Speaking as a former Evangelical Christian, I was always perplexed by why my particular sect—which was pretty damned radical about spreading the Gospel—wasn’t much more radical. In my mind, it was very rational to be radical with our 65-90 year temporary lifespan on earth in order to “save” as many people from infinite torture as possible (sell all possessions, focus money in unevangelized areas, etc.)...but many people didn’t seem to behaving in ways that signalled they understood this.
In retrospect, here is why IMO that happens:
They don’t understand (50% of people) - Eternity just doesn’t register conceptually. They see hell as bad, but cannot fathom the degree of badness, certainly not enough to be radical about “witnessing” to others.
They don’t care (10-40% of people) - They don’t think spending their lives helping others get saved is that important because it benefits them relatively little. (No one ever says this out loud.) It seems to me to be an empathy disposition issue.
They don’t think being radical will be effective (10-40%) - Some in this group are sincere—they believe a more nuanced, patient approach to evangelism will yield the best results. Further, they tend to be of a more “God is sovereign and will do what he wills” theological stance—they tend toward pre-destination, etc. vs. the idea the whole world can be saved. Others in this group actually belong to the “I don’t care” group, but feign “God is sovereign” beliefs because they don’t wanna evangelize.
Some small remnant does understand the implications of eternity in hell and have empathy strong enough to be deeply affected. They typically go crazy or leave the church.
A number of Christian theological sources hold that the blessed in heaven will witness the suffering of the damned in hell, and that the suffering of the damned shall contribute in some regard to the satisfaction or pleasure of the blessed.
The nature of this contribution is a matter of some dispute, though. Some theological sources take it to be a contrast: heaven looks even better if you know the alternative exists. Some take it to be satisfaction with the perfect justice of God. And for some it’s pretty stark schadenfreude. Across these sources, though, the blessed are seen as incapable of experiencing pity, because pity is a form of suffering and they are incapable of suffering.
Which shows that Craig is more the politician than the Christian. Whatever happened to “Thy will be done!”?
It’s God’s will that the majority of mankind gets tortured eternally. If you don’t approve, if you aren’t eager to pour on the hot coals yourself, you’re not a real Christian. His will be done!
Some view it as an inseparable aspect of an eternal God’s holy character that evil be punished forever. “The wails of the damned are a testament to God’s love” said some old brimstone-type preacher/theologian (Jonathan Edwards?).
Most in the Evangelical movement see Hell as a place not intended for man. It’s a necessary evil—or rather a necessary punishment for evil. God hates it and wish it weren’t so, but… yada, yada.
Some seem to get a smug satisfaction from the idea their enemies will end up losing so hard. Christians do—more so everyday— take a bit of an intellectually beating for continued belief in the face of mounting evidence. It isn’t surprising that they get some consolation from that fact their enemies are gonna get it.
And, statiscally, some are sociopaths and sadists who get warm fuzzies over the idea of the eternal conscious suffering of people in human ovens.
God hates it and wish it weren’t so, but… yada, yada.
How did the all powerful guy who created the universe knowing exactly what was going to happen become a helpless little waif in the face of some human masturbating?
What transparent rationalization. Poor little helpless God is powerless to prevent people from going to Hell and being tortured forever, because you know, he created the universe exactly that way knowing exactly how it would turn out.
The grown up conclusion is that he wanted to torture a bunch of people. It’s all part of the plan. But if they were grownups, they wouldn’t believe in invisible all powerful wizards in the first place. Ugh.
It’s a pretty fascinating study in how you can get good people to believe, endorse and argue for sadistic and irrational things.
“God is perfect. Merciful, loving, just, etc. He loves you more than anything. And He will burn you. Forever. Because He has to. No, He can’t use His power to change the circumstances. That would be outside of God’s consistent character. Anyway, people choose to go to hell, God doesn’t send them there. God loves us enough to preserve our free will to choose Him, or reject Him. All you have to do is accept His free gift of salvation. Remember, He loves you and He wants you to escape the torture chamber He created.”
he created the universe exactly that way knowing exactly how it would turn out.
To be fair, there is a theological strain called open theism that posits God only knows the range of possibilities in the future, rather than some exactly determined course.
More broadly, there is a “softening” of hell in Christianity that makes it more of a metaphorical creation of people intent on rebeling against God than some kind of literal, God-created torture chamber. The interpretation is up in the air.
Sounds like Jonathan Edwards, or maybe Timothy Dwight. Both of them have Yale residential colleges named after them. No one cares much about the Hell stuff here, though, probably because John Calhoun (another college namesake) was an infamous slaveholder.
Isn’t it also that much of the assent to the dogma is basically just signaling that one is part of the tribe. I don’t think a lot of people care about what is true—but they do care about their membership in the club.
Speaking as a former Evangelical Christian, I was always perplexed by why my particular sect—which was pretty damned radical about spreading the Gospel—wasn’t much more radical. In my mind, it was very rational to be radical with our 65-90 year temporary lifespan on earth in order to “save” as many people from infinite torture as possible (sell all possessions, focus money in unevangelized areas, etc.)...but many people didn’t seem to behaving in ways that signalled they understood this.
In retrospect, here is why IMO that happens:
They don’t understand (50% of people) - Eternity just doesn’t register conceptually. They see hell as bad, but cannot fathom the degree of badness, certainly not enough to be radical about “witnessing” to others.
They don’t care (10-40% of people) - They don’t think spending their lives helping others get saved is that important because it benefits them relatively little. (No one ever says this out loud.) It seems to me to be an empathy disposition issue.
They don’t think being radical will be effective (10-40%) - Some in this group are sincere—they believe a more nuanced, patient approach to evangelism will yield the best results. Further, they tend to be of a more “God is sovereign and will do what he wills” theological stance—they tend toward pre-destination, etc. vs. the idea the whole world can be saved. Others in this group actually belong to the “I don’t care” group, but feign “God is sovereign” beliefs because they don’t wanna evangelize.
Some small remnant does understand the implications of eternity in hell and have empathy strong enough to be deeply affected. They typically go crazy or leave the church.
Don’t some want the wicked to suffer eternally?
A number of Christian theological sources hold that the blessed in heaven will witness the suffering of the damned in hell, and that the suffering of the damned shall contribute in some regard to the satisfaction or pleasure of the blessed.
The nature of this contribution is a matter of some dispute, though. Some theological sources take it to be a contrast: heaven looks even better if you know the alternative exists. Some take it to be satisfaction with the perfect justice of God. And for some it’s pretty stark schadenfreude. Across these sources, though, the blessed are seen as incapable of experiencing pity, because pity is a form of suffering and they are incapable of suffering.
For a number of sources on the subject, see this master’s thesis in theology.
William Lane Craig disagrees, though, holding that God may shield the blessed from awareness of the suffering of the damned.
Which shows that Craig is more the politician than the Christian. Whatever happened to “Thy will be done!”?
It’s God’s will that the majority of mankind gets tortured eternally. If you don’t approve, if you aren’t eager to pour on the hot coals yourself, you’re not a real Christian. His will be done!
Yes.
Some view it as an inseparable aspect of an eternal God’s holy character that evil be punished forever. “The wails of the damned are a testament to God’s love” said some old brimstone-type preacher/theologian (Jonathan Edwards?).
Most in the Evangelical movement see Hell as a place not intended for man. It’s a necessary evil—or rather a necessary punishment for evil. God hates it and wish it weren’t so, but… yada, yada.
Some seem to get a smug satisfaction from the idea their enemies will end up losing so hard. Christians do—more so everyday— take a bit of an intellectually beating for continued belief in the face of mounting evidence. It isn’t surprising that they get some consolation from that fact their enemies are gonna get it.
And, statiscally, some are sociopaths and sadists who get warm fuzzies over the idea of the eternal conscious suffering of people in human ovens.
It’s a potpourri, really.
How did the all powerful guy who created the universe knowing exactly what was going to happen become a helpless little waif in the face of some human masturbating?
What transparent rationalization. Poor little helpless God is powerless to prevent people from going to Hell and being tortured forever, because you know, he created the universe exactly that way knowing exactly how it would turn out.
The grown up conclusion is that he wanted to torture a bunch of people. It’s all part of the plan. But if they were grownups, they wouldn’t believe in invisible all powerful wizards in the first place. Ugh.
It’s a pretty fascinating study in how you can get good people to believe, endorse and argue for sadistic and irrational things.
“God is perfect. Merciful, loving, just, etc. He loves you more than anything. And He will burn you. Forever. Because He has to. No, He can’t use His power to change the circumstances. That would be outside of God’s consistent character. Anyway, people choose to go to hell, God doesn’t send them there. God loves us enough to preserve our free will to choose Him, or reject Him. All you have to do is accept His free gift of salvation. Remember, He loves you and He wants you to escape the torture chamber He created.”
To be fair, there is a theological strain called open theism that posits God only knows the range of possibilities in the future, rather than some exactly determined course.
More broadly, there is a “softening” of hell in Christianity that makes it more of a metaphorical creation of people intent on rebeling against God than some kind of literal, God-created torture chamber. The interpretation is up in the air.
Sounds like Jonathan Edwards, or maybe Timothy Dwight. Both of them have Yale residential colleges named after them. No one cares much about the Hell stuff here, though, probably because John Calhoun (another college namesake) was an infamous slaveholder.
Isn’t it also that much of the assent to the dogma is basically just signaling that one is part of the tribe. I don’t think a lot of people care about what is true—but they do care about their membership in the club.