It is a cornerstone of many major religions that, if you do not believe in their god, you are going to hell (or a similar doom). Since more than two of these religions exist, is everyone doomed to eternal suffering?
I don’t think that is quite fair…
Todd Rundgren sang (on his album Todd, the one where he had blue and pink hair on the cover) a song called “Everybody’s Going to Heaven”. The lyrics went:
Everybody’s going to Heaven
'Cause already we’ve all been through hell.
After several choruses of that, it segued into “King Kong Reggae.” A real non-seguetur…
So the only mportant theologica question left is:
What color handbasket?
QuantumGrid,
Only a handful of religions have some idea of Hell. Billions of people on this planet think it’s a very silly concept. I am one of them.
Yes. We’ll save you a seat. :D:D
Well, first you have to believe in God and Hell.
Then you have to believe that one or more religions have any understanding of what God does.
Then you have to believe that at least two religions with conflicting beliefs about God are each right simultaneously.
I think the odds of everyone going to hell, if there is one, are seriously reduced at that point. (There are a number of denominations, even among the Christians, who do not believe that everyone who is not one of their members is going to hell.)
I don’t know, but Ozzy likes to say that he’s gonna goto hell and that anyone that’s there is gonna have a “hell” of a good time so I’m in!
No. Everyone is going to Great Debates.
Like there’s a difference?! Bwah hah hah hah haaaaa!
I have it on good authority that it is the Mormons will be the only ones admitted into heaven. Oddly enough my same source says that God is actually a buddhist so this isn’t making much sense to me.
Marc
PS: Ok, my source is South Park but don’t tell anybody.
That’s always a possibility. Of course, some people think everyone goes to heaven (koolaid anyone?). Others think if you are really good, you get to come back as a cow. Is that exciting or what? Mooo-ve out of my way – I’m steaking a claim on that. I’ve mostly been a you-die-and-that’s-it type. And if that is the case, you should try to make it the best life you can. But what if I told you you could lead a life of pure adventure, free of personal economic slavery and drudgery, while the rest of mankind eagerly works to clothe, feed, house, and transport you? And, as a bonus, even have the power to perform amazing magical feats? Through the power of Satan? Perhaps! But, at the same time you would be acting in accordance with a life of total love for your fellow man just in the off chance that eternal life thing does pan out! How much would you be willing to pay? Everything you current have in your own dull existence? Sounds like a good trade to me. All money down and no more payments for anything again ever!
The whole"believe in the God I’m selling or you’ll go to Hell" thing doesn’t make sense to me. I once saw a comic strip that I found funny. It should be at http://www.angryflower.com/bobdie.gif . It actually makes sense. If God really loves us (which I like to believe), then we’d all go to heaven, right?
Which love is greater, that which makes you free or that which makes you a slave? Heaven is not a prison where God is the benevolent Warden.
Well, there have been times… 
Seriously, as I pointed out in passing on another religious thread a while ago (C&L Part VI: Viva God Vegas? :D), there has been a school of thought within Christianity and transcending denomination lines that you choose to go to Hell by overt rejection of the relationship God offers, which in its fullness is Heaven. This is not to be confused with the “You’re a sinner and unless you choose to accept Jee-zus as your Personal Lord and Savior right now, you’re gonna meet the fate you so richly deserve!” evangelical foofaraw (furnish the appropriate Jimmy Swaggart-style vocal emphases as you hear that quote in your mind’s ear, please). Simply that Hell is anything but a relationship with God taken to extremes. And we’ve all been in cases where “too much of a good thing” became cloying. Map that out, and then suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is a God, that He loves you, and that every day, in perpetuity, with Him offers new and exciting things for you, together with appropriate rest and comfort when you feel you need that instead. In this context, it does seem to make more sense. Gaudere, David, Phil? Any holes you can poke in this, other than the basic assumptions (which we already know are debatable)?