quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: ... Let's try wording it differently: how many Christians believe you go to Hell if you don't accept Christ in this lifetime?
This might be helpful, although the "eternal" part would probably be slightly lower than straight belief, I would note that belief in Hell is a comfortable majority across all of broad American demographics without even splitting out religious people.
quote:From 1997 to 2004, belief in hell has ranged between 56% and 71%. The 2004 data reveal that 70% of Americans overall believe in hell, while 12% are not sure and 17% do not believe in hell. Again, the percentage is much higher among regular churchgoers: 92% of those who attend weekly believe in hell, as do 74% of those who attend nearly weekly and just half (50%) of those who attend church seldom or never.
Belief in hell varies only somewhat among other demographic categories, although likelihood to believe is somewhat lower across the board than was the case for heaven. With regard to political orientation, 83% of Republicans say they believe in hell, vs. 69% of Democrats and 58% of those who say they are independent. Americans with a high school education or less are slightly more likely to believe in hell than those with at least some college education (77% to 65%). Again, Southerners (83%) are more likely to believe in hell than are Westerners (61%), Easterners (64%), and those in the Midwest (66%).
In 1988, Gallup asked Americans who said there is a heaven where people who had led good lives are eternally rewarded what their chances were of going there themselves. Seventy-seven percent rated their chances as "good" or "excellent," while 19% rated them as "only fair" or "poor." That same year, Americans who said there was a hell where people who led bad lives without being sorry are eternally damned were quite optimistic that they would not be going there themselves. Only 6% said their chances of going there were good or excellent, and 79% said their chances were poor.
quote:Because it is meaningless. Your choice has no effect on the outcome, because you are not capable of choosing differently.
That later statement is not true, though. If A determines B's choice and B's choice determines C, then it is true that B's choice has an effect on C AND that B could not have chosen differently given A. "B->C" follows from "A->B->C".
So, the question is which half of that statement is the part that is the most "meaningful" aspect of free will: 1) That my choice has an effect on the outcome. or 2) That I could have chosen differently.
#2 is not that important, because it is just a question of theoretical possibilities. I don't care what may have happened in alternative possible realities, except perhaps when deciding who to ultimately blame for something.
#1 IS important, because we care about having some sort of influence on the lives we lead and the world around us. We naturally care that our choices have some influence on the world. When I donate money to a good cause, I don't care whether there is some complicated set of conditions in the world that determined I would give money, but I do care that my choice to give money will help that good cause.
Therefore, if it is possible to have #1 without #2, I would say it is still meaningful, because #1 is the more meaningful aspect of free will.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have certainly heard about people who believe that. It is not what I was taught in any of the various mainstream churches I have attended. Nor was it what I taught when I was responsible for teaching such subjects for either Catholic or Congregational or Methodist churches.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My best friend believes I am going to hell.
That said, at the time MightyCow was replying to Lisa who is Jewish, and I'm pretty sure the argument is completely meaningless in that context.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: My best friend believes I am going to hell.
Oh, you might find this interesting then which I found when looking for the previous. Less reliable though
quote:Most people said the doomed are "acquaintances," but almost 25% said the hell-bound are members of their own family. Women were more likely to consign family members to hell, quite possibly because they spend more time with the family. ... In what may be a worrisome sign of the state of family relations, those who thought their family members were headed down were very likely to think of hell as a place of fire and torment. Oh, and eternal. It was unclear whether the respondents were expressing a prediction or a wish.
posted
This is a classic strawman. The problem isn't that you've made a claim about others positions which is 100% incorrect, its that you have simplified others beliefs to the point of obsurdity. Yes a lot of people believe in Hell, but those believes are alot more nuanced than the claims you are making. I don't care how many studies you pull out or how many quotes you post, its still a strawman. It resembles your opponents beliefs but lacks the substance there of.
We have a lot of Christians here. Some who are even baptists, southerners and fundamentalists. If you aren't just arguing against a strawman, you should be able to find one person here to agree that "God will assign people to eternal torment for mistakes made in a tiny fraction of their existence" is an accurate summary of their beliefs. Until you have, you are arguing against strawmen and not real people.
So much for your alleged objectivity.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Pretty much all of you who are making claims about what religious people believe. Your claims reveal you have only a very shallow and heavily biased understanding of others religious beliefs.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, so you're going to fight what you perceieve as shallow claims by making shallow and broad claims. Sounds like a fun progression Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is very common in well-educated, one-sigma-above-average theists who don't strictly believe anything, but have a belief in their own belief, to assume that most Christians are like them. This is a mistake. Mucus has shown studies; what have you got other than your assertion that it ain't so?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes a lot of people believe in Hell, but those believes are alot more nuanced than the claims you are making. I don't care how many studies you pull out or how many quotes you post, its still a strawman. It resembles your opponents beliefs but lacks the substance there of.
Despite my present atheism I was a member of multiple churches and church-related youth groups when I was younger and the belief that mere non-believers (no active misbehavior was necessary) would spend an eternity in hell was quite common. Being "saved" was the buzzword that indicate that you were no longer hell-bound and there was constant encouragement to "save" our friends and family members lest they suffer eternal torment for not accepting Christ as their personal savior.
The Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, is pretty clear that anyone not baptized will end up in hell and only recently admitted some uncertainty on that point in the case of infants that die before baptism.(being subject to original sin alone) I was actually baptized Catholic, so I guess I'm good there.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have a lot of Christians here. Some who are even baptists, southerners and fundamentalists. If you aren't just arguing against a strawman, you should be able to find one person here to agree that "God will assign people to eternal torment for mistakes made in a tiny fraction of their existence" is an accurate summary of their beliefs. Until you have, you are arguing against strawmen and not real people.
Ron?
If we're talking about what "religious people" in general believe, I assure you I know plenty of real people, that I have had real conversations with (over multiple years), who believe that I do not believe in Jesus, ergo I am consigned to eternal torment. Period. And they are part of a large congregation that taught them that. And I live in New York.
However, we're not talking about Christians in general here. Whether this is a debate or a conversation, it's between a few specific people about some specific theological principles. Part of the problem is that I don't think any two theists here (in this thread) actually believe exactly the same thing.
I've been assuming the constraints on this conversation are:
1. God exists (somehow we learn this with a degree of certainty such that it is not up for debate). 2. We (probably) all mean a God who is at least 4 dimensional and has at least one aspect that exists outside time. 3. Free will exists. 4. An afterlife of some kind exists.
A fair number of people also seem to be implying that God is intelligent, compassionate, and omnipotent. Some theists have already clarified that in their beliefs, "omnipotent" has its own qualifiers. I think that the theists whose beliefs include both compassionate and true, no strings omnipotence are obligated to provide a definition of goodness that makes sense of the widescale (and as I've said is my main beef, unfair, disproportionate) distribution of suffering in the world.
I get that suffering can be an important learning tool. I do not get how infants crushed to death by natural forces before they had a chance to learn anything would benefit the world at all. "Teaches us compassion" is the argument I hear the most of, but the fact is my life hasn't really been changed to any significant degree by Haiti than it was already changed by knowing that the Holocaust or Katrina happened. And those are the well publicized catastrophes that everyone knows about.
[ February 18, 2010, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit: You may not like the idea, you may not know many, or any Christians who believe that, but I assure you that it is not a strawman. I personally have known dozens of Christians who believe that people who are not in their particular church are going to hell. I have interacted with many more people on a casual basis, spoken to them online, seen them on TV, read their books or articles, who believe the same.
It is far from a strawman.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: The Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, is pretty clear that anyone not baptized will end up in hell and only recently admitted some uncertainty on that point in the case of infants that die before baptism.(being subject to original sin alone) I was actually baptized Catholic, so I guess I'm good there.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The Rabbit: You may not like the idea, you may not know many, or any Christians who believe that, but I assure you that it is not a strawman. I personally have known dozens of Christians who believe that people who are not in their particular church are going to hell. I have interacted with many more people on a casual basis, spoken to them online, seen them on TV, read their books or articles, who believe the same.
It is far from a strawman.
If its not a strawman, find me just one Christian who will say that it is an accurate representation of their beliefs. Just one.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have a lot of Christians here. Some who are even baptists, southerners and fundamentalists. If you aren't just arguing against a strawman, you should be able to find one person here to agree that "God will assign people to eternal torment for mistakes made in a tiny fraction of their existence" is an accurate summary of their beliefs. Until you have, you are arguing against strawmen and not real people.
Ron?
Then ask him. If he is willing to post here that this statement is an accurate representation of his beliefs, then OK, you've understood 1 Christian accurately.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: It is very common in well-educated, one-sigma-above-average theists who don't strictly believe anything, but have a belief in their own belief, to assume that most Christians are like them. This is a mistake. Mucus has shown studies; what have you got other than your assertion that it ain't so?
That isn't just true of religious "brights", its true of nearly all religious people even those that self identify as literalists.
quote:The new atheists assume that believers, particularly fundamentalists, take their sacred texts literally. Yet ethnographies of fundamentalist communities (such as James Ault's Spirit and Flesh) show that even when people claim to be biblical literalists, they are in fact quite flexible, drawing on the bible selectively—or ignoring it—to justify humane and often quite modern responses to complex social situations. -- Jonathan Haidt (Sociologist and professed Atheist)
Religious beliefs are simply far more nuanced than New Atheists are willing to conceded. You have removed the nuances that are critically important to the believers, that is what makes your claims "strawmen".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: ... The Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, is pretty clear that anyone not baptized will end up in hell ...
Depends in part on your interpretation of this
quote: God's mercy and love are great, but those who reject him should know that hell "exists and is eternal," Pope Benedict XVI said. ... "Christ came to tell us that he desires all of us in heaven and that hell, which isn't spoken about much in our time, exists and is eternal for those who close their hearts to his love," the pope said.
quote:Originally posted by MattP: The Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, is pretty clear that anyone not baptized will end up in hell and only recently admitted some uncertainty on that point in the case of infants that die before baptism.(being subject to original sin alone) I was actually baptized Catholic, so I guess I'm good there.
quote:Bishops, as successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, the mission to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain to salvation by faith, baptism and the fulfilment of the commandments.
This seems to imply that baptism is a necessary component of salvation.
Also, neither of those links directly addresses hell.
Even laying the specific doctrine aside, the belief was common when I attended a Catholic church. Perhaps that was a regional thing, or Catholics have become more liberal in their view on the subject since then.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: You aren't. I would let my daughter miss a meal to teach her a lesson. If our lives in this world are only a small fraction of our whole existence, getting run over by a car might be the equivalent.
In order for your analogy to be correct, you'd have to make her never eat again, because once you get killed by a car, you don't get to learn any more lessons in this life.
No, I think the analogy was fine as I wrote it. Not that it's a good analogy. My math teacher used to say that there's no such thing as a good analogy, but it suffices. Think of it as a domain thing. In the larger domain, which God sees, but we generally don't in this life, ending a life here is probably less than withholding a meal. In the smaller domain, which is all I have to work with vis my daughter, withholding a meal is pretty harsh.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I also wouldn't condemn anyone to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their whole existence, but most Christians believe that God does just that.
So... you want me to say that most Christians are wrong? Okay, consider it said. Actually, they all are, but we were only discussing this one issue.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Depends in part on your interpretation of this
I would say it depends entirely on your interpretation of this and religious people almost never interpret it they way atheists do (or even the way members of competing Christian sects do). That's what makes the atheist argument a strawman. Its a gross distortion of what people really believe.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seriously? You are seriously not willing to accept at face value that I have talked extensively with my friend about this for 10 years and that I know what I'm talking about? I'm reminded of a time when Mucus didn't believe that you had friends who preferred Chinese food made in Canada (or something to that effect), and went on to explain why you might have misinterpreted certain cultural norms. You got pretty upset.
Which is it? Am we allowed to reference friends with beliefs that don't mesh with each other's assumptions or not?
My friend has several beliefs that are nuanced and that I respect to some degree. He's also in the process of changing some beliefs now that he's going to a christian school where he's meeting some professors who are able to articulate their reasonings for different interpretations of Christianity. I'm not 100% sure what he currently believes about everything (since right now he doesn't know for sure either) but I know as much as I know anything what he believed about Hell between the years 1998 and 2007.
I was generally on the side of "getting into the beliefs of Christians who aren't even participating in this thread is silly." I never said that anyone in this thread believed this. But if you are seriously going to say that there are no Christians, period, who believe that if you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior then you are doomed to Hell for all eternity, you are simply flat out wrong.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: how many Christians believe you go to Hell if you don't accept Christ in this lifetime?
I have no idea. I know only that I've never met one who actually believes that. It's a strawman argument. ... what?
I certainly have met Christians who believe that. Some of them are quite nice about it, too. Like, "You seem like a good and moral person. But if you don't accept JC as your lord and savior, then yeah, you're going to burn eternally. That's why you should join us."
Yeesh. Sounds like a protection racket.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I was generally on the side of "getting into the beliefs of Christians who aren't even participating in this thread is silly." I never said that anyone in this thread believed this. But if you are seriously going to say that there are no Christians, period, who believe that if you don't accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior then you are doomed to Hell for all eternity, you are simply flat out wrong.
I sincerely doubt that this statement actually captures the proper nuances of anyone's beliefs. I've heard about people who hold such beliefs all my life but whenever I've actually had the chance to discuss it with one of them I find that their beliefs are far more nuanced than that.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:religious people almost never interpret it they way atheists do
That you believe this is astonishing to me. Of course not all Christians believe this, perhaps not even a majority, but there are absolutely large swaths who do. I have personal experience having it preached to me.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... religious people almost never interpret it they way atheists do (or even the way members of competing Christian sects do)
I don't think the main difference is differing interpretation leading to different views, I think the main difference is emphasis with both groups looking at the same thing. Example: people do simultaneously think this and this. Consequently, some people will look at that and say that the highlighted group is racist, some will say that they aren't. Both groups are looking at the same data but emphasize different things.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: ... The Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, is pretty clear that anyone not baptized will end up in hell ...
Depends in part on your interpretation of this
quote: God's mercy and love are great, but those who reject him should know that hell "exists and is eternal," Pope Benedict XVI said. ... "Christ came to tell us that he desires all of us in heaven and that hell, which isn't spoken about much in our time, exists and is eternal for those who close their hearts to his love," the pope said.
quote:I sincerely doubt that this statement actually captures the proper nuances of anyone's beliefs. I've heard about people who hold such beliefs all my life but whenever I've actually had the chance to discuss it with one of them I find that their beliefs are far more nuanced than that.
Well, count yourself lucky I guess. How many Christians have you met you DID say something to the effect of "If you do not accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior you will go to Hell," and what nuance did they later add to it?
Are you talking more nuanced than that? Because that level of nuance (coupled with the belief that God is genuinely omnipotent and therefore had no particular necessity to set up the multiverse that way) did not impress me. The only particular nuance my friend had to add was that a) Hell wasn't literally fire, but that it was the absence of God's love. b) Throughout your life, God gives you the chance to develop a relationship with him. If you haven't done so by the time you die, then your eternal soul (eternal being different from immortal, in that it is truly timeless) will be left outside of a relationship with God. Because outside of this life there will be no Time, there will be no further chances to accept God's love. And it just so happens that existing apart from God's love is agony.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought there was something with the governor of Texas about this: (from here)
quote:Gov. Rick Perry covered his face in prayer as Cornerstone Church pastor John Hagee and son Matthew, right, prayed for the good of the political candidates in attendance at the service in San Antonio on Sunday. Throughout much of the 90-minute service at Cornerstone Church, Mr. Perry sat on the red-carpeted stage next to the Rev. John Hagee. Mr. Perry was among about 60 mostly Republican candidates who accepted the invitation to be introduced to the megachurch's congregation of about 1,500, plus a radio and TV audience.
"If you live your life and don't confess your sins to God almighty through the authority of Christ and his blood, I'm going to say this very plainly, you're going straight to hell with a nonstop ticket," Mr. Hagee said during a service interspersed with religious and patriotic videos.
Asked afterward at a political rally whether he agreed with Mr. Hagee, the governor said he didn't hear anything that he would take exception to.
He said that he believes in the inerrancy of the Bible and that those who don't accept Jesus as their savior will go to hell.
posted
Does it matter whether there exists a large swath of Christians who believe it, if the people you are discussing it with don't?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
This is true. My mom identifies Catholic but doesn't believe my dad or I are going to Hell. But since all we're looking for (apparently) is ONE Christian who believes the nonbelievers get eternal damnation, the Pope certainly counts.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does it matter whether there exists a large swath of Christians who believe it, if the people you are discussing it with don't?
As I've said, no. But now the conversation has apparently shifted to Rabbit absolutely refusing to believe these people exist and various people trying to convince her otherwise. I'm not even sure what the last point we were actually talking about was.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've starting some trolling of my Christian and formerly-Christian acquaintances to make sure that I'm not just crazy. My first response:
Me: <redacted>, you belonged to an evangelical church, right? Was mere unbelief sufficient grounds for damnation? (i.e. accept Jesus as your personal savior or you're going to hell)
The so-called "Romans Road" is used as an outline: http://worshippingchristian.org/accept_jesus.html Romans 10:9,10 "...If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
I've got another inquiry into a religious discussion email group at work with a number of evangelical members. I'll report back when/if I get some replies there.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you haven't done so by the time you die, then your eternal soul (eternal being different from immortal, in that it is truly timeless) will be left outside of a relationship with God. Because outside of this life there will be no Time, there will be no further chances to accept God's love.
Also, I wasn't refuting that there was one person (clearly some people do believe that, it just isn't the universal belief that atheists tend to portray it as being); I was refuting this:
quote:
The Catholic Church, the largest Christian denomination, is pretty clear that anyone not baptized will end up in hell and only recently admitted some uncertainty on that point in the case of infants that die before baptism.(being subject to original sin alone) I was actually baptized Catholic, so I guess I'm good there.
The Catholic Church is not at all clear that anyone not baptized will end up in hell. I don't know any priests (though I am sure there are some) who teaches that. In fact, when mentoring and teaching people who are converting to Catholicism, it is one of the first things that we correct.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you haven't done so by the time you die, then your eternal soul (eternal being different from immortal, in that it is truly timeless) will be left outside of a relationship with God. Because outside of this life there will be no Time, there will be no further chances to accept God's love.
I think that element of the belief is something that was derived from the Bible as opposed to actually stated in the Bible. For various reasons he assumes (as I think we mostly were in this thread) that the holy ghost aspect of God exists outside Time, and that by extrapolation, so do our souls. Since you can't make choices outside of time it was a relatively logical conclusion that you only had this temporal life to choose God.
This wasn't something he told me until we had been talking about it for several years. So I assume it was either that his understanding of his church's teachings deepened (The difference between "Eternal" and "Immortal" isn't particularly easy to explain to many adults, let alone 12 year olds), or he found an interpretation that was more satisfying to him which meshed with his existing beliefs.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Raymond, where does he get this part?
quote:If you haven't done so by the time you die, then your eternal soul (eternal being different from immortal, in that it is truly timeless) will be left outside of a relationship with God. Because outside of this life there will be no Time, there will be no further chances to accept God's love.
Also, I wasn't refuting that there was one person (clearly some people do believe that, it just isn't the universal belief that atheists tend to portray it as being); I was refuting this:
Fine, so can we all just agree that the belief is 1) reprehensible and 2) common among Christians and move on already?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I've starting some trolling of my Christian and formerly-Christian acquaintances to make sure that I'm not just crazy. My first response:
Me: <redacted>, you belonged to an evangelical church, right? Was mere unbelief sufficient grounds for damnation? (i.e. accept Jesus as your personal savior or you're going to hell)
The so-called "Romans Road" is used as an outline: http://worshippingchristian.org/accept_jesus.html Romans 10:9,10 "...If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
I've got another inquiry into a religious discussion email group at work with a number of evangelical members. I'll report back when/if I get some replies there.
There is an enormous difference between what he says and what you said. Perhaps if you can see that, you can begin to understand my point. Note how he dodges the question you ask and instead talks about what is required to be saved. His emphasis is on being saved and what a person needs to do to be saved. He never actually addressed what happens if you aren't "saved". I recognize its a subtle difference, but it is not an unimportant or inconsequential difference.
There are also a lot of people making strawman claims about what I've said. I never claimed that no on actually believes all unbelievers will burn in hell. That hasn't ever been my claim. Mighty Cow said.
quote:I also wouldn't condemn anyone to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their whole existence, but most Christians believe that God does just that.
I said this was a classic strawman argument, it does not accurately capture what most Christians believe. It doesn't even accurately summarize what your evangelical friend said above. Ask him this question.
On another forum, some one said most Christians believe God condemns people to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their existence. Is this an accurate assessment of your beliefs?
If people will agree, then I stand correct.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is an enormous difference between what he says and what you said.
OK, a followup:
Me: So, don't believe in Christ = eternity in hell? Or is there a third option? Him: Yes, eternity in hell. Eternal damnation.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
"Since you can't make choices outside of time..." Right. Why not? (I am not so much asking you, it just never seemed logical to me.
swbarnes2, of course, I just gets aggravating when it is presented as a universally held Christian belief.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:On another forum, some one said most Christians believe God condemns people to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their existence. Is this an accurate assessment of your beliefs?
I'm fine to say that "most Christians" is unspported, though I'm still firmly of the belief that a very large number of Christians belief it. Evangelicals in particular.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Have you never actually lived in the American south or Midwest?
Heh. I live in the Midwest. A nice blue city in the midwest where we elect liberal politicians and I work for a university. Envy me.
Well, you don't have to as you pretty much do as well.
I lived in the South for 10 months, didn't talk religion with the natives, and got out as soon as possible. *shudder*
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:On another forum, some one said most Christians believe God condemns people to an eternity of torment for making a mistake in a small fraction of their existence. Is this an accurate assessment of your beliefs?
I'm fine to say that "most Christians" is unspported, though I'm still firmly of the belief that a very large number of Christians belief it. Evangelicals in particular.
Then ask the question on the evangelical site and see how many agree that this is what they believe. I know that is how you understand their beliefs. I know that one can argue that it is a logical consequence of what they believe.
I just sincerely doubt that they would agree that this is their belief. Prove me wrong.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I've said, no. But now the conversation has apparently shifted to Rabbit absolutely refusing to believe these people exist and various people trying to convince her otherwise. I'm not even sure what the last point we were actually talking about was.
Fair enough.
Yes, I've found that if someone absolutely refuses to believe something exists, and you can't point to an indisputable example of it in the room, it can be very difficult to get them to believe it exists, no matter how confident you are that it does in fact exist. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just sincerely doubt that they would agree that this is their belief.
Ah. But this is not a strawman.
A strawman is not something that someone would not admit to believing. It is something that someone does not believe.
If you believe a) that all children are cute; and b) that all cute things should be hit in the face with hammers; and c) that all hammers should be made of metal, it is not a strawman to say that you believe all children should be hit in the face with metal hammers -- even if you would never say this yourself. In fact, if you would not say this yourself, and are horrified by the logical inevitability of this conclusion, perhaps you have failed to understand your own premises properly.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, the statements in your example are straight forward and not open to nuanced interpretation. That can't be said for many religious statements.
"Accept Christ" is not a simple concept. "Hell" is not a simple concept. "Relationship" is not a simple concept. Nor is "eternity" a simple concept.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
