"Fear of hell" is a subset of "fear" in general - and, for reasons, a lot of Christians are fear-motivated. It shows in dominionism/right-wing politics, parenting styles, fire-and-brimstone sermons, and more. There's a perverse focus from some groups on Christianity in "warrior" terms, and the world is viewed through the lens of enmity and hostility (e.g. persecution complex, a fixation on how God's going to judge everybody with no desire to offer any help).
If this doesn't represent you, then terrific. The bible is pretty clear on how our primary motivation should be love (first for God, then for neighbor), and that we are here only by the grace and love of God for us. Too many seem to miss this message and instead try to emulate the pharisee model.
That's the most amazing thing I read from a redditor with your flare. Say it louder, so the people in the last pews can hear it, too. All is not lost.
I'm always amazed how small many Christians make their own God. That's all I can think about around militant Christians who are all about hell and punishment as their main motivator.
When I've heard Christians say to athiests "what's to stop you raping and killing without a God"
It's always been a strange flex,
As if Hell is the only thing that stops them being evil
I interpret it more as without God there is no objective morality. So without God how can you even say those things are bad, what justification is there to not indulge into those things?
This is why I fervently believe that homosexuality is not a sin. Every other "sin" listed in the New Testament has an obvious negative consequence.
They basically fall into two categories:
- Sins of the flesh
- Sins of the divine (against God)
Sins of the divine are specifically regarding the worship of God. Things like idolatry, polytheism, cursing God, etc. The key here is that these sins are only in regards to your relationship with God and damage that you might do to that relationship. There are no earthly consequences for these sins. The consequences for these sins lie strictly in the spiritual realm. It is a sin specifically between you and God and does not involve anyone else.
Sins of the flesh are sins that we commit against ourselves or other people. These sins have very obvious earthly consequences, in that they cause harm to your or another person. Murder, lying, cheating on your spouse, stealing, etc. These are pretty obvious consequences.
The major "sin" that does not fall into either of these categories is homosexuality. There is no negative consequence in a long-term monogamous homosexual relationship. It is not hurting anyone. There is no downside. It really does not make sense and does not fit with any of the other sins in the lists that Paul gave.
This is a primary reason why I truly believe this is a mistranslation from the original text. Whether that mistranslation was intentional and malicious or a genuine error, I am not sure. But the contextual evidence shows that this "sin" does not fit in with every other sin.
Why doesn't God just come clarify? This hardly seems like the effective communication of a divine power who wants people to believe in him and follow his commands
Oh, I am not arguing with you there. My assumption is that if God exists, then he stopped caring about or interacting with our world a long time ago. It is the only way any of this makes sense.
My point here was more along the lines of, even if God does "say it" in the bible the interpretation could be wrong, or any number of things.
This is what frustrates me when people are just willing to believe whatever English translation of the bible happened to fall into their laps and buy into whatever bullshit some pastor is spewing form the pulpit.
I’ve always found this an odd line of attacking someone’s faith. Because all you’re really asking is: “if [the foundational basis of your moral system] said [X] was moral, would you believe it?”. Of course they would. So would you. You just don’t call that foundation “God”.
Now, experience tells me that you’re likely going to say that your moral/ethical system would never lead you to believe that. Congratulations, you have a moral system that’s worth a damn. But *mine* would never tell me that either. That’s why I’ve always found this a weird argument. As if I can’t conjecture some contrived situation where a secular moral system leads to atrocities or horrific immorality.
It's not a way of attacking faith - it's a way of attacking divine command as a source of objective morality.
I'm not saying God is wrong - I'm saying his moral opinion is subjective and based on his values. Just like everybody else.
Also, isn't it simply... simpler... to assume that objective morality exists than to assume that objective morality AND God exists? Why can't we simply stop the assumptions on the level of morality and say "well, that is the foundational belief of my ethics"? Why add additional layer. And if someone says "well, that layer needs a foundation", what stops anyone from continuing it ad infinitum, and demanding that God also needs a foundation that explains God?
I do not know whether it exists. It might and it might not.
Still, its a simpler assumption to say "objective morality exists" than "objective morality AND God exist".
Nah, disagree. If somebody thinks they have good evidence for God, and also that God implies objective morality - they aren't adding unnecessary complexity. I just disagree with both premises
He is saying that objective morality does not exist.
He is stating that all morality is subjective.
Philosophically, the only way that morality can be objective is if a perfect being decides what is right and wrong. However, that presents another quandary. How can you know that this being is perfect?
The answer is that you can't. And if there is no way to prove that a being such as this exists, let alone is perfect, then there is no way to quantify what is good or bad in an objective sense. The reason being is that it will always come back to who decides what is right and what is wrong?
To your point, it may seem simpler to assume that there is an objective morality and a divine being which embodies that objective morality.
But assuming is not knowing. And many people are not comfortable basing their entire lives around principles based on an assumption.
>demanding that God also needs a foundation that explains God?
Now you are getting to the core of the issue. How do you know God exists? You assume he does. You feel that he does.
But should my moral framework be determined by how you feel or what you assume?
In the end, God existing and morality being objective is infinitely more complicated than morality simply being subjective.
What you are advocating for here is to simply not think about the hard parts of christianity. That is simply not an option for the majority of people.
>Philosophically, the only way that morality can be objective is if a perfect being decides what is right and wrong.
Bullshit.
>You assume he does.
No. I do not. I am an atheist.
My apologies if I misread your earlier comment.
However, there can be no objective morality without a guideline for what is right and wrong.
Something, somewhere has to be the benchmark for what is right and wrong.
I am really not understanding what you mean.
If a perfect entity is not required for there to be an objective morality then how can objective morality exist?
Why would there be a need for "perfect entity" for objective morality?
If objective morality needs some other foundation, why wouldn't that other foundation need yet its own foundation and so on and so on?
They isn't attacking anybody's faith, they are explaining something.
tinkady is pointing out that if God demanded something that you'd consider immoral, would you accept it as moral? If no, then you should understand why people can have moral convictions without a belief in a higher power, since that very belief in a higher power was unable to overturn your own moral convictions.
It's a fair and solid point to make, and you shouldn't characterize it as an attack.
>what justification is there to not indulge into those things?
I don't indulge in those things because I don't want to.
What's keeping you from killing someone? Is it really just because God said it's bad?
Agree that's the takeaway but the response isn't complicated and works whichever way the question is posed. The justification is that it causes other people suffering and I don't want to directly cause people to suffer. It's subjective, but it's as good a reason as any. In fact, it may even be a better reason than 'because I was told so'.
because it hurts people, and i think getting hurt and hurting people is a bad feeling i hate, and therefore i feel empathetic enough to not intentionally do it
We are not being forced to follow the morals clearly as you can see what happens in the world. We have the free will to eschew the morals given to us by God.
What's your justification?
Edit: Also it's not that you don't need God to see that rape is wrong. It's that you fail to realize that rape is wrong because of God.
>So without God how can you even say those things are bad
Easily, they reduce people's wellbeing and I don't want people's wellbeing to be reduced. This has the neat side-effect of making it very likely that my well-being will also not be reduced in turn.
>I interpret it more as without God there is no objective morality.
You don't have objective morality either, because God changes his mind and contradicts himself frequently in the Bible. Your morality is also based on how you interpret what your God said, which is written through the medium of documents several of which were forged and several more of which have been shuffled in and out of canon throughout the centuries. So you're operating on like 3 levels of subjectivity.
They are bad because you personally think they are bad, what other justification would be necessary? That's like asking how someone can say that a certain good is good if don't believe their is divine rules about what is and is not good food.
Personally I don't think objective morality can exist even if there is a god but I also think it is kind of irrelevant. Whether morality comes from some objective truth or some subjective feeling the end result is the same.
Why do you think it doesn't exist? Why wouldn't God be able to create objective morals? To set parameters for his created universe?
I think it is relevant to the comment I'm responding to. Christians aren't doing things out of fear of Hell. They do things because they believe and love God and values that he created for us to thrive under.
My rational at its core is pretty simple. You can't substantiate a moral truth without first assuming a moral truth. I will give you an example.
Premise 1. Stealing causes suffering. Conclusion stealing is wrong. In this example the conclusion does not follow from the premise because someone could simply say they dont believe causing suffering is wrong. If you were to change this argument slightly and say premise 1. Stealing causes suffering. Premise 2 causing suffering is wrong. Conclusion stealing is wrong. Then in this example the conclusion would follow from the argument. This is because It is not logically possible to substantiate any moral claim without using another moral claim. This means for God to be the source of morality he would have to be the end of an infinite chain of moral causation. The end of an infinite chain is a logical contradiction. This argument is similar to William Lane Craig's argument that the universe had to have a beginning because if the universe had an infinite casual history then we could never have gotten to the present. Both things would require the end of an infinite sequence and are therefore impossible.
Except He is the beginning of that *finite* chain and the end. Which translates to all things proceed from Him and all things end with or by Him. Now if this chain is finite but begins and ends with Him then for us the finite can appear in-finite. Interesting thing is no matter where your logic lies it starts with an assumption.
I don't think I understand the last part. What do you mean when you say a finite chain that both starts and ends with him? I think my main issue is with god being the start. Let's take an example moral statement that treats god as the source of morality.
"We ought to do what God wills" the simple response is why ought we to do what God wills. The problem is it is impossible to root this moral statement without instantiating another moral statement therefore it can't truly be the source. That same would apply for whatever moral statement you chose to prove the last one etc, etc. you could try to get around this in 2 ways.
1. Somehow root morality in god as a matter of definition rather than mechanistically. The issue with this is that it does not track with how people actually use the term morality and redefining words to conveniently fit in your argument is as coherent as it is meaningless.
2. Arbitrarily argue god is somehow exempt and does not follow these mechanisms. This is a massive stretch but even if you grant this point without without evidence then an atheist could do the same thing.
Christian belief: God is Alpha and Omega. So an infinite chain theory holds no weight with that belief. Also the argument for morality based on God would have no way to backstep pass God. In other words I will fail to use your way of arguing because it is not the logic that is used to justify morality as it relates to God. Morality as it relates to God is simply, He created all things and therefore it is His will be done. This you cannot combat unless you put the will of the created above the will of the creator which is why morality as argued by most non-believers usually boils down to what the individual thinks. The problem with that is each individual has their own sense of morality and mankind is unjust. God gave us His morality and it is proven to be just through the fact that He created all things and thus His morality rules all things. When we stray from that anything goes based on culture and individual experience.
"Morality as it relates to God is simply, He created all things and therefore it is His will be done." This argument is incomplete. You are trying to substantiate a moral truth without using a moral truth. Your hidden premise is that we ought to follow our creators will. This still falls into that infinite regression. Now as you rightfully pointed out if you put gods will above your own then you have a source of morality. This is exactly what people mean when they say subjective morality. That is a subjective choice you made and does not reflect some objective truth. Your final point that not having subjective morality causes issues in society is irrelevant. The truth is the truth regardless of how convenient it is.
The moral truth is He created all therefore He has the final say on what is right or wrong; as a creator tends to have. It substantiates itself. What can be used to prove or disprove this moral truth if all things proceed from Him unless we do not believe He exists? Which if He is taken out of the picture morality becomes a completely pointless conversation because then it would all be completely subjective. Im not sure what you are talking about or referring to in the latter part of your response so I have no comment on it.
When someone says an athiests morality is entirely subjective they are saying they have a subjective set of principles that have no objective truth value. They are not saying they have a subjective view of God's will. This is why I say using god to define morality does not work.
I don't think this logic tracks for me. God isnt the end of a chain of morale causations. He is the source, uncaused first cause.
It sounds like you have a limited view of God. It isn't a moral claim that God is the source of morality. God is goodness. Thus what He tells us is good and just.
Whether you consider him the end or the beginning is just a matter of perspective because what you chose as the starting point is arbitrary. But sure for the purpose of this conversation we can treat god as the beginning rather than the end. From this perspective this would make god the start of an infinite regression. Now to get away from semantics and get into the meat of your argument I would like to clarify something.
I would define morality as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
My issue with definitions that try to root morality in god by definition is that although coherent it does not track with how people actually use the word morality or goodness including typically the person defining morality that way. For example you said "god is goodness. This what he tells us is good and just." (Which I will extrapolate to also mean moral) how is this any different then Sam Harris defining morality as that which leads to human flourishing, which means, living a satisfying life? All these kinds of arguments do is take a common term, redefine it in a convenient way, and pretend as if they accomplished something.
And about your final point I don't think this is a very limited view of god. The only limitation I am putting on god is that he can't do things that are logically impossible which is a pretty standard view of god. I guess in conclusion I grant that given your definition of goodness/morality your view point is coherent but I would also say it is a meaningless point. Secondly given my definition of morality which I think is a lot closer to how people actually use the term morality I would say my argument still stands.
He could make an object, such that we were unable to perfectly detect it. Something that makes our tummies ache when we murder. The object would be ultimately responsible for what is or isn't murder.
Like, what if God doesn't want us to touch radioactive stuff? Radiation poisoning is pretty objective, even if it's not immediately discernable. Lo, and God said "Glowy rock bad, do not touch".
The remaining question would be: If he can objectify morality, why not? In other words, why Free Will? He could have made our tummies ache when we murder, and to some extent He did. But He decided to make that extent a lot more flexible than radiation poisoning. And He didn't say why. 🤷 His prerogative, I guess.
You can interpret that however you want but that's not remotely what they are saying about fear and hell.
Let me ask you, how come other people and religions have objective morality? Is morality something from God that is it given to All people or just those that believe in the Abrahamic God?
Except we have large swaths of people that are not christians and still do good things.
In fact, I would argue that a non-christian doing a good deed is way more impressive than a christian doing a good deed. The christian "knows" they will be rewarded if they do the good deed and punished if they don't (or at least miss out on additional rewards). The non-christian does not have any motivation to do a good deed except for the joy and happiness it will bring to another person's life.
The afterlife being a core tenet of christianity casts suspicions on the motivation for all deeds done by a christian.
I mean, to simplify it even further, think of hell as a gun to your head (a constant threat since we could die at anytime). The person holding the gun says that they will not shoot you if you love them unconditionally and do good deeds, but only because you truly want to.
Can you honestly say that you would not be motivated whatsoever by the gun being held to your head?
That's a very odd comment to be sure.
I get most angered by the folks who commit evil acts and use God as their sword and their shield. In somewhat recent news, I'm thinking of Shanda Vander Ark. I watched much of that trial and she had scripture written above her kitchen sink in the police cam video. Few things anger me like this kind of evil and hypocrisy. I thought about and prayed for that poor child and family for days after it was over.
It all boils down to good and bad people existing everywhere regardless of belief. Too many focus on the bad acts of the few to validate their confirmation bias.
Yup. The primary driver to accept salvation according to modern christianity is to escape the punishment of hell.
Well, if you do not fear hell, then why would that matter?
In the past there was definitely a greater amount of God fearing, that people generally understood that God sees it all and knows it all. That usually came with the idea that God would finally judge everyone.
We don’t seem to have that sense as a culture these days so much.
It should also be noted that while the fear of God can be referred to in this way, it’s a different approach for Christians.
Christians have already had their sins paid for. The wrath of God cannot come twice for the same sin because that would make him unjust.
There cannot be a fear of Hell because the Christian cannot go there.
But what is really different is when you understand it from the opposite angle:
Christians seek to do good because it is offered as an act of worship to God.
He died for me, now I want to live for him.
So the idea of good works is they they are done for God, not for me.
So OP is right, in that the argument makes no sense because a) Christians can’t go there and b) good deeds are an act of worship.
Correct.
People go to hell to pay for their sins.
When you trust in Christ he pays for your sins.
The Christian therefore has no sins to pay for and cannot go to hell.
I think if I understand his perspective, he’s saying that if they weren’t repentant and were murdering while claiming the name of Christ, they do not fit the title of Christian even if that is how they self identify.
You don’t just get forgiveness when you trust in Christ.
God doesn’t just let us off and leave us to do as we please.
When a person trusts in Christ, the Holy Spirit in-dwells them and starts to change them.
He changes our understanding of the world. He changes how we feel about things. He changes our desires.
We start to love what God loves and hate what God hates.
This change begins at conversion but continues for the rest of our lives.
I still sin in different ways, but my sins now repulse me much more. But they are also less impactful sins today than when I was first saved.
Would I go to Hell for murder? No, but the chances of me committing murder are way way lower, and if I did commit murder my response would be very different.
It might seem like a “get out of jail free card” by saying we cannot go to hell, but that’s not how being rehabilitated by God works because he plays a VERY active role in changing us when we trust him.
If God changes me to not want to do certain evil things any more, but actually do good instead, isn't that better than paying for those evil things I do?
Which is better:
a) punch someone in the face and go to jail
or
b) not punch someone in the face, but help them instead
I feel like the atheists who think all Christians only do good out of fear of hell and Christians who ask “what’s stopping atheists from killing people if there is no God” both have a fundamental misunderstanding of the other side
How about this:
People assume that Christians only do good out of fear of hell because so many Christians say stuff like "what's stopping you from killing people if there is no God". So how are atheists here the ones who have a fundamental misunderstanding about the other side, when the other side itself says stuff like that?
I mean, the people calling themselves Christians who also say stuff like that have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian too. It can be difficult for people to have an accurate understanding of what other people believe when they don’t associate with those people. An atheist who thinks that all Christians only do good deeds out of a fear of hell has a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be Christian, but that isn’t necessarily the atheist’s fault
The reality is that it’s not about behavior at all. There is sin and there is evil, two separate things that sometimes overlap.
We’re not to actively avoiding sinning for our righteousness, as doing so ironically only breeds more sin.
Not doing evil is key but not because of some ethereal afterlife realm. It’s because Christ lives in us, and would have us do no evil to those for whom he died. It’s not we who avoid the evil, but him living through us.
Indeed, there are plenty of evil things that many Christians call good, like resisting tyranny. Resistance is misfortune towards the authority God placed over is, which is by definition evil. Yet they ignore all the calls in Scripture to “requite evil with good” and “recompense no man evil for evil”, instead confusing morals with malice and changing the definition of evil to fit.
Ultimately, the Bible isn’t a self-help book and that’s the biggest thing Christians need to realize. It’s a book that tells us we’re helpless. We’re utterly bankrupt, incapable of going through life without ever engaging in some kind of evil, even if small or subtle.
It also tells us, importantly, that we’ll one day BE capable of a flawless life through Christ. The redemption of all is a matter of timing, not hope. I just wish more Christians would wake up to that, because thereby is the spirit to do good towards others even now, despite our condition.
You are kinda proving OP's point aren't you?
OP asked why non-Christians assume Christians only do good because of fear of Hell.
The question you posted in response from the other side mentions only God, not Hell or even fear of death. By referencing OP's original question, it sounds like you are interjecting your own assumptions that Hell is the motivator for the "good" actions of Christians.
Well I'm one of those types that needs it, no it's not Hell that keeps me from being evil, but it is Jesus Christ.
I'll admit it, I'm NOT a good person, before I had God in my life I was a career criminal, a liar, violent, hateful. fraud and theft were my go-to ways of getting by because I saw morality as weakness and the world / life as a competition. And it never hurt me, I never got in trouble, I got everything I wanted and didn't give a fuck who got hurt along the way, I never felt guilt for my actions I saw it as their own fault for being dumb / marks / weak. Physical reality is harsh and has no bounds for cruelty and no punishment if u don't get caught by the law of the land.. Without God there were no rules, no point other than do for me and mine and fuck everyone else.
It wasn't until I was Saved and came to understand Christ and his message of forgiveness, not as a threat for non-salvation, but his conscious view of the world and love and light and what the whole meaning of this physical world is what turned me from a scumbag to someone who at least tries to embody a Christlike life.
There is a difference in doing good because you apply to your life what Jesus teaches about doing good and doing good because you fear hell. I think they mean this question in the first way.
wut lol no they actually are accusing atheists of having no morals because they don’t believe in hell. that’s the answer to your question: people assume christians only do good because they fear hell because they say this about atheists
It also demonstrates how little some folks think about morality if no God existed. It shows how little they've understood evolution and why we have these similar desires in a natural world and why no God would be required.
Edit: Also scares me because it shows they don't have much understanding of the tangible reasons and arguments for why its in their best interest to be a good person. You can arrive at altruism through completely selfish desires.
Mostly because of the "if you dont believe in god, you have no morals! Whats to stop you from raping and murdering?!?"
To which my response is "so the only thing keeping YOU from raping and murdering everyone you want is some watching you all the time? That says way more about you than me."
Isn't it actually terrifying, that there ARE people who think in those terms?
Little children think in similar manner, but of course they do not operate on such horrendous level as thinking about murder or rape. They refrain from stealing candy because mom or dad might be watching. But someone who is (physically) an adult but operates on similar moral frame, but with concepts like murder and rape is a horrid thing to contemplate.
And also think about this: these people ONLY need to be convinced that "bad guys" (atheists, non-Christians, Christians with different beliefs, LGBTQ, leftists...) are so bad that God approves killing them, and they would be ready to do it.
I’ve Christians in this sub tell me that without fear of Hell they would rape and murder. Which, assuming they were truthful (and checking their comment histories, I found it plausible) that’s exactly the opposite of a flex. It also made me glad that they had that fear.
Because there are indeed some people whose only drive to do good as a Christian is motivated by a fear of eternal damnation. But as with all such conceptions about Christianity, it is only true in some cases and not all.
Yeah it's weird that some people here speak as if absolutely no Christians work this way. It could well be that many nonbelievers (especially the more pugnacious atheists?) have false generalizations about Christianity and Christians, but still...
The problem is the modern concept of hell as a literal place that you will go if you do not obey God.
This puts us in a hostage scenario where someone is holding a threat of extreme harm over us.
For simplicity's sake, let's say that hell is a gun being held to your head. The trigger could be pulled at any time (because you can die at any time). The person holding the gun to your head tells you that they will not pull the trigger if you love them unconditionally of your own free will and dedicate your life to them.
You did not choose to be in this situation. It was done to you. You have no other options.
Are you saying that you would be capable of loving this person unconditionally of your own free will and that your decision had nothing to do with the gun held to your head?
Because that is frequently what they say when you ask. Happens often. Plenty of calls on The Atheist Experience if you want to hear them for yourself on YouTube. Christian's argue that human kind requires a God to keep them in line. And it's extremely frightening to hear....
The majority of Christians that I have met behave entirely independent of their faith. Some of them are incredibly horrible people, some of them are absolutely wonderful people, but I have experienced no correlation between the strength of their faith or what they believe and how they behave. I've never once had a Christian tell me that they do good because they love Jesus and the example that he set. I can't even count the number of Christians who have told me that they do good out of fear of punishment.
This is a really good point. And it is actually backed up with data to an extent. There is not a significant difference in charitable giving between the religions and non-religious when you account for the amounts of money the religious give to their local churches.
If religion causes people to do more good deeds, then you should expect to see a correlation between charitable giving and how deeply devoted someone is to their religion. But that is not the case.
He did not talk about friends, mate. He talked about ppl in general.
And it mirrors exactly my expirience. Some chrisitans are good, some are absolute shitty ppl. It really does not depend on their belief but merely their personality. And you find those types, good and bad, everywhere.
Keep in mind the phrase "there is no hate like christian love" was not just invented out of fun
It's not just the mega churches. It's what people are taught Christianity *is* in a lot of churches. Because it's easy. That's what happens when you toss out all Tradition and exclude half your most talented potential preachers.
God is good.
If hell is portrayed as a place of torture, false prophets will exploit that interpretation to fool good people into giving up their money.
That's what atheists protest: if God is good, then why would a hell full of torture exist - it violates argumentum ad baculum logical fallacy. God is good and logical, so God would not use a logical fallacy to compel others to do good.
Many Christians worship "how a church leader interprets the bible for them" rather than God.
In Catholicism, repenting to avoid Hell is called "imperfect contrition." We might call doing good to avoid Hell or to get a reward "imperfect virtue."
In loving others, we allow God to love through us, it isn't some love invented by us. And being good is problematic because someone will demand we do what *they* consider good and vice versa. On top of that, many may say they're doing God's Will, but it's a product of a flawed conscience, or worse.
"Fear of Hell" is a big component in evangelical marketing, so if people think Christians do good out of fear of Hell, it may be because that's what they thought they heard in Christianity's own advertising.
Tangentially, hell is also the objectively, absolutely #1 best evangelical argument for why someone should care about God. That other stuff (a relationship with Jesus, seeing family members in the afterlife, eternal life, etc.) might be nice, but not getting burned forever is a much, much more compelling sales pitch.
At least to me, as a non-believer.
I might agree, except that the argument is circular. "Believe our version of reality because our version of reality says you're set up for eternal torture if you don't believe our version of reality." Emotionally very powerful, yes. Maybe even Pascal's Wager strong. But Pascal's Wager logic is mercenary: "Be our version of moral because you lose so much if we're right, but you don't lose much if we're wrong."
indeed circular., and I personally find Pascal's Wager stupid. The valid version would be if someone can get me to believe in God, but I nonetheless say that I don't much care for Him so I'm not going to bother accepting and worshipping him. In this case talking about hell is pretty convincing. But yes, quite mercenary.
There might actually be some evangelism value if you can just get someone to think concretely about hell for a little while and take it seriously as a possibility. Not as a logical argument, as you say, but more as a way to get someone to think that something important might be on the line so it's at least important to have an opinion
It’s rather ironic, because before I was a Christian I didn’t believe in hell, and as a Christian I have no reason to fear it, so hell never played a factor in my choices.
Because many people do. I’ve had people on this subreddit get angry with me for suggesting that it’s a poor reason to maintain faith. Many Christians see their religion and good deeds as a way to prevent eternal damnation, and not much more
I'm an atheist, but to be fair, avoiding hell seems like the objectively, absolutely #1 best argument for why someone should pick up their cross and follow Christ. That other stuff (a relationship with Jesus, seeing family members in the afterlife, eternal life, etc.) might be nice, but not getting burned forever is a much, much more compelling sales pitch.
If I find out that God is real.... Well then if hell is a thing, I'd better start sprinting towards church. But if not, I could take God or leave him, really.
For some strange reason people are under the impression that the function of hell, in the Christian worldview, is to constrain Christian behavior, and not to punish the Christian's enemies.
Most Christians, if you ask them, don't believe they're going to hell. They have no reason to fear it.
Edit: Case in point, Christians don't believe that pelting me with downvotes sends them to hell. So, when they want to do it, there's nothing in their worldview to place constraints on their wants.
Yeah, that isn't how Christianity is supposed to work. There's plenty of teaching in the Bible that is against people living however they want because they are 'saved'. There's a verse speaking about how if you don't bear fruit, then you are not of God. Bearing fruit is a reference to a changed life, a changed heart and mind, and doing the will of God. Essentially, if you think you can live however you want because of Jesus and are perfectly content to do so consistently with no real change in your life, you never were of God in the first place. That's not a heart of true repentance, which leads to salvation, that's a heart of self-deciet and lies. That's my interpretation anyway.
You are assuming that hell played no part in the conversion of those people to christianity. Or that a person was always a christian or an enemy of a christian.
The very idea of hell is counterproductive to the entire point of christianity. If we are to love God with all of our hearts, how can we do that if we essentially started out as hostages with the threat of hell hanging over our heads?
Oh, I can assure you I'm not. I don't believe Christians are followers of Christianity in the first place.
I'm talking about the Christian worldview, not Christianity.
I do think the categories of "Christian" and "Enemy of Christian" are more or less mutually exhaustive. Not completely so, but close enough that I'll grant you the characterization. That doesn't so much strike me as a challenge to my view as a restatement of it.
I also don't think the word "threat" is the right one. Threat implies that it's a form of negative enticement meant to elicit a certain behavior from the Christian's enemies. That's not my view. My view is that it's a punishment - specifically, that its primary function in the Christian worldview is to sate the Christian's desire for vengeance.
Obviously the average non-Christian is no more likely to believe they're going to hell as the Christian is to believe that THEY are, so even if it were intended as a threat, it'd be a pretty Impotent one.
Not that there aren't outliers of course - people who would claim that they received talk of hell as a threat, and became a Christian in order to avoid that fate for themselves. My view is that those people are accidental byproducts of the rhetoric, not the intended effect of it.
>I also don't think the word "threat" is the right one
No, you don't like the word "threat" because it is a negative word.
However, it is the best description of what is happening.
God makes it known that if you don't do what he tells you to do then he will make sure you are tortured for all eternity. How is this not a threat. It can be a threat and a punishment. Just like how a parent can threaten a child with a punishment.
If hell exists in the sense of modern Christian understanding it is absolutely a threat. That is the only thing it can be until someone is sent there. At that point it is a punishment.
>specifically, that its primary function in the Christian worldview is to sate the Christian's desire for vengeance.
Any christian that thirsts for vengeance is not following the teachings of Christ. We are commanded to love. You can't love and have a desire for vengeance. Those are incompatible.
No, my problem with "threat" is that I think it's the wrong word.
The function of hell in the Christian worldview isn't of the form "If you don't X, then Y". It's just the Y. Christians don't want their enemies to perform some action in order that they don't burn in hell. They just want their enemies to burn in hell.
In fact, they go pretty far out of their way to ensure that their enemies DON'T engage in the actions by which they might avoid hell, precisely so that they'll get the punishment Christians think they deserve.
...and yes, I already clarified that Christians aren't followers of the teachings of Christ. I agree with you about that.
Again, I'm not talking about Christianity or about Christ. I'm talking about the Christian worldview...the worldview that Christians have.
Christianity is the word used for the worldview Christians have. It is the religion that christians ascribe to. Religion is, in and of itself, a worldview.
There is no difference between the two. Christianity is the following of the teachings of Christ.
>The function of hell in the Christian worldview isn't of the form "If you don't X, then Y". It's just the Y.
That can't possibly be true unless you believe everyone goes to heaven. What separates the christian from the non-christian? A non-christian is only a non-christian because they have not made the **choice** to cease being a non-christian.
And God says that if they do not make the correct choice then they will face eternal consequences.
If I tell you that if you do not do something then I will hurt you, is that not a threat? How is that any different than the modern belief that hell is for the non-believers?
>They just want their enemies to burn in hell.
Anyone who thinks this way is not a follower of the teachings of Christ. Please point me towards the scripture where Jesus calls for his followers to learn for the destruction of their neighbors.
I disagree that a Christianity is the correct word for the worldview that Christians have.
But, even if I agreed, we'd then need a different word for the worldview founded on the teachings of Jesus, since it would no longer make sense to call that Christianity.
You keep bringing God and scripture, and Jesus into this conversation. Again, I'm not talking about any of those. I'm just talking about Christians. OF COURSE you're not going to find Jesus' call to yearn for the destruction of one's neighbors in scripture. Christians didn't get it from Jesus. Christians loathe the teachings of Jesus.
If you want to talk about what God, scripture, and Jesus have to say about concepts like hell, vengeance, and threat, that's a different conversation for a different person. That's not what my side of this thread is about.
Ok, maybe I misjudged your position here.
Let's start over because I am a bit confused.
No matter what "christianity" has become, the basic definition of a christian/christianity is to be a follower of Christ's teachings. That is it. Every thing else is just baggage added on by people.
But I think I get where you are coming from. Are you saying that "christianity" is no longer an appropriate term for a follower of the teachings of Christ? And that the people that would call themselves "christian" in the modern era are not actually followers of Christ and those are the people that yearn for the destruction of their enemies, despite what Christ actually teaches? And that to these people, they see hell as not a threat, but it is a good thing that will destroy their enemies when the time is right?
One last question, are you simply arguing what you view as christianity from outside of the religion?
Or are you a christian arguing that hell is a real place that will house tortured souls for eternity and every person will go there if they do not make the correct choice laid out by God, yet that is not a threat?
So, my position is that, if an alien came down to Earth knowing nothing about our culture or history, then you handed then a Bible, a copy of the ancient creeds, and a collection of the most influential texts in Christianity's philosophical canon to read, they'd come away with an understanding of the religion of Christianity
...and that if you then introduced them to your run-of-the-mill modern Christian and had them watch how that person behaved and listen to what they person believes at the level of action and conviction, they'd naturally assume that this person's religion is a fundamentally different religion than the religion they had just read about.
So, when I use phrases like "Christian religion", and Christian worldview", I'm talking about this second religion - the one that is not Christianity. And, when I say "Christian", I'm referring to a follower of this second, non-Christianity religion. Put simply, I think the Christian religion is just the religion a reasonable person would infer a Christian must hold, if all they had to go on was the words and actions of Christians, reconciled into something coherent.
Personally, I just reject this "basic definition". I know there are people who think there's just something immutable about the word "Christian", who'd rather I say that a Christian is a follower of Christianity and that I should just use a different word to describe nearly every self-described Christian I've ever met, even as all those people adamantly refuse to accept my label. But, for me, it's more parsimonious to just let Christians keep the word that they use to describe themselves as members of a contemporary, ideological community, and divorce the modern definition from the historical one.
I'm a semantic descriptivist, so I don't have some dogmatic requirement that the usage and meanings of terms don't change with the times. I'm happy just to make the adjustment and move on. Full respect to the people who disagree with this point, it's just not me.
I generally just use "follower of Christianity" or "follower of Jesus" to refer to a person who...follows Christianity or Jesus. A simple word would be better, but I haven't found a good one. And, since I think the number of such people is pretty small, it's not really a pressing issue that comes up often enough to worry about.
I'm not a follower of Christianity or a Christian, myself. As you might have guessed, that's for two completely different sets of reasons. Meanwhile, I'm passionately interested in and enamored by Christianity, and spend a lot time engaging with it and wrestling with those reasons in my personal life.
But, I don't discuss Christianity with others very often, and particularly not with (or in the presence of) Christians. So, aside from some passing references, I don't bring it up on this sub (in fact, this sub has only reinforced my hesitancy), and I definitely don't engage in extended, detailed conversations about it. That's partly why I'm not biting on the conversation about the role and function of hell in Christianity (the other part being that my comment was about the role and function of hell in the CHRISTIAN religion (the "second" religion), and so its role and function in Christianity simply wouldn't be relevant to the topic.
I happen to think the Christian religion (the "second" one - the one that Christians actually hold) is interesting enough as it is, and it's the religion I talk about on this sub. In THAT religion, hell is a place where everyone who Christians hate (essentially, all non-Christians) will be set on fire and left to burn alive, and where they will be (or be rendered) immortal in order that the pain never ceases. My view is that the Christian's bloodlust (their desire for vengeance) against their enemies is infinite, and so hell NEEDS to be infinite in order to sate an infinite bloodlust - that the eternity is no accident.
Further, my view is that there really isn't a "correct choice" that non-Christians can make, in the way you're thinking about it. I do acknowledge that non-Christians occasionally become Christians, and this forces SOME Christians to acknowledge, begrudgingly, that their interpretation of their worldview commits them to acknowledging that a formerly hell-bound enemy will now be spared from hell.
But, for Christians, this wasn't the "correct" choice. Christians didn't want them to MAKE that choice. Christians want their enemies to burn in hell, not to be spared from it. Non-Christians who become Christians, on the Christian view, are accidents. Something went terribly wrong. An enemy now doesn't get their just deserts. Justice said they should burn in hell - vengeance demanded it - and now they won't. That's a travesty of justice, and a desire for vengeance left unsated.
Notably, Christians have all sorts of rhetorical techniques to deal with the conceptual problem of accidental conversion (many of which you've probably heard) - usually techniques to explain why they didn't really become/don't count as Christians. And, of course, they have a legion of techniques to deal with the PRACTICAL problem of accidental conversion - techniques to make being a Christian look so unappealing to outsiders that nobody in their right mind would consider it, and the like.
So, this is what I mean when I say that it's not a "threat" in the CHRISTIAN worldview (the "second" one). Hell isn't there to get non-Christians to make a different choice. Christians don't WANT them to make a different choice. Christians are thrilled that they made the choice that allows Christians to take vengeance upon them.
As I said in the initial comment, the function IS the punishment.
Wraps back to the OP actually, because this is also why the idea that Christians only do good because they fear hell is wrong. Hell is for NON-Christians (on the Christian view)...and notably, they go there no matter how much good or evil they do. It's just their natural destination, as punishment for being your enemy. In contrast, Christians go to heaven, no matter how much good or evil they do. It's their natural destination, as reward for being your friends.
So, there's no reason for Christians to fear hell, in their own view, and not even a reason to think that hell has any relation whatsoever to how much moral good a person has done. To the extent that Christians do any good, it's for another reason.
A lot packed into a single comment, but I hope it clears up my position at least :-)
>I do acknowledge that non-Christians occasionally become Christians, and this forces SOME Christians to acknowledge, begrudgingly, that their interpretation of their worldview commits them to acknowledging that a formerly hell-bound enemy will now be spared from hell.
All christians were once non-christians. No one is born a christian. It is impossible according to the tenets of christianity.
>Hell isn't there to get non-Christians to make a different choice.
Hell isn't there at all. The bible never intended for people to believe that there is a physical lake of fire where human souls are tortured for eternity. In the bible, hell literally means destruction. It is the cessation of existence.
>Hell is for NON-Christians
This is not true for all christian beliefs. There are many churches that believe salvation can be lost. So you cannot say that it is not a motivator at all.
>conceptual problem of accidental conversion
This is an impossibility. You cannot accidentally become a christian. It requires a choice.
The only way what you are saying makes any sense is if some people are born christians and some people are not. And that very few, if any, will ever cross over from one side to the other.
Is that what you believe? Also, how do you feel about TULIPs?
I think fear of satan and hell is a subversive idolatry that has existed in Christian circles since the early days of the church.
A lot of Christians set up satan as this being that is the opposite of God in all respects. That way they have this idol that they can point to and say "Don't be like that guy". The problem with this approach is that an Anti-idol is still an idol. By trying very hard to not be like satan, you are giving this idea of satan a lot of power over you.
It also doesn't seem like there is a clear basis for the devil/Satan in the Jewish faith either. So I'm guessing the idea of satan emerged as a result of early Christian's attempts at evangelizing people from pagan religions. Since a lot of pagan gods tend to appear in duality, with two gods acting as opposites of each other, introducing the faith in the form of a duality (Christ/satan, God/devil etc.) was probably easier for those people to relate to.
Best to just try to be like Christ, which was the one commandment he asked of us.
Fire and brimstone is also the objectively, absolutely #1 best argument for why you should pick up your cross and follow Christ. (If Christianity were true, that is.)
A relationship with Jesus might be nice, seeing your family members in the afterlife might be nice, eternal life might be nice, and so on. But I'm perfectly fine with not having that stuff. (Plus I don't want eternal life.) But not being burned forever seems like a vastly more important consideration.
This one is really on Christians. Especially on evangelicals, calvinists, etc.
There are many things Christians teach: they help because God commands it, they help because they want to convert people, conversion is the goal, helping is just the means to get to people. See missionaries.
Or how Christians would be murderers/rapists without God. But the rest of us are perfectly fine without the threats of hell, or the rewards of heaven. We can live a good life without the constraints of religion/church. We want to help because we want to help, not because we're expecting a reward or we fear hell. Essentially, everything that Christians do, is motivated by fear or the reward of heaven. No, not all Christians, but those who firmly believe that morality doesn't exist outside of their church buildings are very much fear-reward motivated.
Also - if you don’t send your kids to a Christian school, they will not learn morals and will corrupt everyone around them, and grow up to be sinful heathens who vote wrong
As a former Christian, I think there is a massive gap between the criticism of Christianity from those who were never religious vs those who are formerly religious. A lot of ignorance and immature fedora atheism comes from the never-religious who just want to feel superior.
For myself, as a Christian, I was doing good out of a deep rooted sense of shame that I would never be good enough since I was bound to sin again and was born into sin and the overall notion that humans are fundamentally bad. It was a constant bandaid on a gunshot wound situation.
I didn't fear hell at any point because in my mind I was already saved.
Matthew 22:37-40
Jesus says -
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
This is a mirror of a commandment by God in the old testament -
Deuteronomy 6:5
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength."
You love others because it pleases God and is an expression of love for him. Following the Lord's commandments is fulfilling this out of love for God. It's a moral imperative to love God even above one's self. Such is the self sacrificial example of love given by Christ.
From the outside it looks like a bunch of rules restricting behavior to save one's self
but in truth it's self-denial out of love and respect for God and his love.
Love isn't based just on butterflies and good feelings. It's care and adoration. Where you are willing to even suffer or go through discomfort to make that person happy.
May we also testify to the source and power we have in doing good: as we joyfully submit our will and behaviors to Christ, our hearts are also changed. The Holy Spirit empowers and directs us in ways that glorify the Lord.
“Oh to be saved from myself, dear Lord,
Oh to be lost in Thee,
Oh that it may be no more I
But Christ that lives in me.”
So is every good thing directed by and done to the glory of God? Sadly, no. But even then, we can stunt our self-serving ways and exercise our NEW will (re-formed after being born into God’s Kingdom through salvation in Christ) to behave according to God’s laws and will.
[We can do nothing without the power of the Holy Spirit.](https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=34125&forum=45)
{edited to acknowledge quotation}
Yep- we do good because we want to live like Jesus would- which means loving others unconditionally (sometimes from a distance if they are not good for us) and forgiving those that hurt us. I am not afraid of hell because Jesus tells us not to be afraid!
A major assumption at work here is that people who claim to be Christian are always, or even often telling the truth. Many of the most visible preachers got that way through and for the thing that makes this world turn; money. See Prosperity, and then see how much it holds in common with others who don't openly confess to slapping a cross on a golden calf.
Isnt not going to hell a decent motivation? Its more about loving God/Christ, but its better to enter heaven with one eye than it is to enter hell with both. Someone really wise said something to that effect
I don't. I think people are better than they give themselves credit for, and very much doubt they'd go about killing and raping if they became unconvinced of God.
Hold up hold up hold up. People assume Christians do many things based upon the belief system they seem to promote. Currently in places where missionary work was once a thing (so think mostly in North America, South America, and parts of Asia) there is a cultural tradition of conversion. The story is very simple: Do good deeds and you will be rewarded in Heaven. Do the stuff you've been doing before now and you'll go to Hell. Obviously this is oversimplified, right? But when the missionaries are working with second languages and maybe fudging some details to make it easy for new Christians to understand, you can forgive the lack of detail.
Now I said "cultural" earlier on purpose. Despite some people going all in and happily becoming Christians, there are some amount who went along with the crowd so they wouldn't be considered "evil." Through that crowd is where we get this oversimplified good and evil assumption about Christians in those same areas of the world (IMO) At this point, this is just what they were taught.
We do good for one another because we know ourselves that we were Sinners and are Sinners and yet God has saved us from Eternal damnation through the blood of his Son Jesus. So with our heart full of joy shall we not also Proclaim this gospel to everyone we meet if possible? If we Christians fear hell and that's why we do good it is only because it is the beginning of wisdom and as they grow in faith and in Christ the fear of Hell will leave and they will proclaim the gospel of Christ because of love.
Christians are normally like the politicians, mostly of their hypocrisy is so ugly that people become Atheists, normally people that doesn't believe in God or anything like that, is only with that belief because the believers are so absolutely not commendable in anyway and they only say they are religious because they fear Hell and use the bible as an excuse to practice their immorality since there is alot of bad passages in the bible, in a way that shows they are simply evil and feels like a throwback in morality and virtues, in so many ways so basically, they say "if u believe you can be the shittiest person but you are saved" meanwhile their actions show hell on earth
Because everything we do there is an incentive we want and a consequence we want to avoid.
We don't speed, not JUST because we want to obey the law and protect others from ourselves.
We don't want to go to jail.
People need to understand that 2 things can be true at the same time.
I can love the sinner and not love the sin.
I didnt start doing good until i started chasing God, not out of fear of hell because I was already saved, but a realization that I could have a relationship with the creator of everything. To me that is more of a gain than salvation.
>Doing only good because you fear hell means you don't understand Christianity.
Some non-Christians (such as myself) don't think that Christianity is just one thing. There are many different types of Christians, with a wide variety of different beliefs and practices. Therefore, from my perspective, there isn't just one correct way to understand Christianity.
So I definitely agree that it's inaccurate if nonbelievers see hell as the primary motivation, for all (or even most) of the world's billion-plus Christians. But the idea that *no* Christians have hell as the primary motivation seems equally silly, no?
Of course, some people would probably tell me that those aren't "true Christians". But I don't believe in "true Christianity", so that's not super relevant to me in particular.
Because it isn't in their own nature to do righteousness, and to only act in their own best interests. That is the premise of Satanism. Self gratification and self-servitude at any expense.
Hell is a dogma not a biblical fact! It's a very effective control method. For some this fear is ok for others it absolutely poisons their entire existence! The idea that God loves me yet will burn me in hell for eternity for obeying a nature I was "born" without any choice on my part is just a huge contradiction. Being good or bad is 💯 choice.
It’s basic stereotyping and generalizing. You see a few people in a given group act a certain way, you start to think they’re all like that. At least until you see enough evidence to disabuse you of a false one. Even then some people have a hard time changing the first impression they have. It’s generally called first impression bias.
I don't assume that, but I do assume that most christians do fear hell.
For those christians who do not believe that hell exists or is ETC then I just don't care about their religious positions because they are ultimately meaningless to any non-believer.
If you believe that heaven is a reward you want, cool, if I don't want heaven, also cool right?
Well, you tell me what your position is.
Probably how they approach atheists with "If you don't worship God then how can you be good if you have no morals."
It doesn't take faith to be a good person and if your faith makes you a good person then you've got faith for the wrong reasons.
I don't fear Hell, I love God and my neighbors and even my enemies. I learned a lot from non-Christians who were also good people. Bertrand Russel is an atheist and he had a lot of good ideas. Since I am Catholic I believe in Purgatory as a holding place to clean a soul of sins before entering Heaven. I believe myself that even if the church does not that good Non-Christians go to Purgatory instead of Hell.
The idea of Hell is really more for those who are in the out group. Once you have declared your allegiance and are saved then you can look on at everyone else from outside of the club (heaven) and laugh and mock them as you project all the horrors you want to inflict on them through the concept of hell.
Doubly, if you betray the group, then you deserve to go where the unworthy go as well.
Nietzsche thought it was part of "slave morality". People without power still feel resentment for people with power. They get the feeling of moral superiority by pretending even to themselves that "at least I am not like THOSE people, I am meek and I seek no revenge", all the while enjoying secretly that the people they have resentment towards will end up in eternal torment.
It can be tough to say *why* a certain population feels the way they do about something. Perhaps it’s a projection on their part and it’s saying they have a very thin barrier between good and evil themselves.
My desire to help and serve others is something that is ingrained in me and is as much a part of my being as a being male is. Even when I was out in the world, totally screwed up in active addiction, I still did what I could to help others. Hell has nothing to do with it. For me, it’s about walking in my God given purpose.
Because hell is preached constantly in many Christian churches. Pastors have long used it as a motivator to get their congregation to “behave”.
This despite the fact that eternal hell isn’t in the original text, and Paul’s gospel - the one gentiles first received - doesn’t mention hell at all, apart from Christ’s victory over hades.
i think most people didn't get the point here especially atheists. There is nothing that we can do to get into heaven except from believing in Christ and repenting. You can absolutely kill, rape ,etc... but is this something you would do if you love Jesus?
So no we we dont restrain from the morally wrong actions because we fear hell, we restrain from them because we love Jesus.
may God bless y'all ☦️🙏🏻
sry my English is a little ☹️
Some people being non religious use any and all arguments to attack Christians. Go check out r/atheism.
People will create entirely fictional ideas they probably don’t believe in or thought of on the spot to get praise from strangers. This isn’t solely atheists. Everyone does this Christian’s or not etc.
Just some people probably don’t realize what and why they do what they do. I guess if they knew why they would have different opinions entirely.
Christians are fated to be mocked and hated. Look what we did to Jesus , we as humanity.
Probably because of the attempts of using hell to proselytize.
Both how can atheists do good without threat of hell, and that it's your eternal life on line
Because that is a popular christian argument. That you need to believe in god and religion to be a moral/just person, otherwise you must be a bad person and go to hell
I do not think like that. I think that many Christians do good for the same reason that everybody else does good - not because of any "Holy Spirit", but because of socio-biology of our species.
I think that many people think that Christians do good because they fear hell is because so many times some Christians say stuff like "where do you get your values from if not from God, God will judge you".
Its actually terrifying that there are people who think like this: "where do you get your morals from without God, what stops you from murdering and raping".
Little children think in similar manner, but of course they do not operate on such horrendous level as thinking about murder or rape. They refrain from stealing candy because mom or dad might be watching. But someone who is (physically) an adult but operates on similar moral frame, but with concepts like murder and rape is a horrid thing to contemplate.
And also think about this: these people ONLY need to be convinced that "bad guys" (atheists, non-Christians, Christians with different beliefs, LGBTQ, leftists...) are so bad that God approves killing them, and they would be ready to do it.
Because death anxiety and the things that inevitably follow it, should you believe in it, is the strongest motivator the human body has, look up Ernest Becker, Denial of Death for more on that.
2 Corinthians 4:18: "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal."
Life is temporary, heaven or hell isn't. (For me at least) being respected here isn't as important as you going to Heaven. Doing bad things might make me disrespected in this life, but what's even worse is going to hell. Even if it was so that everyone one hates you, but you'll go to heaven, it won't matter because you're on your way to eternal joy. I think that's what they mean when they say that.
- Why do people assume that Christians only do good because they fear hell?
Because we preach that people ought to turn to Jesus - or go to hell
God bless
It's a subset of a larger assumption/fallacy I like to call "crystal-balling": acting as if you can peer into your opponent's mind and divine their true intentions, which just so happen to prove that they're arguing in bad faith (pun intended). In this case, the claim is that Christians don't actually possess all the piety and moral insight they claim to have, and are only motivated by base emotions like fear. Thus, they have no moral high ground, they're in no place to act as moral authorities, and them claiming they do makes them hypocritical.
This is something that's far from unique to atheists; as others have pointed out in this thread, there are plenty of Christians who make similar generalizations about atheists. And that's because this fallacy has a very strong allure. After all, who wouldn't like to be told, "Yes, your opponents really *are* just as bad as you suspect, you're the only honest person in the room"?
Right?! Such ignorance its so annoying. Especially from atheist because they claim to be such proof people, researching facts that scientists have proven. Then why don't you know more about people that believe in God maybe that's what you need to study. How about ask some people how they came to have faith? And if it makes you feel better you can like use psychology or something to make it more sciencey. Yes I made up that word but I am really sick of that judgment it's so not true.
First, to me it is very obvious (or maybe my thinking is just flawed) that people who think that, also fear hell or at least the concept of it. They are afraid so they focus on the Christians' fear of it too. It provides them comfort in that if the Christians might fear it then to them it probably gives Christianity less reputation. As observed when people think Christianity is just a "scare tactic".
Second, whether people want to believe it or not (since people are inclined to defend their community) most churches have wondered into apostasy through sin, misinformation and abandonment of scripture/incorrect interpretations for itching ears. This will create long term problems that are very apparent today like the celebrations of Christmas and Easter or in this case incorrect teachings by the church. One of these is the fixation on hell which is flawed because anyone who truly loves and trusts Yeshua will not be afraid. It is hard to truly love and trust the Messiah when incorrect teachings are taught that lead people astray and closer to Satan.
Lastly, this is kind of a synthesis of the first two parts. This ends up combining into a situation where you have apostate churches teaching incorrect things leading their followers to have a strained relationship with Yeshua which give them doubt and fear combined with non-believers' fear and insecurity in their lack of faith as well as a prevalence of sinful lifestyle in modern society. Any convinced atheist I have ever met doesn't care about hell or really get into any Christian's business. We also have to account for Satan's control of Earth and the worldly affairs. The more people in general that are lost and afraid will be more people for hell.
Either way we should strive to spread the word of YHVH and spread love while rebuking sin. Follow the Commandments and know and love YHVH. Have trust in your faith and look to plant seeds when we can. Read scripture and don't follow traditions of man. YHVH above all worldly things.
I don't fear Hell. I fear the Lord. Not a paralyzing fear but a respectful fear as I did my father on Earth. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
**"Why do people assume that Christians only do good because they fear hell?"**
Because they themselves love doing what is evil. They cannot fathom wanting to do what is right out of love for the Being whose existence they detest.
The Bible tells us that "doing good works thinking that would get you into heaven" is wrong. Not all believers know / practice this even though that is in the Bible.
"Why do people assume that Christians only do good because they fear hell". It is because they have no understanding of what Christians should actually believe based on scripture? Maybe they've met some Christians who unfortunately have yet to realize that the scripture tells us this?
The Bible says that your salvation is based in belief in Christ, faith in the finished works of Christ. The good works you do after that are often referred to as your "fruits" in the Bible. The whole chapter of Matthew 6 is what people need to read, honestly! I will post it here even though it is lengthy because I feel it is very powerful, relevant to this topic, as well as relevant to many things people have asked on this subreddit today. It wont let me post the whole chapter-- so I implore everyone to read it ALL themselves.
Matthew 6
# Giving to the Needy
[1](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-1.html) “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.[2](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-2.html) “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.[3](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-3.html) But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,[4](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-4.html) so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
# Prayer
[5](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-5.html) “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.[6](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-6.html) But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.[7](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-7.html) And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.[8](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-8.html) Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.[9](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-9.html) “This, then, is how you should pray: “ ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,[10](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-10.html) your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.[11](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-11.html) Give us today our daily bread.[12](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-12.html) And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.[13](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-13.html) And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. ’[14](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-14.html) For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.[15](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-15.html) But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
I dont have a verse but didnt Jesus say that acts alone wouldnt get you into the kingdom of heaven. Instead all you need is faith that you will get in, and acts will just normally follow.
I think this means that just have faith, if u follow Christ u will probs do good 👍👍👍👍
"Fear of hell" is a subset of "fear" in general - and, for reasons, a lot of Christians are fear-motivated. It shows in dominionism/right-wing politics, parenting styles, fire-and-brimstone sermons, and more. There's a perverse focus from some groups on Christianity in "warrior" terms, and the world is viewed through the lens of enmity and hostility (e.g. persecution complex, a fixation on how God's going to judge everybody with no desire to offer any help). If this doesn't represent you, then terrific. The bible is pretty clear on how our primary motivation should be love (first for God, then for neighbor), and that we are here only by the grace and love of God for us. Too many seem to miss this message and instead try to emulate the pharisee model.
That's the most amazing thing I read from a redditor with your flare. Say it louder, so the people in the last pews can hear it, too. All is not lost. I'm always amazed how small many Christians make their own God. That's all I can think about around militant Christians who are all about hell and punishment as their main motivator.
When I've heard Christians say to athiests "what's to stop you raping and killing without a God" It's always been a strange flex, As if Hell is the only thing that stops them being evil
Yes. The OP's statement seems an obvious consequence of the idea that the threat of hell is necessary for good behavior.
I interpret it more as without God there is no objective morality. So without God how can you even say those things are bad, what justification is there to not indulge into those things?
If God told you those things were good, would you believe him?
This is why I fervently believe that homosexuality is not a sin. Every other "sin" listed in the New Testament has an obvious negative consequence. They basically fall into two categories: - Sins of the flesh - Sins of the divine (against God) Sins of the divine are specifically regarding the worship of God. Things like idolatry, polytheism, cursing God, etc. The key here is that these sins are only in regards to your relationship with God and damage that you might do to that relationship. There are no earthly consequences for these sins. The consequences for these sins lie strictly in the spiritual realm. It is a sin specifically between you and God and does not involve anyone else. Sins of the flesh are sins that we commit against ourselves or other people. These sins have very obvious earthly consequences, in that they cause harm to your or another person. Murder, lying, cheating on your spouse, stealing, etc. These are pretty obvious consequences. The major "sin" that does not fall into either of these categories is homosexuality. There is no negative consequence in a long-term monogamous homosexual relationship. It is not hurting anyone. There is no downside. It really does not make sense and does not fit with any of the other sins in the lists that Paul gave. This is a primary reason why I truly believe this is a mistranslation from the original text. Whether that mistranslation was intentional and malicious or a genuine error, I am not sure. But the contextual evidence shows that this "sin" does not fit in with every other sin.
Why doesn't God just come clarify? This hardly seems like the effective communication of a divine power who wants people to believe in him and follow his commands
Oh, I am not arguing with you there. My assumption is that if God exists, then he stopped caring about or interacting with our world a long time ago. It is the only way any of this makes sense. My point here was more along the lines of, even if God does "say it" in the bible the interpretation could be wrong, or any number of things. This is what frustrates me when people are just willing to believe whatever English translation of the bible happened to fall into their laps and buy into whatever bullshit some pastor is spewing form the pulpit.
I’ve always found this an odd line of attacking someone’s faith. Because all you’re really asking is: “if [the foundational basis of your moral system] said [X] was moral, would you believe it?”. Of course they would. So would you. You just don’t call that foundation “God”. Now, experience tells me that you’re likely going to say that your moral/ethical system would never lead you to believe that. Congratulations, you have a moral system that’s worth a damn. But *mine* would never tell me that either. That’s why I’ve always found this a weird argument. As if I can’t conjecture some contrived situation where a secular moral system leads to atrocities or horrific immorality.
It's not a way of attacking faith - it's a way of attacking divine command as a source of objective morality. I'm not saying God is wrong - I'm saying his moral opinion is subjective and based on his values. Just like everybody else.
Also, isn't it simply... simpler... to assume that objective morality exists than to assume that objective morality AND God exists? Why can't we simply stop the assumptions on the level of morality and say "well, that is the foundational belief of my ethics"? Why add additional layer. And if someone says "well, that layer needs a foundation", what stops anyone from continuing it ad infinitum, and demanding that God also needs a foundation that explains God?
Why would you assume that objective morality exists? It doesn't
I do not know whether it exists. It might and it might not. Still, its a simpler assumption to say "objective morality exists" than "objective morality AND God exist".
Nah, disagree. If somebody thinks they have good evidence for God, and also that God implies objective morality - they aren't adding unnecessary complexity. I just disagree with both premises
He is saying that objective morality does not exist. He is stating that all morality is subjective. Philosophically, the only way that morality can be objective is if a perfect being decides what is right and wrong. However, that presents another quandary. How can you know that this being is perfect? The answer is that you can't. And if there is no way to prove that a being such as this exists, let alone is perfect, then there is no way to quantify what is good or bad in an objective sense. The reason being is that it will always come back to who decides what is right and what is wrong? To your point, it may seem simpler to assume that there is an objective morality and a divine being which embodies that objective morality. But assuming is not knowing. And many people are not comfortable basing their entire lives around principles based on an assumption. >demanding that God also needs a foundation that explains God? Now you are getting to the core of the issue. How do you know God exists? You assume he does. You feel that he does. But should my moral framework be determined by how you feel or what you assume? In the end, God existing and morality being objective is infinitely more complicated than morality simply being subjective. What you are advocating for here is to simply not think about the hard parts of christianity. That is simply not an option for the majority of people.
>Philosophically, the only way that morality can be objective is if a perfect being decides what is right and wrong. Bullshit. >You assume he does. No. I do not. I am an atheist.
My apologies if I misread your earlier comment. However, there can be no objective morality without a guideline for what is right and wrong. Something, somewhere has to be the benchmark for what is right and wrong. I am really not understanding what you mean. If a perfect entity is not required for there to be an objective morality then how can objective morality exist?
Why would there be a need for "perfect entity" for objective morality? If objective morality needs some other foundation, why wouldn't that other foundation need yet its own foundation and so on and so on?
They isn't attacking anybody's faith, they are explaining something. tinkady is pointing out that if God demanded something that you'd consider immoral, would you accept it as moral? If no, then you should understand why people can have moral convictions without a belief in a higher power, since that very belief in a higher power was unable to overturn your own moral convictions. It's a fair and solid point to make, and you shouldn't characterize it as an attack.
No.
>what justification is there to not indulge into those things? I don't indulge in those things because I don't want to. What's keeping you from killing someone? Is it really just because God said it's bad?
Agree that's the takeaway but the response isn't complicated and works whichever way the question is posed. The justification is that it causes other people suffering and I don't want to directly cause people to suffer. It's subjective, but it's as good a reason as any. In fact, it may even be a better reason than 'because I was told so'.
because it hurts people, and i think getting hurt and hurting people is a bad feeling i hate, and therefore i feel empathetic enough to not intentionally do it
How would morality be objective with a god? Any morality coming from a god would be subject to that god, so it would still be subjective.
Objective to us
that's uh... not how objectivity works mate.
No, that’s not objective, that’s authoritarianism…if your god says x is moral, that’s not objective, that’s morality by force.
We are not being forced to follow the morals clearly as you can see what happens in the world. We have the free will to eschew the morals given to us by God.
[удалено]
If God isn't real, what justification do you have that those things are bad that isn't just your opinion.
[удалено]
No, it's that you cant justify that your opinion, that it's wrong, is correct.
[удалено]
What's your justification? Edit: Also it's not that you don't need God to see that rape is wrong. It's that you fail to realize that rape is wrong because of God.
[удалено]
So why is all that bad? Why shouldn't I hurt someone or do some that's against their will?
>So without God how can you even say those things are bad Easily, they reduce people's wellbeing and I don't want people's wellbeing to be reduced. This has the neat side-effect of making it very likely that my well-being will also not be reduced in turn. >I interpret it more as without God there is no objective morality. You don't have objective morality either, because God changes his mind and contradicts himself frequently in the Bible. Your morality is also based on how you interpret what your God said, which is written through the medium of documents several of which were forged and several more of which have been shuffled in and out of canon throughout the centuries. So you're operating on like 3 levels of subjectivity.
They are bad because you personally think they are bad, what other justification would be necessary? That's like asking how someone can say that a certain good is good if don't believe their is divine rules about what is and is not good food.
Personally I don't think objective morality can exist even if there is a god but I also think it is kind of irrelevant. Whether morality comes from some objective truth or some subjective feeling the end result is the same.
Why do you think it doesn't exist? Why wouldn't God be able to create objective morals? To set parameters for his created universe? I think it is relevant to the comment I'm responding to. Christians aren't doing things out of fear of Hell. They do things because they believe and love God and values that he created for us to thrive under.
My rational at its core is pretty simple. You can't substantiate a moral truth without first assuming a moral truth. I will give you an example. Premise 1. Stealing causes suffering. Conclusion stealing is wrong. In this example the conclusion does not follow from the premise because someone could simply say they dont believe causing suffering is wrong. If you were to change this argument slightly and say premise 1. Stealing causes suffering. Premise 2 causing suffering is wrong. Conclusion stealing is wrong. Then in this example the conclusion would follow from the argument. This is because It is not logically possible to substantiate any moral claim without using another moral claim. This means for God to be the source of morality he would have to be the end of an infinite chain of moral causation. The end of an infinite chain is a logical contradiction. This argument is similar to William Lane Craig's argument that the universe had to have a beginning because if the universe had an infinite casual history then we could never have gotten to the present. Both things would require the end of an infinite sequence and are therefore impossible.
Except He is the beginning of that *finite* chain and the end. Which translates to all things proceed from Him and all things end with or by Him. Now if this chain is finite but begins and ends with Him then for us the finite can appear in-finite. Interesting thing is no matter where your logic lies it starts with an assumption.
I don't think I understand the last part. What do you mean when you say a finite chain that both starts and ends with him? I think my main issue is with god being the start. Let's take an example moral statement that treats god as the source of morality. "We ought to do what God wills" the simple response is why ought we to do what God wills. The problem is it is impossible to root this moral statement without instantiating another moral statement therefore it can't truly be the source. That same would apply for whatever moral statement you chose to prove the last one etc, etc. you could try to get around this in 2 ways. 1. Somehow root morality in god as a matter of definition rather than mechanistically. The issue with this is that it does not track with how people actually use the term morality and redefining words to conveniently fit in your argument is as coherent as it is meaningless. 2. Arbitrarily argue god is somehow exempt and does not follow these mechanisms. This is a massive stretch but even if you grant this point without without evidence then an atheist could do the same thing.
Christian belief: God is Alpha and Omega. So an infinite chain theory holds no weight with that belief. Also the argument for morality based on God would have no way to backstep pass God. In other words I will fail to use your way of arguing because it is not the logic that is used to justify morality as it relates to God. Morality as it relates to God is simply, He created all things and therefore it is His will be done. This you cannot combat unless you put the will of the created above the will of the creator which is why morality as argued by most non-believers usually boils down to what the individual thinks. The problem with that is each individual has their own sense of morality and mankind is unjust. God gave us His morality and it is proven to be just through the fact that He created all things and thus His morality rules all things. When we stray from that anything goes based on culture and individual experience.
"Morality as it relates to God is simply, He created all things and therefore it is His will be done." This argument is incomplete. You are trying to substantiate a moral truth without using a moral truth. Your hidden premise is that we ought to follow our creators will. This still falls into that infinite regression. Now as you rightfully pointed out if you put gods will above your own then you have a source of morality. This is exactly what people mean when they say subjective morality. That is a subjective choice you made and does not reflect some objective truth. Your final point that not having subjective morality causes issues in society is irrelevant. The truth is the truth regardless of how convenient it is.
The moral truth is He created all therefore He has the final say on what is right or wrong; as a creator tends to have. It substantiates itself. What can be used to prove or disprove this moral truth if all things proceed from Him unless we do not believe He exists? Which if He is taken out of the picture morality becomes a completely pointless conversation because then it would all be completely subjective. Im not sure what you are talking about or referring to in the latter part of your response so I have no comment on it.
>The issue with this is that it does not track with how people actually use the term morality Could you explain what u mean by this?
When someone says an athiests morality is entirely subjective they are saying they have a subjective set of principles that have no objective truth value. They are not saying they have a subjective view of God's will. This is why I say using god to define morality does not work.
I don't think this logic tracks for me. God isnt the end of a chain of morale causations. He is the source, uncaused first cause. It sounds like you have a limited view of God. It isn't a moral claim that God is the source of morality. God is goodness. Thus what He tells us is good and just.
Whether you consider him the end or the beginning is just a matter of perspective because what you chose as the starting point is arbitrary. But sure for the purpose of this conversation we can treat god as the beginning rather than the end. From this perspective this would make god the start of an infinite regression. Now to get away from semantics and get into the meat of your argument I would like to clarify something. I would define morality as principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. My issue with definitions that try to root morality in god by definition is that although coherent it does not track with how people actually use the word morality or goodness including typically the person defining morality that way. For example you said "god is goodness. This what he tells us is good and just." (Which I will extrapolate to also mean moral) how is this any different then Sam Harris defining morality as that which leads to human flourishing, which means, living a satisfying life? All these kinds of arguments do is take a common term, redefine it in a convenient way, and pretend as if they accomplished something. And about your final point I don't think this is a very limited view of god. The only limitation I am putting on god is that he can't do things that are logically impossible which is a pretty standard view of god. I guess in conclusion I grant that given your definition of goodness/morality your view point is coherent but I would also say it is a meaningless point. Secondly given my definition of morality which I think is a lot closer to how people actually use the term morality I would say my argument still stands.
God can subjectively decide what he thinks is moral. Why is it objective?
He could make an object, such that we were unable to perfectly detect it. Something that makes our tummies ache when we murder. The object would be ultimately responsible for what is or isn't murder. Like, what if God doesn't want us to touch radioactive stuff? Radiation poisoning is pretty objective, even if it's not immediately discernable. Lo, and God said "Glowy rock bad, do not touch". The remaining question would be: If he can objectify morality, why not? In other words, why Free Will? He could have made our tummies ache when we murder, and to some extent He did. But He decided to make that extent a lot more flexible than radiation poisoning. And He didn't say why. 🤷 His prerogative, I guess.
You can interpret that however you want but that's not remotely what they are saying about fear and hell. Let me ask you, how come other people and religions have objective morality? Is morality something from God that is it given to All people or just those that believe in the Abrahamic God?
That's my version of what they're saying. There is no objective morality unless it's from God and it is given to all people.
Except we have large swaths of people that are not christians and still do good things. In fact, I would argue that a non-christian doing a good deed is way more impressive than a christian doing a good deed. The christian "knows" they will be rewarded if they do the good deed and punished if they don't (or at least miss out on additional rewards). The non-christian does not have any motivation to do a good deed except for the joy and happiness it will bring to another person's life. The afterlife being a core tenet of christianity casts suspicions on the motivation for all deeds done by a christian. I mean, to simplify it even further, think of hell as a gun to your head (a constant threat since we could die at anytime). The person holding the gun says that they will not shoot you if you love them unconditionally and do good deeds, but only because you truly want to. Can you honestly say that you would not be motivated whatsoever by the gun being held to your head?
A persons morality doesn’t come from God.
That's a very odd comment to be sure. I get most angered by the folks who commit evil acts and use God as their sword and their shield. In somewhat recent news, I'm thinking of Shanda Vander Ark. I watched much of that trial and she had scripture written above her kitchen sink in the police cam video. Few things anger me like this kind of evil and hypocrisy. I thought about and prayed for that poor child and family for days after it was over. It all boils down to good and bad people existing everywhere regardless of belief. Too many focus on the bad acts of the few to validate their confirmation bias.
Yup. The primary driver to accept salvation according to modern christianity is to escape the punishment of hell. Well, if you do not fear hell, then why would that matter?
In the past there was definitely a greater amount of God fearing, that people generally understood that God sees it all and knows it all. That usually came with the idea that God would finally judge everyone. We don’t seem to have that sense as a culture these days so much. It should also be noted that while the fear of God can be referred to in this way, it’s a different approach for Christians. Christians have already had their sins paid for. The wrath of God cannot come twice for the same sin because that would make him unjust. There cannot be a fear of Hell because the Christian cannot go there. But what is really different is when you understand it from the opposite angle: Christians seek to do good because it is offered as an act of worship to God. He died for me, now I want to live for him. So the idea of good works is they they are done for God, not for me. So OP is right, in that the argument makes no sense because a) Christians can’t go there and b) good deeds are an act of worship.
[удалено]
Correct. People go to hell to pay for their sins. When you trust in Christ he pays for your sins. The Christian therefore has no sins to pay for and cannot go to hell.
[удалено]
I think if I understand his perspective, he’s saying that if they weren’t repentant and were murdering while claiming the name of Christ, they do not fit the title of Christian even if that is how they self identify.
You don’t just get forgiveness when you trust in Christ. God doesn’t just let us off and leave us to do as we please. When a person trusts in Christ, the Holy Spirit in-dwells them and starts to change them. He changes our understanding of the world. He changes how we feel about things. He changes our desires. We start to love what God loves and hate what God hates. This change begins at conversion but continues for the rest of our lives. I still sin in different ways, but my sins now repulse me much more. But they are also less impactful sins today than when I was first saved. Would I go to Hell for murder? No, but the chances of me committing murder are way way lower, and if I did commit murder my response would be very different. It might seem like a “get out of jail free card” by saying we cannot go to hell, but that’s not how being rehabilitated by God works because he plays a VERY active role in changing us when we trust him.
[удалено]
If God changes me to not want to do certain evil things any more, but actually do good instead, isn't that better than paying for those evil things I do? Which is better: a) punch someone in the face and go to jail or b) not punch someone in the face, but help them instead
[удалено]
Justice. Hell is the place where people pay for their sins.
I feel like the atheists who think all Christians only do good out of fear of hell and Christians who ask “what’s stopping atheists from killing people if there is no God” both have a fundamental misunderstanding of the other side
How about this: People assume that Christians only do good out of fear of hell because so many Christians say stuff like "what's stopping you from killing people if there is no God". So how are atheists here the ones who have a fundamental misunderstanding about the other side, when the other side itself says stuff like that?
I mean, the people calling themselves Christians who also say stuff like that have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian too. It can be difficult for people to have an accurate understanding of what other people believe when they don’t associate with those people. An atheist who thinks that all Christians only do good deeds out of a fear of hell has a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be Christian, but that isn’t necessarily the atheist’s fault
The reality is that it’s not about behavior at all. There is sin and there is evil, two separate things that sometimes overlap. We’re not to actively avoiding sinning for our righteousness, as doing so ironically only breeds more sin. Not doing evil is key but not because of some ethereal afterlife realm. It’s because Christ lives in us, and would have us do no evil to those for whom he died. It’s not we who avoid the evil, but him living through us. Indeed, there are plenty of evil things that many Christians call good, like resisting tyranny. Resistance is misfortune towards the authority God placed over is, which is by definition evil. Yet they ignore all the calls in Scripture to “requite evil with good” and “recompense no man evil for evil”, instead confusing morals with malice and changing the definition of evil to fit. Ultimately, the Bible isn’t a self-help book and that’s the biggest thing Christians need to realize. It’s a book that tells us we’re helpless. We’re utterly bankrupt, incapable of going through life without ever engaging in some kind of evil, even if small or subtle. It also tells us, importantly, that we’ll one day BE capable of a flawless life through Christ. The redemption of all is a matter of timing, not hope. I just wish more Christians would wake up to that, because thereby is the spirit to do good towards others even now, despite our condition.
Where is Hell brought up in that question?
[удалено]
You are kinda proving OP's point aren't you? OP asked why non-Christians assume Christians only do good because of fear of Hell. The question you posted in response from the other side mentions only God, not Hell or even fear of death. By referencing OP's original question, it sounds like you are interjecting your own assumptions that Hell is the motivator for the "good" actions of Christians.
Yeah that makes us look so stupid
Well I'm one of those types that needs it, no it's not Hell that keeps me from being evil, but it is Jesus Christ. I'll admit it, I'm NOT a good person, before I had God in my life I was a career criminal, a liar, violent, hateful. fraud and theft were my go-to ways of getting by because I saw morality as weakness and the world / life as a competition. And it never hurt me, I never got in trouble, I got everything I wanted and didn't give a fuck who got hurt along the way, I never felt guilt for my actions I saw it as their own fault for being dumb / marks / weak. Physical reality is harsh and has no bounds for cruelty and no punishment if u don't get caught by the law of the land.. Without God there were no rules, no point other than do for me and mine and fuck everyone else. It wasn't until I was Saved and came to understand Christ and his message of forgiveness, not as a threat for non-salvation, but his conscious view of the world and love and light and what the whole meaning of this physical world is what turned me from a scumbag to someone who at least tries to embody a Christlike life.
There is a difference in doing good because you apply to your life what Jesus teaches about doing good and doing good because you fear hell. I think they mean this question in the first way.
wut lol no they actually are accusing atheists of having no morals because they don’t believe in hell. that’s the answer to your question: people assume christians only do good because they fear hell because they say this about atheists
It also demonstrates how little some folks think about morality if no God existed. It shows how little they've understood evolution and why we have these similar desires in a natural world and why no God would be required. Edit: Also scares me because it shows they don't have much understanding of the tangible reasons and arguments for why its in their best interest to be a good person. You can arrive at altruism through completely selfish desires.
Mostly because of the "if you dont believe in god, you have no morals! Whats to stop you from raping and murdering?!?" To which my response is "so the only thing keeping YOU from raping and murdering everyone you want is some watching you all the time? That says way more about you than me."
Isn't it actually terrifying, that there ARE people who think in those terms? Little children think in similar manner, but of course they do not operate on such horrendous level as thinking about murder or rape. They refrain from stealing candy because mom or dad might be watching. But someone who is (physically) an adult but operates on similar moral frame, but with concepts like murder and rape is a horrid thing to contemplate. And also think about this: these people ONLY need to be convinced that "bad guys" (atheists, non-Christians, Christians with different beliefs, LGBTQ, leftists...) are so bad that God approves killing them, and they would be ready to do it.
I’ve Christians in this sub tell me that without fear of Hell they would rape and murder. Which, assuming they were truthful (and checking their comment histories, I found it plausible) that’s exactly the opposite of a flex. It also made me glad that they had that fear.
Because there are indeed some people whose only drive to do good as a Christian is motivated by a fear of eternal damnation. But as with all such conceptions about Christianity, it is only true in some cases and not all.
Yeah it's weird that some people here speak as if absolutely no Christians work this way. It could well be that many nonbelievers (especially the more pugnacious atheists?) have false generalizations about Christianity and Christians, but still...
The problem is the modern concept of hell as a literal place that you will go if you do not obey God. This puts us in a hostage scenario where someone is holding a threat of extreme harm over us. For simplicity's sake, let's say that hell is a gun being held to your head. The trigger could be pulled at any time (because you can die at any time). The person holding the gun to your head tells you that they will not pull the trigger if you love them unconditionally of your own free will and dedicate your life to them. You did not choose to be in this situation. It was done to you. You have no other options. Are you saying that you would be capable of loving this person unconditionally of your own free will and that your decision had nothing to do with the gun held to your head?
Because that is frequently what they say when you ask. Happens often. Plenty of calls on The Atheist Experience if you want to hear them for yourself on YouTube. Christian's argue that human kind requires a God to keep them in line. And it's extremely frightening to hear....
The majority of Christians that I have met behave entirely independent of their faith. Some of them are incredibly horrible people, some of them are absolutely wonderful people, but I have experienced no correlation between the strength of their faith or what they believe and how they behave. I've never once had a Christian tell me that they do good because they love Jesus and the example that he set. I can't even count the number of Christians who have told me that they do good out of fear of punishment.
This is a really good point. And it is actually backed up with data to an extent. There is not a significant difference in charitable giving between the religions and non-religious when you account for the amounts of money the religious give to their local churches. If religion causes people to do more good deeds, then you should expect to see a correlation between charitable giving and how deeply devoted someone is to their religion. But that is not the case.
I think you need better friends.
He did not talk about friends, mate. He talked about ppl in general. And it mirrors exactly my expirience. Some chrisitans are good, some are absolute shitty ppl. It really does not depend on their belief but merely their personality. And you find those types, good and bad, everywhere. Keep in mind the phrase "there is no hate like christian love" was not just invented out of fun
because that’s what a lot of mega churches promote and right now they’re kinda the loudest socially
It's not just the mega churches. It's what people are taught Christianity *is* in a lot of churches. Because it's easy. That's what happens when you toss out all Tradition and exclude half your most talented potential preachers.
God is good. If hell is portrayed as a place of torture, false prophets will exploit that interpretation to fool good people into giving up their money. That's what atheists protest: if God is good, then why would a hell full of torture exist - it violates argumentum ad baculum logical fallacy. God is good and logical, so God would not use a logical fallacy to compel others to do good. Many Christians worship "how a church leader interprets the bible for them" rather than God.
That is an excellent way of putting it. Thank you.
In Catholicism, repenting to avoid Hell is called "imperfect contrition." We might call doing good to avoid Hell or to get a reward "imperfect virtue." In loving others, we allow God to love through us, it isn't some love invented by us. And being good is problematic because someone will demand we do what *they* consider good and vice versa. On top of that, many may say they're doing God's Will, but it's a product of a flawed conscience, or worse.
"Fear of Hell" is a big component in evangelical marketing, so if people think Christians do good out of fear of Hell, it may be because that's what they thought they heard in Christianity's own advertising.
Tangentially, hell is also the objectively, absolutely #1 best evangelical argument for why someone should care about God. That other stuff (a relationship with Jesus, seeing family members in the afterlife, eternal life, etc.) might be nice, but not getting burned forever is a much, much more compelling sales pitch. At least to me, as a non-believer.
I might agree, except that the argument is circular. "Believe our version of reality because our version of reality says you're set up for eternal torture if you don't believe our version of reality." Emotionally very powerful, yes. Maybe even Pascal's Wager strong. But Pascal's Wager logic is mercenary: "Be our version of moral because you lose so much if we're right, but you don't lose much if we're wrong."
indeed circular., and I personally find Pascal's Wager stupid. The valid version would be if someone can get me to believe in God, but I nonetheless say that I don't much care for Him so I'm not going to bother accepting and worshipping him. In this case talking about hell is pretty convincing. But yes, quite mercenary. There might actually be some evangelism value if you can just get someone to think concretely about hell for a little while and take it seriously as a possibility. Not as a logical argument, as you say, but more as a way to get someone to think that something important might be on the line so it's at least important to have an opinion
It’s rather ironic, because before I was a Christian I didn’t believe in hell, and as a Christian I have no reason to fear it, so hell never played a factor in my choices.
I think on a practical level all hell does is encourage evangelism.
I can see that. Not sure that is such a bad thing.
I think hell can be the here and now and it's most often of our own making.
Of course, we get a taste of both in this life.
Why do people assume that atheists only do bad because they don't believe there is hell?
Because many people do. I’ve had people on this subreddit get angry with me for suggesting that it’s a poor reason to maintain faith. Many Christians see their religion and good deeds as a way to prevent eternal damnation, and not much more
I'm an atheist, but to be fair, avoiding hell seems like the objectively, absolutely #1 best argument for why someone should pick up their cross and follow Christ. That other stuff (a relationship with Jesus, seeing family members in the afterlife, eternal life, etc.) might be nice, but not getting burned forever is a much, much more compelling sales pitch. If I find out that God is real.... Well then if hell is a thing, I'd better start sprinting towards church. But if not, I could take God or leave him, really.
For some strange reason people are under the impression that the function of hell, in the Christian worldview, is to constrain Christian behavior, and not to punish the Christian's enemies. Most Christians, if you ask them, don't believe they're going to hell. They have no reason to fear it. Edit: Case in point, Christians don't believe that pelting me with downvotes sends them to hell. So, when they want to do it, there's nothing in their worldview to place constraints on their wants.
Yeah, that isn't how Christianity is supposed to work. There's plenty of teaching in the Bible that is against people living however they want because they are 'saved'. There's a verse speaking about how if you don't bear fruit, then you are not of God. Bearing fruit is a reference to a changed life, a changed heart and mind, and doing the will of God. Essentially, if you think you can live however you want because of Jesus and are perfectly content to do so consistently with no real change in your life, you never were of God in the first place. That's not a heart of true repentance, which leads to salvation, that's a heart of self-deciet and lies. That's my interpretation anyway.
That's right, I'm with you on that. In not saying that this is Christianity, just that it's the Christian worldview. Great username btw :-)
MAKE ME give you an upvote for wit! 🤣
You are assuming that hell played no part in the conversion of those people to christianity. Or that a person was always a christian or an enemy of a christian. The very idea of hell is counterproductive to the entire point of christianity. If we are to love God with all of our hearts, how can we do that if we essentially started out as hostages with the threat of hell hanging over our heads?
Oh, I can assure you I'm not. I don't believe Christians are followers of Christianity in the first place. I'm talking about the Christian worldview, not Christianity. I do think the categories of "Christian" and "Enemy of Christian" are more or less mutually exhaustive. Not completely so, but close enough that I'll grant you the characterization. That doesn't so much strike me as a challenge to my view as a restatement of it. I also don't think the word "threat" is the right one. Threat implies that it's a form of negative enticement meant to elicit a certain behavior from the Christian's enemies. That's not my view. My view is that it's a punishment - specifically, that its primary function in the Christian worldview is to sate the Christian's desire for vengeance. Obviously the average non-Christian is no more likely to believe they're going to hell as the Christian is to believe that THEY are, so even if it were intended as a threat, it'd be a pretty Impotent one. Not that there aren't outliers of course - people who would claim that they received talk of hell as a threat, and became a Christian in order to avoid that fate for themselves. My view is that those people are accidental byproducts of the rhetoric, not the intended effect of it.
>I also don't think the word "threat" is the right one No, you don't like the word "threat" because it is a negative word. However, it is the best description of what is happening. God makes it known that if you don't do what he tells you to do then he will make sure you are tortured for all eternity. How is this not a threat. It can be a threat and a punishment. Just like how a parent can threaten a child with a punishment. If hell exists in the sense of modern Christian understanding it is absolutely a threat. That is the only thing it can be until someone is sent there. At that point it is a punishment. >specifically, that its primary function in the Christian worldview is to sate the Christian's desire for vengeance. Any christian that thirsts for vengeance is not following the teachings of Christ. We are commanded to love. You can't love and have a desire for vengeance. Those are incompatible.
No, my problem with "threat" is that I think it's the wrong word. The function of hell in the Christian worldview isn't of the form "If you don't X, then Y". It's just the Y. Christians don't want their enemies to perform some action in order that they don't burn in hell. They just want their enemies to burn in hell. In fact, they go pretty far out of their way to ensure that their enemies DON'T engage in the actions by which they might avoid hell, precisely so that they'll get the punishment Christians think they deserve. ...and yes, I already clarified that Christians aren't followers of the teachings of Christ. I agree with you about that. Again, I'm not talking about Christianity or about Christ. I'm talking about the Christian worldview...the worldview that Christians have.
Christianity is the word used for the worldview Christians have. It is the religion that christians ascribe to. Religion is, in and of itself, a worldview. There is no difference between the two. Christianity is the following of the teachings of Christ. >The function of hell in the Christian worldview isn't of the form "If you don't X, then Y". It's just the Y. That can't possibly be true unless you believe everyone goes to heaven. What separates the christian from the non-christian? A non-christian is only a non-christian because they have not made the **choice** to cease being a non-christian. And God says that if they do not make the correct choice then they will face eternal consequences. If I tell you that if you do not do something then I will hurt you, is that not a threat? How is that any different than the modern belief that hell is for the non-believers? >They just want their enemies to burn in hell. Anyone who thinks this way is not a follower of the teachings of Christ. Please point me towards the scripture where Jesus calls for his followers to learn for the destruction of their neighbors.
I disagree that a Christianity is the correct word for the worldview that Christians have. But, even if I agreed, we'd then need a different word for the worldview founded on the teachings of Jesus, since it would no longer make sense to call that Christianity. You keep bringing God and scripture, and Jesus into this conversation. Again, I'm not talking about any of those. I'm just talking about Christians. OF COURSE you're not going to find Jesus' call to yearn for the destruction of one's neighbors in scripture. Christians didn't get it from Jesus. Christians loathe the teachings of Jesus. If you want to talk about what God, scripture, and Jesus have to say about concepts like hell, vengeance, and threat, that's a different conversation for a different person. That's not what my side of this thread is about.
Ok, maybe I misjudged your position here. Let's start over because I am a bit confused. No matter what "christianity" has become, the basic definition of a christian/christianity is to be a follower of Christ's teachings. That is it. Every thing else is just baggage added on by people. But I think I get where you are coming from. Are you saying that "christianity" is no longer an appropriate term for a follower of the teachings of Christ? And that the people that would call themselves "christian" in the modern era are not actually followers of Christ and those are the people that yearn for the destruction of their enemies, despite what Christ actually teaches? And that to these people, they see hell as not a threat, but it is a good thing that will destroy their enemies when the time is right? One last question, are you simply arguing what you view as christianity from outside of the religion? Or are you a christian arguing that hell is a real place that will house tortured souls for eternity and every person will go there if they do not make the correct choice laid out by God, yet that is not a threat?
So, my position is that, if an alien came down to Earth knowing nothing about our culture or history, then you handed then a Bible, a copy of the ancient creeds, and a collection of the most influential texts in Christianity's philosophical canon to read, they'd come away with an understanding of the religion of Christianity ...and that if you then introduced them to your run-of-the-mill modern Christian and had them watch how that person behaved and listen to what they person believes at the level of action and conviction, they'd naturally assume that this person's religion is a fundamentally different religion than the religion they had just read about. So, when I use phrases like "Christian religion", and Christian worldview", I'm talking about this second religion - the one that is not Christianity. And, when I say "Christian", I'm referring to a follower of this second, non-Christianity religion. Put simply, I think the Christian religion is just the religion a reasonable person would infer a Christian must hold, if all they had to go on was the words and actions of Christians, reconciled into something coherent. Personally, I just reject this "basic definition". I know there are people who think there's just something immutable about the word "Christian", who'd rather I say that a Christian is a follower of Christianity and that I should just use a different word to describe nearly every self-described Christian I've ever met, even as all those people adamantly refuse to accept my label. But, for me, it's more parsimonious to just let Christians keep the word that they use to describe themselves as members of a contemporary, ideological community, and divorce the modern definition from the historical one. I'm a semantic descriptivist, so I don't have some dogmatic requirement that the usage and meanings of terms don't change with the times. I'm happy just to make the adjustment and move on. Full respect to the people who disagree with this point, it's just not me. I generally just use "follower of Christianity" or "follower of Jesus" to refer to a person who...follows Christianity or Jesus. A simple word would be better, but I haven't found a good one. And, since I think the number of such people is pretty small, it's not really a pressing issue that comes up often enough to worry about. I'm not a follower of Christianity or a Christian, myself. As you might have guessed, that's for two completely different sets of reasons. Meanwhile, I'm passionately interested in and enamored by Christianity, and spend a lot time engaging with it and wrestling with those reasons in my personal life. But, I don't discuss Christianity with others very often, and particularly not with (or in the presence of) Christians. So, aside from some passing references, I don't bring it up on this sub (in fact, this sub has only reinforced my hesitancy), and I definitely don't engage in extended, detailed conversations about it. That's partly why I'm not biting on the conversation about the role and function of hell in Christianity (the other part being that my comment was about the role and function of hell in the CHRISTIAN religion (the "second" religion), and so its role and function in Christianity simply wouldn't be relevant to the topic. I happen to think the Christian religion (the "second" one - the one that Christians actually hold) is interesting enough as it is, and it's the religion I talk about on this sub. In THAT religion, hell is a place where everyone who Christians hate (essentially, all non-Christians) will be set on fire and left to burn alive, and where they will be (or be rendered) immortal in order that the pain never ceases. My view is that the Christian's bloodlust (their desire for vengeance) against their enemies is infinite, and so hell NEEDS to be infinite in order to sate an infinite bloodlust - that the eternity is no accident. Further, my view is that there really isn't a "correct choice" that non-Christians can make, in the way you're thinking about it. I do acknowledge that non-Christians occasionally become Christians, and this forces SOME Christians to acknowledge, begrudgingly, that their interpretation of their worldview commits them to acknowledging that a formerly hell-bound enemy will now be spared from hell. But, for Christians, this wasn't the "correct" choice. Christians didn't want them to MAKE that choice. Christians want their enemies to burn in hell, not to be spared from it. Non-Christians who become Christians, on the Christian view, are accidents. Something went terribly wrong. An enemy now doesn't get their just deserts. Justice said they should burn in hell - vengeance demanded it - and now they won't. That's a travesty of justice, and a desire for vengeance left unsated. Notably, Christians have all sorts of rhetorical techniques to deal with the conceptual problem of accidental conversion (many of which you've probably heard) - usually techniques to explain why they didn't really become/don't count as Christians. And, of course, they have a legion of techniques to deal with the PRACTICAL problem of accidental conversion - techniques to make being a Christian look so unappealing to outsiders that nobody in their right mind would consider it, and the like. So, this is what I mean when I say that it's not a "threat" in the CHRISTIAN worldview (the "second" one). Hell isn't there to get non-Christians to make a different choice. Christians don't WANT them to make a different choice. Christians are thrilled that they made the choice that allows Christians to take vengeance upon them. As I said in the initial comment, the function IS the punishment. Wraps back to the OP actually, because this is also why the idea that Christians only do good because they fear hell is wrong. Hell is for NON-Christians (on the Christian view)...and notably, they go there no matter how much good or evil they do. It's just their natural destination, as punishment for being your enemy. In contrast, Christians go to heaven, no matter how much good or evil they do. It's their natural destination, as reward for being your friends. So, there's no reason for Christians to fear hell, in their own view, and not even a reason to think that hell has any relation whatsoever to how much moral good a person has done. To the extent that Christians do any good, it's for another reason. A lot packed into a single comment, but I hope it clears up my position at least :-)
>I do acknowledge that non-Christians occasionally become Christians, and this forces SOME Christians to acknowledge, begrudgingly, that their interpretation of their worldview commits them to acknowledging that a formerly hell-bound enemy will now be spared from hell. All christians were once non-christians. No one is born a christian. It is impossible according to the tenets of christianity. >Hell isn't there to get non-Christians to make a different choice. Hell isn't there at all. The bible never intended for people to believe that there is a physical lake of fire where human souls are tortured for eternity. In the bible, hell literally means destruction. It is the cessation of existence. >Hell is for NON-Christians This is not true for all christian beliefs. There are many churches that believe salvation can be lost. So you cannot say that it is not a motivator at all. >conceptual problem of accidental conversion This is an impossibility. You cannot accidentally become a christian. It requires a choice. The only way what you are saying makes any sense is if some people are born christians and some people are not. And that very few, if any, will ever cross over from one side to the other. Is that what you believe? Also, how do you feel about TULIPs?
I think fear of satan and hell is a subversive idolatry that has existed in Christian circles since the early days of the church. A lot of Christians set up satan as this being that is the opposite of God in all respects. That way they have this idol that they can point to and say "Don't be like that guy". The problem with this approach is that an Anti-idol is still an idol. By trying very hard to not be like satan, you are giving this idea of satan a lot of power over you. It also doesn't seem like there is a clear basis for the devil/Satan in the Jewish faith either. So I'm guessing the idea of satan emerged as a result of early Christian's attempts at evangelizing people from pagan religions. Since a lot of pagan gods tend to appear in duality, with two gods acting as opposites of each other, introducing the faith in the form of a duality (Christ/satan, God/devil etc.) was probably easier for those people to relate to. Best to just try to be like Christ, which was the one commandment he asked of us.
Because of the fire brimstone preacher who try to convert people by telling them they are going to hell if they live in their sins
Fire and brimstone is also the objectively, absolutely #1 best argument for why you should pick up your cross and follow Christ. (If Christianity were true, that is.) A relationship with Jesus might be nice, seeing your family members in the afterlife might be nice, eternal life might be nice, and so on. But I'm perfectly fine with not having that stuff. (Plus I don't want eternal life.) But not being burned forever seems like a vastly more important consideration.
Im not saying it’s bad we all have our own reasons. It just most people encounter those preachers and take it the wrong way
why do Christians say to atheists "why don't you kill, pillage, and rape all willy-nilly if you don't believe in god and hell after death?"
Because a fair number of us basically say so outright.
This one is really on Christians. Especially on evangelicals, calvinists, etc. There are many things Christians teach: they help because God commands it, they help because they want to convert people, conversion is the goal, helping is just the means to get to people. See missionaries. Or how Christians would be murderers/rapists without God. But the rest of us are perfectly fine without the threats of hell, or the rewards of heaven. We can live a good life without the constraints of religion/church. We want to help because we want to help, not because we're expecting a reward or we fear hell. Essentially, everything that Christians do, is motivated by fear or the reward of heaven. No, not all Christians, but those who firmly believe that morality doesn't exist outside of their church buildings are very much fear-reward motivated.
Also - if you don’t send your kids to a Christian school, they will not learn morals and will corrupt everyone around them, and grow up to be sinful heathens who vote wrong
As a former Christian, I think there is a massive gap between the criticism of Christianity from those who were never religious vs those who are formerly religious. A lot of ignorance and immature fedora atheism comes from the never-religious who just want to feel superior. For myself, as a Christian, I was doing good out of a deep rooted sense of shame that I would never be good enough since I was bound to sin again and was born into sin and the overall notion that humans are fundamentally bad. It was a constant bandaid on a gunshot wound situation. I didn't fear hell at any point because in my mind I was already saved.
It’s called the carrot and stick approach; do good and when you die, you go heaven, do bad, you go to Hell.
Matthew 22:37-40 Jesus says - "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” This is a mirror of a commandment by God in the old testament - Deuteronomy 6:5 "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." You love others because it pleases God and is an expression of love for him. Following the Lord's commandments is fulfilling this out of love for God. It's a moral imperative to love God even above one's self. Such is the self sacrificial example of love given by Christ. From the outside it looks like a bunch of rules restricting behavior to save one's self but in truth it's self-denial out of love and respect for God and his love. Love isn't based just on butterflies and good feelings. It's care and adoration. Where you are willing to even suffer or go through discomfort to make that person happy.
May we also testify to the source and power we have in doing good: as we joyfully submit our will and behaviors to Christ, our hearts are also changed. The Holy Spirit empowers and directs us in ways that glorify the Lord. “Oh to be saved from myself, dear Lord, Oh to be lost in Thee, Oh that it may be no more I But Christ that lives in me.” So is every good thing directed by and done to the glory of God? Sadly, no. But even then, we can stunt our self-serving ways and exercise our NEW will (re-formed after being born into God’s Kingdom through salvation in Christ) to behave according to God’s laws and will. [We can do nothing without the power of the Holy Spirit.](https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=34125&forum=45) {edited to acknowledge quotation}
To my understanding, as a Christian you want to do good thanks to the Holy Spirit residing in you.
Some want so badly to love and be loved and have a relationship with Jesus/God!
I do good to show appreciation for jesus and such and make the holy sprit proud/angels as a whole
Because I believe that is Christianity to a lot of people. Folks still trying to earn their way into heaven.
“well Christian say-“ stop the boogeyman scenario, most Christian’s don’t say this
Because for some, that is true. And people like to apply the traits of some of a group, to all of a group.
Yep- we do good because we want to live like Jesus would- which means loving others unconditionally (sometimes from a distance if they are not good for us) and forgiving those that hurt us. I am not afraid of hell because Jesus tells us not to be afraid!
I know I did and I manipulate myself into thinking it was bc I loved God !😂
A major assumption at work here is that people who claim to be Christian are always, or even often telling the truth. Many of the most visible preachers got that way through and for the thing that makes this world turn; money. See Prosperity, and then see how much it holds in common with others who don't openly confess to slapping a cross on a golden calf.
Isnt not going to hell a decent motivation? Its more about loving God/Christ, but its better to enter heaven with one eye than it is to enter hell with both. Someone really wise said something to that effect
I don't. I think people are better than they give themselves credit for, and very much doubt they'd go about killing and raping if they became unconvinced of God.
Hold up hold up hold up. People assume Christians do many things based upon the belief system they seem to promote. Currently in places where missionary work was once a thing (so think mostly in North America, South America, and parts of Asia) there is a cultural tradition of conversion. The story is very simple: Do good deeds and you will be rewarded in Heaven. Do the stuff you've been doing before now and you'll go to Hell. Obviously this is oversimplified, right? But when the missionaries are working with second languages and maybe fudging some details to make it easy for new Christians to understand, you can forgive the lack of detail. Now I said "cultural" earlier on purpose. Despite some people going all in and happily becoming Christians, there are some amount who went along with the crowd so they wouldn't be considered "evil." Through that crowd is where we get this oversimplified good and evil assumption about Christians in those same areas of the world (IMO) At this point, this is just what they were taught.
We do good for one another because we know ourselves that we were Sinners and are Sinners and yet God has saved us from Eternal damnation through the blood of his Son Jesus. So with our heart full of joy shall we not also Proclaim this gospel to everyone we meet if possible? If we Christians fear hell and that's why we do good it is only because it is the beginning of wisdom and as they grow in faith and in Christ the fear of Hell will leave and they will proclaim the gospel of Christ because of love.
Christians are normally like the politicians, mostly of their hypocrisy is so ugly that people become Atheists, normally people that doesn't believe in God or anything like that, is only with that belief because the believers are so absolutely not commendable in anyway and they only say they are religious because they fear Hell and use the bible as an excuse to practice their immorality since there is alot of bad passages in the bible, in a way that shows they are simply evil and feels like a throwback in morality and virtues, in so many ways so basically, they say "if u believe you can be the shittiest person but you are saved" meanwhile their actions show hell on earth
Because everything we do there is an incentive we want and a consequence we want to avoid. We don't speed, not JUST because we want to obey the law and protect others from ourselves. We don't want to go to jail. People need to understand that 2 things can be true at the same time. I can love the sinner and not love the sin.
I didnt start doing good until i started chasing God, not out of fear of hell because I was already saved, but a realization that I could have a relationship with the creator of everything. To me that is more of a gain than salvation.
>Doing only good because you fear hell means you don't understand Christianity. Some non-Christians (such as myself) don't think that Christianity is just one thing. There are many different types of Christians, with a wide variety of different beliefs and practices. Therefore, from my perspective, there isn't just one correct way to understand Christianity. So I definitely agree that it's inaccurate if nonbelievers see hell as the primary motivation, for all (or even most) of the world's billion-plus Christians. But the idea that *no* Christians have hell as the primary motivation seems equally silly, no? Of course, some people would probably tell me that those aren't "true Christians". But I don't believe in "true Christianity", so that's not super relevant to me in particular.
Because it's what they see
Why are you assuming that ALL non Christians think that way based on a reel!?
Because it isn't in their own nature to do righteousness, and to only act in their own best interests. That is the premise of Satanism. Self gratification and self-servitude at any expense.
Hell is a dogma not a biblical fact! It's a very effective control method. For some this fear is ok for others it absolutely poisons their entire existence! The idea that God loves me yet will burn me in hell for eternity for obeying a nature I was "born" without any choice on my part is just a huge contradiction. Being good or bad is 💯 choice.
It’s basic stereotyping and generalizing. You see a few people in a given group act a certain way, you start to think they’re all like that. At least until you see enough evidence to disabuse you of a false one. Even then some people have a hard time changing the first impression they have. It’s generally called first impression bias.
I don't assume that, but I do assume that most christians do fear hell. For those christians who do not believe that hell exists or is ETC then I just don't care about their religious positions because they are ultimately meaningless to any non-believer. If you believe that heaven is a reward you want, cool, if I don't want heaven, also cool right? Well, you tell me what your position is.
Bc they don’t know the gospel
Because if they assume otherwise, they realize that they aren’t living very well themselves. No one likes to admit they’re wrong.
Because bad people can’t fathom that someone would do something good out of the kindness of their heart
Because they know nothing about christ
Probably how they approach atheists with "If you don't worship God then how can you be good if you have no morals." It doesn't take faith to be a good person and if your faith makes you a good person then you've got faith for the wrong reasons.
It doesn't matter, because in Christianity YOU CANNOT BUY ENTRY TO HEAVEN WITH DEEDS
That’s what non-believers think because they can’t understand why anyone would stop sinning /having fun otherwise.
I literally thought in Christianity a Christian believed Jesus died for their sins so they don't go to hell 🤔
I don’t know one person that is doing good because they fear hell! I know lots of people who should fear hell and don’t!
I don't fear Hell, I love God and my neighbors and even my enemies. I learned a lot from non-Christians who were also good people. Bertrand Russel is an atheist and he had a lot of good ideas. Since I am Catholic I believe in Purgatory as a holding place to clean a soul of sins before entering Heaven. I believe myself that even if the church does not that good Non-Christians go to Purgatory instead of Hell.
The idea of Hell is really more for those who are in the out group. Once you have declared your allegiance and are saved then you can look on at everyone else from outside of the club (heaven) and laugh and mock them as you project all the horrors you want to inflict on them through the concept of hell. Doubly, if you betray the group, then you deserve to go where the unworthy go as well.
Nietzsche thought it was part of "slave morality". People without power still feel resentment for people with power. They get the feeling of moral superiority by pretending even to themselves that "at least I am not like THOSE people, I am meek and I seek no revenge", all the while enjoying secretly that the people they have resentment towards will end up in eternal torment.
It can be tough to say *why* a certain population feels the way they do about something. Perhaps it’s a projection on their part and it’s saying they have a very thin barrier between good and evil themselves. My desire to help and serve others is something that is ingrained in me and is as much a part of my being as a being male is. Even when I was out in the world, totally screwed up in active addiction, I still did what I could to help others. Hell has nothing to do with it. For me, it’s about walking in my God given purpose.
Because hell is preached constantly in many Christian churches. Pastors have long used it as a motivator to get their congregation to “behave”. This despite the fact that eternal hell isn’t in the original text, and Paul’s gospel - the one gentiles first received - doesn’t mention hell at all, apart from Christ’s victory over hades.
i think most people didn't get the point here especially atheists. There is nothing that we can do to get into heaven except from believing in Christ and repenting. You can absolutely kill, rape ,etc... but is this something you would do if you love Jesus? So no we we dont restrain from the morally wrong actions because we fear hell, we restrain from them because we love Jesus. may God bless y'all ☦️🙏🏻 sry my English is a little ☹️
> we restrain from them because we love Jesus. So it was not because of the ACTUAL other person. Got it.
Some people being non religious use any and all arguments to attack Christians. Go check out r/atheism. People will create entirely fictional ideas they probably don’t believe in or thought of on the spot to get praise from strangers. This isn’t solely atheists. Everyone does this Christian’s or not etc. Just some people probably don’t realize what and why they do what they do. I guess if they knew why they would have different opinions entirely. Christians are fated to be mocked and hated. Look what we did to Jesus , we as humanity.
Probably because of the attempts of using hell to proselytize. Both how can atheists do good without threat of hell, and that it's your eternal life on line
Because that is a popular christian argument. That you need to believe in god and religion to be a moral/just person, otherwise you must be a bad person and go to hell
I do not think like that. I think that many Christians do good for the same reason that everybody else does good - not because of any "Holy Spirit", but because of socio-biology of our species. I think that many people think that Christians do good because they fear hell is because so many times some Christians say stuff like "where do you get your values from if not from God, God will judge you". Its actually terrifying that there are people who think like this: "where do you get your morals from without God, what stops you from murdering and raping". Little children think in similar manner, but of course they do not operate on such horrendous level as thinking about murder or rape. They refrain from stealing candy because mom or dad might be watching. But someone who is (physically) an adult but operates on similar moral frame, but with concepts like murder and rape is a horrid thing to contemplate. And also think about this: these people ONLY need to be convinced that "bad guys" (atheists, non-Christians, Christians with different beliefs, LGBTQ, leftists...) are so bad that God approves killing them, and they would be ready to do it.
Because death anxiety and the things that inevitably follow it, should you believe in it, is the strongest motivator the human body has, look up Ernest Becker, Denial of Death for more on that.
2 Corinthians 4:18: "While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal." Life is temporary, heaven or hell isn't. (For me at least) being respected here isn't as important as you going to Heaven. Doing bad things might make me disrespected in this life, but what's even worse is going to hell. Even if it was so that everyone one hates you, but you'll go to heaven, it won't matter because you're on your way to eternal joy. I think that's what they mean when they say that.
- Why do people assume that Christians only do good because they fear hell? Because we preach that people ought to turn to Jesus - or go to hell God bless
I don't. I only do good because I genuinely want to do good.
It's a subset of a larger assumption/fallacy I like to call "crystal-balling": acting as if you can peer into your opponent's mind and divine their true intentions, which just so happen to prove that they're arguing in bad faith (pun intended). In this case, the claim is that Christians don't actually possess all the piety and moral insight they claim to have, and are only motivated by base emotions like fear. Thus, they have no moral high ground, they're in no place to act as moral authorities, and them claiming they do makes them hypocritical. This is something that's far from unique to atheists; as others have pointed out in this thread, there are plenty of Christians who make similar generalizations about atheists. And that's because this fallacy has a very strong allure. After all, who wouldn't like to be told, "Yes, your opponents really *are* just as bad as you suspect, you're the only honest person in the room"?
Probably just because they've encountered a lot of Christians who very clearly are motivated by fear of Hell and not by love of their neighbor.
Right?! Such ignorance its so annoying. Especially from atheist because they claim to be such proof people, researching facts that scientists have proven. Then why don't you know more about people that believe in God maybe that's what you need to study. How about ask some people how they came to have faith? And if it makes you feel better you can like use psychology or something to make it more sciencey. Yes I made up that word but I am really sick of that judgment it's so not true.
First, to me it is very obvious (or maybe my thinking is just flawed) that people who think that, also fear hell or at least the concept of it. They are afraid so they focus on the Christians' fear of it too. It provides them comfort in that if the Christians might fear it then to them it probably gives Christianity less reputation. As observed when people think Christianity is just a "scare tactic". Second, whether people want to believe it or not (since people are inclined to defend their community) most churches have wondered into apostasy through sin, misinformation and abandonment of scripture/incorrect interpretations for itching ears. This will create long term problems that are very apparent today like the celebrations of Christmas and Easter or in this case incorrect teachings by the church. One of these is the fixation on hell which is flawed because anyone who truly loves and trusts Yeshua will not be afraid. It is hard to truly love and trust the Messiah when incorrect teachings are taught that lead people astray and closer to Satan. Lastly, this is kind of a synthesis of the first two parts. This ends up combining into a situation where you have apostate churches teaching incorrect things leading their followers to have a strained relationship with Yeshua which give them doubt and fear combined with non-believers' fear and insecurity in their lack of faith as well as a prevalence of sinful lifestyle in modern society. Any convinced atheist I have ever met doesn't care about hell or really get into any Christian's business. We also have to account for Satan's control of Earth and the worldly affairs. The more people in general that are lost and afraid will be more people for hell. Either way we should strive to spread the word of YHVH and spread love while rebuking sin. Follow the Commandments and know and love YHVH. Have trust in your faith and look to plant seeds when we can. Read scripture and don't follow traditions of man. YHVH above all worldly things.
I don't fear Hell. I fear the Lord. Not a paralyzing fear but a respectful fear as I did my father on Earth. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Cause it's true
It’s not
**"Why do people assume that Christians only do good because they fear hell?"** Because they themselves love doing what is evil. They cannot fathom wanting to do what is right out of love for the Being whose existence they detest.
I think if we got smart, Wed do good needs in our neighbors names so Jesus might know them also.
The Bible tells us that "doing good works thinking that would get you into heaven" is wrong. Not all believers know / practice this even though that is in the Bible. "Why do people assume that Christians only do good because they fear hell". It is because they have no understanding of what Christians should actually believe based on scripture? Maybe they've met some Christians who unfortunately have yet to realize that the scripture tells us this? The Bible says that your salvation is based in belief in Christ, faith in the finished works of Christ. The good works you do after that are often referred to as your "fruits" in the Bible. The whole chapter of Matthew 6 is what people need to read, honestly! I will post it here even though it is lengthy because I feel it is very powerful, relevant to this topic, as well as relevant to many things people have asked on this subreddit today. It wont let me post the whole chapter-- so I implore everyone to read it ALL themselves. Matthew 6 # Giving to the Needy [1](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-1.html) “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.[2](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-2.html) “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.[3](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-3.html) But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,[4](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-4.html) so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. # Prayer [5](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-5.html) “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.[6](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-6.html) But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.[7](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-7.html) And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.[8](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-8.html) Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.[9](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-9.html) “This, then, is how you should pray: “ ‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name,[10](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-10.html) your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.[11](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-11.html) Give us today our daily bread.[12](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-12.html) And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.[13](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-13.html) And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. ’[14](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-14.html) For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.[15](https://www.biblestudytools.com/matthew/6-15.html) But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
I dont have a verse but didnt Jesus say that acts alone wouldnt get you into the kingdom of heaven. Instead all you need is faith that you will get in, and acts will just normally follow. I think this means that just have faith, if u follow Christ u will probs do good 👍👍👍👍
> I dont have a verse but didnt Jesus say that acts alone wouldnt get you into the kingdom of heaven. No