Why I believe my granny is in hell

PDN

In another thread the question came up about what we believe about loved ones who die. Do they go to hell, heaven, or nowhere at all?

It would be presumptious for any of us to try make such a call about someone we don't even know. That is why the Christians on this board have, quite correctly in my opinion, refused to answer when they are given a few skimpy details about someone and then asked, "Is he/she in hell or not? If you don't answer then you're evasive! Why don't have the courage to stand over your horrible beliefs?"

Of course such a thread is going to go nowhere, because if you say something that someone doesn't like then they will reply with, "How can you be so horrible and insensitive? How dare you condemn my mum when I'm grieving for her? I thought Christians were supposed to be loving! You're just a bunch of heartless B******s!" On the other hand, if you express genuine sympathy then some joker might just accuse you of mawkish sentimentality.

So I thought it would be a good idea for me to explain why I think my dear old granny is in hell. None of you knew her, so there's no scope for any emotional blackmail here - especially since she died so long ago that I'm hardly likely to flood my keyboard with tears at anything that anyone says. However, I did love my granny, and I think I knew her well enough to be in possession of most of the relevant facts.

My understanding of the Bible leads me to believe that the crucial matter in salvation is whether we accept or reject the offer of salvation that God extends to us through Jesus Christ. I believe that all of us have sinned, and therefore fall short of God's standards of holiness. I also believe that the punishment for sin is death, not just physical death - but eternal separation from God - what we call 'hell'. So, for a start off, my interpretation of the Bible leads me to believe that everyone deserves to go to hell. That includes Mother Theresa (who must have committed at least a few sins), PDN (who has committed a whole catalogue of sins) and Adolf Hitler (who as we all know was one very bad person indeed).

Now, if that was the end of the story then we would all be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. However, God had mercy on us and came to earth in human form - Jesus Christ. He lived a perfect life, without sin, so becoming the only human being ever to deserve to go to heaven. Then, Jesus did something really amazing, He voluntarily paid the punishment of hell for everyone of us. That meant that, when He was nailed to the Cross, all the suffering of hell, multiplied many times over, was condensed into a short period of time and laid upon Him. Of course this would be impossible if He was just an ordinary human being, but He was God as well. As an old hymn puts it: "We may not know, we cannot tell, what pains He had to bear. But we believe it was for us He hung and suffered there."

Then, having suffered this indescribable torment, Jesus died on the Cross. But He rose from the dead three days later. Now we all have the opportunity to accept the sacrifice that Jesus made on our behalf, thereby getting into heaven 'on His ticket'. The Bible says we need to believe that Jesus died for us and was raised from the dead, and we need to make a public profession of that belief. If we do this in all sincerity, then the Spirit of God enters us and as a result there will be a dramatic change in our lives with a consequent improvement in our morality. Having received this experience, it should be the most natural thing in the world to share it with others in the hope that they too will experience a similar change in their lives.

Now, back to granny. I shared with my granny what I believed Jesus had done for me. She could plainly see a dramatic change in my life and thought my being a bible basher was an improvement on the days when I was an alcoholic. She was an atheist, but not of the persistently evangelical kind that frequent this board. She had decided that she could not, or did not want to, believe in God. I shared the Gospel with her, but her response was always, "Well, I'll take my chances if there is a God." or "I've never been a bad person so I wouldn't go to hell even if there is a God."

Now, if my beliefs were guided by wishful thinking, then I would wish my granny into heaven - for I truly loved the old bird. However, I believe the Bible to be an accurate revelation of truth from God to man, and according to my understanding of the Bible my granny, who certainly sinned from time to time, rejected God's offer of salvation through Jesus Christ.

Now, I suppose it is just possible that my granny, in her dying moments, breathed a penitent prayer and asked Jesus to be her Saviour - but that's not very likely. She was stubborn as a mule - and I would be clutching at straws to believe that she wasn't stubborn up to the end.

Some will, no doubt, think me heartless for thinking my old granny to be in hell. Such an accusation would, of course, be totally illogical. Why is it heartless to believe something to be true? That's like saying we should all hold hands, think happy thoughts, and sing 'Kumbaya' and pretend nothing bad ever happens in the world.

Now, others will think that I am a gullible fool for believing what the Bible says about heaven and hell. That's fine by me, thankfully we don't live in a priest-ridden society where a bunch of mad monks will pull out your finger nails for not believing their interpretation of the Bible. Equally thankfully we don't live in a workers' paradise where I would have my fingernails pulled out for daring to believe in my interpretation of the Bible. I really don't mind if anyone thinks I'm gullible - in my opinion some of you believe some really stupid things anyway!

Others will retort, "Well, that's just your interpretation of the Bible." That is perfectly true. Of course I believe my interpretation of the Bible. Only a very confused person would disbelieve his own interpretation of something but accept somebody else's! However, if the implication is that all interpretations of the Bible are somehow equally valid, then that is, of course, extremely silly. Do I believe my interpretation of the Bible to be infallible? Absolutely not! I may be totally wrong and get to heaven to find my granny waiting for me, saying, "Surprise! You didn't expect me to be here, did you?" But, until I get there, I would be a hypocrite to believe anything else than that my granny is in hell.

Am I happy about people going to hell? Absolutely not. While my tone in this post may be flippant, I honestly cannot think of anyone going to hell without wishing that hell didn't exist.

Do I understand how a loving God could let someone go to hell? No, I don't. I think God is much bigger than to ever be understood by my feeble intellect. I suspect that part of my problem is that I, in common with most of the human race, have an insufficient appreciation of just how nasty sin is.

Now you are all free to think whatever you like about the eternal destiny of PDN's granny. I promise you that you won't hurt my feelings as I really don't give a fig what you think of her or of me.

So why did I post this little monologue? Well, some posters seemed to be getting their knickers in a right old twist in their rabid desire to hear a Christian actually admit that they believe someone to be going to hell - so I thought it would only be decent of me to put the poor souls out of their misery.

Be Blessed!

PDN

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

She was an atheist, but not of the persistently evangelical kind that make nuisances of themselves on this board.

PDN, it would be much easier not to "make a nuisance of ourselves" if you didn't constantly make provocative remarks about atheists. It's far too common in your posts. As for "evangelism", we're as entitled as the next group.

You're not an atheist - good, fine, whatever. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion of atheists, and perfectly entitled to air it - but to then complain that we make a nuisance of ourselves with our views on Christians is just ignorant. You're airing your views here, and we respond here - and you'd air your views whether we did or not. If you'd like to point out to us how awful we are, come and do it in the Atheism forum that you "haven't bothered to visit".

You're the Christian - why don't you try turning the other cheek, instead of constantly spoiling for a fight and complaining when you get it? If you can't do that, stop needling and come and have it out like an honest citizen.

Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

PDN, it would be much easier not to "make a nuisance of ourselves" if you didn't constantly make provocative remarks about atheists. It's far too common in your posts. As for "evangelism", we're as entitled as the next group.

You're not an atheist - good, fine, whatever. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion of atheists, and perfectly entitled to air it - but to then complain that we make a nuisance of ourselves with our views on Christians is just ignorant. You're airing your views here, and we respond here - and you'd air your views whether we did or not. If you'd like to point out to us how awful we are, come and do it in the Atheism forum that you "haven't bothered to visit".

You're the Christian - why don't you try turning the other cheek, instead of constantly spoiling for a fight and complaining when you get it? If you can't do that, stop needling and come and have it out like an honest citizen.

Scofflaw

Thank you for your observation. I have amended my post accordingly. A little cordial correction is always (well, to be honest, sometimes) appreciated.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Thank you for your observation. I have amended my post accordingly. A little cordial correction is always (well, to be honest, sometimes) appreciated.

Fair dues to you, sir!

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Good to see the 'cordially' back in your signature line.

I was worried you had run out of cordial.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Good to see the 'cordially' back in your signature line.

I was worried you had run out of cordial.

I was worried you were aiming for lemonade, come to that...and you know what they say - by their fruit you shall know them.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Crucifix

What always makes me curious is why we must believe in it. The Bible says it of course, but is there any other reasoning to it?

BrianCalgary

Crucifix wrote:

What always makes me curious is why we must believe in it. The Bible says it of course, but is there any other reasoning to it?

First off, because Jesus says it exists. The logic is that for those who desire an eternity with God, get it. The Bible describes such a place as: Heaven, and then describes what it is like.

Those who reject God, get their wish, an eternity without Him, the Bible calls this place Hell, and describes it as well.

tuxy

It's hard for me to comprehend why a person who lives a good life but does not believe in Jesus goes to hell. While someone who has lead a evil life but asks for forgiveness from Jesus at the last minute goes to heaven. Why is god so egotistical?

philologos

He loves us, all He demands from us is that we love Him as well. It's not too difficult is it?

bonkey

PDN wrote:

Others will retort, "Well, that's just your interpretation of the Bible." That is perfectly true. Of course I believe my interpretation of the Bible. Only a very confused person would disbelieve his own interpretation of something but accept somebody else's!

I don't mean to take us off on a tangent, but this comment struck a chord with me.

First of all, I would like to congratulate you both for posting this thread, and for making it clear that this is your belief based on what you believe to be true...rather than this is what is, because you know that your beliefs are true.

However...while I would agree to a point that of course you have to base your reasoning on what you believe, I would wonder whether or not you're suggesting here that because its what you believe, you're not open to the possibility that you're wrong.

Now, lest someone accuse me of not reading your post, I'm well aware that you immediately follow the above passage with the following comments:

Do I believe my interpretation of the Bible to be infallible? Absolutely not! I may be totally wrong and get to heaven to find my granny waiting for me, saying, "Surprise! You didn't expect me to be here, did you?" But, until I get there, I would be a hypocrite to believe anything else than that my granny is in hell.

Now...here's where we get to the interesting point...

Until you get there, you will not change your beliefs.

In other words, you need proof that you're wrong, before you'll change your mind. You'll accept you could be wrong, but the only thing that will take you further than acknowledging the possibility is straight-up proof.

Am I understanding that correctly?

philologos

bonkey wrote:

First of all, I would like to congratulate you both for posting this thread, and for making it clear that this is your belief based on what you believe to be true...rather than this is what is, because you know that your beliefs are true.

Well we do know our beliefs are true, but that's incredibly debatable.

bonkey wrote:

In other words, you need proof that you're wrong, before you'll change your mind. You'll accept you could be wrong, but the only thing that will take you further than acknowledging the possibility is straight-up proof.

Stop being so pedantic. He doesn't know if she prayed to Jesus for forgiveness or not. So none of us know if she is indeed in hell for certain.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Well we do know our beliefs are true, but that's incredibly debatable.

So do JW, Mormons, Sunnis, Shia, Jews etc etc...

You can't all be right. So who is wrong and how do you determine that?

Jakkass wrote:

Stop being so pedantic. He doesn't know if she prayed to Jesus for forgiveness or not. So none of us know if she is indeed in hell for certain.

I think bonkey means that when it turns out that Judaism was correct, Jesus was a false prophet sent by Satan, and everyone here ends up in hell with PDNs grandmother, then PDN will know that he was wrong.

PDN

bonkey wrote:

In other words, you need proof that you're wrong, before you'll change your mind. You'll accept you could be wrong, but the only thing that will take you further than acknowledging the possibility is straight-up proof.

Am I understanding that correctly?

Of course I could be wrong about heaven and hell. All of us could be wrong about virtually everything we believe to be true. We could all wake up and discover, like in the Matrix, that everything we experienced in this life was really a dream or an illusion.

In fact, strictly speaking, I understand it is impossible to have absolute proof for anything in any sphere of life apart from mathematics. So, since I am firmly convinced that my beliefs are correct, it would need some pretty mind-blowing evidence to convince me otherwise.

I believe that only a total jerk (or an omniscient God) would refuse to allow the possibility, no matter how faint, that they might be mistaken in their beliefs. Any atheist should be prepared for the possibility that when they die that they were wrong all along about God, sin, salvation, and heaven or hell. I am prepared for the (in my opinion, extremely unlikely) possibility that I will be wrong.

Of course, if the atheist does find that they were wrong, and that I was right, then the consequences of their miscalculation will be truly catastrophic for them. Whereas, if I indeed am wrong, and the atheist is right, then I will no longer be conscious of anything after death so it won't really matter whether I was wrong or right at all, will it?

In fact, in the unlikely event that I am wrong, I will still have lived an incredibly full and satisfying life. My faith still will have been the catalyst for transforming me from a very miserable and lonely alcoholic to a Christian man who has been blessed with an exciting life where I spend every day doing a job that I love. I have received many of the things I've prayed for, including a beautiful wife, an incredible daughter, and numerous other instances of answered prayer. As a Christian pastor I have had the opportunity to travel the globe and meet some of the most wonderfully kind-hearted people in the world in a variety of cultures. So, even if I am wrong, my 'God-delusion' has certainly not impaired my enjoyment of this present life at all.

Of course if turns out that the Muslims are right, then we're all pretty well cooked, aren't we?

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

So do JW, Mormons, Sunnis, Shia, Jews etc etc...

You can't all be right. So who is wrong and how do you determine that?

You have bantered on about this so much on this forum. They aren't right. They can believe whatever they wish but Christianity is the true option. I'm 100% sure about that, but that's not saying that everyones going to believe in it. How do I determine it? Interesting question. I've felt God's prescence and I've felt the Spirit inside me and it is convincing me that it's true.

Wicknight wrote:

I think bonkey means that when it turns out that Judaism was correct, Jesus was a false prophet sent by Satan, and everyone here ends up in hell with PDNs grandmother, then PDN will know that he was wrong.

"when", surely you mean if. I doubt a false prophet would desire the greater good in everyone to be brutally honest with you. If you want a false prophet look towards Fred Phelps.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

You have bantered on about this so much on this forum.

I have, because really it is the whole point

You do realise that everyone believes that their religion is the true religion. Why has it not occurred to you that what ever is happening in the minds of those who follow "false" religions might also happening in your mind?

mickoneill30

PDN wrote:

In another thread the question came up about what we believe about loved ones who die. Do they go to hell, heaven, or nowhere at all?

The Bible says we need to believe that Jesus died for us and was raised from the dead, and we need to make a public profession of that belief. If we do this in all sincerity, then the Spirit of God enters us and as a result there will be a dramatic change in our lives with a consequent improvement in our morality.

What happens to babies that die before christening or are stillborn? They've had no opportunity to accept Christ. Do they go to hell?
If they don't go to hell then is it the same for babies that are born in different faiths? And what about adults in different societys that have never heard of Christ. Do they get the same treatment?
If an infant dies (say at two months old) and goes to heaven does it have the same level of consciousness that it had when it died or does it get an adult consciousness in heaven? How would that be formed as generally our personalities are formed from our experiences?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I have, because really it is the whole point

You do realise that everyone believes that their religion is the true religion. Why has it not occurred to you that what ever is happening in the minds of those who follow "false" religions might also happening in your mind?

Exactly - it comes back to this point that a Christian is an atheist from the point of view of a Zoroastrian, or a Hindu, or in respect of the many pagan gods. In terms of Pascal's Wager, Christians need to be right about all those gods being wrong, and we need to be right about one more god than that. Statistically, it's really not a very big deal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

im_invisible

PDN wrote:

I believe that only a total jerk... would refuse to allow the possibility, no matter how faint, that they might be mistaken in their beliefs.

Jakkass wrote:

...They can believe whatever they wish but Christianity is the true option. I'm 100% sure about that,

He doesn't know if she prayed to Jesus for forgiveness or not. So none of us know if she is indeed in hell for certain

eh, no. i think he meant..

Do I believe my interpretation of the Bible to be infallible? Absolutely not!

bonkey

PDN wrote:

I believe that only a total jerk (or an omniscient God) would refuse to allow the possibility, no matter how faint, that they might be mistaken in their beliefs.

Jakkass wrote:

Well we do know our beliefs are true,

Hmmmm. Interesting.

I take it, Jakkass, when you are referring to "we", you are excluding Christians like PDN who say only a total jerk would claim such surity.

Any atheist should be prepared for the possibility that when they die that they were wrong all along about God, sin, salvation, and heaven or hell.

Yup, they should, just as they should be prepared for the possibility that any other religion is right, or that its all just some sort of total-immersion recreational program and that we'll wake up and go back to our "real" lives.

Of course, then you ask how one prepares for such things. I mean...preparing for the Christian afterlife could be completely the wrong thing to do if the afterlife exists and turns out to be some antithesis of the Christian vision.

I am prepared for the (in my opinion, extremely unlikely) possibility that I will be wrong.

Cool. So am I.

Of course, if the atheist does find that they were wrong, and that I was right, then the consequences of their miscalculation will be truly catastrophic for them. Whereas, if I indeed am wrong, and the atheist is right, then I will no longer be conscious of anything after death so it won't really matter whether I was wrong or right at all, will it?

But its not a binary situation. Its not just these two options. There are an infinite number of possibilities. It could be that some will be rewarded for living my life skeptically and others punished for being swayed by faith / belief.

Thats the thing...we just don't know. Well...I don't know. Jakkass apparently knows.

Jakkass wrote:

Stop being so pedantic.

Its pedantic only when you omit the question at the end, where I wanted to make sure I was understanding the thought-process correctly.

If you think I'd be better off just deciding what it was PDN was saying, rather than checking to make sure, then I guess that yes, I am pedantic in that sense. I like to know that I've understood people correctly rather than just leaping to conclusions. I guess its a failing of mine

So, even if I am wrong, my 'God-delusion' has certainly not impaired my enjoyment of this present life at all.

Delighted to hear it.

I don't subscribe to the notion that religion is necessarily a bad thing, incidentally, nor would I even necessarily agree that its a worse thing than the lack of religion would be.

Like all aspects of (flawed) humanity, religion has the capacity for great good and the capacity for great harm. I delight in the former and welcome it, regardless of the source, and similarly regret and oppose the latter.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote:

I don't subscribe to the notion that religion is necessarily a bad thing, incidentally, nor would I even necessarily agree that its a worse thing than the lack of religion would be.

Like all aspects of (flawed) humanity, religion has the capacity for great good and the capacity for great harm. I delight in the former and welcome it, regardless of the source, and similarly regret and oppose the latter.

Yes, it's worth remembering that Dawkins is not a spokesman for atheism - he is simply an outspoken atheist. Some atheists agree with him, others don't. Since my personal atheism dates to when Dawkins was a student, I find it rather irritating when people presume I am somehow a 'follower' of his by simple virtue of being an atheist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MeditationMom

PDN - it doesn't matter whether your Granny is in hell or heaven. What matters is what you believe and why you believe what you believe. In other words, your granny's relationship with God, or truth, and where she ends up - in hell or heaven - is really none of your business.

Believing your granny is in hell simply validates your believes. Beliefs need validation since they are beliefs and not something anyone can prove or disprove. If it helps you to be a good person I am sure neither Granny nor God will mind you believing she is in hell. I am not sure it is a helpful thing to think of your Grandmother in hell, though. I wonder about the imagery of her suffering in your mind on that matter. It would be more beneficial for you to see her serene, peaceful, smiling face. Her humor, and her divine stubbornness you seem to have inherited.

As far as heaven and hell are concerned, they are nothing but the last way stations before we return to God, or that which is called God, anyway. All things return to God just like all water returns to the ocean. Staying in heaven forever would still be a separation from God. Heaven is just another kind of hell, the less obvious and therefore the more dangerous kind.

As to your granny - she sounds like a woman who knew her goodness in spite of all the little sins she may have committed during her life and she sounded at peace. Surely she is with God. When you are at peace you are with God. She just refused to believe in the God people imagine and rather trusted her own heart, come what may. It's an excellent way home! Don't take it as a rejection of your own experience.

As far as Jesus never having committed any sin - he would have been the last to tell you this. He would have told you that he was the greatest sinner of all. He doubted God!, on the cross, saying "Father, why have you forsaken me?" (Talk about "Me and my father are One" going out the window there for a moment). Only when he gave up, when peace descended upon him again and he recognized his sin, did he ask for us "Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing". Only a great sinner could have done that.

We will all go to hell and heaven, and finally find the courage to go "through the gate" that is no gate and dissolve into God, who is all and nothing. When we feel the presence of God in our life, peace, that is our true identity.

Hell - what do I know?

Much love to you and your grandmother. She is your gate!

philologos

bonkey wrote:

Hmmmm. Interesting.

I take it, Jakkass, when you are referring to "we", you are excluding Christians like PDN who say only a total jerk would claim such surity.

If I'm really a jerk for saying that, I'm proud to be a jerk.

Zombrex

I smell a holy war brewing

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

I smell a holy war brewing

/sharpening his blade as we speak.

PDN

MeditationMom wrote:

PDN - it doesn't matter whether your Granny is in hell or heaven. What matters is what you believe and why you believe what you believe. In other words, your granny's relationship with God, or truth, and where she ends up - in hell or heaven - is really none of your business.

Well, if you left your post at that it would be a point worth considering. Maybe we should all be so self-absorbed that our loved ones' relationships with God are none of our business.

But then you went on to invalidate that point by chipping in your opinion about my granny. So, I guess I'll have to state the obvious. If my granny's eternal destiny is none of her grandson's business then it would be even less of your business, wouldn't it?

PDN

Jakkass wrote:

If I'm really a jerk for saying that, I'm proud to be a jerk.

Ok - I can change my statement to "I believe that only a total jackass (or an omniscient God) would refuse to allow the possibility, no matter how faint, that they might be mistaken in their beliefs."

I know some individuals like to spend their time looking for contradictions in the Bible. Now apparently some folks are resorting to the much easier task of trying to find contradictions between individual Christians on a philiosophical question such as whether absolute certainty is possible or not.

I am sure Jakkass and I disagree on other issues as well. For example, I believe that Drogheda United are going to win the title this year, but Jakkass may will disagree with me. Since I feel guilty for calling him a jerk, I'll merely call him a Jackass if he doesn't agree with me on this one.

Of course, all of us, myself included, use the phrase "absolutely sure" many times. I am "absolutely sure" that my wife is Irish, that I will be in church in 4 hours time, and when Ireland were all out for 91 against Australia I was "absolutely sure" that Australia were going to win the game.

Now, if pressed, I would have to admit that my wife may, when she was a baby, have been involved in a hospital mix up where babies were given to the wrong parents. So, theoretically, she could be Lithunanian. Similarly, I might arrive at church today to find it has been bombed by Al Quaeda. Heck, I suppose it is even theoretically possible that Ireland could have bowled out the Australians for 90 runs! (OK, that last one is stretching it a bit.)

So, we all use language, to one degree or another, in a loose or phenomenological way. Hence, the Bible speaks about the sun rising (even though God, who made the universe, knew fine well that it is the earth that is revolving), I speak about a kettle boiling (even though it is the water that is in the kettle that is boling), and we all say we are "absolutely sure" about stuff when, from a philiosophical standpoint, it is impossible to be absolutely sure about anything.

Still, if it makes someone happy to see two Christians disagreeing over something, then I'm glad to have brightened up your day.

So, I am absolutely sure that I am going to heaven when I die - but if pressed I will be forced to admit that it is theoretically possible that on my death I will find I'm wrong and that the Easter Bunny is waiting to guide me through the cosmic gate to nothingness. I am absolutely sure, but slightly less so, that my granny is in hell on the basis of the teaching of the New Testament. Either way I must finish this post, because I am absolutely sure that I have to preach a sermon in 4 hours time.

Zombrex

In fairness to PDN, and other Christians who believe in hell, it would be a mistake to take this belief as meaning that they believe people in hell weren't good people, or lead a good life.

A lot of people, particularly those fuzzy on Christian basics, believe that hell is for bad people. But it isn't really, it is for non-believers. This will naturally include bad people because Christian belief is that if you are really a believer you will also be a good person. But it will also include plenty of good people who just didn't believe.

I tried to touch on this in my earlier post, about the necessity of a religion to be set up like this if it is to be successful. People don't necessarily believe these things because they think there is something wrong with the people in hell, they believe these things because they think there is something right with them. They are saved. For them to be "saved" there must by definition be people who are not saved.

So, while I love a bit of Christian bashing as much as the next person , I do think it is slighly unfair for anyone to say that a Christian is saying who ever is in hell was a bad person.

That isn't to say that I don't think this whole idea (this belongs to nearly all religion, not just Christianity) cannot be deeply damaging to society as a whole. But that is probably for another thread.

philologos

Wicknight wrote:

So, while I love a bit of Christian bashing as much as the next person , I do think it is slightly unfair for anyone to say that a Christian is saying who ever is in hell was a bad person.

Well we can only judge from whats written in Scripture.

Mark 16:15-16 wrote:

He said to them, "Go throughout the whole world and preach the gospel to the whole human race. Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Tim Robbins

BrianCalgary wrote:

First off, because Jesus says it exists. The logic is that for those who desire an eternity with God, get it. The Bible describes such a place as: Heaven, and then describes what it is like.

Those who reject God, get their wish, an eternity without Him, the Bible calls this place Hell, and describes it as well.

That is based on the axiom of the Bible being factual and correct.
An outrageous axiom IMO. But you are entitled to yours of course.

philologos

Well generally Christians would believe the Bible to be true :rolleyes:

bonkey

PDN wrote:

Now apparently some folks are resorting to the much easier task of trying to find contradictions between individual Christians on a philiosophical question such as whether absolute certainty is possible or not.

If thats what you genuinely think I was doing, then I'm pretty sure I'd be wasting my time trying to elaborate the point further.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Tim Robbins wrote:

That is based on the axiom of the Bible being factual and correct.

Well generally Christians would believe the Bible to be true :rolleyes:

For a given value of 'true'. There's rather a spectrum - from "every word literally and exactly true" to "best efforts of some people a long time ago to tell us about God".

PDN wrote:

Ok - I can change my statement to "I believe that only a total jackass (or an omniscient God) would refuse to allow the possibility, no matter how faint, that they might be mistaken in their beliefs."

As a matter of interest, then, does that include the possibility of other beliefs (as in other religions) being right?

And, of course, have you ever considered being less combative? Or do you find that it works well for you as a pastor (it's an honest question!)?

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

As a matter of interest, then, does that include the possibility of other beliefs (as in other religions) being right?

And, of course, have you ever considered being less combative? Or do you find that it works well for you as a pastor (it's an honest question!)?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I believe that other religions are mistaken in their beliefs. Yes, it may conceivably turn out in the end that they were right and I was wrong, but I sincerely doubt it. I find my Christian experience to be extremely real, and 26 years of studying the Bible and studying history has convinced me that the Christian faith, while based on a step of faith and not an intellectual deduction, is consistent & coherent. And no doubt other posters will disagree with me, as is their right.

As for being less combative. I am rarely combative in my work as a pastor, because my work is primarily caring for people who are going through difficulties and helping people who have honest questions.

If I think anyone is asking an honest question, I will be as gentle as a lamb with them, I promise. But when someone is trying to pick a fight by making nonsensical statements or deliberately ripping Scriptures out of context, then I think it is fair to reply robustly rather than to roll over and cry "Baa".

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

I tried to touch on this in my earlier post, about the necessity of a religion to be set up like this if it is to be successful. People don't necessarily believe these things because they think there is something wrong with the people in hell, they believe these things because they think there is something right with them. They are saved. For them to be "saved" there must by definition be people who are not saved.

Of course, if you think that Christianity has invented hell for that purpose (or more correctly adopted it, since belief in hell considerably predates Christianity) then your reasoning would be correct.

However, if Christianity began because Christ's followers were genuinely concerned to save people from hell, then your reasoning would be akin to arguing that child welfare organisations "need" child abuse in order to be successful.

It is true that forms of 'Christianity' that don't believe in hell (such as Universalism) have not been successful. But Jehovah's Witnesses, while normally considered a cult rather than part of Christianity, seem to grow quite well and yet don't believe in hell.

PDN

mickoneill30 wrote:

What happens to babies that die before christening or are stillborn? They've had no opportunity to accept Christ. Do they go to hell?
If they don't go to hell then is it the same for babies that are born in different faiths? And what about adults in different societys that have never heard of Christ. Do they get the same treatment?
If an infant dies (say at two months old) and goes to heaven does it have the same level of consciousness that it had when it died or does it get an adult consciousness in heaven? How would that be formed as generally our personalities are formed from our experiences?

Mick, I believe that for God to send a baby to hell would negate most of what the Bible tells us about the nature of God. I believe that people go to hell because they choose to reject God's offer of salvation in Jesus Christ. Babies have not had an opportunity to accept or reject that Gospel so it would be incredibly unfair for them to go to hell.

I don't actually believe that anyone is 'born' into a faith. There is no such thing as a Christian baby, a Buddhist baby or an atheist baby. The idea that babies might be saved or damned according to an accident of birth is as repugnant to me as the idea that a human being can be inferior because of the colour of their skin. Faith is something that needs to be entered into as a conscious decision. Neither do I believe that christening or baptism can make the slightest difference to the spiritual condition of a child. Such a notion, in my opinion, has more to do with mumbo-jumbo than with any biblical doctrine.

philologos

Scofflaw wrote:

For a given value of 'true'. There's rather a spectrum - from "every word literally and exactly true" to "best efforts of some people a long time ago to tell us about God"

You are right there are both differences in interpretation and in how doubtful some Christians are of their beliefs. I would be one of the Christians who would be like the former I believe that the Bible is the truth (that uses symbolism in sections e.g parables) but it does have a very true message to give to Christians today. I believe that everything forecast or predicted in the Bible will indeed happen to us as Christians at some point.

PDN

Jakkass wrote:

You are right there are both differences in interpretation and in how doubtful some Christians are of their beliefs. I would be one of the Christians who would be like the former I believe that the Bible is the truth (that uses symbolism in sections e.g parables) but it does have a very true message to give to Christians today. I believe that everything forecast or predicted in the Bible will indeed happen to us as Christians at some point.

And here I agree wholeheartedly. I too believe every word of the Bible to be inspired by God and therefore, subject of course to normal literary conventions and use of language, to be true.

hairyheretic

PDN wrote:

I believe that other religions are mistaken in their beliefs. Yes, it may conceivably turn out in the end that they were right and I was wrong, but I sincerely doubt it. I find my Christian experience to be extremely real, and 26 years of studying the Bible and studying history has convinced me that the Christian faith, while based on a step of faith and not an intellectual deduction, is consistent & coherent.

I suspect if you spoke to others of different beliefs they would say much the same as yourself, that the beliefs they hold are as real and valid as your own, and for the same reasons as you would offer.

philologos

hairyheretic wrote:

I suspect if you spoke to others of different beliefs they would say much the same as yourself, that the beliefs they hold are as real and valid as your own, and for the same reasons as you would offer.

That may be very true, it doesn't mean that they are right.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

You are right there are both differences in interpretation and in how doubtful some Christians are of their beliefs. I would be one of the Christians who would be like the former I believe that the Bible is the truth (that uses symbolism in sections e.g parables) but it does have a very true message to give to Christians today.

I don't think it's quite fair to equate those who believe that the Bible was "written by men trying to tell us about God" with "doubtful of their beliefs". I have met some who are entirely confident in their beliefs, but who thought of the Bible as written by men - men who were inspired by God to write, but not inspired or directed by God in what they wrote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

hairyheretic

Jakkass wrote:

That may be very true, it doesn't mean that they are right.

No more than you are

PDN

tuxy wrote:

It's hard for me to comprehend why a person who lives a good life but does not believe in Jesus goes to hell. While someone who has lead a evil life but asks for forgiveness from Jesus at the last minute goes to heaven. Why is god so egotistical?

"Egotistical" means to have an exaggerated sense of your own importance.

If God exists then, by definition, He is the most important being in existence - far surpassing created beings. Therefore, as One who is infinitely important, it is impossible for Him to be egotistical.

If God doesn't exist, then it would also be impossible for Him to be egotistical, since to have a sense of anything would necessitate existence.

Therefore an egotistical God is a logical impossibility.

Don't you just love logic?

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

"Egotistical" means to have an exaggerated sense of your own importance.

If God exists then, by definition, He is the most important being in existence - far surpassing created beings. Therefore, as One who is infinitely important, it is impossible for Him to be egotistical.

If God doesn't exist, then it would also be impossible for Him to be egotistical, since to have a sense of anything would necessitate existence.

Therefore an egotistical God is a logical impossibility.

Don't you just love logic?

e·go·tist (g-tst, g-)
n.
1. A conceited, boastful person.
2. A selfish, self-centered person.

Hmm?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Conar

Hey guys.

Is it just people that have heard tales of Jesus/God but refuse to acknowledge him that go to hell or would an isolated Amazonian tribesperson (as an example) also go to hell?

Also does the Catholic church (or any other Christian ones) have any documentation stating which parts they accept to be parables and which are truth?

Fanny Cradock

Conar wrote:

Hey guys.

Is it just people that have heard tales of Jesus/God but refuse to acknowledge him that go to hell or would an isolated Amazonian tribesperson (as an example) also go to hell?

As I'm not aware of anything in the Bible that covers this very valid question (correct me if I'm wrong), it has been something that I've always pondered. I would, however, be certain that, as a loving and just God, his intention is not to send people to hell. As an omniscient, omnipotent being, I think God can see all our life's possibilities. I'd imagine that He could see what would have happened if the person had of heard.

That explanation - which is only my own personal thoughts on the matter - does pose some other questions. For instance, take a person whose faith in God was extinguished by the actions of another - very relevant in Catholic Ireland, I think. Why would God not apply a 'what if' type scenario - whereby, under positive and nurturing influences, the persons faith would actually have grown?

philologos

Scofflaw wrote:

e·go·tist (g-tst, g-)
n.
1. A conceited, boastful person.
2. A selfish, self-centered person.

Hmm?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I genuinely don't understand how God is a selfish person considering He gave us life, and a world to live in.

puzzled,
Jakkass

Asiaprod

Jakkass wrote:

I genuinely don't understand how God is a selfish person considering He gave us life, and a world to live in.

puzzled,
Jakkass

I just know this will loop around to the question of Free Will, again.

PDN

Conar wrote:

Also does the Catholic church (or any other Christian ones) have any documentation stating which parts they accept to be parables and which are truth?

Well, they often have a line preceding them such as "he told them this parable" (Luke 8:4) which tends to be a bit of a give-away.

In fact any Bible Dictionary or Bible Commentary should be able to help you on this. The truth of the matter is that virtually everybody who studies the Bible in an academic setting, be they Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, atheist, or agnostic is in full agreement on which parts of the New Testament are parables. This is because there are accepted academic and literary principles for studying ancient literature of any variety, not just the Bible. So, the many areas where there is broad academic agreement on the interpretation of Scripture are not just somebody imposing their personal interpretations, they represent the considered results of a respected branch of learning.

Parables are illustrative stories which tend to teach one main truth. There was a strange school of interpretation over 1000 years ago when monks, who believed that the Bible could not be interpreted by ordinary people but only by the representatives of the church, persisted in looking for secret hidden meanings in all the details of a parable. This was because they were treating the Bible like a book of magic spells and were woefully ignorant of near-eastern literary forms. However, I have never heard of anyone seriously trying to read meaning into the details of the parables at any time in the last few centuries (at least until I visited this board).

Those of us who believe that the Bible is literally true do, of course, recognise that illustrative language is used. When Jesus says "I am the door", for example, we do not believe that he is a wooden rectangular piece of wood complete with a letterbox where his navel should be.

A good rule of thumb is to try to discover what any particular passage of the Bible would have meant to those who first heard it. This is known as exegesis. If the original hearers would have understood the words of, say, Moses, Jesus or King David as being symbolic then it is highly unlikely that we should treat them literally. Similarly, if something was recorded and understood by the original readers/hearers and by following generations as being a literal historical record, then it may have symbolic significance, but it is hard to see how we can honestly claim that it should only be interpreted as symbolic.

I hope this helps.

PDN

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

I genuinely don't understand how God is a selfish person considering He gave us life, and a world to live in.

puzzled,
Jakkass

Well I suppose it depends on your terms.

God could have, since he can do anything, given us a universe where every person was able to live a blissful happy existence for ever and ever.

He didn't.

Now of course it can be argued that what we have is better than nothing. And if people view the two options as either this or nothing then I can see why people would believe that what we have is the best thing ever and believe that others who claim otherwise are being selfish and ungrateful for existing at all.

But considered God can do anything with the same ease as anything else, the idea that he would give us this particular existence, one where the majority of people in the world lead hard lives until they die and then end up in hell, doesn't seem to tie in what your assertion above that he is doing this all for us.

What ever reason God set things up this way it clearly wasn't to maximize the existence of each person.

And before you say God did give us a perfect world and we ruined it the fact that God set Eden up so that we would ruin it (why put a tree in the garden that Adam cannot eat from but yet you know he will? Is it not easier just to not put the tree there?) also doesn't tie in with your above assertion that this is all for us.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote:

That may be very true, it doesn't mean that they are right.

Doesn't mean you are, either.