WHY TRUST THE "PEOPLE GO TO HELL FOREVER" DOCTRINE?
CHRISTIAN ASSERTION: People and we don't know if the number is great or small
go to Hell for all eternity for dying without being in peace with God. If
we reject the doctrine of Hell because we cannot stand it what is to stop us
getting rid of other doctrines we cannot stand?
Reason says
So unprofessional is this book that it does not make a distinction between
doctrines that we should stand though we don’t like them and ones that we
shouldn’t endure. The adulterer would not be able to stand the ban on adultery
but he should. Everlasting punishment in Hell by God is different.
To argue that we should endure the horrible doctrine is simply cruel.
And as for the other doctrines we cannot stand, none of them are as bad as that
one.
The argument overlooks the fact that if other doctrines may be doubted if Hell
is to be doubted then who cares? It is wrong to urge people to adopt an evil
doctrine on the grounds that doubting it will call other doctrines into question
too.
To tell people they may as well drop doctrines other than Hell if they drop Hell
is sidestepping the issue. The question is, Is it right to say Hell exists and
can God be justified in letting Hell exist or creating it?
Christians say, "We believe in Hell which is a state of everlasting suffering
and separation from God from which there is no escape for sinners who die
rejecting him. It is unthinkable that Hell could not exist for that makes Jesus
and the Church liars."
Jesus and the Church might be just mistaken. And considering the kind of
dishonesty the Church is riddled with would it really be unthinkable for it to
be lying?
It is sectarian to say it is unthinkable that the Church is lying for a member
of any different religion could say the same about the people who set up his
religion. Are the authors suggesting that the argument only applies to the
Catholic Church for it is the only good religion? They have to be!
The book argues that since most believers in Christ accept Hell they are
probably right that it exists. That is a hideous argument. It is basically
asking us to accept an evil or potentially evil doctrine on the authority of
human opinion! It is really about wanting to believe in the nasty doctrine of
Hell. It is wrong to guess that we can be bad enough to fight God forever. You
need proof for things like that. Thinking it is not enough.
No genuinely good person would say that we must be capable of hating everybody
for all eternity just because we can't call Jesus and the Church liars. If the
pope said that paedophiles want to become demons at death to possess children
what would we think of somebody who argued that we must accept this for we must
not call the pope mistaken or a liar? It shows plenty of concern for defending
the doctrine-maker but none for the slander of the human race. It is no excuse
to say that no specific person is being accused. To say any person could choose
to be evil for all eternity insults us all for you could be speaking about
anybody.
Christianity actually wants to believe in Hell. The Christians don't look for
evidence that people can be stubborn enough to go to Hell for all eternity. No.
They decide people can be bad enough just because Jesus Christ or somebody said
so. If they started with evidence from human nature their adopting the belief
might not be motivated by vindictiveness. Indeed evidence itself wouldn't
justify belief that human nature could go to Hell and stay there. Proof would be
needed. The less evidence the more vindictiveness lurks there. It may be
stronger subliminally than consciously.
If I decide you committed a crime just because I felt you were guilty then I am
vindictive. If I decided it because of the evidence then it is completely
different. And so it is with the idea of Hell.
Anybody staying in Hell for all eternity is suffering from stupidity not evil.
Thus the doctrine that they deserve it is vindictive.
It seems that if there is no everlasting punishment then Jesus is only a teacher
and prophet but not saviour. So what is our reply to that?
That we should believe in everlasting punishment just because we don’t want to
believe that Jesus wasn’t saviour? When such an evil doctrine comes with the
Jesus package then Jesus should be rejected.
He alone could still have died for our sins to save us from guilt and punishment
even if there is no Hell.
The argument shows that Jesus being saviour from sin is not important to those
Christians but believing he is saviour from Hell is. And those are the people
who claim to believe in objective morality! They love sin and regard religion as
mere hell-fire insurance.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics page 297 argues that if Hell is not true then
if we don’t like God who punishes in Hell we can worship another. It says that
Hell follows from the exclusivity of God.
Reason replies: But even if we do sincerely adore another God we indirectly
adore God. No matter what kind of God we invent he will have some features of
the real God. The book itself argues that sincerity can save despite the errors
so it has no right using this sectarian and arrogant answer.
It is not true that Hell follows from God being the only God.
If Hell and God did go together that would be one reason for dropping belief in
God. We should not have a faith that risks bringing harm to others or risks
condoning an abomination.