Notedstrangeperson
Well-Known Member
Nanopants said:
I assume you think I'm saying "Black people are dumb and violent because they're black."
Read my comment:Notedstrangeperson said:
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Fear of eternal torment
- Thread starter NZEN
- Start date
I assume you think I'm saying "Black people are dumb and violent because they're black."
Read my comment:
N
Nanopants
Guest
I assume you think I'm saying "Black people are dumb and violent because they're black."
Noted. But if you did not mean to say that it's a fact that black people are more likely to display these undesirable attributes then you really should be more careful with your wording.
If you leave it at that then anyone can assume that you think that that is the case because you believe they are inferior or something.
Upvote
0
Firstly I don't have any money to send, secondly if "prisoners" of alcohol or drugs needed more money they would not be able to afford their "imprisonment", thirdly I can't find any lonely people other than myself and when I do they won't let me help them, and finally I am convinced that money alone is not the answer.
If I go to hell it's no use, if someone else goes to hell it's no use, if I go to heaven nothing more is needed, if someone else goes to heaven nothing more is needed; If the 2 possibilities are heaven and hell, nothing else matters.
The question I meant to ask with this thread was "How can one be so certain that there isn't an inescapable hell?"
Upvote
0
Sorry, you saw the pictures of Somalia and you say that you have no money? You have not 1 dollar, 50 cents, 20 cents, 10 cents to give? Boy,I have no words to say...You have got plenty of excuses.
I did not say prisoners of alcohhol need money...pay attention...
If you helped people and if you go to hell at least you made someone happy. Boy, how can you think that if you go to heaven nothing more is needed? How dare you think to go to heaven without loving your neighbor?
You are just thinking too much and doing too little. You are just taking pleasure on reasoning: hell-heaven;hel-hell;heaven-hell;heaven-heaven like if it were a mathematical play.
So, you come you your question: "How am I going to solve my selfish problem without thinking on others? "; "How can I be selfish and go to heaven?".
So you find no lonely people around you it is becuse you pay no attention to others. Only to your own loneliness. There are no old lonely people at your place? And the others do not want your help? Tell me examples! have you tried?
I answer: yes, there is hell but it is not what you think. Hell is the lack of Love, the Lack of caring for others.
Upvote
0
I assure you I have no New Zealand money, not one current coin, to give to Somalia. I also haven't seen any pictures of the place, nor do I know how to send money there.
As for the heaven thing, I assume you believe you only go there if you do enough good in the world, therefore, if that's where you end up you've done enough.
I don't think I'm going to meet any lonely people because they won't be lonely while I'm physically or otherwise present. If someone is lonely I am here for them; It is up to them if they want to accept me. I'm not aware of any lonely old people anywhere near me, if I do find some I doubt they'll want anything to do with me.
I also think I can say that I am not an uncaring person - I care about anyone who isn't beyond my help; However people usually turn against me, which prevents me from helping them. After that if they get lonely it's their fault.
One day I will have a job, and pay taxes, which will go to all kinds of things - They will pay for the government's stupidity, build roads, and save lives in hospitals, stuff like that. Some of it will go to foreign aid.
Another thing: I do not trust charities: One day, if I'm rich I will go to a poor country and help out myself: I would delight in doing such things as buying entire market stalls full of food and telling the owner to make everything free, giving money to parents so they don't have to sell their children, buying kids and giving them back to parents, and becoming a cult leader; that way I know where my money is going.
Upvote
0
I apologize for my words. I did not intend to say that you are an uncaring person, OK? From what I read, I understand that you are a good person.
The post was intended to say, hey, look o the out side and help other, stop suffering for things that cannot solve. You are suffering and you cannot do anything about the problem. Let those problems to God who is able to solve them.
God Bless you
Upvote
0
E
EvanDW
Guest
To answer the original question of how I cope with the possibility of there being a hell:
Examining the concept of hell is what originally led me down the path to leaving mainstream Christianity. I believe that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God and a place of eternal torment seem like fundamentally incompatible realities. It would seem to me that an omnibenevolent God would want us to learn from our mortal mistakes, not be punished forever for them. It would be more likely that he/she/it follow a model more like that of Hinduism, where humans die multiple times through the cycle of samsara, learn more and more from their mistakes between lives, and eventually reach a level of understanding that allows them to become one with God. That seems like a far more plausible way in which the afterlife, if it exists, would work. I don't believe in that, mind you, I'm just using it as an illustration.
It seems absurd that 80 or so years on earth (if you're lucky; others don't get that long which brings up the question of unfairness in the "test" that is mortal life) is the deciding experience that determines where we spend eternity. 80 years is mathematically insignificant compared to infinity. So is a million, a billion, trillion, and so on. Even if I spent a trillion years in hell, I have not even begun my eternal sentence in mathematical terms. So, what I'm saying is that it seems irrational to the point of absurdity that 80 years on earth determines such a comparatively unimaginably huge portion of time.
Furthermore, let's examine the existence of multiple religions. Each generally say that I must follow that particular doctrine, or go to hell. When you step back from the confines of dogma and look at it this way, hell seems to be little more than a tool used by the religious in ages past to cow people into compliance. It is unfortunate that the doctrine of hell has survived to this day. The believer will inevitably respond that hell is the wage that must be paid for turning away from God; but to me, that is far from being a satisfying answer. A God that will send you to hell for rejecting his teachings in mortal life where we are flawed creatures (as he made us, by the way) seems draconian and tyrannical.
Of course, this doesn't disprove the existence of Hell. But, it does allow me a reasonable degree of certainty by which I feel I can safely live my life under the assumption that there isn't one. What's more, in my heart, I will never earnestly worship a God that made such a thing as hell. If he is omniscient as Christians proclaim, then he is privy to my thoughts, will see right through any attempt at lip service on my part, and likely cast me into hell anyway.
So, really, I'm at a point where I am going to Hell one way or another if it exists and me not worshipping warrants me going there, simply by virtue of the fact that I will not earnestly worship a being that created it. But when you really look at Hell, the whole concept falls apart entirely under scrutiny. So, I conclude that it's almost certain that such a place doesn't really exist.
Examining the concept of hell is what originally led me down the path to leaving mainstream Christianity. I believe that an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God and a place of eternal torment seem like fundamentally incompatible realities. It would seem to me that an omnibenevolent God would want us to learn from our mortal mistakes, not be punished forever for them. It would be more likely that he/she/it follow a model more like that of Hinduism, where humans die multiple times through the cycle of samsara, learn more and more from their mistakes between lives, and eventually reach a level of understanding that allows them to become one with God. That seems like a far more plausible way in which the afterlife, if it exists, would work. I don't believe in that, mind you, I'm just using it as an illustration.
It seems absurd that 80 or so years on earth (if you're lucky; others don't get that long which brings up the question of unfairness in the "test" that is mortal life) is the deciding experience that determines where we spend eternity. 80 years is mathematically insignificant compared to infinity. So is a million, a billion, trillion, and so on. Even if I spent a trillion years in hell, I have not even begun my eternal sentence in mathematical terms. So, what I'm saying is that it seems irrational to the point of absurdity that 80 years on earth determines such a comparatively unimaginably huge portion of time.
Furthermore, let's examine the existence of multiple religions. Each generally say that I must follow that particular doctrine, or go to hell. When you step back from the confines of dogma and look at it this way, hell seems to be little more than a tool used by the religious in ages past to cow people into compliance. It is unfortunate that the doctrine of hell has survived to this day. The believer will inevitably respond that hell is the wage that must be paid for turning away from God; but to me, that is far from being a satisfying answer. A God that will send you to hell for rejecting his teachings in mortal life where we are flawed creatures (as he made us, by the way) seems draconian and tyrannical.
Of course, this doesn't disprove the existence of Hell. But, it does allow me a reasonable degree of certainty by which I feel I can safely live my life under the assumption that there isn't one. What's more, in my heart, I will never earnestly worship a God that made such a thing as hell. If he is omniscient as Christians proclaim, then he is privy to my thoughts, will see right through any attempt at lip service on my part, and likely cast me into hell anyway.
So, really, I'm at a point where I am going to Hell one way or another if it exists and me not worshipping warrants me going there, simply by virtue of the fact that I will not earnestly worship a being that created it. But when you really look at Hell, the whole concept falls apart entirely under scrutiny. So, I conclude that it's almost certain that such a place doesn't really exist.
Upvote
0
I agree with you.
Like you, I reject the concept of eternal torment in hell. It isn't logical. It isn't compatable with the concept of a loving God.
It is also unbiblical. The bible doesn't say that the consequences of sin are to be roasted in fiery hell for all eternity. What the bible actually says is "the wages of sin is death", not eternal torment in hell. (Romans 6:23) The bible says that whoever believes in the Christ will not perish but will have eternal life instead.
I have been mocked and put down by mainstream Christians for having this view but I remain a Christian, a Christ Follower. I believe that "Mainstream Christianity" is honestly mistaken about what the bible says about hell. I think it's a shame because it caused you and many others like you to leave Christianity entirely instead of just rejecting the false premise of eternal torment.
There is eternal life for those who go to Christ to receive it. I believe that anyone who refuses to go to Christ to receive eternal life will not receive eternal life. The condition of not having life is called death.
My position in Christianity is called "Conditional Immortality". Our immortality is conditional, based on belief in Jesus Christ. This position is also sometimes called "Annihilationism", but that's a term given to us by the opposition. They believe humans are inherently immortal. I do not.
Upvote
0
If this is something that is actually bothering you, I'd recommend reading some of Joseph Campbell's work. It does a lot to put christianity in perspective, and it really undercuts the emotional force of the christian message.
Upvote
0
While we are suggesting readings, I'll suggest The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment by Edward Fudge.
He makes a compelling case for conditional immortality and a compelling case against eternal torment in hell.
Upvote
0
E
EvanDW
Guest
I wouldn't say hell is the sole reason I have not returned to Christianity. It's more like the catalyst that got me started along the path of thinking, "Well if that's not true, then I wonder what else is false?" For example, the story of Jesus Christ doesn't make sense to me either, and is way too suspiciously similar to other savior stories like those of Krishna, Attis of Phrygia, Mithra, Horus, and many many others... virgin birth, December 25th, crucifixion... many of these other stories have the exact same material, which leads me to wonder why of all these savior figures I should choose Christ. Christ only became a powerful symbol after the Emperor Constantine made it the official religion of Rome, causing it to subsequently spread like wildfire (no negative connotation intended). I do respect Jesus as a symbol of altruism and universal love, but I hesitate to consider it absolute fact.
The main problem I see with the story of Christ (you've probably heard this before) is the question of why Christ was at all necessary in the first place. I'm obviously not God and can't speak for him if he exists (which I make no claim of knowing one way or the other). But, I still have to wonder... if you're an omnipotent being that gets to tailor the very fabric of space-time and write the rules of the Universe, surely you could find a way to forgive humanity of its faults (that he, by the way, designed us with in his infinite foreknowledge that this would eventually be necessary, which raises other problems). A way that need not involve the nailing of an innocent man who is basically Himself to a cross in what must be one of the most horrifying ways to die imaginable.
There are other things that prevent me from following Yahweh in particular too, mostly some of the rather horrifying things he does in the Old Testament. I'll spare you talking about some of the worse ones, but one of the ones that really bugs me is how God decides to handle the Midianites. Now, let's look at what it means to be God again. If you're God, you can simply appear to the Midianites and be like, "Hey guys, you kinda had it wrong, I'm the real God, but it's cool cause I love you. Just don't screw up again." That's what an omnibenevolent God would do. But he doesn't do that, now does he? Instead, he has the Israelites, imperfect beings, carry out the "good work" of an infinitely "perfect" being by slaying all the Midianites brutally. Now what kind of God is that? Why should I follow a cosmic bully who would do such an evil thing when he could simply appear to the Midianites themselves and allow them to become united with the Israelites in love and servitude to God? The real kicker here is that if God is omniscient, He designed the Universe the way he did knowing beforehand that he was going to have to slay millions of people and send them to an eternal torture chamber... that alone disqualifies Him from worship in my view.
What I'm getting at here is... why all the seemingly unnecessary death and destruction, concluded with eternal torment?
To address your other point about Annihilationism and Conditional Immortality: Even if there is such a thing as heaven, I would think everyone would reach a point somewhere in eternity where they would get bored even of heaven... no challenges, no human drives, no purpose to your existence other than to praise God... I feel like even being in the presence of God would lose its edge after a few trillion years. Humans by their nature need challenges and goals. When you're in the traditional version of heaven, those don't exist anymore. Heaven would make a nice respite, and I think I could even enjoy myself there for a few thousand years. But as you creep closer to infinity, I feel everything would have a certain sameness to it in a place with no goals or challenges... I would want to stop being eventually. I feel like everyone has a breaking point at which even heaven would start to become more and more like hell. Think about it... you spend a trillion years in heaven... you haven't even started eternity. And all you're apparently going to be doing in that entire time is singing God's praises. You're going to tire of it eventually... then it will slowly drive your immortal soul insane, I would think. This problem could probably be solved if God assigned passed on human souls a purpose as angels or guardian spirits or something like that. But without purpose, drive, and challenge, a human mind/soul/call it what you will... will eventually go mad.
If there's an afterlife, I really do hope it's quite literally "the next great adventure". An afterlife where I do nothing but praise God doesn't really sound all that appealing to me... which is probably why early Christian clergy had to invent the dichotomy of heaven and hell in the first place. Heaven sounds more appealing when hell is the only alternative.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
You just can't move past the medieval christianity POV can you?
I'm not trying to bring you back into the fold. I'm just pointing out that not all christians believe in eternal torture. What you do with the knowledge is your business. You reject a form of christianity that I would also reject, if that were the only form. However there is christianity that doesn't involve anyone getting the supreme roast for eternity, and I believe it is true christianity.
Upvote
0
Jade Margery
Stranger in a strange land
Sorry to jump back two pages of posts, but I about knocked myself out with head bonks reading this.
Normalize for education and income level and see how the stats and IQ scores pan out. Poor people without access to good education are more likely to be incarcerated and have low IQ scores. Stereotypes aren't only built on generalizations, they can also be built on misinformation, smear propaganda, and fear of those who are different than us.
We find stereotypes and cliches offensive because they are often untrue. Take, for example, the stereotype that atheists are immoral. A lot of christians actually believe this--and have told me so. There is no grain of truth in this stereotype. Yet for some reason I am offended when someone tells me I am immoral and shouldn't even be considered a citizen of my country because I don't believe in god. I wonder why?
Of course it would. Hypothetically, if you know that you're intelligent, you'd probably still be insulted if I told you that your arguments betray all of the depth of thought and mental cognizance of a tape worm yet are somehow more vomit inducing.
It's less the 'you're going to' and more the 'you deserve to' aspect of it that we object to. Telling someone that they are going to be tortured forever unless they do what you tell them is best (out of love!) is akin to saying, 'if you don't do as I say, you're choosing to be tortured forever and you deserve it'. When they call us immoral, when they tell us we're going to hell, we don't care that we're being threatened with fictitious fire. We're annoyed that another human being thinks we deserve that kind of punishment just because we don't think the same way they do.
If it were someone who truly believed Sauron existed and that the Halls of Lamentation were real places where you could be taken and tortured and that person said I deserved to go there, I would indeed be insulted. Bemused (as I am with christians) but still insulted.
Normalize for education and income level and see how the stats and IQ scores pan out. Poor people without access to good education are more likely to be incarcerated and have low IQ scores. Stereotypes aren't only built on generalizations, they can also be built on misinformation, smear propaganda, and fear of those who are different than us.
We find stereotypes and cliches offensive because they are often untrue. Take, for example, the stereotype that atheists are immoral. A lot of christians actually believe this--and have told me so. There is no grain of truth in this stereotype. Yet for some reason I am offended when someone tells me I am immoral and shouldn't even be considered a citizen of my country because I don't believe in god. I wonder why?
Of course it would. Hypothetically, if you know that you're intelligent, you'd probably still be insulted if I told you that your arguments betray all of the depth of thought and mental cognizance of a tape worm yet are somehow more vomit inducing.
It's less the 'you're going to' and more the 'you deserve to' aspect of it that we object to. Telling someone that they are going to be tortured forever unless they do what you tell them is best (out of love!) is akin to saying, 'if you don't do as I say, you're choosing to be tortured forever and you deserve it'. When they call us immoral, when they tell us we're going to hell, we don't care that we're being threatened with fictitious fire. We're annoyed that another human being thinks we deserve that kind of punishment just because we don't think the same way they do.
If it were someone who truly believed Sauron existed and that the Halls of Lamentation were real places where you could be taken and tortured and that person said I deserved to go there, I would indeed be insulted. Bemused (as I am with christians) but still insulted.
Upvote
0
E
EvanDW
Guest
Here in the US though, the doctrine of Hell is anything but medieval. It's very much alive and well. I would know; it was used to terrify me into compliance when I was a child. I'm aware that there are Christians that reject the doctrine of Hell, but it is predominantly accepted among the Christian laity. A religion is shaped by the beliefs of its adherents, so if the majority of Christians believe in hell, then it is an important part of the faith that deserves to be discussed.
Furthermore, I specifically qualified what I said about Hell with an explanation that it is not the only reason I don't believe. The reason I'm talking about Hell in the first place is because that is the original topic of this thread. Like I said, Hell is what caused me to examine and ultimately disbelieve the other more indispensable parts of Christianity, like the sacrifice of Christ Himself, the actions of Yahweh in the Old Testament, etc.
I would like to raise another question though: if there is no Hell, then what exactly did Christ sacrifice Himself to save us from? Annihilation of the soul? Why then, did God send Jesus, a man who lived only 33 years to spread his message? Would it not be more effective for an omnipotent being to speak to each and every human that has ever or will ever exist in an audible manner? I realize that doesn't disprove Jesus completely, but it makes you wonder why God wouldn't choose the most effective possible method of guiding us morally. If he did what I suggested (or something better that I haven't imagined), you wouldn't see all these rival faiths. How much bloodshed in God's name would have been avoided in human history if God would just speak to us directly instead of using a 2000-year old book that has been hijacked, mistranslated, and utterly butchered throughout millenia by men with their own agendas?
Why play a millenia-long game of Telephone when you are omnipotent and can communicate your message to humanity any way you want? Things would have been a lot simpler if God would just directly tell us what he wants us to do and cut out the too-often self-interested clergyman. Just think... no Crusades, no Inquisition, no holy wars, no evil men abusing clerical positions to molest innocent children, no suicide bombers, no 9/11... none of that. I'm not trying to point out all the evil things that have been done in the name of religion to discredit it; the point I'm trying to make is that this all could have been easily avoided if God spoke to us continuously throughout our history in an unmistakable manner instead of sending a prophet 2000 years ago and curiously ceasing unmistakable divine intervention at that point.
This leads me to a point where I conclude that the seemingly inefficient and ineffective methods of God, who is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient, seem absurd, and merit questioning and examination. Personally, my examination, for better or worse, has led me to discard mainstream Christianity as my belief system, retaining Christ as a personally revered literary symbol of altruism and love that I should strive to emulate. I don't have to believe Christ is real to want to emulate Him and His example.
Being an engineering student steeped in science, I have been trained to take nothing for granted, relying on the evidence of my senses alone. Perhaps this is a flawed view; of that I can't be sure. Science has led me to accept theories (scientific theories, not common-speech ones! There is a difference!) like the Big Bang and Darwinian evolution based on the heaps of evidence that support them. The thing that gives me pause is I still have to wonder why the Big Bang happened... Time and space did not exist before the Big Bang, and our laws of cause and effect depend on the concept of time, but I can't wrap my head around that enough to not think that there still must be SOME reason the Big Bang happened. I find many creationists throw this question my way, get me to concede that there is room for a god-like being in that, and then automatically assign all the typical Christian qualities of God to that God as if they've proven that Yahweh in particular is real. Maybe there is a God, maybe there isn't. But I certainly do not assign the characteristics of Yahweh to that God. I believe that if there is a god, it's far greater than anything humanity could possibly define or imagine.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
We are discussing it. It is a medieval belief, it is a holdover from the dark ages. I also talk to other Christians about hell and what the bible says about hell.
If you don't believe for other reasons, that's up to you. If you don't believe in God because he tortures people, that's illogical because he doesn't.
Umm, Death? Christ's sacrifice was to save us from death, not to save us from God torturing us forever in hell. This is what the bible says.
Why not do whatever you want if you are God? It's not a game of telephone, he came to earth himself and performs miracles proving it. Then he assigned apostles to write it all down. This is how we got the new testament and this is how God decided to communicate his message. If you are ever God, you can do it your way.
I also have a degree in a science field, related to engineering.
I haven't seen the big bang myself,
I'm waiting for a better theory than Darwin's. But that's another topic.
Upvote
0
E
EvanDW
Guest
Okay well that's cleared up then.
Indeed it is illogical. For example, there could very well be a malevolent God; there is no reason to discount that possibility. I think people often confuse not believing because of hell, and withholding genuine worship if there is a hell (if that makes sense). It's not illogical because He doesn't, though... we don't know that for sure. It's illogical because malevolence (or rather, non-omnibenevolence) does not disqualify God from existing.
I did ask you specifically if it was Annihilation... you seem to have omitted that part of the question in your quote. I was mainly asking that to get a better understanding of where you're coming from. But this does answer the question, and we do agree that the Bible itself doesn't make a very strong case for hell.
Exactly, he had the apostles write it all down, 2000 years ago. I think you'll agree with me on the notion that the Bible has been twisted and stretched over those two milleniums to the point where many Christians seem to lose the underlying message of loving-kindness in a sea of Church-made dogma.
Think of all the versions we have to wade through in search of truth now: You've got the KJV, NRSV, NIV, etc etc... then you've got the Jews with the Talmud who rejected Christ (always was curious to me, if the man really did walk on water and turn water into wine, then what the heck WILL convince them?!), and Muslims who instead embraced Mohammad and the Qu'ran.
You've got Mormons with their book written by Joseph Smith. You also have Gnostics who embrace writings generally considered apocryphal, believing the Old Testament God, the Demiurge, was something of a failed experiment of the most supreme New Testament God's feminine aspect/daughter Sophia. You have the recently discovered Gospel of Judas, which REALLY throws a monkey wrench in a lot of traditional Church teachings if it's true.
That's just the Abrahamic paradigm of religious faith. Christianity alone has about 3000 denominations. We won't even go into the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Sikhs, followers of Shinto, etc...
So my point is: when you have people write things down, you can't expect it to keep the same form 2000 years later if left in the hands of human beings. Hence the game of Telephone analogy I was making. If God is omniscient, he knew this whole scriptural mess was going to happen (over which much blood has been needlessly spilled), so I have to wonder why he chose the medium of a book. Doesn't make a lot of sense. When you're omnipotent, you could just effortlessly communicate directly with each and every human being in all epochs of time. The point of making that point (haha) is to suggest that a lot of what we typically consider to be absolutely true about God does not make a whole lot of sense when held up and compared with other beliefs.
I also have a degree in a science field, related to engineering.
I haven't seen the big bang myself,
I'm waiting for a better theory than Darwin's. But that's another topic.
Oh cool, what field? Mine is software engineering, which I suppose doesn't deal too much with natural science. Though, becoming an engineering student did awaken my interest in science, so I do enjoy studying some fields like physics, astronomy, and biology independently.
-Evan Williams
Last edited:
Upvote
0
My degree is in Water Resources, lots of biology courses. (General Biology, Zoology, Aquatic Invertebrate Zoology, Aquatic Insects, Microbiology, Water Pollution Ecology, Toxicology, Chemistry, Water Chemistry)
I'm also doing wastewater treatment which is where the engineering stuff comes in.
Now I'm studying NT greek, because I never took a language in college.
Upvote
0
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,738
- 58
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
That view is alive and well. It's not just existing in medieval times.
But the wide variety of Christian views of hell does make it difficult to have discussions of hell. There is always some Christian who pipes up and says that we aren't using the correct version.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Upvote
0
E
EvanDW
Guest
Which highlights my point I made earlier... why does God not just tell us directly whether or not there's a hell in a way we can clearly hear with our own ears? Why use a method, a book, that will inevitably result in thousands of denominations and completely fail to deter rival religions?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
