[jondeval]

> Not an exclusive interpretation, but still a valid one.

This is only technically true in the sense that the weakest straw man still gets a seat at the table.

My comment is directed only to people who would be interested in investigating this topic with a sense of proportion. If you bring a sense of proportion to the investigation you will rule out fringe theologies and converge on a Christian teaching that looks nothing like the original canard.

[mbreese]

My point is that there is no one Christian teaching. I know many people who believe in the literal fire and brimstone definition of Hell who are devout Christians. Trying to claim there is one “true” interpretation and all others are fringe is folly. What is true to one group is a cult belief to another.

If you want to claim that your Christian beliefs don't include that definition of hell, you’d have a much better argument. Just don’t claim you speak for all Christians…

[jondeval]

> I know many people who believe in the literal fire and brimstone definition of Hell who are devout Christians.

This seems fishy to me. I'm sure you know (or know of) many people who you label in the category of devout Christians who believe in the existence of hell. It is a biblical teaching after all. But have you pressure tested their views in deep conversation to see if they hold to a 'literal fire and brimstone' view?

If you have, and feel confident that you are accurately representing their view, than I happily stand corrected. Just know that it doesn't track at all with my own direct experience, nor my studied understanding of the doctrinal teachings of the major Christian denominations.

> Just don’t claim you speak for all Christians…

This is an example of a statement that is so true it's devoid of information content. I would assume that a reasonable adult who is interested in investigating the bases for the theological doctrine of hell, is also well aware that there is denominational diversity of views within the faith.

The real problem with the 'not all Christians agree' public service announcements are that they have the insidious effect of leading people to believe that there is no subset of teachings on which Christians do agree and can speak coherently.

I know it's not your intention to undermine Christianity through this relativistic dilution and you are just trying to make sure the 'fire and brimstone and sulfur lake' view gets a fair hearing, but I do want to make the point that this pseudo-sophisticated bad faith argument is out there.

[throwaway_4ever]

I mean, fire, brimstone, and sulfur lake are actual bible verses.

"But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8

"If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell." Matthew 18:9

"And the beast was seized, and with him the false prophet who performed the signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image; these two were thrown alive into the lake of fire which burns with brimstone." Revelation 19:20

You do believe the bible literally, right? Because if you were trying to avoid hell with your beliefs, and don't believe in biblical literalism, a large faction of Christians are certain that you will also be going to hell; a burning one. Take your pick which beliefs will save you, sure sounds important to make sure you don't accidentally choose the wrong one...

[jondeval]

The reality of hell is absolutely grounded in both the Biblical texts and the Christian tradition. Furthermore the image of 'fire' to describe this reality cannot be disputed. Thank you for looking up the most relevant verses.

It's a topic worth understanding and studying with seriousness. Otherwise you'll be prone to interpret the teaching as just a capricious punishment from God for some bad things that you've done.

My original post was in response to a snarky comment made along those lines but it looks like that context has been lost.

[dragonwriter]

> You do believe the bible literally, right? Because if you were trying to avoid hell with your beliefs, and don’t believe in biblical literalism, a large faction of Christians are certain that you will also be going to hell.

A rather large fraction of Christians don’t believe in literalism, and think it is not only a doctrinal error in itself, but also the source of numerous doctrinal errors.

[jondeval]

At the risk of going too far off topic, there is a distinction between Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism.

For example, Jesus says: 'You are the salt of the earth.' He doesn't literally mean his followers are Sodium Chloride molecules.

Diving deeper in one specific interpretive case, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is Inerrant but the 'literal' interpretation is not always to be prefered.

This should be obvious because the Bible is not a book it's a library, and how you read it depends on which section of the library you are in.