Christians or Former Christians: Did Hell Influence Your Conversion?

[Quiddity]

Ok, I understand where you're coming from. Unfortunately, I have read Aquinas and probably "some" of the others you talk about and haven't found definite proof of God in anyone's writings, sorry. And even though it matters not to you, I do find it fishy that Zoroaster (Zoroastrianism) was the first to come up with a fiery hell, heaven, a savior for mankind born of a virgin, angels and demons, etc. It points me again to the question, how do we really know which religion is true? And how much influence has Christianity borrowed from other religions? It certainly is true that the Jews borrowed pagan Gods...why couldn't they have borrowed parts of the story of Christ and heaven and hell as well?

Don't know how you could have missed them. They are fairly obvious. Perhaps you are meaning evidence vs. proof?

As for your spider senses telling you that first means something more then first, then what can I say. Perhaps it's because early in my spirituality I was faced with such realities.

2. If you could give people an absolute proof that God exists and they still want nothing to do with him, I could answer the second part of your question.

I thought we understood each other that you wouldn't ask for such things for the sake of the argument? Let's just assume that God exists and they know it. Will that work?

 

[Smoke]

Let's just assume that God exists and they know it. Will that work?

Those seem like very rash assumptions.

 

[Buttercup]

Don't know how you could have missed them. They are fairly obvious. Perhaps you are meaning evidence vs. proof?

Are these words below not fairly representive of Aquinas teachings borrowed from Aristotle?

1. There is something moving.
2. Everything that moves is put into motion by something else.
3. But this series of antecedent movers cannot reach back infinitely.
4. Therefore, there must be a first mover (which is god)

Those words in no way prove to me that God exists. Those words say to me when you don't know the answer to something.....claim a supernatural source as the culprit.

As for your spider senses telling you that first means something more then first, then what can I say. Perhaps it's because early in my spirituality I was faced with such realities.

We know that the United States was the first country to land on the moon. What would you think if Bosnia claimed that spot? You'd say they were wrong, right? Well, many people view Zoroastrianism as the first religion to claim a Saviour born of a virgin and they view Christianity as stealing that theology. Whether it's true or not it makes sense to me that it would confuse people as to which teachings are correct.

I thought we understood each other that you wouldn't ask for such things for the sake of the argument? Let's just assume that God exists and they know it. Will that work?

I'd say if humans knew for 100% certainty that God existed....I find it hard to believe that any would not want to be with him/her/it. But, let's say a teeny tiny percentage did tell God to take a hike....they still do not deserve eternal separation. How about just a spanking and put in the corner for awhile till they come around?

 

[Quiddity]

Those seem like very rash assumptions.

I'm sure. We can be here day and night and never get to the topic otherwise. If some prefer the long way by all means have at it. I'd rather just get to the topic while ignoring the world view behind it.

 

[Quiddity]

Those words in no way prove to me that God exists. Those words say to me when you don't know the answer to something.....claim a supernatural source as the culprit.

I think you misunderstood me. The fact that you happen to find the proofs unconvincing doesn't void them from being proofs. So when you said there is no proof, I naturally said "yes there is". If you would have said evidence, I would have immediately agreed.

We know that the United States was the first country to land on the moon. What would you think if Bosnia claimed that spot? You'd say they were wrong, right? Well, many people view Zoroastrianism as the first religion to claim a Saviour born of a virgin and they view Christianity as stealing that theology. Whether it's true or not it makes sense to me that it would confuse people as to which teachings are correct.

If you start with the premise that Christianity is the source of concepts, beliefs, etc. then it will be troublesome. If you don't start with that premise then it's no problem at all. You just learn to understand why God grabbed what was existing and built upon it.

I'd say if humans knew for 100% certainty that God existed....I find it hard to believe that any would not want to be with him/her/it.

A thread I started long ago showed otherwise. Even with God in their presense people were in a state of rebellion, emotion, questions, etc. Even if it was as clear as day light it still would cause people to say "No thanks".

But, let's say a teeny tiny percentage did tell God to take a hike....they still do not deserve eternal separation. How about just a spanking and put in the corner for awhile till they come around?

If it were only that easy.

 

[Buttercup]

I think you misunderstood me. The fact that you happen to find the proofs unconvincing doesn't void them from being proofs. So when you said there is no proof, I naturally said "yes there is". If you would have said evidence, I would have immediately agreed.

Well my friend, Victor....I guess even as a Christian I didn't find Aquinas' writings to be very convincing "proofs". But hey, that's just me.

If you start with the premise that Christianity is the source of concepts, beliefs, etc. then it will be troublesome. If you don't start with that premise then it's no problem at all. You just learn to understand why God grabbed what was existing and built upon it.

I can understand if a godly premise is built upon and expanded from the same people such as the Jews...but, you're trying to tell me that we're supposed to believe God took teachings from an entirely different religion, built upon those and brought these new teachings to the Jews from Zoroastrianism? Come on Victor....talk about freaking confusing! And then if you don't believe these compounded, confuddled new teachings you get sent to Hell?

A thread I started long ago showed otherwise.

Even with God in their presense people were in a state of rebellion, emotion, questions, etc. Even if it was as clear as day light it still would cause people to say "No thanks".

If it were only that easy.

Well, yeah. It's certainly hard to imagine anyone turning God down if he presented himself face to face with a human isn't it? In the end what it boils down to is that if there is a God,...he is entirely just. And you tell yourself whatever happens to those people is God's justice one way or another.

 

[Buttercup]

Conditional relationships are a natural response to our basic psychological needs. Don't wish to deviate too far off topic so you can read more on it here:
http://www.heal-reconcile-rwanda.org/lec_needs.htm
Or there is plenty of other sources to read from. Hopefully this will give you a good sense of what I mean.

Victor....you don't believe God has unconditional love for us? You consider it conditional?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Just peeking in to say that the concept of an eternal hell is what sealed my decision to leave the Christian community. Tibetan Buddhism teaches a doctrine that a hell realm exists, but it isn't eternal, and we only get there by our actions and our intentions behind our actions..........not on our theology.



We also believe that the heaven realm isn't eternal, either, but that's for another thread.



There were little things here and there about Bible studies, Christian talk radio, and the seeming constant fighting of my Catholic family with Protestant friends that made me bitter. I also was not a very nice person while I considered myself an Evangelical Christian. My prayers were not filled with joy and communion with God, but pleading and begging and tears and FEAR.


I even stayed when I was told that when I was raped at 21, that I should pray for forgiveness and not strength by my Bible study leader. I was told that I put myself in that situation and should shoulder the blame. So, yes, eventually I distanced myself from the Christian community because of this attitude, but it eventually came down to the doctrine of hell for non-believers that made the seperation easier.




But when discussing hell, or thinking about hell, I feared I wasn't a "good enough" Christian because I couldn't imagine being happy in heaven when there was even one soul that was suffering for eternity in hell.



I just couldn't keep my thoughts at peace when I was focused on how my own behind was saved. Now, if I had come across some of the Christians here at RF during my inner turmoil, I can't tell you if I would still be a Christian (given that some here interpret scripture much in the way that I craved), but I might not have stumbled onto Buddhism, which has been the best path for me to evolve as a better person toward others.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[lilithu]

Conditional relationships are a natural response to our basic psychological needs. Don't wish to deviate too far off topic so you can read more on it here:
http://www.heal-reconcile-rwanda.org/lec_needs.htm
Or there is plenty of other sources to read from. Hopefully this will give you a good sense of what I mean.

Hi Victor, namaste.

The article explains what a basic psychological need is but not what a conditional relationship is. In fact, conditional relationships are not listed as a basic psychological need, and it wasn't clear to me to which of the 6-7 needs listed you feel conditional relationships are a natural response.

If as Buttercup interprets, you reject the idea of unconditional love, I am surprised. I had assumed that the Catholic view is kinda like what Katzpur expressed, that God loves us and wants us all in heaven but if some of us reject God of our own free will, God respects that decision, perhaps even with sadness.

I do not feel conditonal love to be a basic psychological need. And even if I did, there is enough of that from the people around me. From almost everyone else, you have to prove your worth, whether it's by showing that you're smart, or attractive, or funny, or nice or brave... Almost everyone else is deciding whether or not they want to love you based on these judgements and others. In God I perceive my inherent worth, loved for who I am, flaws and all, loved from the beginning. In my darkest times, when I have questioned my self-worth and did not perceive my worth affirmed by those around me, it was the experience of unconditional love from God that sustained me. Victor, what is Grace if not that?

That said, you and I both know that God isn't just what we need God to be. So there would have to be some other argument as to why you think God does not love us unconditionally.

 

[Quiddity]

Well my friend, Victor....I guess even as a Christian I didn't find Aquinas' writings to be very convincing "proofs". But hey, that's just me.

I don't find all of them convincing either. Some I do, others I don't.

I can understand if a godly premise is built upon and expanded from the same people such as the Jews...but, you're trying to tell me that we're supposed to believe God took teachings from an entirely different religion, built upon those and brought these new teachings to the Jews from Zoroastrianism? Come on Victor....talk about freaking confusing! And then if you don't believe these compounded, confuddled new teachings you get sent to Hell?

BC, I come from a different world then you. These constant comments of people going to Hell is unfortunately much more prevalent in Protestantism. In our tradition it is hardly heard of and certainly not within anybody's capacity to know either way. It's just not something Catholics do. So it's weird reading you repeat it.

As for which comes first, I was hoping not to go into detail about it because you can dedicate a whole thread to it. In short, God reveals himself to the world. Not just to a group of people, denomination, religion, etc. Inviting them all to be part of the family. When I said God borrows from what is existing, I did not mean to say that the Jews/Christianity completely stole their version of Hell from the Zoroasters. A version of Hell was already in development with the Jews. What was borrowed was the development the Zoroasters had accomplished. To give you an analogy: You (Jew) and I (Zoroaster) are given a house foundation (plug in a teaching/concept). Although in abstract form, the foundation (concept) is a reality that needs to be nutured by the human mind. I believe the Zoroasters watered the concept. Hope that clarifies things.

Well, yeah. It's certainly hard to imagine anyone turning God down if he presented himself face to face with a human isn't it? In the end what it boils down to is that if there is a God,...he is entirely just. And you tell yourself whatever happens to those people is God's justice one way or another.

You can consider Hell as an injustice, while I consider having a rapist/murderer without any conscious attempt to change and spank until there is nothing to spank far more unjust. If giving this person what he wants is injustice, then we certainly have differing views of justice.

 

[Quiddity]

Victor....you don't believe God has unconditional love for us? You consider it conditional?

Gods Love = unconditional
Relationship with God = conditional

 

[Quiddity]

The article explains what a basic psychological need is but not what a conditional relationship is. In fact, conditional relationships are not listed as a basic psychological need, and it wasn't clear to me to which of the 6-7 needs listed you feel conditional relationships are a natural response.

I know it doesn't. That is why I was careful in my words when I said:
Conditional relationships are a natural response to our basic psychological needs.

If as Buttercup interprets, you reject the idea of unconditional love, I am surprised. I had assumed that the Catholic view is kinda like what Katzpur expressed, that God loves us and wants us all in heaven but if some of us reject God of our own free will, God respects that decision, perhaps even with sadness.

See above for clarification. My view is in fact similar to Katz.

I do not feel conditonal love to be a basic psychological need. And even if I did, there is enough of that from the people around me. From almost everyone else, you have to prove your worth, whether it's by showing that you're smart, or attractive, or funny, or nice or brave... Almost everyone else is deciding whether or not they want to love you based on these judgements and others. In God I perceive my inherent worth, loved for who I am, flaws and all, loved from the beginning. In my darkest times, when I have questioned my self-worth and did not perceive my worth affirmed by those around me, it was the experience of unconditional love from God that sustained me. Victor, what is Grace if not that?

No qualms, as I said above.

That said, you and I both know that God isn't just what we need God to be. So there would have to be some other argument as to why you think God does not love us unconditionally.

I do think He loves us unconditionally. But Love seeks relationships and relationships demand conditions. I can't help but want/need my wife to love me back. If she didn't, I'd still love her, but a relationship would be difficult.

 

[Buttercup]

BC, I come from a different world then you. These constant comments of people going to Hell is unfortunately much more prevalent in Protestantism. In our tradition it is hardly heard of and certainly not within anybody's capacity to know either way. It's just not something Catholics do. So it's weird reading you repeat it.

Victor....that's what this thread is all about. Christians & Hell. No surprise it gets repeated often. Hehee. And yes, I do realize Protestants flaunt that four letter word about much more often than Catholics do. However,......Hell is still a factor in Catholicism. There is such a place of separation from God taught through the doctrine you believe whether you talk about it or not. My argument throughout this entire thread is considering the necessity or reality of such a place, period.

Also, I am trying to get to the bottom line with God in my arguments. The judgement and where a person lands in the afterlife according to Christian doctrine.

As for which comes first, I was hoping not to go into detail about it because you can dedicate a whole thread to it. In short, God reveals himself to the world. Not just to a group of people, denomination, religion, etc. Inviting them all to be part of the family. When I said God borrows from what is existing, I did not mean to say that the Jews/Christianity completely stole their version of Hell from the Zoroasters. A version of Hell was already in development with the Jews. What was borrowed was the development the Zoroasters had accomplished. To give you an analogy: You (Jew) and I (Zoroaster) are given a house foundation (plug in a teaching/concept). Although in abstract form, the foundation (concept) is a reality that needs to be nutured by the human mind. I believe the Zoroasters watered the concept.

Hope that clarifies things.

You know, I think we should probably retire the Zoroastrian influence of hell and a savior in this thread because I see we really aren't getting anywhere with the whole concept. But, I sure would like to start a thread with timelines, etc about the possible influences religions have on each other and how that makes religious writings that much more complicated and confusing. I wonder if we'd have any takers in a thread like that?

 

[Buttercup]

Gods Love = unconditional
Relationship with God = conditional

So if we obey God exactly how he wants us to....we get love. If not, it's separation after death?

I ask you again, Victor. If your daughter didn't love you and declared herself emancipated from you, would you kill her?

 

[lilithu]

I do think He loves us unconditionally. But Love seeks relationships and relationships demand conditions. I can't help but want/need my wife to love me back. If she didn't, I'd still love her, but a relationship would be difficult.

I agree. But if you had all the time in the world, wouldn't you wait for her to come around?

To go back to Ballou's argument that started this subthread. He said that a finite creature cannot do anything to deserve an infinite punishment. He didn't say that there were no consequences at all, just that whatever consequences we suffer could not justly be infinite.

 

[Quiddity]

You know, I think we should probably retire the Zoroastrian influence of hell and a savior in this thread because I see we really aren't getting anywhere with the whole concept. But, I sure would like to start a thread with timelines, etc about the possible influences religions have on each other and how that makes religious writings that much more complicated and confusing. I wonder if we'd have any takers in a thread like that?

I'm sure we would. Perhaps sometime this week I will start one.

 

[Quiddity]

So if we obey God exactly how he wants us to....we get love. If not, it's separation after death?

No!
You get love irregardless of your obedience. It is the relationship alone that cause the seperation.

I ask you again, Victor. If your daughter didn't love you and declared herself emancipated from you, would you kill her?

Of course not. I don't see how that is an equivalent unless God causes people to seize to exist.

 

[Quiddity]

I agree. But if you had all the time in the world, wouldn't you wait for her to come around?

If I felt that all we needed was time to change, I certainly woould. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you see it), I believe people get so enchanted with their psychological state that it completely takes over who they are. They've managed to morph themselves into something other then a butterfly.

To go back to Ballou's argument that started this subthread. He said that a finite creature cannot do anything to deserve an infinite punishment. He didn't say that there were no consequences at all, just that whatever consequences we suffer could not justly be infinite.

I got that. And I still am curious as to how Ballou's argument take conditional relationships and justice into his assesment. If you start with the presupposition that we will all eventually change, then I can see Ballou's argument working. If start with the premise that some might not want to, then I don't see how it can work.

 

[lilithu]

I got that. And I still am curious as to how Ballou's argument take conditional relationships and justice into his assesment. If you start with the presupposition that we will all eventually change, then I can see Ballou's argument working. If start with the premise that some might not want to, then I don't see how it can work.

Those are two separate arguments Victor.

With all due respect I think the "conditional relationships" argument is a weak one. With either presupposition, one can argue that if God really wants to save everyone, then God can do so.

However, the question of justice is a sticky one, because then there are two different goals which might conflict, God's love and therefore desire to save everyone and God's sense of justice. Is it justice to treat the person who has been faithful and good all his/her life the same way that one treats the person who has sinned and/or rebelled and then at the last minute had a change of heart? If one thinks of heaven and hell as all or nothing then I think one has a real problem there.

In my conception, there is no permanent hell and no permanent heaven. There is God and being separated from God. There is being closer to God and being further away from God. And all where you are is a result of your own actions. So there is justice, because if you choose/do things that take you further away from God, you are further away, and you'll have that much more to do to get closer again. But there is also unconditional love, because no matter how far away you get, you are never beyond redemption.

 

[Quiddity]

Those are two separate arguments Victor.

With all due respect I think the "conditional relationships" argument is a weak one. With either presupposition, one can argue that if God really wants to save everyone, then God can do so.

However, the question of justice is a sticky one, because then there are two different goals which might conflict, God's love and therefore desire to save everyone and God's sense of justice. Is it justice to treat the person who has been faithful and good all his/her life the same way that one treats the person who has sinned and/or rebelled and then at the last minute had a change of heart? If one thinks of heaven and hell as all or nothing then I think one has a real problem there.

In my conception, there is no permanent hell and no permanent heaven. There is God and being separated from God. There is being closer to God and being further away from God. And all where you are is a result of your own actions. So there is justice, because if you choose/do things that take you further away from God, you are further away, and you'll have that much more to do to get closer again. But there is also unconditional love, because no matter how far away you get, you are never beyond redemption.

How is what you just described not conditional? To get closer or farther apart is all about conditions. What am I missing here?

I am unsure how Ballou's arguments manages to split God in two. God is both Love and justice. Separating the qualities is bound to get you to miss the mark.

I don’t know what you mean by unconditional love. Sounds like an oxymoron to me.