I started this thread so as not to hijack further this threadin General Questions.
It seems that whenever I object to a particular part of Christianity that bothers me, some Christian stands up and says, “Well you know, that is not really a fundamental componant of Christianity.”
I have lots of reasons to hate Christianity, but one of the things that bother me most about it is the fact that it teaches children that if they don’t ‘accept the Lord Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior’ they will burn eternally in hell.
I have seen certain sects of Christianity interpret this idea differently. I do believe it is the Jehovah Witnesses that translate the ‘Sheol’ which is translated as ‘hell’ in the Bible to actually be ‘grave’. They don’t believe in a burning hell. The do believe in an eternal paradise, which I find crazy, but that is not my point. My real point is that I have always found them to be the exception in Christianity. I was pretty sure that as a rule, a burning hell was a fundamental part of Christianity.
If it isn’t, what is? I’m thinking almost anything can be pulled apart and flipped and flopped…“Oh, all of us Christians don’t believe that the world was built in 6 days, all of us don’t believe that Jesus was born of a virgin…” What are the actual fundamentals of Christianity that you all do believe?
I usually keep my ass out of Great Debates, except to read, and I have a weird inability to figure out where a thread goes, so I hope I’m in the right place, if not, can a mod move this for me? Thanks.
ETA: I want to be clear. I am not just asking for the ‘fundamentals of Christianity’. I am asking if a burning hell is not considered by most Christians on this board to be a fundamental of Christianity.
Hell is a fundamental teaching. I consider the whole “burning” aspect of it to be more literary device to denote unpleasantness than an actual cave filled with fire and little red dudes with pitchforks or whatever. The most common non-fiery concept of Hell is simply separation from the divinity of God.
Raised Catholic for what it’s worth and I’ve never known anyone within my religious circles who’d find (or would have found) it worthwhile to argue the exact climate of Hell provided we agree that it’s the bad place to go post-Judgement.
I gotta tell ya, Jophiel…to my little 7 year old mind, the exact climate of Hell was more important to me than being seperate from the divinity of God. A whole hell of a lot more important.
The thing about a burning hell is that, you don’t have to beat a kid in the head with that. They will believe you. To their very core, deep down in their deepest psyche. If you teach them when they are young and ignorant that they may burn eternally…and they are not only getting this from their most trusted sources of information and nurturing (their parents), but they are also getting this message from on high in big fancy buildings, that their parents get all dressed up to visit…I think this is enough to convince a child for life that they are in danger of an eternity of anguish, unless they become and stay a Christian for life. But if Catholics don’t actually teach a burning hell, then already, I have had ignorance fought, because I thought for some reason that they did.
ETA: Now that I see your second post, I have to repeat…no way can seperation from God come second to eternal burning. Not to my adult mind, and not to my child’s mind.
There was this guy who is commonly referred to as Jesus. He said we didn’t have to eat kosher food. And uh, he taught the golden rule.
The Bible can and has been interpreted in so many vastly different ways by so many people for so long that finding the points of non-contention is pretty useless. If you take, for instance, the Jefferson Bible which just has Jesus and all Jesus and cuts out all the stuff that’s mystical or non-Jesusian, and compare that to modern Christian life in the US, I suspect that you’ll find that pretty much everyone is doing it wrong. Yet, theoretically, Jesus’ word is supposed to be what Christianity is. Everyone would hate living like Jesus told us to though, so little to none of it has survived. In that sort of climate, pretty much any interpretation is just as good as any other, because all it has to do with Christianity is what people would like it to.
Well it’s certainly more abstract. But if you figure that God is perfection–everything beautiful, everything wise, complete bliss, pure unadulterated love and compassion–and you’re going to spend the rest of eternity in the complete absence of any hint of those, well that pretty much sucks on all levels. You’ll be stuck with nothing but the horrid, the inane, festering pain, and hatred. That’s pretty well Hell by all senses of the word, just not very conducive to painting.
Let me tell you what my niece told me about why she hopes I will reconsider and accept Jesus.
“Picture yourself in a coffin. It is so hot and small, you can’t breath. Now imagine that coffin is in the hot sun in the desert. And imagine trying to stand that for 5 minutes. Now imagine it is even hotter and more tortuous, and instead of 5 minutes it is billions upon billions of years. Just like that. Burning and tortured. That is what hell is like”.
And all I could think is, this baby is thinking that this is what awaits her if she isn’t right with her personal savior. Not just a place of bitterness and hate…this girl is shook to her marrow because of that detailed vision she described to me.
But Diogenes has shocked me. I had no idea that the idea of it wasn’t in the bible. I actually could have sworn that a burning hell is indeed in there, and that I read it myself, but I guess that could be explained away as mere parables, now that I think of it.
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen
Presbyterians, of which I am almost one, add that when Jesus was crucified he descended into Hell and rose on the 3rd day. The reason I’m not an actual Presbyterian is that I don’t believe in Hell or bodily resurrection. Catholic in this context means universal, not Roman Catholic. We also believe in the teachings of Jesus and his apostles, you know, be nice to people, etc.
And, as one is judged before God immediately, not after waiting in Limbo for the end of the world, you get that single glimpse of His Majesty before being torn away from Him forever.
Screw fire and brimstone. Physical pain you can get used to, especially after the endorphins kick in. The Catholics have upped it to psychological torment.
As for the Nicene Creed, was that written by lawyers, or what? It’s almost, “The party of the first part, henceforth known as ‘God,’…”
Whoa. That’s what’s up. You know how to drop some knowledge, Second Stone. I’m still a bit confused, but I’m usually confused by things I try to understand…it is not for lack of you guys dropping jewels to try to educate me though.
My esteemed colleague is a little too dogmatic on this point, I believe. I suppose it’s possible to interpret the Bible as not actually saying anything about there being some place of perpetual torment, but it’s hardly the slam-dunk he often says it is. (Since he’s not a Christian himself, I don’t think he has any vested interest in minimizing the Bible’s depictions of Hell; I just think he’s mistaken.)
As for me, I undoubtedly don’t follow them, whatever they are. Others make allowances for me, but strictly speaking I’m a piss-poor Christian of any stripe. Some of them may be making excuses so I don’t end up in Hell. I appreciate that, but since, even (especially?) if I believed in a just God, I wouldn’t believe in Hell, I’m likely fucked.
OK, I guess it’s been a while since I’ve done this.
There are three words in the Bible which are typically translated as “Hell,” Sheol, Gehenna and Hades, none of which match the popular conception of a place of eternal torment (though some uses contain conceptions of temporary torment as I’ll explain).
I’ll start with Sheol because it’s the oldest word (we have to bear in mind that the Bible was written across the better part of a millenium, so conceptions of the afterlife and uses of terminology changed somewhat over the centuries).
Sheol was sort of an all purpose underworld where the shades of dead people went to wait to be resurrected. It’s important to note that EVERYBODY went to Sheol, and that it was not eternal. The Jews believed that they would all be resurrected and judged on the last day, that the good people would be given eternal life in paradise, and that the bad people would be annihilated – not given eternal punishment, just snuffed out. Over time, Sheol evolved as a concept from being almost completely non-descript to adopting ideas of temporary punishment and reward from the Greek conception of Hades. In the original Greek text of the Lazarus parable quoted by MEBuckner, the word translated as “Hell” is actually Hades. Hades was the ususal translation of Sheol into Greek.
By the time Luke was written, the Jewish concept of Sheol had developed a conception that there was a partition in Sheol separating the good people from the bad people while they waited for resurrection and judgement on the final day. The good part was called the “Bosom of Abraham” (see the parable). In the bad part, bad people got subjected to torment, but the important part is that is that it didn’t last forever.
I should also point out that not all Jews believed even this much, but that those who rejected the oral Torah (such as the Sadducees who didn’t believe in a final resurrection and judgement) believed that the use of Sheol in Scripture referred to nothing but the grave.
OK, so the meaning of Sheol ranged in views from being merely a designation for death and the grave to be a temorary holding facility for souls awaiting physical resurrection and judgement. As far as the Bible goes, “Hades,” is virtually synonomous with Sheol and is basically just a Greek translation of the same.
I’ve got to attend to some domestic duties. I’ll address Gehenna and MEB’s other New Testament citations when I get back.
Bear in mind, I’m not claiming that the Christian notion of Hell can be found in the Old Testament (though I’m sure there are Christians who would argue thus). But–obviously–at some point Christian and Jewish ideas diverged in various areas. Certainly many Christians have believed in “eternal hellfire” down the centuries, and I think they have considerable support for that idea from several New Testament texts.
I’d agree that the Bible makes references to something called Hell or Hades or something, but I think Dio’s principal point is that it doesn’t actually define what that word specifically means anywhere. Similarly, Satan/the Devil/Beelzebub etc. are all randomly referred to in the Bible, but if you only had the text of the Bible to go on, there’s not any particular reason to think that those words all refer to the same thing, nor does it particularly say what that thing actually is. The popular definition is almost entirely extra-Biblical and has changed significantly with time.
Ya think? If you think that smacks of lawyerism, I invite you to read the letters of Paul. His shortcomings aside, he was a first rate analyst coming to conclusions.
You make me blush. And it confuses anyone at first if they try to think about it. Anything complex does. For religious issues in general, posts by Polycarp and/or Tomndebb are generally the stuff that makes me look like the third rate hack I am. I think they are both Catholic, but they are absolutely wonderful in explaining things Christian.
Any Christian who has attended enough worship services and paid attention has eventually asked the priest/pastor/minister after the service what a/the creed is about. Paying attention to new and interesting things is the key. But the Creed misses Christ’s teachings and their divine nature. Christ taught us to love for each other and care for each other. That’s the best evidence that the message is divine in nature, because if we can get past the other stuff and let it go and move on to finding love, the quality of life is “everlasting”. This knowledge has sustained me.
I give you my favorite Bible quote, from 1 John Chapter 4, verses 7-8:
The best part of Christianity is that there are a lot of people out there who call themselves Christians who really understand this, believe this and live this. Many don’t. Christianity is also heavily populated by people who don’t know or don’t care or reject these things who only use the religion as those kinds of people have used all religions: to fit in, to gain power, to steal or justify all sorts of things.
My father, a life-long atheist and born into a Jewish family, would give me a ration of shit for calling him one of the most Christian people I have ever known. He treats people well, even people he is in conflict with. He is giving and kind and takes great risks even for strangers. He is very much like the Good Samaritan of scripture. It is not unusual for me to encounter this in atheists.
There is a long Christian history in our Western Culture that makes it one of the most fascinating cultures ever. For a thousand years between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance through the Reformation all Culture centralized around Christianity. The Dark Ages were anything but. They gave us Augustine, Aquinas, von Bingam and on and on and on.
