Understanding Evangelical Christianity

[Guest]

There is no good reason to believe that the idea of Hell is anything other than an invention by religious charlatans to frighten the gullible into accepting their religious doctrines and providing financial support.

Yes, there is. This is hell:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

Yeah, that was the original, Old Testament verion or definition of "hell" in ancient times. Isn't it terrible what the religious definition of that has morphed into since then? The ancient Hebrews apparently didn't really even believe in an afterlife for either bad or righteous people, let alone one of endless torment for the wicked, according to modern Bible scholars.

Did the ancient Jews believe in life after death?

Did the ancient Jews believe in life after death?
By James M. Rochford

“Most of the scholarly world agrees that there is no concept of immortality of life after death in the Old Testament.”[1] With these words, George Mendenhall summarizes the consensus of critical academics regarding the afterlife in the Hebrew Bible. Even many Jewish thinkers deny an afterlife. For instance in a 1991 interview, Jewish professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz said,"

Death has no significance… only life matters… In the entire Torah there is not the slightest suggestion that anything happens after death. All the ideas and theories articulated on the subject of a world to come and the resurrection of the dead have no relationship to religious faith. It is sheer folklore. After you die, you simply do not exist.[2]"

Critics of the Bible argue that the concept of the afterlife was an evolutionary development: God didn’t slowly reveal the subject of Heaven; instead, the Jewish people slowly invented it over time.

See also: https://www.thoughtco.com/afterlife-in-judaism-2076755

by Ariela Pelaia
Updated June 07, 2017

Many faiths have definitive teachings about the afterlife. But in answer to the question "What happens after we die?" the Torah, the most important religious text for Jews, is surprisingly silent. Nowhere does it discuss the afterlife in detail.

Over the centuries a few possible descriptions of the afterlife have been incorporated into Jewish thought. However, there is no definitively Jewish explanation for what happens after we die.

Here is the Hell I believe in!

[_Some Schmo]

There is no good reason to believe that the idea of Hell is anything other than an invention by religious charlatans to frighten the gullible into accepting their religious doctrines and providing financial support.

That part I highlighted is what people who cling to notions of an afterlife are taking issue with: no good reason. They think their reasons are good.

They aren't good reasons, but that doesn't stop them from insisting so.

You can't expect a rational argument to persuade irrational people.

[_subgenius]

There is no good reason to believe that the idea of Hell is anything other than an invention by religious charlatans to frighten the gullible into accepting their religious doctrines and providing financial support.

That part I highlighted is what people who cling to notions of an afterlife are taking issue with: no good reason. They think their reasons are good.

and you think their reasons are bad, duh...people cling to notions and you cling to notions - congratulations on being a person.

They aren't good reasons, but that doesn't stop them from insisting so.

Kinda like how you are merely doing some of your own insisting for there "aren't good reasons" - all without actually arguing, proving, or even demonstrating.

You can't expect a rational argument to persuade irrational people.

and as you have demonstrated with your post, you can't expect irrational people to provide a rational argument.

[_subgenius]

His assertion suffers from no less proof than your own.

agreed

But yours relies on a much greater willingness to suspend logic.

huh? greater willingness?..wth?
So, you're basically claiming (subjectively) that while both exhibit a willingness to suspend logic, surely one of these positions requires a "greater" willingness? meaning that it would take far less effort for him to abandon his willingness ?
Either way, I am curious how you "measure" the amount of willingness in this context....because its nonsensical, ehem illogical, to propose that such a measure exist.

[_canpakes]

His assertion suffers from no less proof than your own.

agreed

But yours relies on a much greater willingness to suspend logic.

huh? greater willingness?..wth?
So, you're basically claiming (subjectively) that while both exhibit a willingness to suspend logic, surely one of these positions requires a "greater" willingness? meaning that it would take far less effort for him to abandon his willingness ?
Either way, I am curious how you "measure" the amount of willingness in this context....because its nonsensical, ehem illogical, to propose that such a measure exist.

Have you not a handy willingness scale at your disposal? : )

Here’s an example.

I suspect that Gunnar does not believe that inside of the sink trap in his main bathroom that there’s a special place reserved for naughty people to be tortured for eternity. So Gunnar expresses a low willingness to accept this concept without some proof. Same goes for the idea of a Hell in some other location.

But you presumably believe in such a place ... maybe not happening within the sink trap of your bathroom, but ... somewhere? And based on what?

Therein lies the difference that I speak of.

[_subgenius]

Have you not a handy willingness scale at your disposal? : )

Its getting repaired, sorry.

Here’s an example.

I'll bet there is not.

So Gunnar expresses a low willingness to accept this concept without some proof.

This is not "low willingness" it is a "no willingness".

Same goes for the idea of a Hell in some other location.

But you presumably believe in such a place ... maybe not happening within the sink trap of your bathroom, but ... somewhere? And based on what?

A better, and more aligned, example would be:
1. There is a belief in hell.
2. There is disbelief in hell.

to be 'held', neither of these options inherently require a measurable difference in willingness.

Therein lies the difference that I speak of.

your absurdity aside, it is like i stated initially in this post...

[_huckelberry]

Gunnar stated.:"There is no good reason to believe that the idea of Hell is anything other than an invention by religious charlatans to frighten the gullible into accepting their religious doctrines and providing financial support."
Subgenius replied: "talk about a statement based on blind faith.
The idea of Hell is not just religious, it is also permeated throughout folklore - and fear is not an imaginary condition....(deleting lame repetative insults)
Canpakes replied:
"His assertion suffers from no less proof than your own. But yours relies on a much greater willingness to suspend logic."

I am puzzled, it appears to me that Gunnar and Subgenius disagreed on the source of belief in hell not over whether the belief is justified. Sub suggested that instead of religious leaders inventing it those leaders found it a useful image from folklore. That is a kind of interesting suggestion but I suspect it may be difficult to trace folklore back far enough to prove.

//
I realize this dimension of the question is not what subsequent replies focus on but I think it is interesting because I think folklore is the primary source of religious ideas and the fact that it is is also related to how and why people find them valuable.

[_MeDotOrg]

The concept of hell can be understood as a projection of the human subconscious. I don't think the origins of hell were birthed in spiritual greed. Certainly throughout history people have exploited the fear of hell as a powerful religious motivator. A lot of this is done deliberately and cynically. But the images of hell are varied and perverse, and the concept of hell is a both a reservoir and a wellspring terrors, faced and repressed.

[_subgenius]

...dimension of the question is not what subsequent replies focus on...

I believe this is a board rule...check the stickys.

but I think it is interesting because I think folklore is the primary source of religious ideas and the fact that it is is also related to how and why people find them valuable.

brilliant notion.
the inescapable human condition of needing to believe in something is fascinating, and the persistent archetypes are equally compelling. To have come so far always enables the traveler to carry the essentials.

[_canpakes]

Have you not a handy willingness scale at your disposal? : )

Its getting repaired, sorry.

Here’s an example.

I'll bet there is not.

So Gunnar expresses a low willingness to accept this concept without some proof.

This is not "low willingness" it is a "no willingness".

Same goes for the idea of a Hell in some other location.

But you presumably believe in such a place ... maybe not happening within the sink trap of your bathroom, but ... somewhere? And based on what?

A better, and more aligned, example would be:
1. There is a belief in hell.
2. There is disbelief in hell.

to be 'held', neither of these options inherently require a measurable difference in willingness.

Therein lies the difference that I speak of.

your absurdity aside, it is like i stated initially in this post...

Perhaps this can be simplified.

If you observe nothing somewhere, then acceptance of that is straightforward, and involves little commitment to inventing a supernatural alternative to the nothingness.

If you invent a supernatural alternative, you need to suspend logic in a way that allows you to formulate a random explanation with no factual basis, and more so given any extra ’authoritative’ proclamation by others designed to bolster your particular claim, and why you believe in that claimed authority.

You probably just overwhelmed your willingness meter in the meantime, is all.