What if Hell is the only way to reach someone?

[jgh7]

Let's say there's a person who pretty much dislikes the bible's notions for whatever reasons. One has tried showing them the importance of God and whatnot, but they don't care or they find it silly or what have you.

Then you (the Christian) warn them that if they are not saved they will go to Hell instead of Heaven. This worries them and they actually decide to give Christianity a chance.

If all else fails, is this an acceptable method to use? Or would one be better off never using this method and just leaving the skeptic be as they are? I believe Jesus warns of Hell in different parts throughout the Gospels.

This is a highly touchy topic which is why I bring it up. I'm interested in the views and reasoning.

[steveb1]

Let's say there's a person who pretty much dislikes the bible's notions for whatever reasons. One has tried showing them the importance of God and whatnot, but they don't care or they find it silly or what have you.

Then you (the Christian) warn them that if they are not saved they will go to Hell instead of Heaven. This worries them and they actually decide to give Christianity a chance.

If all else fails, is this an acceptable method to use? Or would one be better off never using this method and just leaving the skeptic be as they are? I believe Jesus warns of Hell in different parts throughout the Gospels.

This is a highly touchy topic which is why I bring it up. I'm interested in the views and reasoning.

I think it would be a nasty, fear-based way of getting anyone to convert. "I"m only tryin' ta save ya from Hell-fire, Brothas and Sistas!" Not good, especially if one is also promoting the idea of Jesus and God being all-compassionate.

Those who threaten Hell to win coverts seem to forget that humans do not, at base, make converts. God makes converts. "Winning a soul to Christ" is God's, not, man's work. The same applies to Hell-threats. It's not up to any individual to hold Hell over a potential convert. Moreover, any conversion done from fear, rather than out of an authentic "born again" experience - which springs from divine love - is spurious from the get-go.

[Overcomer]

jgh7 wrote:

Let's say there's a person who pretty much dislikes the bible's notions for whatever reasons.

I think that the idea of hell is one of the notions that makes people dislike the Bible. And even if a person thinks hell might be real, he/she usually thinks he/she is good enough not to end up there. People use murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. as the yardsticks by which they measure their morality, declaring that, because they're better than those people, that makes them good.

We live in an age where the concept of sin has become a meaningless term to many people. And if someone doesn't recognize sin as a personal problem that he/she can't correct himself/herself, then that person isn't going to see the need for Jesus as a Saviour.

And then there's the fact that some people think that a loving God wouldn't let anybody end up in hell. So we have the problem of making them understand that perfect love goes hand-in-hand with justice. Every time somebody tells me that a loving God wouldn't punish someone for their sins, I always wonder if he would feel that way if the man who raped and murdered his sister went to court and the judge set him free to rape and murder again because he's a loving judge and, therefore, couldn't punish anyone. Somehow, I don't think the grieving brother would appreciate that response from him. He would want to see the man responsible for the crimes be punished for them. And he would ask where the judge's love for his sister and his bereaved family is.

Here's how one mother explained this difficult concept to her six-year-old:

http://christianmomthoughts.com/heaven- ... e-to-kids/

There are churches that don't talk about sin and hell simply because they know those topics turn people off. What they offer is a warm and fuzzy place for people to congregate, but the gospel is missing. That makes them useless.

If we look at how people have witnessed to non-believers down through the years, one thing becomes obvious -- they witnessed to meet a specific audience's need, using elements with which that audience is familiar. We see that in the Bible. For example, in Acts 17, Paul goes to Mars Hill and witnesses to the philosophers that congregated there to debate issues. He opens the conversation using two items -- a statue to an unknown god there in their city, and poetry, both of which were familiar to them. For them, life was all about ideas and determining the right and wrong of them. So Paul met them where they were -- in the world of ideas.

I recently read an article about how the younger generation is looking for something that works. Don't give them airy fairy ideas. The author said that, if we're to witness to twenty-year-olds, we have to make them understand how the gospel is going to impact their lives on a practical level. They want something that will help them in their relationships, and help them deal with stress, and help them make tough decisions -- and those things have absolutely nothing to do with telling them about hell. I don't know whether the author was right about that, but it did make me mindful that, just like Paul, we have to meet people where they're at and speak to their needs.

I don't know whether anything I have written answers your initial questions, jgh7. Those are just some thoughts off the top of my head.

[benchwarmer]

If all else fails, is this an acceptable method to use? Or would one be better off never using this method and just leaving the skeptic be as they are? I believe Jesus warns of Hell in different parts throughout the Gospels.

This is a highly touchy topic which is why I bring it up. I'm interested in the views and reasoning.

So, correct me if I'm wrong here, but basically you are asking if you can't show a skeptic some actual verifiable evidence of your god creature, should a resort to fear tactics be acceptable?

I say no. If fear is all one has left in their bag of tricks, then their bag doesn't have much in it to begin with that is of any use.

IMHO, apologists who bring up Hell are really just shooting themselves in the foot anyways since there is no clear definition of what that really is. And even if they manage to handwave a definition together, they are still left with their god creature doing the deciding who ends up in this 'place' anyways.

In short, from a skeptics viewpoint it looks basically like this:

1) there is an invisible creature called 'God'

2) this invisible creature may place you in an invisible place which is not well defined if you don't follow the ill defined rules in an ancient book. A book which is filled with contradictions and is so confusing not even the adherents to the this God can agree entirely on all the rules and outcomes.

3) there is nothing but 'faith' than any of the above is actually real

[rikuoamero]

Let's say there's a person who pretty much dislikes the bible's notions for whatever reasons. One has tried showing them the importance of God and whatnot, but they don't care or they find it silly or what have you.

Then you (the Christian) warn them that if they are not saved they will go to Hell instead of Heaven. This worries them and they actually decide to give Christianity a chance.

If all else fails, is this an acceptable method to use? Or would one be better off never using this method and just leaving the skeptic be as they are? I believe Jesus warns of Hell in different parts throughout the Gospels.

This is a highly touchy topic which is why I bring it up. I'm interested in the views and reasoning.

It is precisely this "warning" that (amongst other things) convinces me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Christian God cannot be what Christians paint him as i.e. intelligent.
An intelligent god would be far smarter than I am, and yet I am able to recognise (as are you apparently OP) that all this is a trick of emotion, rather than having someone realize a quote unquote truth out of logic, rationalism and evidence.
A real god would not seek to scare me into believing he exists. Instead, he or it or whatever would provide the necessary level of evidence.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by Overcomer]

We live in an age where the concept of sin has become a meaningless term to many people. And if someone doesn't recognize sin as a personal problem that he/she can't correct himself/herself, then that person isn't going to see the need for Jesus as a Saviour.

I fully agree. You need to convince the person that they are sick, before they'll become interested in what it is you say is the cure.
Problem is...I don't think I am sick. I have investigated for years and come to the conclusion that I am not and that if others say I am, and use a method of trickery like what the OP is asking about...well they are not to be trusted.

And then there's the fact that some people think that a loving God wouldn't let anybody end up in hell. So we have the problem of making them understand that perfect love goes hand-in-hand with justice. Every time somebody tells me that a loving God wouldn't punish someone for their sins, I always wonder if he would feel that way if the man who raped and murdered his sister went to court and the judge set him free to rape and murder again because he's a loving judge and, therefore, couldn't punish anyone.

Your analogy needs work. The judge in the real world has no power to prevent the crime from taking place, of doing anything about the crime as it happens in real time.

Your God? Isn't he omnipotent? Isn't he everywhere, doesn't he know everything? My follow up question (if you had asked me this question, and for the record, I have had two sisters who were raped) would be to ask "Why does your god apparently operate under a paradigm of "I know what it is you are going to do. I know that what you are going to do is going to harm that little girl. I know that if a human cop were in that room, he'd put you under arrest and prevent the crime. I know that I have the power and ability to prevent the rape from happening, and yet I am not going to do anything at all. Instead, I am going to leave you in that room with that little girl, I am going to allow you to close the door and when you're done...I'm gonna punish you. The reason I do this is because I value free will - the free will of you, the rapist, because you want to have the ability and the freedom to rape little girls at your leisure, but conveniently not the free will of the little girl who does not want to be raped".?

So you'll want to think this over for a while, Overcomer, about how your God who (if he actually exists) allowed my sisters's rapes to happen is any better than a human judge who allows rapists to get off scot free.

So He has made a way to forgive us without ignoring our sin. He sent Jesus"His own Son"to be punished for our sin instead of us.

(from the link you gave)

As I've pointed out many a time, I have forgiven my elder sister for bullying me in our childhood. I don't hold it against her, yet neither do I ignore it. I don't pretend it never happened. Also, no third party had to suffer on her behalf. Don't you think it strange that I am able to do something that your god is apparently completely incapable of?

I really fail to see how this description of God's "forgiveness" is so wonderful, so magical or majestic. It sounds so utterly petty to me.

Were talking about what God should do about His rules being broken. Does that make sense?

So then this is a tacit admission that God's Rules aren't perfect. They're flawed. Broken. They create a situation so bad that God has to look for a loophole.
Strange. Isn't God all knowing? Shouldn't he have known even before he made these rules what situation they would end up causing?
If I tell an employee to lift a 200kg box without any equipment, and then say that I have to punish him for failing to follow my orders...maybe the problem is me and my orders.

and if they dont accept Gods gift of forgiveness through Jesus, they are choosing to take the punishment themselves.

Overcomer, now I'm thinking about that question I posed for Christians in the Ask a Group section, which I've just double checked and you answered on.
I invite you to re-read Post 20. I will repost the relevant section. I notice that you never replied to my rebuttal of your post.

The offense is that the magnitude of Gods solution " the slaughter of his own Son " shows the magnitude of our wickedness and frailty and utter inability.
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is true...then to echo Divine Insight...then we (to think collectively and not as an individual) don't deserve this "gift". Apparently we're all wicked, and frail and have utter inability.
If this is true, then we should not receive any "reward" from this. To reward us for being wicked is the very antithesis of justice.

Now back to thinking as an individual. I, as in me, rikuoamero, did not have a hand in the crucifixion event. That was 2,000 years ago. Before I was born. So why am I being lumped in with the crucifiers?

The message of Christ crucified says youre an absolute failure in relation to whats most important. The horror of killing the Son of God points to the horror of our condition.
What if, Overcomer, I refuse to take part in the crucifixion? To have NO PART in the killing of the Son of God?
Hmm...wouldn't that paint me as not an absolute failure?

So Overcomer...how is it I am bad and horrible and evil and sinful...for not doing anything bad and horrible and evil and sinful, for outright rejecting what is perhaps the worst action imaginable, that of participating in torture and execution?

Let me add to this line of thought, so as to encompass what you've said in this thread. Let's agree, for the sake of argument, that I am sinful (I don't think this in real life, but let's run with it).
How is it evil or sinful of me to take on a punishment that I have apparently earned? In my view, having others take on your punishment is wrong. I have done many wrong things throughout my life, but I don't accept it if someone tries to take on the punishment. I always take on the punishment myself.
So I invite you to ponder just why it is that this choice to accept God's forgiveness is apparently the ultimate test of our character, our morality. That us accepting it is what God is looking for. What I'm seeing is that Christianity is teaching us that we are evil, that we are greedy, that we all want eternal life and that to get it, we just have to admit to it and that the method to gain eternal life is to agree with or perhaps even be joyous that an innocent man got tortured and executed when apparently it was all of us who deserved that.

Overcomer, you talked about justice, and so did the mother in the link you gave us. And yet...I am not seeing justice being done with Christianity's paradigm. I am not seeing justice done when a group of wrongdoers are being rewarded when someone else takes the punishment that they apparently so richly deserve.

I don't know whether the author was right about that, but it did make me mindful that, just like Paul, we have to meet people where they're at and speak to their needs.

Unfortunately, your ultimate source book, the one thing you turn to, is 2,000 years old and woefully out of date, and chock full of missing or just flat out misinformation. I'm not saying it has no value...just that eventually you might want to think about using a new book.
Think of it like this. How many people who accept evolution have actually read Darwin's book? I haven't, and I don't need it.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

Let's say there's a person who pretty much dislikes the bible's notions for whatever reasons. One has tried showing them the importance of God and whatnot, but they don't care or they find it silly or what have you.

Okay. That sounds plausible enough...

Then you (the Christian) warn them that if they are not saved they will go to Hell instead of Heaven. This worries them and they actually decide to give Christianity a chance.

I am sure that for many individuals thinking such a fate was possible, they have done just this.
Analogy: They are slipped some poison and then offered the only antidote.

If all else fails, is this an acceptable method to use?

Drumming up business always includes some form of enticement. If enticement fails, go full hog the other way?

Or would one be better off never using this method and just leaving the skeptic be as they are?

Skeptics be who they are regardless of what methods you try to use to get under their skin.

I believe Jesus warns of Hell in different parts throughout the Gospels.

There is no point in believing that, because the evidence clearly shows this to be the case.

You know that, right?

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that you believe HELL exists, because "Jesus say's so in the bible."?

This is a highly touchy topic which is why I bring it up. I'm interested in the views and reasoning.

I have done a lot of research into this subject. I am not one who appreciates the idea that a GOD who created humans created hell for humans who chose not to believe in a GOD who created humans.

In gathering data over the years I have come to the realization that First Source did not create HELL, but (unfortunately) hells do exist and can be experienced as creations which human beings have invented.

It is a complex idea, but in brief it goes along these lines.

1: When an individual dies, the sum total of who they think of themselves plus things which are part of who they are but hidden from their knowledge, continue interacting in the new reality field. [afterlife].

2: The afterlife experience is created through instant manifestation and requires the belief inputs of the individual in order to create the experience.
Depending on the individuals beliefs and attitudes etc, depends on what the outcome of the manifestation will be for the individual. Bearing in mind that even those things which they are not aware of about their selves also have an affect on this outcome.

3: As a result, heavens and hells are created by individuate consciousnesses when they interact with this 'reality field' which is an aspect of the mind of the Earth Entity, which in itself is an aspect of the Universal Entity, which in itself is an aspect of First Source Consciousness.

4: What created heavens and hells is human imagination. What make these things manifest as real is combining belief with the reality field.

If you think you are going to hell, most likely that is exactly what will happen.

If you don't believe in hell or afterlife etc and have been told that you are likely going to end up there, when you leave this reality and go to the next, you will be most likely caught well and truly off guard and where your thoughts take you in relation to that may have you ending up in a hell of your own creation - with of course the help of others who told you that would happen to you...

5: Most individuate consciousnesses in the afterlife realm have no idea that they are responsible for creating whatever situation they then find themselves in. Depending on their beliefs, they consign their experience to those beliefs, so if they are in a heaven, they believe that a GOD made it for them and they did what they had to to get there. Same thing applies in relation to hell.

6: These state of experience are non-permanent. There are anomalies which insert themselves into the individuals creations and attempt to help the individual get out of said situations and move into and experience the dominant reality of the EE.

7: This whole process is part of the evolution of the Earth Entity from one state of being to another and will not be completed until all of her outposts of form (individual consciousnesses which are direct aspects of EE) are gathered together and acknowledge without doubt, their oneness, their collectiveness - regardless of their individuality.

8: This is not a mission one gets to accept or reject part way into it. We are here for the long haul.. The choice was already made and accepted before the beginning, even though we have no recollection of doing so or any knowledge of exactly how this would unfold - that was also part of the deal.

9: Where we go and what we each experience, the EE is also experiencing because we are aspects of her consciousness. Do we want her in hell or heaven or someplace between or do we want to be where she is, in her dominant reality?

10: It's complex. You get to choose.

Eternal Hell

My thoughts on death.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

My understanding of the dogma of "hell" is that it those sent there have no way out, that their torture it eternal.

Most nominal christian churches have abandoned the idea of a burning hellfire in favor of it representing a state of mind (the mental torture of being seperate from God). I'm unsure if this "mental anguish" is currently believed to be experienced before or after death or whether it is nor is not permanent. Although the mainstream churches have not officially changed their dogma from the traditional teaching of literal eternal and inescapable torture of the dead, as, Vatican commentator Marco Politi, in the newspaper La Repubblica puts it In reality, the whole concept of the Hereafter has been changed in the last few decades, .

In short , while the dogma of torturing the dead does lives on in most most evangelical churches, it is, in my experience talking to members of the community on religious matters, largely unpreached and irrelevant for many mainstream nominal christians today.


JW

Hell as generally understood is the abode of evil spirits; the infernal regions, . . . whither lost or condemned souls go after death to suffer indescribable torments and eternal punishment. - The Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 14, page 81 (1959 edition)

IV. Hell #1035
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." - Catechism of the Catholic Church

[jgh7]

I was trying to find which verse spoke to me the most to make me consider this. I think it was this one:

Mark 8:36-38
For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? 37 Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? 38 For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels.

-----

If someone is arguing that they have no need whatsoever for Christianity and are content in their succesful life, this verse comes to my mind, and it in a sense is warning of Hell as a consequence of rejecting Jesus.

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 1 by jgh7]

If one's goal is to convince another to follow Christianity, they'll need to use an emotionally manipulative argument of some sort to convince another to make that irrational leap of faith. Given that is one's goal, the morality of using the ancient mythologies of heaven and hell to make that emotionally manipulative argument is hardly the chief issue at hand in this case. It is the fact that one must use an emotionally manipulative argument of some kind to preach Christianity.

If one had a rational argument to convince another to make this irrational leap of faith, one wouldn't need to resort to crass scare tactics. Given that one doesn't have a rational argument to present, crass scare tactics will continue to flourish.

If a rational person were to hear such scare tactics, they'd ask for evidence of both heaven and hell. Given that there are none, a rational person would reject this emotionally manipulative argument. Oddly enough, there are many who will respond to such a crass scare tactics is spite of the fact that there is absolutely no reason to accept the mythological stories of an afterlife.