Heaven yes, Hell no?

[badchad]

baronsabato From the following thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=384178&page=2&pp=40

You wrote…

@baronsabato

As a mainline Protestant, well, most of the members of my current church don’t really believe in hell at all and have adopted Universalist stances rather than exclusivist ones

…which caused me to question whether you interpreted heaven as liberally as you do hell. You replied:

@baronsabato

I guess it depends on what you mean by “liberal”. I myself hope that there is something like a “heaven”, but for the most part, we are agnostics when it comes to the afterlife. Salvation, and the kingdom of God that Jesus spoke so often about, for most of us is less a place we go to when we die than something we achieve here on earth…

What you say above, that you and your kind are agnostic about an afterlife and that the kingdom of god is a state achievable on earth, does not jive with the following:

@baronsabato

Even so, I do hope and believe that we do go to heaven when we die, and I’m sure most of my fellow congregants agree.

Where you now say you do believe in heaven, as do most of your congregants. Which is it?

@baronsabato

But I am the first to admit (and I think this is what you were getting at) that this hope and belief is based mostly on the comfort it gives me and on my understanding of God as a gracious, compassionate, and loving God.

I will agree that this belief in heaven is based partially, if not mostly, on the comfort it gives you. It appears that you concede this is irrational. The question remaining is, if your belief in not entirely based on wishful thinking, what is the basis for the remainder? I dare say it’s conditioning since birth, indoctrination, a.k.a. brainwashing. Brainwashing isn’t rational either.

Regarding your understanding of god as gracious, compassionate, and loving, I have to ask; where you get this? If we look around at our surroundings, it is very difficult to believe that this earth is controlled by an all powerful, all loving, compassionate being. The bible, more often than not, describes him as anything but, so where are you getting this? Is this just wishful thinking and brainwashing again?

Our understanding of salvation, in that sense, is probably why it’s easier for us to be universalists, because we recognize that there is something holy and true in all religions and that the way to the Kingdom (or Empire or Domain or whatever) of God is certainly achievable by anyone, regardless of their faith.

But you call yourself a Christian. By that, it implies you are a follower of the teachings of Jesus. As far as anyone knows Jesus was very adamant about the fact that only those who believe in him and his dad, go to heaven and those who don’t, go to hell. This is a rather large sticking point to just sweep under the carpet.

[Dinsdale]

It’s all just a big smorgasboard of make believe, so pile up your plate with whatever looks appealing.

[Polycarp]

@Dinsdale

It’s all just a big smorgasboard of make believe, so pile up your plate with whatever looks appealing.

Um, no. Within the context of the basic assumptions, there are certain things that are logical inferences and certain things that are not. That’s key to what has caused the disagreement between badchad and myself.

To do a CS-type parallel, in the Star Trek universe, one can travel anywhere at warp drive, and use the transporter device to teleport to the surface while in orbit. One cannot teleport anywhere at random, nor is one obliged to use pre-existing wormholes or Alderson “tramlines” for interstellar travel, as in the Vorkosiganverse and Niven-Pournelle Mote universe respectively. Evidently transporter teleportation only works at cosmicly short distances.

In the Bible universe, God is described as having certain qualities and humans to have certain privileges and responsibilities vis-a-vis His will. You do not get to make random assertions about Him.

Now, the problem lies in the fact that for Christians, the “Bible universe” is supposed to describe the real universe. However, there’s a trick here – either the contradictions between inferences from the Bible (e.g., that the Universe as a whole was created just over 3000 years before a historical figure dateable at 1000 BC) and what is determinable from study of the real Universe.

The simplest way to do this is to take the Bible as what it appears to be to the random individual picking it up with no presuppositions about the validity of its content – a collection of history, poetry, myth, legend, correspondence, proverb collections, prophesy, polemic biography, etc., containing fact, fiction, fable, adage, and whatever. From this, by selective reading and study against the background of the culture producing it and other ancient writings, some picture of the God it describes and His intent toward mankind can be painted. Inevitably there will be contradictions, which must be resolved in some manner.

At rock bottom, the disagreements within Christianity and between it and the world at large lie in what manner individuals choose to resolve those contradictions.

[coffeecat]

@badchad

As far as anyone knows Jesus was very adamant about the fact that only those who believe in him and his dad, go to heaven and those who don’t, go to hell. This is a rather large sticking point to just sweep under the carpet.

Cite? John 14:6 is not as cut and dried as Jack Chick would have you believe.

[badchad]

@Polycarp

To do a CS-type parallel, in the Star Trek universe, one can travel anywhere at warp drive, and use the transporter device to teleport to the surface while in orbit. One cannot teleport anywhere at random, nor is one obliged to use pre-existing wormholes or Alderson “tramlines” for interstellar travel, as in the Vorkosiganverse and Niven-Pournelle Mote universe respectively. Evidently transporter teleportation only works at cosmicly short distances.

I like that analogy. As much as we try to argue back and forth about specifics in the bible, regarding anything supernatural, it is just fiction, just like in Star Trek.

@Polycarp

In the Bible universe, God is described as having certain qualities and humans to have certain privileges and responsibilities vis-a-vis His will. You do not get to make random assertions about Him.

Considering the bible describes god as anywhere between the most hateful, vengeful, blood thirsty being in the universe, to one that is at least superficially loving, that leaves a lot of room to pick and choose. I’ve got to think that cherry picking bible verses is only slightly better than selecting qualities at random.

@Polycarp

The simplest way to do this is to take the Bible as what it appears to be to the random individual picking it up with no presuppositions about the validity of its content…

Do you think you look at the bible, with no presuppositions about the validity of its content?

@Polycarp

From this, by selective reading and study against the background of the culture producing it and other ancient writings, some picture of the God it describes and His intent toward mankind can be painted.

In your case, the picture you wanted it to, reflecting your modern secular humanist morals.

[badchad]

@coffeecat

Cite? John 14:6 is not as cut and dried as Jack Chick would have you believe.

How about Mark 16:16:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

[Revenant_Threshold]

@badchad

How about Mark 16:16:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

Saved from what, and damned to what?

[badchad]

@Revenant Threshold

Saved from what, and damned to what?

Didn’t you ever go to Sunday school? Believers are saved from hell, torment, punishment, a furnace of fire, the wrath of god, etc. Unbelievers aren’t. Perhaps this verse will make it clearer:

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36

I can cite plenty more but you’ll save us both time if you just read the bible for yourself.

[coffeecat]

@badchad

How about Mark 16:16:

“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”

I forgot about that one. Jesus is a lot harsher in Mark 16 than he usually is; do you suppose he was grumpy over having been crucified? Actually, if that speech is right, we’re all damned, nominally Christian or not–at least, those of us who can’t heal by touch and safely drink cyanide.

As for John 3:36, many translations (RSV, for one) say, “he who disobeys the Son shall not see life.” Not the same thing at all. What’s the Greek say? Diogenes? At any rate, a passage about condemning all unbelievers to hell is awfully strange so near, “God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.” In fact, all these passages supposedly about condemning unbelievers are strange. As I see it, the main theme of the New Testament is that God doesn’t like judgemental hypocrites, so love each other, and don’t worry too much about picayune details.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Polycarp

Um, no. Within the context of the basic assumptions, there are certain things that are logical inferences and certain things that are not.

Really? I was under the impression that internal consistancy was of minor-to-the-point-of-irrelevance value in matters of theology.

[badchad]

@coffeecat

I forgot about that one. Jesus is a lot harsher in Mark 16 than he usually is; do you suppose he was grumpy over having been crucified?

No, I think that’s how Jesus just plain usually is. “Love me or else” is a very consistent message pervading throughout the gospels. Read them yourself and see.

@coffeecat

Actually, if that speech is right, we’re all damned, nominally Christian or not–at least, those of us who can’t heal by touch and safely drink cyanide.

That’s true. Mark 16 contains some of my favorite verses to use against fundamentalists.

@coffeecat

As for John 3:36, many translations (RSV, for one) say, “he who disobeys the Son shall not see life.” Not the same thing at all.

I’m sure if you filter through enough translations of the bible you can pick and choose one that says what you want. However, even your RSV still has this quote:

“He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” John 3:18

And Mark 16:16 gets no nicer.

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

@coffeecat

At any rate, a passage about condemning all unbelievers to hell is awfully strange so near, “God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.”

It’s pretty clear throughout the gospels, and darn near everywhere else in the bible, that any talk of saving was for gods believers and bootlickers only.

@coffeecat

In fact, all these passages supposedly about condemning unbelievers are strange.

Strange yes, but we must remember the authors of the bible were not impressive philosophers.

@coffeecat

As I see it, the main theme of the New Testament is that God doesn’t like judgemental hypocrites, so love each other, and don’t worry too much about picayune details.

God may not have liked judgmental hypocrites, but that didn’t stop him from being one, himself. Jesus was very good at pointing out the motes in eyes of others but not very good at seeing the log in his own.

[Othersider]

@badchad

Jesus was very good at pointing out the motes in eyes of others but not very good at seeing the log in his own.

Example?

[badchad]

@Othersider

Example?

Coming immediately to mind:

Telling us not to call people fools, but doing so himself.

Telling us to honor our father and mother, and then he disses his mother.

Telling us to love our enemies, while saying he will slow roast them himself.

Telling us not to judge, but judging and judging harshly himself (or else his old man does).

Telling us to turn the other cheek, and then casting us into furnace of fire.