Non-believers to BURN IN HELL!

[JoeyKnothead]

Some'll say that if you reject Bible tales, you'll burn in Hell.

For debate:
Please offer some means to confirm the veracity of the claim.

If the claim can't be shown to be true and factual, is it uncivil, or perhaps more importantly morally right to present such an argument in order to encourage religious belief?

Why might a response of "Go to Hell" be inappropriate in the face of such a threat to one's well-being, while the threat itself may receive a pass?

[Flail]

spayne wrote:

I think it is important to point out that Christianity is not a religion, and that the Bible never says that if you reject what it says you will go to hell. Instead, we have Jesus, who said beautiful things about a life that He alone can offer us. "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls." Jesus' invitation was to believe in him, and put your faith and trust in who he is. It is by coming to him that we become aware of his great love for us. The love that he has for you!! It is through him that we learn about the character and holiness of God.

To me it seems as you are giving us the typical Christian spin on the clear words of Jesus that you quoted. IMO, Jesus is not telling us to believe in Him at all, but rather to believe in 'His words and teachings' and by putting them into action we will find solace; solace in sharing with empathy and altruism the pain of our fellows, to believe 'on His words, not 'in Him'. Yours is the Pauline version upon which Christianity is based wherein 'who' Jesus was is more important than what He taught as to how to live one's life for others.

To my reading, Jesus is saying here and elsewhere that we find God not in religion or worship or ritual practices which only divide us and take our 'eye off the ball', but rather we can find 'God' in the suffering and needs of one another. If we would all turn away from religiosity and all things churchy and ritualistic and toward each other instead, we might actually find what Jesus was talking about.

[JohnPaul]

I am a little puzzled by this thread. There have been 11 responses so far, and only one has remotely addressed the question in the OP. Here is the question for debate:

Some'll say that if you reject Bible tales, you'll burn in Hell.

For debate:
Please offer some means to confirm the veracity of the claim.

All except one post have gone to some length to confirm that the claim or threat is actually made by Christianity, but that is obvious and needs no confirmation. That is not the question !The question is to confirm that if you reject the Bible tales, you will in fact, in reality, in truth, go to hell!

I would really like to see a post here that actually addresses the question of the OP! If I have myself misunderstood the question, please point that out to me!

My original and follow-up posts have dealt with my assertion, with scriptural backup, that the claim is not only not supportable by scripture but contradicted by it. Since those who make such a claim would undoubtedly give great credence to the Bible, we have a means to confirm the veracity of the claim and said claim has failed the test. It seems to me that I have fully addressed the OP question.

OK, I admit that your approach of showing that the claim itself is not supported by scripture is relevant and interesting, but I suspect you would have great difficulty convincing the majority of Christians of that. Isn't it the thought that counts? If some zealot Christian tells me I am going to hell because I do not accept his interpretations, should I merely thank him for his good wishes? I think my suggested response of invoking a horde of demons on him is more appropriate. It doesn't really matter whether either hell or demons really exist. Its the thought that counts!

John

[Slopeshoulder]

FWIW, here's a take on it from a spiritual liberal:

"Non-believers burn in hell" is toxic and absurd IMO if taken literally, meaning if you don't neotically profess assent to a series of propositions you are thereby condemed to eternal torture by a real person named God in a real thing called hell. And slight variations on this theme are IMO no better.

Better to reframe it as "those who don't seek transformation/transcendence/insight in some way, and simply live in what is apparent to them at face value, are suffering in and from the human condition/experience, and this is a burning and a hell."
Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, many/most Humanists, Existentialists, New Agers, Pagans, Mormons, Toaists, etc all seem to agree.
That version I buy. But the literal version? No way.

[Baz]

FWIW, here's a take on it from a spiritual liberal:

"Non-believers burn in hell" is toxic and absurd IMO if taken literally, meaning if you don't neotically profess assent to a series of propositions you are thereby condemed to eternal torture by a real person named God in a real thing called hell. And slight variations on this theme are IMO no better.

Better to reframe it as "those who don't seek transformation/transcendence/insight in some way, and simply live in what is apparent to them at face value, are suffering in and from the human condition/experience, and this is a burning and a hell."
Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, many/most Humanists, Existentialists, New Agers, Pagans, Mormons, Toaists, etc all seem to agree.
That version I buy. But the literal version? No way.

Can I ask you to rephrase this bit I’m having trouble grasping the point.
( I.e. dumb it down a bit, just for me.)

[David 2.0]

Some'll say that if you reject Bible tales, you'll burn in Hell.

For debate:
Please offer some means to confirm the veracity of the claim.

Death?

If the claim can't be shown to be true and factual, is it uncivil, or perhaps more importantly morally right to present such an argument in order to encourage religious belief?

Well most stuff talked about around here can not be shown to be factual/true.
So careful what you wish for.....

But if I had to answer...

If the believer is aware that he/she is lying than for me this would be both uncivil and morally wrong. "Intent" has been satisfied.

If the believer buys what he is selling than it is a warning....
Like, "Watchout for that tree!" (Sorry George)

Why might a response of "Go to Hell" be inappropriate in the face of such a threat to one's well-being, while the threat itself may receive a pass?

Intent?

[Slopeshoulder]

FWIW, here's a take on it from a spiritual liberal:

"Non-believers burn in hell" is toxic and absurd IMO if taken literally, meaning if you don't neotically profess assent to a series of propositions you are thereby condemed to eternal torture by a real person named God in a real thing called hell. And slight variations on this theme are IMO no better.

Better to reframe it as "those who don't seek transformation/transcendence/insight in some way, and simply live in what is apparent to them at face value, are suffering in and from the human condition/experience, and this is a burning and a hell."
Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, many/most Humanists, Existentialists, New Agers, Pagans, Mormons, Toaists, etc all seem to agree.
That version I buy. But the literal version? No way.

Can I ask you to rephrase this bit I’m having trouble grasping the point.
( I.e. dumb it down a bit, just for me.)

Sure.
How's this:
The human condition (what we all experience, life as we know it) has been recognized by sages, psychologists, philosophers, and religions to involve deep and troubling longing, disatisfaction, betrayal, blunted passion, fear of death, unlimited desire, addictions and obsessions, disappointment, tragedy, temptations to depair and to evil, etc. All of this causes us to suffer.

But at the same time, they all present similar but different ways to try to overcome this or live with it in peace. This usually involves a shift in mindset, perspective and way of life, a rebirth, conversion, transformation or enlightenment.

Our situation before that or without that shift is compared, by christians, to burning (suffering, longing, anxiety, etc) and to hell (endless, hopeless, away from all we call "god."). It is a death, a living death. Existing not living.

To complicate it a bit, to live as we do, in "time," is to live with a limited perspective and with this suffering. "Time" means within our life as we know it, and with the clock ticking down. But to live "eternally," is SYMBOLICALLY to escape or transcend this hellish experience in "time." Hell is here and now and in our minds. To live "eternally" doesn't mean forever, it means from a transcendant perspective, from "god's" perspective, where there is no suffering. Jesus offers "eternal life" bacause he broke through and can tell us about it. Eternal damnation just means staying stuck in the untransformed hell that can define our predicament, right up to our deathbed, without ever seeing past it all.

Every religion, and many philosophies, psychologies and mythologies, have their own version of this and are in the business of helping people to overcome it, live with it, make some sense of it, or make peace with it. That's the whole point. In Christianity it's seen in themes like new life, light, rebirth, resurrection, indwelling spirit, faith amidst doubt, courage to trust, radical simplicity, love/charity/hope, etc. Again, other religions and philosophies have their own versions. It's all metaphor and perspective. IMO it's great stuff, but we can't take these beautiful metaphors and teachings and reduce them to ghoulish, toxic, and IMO childish literal readings. But nor shoud we reduce life to pure ego and id satisfaction, a war against all, collecting money and toys, and making or living with a million small moral compromises.
(BTW, the Buddhists have thier own different version of all this and it is well worth a close look).

IMO, a wise modern liberal religion (or equivalent) finds the sweet spot and the middle ground. I use the christian version mostly because I'm steeped in it the most. But there are others...

Does that help?

[JohnPaul]

David 2.0 wrote:

If the believer is aware that he/she is lying than for me this would be both uncivil and morally wrong. "Intent" has been satisfied.

If the believer buys what he is selling than it is a warning....
Like, "Watchout for that tree!" (Sorry George)

Are you saying that a Christian's belief somehow makes it civil and moral for him to pass on his obnoxious beliefs to everyone in sight? If I sincerely believed that your wife was the ugliest fat slob I had ever seen, is it then my moral duty and justification to tell her so at every opportunity? You would justify and gratefully accept that as a well-intentioned "warming"?

By what incredible egotistical pomposity does a Christian believe he is somehow the holder of all knowledge and truth and it is his privilege and duty to pass it on to everyone in sight, whether they want it or not? No wonder there were so many Christian martyrs! There obviously should be many more today! They may not burn in hell, but let's hope they burn on earth!

John

[David 2.0]

I would be happy to admit that my opinion on this subject is influenced by the fact that I am a moderate.
Not an anti-theist.

Perhaps I am mistaken but I try to be open minded and use a well rounded approach when dealing with believers, maybe even a little compassion....

Humans are humans after all. Easily fooled.

Plus I was a former Christian, can't forget where I came from...be kinda hypocritical now that I got the Truth on lock down?

So its pretty simple, I do not believe in hell, so being told I am headed there does not bother me.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

[Baz]

Slopeshoulder
Thank for the extra mile, I still won’t pretend to understand it all fully but I think I get the drift of it.

The doom and gloom bit reminds me of some Buddhist stuff I’ve come across in the past.
Or is it something else?

I have nothing against Buddhist beliefs; I know practically nothing about the religion. Probably because whenever I have come across it there always appears to be a glum outlook on life in general. I must make an effort to look into it properly sometime.

[Confused]

David 2.0 wrote:

If the believer is aware that he/she is lying than for me this would be both uncivil and morally wrong. "Intent" has been satisfied.

If the believer buys what he is selling than it is a warning....
Like, "Watchout for that tree!" (Sorry George)

Are you saying that a Christian's belief somehow makes it civil and moral for him to pass on his obnoxious beliefs to everyone in sight? If I sincerely believed that your wife was the ugliest fat slob I had ever seen, is it then my moral duty and justification to tell her so at every opportunity? You would justify and gratefully accept that as a well-intentioned "warming"?

By what incredible egotistical pomposity does a Christian believe he is somehow the holder of all knowledge and truth and it is his privilege and duty to pass it on to everyone in sight, whether they want it or not? No wonder there were so many Christian martyrs! There obviously should be many more today! They may not burn in hell, but let's hope they burn on earth!

John

Moderator Intervention
Please tone down the comments here JohnPaul. You obviously have strong opinions and that is acceptable but your post here is bordering on uncivil and attacking.
Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.