# The implications of hell. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 22, 2014, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904 "2014-12-22T13:07:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/141 "2014-12-31T01:27:36Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Well, I don’t know what hell is like. Maybe you are aware of other people there; maybe you are completely alone. I do know that all those things we long for - love, joy, peace, hope - all come from God. So, in hell, you would have none of that. How? I mean, love as I know it is a result of either me loving other people or other people loving me. That isn’t something that’s separated by distance - the relationship that believers consider themselves to have with their god(s) shows that if they’re right then love isn’t something that’s reliant on proximity or even comprehension. All it needs is for me to feel it and/or for them to feel it. So I’m in Hell, and I don’t have love, joy, peace, or hope. How? Is my capacity to love removed? Is a conviction that I am unloved - categorically untrue regardless of my location - enforced upon me? Perhaps all those who love me are actually changed so that they truly do not love me anymore? Is my mind altered so that joy and peace are impossible for me? Even without those I love, I find joy and peace in my memories. Are those memories taken away from me? Hope… hope, I think, might be a problem for your perspective. If I don’t have hope, I don’t have reason to reconcile with the god in question. Why would I? I have no hope that that will succeed, or that things will change. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/142 "2014-12-31T01:36:00Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > You can pull out your '45 and step outside and blow his head off. You can think you can reason with him. This is a case of rational decision making, not free will. If there is a 20 cent difference in price between two adjacent gas stations, does this rob you of your free will? > How much information is required to rob you of your free will? If you have any at all there are many cases where one option becomes obvious. It sounds like you think any rational choice is not made of free will, which leaves more or less random choices - and deciding based on the roll of the dice is hardly free will either. I think **you with the face** is drawing a difference between philosophical free will and practical free will. If a madman corners me and someone I care about, and orders me to jump off this cliff here or he’ll kill both of us, me choosing to jump is, philosophically, my free choice. I had options, of which I selected one. But practically speaking, that guy who gets caught doesn’t get to go “What? He committed suicide. He chose to jump.” and get let off scot free. I think the argument **you with the face** is making isn’t that there’s no free will involved here, or that you don’t get to make the choice, just that the decisions available are so stacked that the responsibility for making the choice is effectively not our own, even if we’re the one that makes it. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/143 "2014-12-31T02:00:10Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > So I’m in Hell, and I don’t have love, joy, peace, or hope. How? Is my capacity to love removed? The conundrum here is deepened when we consider that love is both an emotion and an action. What does it mean to say that God loves us? Does this mean he just has really really really fond feelings for us? Or does this mean that he takes care of us, as we’re instructed to do for each other in the New Testament? If being in Hell removes us from love, that means God is not loving us through action. Again, this doesn’t jibe with a loving God. To return to my stray cat analogy, even if they hated me with the intensity of the sun, I would still love them by feeding and watering them. They wouldn’t be removed from my love; they just wouldn’t reciprocate it. ---
**Author:** ![rat\_avatar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rat_avatar/32/255_2.png) [@rat\_avatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rat_avatar)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/144 "2014-12-31T03:30:44Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Why do you think Gandhi is in hell? I don’t know that he is. > > Also, saying God is everywhere, and that hell is a state of separation from God, we are talking about apples and oranges - like asking if it’s colder in December or in Minnesota. Yes, you cannot escape God anywhere in the physical universe. But you can be spiritually separated from him. I cannot debate against a movable personal dogma, only on what the book and most common sects that believe in the book claim. Gandhi was well versed in Christian-Islamic ideas yet refused to be converted or to acknowledge the god of Abraham. > [@](#): > > …to be a good Hindu also meant that I would be a good Christian. There is no need for me to join your creed to be a believer in the beauty of the teachings of Jesus or try to follow His example. But I think you are tip-toeing around the main point of the question here. The god of Abraham created “hell” in the minds of most Christians. And even in the LDS church, where you can rise out of hell there is not such an option if you “knew” god and turned away. It stays quite clearly Matthew 12:32 Anyone who rejects the Holy Spirit’s convicting influence and does not repent will not be forgiven, ‘neither in this world, neither in the world to come` But this is why debating religion is so difficult, the Bible is an authority to make a point if you are Christian, but never a liability if it does not. Any rebuttal based on it can be hand waved away. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/145 "2014-12-31T05:06:53Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > This isn’t my opinion at all. > > If I open a door and a machete rapist attacks me, this consequence doesn’t naturally follow from the action I’ve taken. It’s been imposed by a mad man. Sure, you can call my choice to close the door “rational”, but that’s doing an injustice to the word. Not when opening a door is normally a perfectly rational action to take when one wants to go outside. > > IMO, for a choice to qualify for judgement, that choice has to be a clear reflection of someone’s character, intellect, and values. The more a choice is swayed by outside factors (like a machete rapist), the less it makes sense to judge someone for that choice. Any choice we make is influenced by the circumstances. I hardly think that someone is going to judge a person harshly for not opening the door to a maniac. And say there is a 100 mph gale outside, and if you open the door you’ll be blown away. You’d not want to open the door either, and the choice is not being imposed by a person, but by nature. Perhaps your model of a decision is a set function returning an action based on a set of inputs. In that case all decisions are predetermined. I won’t argue against that, but will just point out that if God made us that way then telling us about hell is the least of the issues. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/146 "2014-12-31T05:15:29Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Again, my issue is not that free will is robbed or reduced or lessened. It’s that the meaning behind my choice loses value when my hand is influenced by the fear of coercive consequences. So your question doesn’t follow from my point. Does that mean that telling someone of negative consequences decreases their freedom of action? Are clauses in a contract detailing the consequences of breaking it coercive? > [@](#): > > If the only reason your wife chose to marry you was to get away from an abusive family, surely this truth would have different significance to you than if she married you for love. The influence of the abuse might not negate that she chose to marry you, but it does mean her choice had more to do without escaping harm than loving you. A woman in this case might have the choice of several men to escape to. Someone being forced into an arranged marriage on the other hand isn’t free. Having limited choices is different from not being free. If I had looked like George Clooney I’d have had more, but we are all limited by the circumstances of our birth and environment. Not being totally free is not the same as not being free at all. > [@](#): > > My problem with God clubbing us over the head of with threats of Hell is that he makes it harder for us to choose him out of love. We might turn to God to escape “abuse”, but this display of free will is without heart-felt meaning. Clubbing us on the head? Now, some preachers do that, but knowledge of the existence of hell doesn’t. Knowledge of the existence of jails doesn’t keep us from doing things that get us there. And, as I mentioned, for much of the past 2,000 years people were as sure of the existence of hell as anything - and it doesn’t seem to have affected their freedom to do awful things. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/147 "2014-12-31T05:21:18Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I think **you with the face** is drawing a difference between philosophical free will and practical free will. > > If a madman corners me and someone I care about, and orders me to jump off this cliff here or he’ll kill both of us, me choosing to jump is, philosophically, my free choice. I had options, of which I selected one. But practically speaking, that guy who gets caught doesn’t get to go “What? He committed suicide. He chose to jump.” and get let off scot free. > > I think the argument **you with the face** is making isn’t that there’s no free will involved here, or that you don’t get to make the choice, just that the decisions available are so stacked that the responsibility for making the choice is effectively not our own, even if we’re the one that makes it. That’s why I gave some other possible choices. But let’s consider this. Say you were about to open the door, and someone else in the house looks out the window to see the madman. Does his telling you reduce your options in a way that is somehow bad? If he cared about you, he’d tell you of the danger. If God cared about us, he’d tell us of the danger of hell in unambiguous terms. **you with the face** seems to be saying that an informed choice is less free than an uniformed choice. I have trouble buying that. In this model Hell is like the Doomsday Machine in **Dr. Strangelove.** God loves surprises. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/148 "2014-12-31T06:58:47Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > . . . If God cared about us, he’d tell us of the danger of hell in unambiguous terms. . . . This is pretty much my major gripe with Christianity. You have a God who knows everything…and won’t tell us. A few words about the germ theory of disease – even in poetic language – could have saved billions of lives. Just, “Wash your hands before tending a childbirth” would have saved hundreds of millions. Instead, we have a Holy Book, wherein the Saviour explicitly says he won’t tell us his message in clear language, so that we won’t be able to understand and be saved. Instead of treating us like adults, and giving us the information we need to make an important decision, Jesus goes all “mystery cultish” on us, withholds vital knowledge, and condemns billions. Is this the behavior of The Lord God…or just L. Ron Hubbard? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/149 "2014-12-31T11:31:46Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Does that mean that telling someone of negative consequences decreases their freedom of action? I feel like I’m repeating myself to no avail, because you keep distilling this to a loss of freedom when that isn’t my position. It makes me think you’re having an argument with another person. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/150 "2014-12-31T12:17:24Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > ms to be saying that an informed choice is less free than an uniformed choice. I have trouble buying that. Perhaps you don’t get what I’m saying because you see God through the Jewish lens and I’m looking at him (as a concept) through the Christian one. The Christian view is that all God wants us to do is love and obey him. He’s emotionally invested in our acceptance of him. The Bible serves as one great big ole appeal. God loves you, so you should love him! Worship him! Be with him! Open your heart to him! It is so vital to God’s ego that we love him under our own power, that he gave us the ability to NOT love him. Hence, the existence of free will. In this respect, God is like a guy who isn’t turn on by a woman unless she’s at least a little hard to get; there needs to be some chance we’ll turn him down in order for our love for him to be real. Are you following me so far? So my beef with warning us about Hell is that this warning destroys all the meaning attached to the free will that God created to validate his ego. On one hand, God has taken pains to make us “hard to get”. But on the other hand, he uses Hell to scare us shitless into hitching our wagon to him. If the latter is a case of the ends justifying the means, then he could’ve just made us automatons without free will to the same effect. My argument, of course, supposes that we have a belief in Hell (because we believe in the Bible). ---
**Author:** ![Skammer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skammer/32/143_2.png) [@Skammer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skammer)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/151 "2014-12-31T14:22:08Z")
Damn, I wish I didn’t have to work today because this is quite interesting and I have a lot to respond to. I will try to get to the questions that have been addressed to me, anon. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/152 "2014-12-31T14:58:22Z")
**you with the face** , that last analogy explains my confusion with why Christians seem to focus so much on free will. For Christians, love for God is NOT what you do. It’s how you feel. How in the hell does someone choose how they feel? We can choose to act “as if”. But we can’t make ourselves love. _Especially_ under the threat of violence. I have a question for the folks who believe in hell. Let’s say you die and wake up in heaven. While tucking into your all-you-can-eat favorite food buffet, you hear screams. “What’s that noise?” you ask your pal Jesus. “Oh that? Those are the Haters.” “The Haters?” “Yeah. They’re the silly fools who keep rejecting Father’s love.” “Oh. So that fire-and-brimstone version of hell really exists?” “Yup! And we’re just getting the party started. Later on today, Father’s going to make them swim laps in a tank full of poisonous snakes and molten lava. You want me to reserve a seat for you in the VIP box?” “Um…I think I may want to sit this one out.” Jesus’s brow furrows. “You aren’t having doubts about Father’s love are you?” “No, Jesus. It’s not like that–” Jesus grabs your arm. “I’m sensing doubt in your heart, bro. And you just rejected my kind and generous offer, which I don’t appreciate one little bit. You aren’t being a Hater, are you?” “No, Jesus! I love you. I promise!” You hear someone screaming your name and realize it’s your brother. You say to Jesus. “But my brother Phil donated a million dollars to the church right before he died!” “Yeah, but I looked into his heart and deemed him unworthy. It ain’t about what you do. It’s about how you feel when you’re doing it. And how do you feel about me now, buddy? LOOK INTO MY EYES AND TELL ME YOU LOVE ME!!!” \ How many Christians would be able to choose to love God/Jesus in this scenario? Is it reasonable to expect the Haters would ever feel love for God after being tortured? Is this version of the afterlife Biblically unsound? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/153 "2014-12-31T15:35:27Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > How many Christians would be able to choose to love God/Jesus in this scenario? I think most Christians would say your scenario wouldn’t happen, because anguish is impossible in heaven. The same way a 4-sided circle is impossible in our world. Which presents it own set of problems, of course. If pain is impossible in Heaven, by what mechanism is this possible? Do souls in heaven have free will? Or do they all become Jesus Drones incapable of changing their minds about him? If free will doesn’t exist in Heaven, then why does God put such a premium on it outside of Heaven? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/154 "2014-12-31T15:46:48Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I think most Christians would say your scenario wouldn’t happen, because anguish is impossible in heaven. The same way a 4-sided circle is impossible in our world. > Which presents it own set of problems, of course. If pain is impossible in Heaven, by what mechanism is this possible? Do souls in heaven have free will? Or do they all become Jesus Drones incapable of changing their minds about him? This sounds like brainwashing to me…but I’m sure there’s a Christian in-house term for it that makes it sound o.k. Right? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/155 "2014-12-31T16:06:37Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I think most Christians would say your scenario wouldn’t happen, because anguish is impossible in heaven. The same way a 4-sided circle is impossible in our world. But the Bible doesn’t say any such thing. Just like it doesn’t say there’s an escape hatch out of Hell. If the souls sentenced to hell are so awful they deserve torment, why wouldn’t Christians take pleasure in watching their punishment? Some of those same Christians take pleasure in prison execution, CIA torture, and war. I have no doubt they’d be perfectly happy watching the stupid atheists flail around in a vat of molten snakes. To be fair, a lot of Christians would also be horrified. I think a lot of them would have doubts about just how loving God is if hell actually turned out to be eternal fire and brimstone. But such feelings would be a big no-no, though. Doubt is just a couple of steps away from rejection. If God really wanted to test human loyalty and devotion, he’d set up heaven exactly as I described it above and kick out everyone who fails. The test would be just as fair and sensical as the system we’re told already exists. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/156 "2014-12-31T16:57:49Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > But the Bible doesn’t say any such thing. Just like it doesn’t say there’s an escape hatch out of Hell. Their hearts tell them that it’s true, though. This is how the story typically goes, right? I don’t think most believers sit around thinking up uncomfortable “what ifs” about Heaven. They just assume it will be fabulous because if it’s not fabulous, that means Heaven is a lot more complicated that what they’ve been led to believe. Accepting this means accepting that none of us really have any clue what’s in store for us. We’re just making stuff up. And accepting _this_ means accepting that reading the Bible is like running around blindly in a maze. The twists and turns of the passage ways keeps you simulated, but they don’t ever take you anywhere. You’re just a rat being toyed with. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/157 "2014-12-31T17:11:17Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Perhaps you don’t get what I’m saying because you see God through the Jewish lens and I’m looking at him (as a concept) through the Christian one. > > The Christian view is that all God wants us to do is love and obey him. He’s emotionally invested in our acceptance of him. The Bible serves as one great big ole appeal. God loves you, so you should love him! Worship him! Be with him! Open your heart to him! > > It is so vital to God’s ego that we love him under our own power, that he gave us the ability to NOT love him. Hence, the existence of free will. In this respect, God is like a guy who isn’t turn on by a woman unless she’s at least a little hard to get; there needs to be some chance we’ll turn him down in order for our love for him to be real. Are you following me so far? > > So my beef with warning us about Hell is that this warning destroys all the meaning attached to the free will that God created to validate his ego. On one hand, God has taken pains to make us “hard to get”. But on the other hand, he uses Hell to scare us shitless into hitching our wagon to him. If the latter is a case of the ends justifying the means, then he could’ve just made us automatons without free will to the same effect. > > My argument, of course, supposes that we have a belief in Hell (because we believe in the Bible). I understand the Christian view. My objection is the assumption that knowledge of hell would so constrain us that we’d be forced to love God no matter what. As I said those who thought they knew hell didn’t act this way, so I don’t see why we would today. The alternative for God would be to produce a hell that was bad but not bad enough to constrain us. For instance, a hell where every hundred years or so the sinners would have a chance to repent. Not to mention that god could step up our free will to let us make a choice even with the knowledge of hell. (I think we have that much free will already. You don’t seem to.) And we do have knowledge of hell, though murky and inconsistent across versions. Why mention it at all if it would cause problems? But we’re talking about a God who seems unwilling to give clear evidence that he exists, and in fact provides evidence that he does not. Though I suppose that God giving evidence of hell also provides evidence of God, which seems to be a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/158 "2014-12-31T17:20:06Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Their hearts tell them that it’s true, though. This is how the story typically goes, right? > > I don’t think most believers sit around thinking up uncomfortable “what ifs” about Heaven. They just assume it will be fabulous because if it’s not fabulous, that means Heaven is a lot more complicated that what they’ve been led to believe. Accepting this means accepting that none of us really have any clue what’s in store for us. We’re just making stuff up. > > And accepting _this_ means accepting that reading the Bible is like running around blindly in a maze. The twists and turns of the passage ways keeps you simulated, but they don’t ever take you anywhere. You’re just a rat being toyed with. You got it. Believers believe in the bliss of heaven because they see themselves and their families and their dogs there. Accepting the Bible as is (or more likely some preacher’s take on the Bible) is simple and unworrying. Going beyond that to the logical implications leads to all kinds of problems. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/159 "2014-12-31T17:29:34Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > {…} A few words about the germ theory of disease – even in poetic language – could have saved billions of lives. Just, “Wash your hands before tending a childbirth” would have saved hundreds of millions. {…} Christians, well some, do try to make the argument that the Bible actually does, > [@](#): > > 1. Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: “And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean” (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under “running water.”[RIGHT][CITE](http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/scientificfactsintheBible.shtml)[/RIGHT] Of course this isn’t all that Leviticus 15 says on hand washing, > [@](#): > > 13 “‘When a man is cleansed from his discharge, he is to count off seven days for his ceremonial cleansing; he must wash his clothes and bathe himself with fresh water, and he will be clean. 14 On the eighth day he must take two doves or two young pigeons and come before the Lord to the entrance to the tent of meeting and give them to the priest. 15 The priest is to sacrifice them, the one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement before the Lord for the man because of his discharge.[RIGHT]The Bible[/RIGHT] Now why Ray Comfort (et Al.) needs to leaves off Leviticus 15:14 and 15:15 is a question, why Semmelweis didn’t think you needed to wash for a week and then sacrifice small birds to be sterile isn’t. Mostly, well entirely, 'cause Leviticus has almost nothing to do with _actual_ cleanliness and everything to do with _ritual_ cleanliness. There’s no excuse for God not knowing and, more importantly, not explaining the difference . . . unless, of course, “God” doesn’t actually understand the Germ Theory of Disease. (It’s particularly annoying that those who selectively quote the Bible still think the rest of us don’t have access to the book too, damn you Gutenberg!) CMC fnord! ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/160 "2014-12-31T17:35:21Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > As I said those who thought they knew hell didn’t act this way, so I don’t see why we would today. All the people who think they know there’s a Hell just happen to be the ones who believe in God and have accepted him with all of their hearts. The majority of people who don’t think there’s a Hell also happen to be the ones who don’t believe in God and thus don’t accept him with all of their hearts. There aren’t very many people (if any) who believe in hell but DON’T believe and love God. There are people who believe in hell and reject Jesus. But I don’t think there’s anyone who knows there is a Hell and calls himself an agnostic or atheist. I’m not a believer. If God came to me and showed me that Hell is very very real and told me that if I don’t start dragging my ass to church every Sunday, I’ll be sent to that horrible place for all eternity, I’ll transform myself into the holiest roller in the world. Who _wouldn’t_? The only people who wouldn’t do this would be people who are very likely mentally disturbed or handicapped. Ironically, these are the very people we say _don’t_ possess free will. If Hell is full of only people who are too crazy to know better, then the whole system is truly truly disturbing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904.md?page=9)