Hell and Christianity

Do you think the idea of Hell is compatible with the wider message of the Bible?

The strange thing with this issue is that you can't place it along the usual liberal/fundamentalist lines, or at least not how you might expect it to fit. It tends to be the more moderate Christians that believe in traditional ideas of hell, whereas those who deny it's existence often come from the more radical fundamentalist sects.

I do believe Hell exists. I know I could just go an quote a couple of verses, but it's more than that, it's part of my wider understanding of Christianity as a whole. Although I will also admit that it isn't so clear cut I could really give an opinion with any certainty when it comes to the specifics.

Any thoughts from others on this?

I think to understand ‘hell’ as it was meant you have to look long & hard at the context in which it occurs. I am not a very learned person when it comes to theology; but as I understand it, hell is only really very important in the context of ‘salvation’. That is; you have people who receive ‘salvation’ and you have those who don't and those who don't, they go to hell. So it is not really ‘hell’ that is so important. What is important is ‘salvation’, and that ‘good will triumph’, that keeping faith may not be easy at all times but that it is also faith which will at the end reward you. This is distinct from taking matters into your own hand and being an obstructive warrior of the faith (Maccabees); this is more the quiet enduring kind of faith (Ruth).

The problem I have with the idea of a wider message of the bible is that it is a body of somewhat awkard fitting theological views that clearly shifts a lot too. The closest analogy would be the repeated & doomed attempts of Mathematicians to find one basic set of axioms from which all of the known body of Math could be constructed by induction.

I think it makes a large difference in what way you define as hell. If you define hell as an eternal inescapable place of punishment you violate Christan core values like forgiveness and love. However I think there is room for hell if it is treated as a temporary step to one's eventual repentance. Either way the idea of a fire and brimstone hell full of pain and torture is ridiculous and needs to go.

Bah, just when you thought that life on this earth wasn't quite bad enough.




There is one fundamental issue: Where do sadomasochists go? Hell for them is Heaven and vice versa. I think Hell and Heaven are personal concepts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

I think Hell and Heaven are personal concepts.

---

"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n"

Ajax

Hell exists all right, it's the morning train to Amsterdam

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Do you think the idea of Hell is compatible with the wider message of the Bible?

The strange thing with this issue is that you can't place it along the usual liberal/fundamentalist lines, or at least not how you might expect it to fit. It tends to be the more moderate Christians that believe in traditional ideas of hell, whereas those who deny it's existence often come from the more radical fundamentalist sects.

I do believe Hell exists. I know I could just go an quote a couple of verses, but it's more than that, it's part of my wider understanding of Christianity as a whole. Although I will also admit that it isn't so clear cut I could really give an opinion with any certainty when it comes to the specifics.

Any thoughts from others on this?

---

Yes, lots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Winter

I think it makes a large difference in what way you define as hell. If you define hell as an eternal inescapable place of punishment you violate Christan core values like forgiveness and love. However I think there is room for hell if it is treated as a temporary step to one's eventual repentance. Either way the idea of a fire and brimstone hell full of pain and torture is ridiculous and needs to go.

---

On the contrary, the idea of suffering and "paying your dues" was considered incompatable with Christianity by Protestants and that was why they dropped purgatory. I think Tellos was on the right track when he said the focus was on "salvation" but that word still emplies "salvation from hell" which is really a tangental part of Christianity, not a central one.

Central to Christianity is the idea of a broken relationship with God, and fixing that relationship. If you fix the relationship then when you die you go to be with God again (Heaven) and if you don't then you are without God (in Hell). My own view of Hell is not "fire and brimstone" because I think that's as much an allegory as the precious metals and stones that make up the New Jerusalem.

Hell is a total absense of God, which means a total absense of everything, even "suffering" as we are able to understand it, an eternity in the void, and I can imagine nothing worse than that. Of course, for that to conception of Hell to work man needs to choose whether to accept or reject God, he needs Free Will.

For the early protestants damnation was fixed from the beginning, you were either doomed or you weren't. Protestants looked differently at salvation, they believed that 'good works' wasn't just the work you did for god but also to the community as it was god's community, before the reformation only work for god was considered as good works, this is a horribly old fashioned though as the lines are quite blurry. But making profit was a sign from god that they were on the right track, but they do believed in HELL AND SUFFERING. You either get there or you don't, so look for signs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

For the early protestants damnation was fixed from the beginning, you were either doomed or you weren't. Protestants looked differently at salvation, they believed that 'good works' wasn't just the work you did for god but also to the community as it was god's community, before the reformation only work for god was considered as good works, this is a horribly old fashioned though as the lines are quite blurry. But making profit was a sign from god that they were on the right track, but they do believed in HELL AND SUFFERING. You either get there or you don't, so look for signs.

---

That's only true in places, it depends on your form of "Protestantism" and your definition of "early". Luther was unwilling to define the relationship between Free Will, Salvation and Damnation, ultimately coming down on a slight re-wording of traditional Christian theology and a fuzzy "division" between "worldy" and "Godly" matters.

You are, by the way, flot out wrong about the Catholic attitude to "works" as Medieval Catholicism considered all works od "charity" works of piety, so that rebuilding your local Church went alongside helping the poor or caring for Lepers.

Agreed, this is only true for Calvinism my bad. I admit that it's a horribly outdated theory, but it's still useful for understanding the rise of the modern age if you are interested in economical theory. What is important is that 'normal' labour became a virtue whose rewards were seen as god looking kindly upon you, while before the reformation only work for 'the church' was considered virtues.

edit, church isn't really the correct word but you know what I mean

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Agreed, this is only true for Calvinism my bad. I admit that it's a horribly outdated theory, but it's still useful for understanding the rise of the modern age if you are interested in economical theory. What is important is that 'normal' labour became a virtue whose rewards were seen as god being kindly upon you, while before the reformation only work for the church was considered virtues.

---

Someone has been reading Weber I see ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Agreed, this is only true for Calvinism my bad. I admit that it's a horribly outdated theory, but it's still useful for understanding the rise of the modern age if you are interested in economical theory. What is important is that 'normal' labour became a virtue whose rewards were seen as god being kindly upon you, while before the reformation only work for the church was considered virtues.

---

Ah, I see yor point. However, I think this was only true after the Reformation, as Catholics prior to the Reformation were expected to work hard to maintain the Body of Christ, i.e. the serf was bound by God to work his Master's land and the Lord was bound by God to protect his vassals, while the Priest was bound to pray for the souls of both.

Thence we have the "Three Orders" of life, those who Work, Fight, and Pray, which went to make up pre-Renaissance Europe.

CA my boy! And his critics :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Ah, I see yor point. However, I think this was only true after the Reformation, as Catholics prior to the Reformation were expected to work hard to maintain the Body of Christ, i.e. the serf was bound by God to work his Master's land and the Lord was bound by God to protect his vassals, while the Priest was bound to pray for the souls of both.

Thence we have the "Three Orders" of life, those who Work, Fight, and Pray, which went to make up pre-Renaissance Europe.

---

Yes but that is really the change, it's an outdated idea that there was no godly dimension to manual labour before the reformation, just about every guild had it's own patron saint for example, but with the reformation all these tree orders became part of a single entity where everybody does it's part, the christian community, people weren't concious about their religion like that before the reformation, there was no alternative. If you look at art from the period for example you will always see religious procedures happing with a city in the background

Those are good point there Frag, but I have to say I came across Weber in my politics course last year, and I think his understanding of Protestantism and it's effects on society are a bit off at times.

First of all, take his fundemental idea - that Calvinism was the main cause of the development of capitalism. Maybe it's just the Marxist in me, but I think he has got the cause and effect the wrong way round here. Don't get me wrong, Calvinism and capitalism definetely complemented each other once they were developing alongside, but I would say that it was the social/economic factors which caused Calvinism to develop where it did, rather than vice-versa. For example, take England - the growth in the importance of trade over the old feudal system cleary predates the development of Puritanism - and when Puritanism did develop, it just happened to be in the major commercial centres amongst the artisans and merchants etc. Also, it's not just the theology that mattered, there was also the issue of church governance. The Catholic Church with its hierarchy was seen as an oppressive force upholding the old feudal order and supporting increasingly absolutist monarchs whose control over trade was so strict it was almost an early form of state capitalism. Calvinism, on the other hand, brought a more democratic form of church governance through either Presbyterianism or Congregationalism - and as they say, there's no king without the bishops.

Another way to tell whether capitalism or Calvinism caused each other is to look at the states which are the exception to the rule. So take Scotland for example - a more backward country than Puritan England or the Netherlands, yet despite becoming fiercely Calvinist, it remained backward and feudal until the 18th century, by which time deism was in all likelihood as prominent amongst the enlightenment figures (Adam Smith, Hume etc) as Calvinism (though they couldn't say it out loud or they got executed). Anyway, if Calvinism really caused the development of capitalism, this should as a rule have happened in Scotland as well, but it didn't.

Secondly, I think he over emphasises the idea that people believed wealth was a sign of salvation, or the 'prosperity doctrine' as we call it today. I have never seen this idea amongst any of the major Calvinist figures of the previous centuries, from Calvin himself, to John Owen, John Murray etc. What they do say is that God may bless 'the elect' with prosperity, he may maintain them with what they have, or he may take everything away. What I do gather though is that the Calvinist work ethic seems to stem from the strict nature of the theology - so basically if you're not working as hard as you can and using everything God gave you, then you are being slothful, and that is a sin and a sign of reprobation.

First of all, take his fundemental idea - that Calvinism was the main cause of the development of capitalism. Maybe it's just the Marxist in me, but I think he has got the cause and effect the wrong way round here.

Depends on how far you take it back, and how far you let it go on. Weber took the wrong age to take as a starting point but there is a pretty much consistent developement afterwards, Weber is a marxist I would say. There are many things wrong with the Weber theory most of all the rationalized society, but the longer the timespan the more he makes sense.

edit: before anyone gets confused, marxist means a logical development here not politics.

Hell has nothing to do with good and evil.

Hell has everything to do with you accepting Jesus and his gift.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Hell has nothing to do with good and evil.

Hell has everything to do with you accepting Jesus and his gift.

---

I agree 100% that it's about whether or not you accept Jesus, and not if you're good or evil. But some people say God is evil if such a thing as hell exists.

I am just curious as to what the Christians (or others) on this board say, since there is such a wide range of views. The views could range from anything to saying that hell doesn't exist, or that hell is just symbolic for separation from God, or that people simply deserve to go to hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

First of all, take his fundemental idea - that Calvinism was the main cause of the development of capitalism. Maybe it's just the Marxist in me, but I think he has got the cause and effect the wrong way round here.

Depends on how far you take it back, and how far you let it go on. Weber took the wrong age to take as a starting point but there is a pretty much consistent developement afterwards, Weber is a marxist I would say. There are many things wrong with the Weber theory most of all the rationalized society, but the longer the timespan the more he makes sense.

edit: before anyone gets confused, marxist means a logical development here not politics.

---

Surely Weber is arguing the opposite of the Marxist view? Weber seems to say that Calvinist beliefs were the trigger for the development of capitalism. A Marxist on the other hand would say that market forces and the development of social structures are the sole factors which drive change in society. Different ideologies such as Calvinism would only be expressions of these.

A marxist view means something different for historians, has nothing to do with economic theory, it's assuming a certain chain of events, a natural progression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

A marxist view means something different for historians, has nothing to do with economic theory, it's assuming a certain chain of events, a natural progression.

---

I know the Marxist view of history is something different from a political Marxist/communist, but as I understand it the defining point of Marxist historians is that they see all human history as being the development of the economy and class structure, and that these are the only factors which shape historical progression.

Of course, Marxist historians do take the view that society progresses through a set number of stages and that these developments are all pretty much inevitable... but surely that isn't the main point in the Marxist historical outlook. Even Adam Smith pushed the idea that there were four stages of society (primitive - nomadic - arable - commercial), known as 'stadialism'. All Marx did really was stick another stage on the end.

You should see it as a method of reasoning, from abc or to cba, it has nothing to do with an opinion, just seeing history as a set of consequences instead of random events. In that way Weber is a Marxist historian.

Weberian history is different from Marxian history. Marx saw history as the result of mankind's different ways of interacting with the world around it ("modes of production"), Weber was an idealist IIRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

First of all, take his fundemental idea - that Calvinism was the main cause of the development of capitalism. Maybe it's just the Marxist in me, but I think he has got the cause and effect the wrong way round here.

Depends on how far you take it back, and how far you let it go on. Weber took the wrong age to take as a starting point but there is a pretty much consistent developement afterwards, Weber is a marxist I would say. There are many things wrong with the Weber theory most of all the rationalized society, but the longer the timespan the more he makes sense.

edit: before anyone gets confused, marxist means a logical development here not politics.

---

Hell is waking up to find oneself in an alternate reality where Fragony is a refined intellectual, talking about stuff I do not understand. :mean:



My boy. :sweetheart:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkykJ5uFqPI

This thread reminded me of this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Another way to tell whether capitalism or Calvinism caused each other is to look at the states which are the exception to the rule. So take Scotland for example - a more backward country than Puritan England or the Netherlands, yet despite becoming fiercely Calvinist, it remained backward and feudal until the 18th century, by which time deism was in all likelihood as prominent amongst the enlightenment figures (Adam Smith, Hume etc) as Calvinism (though they couldn't say it out loud or they got executed). Anyway, if Calvinism really caused the development of capitalism, this should as a rule have happened in Scotland as well, but it didn't.

---

Weber believed that there were multiple paths to Capitalism, and that Calvinism was just one of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

edit: before anyone gets confused, marxist means a logical development here not politics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

A marxist view means something different for historians, has nothing to do with economic theory, it's assuming a certain chain of events, a natural progression.

---

Nah, that's a Modernist historian. Marxist historians are still Marxists (Look at Hobsbawm, etc) in the economic sense and still look for that guiding hand of economic development, but they are by their very nature also Modernist. Modernist historians look for an overarching grand narrative to history and look at the inter-linking developments between two points (a diachronic analysis). This is as opposed to post-modern historians who would rather perform a synchronic analysis of a society, which is just a snapshot of a society at one given moment.

Somewhat off topic, can somebody tell me what the jewish take on the afterlife is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

A marxist view means something different for historians, has nothing to do with economic theory, it's assuming a certain chain of events, a natural progression.

---

You should be using the word "deterministic" instead. Marxism is indeed deterministic, to the point of absurdity...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I agree 100% that it's about whether or not you accept Jesus, and not if you're good or evil. But some people say God is evil if such a thing as hell exists.

.

---

My cliif notes.

-There is an ongoing war between God and Satan for the souls on Earth
-Temptation and leading some of the flock astray is Satans way of waging this war.
-Let me make this clear there is a hell because there is evil but it is not because God is evil
-It is because Satan is, God is merciful and just and all we have to do is accept him and follow the teachings of jesus Christ.

That is what I beilive and I know it's not popular here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Yes, lots.



On the contrary, the idea of suffering and "paying your dues" was considered incompatable with Christianity by Protestants and that was why they dropped purgatory. I think Tellos was on the right track when he said the focus was on "salvation" but that word still emplies "salvation from hell" which is really a tangental part of Christianity, not a central one.

Central to Christianity is the idea of a broken relationship with God, and fixing that relationship. If you fix the relationship then when you die you go to be with God again (Heaven) and if you don't then you are without God (in Hell). My own view of Hell is not "fire and brimstone" because I think that's as much an allegory as the precious metals and stones that make up the New Jerusalem.

Hell is a total absense of God, which means a total absense of everything, even "suffering" as we are able to understand it, an eternity in the void, and I can imagine nothing worse than that. Of course, for that to conception of Hell to work man needs to choose whether to accept or reject God, he needs Free Will.

---

True, but according to most protestants God's salvation is still conditional upon accepting Christ by your death. The idea of hell in which I was speaking of is not so much purgatory as it is another chance to make peace with god. Would God truly allow something as simple as death to come in the way of an eventual reunion with one of his children? Remember the prodigal son, it is not the saved who god reaches out to as much as those who can be brought back into the flock. The existence of a permanent hell contradicts to many things to hold any weight.

There has to be a hell with the fire and brimstone and dudes with pitchforks. All those metal bands from the 80's couldn't have been lying to me. :devil:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

Marxist historians are still Marxists (Look at Hobsbawm, etc) in the economic sense and still look for that guiding hand of economic development, but they are by their very nature also Modernist.

---

It's a relatively new approach to include social/economic factors to the greater picture, I would say it emerged at the same time. Ok, there is a difference between a Marxist historian and a marxist approach.