the kingdom has descended and rejoice for the kingdom is within you. Of course there are other texts inferring a place in the sky.

 

The influence of Greek mythology played a big part in formulation of early NT texts as the beliefs were assimilated with older ones.

 

All of the above based on the assumption that there is some historicity in the babble.

[bornagainathiest]

Fyi Bhim,

 

OrdinaryClay makes the very same argument about demons in the Hindu religion here...

 

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=230617&st=135

 

...to a Hindu calling himself Arbitran.

 

If you read thru the thread, you'll notice that once Clay makes his stand he doesn't budge from it.

Only his definitions are correct.  Once he 'correctly' defines what constitutes a demon, what constitutes evidence, what the Hindu religion says about this issue, who the burden of proof falls upon and so on, he makes no further contribution to the thread.

This is standard operating procedure for Clay - his chosen method of avoiding being held accountable on a given issue.

 

He may well resort to this here.

 

Another of his SOP's is the one-liner, "You clearly don't understand (insert whatever)", which he uses to trump all argument and place himself above others.  He's already used it recently here, at Ex-C, in another thread.

 

You'll become familiar with his trickery and stonewalling after a while, Bhim. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Bhim,

 

For some reason I thought you were going to engage in polemic. If you wish to address evil in the world open your eyes.

 

Look to the horrible persecution engaged in by Hindus this very day. This did not happen centuries ago. It happens today.

http://www.persecution.in/

http://www.persecution.org/category/countries/asia/india/

http://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/search/?q=india

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=+india+site%3Abosnewslife.com

 

Or the inhumanity allowed and perpetuated by the Hindu religion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caste_system_in_India

http://www.worldmag.com/2013/09/the_female_holocaust

"Preema, a young woman from a rural village in southern India, is the 12th daughter born to her parents. Yet, she has no older sisters. Each time Preema’s mother became pregnant and gave birth to a girl, she and her husband killed the newborn—disappointed it hadn’t been a boy. After 12 births, Preema (not her real name), was the only girl they allowed to live. "

 

Yes, indeed the god's of Hinduism are demonic. You are deceived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kali

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pishacha

 

"You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?

(Mat 7:16)

 

"Tu quoque" fallacy.

[Storm]

 

I agree with you Florduh. But I will say this. I think in this age of enlightenment and easy access to all sorts of information, the propagation of "accept god or you will burn in hell" christianity has been replaced with the converse "god loves you and wants a relationship with you" touchy feely experiential christianity. Mainstream speakers such as Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer and Rob Bell are all teaching love, not punishment christianity. Rob Bell is going so far as to preach that no one will go to hell, but that god will ultimately triumph. The younger generation, in my opinion, are getting away from the "this is what my parents believed" religiosity and moving towards their own belief systems. I grew up in a hellfire brimstone type preaching system in the 80's and I have watched it turn into a completely different system altogether. Christianity has learned to evolve and adapt (ironically) so that it is able to continue to be relevant in this changing world. I believe that at some point, it will be unable to evolve any more and it will die out. I just cannot see a scenario where it can be manipulated any more than it already has been.

I find this post the most interesting I've seen here in a long time.

 

There are many in the west who engage in feel good prosperity based marketing hype they then call Christianity. It is not, but I would say it is foolish to believe Christianity is doomed to fade out. Not by a long shot. It is booming across the world. Real Christianity is revolutionising Asia, Africa and South America. It is transforming China from the inside.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Beijing-Christianity-Transforming-Changing/dp/B00DPO815Y

 

 

As other members have posted, all of these explosions of christianity are occurring in third world countries and places where information is not easily available. As I have pondered my original statement, I will retract my statement that christianity will eventually die out, but, I will change my statement to say this: As long as there are people that are willing or, subject to, or gullible enough to believe what missionaries, pastors and other "spiritual leaders" have to say, then christianity will continue to exist. But I still think that it is entirely possible that christianity can cease to exist. I find it hard to believe that 200 or so years from now that even the countries that are incredibly poor and destitute now would not at least possess the basic technology we have in this current year at some point in the future. The information age will continue to grow and it will eventually permeate the entire world. If anything, at least people will be able to make a conscious choice and not have to default to a particular belief system in one of those countries.  

[bornagainathiest]

Storm,

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be linking the imminent death of Christianity to the increase in education, knowledge and information across the developing world, yes? 

 

Then how do you explain the fact that the US, a highly-advanced, technology-driven society with easy access to education, knowledge and information is home to millions of Young Earth Creationist Christians, who actively deny the science that helps run their nation?  That 1 in 5 Americans believe the Sun goes round the Earth?  That a sizeable percentage of our population are Evolution deniers?

 

Could it be that belief in God is a conscious choice despite the facts and isn't exclusively or even strongly linked to the quality or quantity of a person's education or access to knowledge?

 

Please note that I'm not picking a fight here.  I'm just playing devil's advocate, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Vigile]

Storm,

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be linking the imminent death of Christianity to the increase in education, knowledge and information across the developing world, yes? 

 

Then how do you explain the fact that the US, a highly-advanced, technology-driven society with easy access to education, knowledge and information is home to millions of Young Earth Creationist Christians, who actively deny the science that helps run their nation?  That 1 in 5 Americans believe the Sun goes round the Earth?  That a sizeable percentage of our population are Evolution deniers?

 

Could it be that belief in God is a conscious choice despite the facts and isn't exclusively or even strongly linked to the quality or quantity of a person's education or access to knowledge?

 

Please note that I'm not picking a fight here.  I'm just playing devil's advocate, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

You didn't ask me, but I'll respond with, are you kidding?  The US has some of the worst education in the world.  Just because it has good education available doesn't mean the majority of its citizens are educated.  In many states they graduate HS functionally illiterate.  In TN, for example, I've seen statistics that state 30% meet that definition.  TN is also the state that has some of the biggest religious wackos. 

[Storm]

Storm,

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be linking the imminent death of Christianity to the increase in education, knowledge and information across the developing world, yes? 

 

Then how do you explain the fact that the US, a highly-advanced, technology-driven society with easy access to education, knowledge and information is home to millions of Young Earth Creationist Christians, who actively deny the science that helps run their nation?  That 1 in 5 Americans believe the Sun goes round the Earth?  That a sizeable percentage of our population are Evolution deniers?

 

Could it be that belief in God is a conscious choice despite the facts and isn't exclusively or even strongly linked to the quality or quantity of a person's education or access to knowledge?

 

Please note that I'm not picking a fight here.  I'm just playing devil's advocate, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Its definitely fodder for discussion, and I'll take the bait. I think that I clarified myself with this statement :

"As long as there are people that are willing or, subject to, or gullible enough to believe what missionaries, pastors and other "spiritual leaders" have to say, then christianity will continue to exist."

I think I was just making a knee jerk reaction in my train of thought. Do I think in the distant future that christianity could be eliminated, yes. Is it likely to happen, probably not. But, without actually searching for any actual verifiable proof, I would make the assumption that where there is access to information and education, there is more freedom of choice. Freedom of choice will bring some people to the realization that christianity isn't truth. At least information provides options. 

I do agree with Vigile's assessment of the American education condition. On the surface, America appears to be a highly educated country, but a closer look reveals that things aren't quite what they seem. Just an example from my state. I live in Indiana, which by all measures is an average state. Only 8 percent of Indiana residents have a Bachelor's degree. Only 3 percent have a Master's degree and less than one percent have a doctorate. But we have some of the most prominent colleges and universities in our state and this proportion just doesn't make sense. But as I look at all the people I know, I think it actually is true. 

 

 As far as a declining christianity and its possibility, look at Europe. It used to be the hot bed of christianity and now it appears that christianity is all but dead. I've seen video and live presentations from missionaries regarding the lack of god in the European nations. I have personal friends who are missionaries to the Czech Republic. Christianity is strong in the US because we still live within a generation or two from old school, hard line Christian practitioners. As we get farther away from that old time religion, I think christianity gets weaker. Like I stated before, western christianity has become touchy feely and experiential. When people start to realize that the experience isn't what its cracked up to be, they will start to question things. There are many people at my church who simply accept things on face value and accept whatever the pastor says and truly believe that he is not trying to deceive them or extort them. As long as the pastor doesn't rock the boat too hard, they continue to be sheep and follow his lead. They have become comfortable in their place and they see no reason to move or think about those things. But, complacency kills christianity. So, I think christianity will decline in the US in the long haul. The US seems to be championing christianity across the world. Once the US starts to decline, I would hope christianity does too.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Storm,

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but you seem to be linking the imminent death of Christianity to the increase in education, knowledge and information across the developing world, yes? 

 

Then how do you explain the fact that the US, a highly-advanced, technology-driven society with easy access to education, knowledge and information is home to millions of Young Earth Creationist Christians, who actively deny the science that helps run their nation?  That 1 in 5 Americans believe the Sun goes round the Earth?  That a sizeable percentage of our population are Evolution deniers?

 

Could it be that belief in God is a conscious choice despite the facts and isn't exclusively or even strongly linked to the quality or quantity of a person's education or access to knowledge?

 

Please note that I'm not picking a fight here.  I'm just playing devil's advocate, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

You didn't ask me, but I'll respond with, are you kidding?  The US has some of the worst education in the world.  Just because it has good education available doesn't mean the majority of its citizens are educated.  In many states they graduate HS functionally illiterate.  In TN, for example, I've seen statistics that state 30% meet that definition.  TN is also the state that has some of the biggest religious wackos. 

 

 

Vigile,

 

I take your point and don't dispute it.

 

What I was getting at was that people's potential to access to education, knowledge and information (which I thought was Storm's main point) doesn't always equal their actual intellectual betterment, nor their adherence to religion - because it's a matter of conscious choice on their part. 

 

I maintain that these illiterate, uneducated millions could better themselves if they wanted to - but it's a matter of choice on their parts.  Some make a deliberate choice to stay as they are and some of those who do better themselves don't automatically ditch their religion, as Storm has been suggesting.  Instead they use their new-found reading skills to go deeper into their religion and become deniers of the very science that makes their WiFi, iPads and laptops work.

 

Therefore, when access to information and knowledge does arrive more fully in the developing world, I just don't see that it will automatically usher in a new age of rationalism and reason.  Because the conscious rejection of religion is a choice, not a function of learning, knowledge or intellectual capacity.

 

That clarify things?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Storm]

 

Therefore, when access to information and knowledge does arrive more fully in the developing world, I just don't see that it will automatically usher in a new age of rationalism and reason.  Because the conscious rejection of religion is a choice, not a function of learning, knowledge or intellectual capacity.

 

That clarify things?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

I think you are correct in your assumptions, however I do posit that, with the increase of information available to any person, People who otherwise would not do any studying or research can be influenced by those who do choose to seek and find the information. We certainly live in a convenience driven society where we want to be spoon fed and given our information in the most direct and quick way possible. With more information comes more individuals that will access it which therefore leads to more informed people to influence others. Right now at this point in time, atheism is the minority. I would like to think that at some point the scales will tip more evenly and eventually more towards atheism and, at that point, christianity will become just another religion. I suspect that some people will just refuse to let go, but I suspect that it will lose much of its power.