Christians: do I deserve eternal suffering?

[John Dule]

If Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler truly accepted Christ as their Savior, repenting of all their sins, they would go to Heaven.

If Mohandas Gandhi never accepted Christ as his Savior, he would not be in Heaven.

Hence why even if your god were real, he would be worthy only of derision and indifference. He's clearly a very stupid person with no understanding of morality.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And I don't have a "pre-conceived notion" of Christianity. I was raised Christian, and had it drilled into my head from a young age that if anyone who doesn't believe in God is going to Hell.

I'm guessing, based on the types of denominations that emphasize that idea, that the form of Christianity in which this was drilled into your head also drilled the importance of "plain meaning" readings of the Bible into your head. This is not a universal Christian position!

[brucejoel99]

Insofar as John 3:16 is concerned, you should go take a look at Mark 4:15 very carefully & then realize that "man" as scriptures see us is both man & Satan, the tempter, with there being no such person as an individual in scripture other than God-in-Christ, & all others being the person, & the spirit or spirits, plural, of disobedience, à la Acts 26:18, 2 Cor. 4:4, & Eph. 2:2 if you'll actually care to look at what responses to you are talking about this time instead of just ignoring factual responses because they don't align with what your pre-conceived notion of Christianity's beliefs as established in the Bible was (& inexplicably remains).

I've read the verses you've listed, and I don't see how any of those would bolster the basis of your argument. And I don't see how they aren't contradicted by Ephesians 2:8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast."

Because in Eph. 2:8-9, Paul used the word "works" to mean works of the law, frowning upon the notion that one can be saved by piously following the Law (of the Jews). His argument that said Law doesn't save doesn't preclude nonbelievers from nevertheless believing something & then just not acting in a way that's contrary to what they've placed their faith in. If anything, Eph. 2:8-9 teaches that only by the grace of God can salvation & eternal life be given; not earned, but given. After all, Deuteronomy 1:39 tells of infants in the rebellion against God who should've been punished but were nonetheless entitled by Him to enter the promised land because they didn't know right from wrong; this doesn't necessarily mean that God would grant salvation to a non-believing non-Christian, but does speak to His presumed mercy in a situation like this.

And I don't have a "pre-conceived notion" of Christianity. I was raised Christian, and had it drilled into my head from a young age that if anyone who doesn't believe in God is going to Hell.

As Nathan alludes to, a potential misinterpretation of scripture superimposed upon you in Christianity's name ≠ Christianity.

[John Dule]

It must be nice to be able to deflect every legitimate criticism of your belief system by saying it's a misinterpretation / misrepresentation / misunderstanding / misreading, even though the vast majority of your fellow believers say otherwise. The idea of religion is to prescribe (and proscribe) certain actions, and to provide a framework for a moral life. That doesn't happen if every rule and parable is up to the free-wheeling interpretation of people like this.

Hence why the modern world is killing faith via a death of a thousand cuts. Religions are trapped between either adhering to a hardline (but faithful) interpretation of their laws, thus radicalizing their core supporters while bleeding followers by the millions, or alternatively, lapsing into increasingly vague and subjective interpretations of scripture that sap all the meaning from the text and turn their followers into the type of "spiritual" people who read horoscopes and call themselves "deists." Both are losing options.

[brucejoel99]

It must be nice to be able to deflect every legitimate criticism of your belief system by saying it's a misinterpretation / misrepresentation / misunderstanding / misreading, even though the vast majority of your fellow believers say otherwise. The idea of religion is to prescribe (and proscribe) certain actions, and to provide a framework for a moral life. That doesn't happen if every rule and parable is up to the free-wheeling interpretation of people like this.

To be clear, I only invoked the phrase "potential misinterpretation" insofar as this thread is necessarily predicated on the assumption that there's a true, correct interpretation of the Christian Bible: if one is right, then all others are wrong, but 'til it's possible to confirm which one is right & which are all wrong, then they're all technically "potential misinterpretations."

As for any potential misunderstanding if there's indeed been one about it being "my" belief system in particular, it's decidedly not: that's Judaism, which I've discussed on here before, but I was officially awarded yesterday a Bachelor's Degree in History, & as a part of earning it, I had to read all of the relevant sacred texts of the Abrahamic trinity, so I figured I'd just try to put some of the knowledge gleaned from that on the Forum. In any event, though, what does the vast majority of contemporary Christianity's belief about what the words of their sacred text mean have to do with the mere attempted parsing of an orderly, rational, & coherent account of Christian doctrine as prescribed in the Bible? That'd be like saying that originalists actually have the physical, time-bending power to retroactively change anything that the Framers said, as opposed to what it is that they can actually change: their interpretation of, well, unchangeable remarks.

[John Dule]

It must be nice to be able to deflect every legitimate criticism of your belief system by saying it's a misinterpretation / misrepresentation / misunderstanding / misreading, even though the vast majority of your fellow believers say otherwise. The idea of religion is to prescribe (and proscribe) certain actions, and to provide a framework for a moral life. That doesn't happen if every rule and parable is up to the free-wheeling interpretation of people like this.

To be clear, I only invoked the phrase "potential misinterpretation" insofar as this thread is necessarily predicated on the assumption that there's a true, correct interpretation of the Christian Bible: if one is right, then all others are wrong, but 'til it's possible to confirm which one is right & which are all wrong, then they're all technically "potential misinterpretations."

As for any potential misunderstanding if there's indeed been one about it being "my" belief system in particular, it's decidedly not: that's Judaism, which I've discussed on here before, but I was officially awarded yesterday a Bachelor's Degree in History, & as a part of earning it, I had to read all of the relevant sacred texts of the Abrahamic trinity, so I figured I'd just try to put some of the knowledge gleaned from that on the Forum. In any event, though, what does the vast majority of contemporary Christianity's belief about what the words of their sacred text mean have to do with the mere attempted parsing of an orderly, rational, & coherent account of Christian doctrine as prescribed in the Bible? That'd be like saying that originalists actually have the physical, time-bending power to retroactively change anything that the Framers said, as opposed to what it is that they can actually change: their interpretation of, well, unchangeable remarks.

To be clear, that comment was less directed towards either you or Nathan and more towards that general category of argument I often see being raised.

[DaleCooper]

I've argued for a long time now that it's a pretty big misconception among Evangelicals that the Bible welcomes all so-called believers into eternal life. After all, even the demons believe there's one God and tremble at his name. Evangelicals often cite Judas Iscariot as a man with a multitude of good works who ended up in hell, but I like to cite Judas as a man with more firsthand knowledge and understanding of Christ as a divine figure than almost anyone in history. (I suppose if you're desperate to support your original conclusion then you could believe that perhaps Judas never really believed that Jesus Christ was technically God, but I think that's a bit ridiculous.) Plus there's the great passage in Matthew where Christ casts those into hell who never fed or clothed the needy. Earlier he also rejects those who believe they have faith in Christ but are actually workers of iniquity. There's the "dead faith" thing in James too. That's not to say that there aren't passages that equally imply that a simple confession of faith is all you need, but to pretend that lazy suburbanite Christianity is the true version and good deeds have nothing to do with it is just as much cherrypicking as any other bad biblical interpretation is.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The Bible is theory just like Reincarnation is theory when you die, your flesh dies with it so there is no Hell because you can't burn without flesh and eternity is after the Rapture not before that anyways, when you supposed to get a new body, if you go by Revelations

According to theory Jesus was supposed to been back and rules for 1K yrs

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Eternal suffering for the damned is a development in Second Temple Jewish literature that NT authors would have been familiar with, although annihilationism was popular as well. It seems likely that Matthew at least believed in eternal conscious torment given his frequent usage of 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' to describe those condemned to the unquenchable fires of Gehenna.

Re: whether it happens for being an atheist alone, I think some form of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is official doctrine of the denominations of a majority of the world's Christians. So it's a fair question to ask.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

And, we all deserve to go to Hell.  But, Jesus died on the Cross so we don't have to if we accept Him as our personal Savior.

Why do we all deserve Hell?

Because we have fallen short of the Perfection that is God.  He would be justified in sending us to Hell for committing one (seemingly) tiny sin one time in our lives.  Since the Fall in Eden, only one man- Jesus Christ- has lived a sinless life.  He bore our punishment so we wouldn't have to.

Why does committing a sin justify eternal torment?

Heaven is a place without sin, suffering, pain, disease, or sadness.  No sinner is worthy of entering, but we will be Sanctified by Christ.  We can't earn our place in Heaven, but, likewise, it's not too late for even the worst terrorist walking this Earth today to accept Jesus, repent, and go to Heaven.

So to clarify: in your view, if Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler truly accepted Christ as their Lord and savior in the days before their death, you think they should go to Heaven.

But if I, an agnostic, spend my entire life donating to charity, caring for the sick and the poor, treating my neighbors with kindness, you think I should go to Hell?

Is that an accurate assessment of your belief system?

If Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler truly accepted Christ as their Savior, repenting of all their sins, they would go to Heaven.

If Mohandas Gandhi never accepted Christ as his Savior, he would not be in Heaven.

I want everyone to go to Heaven.  It's something I really struggle with, especially because my own mom is not Saved.  I don't like to think of Hell.  I don't want anyone there.  But, that's precisely why I need to tell people about Jesus.  I want to see everyone in Heaven one day!!

I don't want to go to heaven if you're gonna be there.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

I am not a Christian and I don't believe in the existence of God.

According to the Bible, this means I am going to Hell.

I'm also not a Christian, but that's a strict constructionist view of John 14:6. It doesn't necessarily mean that all non-Christians are going to Hell so much as it means that nobody's getting into Heaven unless they have Jesus' approval, & that's such an important distinction that it's why the extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church) doctrine defines the Church as all people saved by Christ, both those visibly saved & those not visibly saved; not all Christians, or even some Christians, but a visible subset of people who profess to be Christian & an invisible subset of people who don't so profess, & whether said subsets are all Christian or all non-Christian is ultimately up to Jesus (see: Matthew 25:31-46).

And if Christianity is true, people who unrepentantly kill in the name of God's will are surely going to Hell for that, so it only makes sense that those who love as themselves are seen as following God's Law of Love &, thus, Satan won't gain them.

Eh. Some Christians (a small minority) like ER believe in selective interpretation while still taking an 'originalist' viewpoint. For instance, Jesus was a borderline socialist, but ER's fiscal beliefs are ultra far-right and he opposes Medicare and Medicaid, saying that the 'church should help the needy'.

That's a terrifying position to the right of Paul Ryan that Jesus would hate. Other Christians like Fuzzy (I can't believe I'm saying this) follow the parts of Bible that actually make sense and are do-able from a modern standpoint (even if I disagree, like with his positions on homosexuality), while ignoring the more misguided parts (like Timothy 2:12).