The Threat of Hell

[Ghel]

I didn't want to derail the thread on the tract left in place of a tip, but I did want to respond to this statement.

I suppose it may be, but if the person on the receiving end doesn't believe in Hell its a rather pointless threat.

When a believer threatens someone with Hell, they are saying that the threatened individual deserves to be torture forever for the "crime" of not believing the same things as the believer. The threat of Hell may be a baseless threat, but it effectively communicates bigotry and hatred.

[Andara Bledin]

That's like saying that a person who tells someone not to drink and drive because they'll hurt themselves believes that person deserves to be hurt.

Whether the person making the statement believes the listener deserves it or not is entirely irrelevant. And while that might sometimes be the case, to assume that is the default is an assumption that says more about the person making it than the person they're making it about.

^-.-^

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I
When a believer threatens someone with Hell, they are saying that the threatened individual deserves to be torture forever for the "crime" of not believing the same things as the believer. The threat of Hell may be a baseless threat, but it effectively communicates bigotry and hatred.

There are a number of different facets to this argument but the meat of is this: The debate on whether or not Hell and Heaven really exist and what qualifications one needs to meet to end up in either place has been raging for hundreds, if not, thousands of years and we have no hard answers to go on.

A lot of the issues are caused by the same source that causes most doctrinal debates: Varying interpretation of the Bible.

This is chiefly caused by various translations of the text and the subtle change in meanings created when shifting words from one language into another.

Let's look at it like this. Consider Bob:

Bob recently died of cancer at the age of 54. He had a wife and three children. He worked hard and built a career as an electrician. He was active in the community, donated his time and money to many charitable causes, treated most everyone with respect and had no serious criminal offenses on his record.
But he also did not believe in Jesus.

Does Bob deserve to go to Hell?

Many Christians would say yes.

Now consider Mark:

Mark had a rough childhood. He grew up in a foster home and never got along well with anybody. He never graduated high school and dropped into a life of crime. Eventually Mark was arrested and sentenced to death for sexually abusing and murdering two young children. While waiting to be executed, Mark has a spiritual awakening and accepts Jesus as his Savior, asking forgiveness for past transgressions.

Does Mark deserve to go to Heaven?

Most Christians would also say yes to this because of a scripture in the Book of John, actually quote from Jesus himself who says:

"I am the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the father except through me."

This particular passage is one of the most hotly debated in the entire Bible as it is the one which seems to clearly state that those who believe in Jesus can go to Heaven. This is why Mark, despite his evil deeds, would earn entrance into Heaven after his repentance and his acceptance of Christ in the eyes of many.

The notions of Heaven and Hell and indeed of the afterlife in general have been mainstays in philosophy for thousands of years. There just aren't any easy answers when you're dealing with statements that are subjective and open to interpretation.

But let's go back to the original question. A Christian tells a non Christian they will go to Hell for eternity if they do not accept Christ. The non Christian does NOT believe in Hell and isn't necessarily sure where he may be going (if anywhere) after he died.

So...who's right?

Which brings us right back to whether or not Heaven and Hell really exist. There's a book written by a prominent Christian pastor named Rob Bell called "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived"

Here's a link for it: http://www.amazon.com/Love-Wins-Abou...pr_product_top

In the book, Bell discusses at length his beliefs on Heaven and Hell and wrestles with the question of how many people should truly to go to Hell and whether or not they are condemned to stay there for eternity.

If you look at the reviews, you can see the book has more 1 star reviews than any other number except 5 star. A look at the reviews on both ends of the spectrum demonstrates once again the complete lack of consensus on this very important issue.

[HYHYBT]

When a believer threatens someone with Hell, they are saying that the threatened individual deserves to be torture forever for the "crime" of not believing the same things as the believer. The threat of Hell may be a baseless threat, but it effectively communicates bigotry and hatred.

Multiply wrong. First, it's not a threat, at least not on the believer's part, but a warning. "I will harm you if you don't do what I want" is a threat. "You will come to harm not of my doing" is a warning. Setting aside whether they're *right* or not as irrelevant, they're trying to be helpful. You might as well claim the highway department is threatening you by putting up a sign that says "bridge out." (You could argue that *God* is threatening you if you like, but that's not the same thing.)

As for bigotry and hatred... all too often, of course, it's there. But it's hardly fair or true to claim that's always the case. "All have sinned." That's "all," as in the unwelcome person preaching at you or handing out tracts every bit as much (so far as matters) as anyone else. Some are worse about taking that to heart than others, but in concept, at least, it's no more hateful than telling someone with a large black mole that they should have it checked for melanoma.

[Rageaholic]

That's like saying that a person who tells someone not to drink and drive because they'll hurt themselves believes that person deserves to be hurt.

Whether the person making the statement believes the listener deserves it or not is entirely irrelevant. And while that might sometimes be the case, to assume that is the default is an assumption that says more about the person making it than the person they're making it about.

^-.-^

Actually, some DO believe they deserve to go to hell. In fact, they believe everyone deserves to go to hell, but that Jesus is the way out.

For those Christians, I think that's a pretty depressing way to live. Believing that not only most of humanity will be tortured forever after death, but that they somehow deserve it. Deserve it for what? Not being perfect? I've actually heard some say we are no better than mass murderers because I've probably lied or stolen something or commited that horrible sin of "lust" (which I think is one of the STUPIDEST FUCKING CONCEPTS EVER. WHY WOULD GOD GIVE US SEXUAL ORGANS IF HE DIDN'T WANT US USING THEM!!!!). WTF? NO wonder so many religious extremists have such a skewed view of morality.

I don't care what anyone says, I don't deserve to go to hell and I am better than a serial killer.

[Kaylyn]

I just wish Christians could really think about the whole concept of hell for a second. Even when I was deep into Christianity, I had trouble with it. It really doesn't make a lick of sense. Why would God create humanity, THEN give them free will, THEN say, "Oh, by the way, if you don't do things MY way, even though I've given you the freedom to choose, even though I've given you a brain and the ability to reason, I'm going to punish you for not accepting MY way."

Well, what if I think Buddhist teachings are a stronger moral compass than Jesus's teachings? Or what about my current situation, of being an atheist yet having what I feel are a strong set of morals and a desire to help others and do good in this world during this one lifetime I've been given, rather than wasting it because I've got "eternal life in heaven" coming? Do I deserve hell simply because, naughty naughty, I once accepted Jesus, allowed Christian teachings to shape my life, then reasoned that God probably does not exist yet still lived a decent life?

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

I've actually heard some say we are no better than mass murderers because I've probably lied or stolen something or commited that horrible sin of "lust" (which I think is one of the STUPIDEST FUCKING CONCEPTS EVER. WHY WOULD GOD GIVE US SEXUAL ORGANS IF HE DIDN'T WANT US USING THEM!!!!). WTF? NO wonder so many religious extremists have such a skewed view of morality.

I don't care what anyone says, I don't deserve to go to hell and I am better than a serial killer.

Sin and Lust in particular are only partially relevant to this thread, but the usual Biblical view is that God very much intended for us to have sex, but only in a committed relationship (a marriage) to someone of the opposite gender.

I agree that seems narrow and odd given the nature of human sex drive. When looked at from a biological standpoint, it's easy to see why typically men desire women and vice versa, regardless of relationship or marriage. Sex leads to babies, babies guarantee the survival of our race. It's the basic primal need to procreate that most every species has.

Lust is another area where many issues are hotly debated (is masturbation sinful? etc.)

[Andara Bledin]

Actually, some DO believe they deserve to go to hell. In fact, they believe everyone deserves to go to hell, but that Jesus is the way out.

I never said otherwise.

For those Christians, I think that's a pretty depressing way to live.

I completely agree with you here. As you might guess, I'm not one of those Christians.

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

I think the key problem here is that there are people who do use the threat of Hell as a weapon, and they tend to be the loudest in the crowd.

The whole concept of Hell in Christianity is as the ultimate threat for failing to comply with the guide lines of the big guy upstairs. For which you are punished or damned in some way. However, it was mainly the Roman Catholic Church that took this to the extreme and wielded it as a tool of control through out history and has left us with this bitter aftertaste we're stuck with now. For other Christians, its viewed not as a threat, but a sort of looming but avoidable disaster for which if they genuinely believe in it, may genuinely fear for the well being of others they percieve as heading towards it.

Of course, those Christians don't typically hand out pamphlets or yell at people.

Still, Christian Hell is a funny thing. As the modern western concept of it is based largely on imagery that was totally made up by the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and the Rennaisance. Stuff that has no actual grounding in the Bible itself. The Bible literally has like 3 or 4 different "Hells" in it. I mean you've got Hell, Hades, Gehenna, Sheol, Purgatory, Tatarus.... >.>

Which is what irks me the most. Those that preach the loudest often understand the origins of what they preach the least.

[protege]

The whole concept of Hell in Christianity is as the ultimate threat for failing to comply with the guide lines of the big guy upstairs. For which you are punished or damned in some way. However, it was mainly the Roman Catholic Church that took this to the extreme and wielded it as a tool of control through out history and has left us with this bitter aftertaste we're stuck with now. For other Christians, its viewed not as a threat, but a sort of looming but avoidable disaster for which if they genuinely believe in it, may genuinely fear for the well being of others they percieve as heading towards it.

That's exactly it. It's another system of control...and considering the lack of understanding that early peoples had about their world...an extremely effective one. It helped the Church get stronger, and eventually become very powerful. Powerful enough, that they could use their influence to squelch any dissidents.