Title changed from “Hell in Christianity” per e-mail request by the OP.
The Apostle’s Creed indicates a belief in Hell, in that Christ descended there after His death. I believe that Creed is recited by Catholics and several mainline Protestant denominations.
Whether Hell is a physical torment or something more abstract would be a subject of more disagreement, perhaps. And even writers as traditional as Dante or as conservative as CS Lewis have conceived of Hell as a place that one could escape from; i.e., not eternal.
Yes, Christianity teaches some sort of Hell. It’s difficult to be a Biblically-consistent Christian and not believe in some kind of Hell.
The question is- does the Bible clearly teach literal eternal conscious torment in Hell or does it allow for either the eventual destruction or redemption of the damned? I think the Bible clearly teaches a time of torment, but also suggests that it will result in either annihilation or reconciliation.
Jesus taught of a painful Afterlife for those who neglect the needy in front of them in Luke 16. He wouldn’t guarantee them any relief but he didn’t totally rule it out either.
One certainly though can make a Biblical case that the “fire” of Hell is the Fire of God that appears all through the Bible, the Fire that refines all that is precious and destroys all that is trash. That the worst of us usually have at least one precious element and the best of us have a lot of trash is one reason I think there may be hope. The other reasons are my belief that ultimately God is Love and everything else, Law and Justice and Hell, exist as functions of His Love and that Jesus Himself will be in charge of who goes to Hell & what they endure there. And if you can’t get any more Grace from Jesus, then you’re just the sort of person who will never benefit from it no matter how many opportunities He gives you.
OR it may be that Grace is eternally poured out on all souls, but that some rebellious hardened souls may so hate God/Christ that such Grace is nothing but perpetual torment. The Light of God/Jesus may well be the Lake of Fire.
A moving target is indeed one thing. You originally said, “If you don’t believe that, your version of Christianity is non-representative and frankly isn’t what’s called Christianity.” Now you’re saying that, without further detail, one should assume that a person calling themself “Christian” believes in hell. These are very different.
Let’s pause for a moment. Do you agree that those millions of liberal Christians who do not believe in Hell may nonetheless properly claim that they practice Christianity?
Daniel
Let me rephrase that sentence, since you believe I’m saying something other than what I am.
“If your personal sect of Christianity doesn’t believe in Hell, that’s such a minority and non-representative position, that it’s far more presumptuous to claim your sectarian beliefs for all of Christianity than for me to talk about a generic umbrella term that makes the assumptions of a reasonable person.”
I.e. he has no business claiming the word “Christianity” for his sect. If he wants to say, “Cite that Liberal Christians believe in Hell?” I’d have no issue with that.
It isn’t called “Christianity”. It’s called “Liberal Christianity”, “No-Hell Christianity”, “ITR’s Special Sauce”, or whatever else. But not adding those qualifiers in, it’s just being presumptuous and testy. Yes, those are all Christians, but no, they are not “Christianity”. They are not descriptive of the whole.
Huh–maybe we’re talking past each other.
If someone says, “Christians don’t believe in hell,” then I agree, that’s a silly position to take. If someone says, “If you don’t believe in Hell, then you’re not a Christian,” that’s also a silly position. Christians generally believe in hell; some Christians don’t.
I might similarly be foolish if I said, “mammals don’t give birth to live young.” But if I said, “If you lay eggs, you’re not a mammal,” I’d be similarly foolish.
As for the position against which one should argue, I strongly believe it should be the position of the person with whom you’re debating. If it’s not worth taking the time to figure out what their position is, it’s not worth taking the time to argue with them.
Hell is real and though a place of torment, it is also IMHO a place of refinement, the refiners fire. It is what some of us need to come to Him. It is also a situation caused by us, though Hell is very much real and a place, we willingly walk the path right to it, God just allows us to walk into it. Even there there is mercy and deliverance, but IMHO one more level to fall to - called outer darkness.
Don’t most versions of the Apostle’s Creed state that Jesus went into Hell?
When it comes to Christians (self-identified, anyway) nothing is descriptive of the whole. If the dictionary or Wikipedia or common sense suggest otherwise, they are wrong. You may not like it, but that is the way it is. Similarly there is nothing that all blacks have in common, and anyone here who talks about “generic” blackness will be shouted down, and rightly so. There ain’t no such animal.
Let me be a little more philosophically explicit. I am a materialist, which means that I reject essentialism. Whenever the word dictionary comes up in a debate, indeed whenever meaning is discussed at all, there is almost always an essentialist error creeping in somewhere. (You may not consider essentialism erroneous, of course, but identifying it at least allows us to point to our underlying difference.) Whenever I encounter confusion in myself or others, I find it almost always helpful to consider what material, i.e., physical, facts are being referred to and to discuss those explicitly. In this case you are asking about “generic,” or essential Christianity. Since I reject essentialism, my first question must be, Which Christians? Where? It is by pointing (physically or verbally) to some material thing or set of conditions that the debate can be resolved. If you are merely unable to point to some specific material thing, it may be the result only of a lack of precision in one’s thought. If you refuse or reject the question (as you seem to be doing) it is almost always a case of unrecognized essentialism.
I seem to remember a quote from FR Andrew Greeley about the Catholic view of hell, “Catholics are obligated to believe in hell but you don’t have to believe there is anyone in it”. Or someting like this, FWIW.
Yes, but some (e.g., the United Methodist Church’s) versions don’t. Which gets back to the point that a majority of, but not all, US Christians believe in hell, and that it’s inaccurate to imply that a belief in hell is a requisite part of being Christian.
Isn’t the OP saying, though, if you don’t believe in something that’s specifically defined and declared to exist by Jesus himself, that Jesus himself went to, according to the bible itself, then you’re pretty much not a Christian?
I doubt that the United Methodist Church would agree, but how many seemingly basic tenets of a religion do you get to ignore before you can no longer be considered part of that religion?
If I said that I’m a Christian, but I think there are multiple gods, the head god being Odin, and I don’t think I’m required to do unto others as I would have done to me, and I am casting stones and without sin, and I don’t think that Jesus died for my sins, and I don’t plan on turning the other cheek also, and I don’t want to render unto Caesar, would you say I’m Christian?
So, when did this goalpost get moved? The OP was about Christian sects believing in hell, and said nothing about belief in hell being necessary for being a Christian (which it clearly isn’t.) I certainly understand why many Christians would like to reject a belief in hell - I wonder how many other things Jesus taught they reject also.
Being a descriptivist, I think you’re going about it all wrong :).
If someone in good faith claims to be a Christian, I consider them a Christian. I think it’s foolish to get bogged down in arguments over who is or is not defined by the word.
Thus Fred Phelps is a Christian. Christian Identity racists are Christian. The authors of Malleus Malificarum were Christian. Plenty of totally loathsome individuals, who as far as I can tell piss all over the ideals of Jesus, are Christian.
I may be an atheist, but I respect the courage of ones convictions, so thanks for standing up for yours. I’m not an expert in theology, so maybe you can tell me when theology and the truth of critical parts in the Bible became subject to votes and opinion polls. I can see the headline now - Jesus is God’s son by a vote of 65% to 35%.
Sometime between the post in the original thread:
and the OP :). I think I’ve been clear in several posts in this thread that it was that quote from the first thread to which I strongly objected.
Edit: as for your question, “I wonder how many other things Jesus taught they reject also,” it seems to me that military service is incompatible with the Sermon on the Mount, but I would never say that there are no Christians in the military.
In many ways we are. When one is deeply involved in something, they can distort things to make what a source says match their beliefs. You can see Democrats say that this is what Obama really meant, and Republicans say this is what Bush really meant. If there is a conflict between the words of the Bible and your ethics (which for many modern people is more advanced than the Bible) you will try to interpret the Bible to line up with what you know is morally correct. (Generic you.) Many atheists have nothing invested in matching the Bible with our ethics, and so have an easier time seeing what is written, just like the Martian evaluating Earth’s customs.
I’m not complaining about this - I for one would much rather have modern Christians follow their internal morals than what the Bible actually says - I’m just pointing it out.
There are many branches of Christianity non-representative of mainstream Christianity. JWs, Mormons, a host of others. I didn’t interpret the words you quoted as writing non-believers in hell from Christianity; it just points out that traditionally they’d be a small minority and a splinter group at best - and heretics at worst.
Er, can you clarify this post? I think there may be a word or two missing.
Ha! Sort of like the opposite of the no-true-Scotsmen thingie.