Hell in Wikipedia?

[Slopeshoulder]

Wow, the wikipedia entry on hell is really long, but it sucks regarding Christian hell. My wife and I went to 8 seminaries, and in EVERY one hell 101 was basically taken to be a metaphor or maybe a reference to some sort of state defined as or experienced as "separation from God." And it can be here, and it's a mindset and all that. It's despair, nihilism, the demontor's kiss, etc. But wiki hell is still a place with fire and stuff. Wow, just wow. You woulda thought someone might have recieved the memo.

[Miles]

Wow, the wikipedia entry on hell is really long, but it sucks regarding Christian hell. My wife and I went to 8 seminaries, and in EVERY one hell 101 was basically taken to be a metaphor or maybe a reference to some sort of state defined as or experienced as "separation from God." And it can be here, and it's a mindset and all that. It's despair, nihilism, the demontor's kiss, etc. But wiki hell is still a place with fire and stuff. Wow, just wow. You woulda thought someone might have recieved the memo.

Took a look at at the Wikipedia article where, under the section on Christian hell, it says.

• "In most Christian beliefs, such as the Catholic Church, most Protestant churches (such as the Baptists, Episcopalians, etc), and Greek Orthodox churches, Hell is taught as the final destiny of those who have not been found worthy after they have passed through the great white throne of judgment , where they will be punished for sin and permanently separated from God after the general resurrection and last judgment. The nature of this judgment is inconsistent, with many Protestant churches teaching the saving comes from accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, and the opposing view that the judgment hinges on both faith and works, the teaching of Greek Orthodox and Catholic Churches."

And in large part this is what most Christians do believe about hell. That your take on the word isn't mentioned is no doubt due to the small number who share it, making it not worth mentioning. But do note that the article does reference other views, "In most Christian beliefs." Most, not all.

[Slopeshoulder]

Wow, the wikipedia entry on hell is really long, but it sucks regarding Christian hell. My wife and I went to 8 seminaries, and in EVERY one hell 101 was basically taken to be a metaphor or maybe a reference to some sort of state defined as or experienced as "separation from God." And it can be here, and it's a mindset and all that. It's despair, nihilism, the demontor's kiss, etc. But wiki hell is still a place with fire and stuff. Wow, just wow. You woulda thought someone might have recieved the memo.

Took a look at at the Wikipedia article where, under the section on Christian hell, it says.

• "In most Christian beliefs, such as the Catholic Church, most Protestant churches (such as the Baptists, Episcopalians, etc), and Greek Orthodox churches, Hell is taught as the final destiny of those who have not been found worthy after they have passed through the great white throne of judgment , where they will be punished for sin and permanently separated from God after the general resurrection and last judgment. The nature of this judgment is inconsistent, with many Protestant churches teaching the saving comes from accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, and the opposing view that the judgment hinges on both faith and works, the teaching of Greek Orthodox and Catholic Churches."

And in large part this is what most Christians do believe about hell. That your take on the word isn't mentioned is no doubt due to the small number who share it, making it not worth mentioning. But do note that the article does reference other views, "In most Christian beliefs." Most, not all.

I had read that. And it's not my "take" alone. As I said, it is taught at 8 seminaries that I know of, and is a pretty mainstream notion (Hell 101) in most good divinity schools. So my suggestion is that MANY Christians believe what I describe, including my evangelical bible professor. My suggestion was that the wiki author was ignorant of this large group of Christians, and apparently you share that ignorance of this way in which many christians conceive of hell. The alternative is to buy into literalism biblically and/or doctrinally. Sorry, but I'm not alone. And I'm mentioning it if wiki doesn't. K?

[Miles]

I had read that. And it's not my "take" alone.

Never said it was.

is a pretty mainstream notion (Hell 101) in most good divinity schools.

Considering that it's not a mainstream notion among the various Christian denominations, that's awefully hard to swallow.

My suggestion was that the wiki author was ignorant of this large group of Christians, and apparently you share that ignorance of this way in which many christians conceive of hell.

First of all, few of Wikipedia's articles are written by one person. Most are complied by various contributors. Secondly, I am not at all ignorant of your conception of hell. That you see it as a possibility just because I explained why it probably isn't featured in a particular resource strikes me as curious conclusion. But then I suspect your definition of "large group of Christians" is a bit unusual. So let me ask you, just how large is this group of "many" Christians? Either raw number or percentage will suffice. Along with your source(s) of course.

Sorry, but I'm not alone. And I'm mentioning it if wiki doesn't. K?

Again, I never claimed you are alone. And I also do note that you are mentioning it although Wiki doesn't---whatever.

[McCulloch]

Wow, the wikipedia entry on hell is really long, but it sucks regarding Christian hell. My wife and I went to 8 seminaries, and in EVERY one hell 101 was basically taken to be a metaphor or maybe a reference to some sort of state defined as or experienced as "separation from God." And it can be here, and it's a mindset and all that. It's despair, nihilism, the demontor's kiss, etc. But wiki hell is still a place with fire and stuff. Wow, just wow. You woulda thought someone might have recieved the memo.

It's Wikipedia. Update the entry.

[Slopeshoulder]

I had read that. And it's not my "take" alone.

Never said it was.

is a pretty mainstream notion (Hell 101) in most good divinity schools.

Considering that it's not a mainstream notion among the various Christian denominations, that's awefully hard to swallow.

My suggestion was that the wiki author was ignorant of this large group of Christians, and apparently you share that ignorance of this way in which many christians conceive of hell.

First of all, few of Wikipedia's articles are written by one person. Most are complied by various contributors. Secondly, I am not at all ignorant of your conception of hell. That you see it as a possibility just because I explained why it probably isn't featured in a particular resource strikes me as curious conclusion. But then I suspect your definition of "large group of Christians" is a bit unusual. So let me ask you, just how large is this group of "many" Christians? Either raw number or percentage will suffice. Along with your source(s) of course.

Sorry, but I'm not alone. And I'm mentioning it if wiki doesn't. K?

Again, I never claimed you are alone. And I also do note that you are mentioning it although Wiki doesn't---whatever.

I mentioned Wiki for fun, to talk about hell, and how I was amazed to see was a magical belief that still apparently so defines hell for some people. My concern was how anyone could take that seriously and how ir made christians look like fools to their "cultured despisers."
I couldn't quantify the number of Christians who hold this view, my source is my own observation of every Christian I met and studied with in the various div schools I and my wife attended, as well as friends from others, and everyone since who I've conversed with in any meaningful way. I do think that while they thought of hell in the way I was taught (shared by many theologians), some of them also thought of it as some sort of actiual, but unknowable, state after life. I'd say that "my" view of hell is probably held by 80-90% of christians I've met who are educated in top divinity schools, and by those christians who are pastored by their graduates or read their books and articles.
I also find that most non-fundamentalists who get exposed to the idea find it meaningful and liberating, it makes them more faithful; it's part of a larger theme of seeing traditinal beliefs anew and therefore not feeling one has to abandon their tradtition due to terminal silliness. So, because many christians do a damn fine job of remainng uneducated as part of adult faith formation, maybe 15% overall (source: my anus)?
Again, to be clear, I'm saying Hell= absence of God, (or possibly banishment by God), this life or next, and of our own making. It is that absence that is hellish, the fire and stuff is a metaphor, and the punishment and devil are stuff we tell kids, like santa's list. But hell as eternal fire as punishment for sins or absence of propositional assent to a specific christian faith formulation manged by a dude with horns who used to be called Lucifer the angel...bwahahahahaha, right? I know no theologically educated person who thinks that. Not to say there not out there i guess. But I find the "higher" understanding to be lovely, and important.
I sincerely had no idea it was controversial. I just struck that it never got mentioned in our nifty new online encyclopedia, and that the literalist view remanined ascendant in that paticular place.
(BTW, I'm thinking of Harvard, Yale, BTI consortium, GTU consortium, Chicago and affiliates, Emory, Duke, Vanderbilt, maybe Princeton, BC, Georgetown, Fordham, Rochester, Union, Columbia, etc; but not the fundamentalist or many denomenational schools).

[Miles]

I mentioned Wiki for fun, to talk about hell, and how I was amazed to see was a magical belief that still apparently so defines hell for some people.

Gotta say that I'm surprised you didn't know that. I can only assume you've been living a pretty cloistered life of late.

My concern was how anyone could take that seriously and how ir made christians look like fools to their "cultured despisers."

The "how "is by accepting the Bible literally. For many it's the easiest way to wrap their heads around a religion that asks them to accept claims of a supernatural nature. For others it provides quick and easy answers to questions and challenges, just point at a piece of scripture and say, "See!" Of course it's an approach also fraught with the pitfalls of absurdities and contradictions, but then I haven't seen an approach to religious belief that isn't. Their's is just more obvious.

I'd say that "my" view of hell is probably held by 80-90% of christians I've met who are educated in top divinity schools, and by those christians who are pastored by their graduates or read their books and articles.

Gotta remember that the ivory tower approach is far from that of the common man, which makes it a dangerous place from which to make extrapolations

I also find that most non-fundamentalists who get exposed to the idea find it meaningful and liberating, it makes them more faithful; it's part of a larger theme of seeing traditinal beliefs anew and therefore not feeling one has to abandon their tradtition due to terminal silliness.

My guess is that a large part of this liberating feeling is having found a way to walk away from the foreboding prospect of hellfire. It's like finding a Get Out of Jail Free card.

the fire and stuff is a metaphor, and the punishment and devil are stuff we tell kids, like santa's list.

But that's hardly a universal "we." According to one article on an American survey, "Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent." (My emphasis)
source

[Slopeshoulder]

Miles, all that makes sense to me.
Except the get out of jail free card. Are you suggesting that what many consider to be a mature, meaningful, and theologically rich notion that makes a traditional doctrine powerful for many people is some sort of sop to weak psuedo-believers? That seemed inconsistent with your other statements.
BTW, not cloitstered or ivory tower, but yes, New Engand, NY, SF, Chicago.
But I don't queation your numbers or sources. I suppose to the folks out there in Amerciaville that would seem a world apart. That's too bad. Bring back FDR and F. Scott Fitzgerald's Princeton class and let 'em rule us!!

[Miles]

Are you suggesting that what many consider to be a mature, meaningful, and theologically rich notion that makes a traditional doctrine powerful for many people is some sort of sop to weak psuedo-believers?

Considering I don't find the Christian religion to be filled with particularly mature thinking on any level, and in as much as those who subscribe to a fire and brimstone hell no doubt find it just as meaningful and theologically rich, I don't see much difference between the two. The fundamentalists justify their belief by having convinced themselves that the Bible is worthy of unquestioning trust, whereas those such as yourself appear to have found such a hell to be repugnant, and have therefore gone to some length to construct a more pleasant form. One fashioned out of considerable theological maneuverings, and more in keeping with a god of love rather than a god of wrath. I don't know how your theologians arrived at their notion of hell, but I suspect its basis is no less self serving than that of the fundamentalists'.

So I would be cautious about casting the fire and brimstone believers in disparaging terms--eg. "weak psuedo-believers"--if I were you. From where I stand as an outsider it's not at all impressive or convincing, but smacks of invidious elitism.

[Slopeshoulder]

Are you suggesting that what many consider to be a mature, meaningful, and theologically rich notion that makes a traditional doctrine powerful for many people is some sort of sop to weak psuedo-believers?

Considering I don't find the Christian religion to be filled with particularly mature thinking on any level, and in as much as those who subscribe to a fire and brimstone hell no doubt find it just as meaningful and theologically rich, I don't see much difference between the two. The fundamentalists justify their belief by having convinced themselves that the Bible is worthy of unquestioning trust, whereas those such as yourself appear to have found such a hell to be repugnant, and have therefore gone to some length to construct a more pleasant form. One fashioned out of considerable theological maneuverings, and more in keeping with a god of love rather than a god of wrath. I don't know how your theologians arrived at their notion of hell, but I suspect its basis is no less self serving than that of the fundamentalists'.

So I would be cautious about casting the fire and brimstone believers in disparaging terms--eg. "weak psuedo-believers"--if I were you. From where I stand as an outsider it's not at all impressive or convincing, but smacks of invidious elitism.

If you reject entirely every aspect of the framework I am engaging, it seems to me very odd and illogical that you would presume to assess my relationship to it and within it. But I think I understand now. There's no logic or evidence to your post, but very helpful, clear, and revealing personal opinion. That helps me clarify my own position viz. your position. As I see it, based on the evidence of your post, you take the position that there's no meaningful difference betwen fundamentalists, liberals, and super-liberal seeker types; There's no merit in Christian religious literature or thought at all; and you represent the Dawkins-like, slippery slope it's-all-the-devil school of religious opinion. I label that extremism, and I don't engage extremists as a matter of policy, here or elsewhere. The small percentage of the population that holds truly beliigerent fuindamentalist or anti-religion views can't be reasoned with or engaged. So I don't. Please let me know if your views moderate. Game over. Too bad though, while it was useless for us, other readers here might have liked engaging the topic. I hope my earlir posts were helpful to them.
And if you want a lesson in "invidious elitism," look no further than your wholesale dimissal of every variation an enormous world tradition.
He said politely...