Is inclusivism just wishful thinking?

Mister Furious · Post by **Mister Furious** » Sun Sep 15, 2013 1:01 am

Greetings.

I am an unbeliever. I guess I'd best be described as an agonistic. I'm in my early 30s, and sort of "believed" in Christianity until my late teens. I don't remember all that much of it, but I do know that I was mostly afraid of hell. I don't think I ever really had a deep faith or spiritual connection to Christianity. This was largely due to being unable to fall for the idea that the avoiding-hell part was just one of many valuable aspects of the faith. That made no sense. It really was centered on fire insurance, and to be honest I loathed anything that reeked of even slightly 'liberal' attitudes towards Christiantiy in which hell was downplayed. Saying that Jesus gave you deep insight into the mysteries of the universe or really helped you introspectively understand your own, personal existence is fantastic, but a modicum of common sense screams out that its just a pleasant past-time compared to successfully spending eternity in paradise instead of torment. Oh sure, you have to really love and be devoted to Christianity to get there. Can't just fake it and expect God to fall for it on Judgement Day. But going to heaven instead of hell, FOREVER, is obviously the real benefit of doing so. This is what fundies teach, and what the medieval church always reminded the masses of.

Anyway, I re-investigate Christianity from time to time, seeing the debates with atheists or members of other religions, and it usually 're-activates' that deep seated fear of hell. And lately, its really been acting up again. I don't know why. Perhaps I'm just getting to old to distract myself anymore. I'm thinking of going back and trying Christianity for real this time if it doesn't go away. To be honest, I despise the idea of serving that kind of God or being in such a faith where, regardless of how much candy-coating about love and meaning one pours on it, a sentence of everlasting horror on most of humanity along with many believers who might not be hardcore enough in their faith is handed down. But I guess the conversion process helps reign in such passions. Along with helping you avoid burning in hell.

I like to hear and read about Christian inclusivism, I really do. It massages old wounds, so to speak. But it feels fake. Damnation for all unbelievers along with any unprofessional believers has been more or less the defining characteristic of Christianity for most of its history, and I don't see a world of difference today. And I think its because the idea of inclusivism, the idea that people who hear about Christianity, hear its message and don't believe it but still lead good lives can be saved, comes across as really just a theory. And if its just a theory, then why take your chances? Just assume it ain't true anyway. Not worth the risk of being wrong.

How does one elevate the inclusivist approach above a fairly well educated guess? I think you'd have to demonstrate it overwhelmingly in order to justify going around telling people they can be saved through other faiths, or none at all.

mdsimpson92 · Post by **mdsimpson92** » Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:31 am

Well, to be honest, among theologians there are three general interpretations of hell.

Back in the ancient times there were those who believed in apokastasis (reconciliation), who were based in the eastern churches, annihilationism which was based in Carthage (I believe this was the one that Martin Luther believed in), and there was the Eternal Damnation, which was based in Rome.

I imagine you already know the last one, so I will go into the other two.

Annihilationism does not really view hell as a place of punishment or really anything. It is simply death. That's it, you have rejected "eternal life" so to speak and thus you are dead. The whole fire and brimstone thing I'm pretty sure was borrowed from the ancient greek view of Tartarus.

In the case of the universal reconciliation, hell is more like purgatory.It is the purging of vices, or a place for those who persist in not accepting it. In this view, the idea is that God's love is so strong and infinite that he is willing to wait for as long as it takes until every person is "saved." This idea actually does have something of a following in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Though the way they phrase it is that there is the hope that all "may" be saved. They don't want to say all will be saved because it possibly would be implying that everyone will accept it, thus denying free will.

Here is an article by one Eastern Orthodox Bishop for a bit on their view: http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/11/1/5.aspx

Post by **Metacrock** » Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:52 am

welcome to the boards man. Good to hear form you. I enjoyed your comments. Just a few basic answers. Please feel free to jump into any of the discussions. I hope we can get some going again.

Mister Furious wrote:Greetings.

I am an unbeliever. I guess I'd best be described as an agonistic. I'm in my early 30s, and sort of "believed" in Christianity until my late teens. I don't remember all that much of it, but I do know that I was mostly afraid of hell. I don't think I ever really had a deep faith or spiritual connection to Christianity. This was largely due to being unable to fall for the idea that the avoiding-hell part was just one of many valuable aspects of the faith. That made no sense. It really was centered on fire insurance, and to be honest I loathed anything that reeked of even slightly 'liberal' attitudes towards Christiantiy in which hell was downplayed. Saying that Jesus gave you deep insight into the mysteries of the universe or really helped you introspectively understand your own, personal existence is fantastic, but a modicum of common sense screams out that its just a pleasant past-time compared to successfully spending eternity in paradise instead of torment. Oh sure, you have to really love and be devoted to Christianity to get there. Can't just fake it and expect God to fall for it on Judgement Day. But going to heaven instead of hell, FOREVER, is obviously the real benefit of doing so. This is what fundies teach, and what the medieval church always reminded the masses of.

I don't believe in hell. I don't quite understand what you are saying here. I get the part about how the hell things sorts make all the rest of it disingenuous. If you say there are all these other things that good about belief, but if you don't buy them there's this hell thing, that sort of disputes the good part. I don't see why chucking the whole thing is the logically answer. This is especially true when we examine the history of hell. They didn't have it in the OT you know. It really came form the Greeks.

I do think there's a problem for people make God their enemy. It's not a carrot and stick thing. It's just that if you refuse eternal life the alternative is ceasing to exist. That's what atheists choose anyway, at least by default.

Anyway, I re-investigate Christianity from time to time, seeing the debates with atheists or members of other religions, and it usually 're-activates' that deep seated fear of hell. And lately, its really been acting up again. I don't know why. Perhaps I'm just getting to old to distract myself anymore. I'm thinking of going back and trying Christianity for real this time if it doesn't go away. To be honest, I despise the idea of serving that kind of God or being in such a faith where, regardless of how much candy-coating about love and meaning one pours on it, a sentence of everlasting horror on most of humanity along with many believers who might not be hardcore enough in their faith is handed down. But I guess the conversion process helps reign in such passions. Along with helping you avoid burning in hell.

I don't blame you. I think hell is a stupid concept and it screwed up a lot of things.

you might be interested in my essay why I don't believe in hell where I show that Bible really is not teaching hell as a literal place.

http://www.doxa.ws/Theology/hell.html

It might be really hard to get over that sense of emotional blackmail.

I like to hear and read about Christian inclusivism, I really do. It massages old wounds, so to speak. But it feels fake. Damnation for all unbelievers along with any unprofessional believers has been more or less the defining characteristic of Christianity for most of its history, and I don't see a world of difference today. And I think its because the idea of inclusivism, the idea that people who hear about Christianity, hear its message and don't believe it but still lead good lives can be saved, comes across as really just a theory. And if its just a theory, then why take your chances? Just assume it ain't true anyway. Not worth the risk of being wrong.

you have to think about what "damnation" really represents. It's not a literal thing. it's not a punishment for doing "right." It's a consequence but it symbolizes a consequence. the actual consequence is non existence. That's what atheists are choosing anyway. Hell is a symbol of spiritual death. It's not an imposed punishment that's the symbol.

How does one elevate the inclusivist approach above a fairly well educated guess? I think you'd have to demonstrate it overwhelmingly in order to justify going around telling people they can be saved through other faiths, or none at all.

real actually liberal theological types don't believe the bible. The just don't buy religion in the same sense that fundamentalists do.

There's a great wealth of thought in theology and philosophy of religion justifying belief but most of it is by people who don't see the Bible the literal perfect word of God but as a record by humans about the human-divine relationship. It's a record that is diverse, it doesn't just have one type of reality but different purposes and approaches.

Post by **Metacrock** » Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:55 am

you might also enjoy reading my essay "Introduction to God arguemnts."

http://www.doxa.ws/meta_crock/Godarg_intro.html

Phenomenology and Method
http://www.doxa.ws/Theology/Phenom.html

Mister Furious · Post by **Mister Furious** » Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:05 pm

Metacrock,

I appreciate your response. I actually agree that, if you add up all the verses in the bible, conditional immortality is what the fate of the damned probably is. Not quite the same as annihilationism; basically the damned DO go to hell, but its temporary and they are eventually destroyed completely. I believe this is also a concept found in judaism [among other afterlife theories], and it stretches all the way back to the second temple period.

And yes, there is a startling lack of warnings of eternal damnation, or indeed any punishment after death, in the Old Testament, even in spite of numerous instances and details of punishments sinners can and do receive in this life. I never understood that. It seems pretty hard to regard the Bible as a holy book - why wasn't God warning people about the much more important eternal fate of their soul in between all those relatively unimportant parts about losing ones crops or paying restitution to people for one's mistakes? Just doesn't seem fair. I actually read a muslim critique of christianity that mentioned this.

On the other hand, the christian church has been preaching hell for a looong time. Way back to the early church fathers, in fact. Maybe they got it wrong, but its weird that there was so great a consensus. And of course everything falls back on Pascal's Wager. Using it against atheists is one thing, but when Christians debate each other about hell's existence, the wager is tough to deal with. Even if there is a 1 out of 3 chance ofeternal hell, that is is equally as likely as conditional immortality or universal reconciliation...hell, even if its just a 1 out of 50 chance; why risk it? Just proceed as if that hell were real anyway. I remember the echo of Matt Slick's words in one of his street preaching sermons on youtube: "eternity is a long time to be wrong". It scares the shit outta me.

And inclusivism is a whole nother re-hash of Pascal's Wager. Let's say conditional immortality is what the bible teaches. Nothing remotely as horrible as eternal hell. Congrats for that. But still a terrible fate for most human beings, and the question rears itself again: why risk telling people they might have a "second chance"? Isn't it best to assume that, though inclusivism is plausible, one needs pretty damn good evidence [no pun intended] to go around preaching it to people. The risks are too high.

Right?

Post by **Metacrock** » Tue Sep 17, 2013 7:05 am

Mister Furious wrote:Metacrock,

I appreciate your response. I actually agree that, if you add up all the verses in the bible, conditional immortality is what the fate of the damned probably is. Not quite the same as annihilationism; basically the damned DO go to hell, but its temporary and they are eventually destroyed completely. I believe this is also a concept found in judaism [among other afterlife theories], and it stretches all the way back to the second temple period.

And yes, there is a startling lack of warnings of eternal damnation, or indeed any punishment after death, in the Old Testament, even in spite of numerous instances and details of punishments sinners can and do receive in this life. I never understood that. It seems pretty hard to regard the Bible as a holy book - why wasn't God warning people about the much more important eternal fate of their soul in between all those relatively unimportant parts about losing ones crops or paying restitution to people for one's mistakes? Just doesn't seem fair. I actually read a muslim critique of christianity that mentioned this.

The idea of eternal conscoius torment came from the Greeks.

On the other hand, the christian church has been preaching hell for a looong time. Way back to the early church fathers, in fact. Maybe they got it wrong, but its weird that there was so great a consensus. And of course everything falls back on Pascal's Wager. Using it against atheists is one thing, but when Christians debate each other about hell's existence, the wager is tough to deal with. Even if there is a 1 out of 3 chance ofeternal hell, that is is equally as likely as conditional immortality or universal reconciliation...hell, even if its just a 1 out of 50 chance; why risk it? Just proceed as if that hell were real anyway. I remember the echo of Matt Slick's words in one of his street preaching sermons on youtube: "eternity is a long time to be wrong". It scares the shit outta me.

Look at how long they preached that the gifts had ceased then the Pentecostals blew them away. Look how long they preached a contradictory message about the teaching authority then Luther blew them away.

And inclusivism is a whole nother re-hash of Pascal's Wager. Let's say conditional immortality is what the bible teaches. Nothing remotely as horrible as eternal hell. Congrats for that. But still a terrible fate for most human beings, and the question rears itself again: why risk telling people they might have a "second chance"? Isn't it best to assume that, though inclusivism is plausible, one needs pretty damn good evidence [no pun intended] to go around preaching it to people. The risks are too high.

Right?

It may be a horrible fate but it's not an unjust fate. It's hat atheists want anyway.

Mister Furious · Post by **Mister Furious** » Wed Sep 18, 2013 1:10 pm

Well Meta, I appreciate your views but I guess for me its all about that margin of error stuff. Pascal's Wager. Your view of hell's non-existence might make sense...BUT WHAT IF YOU'RE WRONG?!?! ETERNITY IS A LONG TIME TO BE WRONG!!!!.

And your recent blog posts about medical miracles just scare me even more. I really hope none of them happened, because it just increases my chances of going to hell if they did. Being an agnostic doesn't really help, as I can't just deny God or the supernatural like atheists do. And, believe it or not, most militant ones do it 'cause they are terrified of going to hell. So here's a modest proposal: Metacrock vs. hell. You should take some heavyweight hell-fire-n-brimstone types and refute 'em. Hopefully.

And on a greater level, heres a proposal for a miracle: somebody should do a miracle to demonstrate what the Bible really says (or does not say) about hell.

Post by **Metacrock** » Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:01 am

Mister Furious wrote:Well Meta, I appreciate your views but I guess for me its all about that margin of error stuff. Pascal's Wager. Your view of hell's non-existence might make sense...BUT WHAT IF YOU'RE WRONG?!?! ETERNITY IS A LONG TIME TO BE WRONG!!!!.

Jesus isn't wrong. there is no verse that says eternal salvation is based upon belief in hell. Jesus says it's based upon belief in him.

And your recent blog posts about medical miracles just scare me even more. I really hope none of them happened, because it just increases my chances of going to hell if they did. Being an agnostic doesn't really help, as I can't just deny God or the supernatural like atheists do. And, believe it or not, most militant ones do it 'cause they are terrified of going to hell. So here's a modest proposal: Metacrock vs. hell. You should take some heavyweight hell-fire-n-brimstone types and refute 'em. Hopefully.

you are not trusting God. when I was a kid my Dad tried to teach me to swim and i was too hysterical to let go of the side of the pool and actually try kicking and moving my arms. I took longer to learn to swim because I wouldn't let go and trust.

And on a greater level, heres a proposal for a miracle: somebody should do a miracle to demonstrate what the Bible really says (or does not say) about hell.

how would that prove anything? Miracles are not accomplished becuase people merit them. People are not healed becuase they have right doctrine. The only thing the Bible ever says about how to get healed is to believe God will heal you.

Fear stunts growth. you must actively choose to put aside fear and trust God. That's the lesson of Peter walking on the water. He had get out of the boat and walk and as long as he looked at Jesus he was ok. Keep your eyes on Jesus don't be thinking about "what I sink?"

That's not an excuse for lazy exegesis. We need to be studious about understanding what the Bible is saying. But then we need to believe God.

have faith in God's love.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPPSG_SpojY

met · Post by **met** » Thu Sep 19, 2013 10:46 am

Mister Furious wrote:Well Meta, I appreciate your views but I guess for me its all about that margin of error stuff. Pascal's Wager. Your view of hell's non-existence might make sense...BUT WHAT IF YOU'RE WRONG?!?! ETERNITY IS A LONG TIME TO BE WRONG!!!!.

If Meta's wrong, which exclusionary, fundamentalistic group are you gonna choose?

Who's right, then? The hardcore protestant fundamentalists, the RCC exclusivists, the Wahhabi Muslim fundamentalists? Some other small sect that hardly anyone has ever even heard of? From a Pascal's wager POV, Meta's inclusive take has at least as much chance to be right as any of those claiming proprietary ownership.

Mister Furious · Post by **Mister Furious** » Thu Sep 19, 2013 4:44 pm

Metacrock wrote:Jesus isn't wrong. there is no verse that says eternal salvation is based upon belief in hell. Jesus says it's based upon belief in him.

Well then if you've been informed about Christianity and don't believe it, there would be no salvation, correct? No matter how good a person you've been. And maybe the penalty is not eternal hellfire, but its definately not salvation. According to your view, it is annihlation of the soul, and whenever anyone of otherwise sound mind hears the message of Christianity and doesn't believe it, then a-priori, zero exceptions, they are not saved, if salvation is in fact based on belief in Jesus.

how would that prove anything? Miracles are not accomplished becuase people merit them. People are not healed becuase they have right doctrine. The only thing the Bible ever says about how to get healed is to believe God will heal you.

So if the Bible really says there is no eternal hell, and some miracles happen to or by people who say there is, then the Bible takes precidence. Technically, that does make sense. But if it happened in real life, I'd still be scared of going to hell. I'd probably be saying something like: "well, theres a good chance the bible was more complicated than we thought so we'll just assume hell is real anyway". Wouldn't you?

Fear stunts growth. you must actively choose to put aside fear and trust God. That's the lesson of Peter walking on the water. He had get out of the boat and walk and as long as he looked at Jesus he was ok. Keep your eyes on Jesus don't be thinking about "what I sink?"

That's not an excuse for lazy exegesis. We need to be studious about understanding what the Bible is saying. But then we need to believe God.

have faith in God's love.

But those verses about believing in Jesus to get eternal life, or him being the only path to salvation...how do you interpret them? Where are the inclusivist verses? And the voices of all those fundies just keep ringing in my ear whenever i think if a God of love and not fear.

Doxa

Is inclusivism just wishful thinking?

Re: Is inclusivism just wishful thinking?

Re: Is inclusivism just wishful thinking?

Re: Is inclusivism just wishful thinking?

Re: Is inclusivism just wishful thinking?

Re: Is inclusivism just wishful thinking?

Re: Is inclusivism just wishful thinking?

Re: Is inclusivism just wishful thinking?

Re: Is inclusivism just wishful thinking?

Re: Is inclusivism just wishful thinking?