Check Matthew 5-7 (the Sermon on the Mount) and Matthew 23-25 (the Sermons of Judgement on the Religious Establishment, the Fall of Jerusalem & the End of the Age, and the Final Judgements). Did Jesus use fear in his preachings? Hell, yes! Was he right to do so? YMMV. I think so.
I’ve had a hard time explaining this in the past, and my theology might be shaky, but here goes:
When I was still a Catholic, my understanding was that ‘hell’ is simply the absence of God’s presence. I took that to mean that ‘hell’ is not somewhere you get sent after death, but rather it is our life on earth – our current existence. When you die, your soul is admitted into God’s presence (‘heaven’). If you are an unrepentent bad guy when you die you aren’t ‘sent’ anywhere, you are simply denied God’s presence (you remain in ‘hell’). The unrepentent bad guy’s soul probably doesn’t notice much of a difference, which is why I get exasperated when ‘believers’ threaten nonbelievers with the promise of hell.
Therefore, legitmacy does not depend on the existence of punishment, but rather on the existence of reward (getting to be in God’s presence).
(And before anyone says ‘but God is present in everyday life:’ that is not true in my understanding of things, and is also not really what I’m talking about.)
I thought that this was standard, and that god does the judging.
Well, I was born Jewish, and I never remember any teacher or Rabbi stating that anyone who was not Jewish was under any disadvantage in G-d’s eyes. If you don’t think that those not accepting Jesus are not saved, my hat’s off to you, but many would say that you’re not a true Christian. The exclusivity of it is the point, and that those not in the club get punished. The severity of that punishment is a subject of debate.
Any marketer knows you select your list of benefits to suit the audience. The ecumenalists like the message of love, but a lot of preachers choose the message of hellfire, and they might be more successful. One of the things that keeps me thinking that my choice of atheism is correct is that we could be having this discussion. Hell for you and some later posters is no big deal, while for the nasty guys (none of whom have shown up in this thread) it isn’t. Hell seems to follow the personalities of the preacher, and not have an independent reality - just what you’d expect from a social construct.
Reading the Bible without straining to interpret it in the light of our modern requirements give yet another answer, but I’ve often thought that many Christians are more moral than their god.
I actually thought about the modern Catholic vision of hell when I posted before. Maybe that’s one of the things the fundies don’t like about Catholics - too wimpy. 
You’ll admit though that the concept of hell has evolved over the past 1500 years. it seems that religious cosmology (at least for some religions) follow societal morals, not the other way around. Fundamentalists excepted, of course. No one can be proven wrong in making claims about hell (except simple ones about its location) so people structure hell to what they can stand.
Yep, my point exactly. Funny, isn’t it, how so many religious folks can’t seem to keep this in mind?
I know it - there’s that “judging” thing, again. I could as easily say that those who are so quick to brand or damn others are not truly Christians, but that would make me be a hypocrite. It’s a pretty useful litmus test to assume that anyone who would tell you that you’re not a “true” Christian (or Jew, or Muslim I suppose) is not going to be a fun date, and is best avoided when it’s time to talk God (that is, Miller Time).
Well, the portraits we get of God certainly differ, depending on who you’re talking to. I content myself with the belief that God is what he is, regardless how I or anyone else depict her. All the many flavors of Christianity, Islam and Judaism are testament to the fact that nobody has the whole “truth” about the nature of God. I amuse myself sometimes by trying to imagine what will surprise me when I am finally face-to-face with him. I figure I will have been wrong about a lot – I also figure God will be understanding, and perhaps we’ll have a laugh about everything I got “wrong”.
. . . if I’m wrong about these last two assumptions on my part, then I guess I’m in for an eternity of hurt. . .
I suppose a serious theologian would tell you that it’s impossible for a person to be more moral than God, as God is the measure against which morality is defined - the source of morality. And we’re all reflections, and all that. A Christian who appears to you “more moral than their god” is really just more moral than you expected them to be – and that’s an indictment of Christians in general (or at least the ones you’ve come into contact with).
The state of Christianity is depressing, sometimes. It seems that living as a Christian really should be very simple. Hard, but simple. Seems like a lot of people delight it making it just the opposite - easy, but very complicated. That’s human nature, I suppose.
No, it’s not that. The God of the Bible wiped out lots of babies in the flood, and ordered the destruction of whole peoples. Now, while this was SOP when Joshua was written, but it’s not so cool now. I’ve seen so-called Christians defend the slaughter of innocents, saying things like the babies would grow up to be evil anyway, so it was better for them to be killed. :eek: These people probably went off to a pro-life rally the next day. But we have some people who say the Bible can’t be inerrant, because a loving god would not do that, and also would not cast people into eternal damnation for a small sin. Those are the people who I think are more moral than their god.
If a god does exist, maybe he asks the recently deceased if they believe in the flood story. To those he do, he’d say “so you think I’d commit genocide?” and send them off to the pit where they belong.
Trouble is, Jesus certainly seemed to believe the Flood story- he definitely used it as a teaching point. While he did claim authority to change OT rules or at least how they were applied, he never indicated any real disagreement with the God of the Hebrew Bible.
Gotta admit the extermination of the Canaanite children is the biggest stumbling block to my acceptance of full OT inspiration- I can jump through some hoops to justify it (by the time the Israelites got to a Canaanite city, the inhabitants had time & opportunity enough to hear of Israel’s Yahweh-given victories & to flee;
also those Canaanites to be exterminated were not defined ethnically but ethically- they were a pillaging sex-worshipping infant-sacrificing animal-shagging inbred lot that were beyond rehabilitation, in contratst to many ethnically-similar tribes in the area who were conquered & assimilated by Israel- and in Biblical law, enslavement did lead to assimilation) but I know it’s tough to non-believers to buy into.
RE Eternal Damnation- I don’t hold to the traditional view of that. I think everyone ultimately goes into God, either in relationship with Him or rebellion against Him. The reconciled enjoy being in God, the rebellious are tormented in God & may well be allowed to die out if they will not be reconciled. I do believe that faithful Christians have the easiest time being acclamated into God, but that many who leave this life w/o being faithful C’tians will come into reconciliation with God as they encounter JC as He really is.
Heaven and Hell are nothing more than man’s ego.
People refuse the very concept that they will cease to exist once their eyes close for the last time, in my opinion, out of what boils down to self-importance. “I cannot cease to be! Surely, there must be something else for me other than ignominious decay!”
If not ego, it’s a childish denial of the finality of death. “Yeah, grandpa is dead, but he’s not really gone.” The concept of final parting being too painful to accept, people comfort themselves with the idea that death is somehow just a “beginning” to a whole new existance-- one which is better and eternal, too.
Hell is merely a way of granting grim satisfation that the people which have pissed them off may get away with it in life, but will pay for it later, or those who didn’t follow the right formula for conversion.
I don’t know that I think that threatening people with Hell if they refuse to convert is any more nefarious than promising them streets of gold. “Scare tactics” only work on those who believe there actually is a threat-- others are utterly unfazed. Frankly, I’m not concerned that intelligent people will be taken in by these methods.
However, I strongly disagree with that tactic being used on children, whose abilities to seperate fantasy and reality are somewhat shaky at best.
I suppose you mean that as evidence the flood happened, but for me it’s just more evidence that Jesus was a man of his time, and nothing more. I’d write more, but I don’t want to turn this into a flood hijack.
I feel really sad for people who worship out of fear rather than out of love.
When I was in high school we read that famous old early American sermon by Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” It spoke of how sinners were dangling over the fires of hell much as a spider was suspended by a strand of web over a fire. We were told that people swooned and fainted and cried and repented when they heard that sermon. We all just shook our heads in disbelief that such techniques were ever used.
I grew up with joy in my heart and a belief that God loved me even more than my father did. My father would have gone into hell himself rather than have me suffer.
And that’s how I came to understand the Sacrifice of Jesus.
Why would anyone who understood the reason that Jesus died ever want others to know anything but the love of God? Show them the love.
Even tho to me, an affirmation from JC is as good as evidence, my main point in bringing that up if that JC would fail your standards for honoring God properly. Your prior entry would have God throwing him into the pit.
What I really hate is that there is apparently TONS of good inspiring intelligent stuff that Jonathan Edwards preached while THAT abomination of a sermon is immortalized. I really wonder if some anti-religious academics deliberately select that for textbooks as an anti-C’tian smear.
I agree with the general sentiments of many others in this thread; fear may put arses on pews, but in my personal opinion, that alone is a bad thing; a dishonest or insincere conversion is worse than no conversion at all.
The entire scam of organized religion is based on fear.
Humans recognize that we die. We are afraid to die. Religion exploits this fear and gives us a warm fuzzy that says that if we obey their rules and give them our money, they’ll let us go to heaven/valhalla/elysian fields/wherever when we kick off. But if we don’t, then we go to hell/sheol/hades/wherever.
In Greek religion, everyone goes to the realm of Hades. It takes something pretty spectacular to earn anything other than milling around in the underworld with your memory washed clean.
In Norse religion, the afterlife options I know of are Valhalla and the realm of Hel; in Valhalla there’s lots of drinking and getting killed and getting resurrected for the morning brawl, which is okay if you’re a berserker and kinda not most people’s bag, especially in the modern day; Hel’s realm is just really fucking boring.
None of these are particularly inspiring afterlives. None of them are described as places to aspire to (unless you’re a Norse berserker; people who bear the valknot sort of frighten me).
To pick a historical paganism you missed, the Egyptian Duat is modeled as just like life but with the grungework handled by magical constructs. Presumably this is good if you’ve got a lot of hobbies, but if one’s the sort of person who lives for the work and doesn’t have a life without it, that’d be pretty awful. There’s the remote possibility of being snuffed out and recycled for fertiliser at judgement, but the ancients didn’t actually believe it happened all that often, and nonexistence isn’t much of an eternal punishment.
The whole Manichean thing you’re positing as a universal model of religion doesn’t actually hold very well, and it ignores the people who follow their religions because they’re in accord with their ethics and experiences and couldn’t care less about whether or not they get a cookie when they’re dead. I find the whole “My religion’s the only one with the cookies” fear-motivation spectacularly unconvincing, myself, not least because it carries the presumption that my religious motivations have anything to do with afterlives at all.
Well, if Jesus were human, maybe - but I’m sure God would only use the answer to the question asked in heaven. If Jesus were connected to the divine, he might be part of the same scam. Of course if Jesus is not divine, there is no pit, so it’s not an issue.
/ ignoring that this thread is still sitting on 666 page views. :eek:
The Bible seems to say that winning converts through love or fear are both acceptable
Jude 1:21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
Jude 1:22 And of some have compassion, making a difference:
Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
I can’t speak for anyone else but me, but the God I worship wouldn’t want me to fear him, or come to him with anything less than love in my heart.