Why do mainstream Christians believe that anyone who disagrees with them is doomed?

[SkepticalFaith]

Why do mainstream Christians believe that anyone who disagrees with them is doomed to eternal suffering in hell? This seems utterly nonsensical to me.

I shall describe my point as thus:

Person 1: The Bible says it's true, so therefore it must be true.
Person 2: Just because the Bible says its true, doesn't mean that it necessarily is true. What about the other religions? What if I believe in God but disagree with the Bible? Why should I believe the Bible is true, and everything else is incorrect?
Person 1: You're going to hell!!1!1!11

I think you see my point. This is not intended to be an attack on anyone or any religion-but simply a counterargument to a commonly used school of thought. Yes, I am a Christian, and yes, I am well aware of the fact that Christians believe this because the bible says so.

It is due to logic breakdowns, such as the one I described above, that I have some alternate beliefs concerning the bible. Why should I believe that an all-loving God would send someone to hell, simply because their mind worked differently than Christians? Why would God send anyone to hell, for that matter? I am unable to see how a finite amount of sins equates with an eternity of punishment. It simply does not make any sense. I would not find it too hard to believe in a form of temporary punishment or cleansing (ie: purgatory), but currently I would like to discover more reasons to believe in something like that before I do.

Another argument I shall use is this: If God loves everyone, why would He discriminate against non-Christians? Why should only Christians be able to go to Heaven, while some poor guy on the other side of the world who never had any knowledge of Jesus Christ is doomed to spend an eternity in hell? That does not sound like an all-loving God to me. That sounds like a misinterpretation of an all-loving God.

Yet another problem with the commonly accepted hell theologies is that they sound frighteningly congruent to a ruler attempting to use fear to control his subjects. This would mean that saying "if you don't believe what I believe you're going to hell" sounds like an efficient device to use to get people under your control. It would have been all too easy for someone, or some group, to have edited the Bible thousands of years ago to suit their own needs. Back in ancient times, when people were more susceptible to "you're going to hell if you disagree with me" threats, it would have indeed been an efficient device to control entire populations.


Please share your thoughts concerning these matters in this thread. I am very interested to read them.

 

[Upisoft]

It would have been all too easy for someone, or some group, to have edited the Bible thousands of years ago to suit their own needs. Back in ancient times, when people were more susceptible to "you're going to hell if you disagree with me" threats, it would have indeed been an efficient device to control entire populations.

There is no need for that, the New Testament was not written by those who were eyewitnesses, thus there was no need of change in the text of unwritten book. Anyway editing is also possibility, I think most Christians agree that some (maybe small) parts of New Testament were added later.

 

[SkepticalFaith]

There is no need for that, the New Testament was not written by those who were eyewitnesses, thus there was no need of change in the text of unwritten book. Anyway editing is also possibility, I think most Christians agree that some (maybe small) parts of New Testament were added later.

How was the New Testament not written by eyewitnesses, if there are multiple descriptions in the Gospel of things the writers said that they saw (ie: Jesus Christ performing miracles)? I do not understand.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Why do mainstream Christians believe that anyone who disagrees with them is doomed to eternal suffering in hell? This seems utterly nonsensical to me.

I shall describe my point as thus:

Person 1: The Bible says it's true, so therefore it must be true.
Person 2: Just because the Bible says its true, doesn't mean that it necessarily is true. What about the other religions? What if I believe in God but disagree with the Bible? Why should I believe the Bible is true, and everything else is incorrect?
Person 1: You're going to hell!!1!1!11

I think you see my point. This is not intended to be an attack on anyone or any religion-but simply a counterargument to a commonly used school of thought. Yes, I am a Christian, and yes, I am well aware of the fact that Christians believe this because the bible says so.

It is due to logic breakdowns, such as the one I described above, that I have some alternate beliefs concerning the bible. Why should I believe that an all-loving God would send someone to hell, simply because their mind worked differently than Christians? Why would God send anyone to hell, for that matter? I am unable to see how a finite amount of sins equates with an eternity of punishment. It simply does not make any sense. I would not find it too hard to believe in a form of temporary punishment or cleansing (ie: purgatory), but currently I would like to discover more reasons to believe in something like that before I do.

Another argument I shall use is this: If God loves everyone, why would He discriminate against non-Christians? Why should only Christians be able to go to Heaven, while some poor guy on the other side of the world who never had any knowledge of Jesus Christ is doomed to spend an eternity in hell? That does not sound like an all-loving God to me. That sounds like a misinterpretation of an all-loving God.

Yet another problem with the commonly accepted hell theologies is that they sound frighteningly congruent to a ruler attempting to use fear to control his subjects. This would mean that saying "if you don't believe what I believe you're going to hell" sounds like an efficient device to use to get people under your control. It would have been all too easy for someone, or some group, to have edited the Bible thousands of years ago to suit their own needs. Back in ancient times, when people were more susceptible to "you're going to hell if you disagree with me" threats, it would have indeed been an efficient device to control entire populations.


Please share your thoughts concerning these matters in this thread. I am very interested to read them.

Although I think you have some valid arguments and questions I think that picking a fight to begin your quest for knowledge is not a good decision. The title of your OP is not one that leads to calm discussion but rather one that invites negative emotional responses. Lumping all mainstream Christians into one stereotype is also something that I would not find advisable. If you seek a peaceful discussion I would advise you to leave off with the baiting of mainstream Christians and title your OP in such a way as to stimulate the curiosity but not inflame the temper of those you wish to have a discussion with. Nonetheless, I will agree with you that the traditional version of Hell as eternal torture chamber contradicts the idea of a loving and merciful and just God.

 

[SkepticalFaith]

Although I think you have some valid arguments and questions I think that picking a fight to begin your quest for knowledge is not a good decision. The title of your OP is not one that leads to calm discussion but rather one that invites negative emotional responses. Lumping all mainstream Christians into one stereotype is also something that I would not find advisable. If you seek a peaceful discussion I would advise you to leave off with the baiting of mainstream Christians and title your OP in such a way as to stimulate the curiosity but not inflame the temper of those you wish to have a discussion with. Nonetheless, I will agree with you that the traditional version of Hell as eternal torture chamber contradicts the idea of a loving and merciful and just God.

I do not intend to offend anyone. I agree that my title may not have been the wisest title to write-but topics like this easily frustrate me, if only enough to make me slightly exasperated. I mean no disrespect to anyone, and I do not mean to lump anyone together. I just get tired of people condemning each other to this hell or that hell, etc.

Also, if hell is indeed real, I think its biblical description as a pit of fire and brimstone is an allegory.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I do not intend to offend anyone. I agree that my title may not have been the wisest title to write-but topics like this easily frustrate me, if only enough to make me slightly exasperated. I mean no disrespect to anyone, and I do not mean to lump anyone together. I just get tired of people condemning each other to this hell or that hell, etc.

Also, if hell is indeed real, I think its biblical description as a pit of fire and brimstone is an allegory.

I don't know if anyone will be offended but I think you will get more heated responses than thoughtful ones. Good Luck with your discussions I hope they end up being fruitful for you.

 

[SkepticalFaith]

I don't know if anyone will be offended but I think you will get more heated responses than thoughtful ones. Good Luck with your discussions I hope they end up being fruitful for you.

Thank you. If responses to my posts are heated, so be it-the learning experience will be worth it.

 

[Upisoft]

How was the New Testament not written by eyewitnesses, if there are multiple descriptions in the Gospel of things the writers said that they saw (ie: Jesus Christ performing miracles)? I do not understand.

Simple, people who wrote the New Testament are not those who were the disciples and who saw the miracles with their eyes. They were told those stories. During the time the stories reach the writers they could change. Just an example, during my life time 9/11 happened. Now there are a lot of stories about what happened, some claim it was internal job, others that Jews did it, 3rd that terrorist Muslims did it, etc. All that in my life time with all the technology we have for preserving knowledge.

Some of the books of the new testament were written maybe 100+ years after the death of Jesus. Guess how much could be conspiracy theory...

 

[SkepticalFaith]

Simple, people who wrote the New Testament are not those who were the disciples and who saw the miracles with their eyes. They were told those stories. During the time the stories reach the writers they could change. Just an example, during my life time 9/11 happened. Now there are a lot of stories about what happened, some claim it was internal job, others that Jews did it, 3rd that terrorist Muslims did it, etc. All that in my life time with all the technology we have for preserving knowledge.

Some of the books of the new testament were written maybe 100+ years after the death of Jesus. Guess how much could be conspiracy theory...

Ah, that makes sense. I have heard rumors of lost teachings of Jesus Christ, such as reincarnation doctrine. Drawing conclusions from your statements, how accurate do you think the New Testament accounts of Jesus Christ are nowadays?

 

[Svt4Him]

I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is doomed to hell, wrong theology doesn't send one to hell, sin does. Have you ever lied? Taken anything that doesn't belong to you? If so, what does that make you?

 

[Upisoft]

Ah, that makes sense. I have heard rumors of lost teachings of Jesus Christ, such as reincarnation doctrine. Drawing conclusions from your statements, how accurate do you think the New Testament accounts of Jesus Christ are nowadays?

I really don't know, there are really very few sources except the Bible, the most famous I know was from Josephus who was born few or several years after the death of Jesus, still not a contemporary evidence. And it is only few rows of text, so there is no much information to make any educated conclusion. The New Testament could have changed a lot or very little from what happened in reality. There are apocryphal gospels that were forbidden by the church, probably because they contradict with canonical gospels. The fact there is not much historical information about Jesus could mean many things. The church may have exterminated almost anything, because it does not support the canon. The apocrypha survived, because unlike history books they were not kept in libraries. It may mean that such person like Jesus did not exist and all is fiction. It may mean that Jesus did not made the impact the gospels say he did, so people did not find any reason to write about Him. I can continue with all sort of conjectures, but without facts we have no grounds to decide what is true. It could be all true or it could be all lies. Who knows?

Thomas refused to believe until he put finger in the holes on His hands. If the story is true, then it is OK to be like Thomas. Jesus gave him a chance to get the evidence he needs, so we will get such a chance if God is fair. And if God is not fair then everyone is screwed anyways... As far as Christianity is concerned I'm in peace with the "what if god exists" question.

 

[Resha Caner]

How was the New Testament not written by eyewitnesses, if there are multiple descriptions in the Gospel of things the writers said that they saw (ie: Jesus Christ performing miracles)? I do not understand.

There's a lot of nonsense floating around about who wrote the NT. People need to do a better job of checking their facts.

- - -

As to the OP, I think the dialogue is a bit of a strawman. I have seen some sadly misinformed Christians react that way, but in my experience they are few. Unfortunately, those few can be very loud.

With that said, the Bible is quite clear about what happens to those who reject the Christ.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

For a community, virtue is its own reward. Therefore to reject it would be suicide. I think this general assumption is behing allegation those who reject it are doomed, it is only just feedback which they deserve for helping to mess things up.

 

[Catherineanne]

Why do mainstream Christians believe that anyone who disagrees with them is doomed to eternal suffering in hell? This seems utterly nonsensical to me.

You are right, it is nonsensical. That is why not all mainstream Christians believe it. I am Anglican, and a member of the Church of England. My Church regards the imagery of hellfire as an allegory of separation from God, rather than a literal place.

I hope that helps.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Why do mainstream Christians believe that anyone who disagrees with them is doomed to eternal suffering in hell? This seems utterly nonsensical to me.

I shall describe my point as thus:

Person 1: The Bible says it's true, so therefore it must be true.
Person 2: Just because the Bible says its true, doesn't mean that it necessarily is true. What about the other religions? What if I believe in God but disagree with the Bible? Why should I believe the Bible is true, and everything else is incorrect?
Person 1: You're going to hell!!1!1!11

I think you see my point. This is not intended to be an attack on anyone or any religion-but simply a counterargument to a commonly used school of thought. Yes, I am a Christian, and yes, I am well aware of the fact that Christians believe this because the bible says so.

It is due to logic breakdowns, such as the one I described above, that I have some alternate beliefs concerning the bible. Why should I believe that an all-loving God would send someone to hell, simply because their mind worked differently than Christians? Why would God send anyone to hell, for that matter? I am unable to see how a finite amount of sins equates with an eternity of punishment. It simply does not make any sense. I would not find it too hard to believe in a form of temporary punishment or cleansing (ie: purgatory), but currently I would like to discover more reasons to believe in something like that before I do.

Another argument I shall use is this: If God loves everyone, why would He discriminate against non-Christians? Why should only Christians be able to go to Heaven, while some poor guy on the other side of the world who never had any knowledge of Jesus Christ is doomed to spend an eternity in hell? That does not sound like an all-loving God to me. That sounds like a misinterpretation of an all-loving God.

Yet another problem with the commonly accepted hell theologies is that they sound frighteningly congruent to a ruler attempting to use fear to control his subjects. This would mean that saying "if you don't believe what I believe you're going to hell" sounds like an efficient device to use to get people under your control. It would have been all too easy for someone, or some group, to have edited the Bible thousands of years ago to suit their own needs. Back in ancient times, when people were more susceptible to "you're going to hell if you disagree with me" threats, it would have indeed been an efficient device to control entire populations.


Please share your thoughts concerning these matters in this thread. I am very interested to read them.

Tribalism.

 

[qualityassurance]

^ That about sums it up. It's that basic human instinct that ends up creating such doctrines.

 

[The Nihilist]

I don't think anyone who disagrees with me is doomed to hell, wrong theology doesn't send one to hell, sin does.

That's a relatively new opinion within christendom. Y'all spent centuries murdering and excommunicating and battling each other over pretty insignificant matters of doctrine.

 

[farmer joe]

What if not one religion is right, but they all have some truths in them. What if all of us are part gods, as we are all able to create (alot of stuff). Just not as as much as the main creator, God. Questions we might not ever know while in the physical body. What if's , I have been wondering since childhood. Makes the movie Avatar come to mind.

 

[Paradoxum]

Why do mainstream Christians believe that anyone who disagrees with them is doomed to eternal suffering in hell? This seems utterly nonsensical to me.

Well I think it makes more sense than you give it credit. I do agree with you in that I don't believe that a loving God would send people to hell because the disagree. But I'm going to give you a stronger argument in favour of the position we both disagree with so that you aren't arguing against a strawman and so that you can respond to a more robust argument.

I shall describe my point as thus:

Person 1: The Bible says it's true, so therefore it must be true.

few, if any, Christians would say this or even think this. A Christian might answer by saying that they believe the Bible to be infallible because they have had personal experiences which line up with the beliefs set out in the Bible.

Person 2: Just because the Bible says its true, doesn't mean that it necessarily is true. What about the other religions? What if I believe in God but disagree with the Bible? Why should I believe the Bible is true, and everything else is incorrect?
Person 1: You're going to hell!!1!1!11

This could happen.

It is due to logic breakdowns, such as the one I described above, that I have some alternate beliefs concerning the bible. Why should I believe that an all-loving God would send someone to hell, simply because their mind worked differently than Christians? Why would God send anyone to hell, for that matter? I am unable to see how a finite amount of sins equates with an eternity of punishment. It simply does not make any sense. I would not find it too hard to believe in a form of temporary punishment or cleansing (ie: purgatory), but currently I would like to discover more reasons to believe in something like that before I do.

One reply might be that people are sent to hell for sin, not what the lack a belief in. Hell could be for eternity because once one has sinned one has become impure and impurity cannot go to heaven. Perhaps there is no chance for redemption in hell because there is a distinct lack of God in hell and so nothing to prompt one to repent.

Another argument I shall use is this: If God loves everyone, why would He discriminate against non-Christians? Why should only Christians be able to go to Heaven, while some poor guy on the other side of the world who never had any knowledge of Jesus Christ is doomed to spend an eternity in hell? That does not sound like an all-loving God to me. That sounds like a misinterpretation of an all-loving God.

Someone might reply that God doesn't discriminate against non-Christians. If the only way to heaven is committed belief in Jesus Christ then that is what is needed. You are Christian because you have been saved, and you are saved because you have the conditions of being saved (being Christian). Different sides of the same coin. They are doomed because the sin.

Yet another problem with the commonly accepted hell theologies is that they sound frighteningly congruent to a ruler attempting to use fear to control his subjects. This would mean that saying "if you don't believe what I believe you're going to hell" sounds like an efficient device to use to get people under your control. It would have been all too easy for someone, or some group, to have edited the Bible thousands of years ago to suit their own needs. Back in ancient times, when people were more susceptible to "you're going to hell if you disagree with me" threats, it would have indeed been an efficient device to control entire populations.

This is probably true.

 

[quatona]

Have you ever lied? Taken anything that doesn't belong to you? If so, what does that make you?

I don´t know. What would that make me?