Why is hell even necessary?

[elman]

Why is hell even necessary? I understand that God can't be in the presence of unholiness (except when he came to earth?) and I know that he's Just, so sinners can't go to heaven. But he's also merciful.

It seems to me that the perfect balance between Justice and Mercy is after death Christians go to heaven, everyone else ceases to exist. Why would a loving God punish the majority of people for eternity, ETERNITY! for the sin of not accepting His love?

Don't tell me that we send ourselves to hell. We don't. I'm choosing right now not to go. But according to the Bible, I'm going anyway. God chooses to send people to hell. He could just...you know...NOT send us there. Just annihilate our souls so that we are no longer aware or even exist. But instead He chooses to go above and beyond what is necessary to satisfy Justice. He becomes vengeful, unloving, and unmerciful. Or is there something I'm missing? I was a Christian for 22 years so I feel like I have a firm grasp of the theology. But then again I haven't read the Bible much recently in the past few years so maybe there's something I forgot that clears the whole thing up.

And mods, this is a genuine question. I'm not trolling or being confrontational. I want to know what the Bible has to say about this.

I believe after death Christians go to heaven, everyone else ceases to exist. The Bible says the wages of sin is death, not life in pain forever. Ezekiel 18 goes along with this idea. Those who turn from wickedness to righteousness shall live and not die. The wicked will die and not live.

 

[razeontherock]

Are you one of those Christians that believe that God won't stop until literally everyone is saved? Because that is more palatable to me too.

Palatable does not make reality. I am one of those people that can investigate every angle I can find of something, and recognize that some things are not presently knowable. The MOST telling thing we're given on this subject, is when Disciples asked about someone else's fate, Jesus was ALWAYS stern with them, instructing them to mind their own business and follow Him.

Yet C's still pretend the Faith is about deciding who around us goes to hell?!?

 

[razeontherock]

No, I really do get it. The actual wording of the verse is this: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

Implying that faith comes from God and not something we have on our own. Am I close?

The problem is you're still seeing Faith as nothing more than believeing. Which can be accomplished by playing make-believe. Many (most?) Churches make it seem this way, but it just makes no sense! That's because it's not True. This is what I mean by "looking deeper." Words will never be enough, but here's a good example:

not just the Egyptians, but also the Jews who didn't believe the Word of the Lord (at one specific time) left their cattle out in the field, and the cattle died. The believing Jews actually did something: Faith w/o works is dead.

 

[sabercroft]

The problem is you're still seeing Faith as nothing more than believeing. Which can be accomplished by playing make-believe. Many (most?) Churches make it seem this way, but it just makes no sense! That's because it's not True. This is what I mean by "looking deeper." Words will never be enough, but here's a good example:

not just the Egyptians, but also the Jews who didn't believe the Word of the Lord (at one specific time) left their cattle out in the field, and the cattle died. The believing Jews actually did something: Faith w/o works is dead.

I'm sorry, but... how is your reply relevant at all? At the end of the day faith still means something that you accept and believe to be true in the absence of evidence, does it not?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Palatable does not make reality.

No but it helps me decide the type of person I like to associate with haha

I am one of those people that can investigate every angle I can find of something, and recognize that some things are not presently knowable. The MOST telling thing we're given on this subject, is when Disciples asked about someone else's fate, Jesus was ALWAYS stern with them, instructing them to mind their own business and follow Him.

Yet C's still pretend the Faith is about deciding who around us goes to hell?!?

So you are the type of Christian (or religious person in general) that I like
to hang out with. You don't pretend to know all the answers.

 

[Traveller and Wiley]

I know what you're trying to say. You're saying we send ourselves to hell through our choices. I'm saying that's stupid.

I agree. That is stupid. that's why I never said that and was never "trying to say" it.

The Bible says that faith is the evidence of things hoped for, and the belief in things not seen.

No, close, but wrong.

In other words, faith is believing in something you really want to be true even though there is no evidence for it.

Actually, that's wishful thinking, not faith.

I am not rejecting God, I'm saying God hasn't demonstrated himself to me and neither have any of his followers. I lack belief in gods until I see evidence. But for the God of the Bible, I have a positive belief that he is not real.

Interesting that you say you only believe in things you see evidence for and then you turn around and say you believe that God is not real, but you're not able to show any evidence.

For the sin of using the reason and senses that God gave me, for the sin of NOT seeing evidence of his existence, I am to be punished eternally in agonizing hellfire (according to some denominations)

Using reason and senses isn't a sin. Likewise, not acknowledging the evidence for God's existence isn't a sin. To the contrary, Romans 1 says it's the consequence of sin.

Theologies that say that unbelievers are thrown into the lake of fire and consumed, or cease to exist in some other way are much more palatable to me.

And therein lies the rub. It has nothing to do with evidence, but with what you find "palatable".

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

The problem is you're still seeing Faith as nothing more than believeing. Which can be accomplished by playing make-believe. Many (most?) Churches make it seem this way, but it just makes no sense! That's because it's not True. This is what I mean by "looking deeper." Words will never be enough, but here's a good example:

not just the Egyptians, but also the Jews who didn't believe the Word of the Lord (at one specific time) left their cattle out in the field, and the cattle died. The believing Jews actually did something: Faith w/o works is dead.

Yep, gotcha. You believe in your heart because God gave you the faith, and then you act on it. It's just a semantics game we're playing now. Are faith and works to separate things or is there no such thing as faith without action? Does it matter? As long as you have faith (which comes from God), declare your faith, and do good works (in some denominations this is just a sign of faith, in others it is also required for salvation) you are saved.

Please believe me, if I leave out a detail, it's not because I don't understand, I spent 22 years of my life dedicated to this. It's because I don't have the time or the inclination to detail all of Christian theology on an internet forum. Just accept that it's possible for someone to know what you know, have experiences as deep and meaningful to them as your experiences are to you, and still come away with a different idea of what reality is.

(Granted, I know that you believe that I couldn't have ever truly known what Christianity is about if I was able to walk away. And that's fine. Whatever. I'll be the first to agree with you that I didn't really know God because I now don't believe that the God of the Bible is real. But as far as the technical tidbits go, I get it.)

 

[razeontherock]

I'm sorry, but... how is your reply relevant at all? At the end of the day faith still means something that you accept and believe to be true in the absence of evidence, does it not?

No.

 

[razeontherock]

(Granted, I know that you believe that I couldn't have ever truly known what Christianity is about if I was able to walk away.

Actually, I don't think that at all. You present a disturbing conundrum ...

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Actually, that's wishful thinking, not faith.

What happened to the whole "I have a firm grasp on Christianity theology" bit?

As I just said earlier, it's possible for someone to have the same technical knowledge of a subject, and come away with different views and opinions. When I read Hebrews 11:1, I see blind belief in something for which there is no evidence. And then Christians say "noooo there IS evidence! It comes directly from God! If you experienced salvation you would know what we're talking about! The verse says 'confidence' and "assurance" not "belief.'"

But that's still not evidence to me. That's not objective. God himself might have REALLY spoken to you and told you the truth. But that's still anecdotal evidence and not a good reason for ME to believe. If God wants to speak to me and give me faith in the same, deep, non-understandable-unless-it-happens-to-me way, then he's free to do so. Until then, I don't believe. Or do I have to initiate it? If God doesn't give the true, deep, spiritual evidence until I initiate contact, then we're back to blind belief.

Interesting that you say you only believe in things you see evidence for and then you turn around and say you believe that God is not real, but you're not able to show any evidence.

In terms of gods in general, I have no reason to believe they exist and so I have no belief either way on the subject. The burden of proof is on the people who make the positive claim about a god or gods.

In terms of YHWH, the God of the Bible, I have a personal belief that that god does not exist, at least in the way the Bible describes because the Bible is not credible. It is self-contradictory, historically inaccurate, and has been altered repeatedly. All of this is demonstrable. So if the only reason to believe in YHWH is the Bible, and the Bible is demonstrably wrong, why would that God exist?

And therein lies the rub. It has nothing to do with evidence, but with what you find "palatable".

Nope. Wrong. As I said earlier, I find Valhalla palatable. I find reincarnation palatable. I find Harry Potter palatable. (Who doesn't want an invisibility cloak?!) It doesn't mean I believe any of it.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Actually, I don't think that at all. You present a disturbing conundrum ...

Oh really? Maybe I was thinking of a past conversation with someone else. Well then, carry on.

 

[razeontherock]

Right. The Bible mentions we can make shipwreck concerning the Faith. Even Apostle Paul was concerned he would do so ...

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Right. The Bible mentions we can make shipwreck concerning the Faith. Even Apostle Paul was concerned he would do so ...

Thank you. Seriously. You're the first Christian who has at least hinted that I may have been a real Christian in the past and not just some faker.

Now, please don't take that as a cry for help. Shipwrecked is such a negative word. I prefer to think that my ship of faith crash landed on a remote island where the inhabitants have invented spaceflight.

 

[Traveller and Wiley]

As I just said earlier, it's possible for someone to have the same technical knowledge of a subject, and come away with different views and opinions.

True, but we're not talking about a view or opinion. We're talking about words which show that you have no idea what the Bible teaches.

When I read Hebrews 11:1, I see blind belief in something for which there is no evidence.

And yet, that same text condemns blind belief.

In terms of gods in general, I have no reason to believe they exist and so I have no belief either way on the subject. The burden of proof is on the people who make the positive claim about a god or gods.

You just said that you have a positive claim that there is no God. Therefore, it is up to you to show evidence to back up your claim.

the Bible is not credible. It is self-contradictory, historically inaccurate, and has been altered repeatedly.

Please list the top three "contradictions" and one "historical inaccuracy".

All of this is demonstrable.

Then demonstrate it.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

You just said that you have a positive claim that there is no God. Therefore, it is up to you to show evidence to back up your claim.

Ok you're right. In a scientific sense, I can't say definitively that YHWH isn't real. Don't get me wrong, I don't think He is, and if I had to bet, I would bet he definitely isn't. It's probably the same way you think of Unicorns or Harry Potter.

Sure, I can't PROVE that a wizard named Harry Potter doesn't exist, but the only evidence we have for his existence, and indeed the only reason we even KNOW about him in the first place comes from a book that is not credible as a historical source. So if that book isn't true, then not only have we disproven the only evidence for his actual existence, but we've suddenly eliminated the entire reason we heard about him in the first place.

Please list the top three "contradictions" and one "historical inaccuracy".

I know everyone watching is probably googling "Biblical contradictions" for the common arguments so they can rebut them. But I'll do you guys one better. Here's the first part of a seven part lecture on a series about serious misinterpretations and errors in the Bible by an actual Bible Scholar. I would encourage you to watch all of the other parts. They can be found in the related videos section on the right.
YouTube - ‪Misquoting Jesus - Lecture by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman Part 1 of 7‬‏


Here's a video detailing the way the concept of god changed throughout ancient Israel's history. From polytheism where YHWH was just a god of war out of an entire pantheon of gods; to henotheism where YHWH was worshipped over and above other lower gods, to monotheism. The video also touches on the historical inaccuracy of the Exodus account.
YouTube - ‪3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1)‬‏

A note on that last video in the spirit of full disclosure: I can't find it now, but there is a video response on youtube somewhere from a real Biblical scholar for that second video. He points out a few minor errors where the video-maker mixed up dates or scripture references. But he agreed with the overall content of the video.

 

[razeontherock]

my ship of faith crash landed on a remote island

The ol', "if you had to be stranded on a desert island who would be there" gambit?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

The ol', "if you had to be stranded on a desert island who would be there" gambit?

Definitely Frank Fazetta so he could teach me how to paint like he does (did). And as much as I would like to say that I would choose some deep philosophical book, I'd probably bring Conan the Barbarian comics haha.

(Actually it'd probably be best to bring some survivalism guide.)

 

[Traveller and Wiley]

I know everyone watching is probably googling "Biblical contradictions"

How about you? Can you name any Biblical contradictions? After all, you're the one who said it.

Since you said that there were so many Biblical contradictions, I really don't think asking for just three is that big a deal, do you?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

How about you? Can you name any Biblical contradictions? After all, you're the one who said it.

Since you said that there were so many Biblical contradictions, I really don't think asking for just three is that big a deal, do you?

Did you not watch the video? (I know you didn't because it's only been a few minutes). I chose to post the words of ACTUAL Biblical scholars instead of finding some cliche list on the internet that just has a counter-list on some Christian website about why they only LOOK like contradictions back actually aren't. That's boring played out and you can just google them yourself.

There are plenty of contradictions, errors, mistranslations, and historical inaccuracies mentioned in those videos. You asked for it, I posted it, don't blame me if you can't be bothered to watch them.

 

[Traveller and Wiley]

Did you not watch the video?

No. I'm not interested in what they say. I'm interested in seeing you back up your claims. The guy in the video didn't make the claim. You did. It's cowardly to make a claim and then hide behind somebody else's skirt.

You asked for it, I posted it, don't blame me if you can't be bothered to watch them.

And don't blame us if we don't take your silly claims seriously because you won't show any evidence to back them up.

I only asked you for three examples out of what you claim to be hundreds. I don't think that was an unreasonable request.

But just like you insisted that you have a "firm grasp on Christian theology" and then made several statements that any eight year old who's ever read the Shorter Catechism would know are not Biblical, now you insist that there are hundreds of contradictions and historical inaccuracies and yet, you can't even name one of them.