The Psychology Behind the Belief in Heaven and Hell

That manner in which contradiction-at-first-sight aspects of the Bible are resolved is a matter for another discussion. Needless to say, vast quantities of so called contradictions are resolved with relative ease (the 80/20 rule springs to mind).The OP accepts that the Bible teaches Hell as commonly understood - extremely horrid, inescapably permanent. There is, therefore, no onus on a Bible believer to justify this particular doctrine - although the believer is entitled to wonder about God's rationale for Hell and use what God says on the matter in his wondering. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

According to the Bible, you have a knowledge of good and evil (or right and wrong). That you don't believe in God or believe that your sense of good and evil stems from God doesn't change the fact that you know good from evil (argue the Bible). We can clearly conclude: IF (biblical) God THEN you do know good from evil. And your knowing good from evil means that you know you're going to do wrong, are doing wrong, have done wrong. It's this wrongdoing that forms the raw material that will lead to your salvation or damnation. God's method of salvation actually utilises a persons wrongdoing (and what arises from their wrongdoing) in the process of their salvation (if it's the case that they end up saved). The wrongdoing wouldn't involve not going to church (God is nothing if not reasonable: what on earth would you be doing in church if an unbeliever?). It wouldn't even include not believing (in conscious fashion) in God's existence (although only a fool says in his heart: there is no God).- Everyone "actually" does wrong. Lying, cheating, hatred, spite, envy, malice, lust, greed, selfishness, pride - the list is endless. And when what's holy defines lust as existing on a par with adultery and hating thoughts on a par with murder... Well let's just say that we can assume you're able to stand up and plead guilty along with the robbers, murderers and abusers Which means there are no 'good' people. Sure, some people will rack up a lower evil score than others but what does it matter if this apple is more rotten than that apple - all that rotten apples are good for is to be thrown out. Hell is God's rubbish dump (Gehenna, one biblical word used of Hell was in fact a dump outside Jerusalem where the cities refuse was discarded)

I gather it's a place in which evil can reside and in which God can pour out his wrath on evil. God is just: evil will be punished That in us which tends towards rejecting God (with our rejection being effected through our rejecting what God stands for; goodness, truth, light) is driven by our desire for evil. If Hell is a place for that which is evil then it forms the ideal place for people who's hearts desire isn't for what God represents.In this life we get exposed to both good and evil. And we love that which is good and (our hearts are warmed by stories of selflessness). And we love evil (our hearts thrill as getting our own way ie: being selfish). Gods intention, I believe, is to find out which we'll plump for - for eternity. And on the basis of that choice we face Heaven - wherein dwelleth only righteousness. Or Hell - wherein dwelleth only darkness.Heaven or Hell. It's all (all goodness) or nothing (no goodness).Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

In contrast we have Christian Universalism which teaches universal salvation instead of eternal damnation -- accounts of 18th/19th century converts from "fire and brimstone"-ism cited the incompatiblility of eternal damnation with an all-loving God. The American branch was established in 1793 and came to be called the Universalist Church of America. By 1961, they and the American Unitarian Association had come close enough into agreement that they merged to form the Unitarian-Universalist Association (UUA). While they still differed in the 19th century, Thomas Starr King (who had been a Unitarian minister; also used to have his statue in Congress for having been credited by Lincoln for having kept California in the Union during the Civil War -- sadly, he was replaced in 2006 by Ronald Reagan) is quoted as having said:

quote:

---

Universalists believe that God is too good to damn anybody to eternal damnation. Unitarians believe that they are too good to be damned.

---

In one sermon, our minister (UU) described Universalism's influence in turning mainstream Christian denominations away from preaching damnation and more towards God's love. He maintained that Universalism's great success was also its downfall, since there was little else to differentiate it from the newly saved mainstream denominations. Thus declining membership had helped them to merge with the Unitarians in 1961.{to borrow from Arlo Gutherie} But that's not what I came here to talk to you about. How believers in Eternal Damnation view their beliefs is only a small part of the picture. How then do they view other people in light of that belief?All us "unsaved" have encountered fundamentalist proselytizers -- in the days of the 1970 "Jesus Freaks", it was almost a constant barrage. We even encounter it in "creation/evolution" discussions, where the creationist has absolutely no interest in discussing his claims, but rather only wants to convert you -- Calypsis4 is a prime example of that. As a last resort, they will deploy the "Christian Death Threat" in which they give you the bottom line that if you don't convert then you face eternal damnation. They tell you that they are acting purely out of love. In fact, they are going to such extreme efforts to convert you and all the unsaved, purely out of love for you. Or so they say.What about their fellow Christians who stumble and are acting in direct opposition to God's Laws? If they have so much love for us "unsaved" whom they have never met before and so much concern for our souls, then what about their fellow Christians whom they know and whom they identify as their personal friends? I had an encounter which says that they don't give a damn about their fellow Christians' souls.Around 1990, I carried on an extensive email correspondence with a local creationist activist, Bill -- the slimeball makes Calypsis look like a pussycat in comparison. I came into contact with another fundamentalist who said he knew Bill personally and considered him a friend. I then proved conclusively that Bill was deliberately lying, so conclusively that this friend had to admit to that fact. Thinking that getting his peers to talk to him about what he was doing could pressure Bill to play more honestly, I asked his friend to talk with him. The friend refused. I pointed out that Bill's soul was hanging in the balance. The friend told me that that was absolutely none of his business, that talking to Bill about it would even be against Christian doctrine.So the souls of the "unsaved" are of all-consuming importance, yet the souls of their Christian friends are strictly off-limits? Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot, Oscar?

I agree with almost everything you've said. I've often thought about the nature of hell and whether a loving God can justify such a punishment. When you consider that the salvation through Jesus was not instantly available to anyone outside of the Middle East, it seems that only a sadistic God would allow millions to live and die without hope of going to Heaven since the Bible says that only through Jesus is salvation possible. I mean, what kind of God would only allow salvation through one person upon which the knowledge of that person has taken 2000 years to spread throughout the world?Then too, there are people who aren't Christians that have led praiseworthy lives (following many of the morals that Christ taught), people like Ghandi. I cannot believe a just and loving God would allow Ghandi to go to Hell for not believing but allow someone like Hans Frank to go to Heaven if Frank found God.That's why I think many Christians believe it's more important for a person, any person, to follow the teachings of Christ and live life as a good person. I like to believe that a just and loving God will look at the life of the person and to see if that person tried to be honest, compassionate, and upstanding and determine from that whether or not to allow someone into Heaven.As far as Hell, I probably am one of the Christians that hasn't really thought about it that much. The concept of eternal punishment makes me uneasy. I like the Jewish afterlife better, in this case, which is that people go to Gehenna and suffer there for some time to clear away the sins, then off we go to Heaven and that this holds true for all people, except the very wicked, regardless if you believe in God or not (the Jews that I've talked with believe this anyway.) This view because it makes more sense to me than eternal punishment.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

Have you tried thinking about whether a wrathful against evil/sin God could justify such a punishment?- Incorrect. Anyone who is saved is saved through Jesus and there is 'no one who comes to the father' except through Jesus. If this includes Abraham, saved through Christ but who lived before Christ was born, it includes everyone who is saved: anywhere, anytime.- See Abrahams example above. Or any OT character.You appear to hold to a works based salvation (perhaps you're a Roman Catholic or Mormon?)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Then why is forgiveness divine? If God can stay angry at someone for an eternity, why can't I stay angry at someone for a lifetime? If God was all wrath and no love, then I could see the argument for eternal damnation. But if God is also love, how can you argue it? It would seem that, depending on the infraction, a person's time in hell would be proportional to the sins committed against God. That's how I imagine a just and loving God would operate. And how is this achieved? Think Mayans before the Europeans went to the New World. How are they saved? No, but I think that Jesus told all those parable and did all those things for a reason. Why did Jesus say that a camel has a better chance getting through the eye of a needle than a rich man going to Heaven? Why did Jesus heal the sick? Why did Jesus say to do unto others as you would have others to do unto you? Why did Jesus preach to turn the other cheek? Jesus was the example.But it still comes down to what he meant when he said salvation was through him. If it means that you have to have had a belief in Jesus while you were still alive, then millions who didn't know about Jesus are doomed. But if it means that, assuming Christianity is right, after death you believe in the presence of Jesus regardless of what you believed in life, then I can agree to that.But I would still be hardpressed to agree with eternal damnation, though I could see a reason for it in certain situations.And just in case you may be thinking the same, I'm sure that there are Christians that would call me water-downed. That's fine with me. I may be imperfect and I may be wrong but if God gave me a conscious to help me to understand right or wrong, then my conscious tells me that eternal damnation is wrong; that it is better to forgive someone when they know that they've done wrong than to continue punishing them.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
Marge, just about everything is a sin. (holds up a Bible) Y'ever sat down and read this thing? Technically we're not supposed to go to the bathroom. - Reverend Lovejoy
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

What we have here is an "ultimate" conciousness that decides that it is "holy". It creates our existence, and Adam and Eve. It gives these newly created beings free-will, and some rules. A rule gets broken, and all hell breaks lose, literally. Because of this one broken rule, all existence will now suffer - why? Because this ultimate being has decided that it is "holy" and rule-breaking is something that cannot be tolerated. Not content with just wiping out his creation for this perceived slight against its own self-determined holiness, it consigns A&E and all of their descendents to ETERNAL SUFFERING... but, just so that it doesn't look as if its completely lost the plot, it conjures up a 4000 year long process by which a sacrifice of itself to itself will allow those descendents who "accept" this self-to-self scarifice to esacpe this eternal suffering. And all of this because this being decided that it is holy, and cannot abide rule-breaking. It should just get over itself - people are getting hurt - eternally hurt.

Thank you Iano, I would like to keep this topic, on-topic so to speak.I am accepting for the sake of this argument (not that I actually believe it) that the Bible states unequivocally that heaven and hell exist. If one wants to debate whether the Bible actually states that heaven and hell really exist or the validity of the Bible as a reliable source of information about the world than this should be discussed in another thread.Though you are right in that my preference of what should be discussed in this thread is God's and Christian believers "rationale for Hell" both from a Biblical perspective and an individual's religious beliefs.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Way to boil it down Cavediver .Not only that but I hear many a time where Xstians refer to God as a father. Being a father myself, what sadistic twisted, malevolent, abusive, megalomaniac, self-centered, evil father would not only allow their children to experience pain worse and suffering worse than death itself lasting for ETERNITY but actually CREATE the system that puts these horrible set of circumstances in place.I know I have used this analogy before but I believe it fits well here. The belief in a Biblical heaven and hell created by God, would be like me soaking my house in gasoline, placing a box of matches on a table and then placing my 5 almost 6 year old daughter in the house and then telling her "remember what I told you about playing with matches and the consequences of what could happen if you do". Then I run back over across the street and watch the security cameras as my daughter, ever curious, strikes a match and sets her and the house on fire.Do you really think the courts of law would let you off because you stated that you warned your child? Not only that but in this analogy you are the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Don't you think the world even more harshly judge you because of your responsibilities and position?Do you see how sick, twisted, and perverted the acceptance of sending people to hell is? It is like one minute people like Iano are stating that God does not send these people to hell, they just choose to go down the road of their own choosing and God has no power over them to stop and the next other Christians state that God is going to judge them on the day of judgment and consciously throw them into the burning lake of fire.Which is it? Does God have a choice in this or not? If not than he is not the all-powerful supernatural being that Christians refer to. If so than he is the sick, megalomaniac that Dawkins speaks of in my opinion.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

I guess me, Ghandi, Mother Teresa and anyone else that doesn't agree with your religious beliefs are going to spend eternity in hell.Don't you feel great about partying it up in heaven for eternity Iano? Do you have relatives and friends going to hell? How will you feel in heaven KNOWING that they are being physically and psychologically tortured and burning alive in a lake of fire FOR ETERNITY? Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside doesn't it.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

It is sad that the god of the Bible is such a hypocrite. I really do not understand how one (including myself at one period of my life) can accept these two diametrically cognitive dissonant personalities and behaviorial aspects of the Biblical god one being a kind, loving, care-bear and the other a monster worst than human-kinds worst mass murderers. It is actually troubling to think I actually thought like this at one time in my life.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

That was my exact thought when I saw this thread this morning. The god of Christianity is certainly not a father in any discernable sense to A&E and the rest of humanity. If we just take the Genesis account without any Christian reinterpretation, we see a deity getting concerned with his creation getting out of hand. The booting out of Eden had far more to do with keeping control on this now good-evil-informed human, than inflicting punishment for disobediance.If you push any Christian on this, it all boils down to god being "holy", whatever that means. But the fact is that god didn't suddenly discover itself holy - if it wants to take on such a mantle, then fair enough, but it is a choice. And it is this choice that leads to hell, eternal suffering, and the rest of the bullshit...

We are (I argue) placed on this earth in order that one central thing can is determined w.r.t. our position before God. Do we desire to be eternally exposed to God as righteous beings (in which case the relationship between us will be pleasant/loving because God loves righteousness)? Or do we want to be eternally exposed to God as unrighteous beings (in which case the opposite - because God hates unrighteousness)?(Don't worry that people aren't consciously aware of the stakes - God see's the heart and gleans our final answer from that place. Consider the heart as the highest plain, and the consciousness a lower one)Once our final answer is obtained, there is no need to revisit things. If a person desires unrighteousness, their desire is granted. What basis, other than sentimentality, would you pose for a persons desire not being granted - if granting a persons desire is Gods uppermost goal?I'm reminded of the farce that was the EU's Lisbon Treaty - recently subject to referendum in Ireland. A year ago we voted 'NO!' to that same treaty but that wasn't the answer Europe, or our government wanted. So we were asked to vote again - having our arms suitably twisted to ensure a 'YES' vote this time round.Is that what you're suggesting God does? Keep asking and twisting our arms until we say Yes?- It's not all that relevant how God achieves it. The fact of the matter is that he does - rendering that part of your objection void.For what it's worth. The mechanism of salvation appears to hinge around a person believing God, not believing in God or believing in Jesus (see Romans chap 4 where Paul, in explaining the mechanism of salvation, uses Abraham as an illustration of to how salvation is wrought). Although the following example shouldn't be taken as resulting in a persons salvation, it is an obvious example of how a person can believe God without believing in God or believing they need salvation.Q1: Do you believe in GodA1: No. I'm an atheistQ2: Do you believe murder is wrongA2: Yes.Conclusion: This person actually believes God - even though they don't believe in God. God says murder is wrong, this atheist believes murder is wrong > therefore this atheist happens to believe God on this matter.What is it a person must believe, in order to believe God unto salvation, is a more complex matter but the point is that everyone, everywhere and at everytime are in a position to believe God in the matter pertaining to salvation. God is not contrained from operating anywhere and at any time.Is he?- The context of that story sees a rich young ruler asking "Good teacher, how do I inherit eternal life" And his various works are laid out for us to examine - because it was by his works that this young ruler sought to inherit eternal life. Literally: how do I do it? What must [/i]I[/i] do? What steps must I take?Do we really suppose this man to have kept the law as he said he did? Do we accept his self-assessment? Perhaps he kept the literal law as written down in the OT - but given that Jesus has expounded on that law elsewhere (by equating anger with murder and lust with adultery, etc) we have excellent reason to suppose not. I mean, can't we suppose this ruler to have been angry in his life - if not committing actual murder? Or to have lusted over a women - if not actually having committed adultery?Rather than debate the young man on the subject of the law, Jesus looks elsewhere. And his eye falls on a false god this ruler is worshipping. The false god of wealth.Why did Jesus say that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a wealth-worshipping man (for that is the context: wealth worship) to enter God's kingdom? He said it because wealth-worhsipping men can't do what it takes to inherit eternal life. If they could, they wouldn't be wealth worshipping men. And if it wasn't a rich young ruler and his wealth, it would have been you and whatever your particular god is. Or me and mine.It's impossible for anyone to enter heaven by own effort because all have something that Jesus' eye can fall on. Which is why he did what was necessary for us to inherit eternal life. How do I inherit eternal life? I can't. Jesus inherits it for me and gives it to me as a gift- Compassion at the time? Illustrating his divinity? Illustrating a spiritual truth (most certainly in his healing the blind)? There is probably no end to a study one could do on this topic- ..or this topic- For sure he was. And in more ways than one.He is a perfect example for those who have God's Holy Spirit within (who empowers those in whom he resides to follow Jesus' perfect example).He is a perfect example for those who don't have God's Holy Spirit within. His example is meant to show how impossible it is for someone to live up to his example. His example is meant to show the lost they are lost.He is a perfect example for those who would fool themselves into thinking they can earn their salvation. Being blind they might suppose themselves following his example in some measure* only to have his perfect example show how far short of his example they actually fell*the trouble for those lost souls who insist we should try our best to follow Jesus example .. is Jesus' failure to mention the word 'trying' anywhere in connection with commands that folk live as he lived. It was "live this way or else.."- As pointed out, an OT character who believed God (on a matter having nothing to do with Jesus I might add) was justified by God. Christ is the means whereby Abraham was justified. It is on Christ that Abrahams transgressions were laid. Thus, it is through Christ('s provision) that Abraham is saved.I'm not of the opinion that folk today have to have heard of Jesus in order to be saved anymore than I'm of the opinion that folk before Christ had to have heard of Jesus in order to be saved. The mechanism of salvation hinges, I suggest, on believing God. Believing in Christ might well occur after that - if access to knowledge of him is available. But the fulcrum of salvation is believing God.I'm not sure what you mean by believing in the presence of Chirst after we die.- I suppose my own approach is to accept what the Bible appears to be saying on the matter whether I like it or not. And work from there.There is a time for forgiveness (forgiveness involving the offended party paying the price of the offence themselves) but if the offender doesn't want their offence paid for, if they flat out refuse that an offence has even taken place, then I don't see how the offended can pay the price. It would be only by overruling the will of the offender that forgiveness could be applied.But what if the persons will was held sacrosanct? Even if that will says "NO!" to God.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

And how do you define righteous Iano? Can you not use circular logic to define righteous, the Bible, or god? i.e.Christian: We have a choice. To choose to be righteous by following God vice unrighteous by not following God.
Skeptic: What is rightous?
Christian: Following God.
Skeptic: Why is that rightous and who is God?
Christian: God is described in the Bible and to be rightous is following him.
Skeptic: Why should we believe the Bible to be true much less the God described therein?
Christian: Because it says so in the Bible. The Bible says "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God, they are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Psalms 14:1
Skeptic: (sighs in exasperation) I give up, you cannot talk about this rationally without going around in circles.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World