# 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:** 9
**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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/161 "2014-12-31T18:14:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > 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. Extortion doesn’t truly force someone to choose a certain way, but for all intents and purposes, it does. This is why it’s so popular with the mafia. > [@](#): > > As I said those who thought they knew hell didn’t act this way, so I don’t see why we would today. I don’t know of anyone who believes in Hell who also doesn’t believe in God, do you? This isn’t a random coincidence. If you believe in Hell, of course you believe in God! Otherwise there would be no point. So I don’t know what you mean by this statement. I question whether Believers think Hell is a real possibility for them. I suspect that if they believe in its existence, they generally assume it’s where Other People go. After all, they are Believers. Just like the Bible told them to be. Because they think they are safe, they don’t bother wrestling with any philosophical questions about the ethics of Hell. > [@](#): > > And we do have knowledge of hell, though murky and inconsistent across versions. Why mention it at all if it would cause problems? Well, plenty of people _do_ profess knowledge of Hell. It’s in the Bible and this represents incontrovertible truth that Hell exists (or so they believe). Assuming that we’re supposed to accept the Bible as the Truth, in their eyes and God’s, we do have knowledge of Hell. And they don’t think it’s murky and inconsistent either. Obviously me and you do, because we think the whole mess is claptrap. Which is why we don’t believe in it the first place. But if you start with the belief that the Bible is true, it’s hardly a foregone conclusion that Hell is portrayed unclearly. > [@](#): > > 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. I personally agree with this, but the prevailing Christian opinion is that the Bible is clear evidence that he exists. It’s a circular argument but yeah, that’s what it is. ---
**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, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/162 "2014-12-31T18:15:29Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > 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. Why do you have to read my mind sometimes! ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/163 "2014-12-31T20:31:17Z")
Here’s another issue that rational analysis brings up. There is, in actuality, thousands and thousands of groups of people who believe different things than any specific “believer”. Some of them are “close enough” you can claim them to be part of the same group, but many of them, comprising billions of people, are not. That is, if your belief system is such that “christians of my sect \*and \*christians of that other sect that has totally different rules will both go to heaven”, why should you “believe” in the rules of your sect? Obviously only the laxer of the 2 belief systems “counts” in the eyes of God. So, let’s slippery slope this one out. If you believe “all Christians go to heaven”, and that includes virtually every variant on “christian”, your “beliefs” are essentially meaningless. You can do whatever you want in your mortal life and maybe throw a prayer or 2 skyward on odd Sundays. Hit the church maybe once a year and the tittie bar on all other Sundays. But if you believe the _opposite_, that “only devout Christians who obey really strict rules go to heaven”, then what evidence do you have that out of the thousands of possibilities, _your_ specific sect is the One True Religion? Your parents told you it was, some members of that sect told you it was…but what evidence is that? None at all. The “true believers” of those other sects were told the same thing by their parents. The One True Religion might actually be something not practiced by humans on Earth at all. In any case, simple probability means you’re going to get it wrong. You might as well not waste your time with any religion because you have no meaningful way of telling which one is the “right” one. I’ve become an atheist based on this reasoning. It’s totally _possible_ that some omnipotent sky daddy/system administrator runs our universe and has decided on some totally arbitrary set of rules for the meatbags of this planet. Seems silly, but it _could_ be that way. However, since I have no way of knowing _what_ those rules are (some archaic badly translated books don’t give me any confidence whatsoever), and all experiments done in my observable realm fail to provide even a smidgen of evidence that these “rules” exist at all, I might as well dump “religion” from my mind because it is a waste of time. ---
**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, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/164 "2014-12-31T20:35:00Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Extortion doesn’t truly force someone to choose a certain way, but for all intents and purposes, it does. This is why it’s so popular with the mafia. But the penalty is far in the future. That changes peoples behaviors. If the Mafia threatened to blow off ones kneecap in 20 years they wouldn’t be as effective. > [@](#): > > I don’t know of anyone who believes in Hell who also doesn’t believe in God, do you? This isn’t a random coincidence. If you believe in Hell, of course you believe in God! Otherwise there would be no point. So I don’t know what you mean by this statement. They night believe in God but they did lots of stuff that would send them to hell. Today anyhow plenty of people who believe in God don’t believe in hell. It would be interesting to see if they behave in a different way from those who believe in both. I doubt it. > [@](#): > > I question whether Believers think Hell is a real possibility for them. I suspect that if they believe in its existence, they generally assume it’s where Other People go. After all, they are Believers. Just like the Bible told them to be. Because they think they are safe, they don’t bother wrestling with any philosophical questions about the ethics of Hell. Some at least try to convert us heathen or pay money to do so. Some probably think those going to hell deserve it. Or they define hell in a way that makes them feel comfortable, like as in a place where Gandhi would not go. > [@](#): > > Well, plenty of people _do_ profess knowledge of Hell. It’s in the Bible and this represents incontrovertible truth that Hell exists (or so they believe). Assuming that we’re supposed to accept the Bible as the Truth, in their eyes and God’s, we do have knowledge of Hell. > > And they don’t think it’s murky and inconsistent either. Obviously me and you do, because we think the whole mess is claptrap. Which is why we don’t believe in it the first place. But if you start with the belief that the Bible is true, it’s hardly a foregone conclusion that Hell is portrayed unclearly. I’ve read a history of hell, and I think the Bible is rather spotty. It certainly does not have as much detail as Dante put in, say. [Here](http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/hell-bible-verses/) is a page from a Bible site with the verses about hell. The ones from the OT talk about the grave and are not relevant. The pit of sulfur can be just a pit of sulfur which does not involve hell at all. The others talk about eternal fire reasonably consistently. I’d hardly call that a detailed description. ---
**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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/165 "2014-12-31T20:49:53Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > 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. First, there are plenty of people who accept God but don’t believe in hell. So belief in hell is not a necessary condition for belief in God, though it is a sufficient one. Second, I’m not sure that there is evidence that all who believe in hell accept God into their hearts - though they may believe in God. Certainly there was ample crime and sinning during the time that almost all Christians accepted Hell and the existence of God. Maybe they didn’t have proof of hell in the sense that we are discussing, but I don’t think they were very skeptical. Many no doubt thought they could repent later which is a good indication that their freedom of action was not much affected. The significant part of God coming to you to tell you about Hell is God coming to you period. Would you ignore him even if there was no hell? Being Jewish, if the God I used to believe in came to me and told me he was real I’d hightail it to shul right away, even though the God I used to believe in does not come with a hell. The argument about hell seems quite similar to the argument that if God gave clear evidence of his existence, or even showed up, it would somehow undermine our freedom to believe or not to believe. Harvey the pooka had the same problem. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/166 "2014-12-31T21:09:00Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The argument about hell seems quite similar to the argument that if God gave clear evidence of his existence, or even showed up, it would somehow undermine our freedom to believe or not to believe. Harvey the pooka had the same problem. Harvey was downright exhibitionist compared to God, what with altering entries in encyclopedias and opening doors and such. ---
**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, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/167 "2014-12-31T21:13:29Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The significant part of God coming to you to tell you about Hell is God coming to you period. Would you ignore him even if there was no hell? Being Jewish, if the God I used to believe in came to me and told me he was real I’d hightail it to shul right away, even though the God I used to believe in does not come with a hell. > The argument about hell seems quite similar to the argument that if God gave clear evidence of his existence, or even showed up, it would somehow undermine our freedom to believe or not to believe. Harvey the pooka had the same problem. If God came to me to assure me personally that there is no Hell or punishment waiting for me in the afterlife and that he just wants me to know he loves me, then I’d probably feel _more_ inclined to open my heart to him. I KNOW I wouldn’t become a holy roller. I need consequences to get me that worked up. If God came to me and just said “I’m watching you, girlie” and didn’t mention anything about Hell, I’d probably err on the safe side and become a holy roller. But I can’t imagine that I’d feel _love_. I’d be very dutiful, but I’d have hate and resentment in my heart. God loves a cheerful giver, and I wouldn’t be able to oblige him. So if a loving God revealed himself, my heart would likely move towards him but my behavior likely wouldn’t. If a Wrathful God revealed himself, my heart would reject him but my behavior would be that of a mindless slave’s. There’s a reason Hell holds a lot of power to the church. Without Hell, there would be a lot of empty pews on Sunday morning. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/168 "2014-12-31T21:50:21Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > I believe I’ve asked that basic question in this thread already and got ignored: How do you cope in Heaven if you have loved ones in Hell? How can you be happy in Heaven knowing that people are suffering eternally in Hell? Matt Dillahunty puts it in a way that it hits closer to home. If my mom is in heaven, how can she be blissful, knowing I’m is being tortured in hell? If the conditions of heaven make it so that she can somehow be happy while knowing that I’m in hell, then that person is so different, that it’s not my mom anymore. ---
**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, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/169 "2014-12-31T21:57:50Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > But the penalty is far in the future. That changes peoples behaviors. If the Mafia threatened to blow off ones kneecap in 20 years they wouldn’t be as effective. Perhaps, but they’d still get much better results than if they didn’t use extortion at all. Hell isn’t necessarily a penalty that waits us far in the future, though. Most people understand that they could die any day from a serious car wreck or some other freak accident. Moment to moment, we have the tendency to forget how fragile life is and assume that tomorrow is guaranteed. But intellectually, we know death could claim us at any time. And by extension, so could Hell. ---
**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, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/170 "2014-12-31T22:09:28Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > First, there are plenty of people who accept God but don’t believe in hell. So belief in hell is not a necessary condition for belief in God, though it is a sufficient one. Yes, there are people who believe in God but reject Hell. The reason for this simple: believing in both requires a lot more mental struggle. If something is going to give, it’s going to be Hell because Hell can’t exist without a god to create it. The reverse is not true. Anyone can conjure up a deity, call this deity God, and assign it some of the nice traits described in the Bible while fanwanking away all the unpleasant ones. Like jealously and vengefulness. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2014, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/171 "2014-12-31T22:17:22Z")
If I may, a belief in Hell (or a comparably tormenting afterlife) may require belief in _a_ god, but not the JudeoChrsitian God specifically. ---
**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, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/172 "2014-12-31T22:26:51Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I thought he was all powerful? Not so powerful that he can make a rock too big for him to lift, or force people to love him while maintaining their free will. > [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > What caused the fall of Adam and Eve is them being tempted by a snake who advised them to take from a forbidden tree that existed for no reason at all except to entrap them into doing forbidden things. Their mistake had less to do with pride and self-centeredness and more to do with them simply not knowing to distrust the snake who lured them into danger. Their ignorance made them ill-equipped to evaluate the wisdom of their own actions. So of course they fell. What caused the fall – and I want to be clear that I am evaluating the story as a myth in the religious sense, not as literal history - was that they disobeyed God’s direct command not to eat of a specific fruit. Yes, the serpent deceived them. But in the end, they chose to trust what the serpent was saying (“It’s good for us!”) in opposition to what God had commanded them. They decided they knew what was good for them better than God did - the sin of pride. Most sins of all kinds come down to us thinking we know better than God. > [@](#): > > If belief in Christianity isn’t even necessary for us to gain entry into the kingdom and it’s inevitable we’ll all embrace him eventually since he’s so irresistible, what value is there in sermonizing about this unfathomable prison that isn’t really prison but rather a state of spiritual exile or whatever? I see little value in that. The gospels don’t do very much sermonizing about hell compared to sermonizing about how we are supposed to live and relate to each other and God here and now. The point of following Christ is not to avoid hell; the point is to live life to it’s fullest and most abundant by fulfilling the purpose we have been created for. I think that’s one of the biggest misconceptions about Christianity: that it’s all about what happens to you when you die. Pfft. The kingdom of God _is in your midst_, he said. Yes, it continues after you die, but too many people (believers and non believers alike) miss the point by focusing on ‘what happens next’? > [@](#): > > With all due respect, I think the most logical conclusion is that the Bible causes more problems than solutions when speculating about the afterlife and Creation. You and others have one interpretation of Hell, but a boatload of others have another interpretation of Hell, also supportable with scripture. And then there are folks like me who were raised in the church and struggled so much to reconcile a loving God with fire and brimstone that they only conclude it’s all bollocks. I would not place the blame on the Bible, I would place the blame on churches who take fire and brimstone verses out of context in a misguided effort to scare people into the arms of God - which just leads them to reject God altogether. I agree that a lot of what I believe about heaven and hell is speculation developed over centuries of tradition and study - not mine, obviously; it comes from a long tradition of Christian universalism. To me, though, it is the most consistent theology that doesn’t turn God into a sadistic monster. > [@](#): > > I’ve taken in stray cats. They didn’t love me when I took them in. They were wretched, frightened, flea-bitten things that probably saw me as a predator. > > After feeding them, keeping them warm, protecting them, petting them, and proving myself to be a unconditional source of love to them…guess what? They loved me. They are nestled beside me right now. (One of them almost died a couple weeks ago and is very grateful that I saved her. Cost me a pretty penny too but I love her too much to tell her that. Sacrifice schmacrifice.) > > If God created us to love us (as you say), then that means he would love us as I loved my wretched stray cats. Selflessly, without the expectation of reciprocity. My cats didn’t love me when I first took them in, and yet my unconditional love for them eventually earned me their love. But even if it hadn’t, I still would take care of them. I wouldn’t turn them loose on the streets to suffer and starve until they “figured out” its better to be with me. That is a great analogy for God’s love! No matter how much we hiss and fight and scratch at him, he still loves and cares for us. He does NOT turn us away or turn us loose. He lets us sit in the corner and hiss at him as long as we want, but continues to put out the tuna and water and blankets for us, waiting for us to trust and come near to him. All separation from God is entirely of our own volition, not God’s. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Wait, what? And I say this as someone who believes in God – _what?_ > > Picture an atheist; figure he’s happily married to _another_ atheist; and figure his friends and loved ones all happen to be atheists, and figure he’s living a peaceful and joyous existence here and now: curious and contemplative, with lots of compassion and a wry sense of humor, as an atheist among atheists. Figure that some day they all die in their sleep and wake up in hell; _how could he tell the difference?_ I don’t know what hell is like. It’s very possible that the people you describe don’t end up in hell at all. If they do, I don’t know why they would necessarily be sharing the experience with their former friends. But I do know that where there is true love, God is there. And hell is Where God is Not. If anyone has ever read _The Last Battle_, the final book in the _Narnia_ series, it depicts a set of hostile dwarves who are pitched into the paradise of God but refuse to see it. Their hearts are so hardened they are literally blind to God’s presence beside them. Maybe it’s something like that. > [@Voyager](#): > > These statements demonstrate the problem perfectly. You don’t know what hell is like, but those in it are not in it for eternity. Gandhi might or might not be in it. > I won’t ask you for justification for your statements, since you can probably come up with some. I will ask you why your conclusions about hell are more valid than those of someone else. I don’t claim that they are - I just believe that they are consistent with what I understand the bible to say, developed over the years by certain theological scholars and many years in the church, and in tune with my own experience of what God is like. > [@](#): > > How can someone make an informed choice if umpteen models of hell are equally likely? Including that of no hell at all - or the Shavian hell which exchanges souls with heaven. > Say I’m a person who for non-evil reasons rejects the existence of God in general and Christianity in particular. I know there is the chance that hell exists. My Pascalian calculation might be very different if hell were short term versus being eternal. > Your vision of heaven and hell is like playing football using a self-contradictory set of rules. You may think you’ve won but you find out only after the game is over that you incurred tons of penalties. > You’re just making stuff up - but in this you are no different from the most educated theologian or the rantiest preacher in the square. Only God could set us straight and he ain’t talking. Pretty much. I’m just telling you what I believe, and a little bit of why. You have to decide for yourself. That’s all I have time for right now. Everyone have a happy and safe New Year. ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/173 "2014-12-31T22:27:32Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The argument about hell seems quite similar to the argument that if God gave clear evidence of his existence, or even showed up, it would somehow undermine our freedom to believe or not to believe. Harvey the pooka had the same problem. I’m amazed you think this is the same argument. If God showed up on my doorstep and wowed me with his awesomeness, my heart would readily accept him on the merits of who he is. Fear wouldn’t be driving me into his arms. Love would. I would gladly do whatever the heck he asked me to do, because my trust in him would be limitless. If God showed up on my doorstep with a shotgun pointed at my kneecaps, my heart would NOT readily accept him on the merits of who is. Love wouldn’t be driving me into his arms. In fact, he would have to issue me an order for me to come within 2 feet of him. I would do whatever the heck he asked me to do, but only because I was afraid of getting my kneecaps shot off. Do you think the two scenarios here are morally indistinguishable? In my view, the whole point of free will is to accomplish the first thing. The second thing is what the mafia does, and only because if they had to ability to brainwash their victims, they would do that instead. ---
**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, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/174 "2014-12-31T22:33:55Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > . . . It’s totally _possible_ that some omnipotent sky daddy/system administrator runs our universe and has decided on some totally arbitrary set of rules for the meatbags of this planet. Seems silly, but it _could_ be that way. However, since I have no way of knowing _what_ those rules are (some archaic badly translated books don’t give me any confidence whatsoever), and all experiments done in my observable realm fail to provide even a smidgen of evidence that these “rules” exist at all, I might as well dump “religion” from my mind because it is a waste of time. This is a superb summary of the rebuttal to Pascal’s Wager. If I accept Zeus into my soul…how do I know I’m not really pissing off Odin, who will punish me horribly for the affront? I might just as well accept Calvinism’s doctrine of the “elect,” believe that I’m saved by no possible action of my own, and…not act. Keep going about my business as usual. Saves effort, anyway. ---
**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, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/175 "2014-12-31T22:47:53Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > I’ve become an atheist based on this reasoning. It’s totally _possible_ that some omnipotent sky daddy/system administrator runs our universe and has decided on some totally arbitrary set of rules for the meatbags of this planet. Seems silly, but it _could_ be that way. However, since I have no way of knowing _what_ those rules are (some archaic badly translated books don’t give me any confidence whatsoever), and all experiments done in my observable realm fail to provide even a smidgen of evidence that these “rules” exist at all, I might as well dump “religion” from my mind because it is a waste of time. I could’ve written this word for word. Your logic gets to my fundamental problem with the Bible and every other holy document intended to inform us of God’s will: picking which one is right is a total crap shoot because we don’t have any reference to corroborate anything. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/176 "2015-01-01T01:40:18Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > I think that’s one of the biggest misconceptions about Christianity: that it’s all about what happens to you when you die. Pfft. The kingdom of God is in your midst, he said. Yes, it continues after you die, but too many people (believers and non believers alike) miss the point by focusing on ‘what happens next’? I understand why you think this is a misconception. But I don’t agree it is a misconception. I think the focus on the afterlife makes perfect sense considering why Jesus supposedly came down here. It wasn’t just to give us useful life hacks. The prophets before him had done all that. Any ole prophet can teach the people the Kingdom of God is in our midst. But it takes someone special and divine who can do that and also intercede on a soul’s behalf to keep them out of Hell. All the reaping, harvesting, and winnowing metaphors of Jesus’s parables definitely speak to a final reckoning. So I don’t think the focus on the afterlife is misplaced. It makes perfect sense for Christians to obsess over who is gonna make the cut in the end, based on what’s in the Bible and the meaning of “Jesus saves”. ---
**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:** [January 1, 2015, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/177 "2015-01-01T03:32:49Z")
> [@Skammer](#): > > Most sins of all kinds come down to us thinking we know better than God. Wouldn’t that mean that as an atheist, I can’t perform most sin? I don’t believe God exists, and inevitably nor that there is a clear message indicating his intentions. I cannot think I know better than him. > [@](#): > > I think that’s one of the biggest misconceptions about Christianity: that it’s all about what happens to you when you die. Pfft. The kingdom of God _is in your midst_, he said. Yes, it continues after you die, but too many people (believers and non believers alike) miss the point by focusing on ‘what happens next’? But the afterlife, one way or the other (or both) is for eternity. If it does, in fact, exist, then it’s the correct course of action to care almost nothing for what is, in context, an infinitesimally small duration of time. Saying we should focus on this life and not the next seems like saying we should focus on making a particular five minutes of our lives as great as possible, and that we’d be missing the point to ponder the rest of our lives. Except with an even greater difference. > [@](#): > > I would not place the blame on the Bible, I would place the blame on churches who take fire and brimstone verses out of context in a misguided effort to scare people into the arms of God - which just leads them to reject God altogether. A question based on this - you suggest that those churches who take quotes from the Bible out of context do so deliberately. Do you believe that interpretations of the Bible that differ significantly than your own could not be “true” interpretations? That is to say, when people come up with interpretations that disagree fundamentally with yours, it cannot be because of the Bible’s writing, but because of intent on their part? > [@](#): > > I agree that a lot of what I believe about heaven and hell is speculation developed over centuries of tradition and study - not mine, obviously; it comes from a long tradition of Christian universalism. To me, though, it is the most consistent theology that doesn’t turn God into a sadistic monster. I find it interesting that you’ve pointed out a few times that the interpretations you’ve reached make most sense to you because they fit in with the vision of God that you have, though not quite in those terms. Would that be accurate to say? You interpret the Bible in light of your faith and a definition of God you’ve already arrived at? > [@](#): > > That is a great analogy for God’s love! No matter how much we hiss and fight and scratch at him, he still loves and cares for us. He does NOT turn us away or turn us loose. He lets us sit in the corner and hiss at him as long as we want, but continues to put out the tuna and water and blankets for us, waiting for us to trust and come near to him. All separation from God is entirely of our own volition, not God’s. Except at one point he takes the tuna and water and blankets away from us, leaves us potentially on our own but certainly devoid of love and joy, and stands, waiting, at the other end of the house for us to come to him, at which point he’ll give us all those things again. But not before we go to him, and only once we’ve fulfilled his terms. I’m not sure I’d like being God’s cat. > [@](#): > > If anyone has ever read _The Last Battle_, the final book in the _Narnia_ series, it depicts a set of hostile dwarves who are pitched into the paradise of God but refuse to see it. Their hearts are so hardened they are literally blind to God’s presence beside them. Maybe it’s something like that. I have to admit, as a fan of the other books, I always disliked that part. They don’t know and can’t understand Aslan, so they… don’t get to see him and change their minds. It’s always felt a little weird, especially when Aslan has always been so present and there for most other characters in the book. Even die-hard villains, murderers, false prophets, a would-be dictators get to _see_ the guy and judge for themselves. He could show himself, of course, with no problems to free will (though I don’t think that’s as big a deal in Narnia, anyway). He chooses not to. > [@](#): > > That’s all I have time for right now. Everyone have a happy and safe New Year. And to you. ---
**Author:** ![Kenm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bc79bd/32.png) [@Kenm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kenm)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 8:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/178 "2015-01-01T08:28:36Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Except at one point he takes the tuna and water and blankets away from us, leaves us potentially on our own but certainly devoid of love and joy, and stands, waiting, at the other end of the house for us to come to him, at which point he’ll give us all those things again. But not before we go to him, and only once we’ve fulfilled his terms. Except at one point he takes the tuna and water and blankets away from us and turns a blowtorch on us. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [January 1, 2015, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/179 "2015-01-01T13:47:01Z")
I think most loving and compassionate cat-owners would consider other means of handling an incorrigible kitty besides an abandonment. Like finding it an alternative home or taking it to the pound. Even euthanasia would be more loving and compassionate than abandonment. Now, if someone were to tell me they left their evil cat in the woods, I probably wouldn’t call 911 on them. I probably wouldn’t even stop associating with them. But I wouldn’t be able to call them a loving and compassionate cat-owner. Words are supposed to mean something. ---
**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:** [January 1, 2015, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904/180 "2015-01-01T14:22:52Z")
Even if the fractious cat refuses the food and water provided by a loving owner, the cat still isn’t in any place comparable to Hell. As long as the cat remains sheltered, away from the harsh elements and predators, it is still touched by the act of love. A loving owner will also talk to the cat with soothing words. Not give it the silent treatment. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-implications-of-hell/707904.md?page=10)