Good people living forever in heaven and evil people living forever in hell is a common, widely held belief in Christianity. I — Art48

Horrible theology. I was taught that in a mainstream Protestant church.

A recent experience got me thinking about “folk” versus theological views. I stated that Christianity believes in good people living forever in heaven and evil people living forever in hell. Someone told me that I lack a “subtly nuanced” understanding of heaven and hell, meaning, I suppose, that I lacked a theologian’s understanding.

I lack a theologian’s understanding of heaven and hell. — Art48

I don't think this is a theologian's idea, although no doubt many theologians do think this.

I was brought up in the Baptist tradition in the 1970's-80's and it was generally held by various congregations that the Bible was a collection of myths and allegories, much of it not to be taken literally and that heaven and hell were metaphors. Hell was simply an absence of god. Most of my friends who came out of the Anglican (Episcopalian) tradition held similar views.

I don't think there is one type of folk theology - hence the general distinction between literalists and others. I also think some cultures are more likely to continue to tie notions of vengeance and judgement and dualistic thinking onto their religious beliefs.

Perhaps stop thinking about religion as primarily a set of beliefs that become more credible in proportion to their internal consistency.

Instead, treat religions as practices in the first place, that might sometimes justify themselves with tales of other realms and other beings, and dogma of all sorts. Ask first what these communities do: do they look after the old women in their community, for instance, or do they like to set fire to them? The different reasons they give for sati or witch-burning seem less important than the commonality of the practice of setting (unwanted) women on fire.

Justice serves 3 purposes

1. Retribution
2. Deterrence
3. Rehabilitation

For the moment we can set 3 aside.

It dawned on me a coupla weeks ago that Justitia (goddess of justice) must be distinguished from Erinyes (the goddessea of vengeance) which necessitates that we dial down 1, retribution (an eye for an eye is not recommended).

However, when it comes to 2. deterrence, one way of achieving it would be to make the punishment worse than the offense and, in my humble opinion, that's all there is to hell/jahanam.

The judiciary should adopt this simple technique - make crime so unprofitable that no one in their right mind would opt for it. Harsher penalties should do the trick - hell has been an extremely potent demotivator for religious folk of evil bent.

What all that being said, it may seem surprising that I have a deep interest in theology. — Art48

Well, I am surprised to read that, in light of what else you say in the OP.

Richard Dawkins sometimes grudgingly acknowledges that there are 'sophisticated' religious believers who don't subscribe to the simplistic fundamentalism that he thinks comprises the main body of religion. But he generally adds that, even if these folk are apparently intelligent, then they should be faulted for providing 'aid and comfort to the enemy', so to speak. (Mind you when Lord Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, was awarded the Templeton Prize, Dawkins called him 'a compliant quisling', which says a lot about Dawkins view of the relation of science and religion.)

The fact that a great majority of people believe something says nothing much about its intrinstic worth. Christianity is emphatically not a representative democracy. But it has to appeal to an extraordinarily broad spectrum of humanity; you're not going to win over the masses with the fine points of trinitarian doctrine. The broad outlines have to be presented using imagery and metaphor that is meaningful to all kinds of audiences.

I think Buddhism shows more sophistication in this regard with its principle of 'dharma doors', different levels of teaching using ideas and images that are more suited to outlook of particular audiences, which is found especially in the Mahāyāna Buddhist cultures of Northern and East Asia. Another example from indian culture is the 'picture show men' who would travel from village to village with rolled-up scrolls of iconographical scenes from the Hindu epics and explain their stories to the villagers, where the culture was always one of a kind of relaxed religious pluralism (up to the Mughal invasions at least). Unfortunately, Christianity, in the historical circumstances of its origin, did not have luxury, as its spread was often intermingled with imperial conquest and state power, and was in many cases forged in an atmosphere of intense doctrinal conflict. (I've read that there used to be brawls in the street about the meaning of 'the Son' (source).

So I don't agree it's a matter of denomination. It's not as if the very sophisticated theologians belong to a different denomination, rather that their wisdom is of a depth that it cannot necessarily be preached from the pulpit (with some exceptions). We nowadays live in an information age where we can freely access information on the most arcane of theological topics at the click of a mouse. But for 99.99% of history, there was no such luxury, and religions had to try and provide a means of understanding their message to an audience that was generally illiterate and besides had no access to written information of any kind. Many of those tropes crystallised into the customary stories and dogmas that are now associated with institutionalised religion, but the depth of their meaning ought not to be limited to that.

Just my 2 shekels:

"Folk theology" says the bible is true because the bible says it's true. The folks hope for "Heaven" (re: reunion with deceased family, friends & pets)

Dogmatic theology says the bible is true because God reveals Himself to Man through the bible and God does not deceive Man because He loves Man. Dogmatic theologians invented "Hell" (re: sectarian / denominational job security!)

All religions have a history, how they were born, what happened in different periods, what is happening to them now. In all periods of all histories of all religions there have always been, and still there are, differentiations between groups, intellectuals, representatives of institutions, high level scholars and mass people. Even already inside the Bible, even in the Old Testament, you can see that there were debates, disagreements and plurality of mentalities and beliefs between different groups of people.

We know that, to a wide extent, the history we know about everything is the history from the point of view of the winners, maybe sometimes the intellectual winners, for a simple reason: because it is much more difficult to find vestiges left by mass people. So, for example, the Bible we have now is the product of those who left something written, which means the intellectuals, or institutional people, or prophets. Even the informations we can get about the other people are given in the Bible from the perspective, from the filter of those who wrote the Bible, that is, not the mass people.

We should also consider that there is some tendency in the mass people to reinterpret the received religion in ways that adapt to their mentality, while instead intellectuals do some effort to reconnect to the most authentic and genuine contents of their religion, although, we know, intellectuals as well are subject to their own distortions, mentalities, perspectives.

So, we should consider that today the religion we can find in theologians has the characteristic of containing an effort to reconnect to the genuine message of the Bible and also to consider what happened along the entire history of their religion. In a synthesis, we can say that theologian’s religion is a kind of religion that contains a strong effort to be connected with its history, although it is anyway an interpreted history.

Since theologians are those who discuss, debate and, especially, write, the kind of religion that is going to be transmitted to next generations is that of theologians. Even if masses of people are much more numerous, their approach to their religion is destined to disappear, time by time, as has already happened about the biblical periods, as I already said, although apparently the mass approach seems the most popular.

What do you think is true Catholicism?
That which is declared in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, or that which is held by a considerable variety of people who claim to be Catholics? Or something else altogether?

I lack a theologian’s understanding of heaven and hell.

So what? — Art48

Your lack of theological understanding (unsubtle thick-headed, never a nuance thinking) might be of zero importance. It depends.

What is most important: Being a believer? Are you happy with what you believe? Are you a doer? Do you perform what you believe--eg, do you follow the plainly spoken teachings of Jesus?

If you somehow manage to follow the plainly spoken teachings of Jesus, my guess is that Jesus doesn't care what you believe. On the other hand, if you do not follow Jesus' teachings, it also doesn't matter what you believe.

The way I look at it, our job is here on earth. We can be good, bad, or indifferent and who gets into heaven or hell is above our pay grade. Some people seem more concerned about who they can consign to hell than who than can encourage into heaven.

I have found some theologians to be a delight; others to be a bore. It seems to me the best, most useful theologians help us shift our thinking from narrow doctrine to broader, more humane thought. Harvey Cox, a leftist Baptist, is one of my favorites.

The People, the folk, add the homely touch to religion -- like the idea that their dog (cat, parrot, gerbil, ...) will be happy to see them when they get to heaven. There's nothing in the religious record that suggests dogs are going to be in heaven in any way, shape, manner, or form, but some people find it a comforting idea. At least one Hound ended up in Hell, so that is a possibility people should think about. Nasty dogs deserve a spell in hell along with their nasty owners. Just my opinion.

The more doctrine I throw overboard the better I feel.

Folk religion is basically an introductory course to religious doctrine. Like most 101 courses, the idea is to give the audience just a taste of the subject - everything is simplified to the extent possible and offered for consumption.

If one is so inclined, one can dive deeper and at this juncture one encounters erudite scholars and their takes on what religion is. Most in-depth studies tend to be about the nuances and subtleties of religion and 9 times outta 10, inconsistencies are exposed, sometimes resolved with a clever move, other times left as they are.

Folk religion is to theology as surfing is to deep-sea diving.

Baker: “Art48 What do you think is true Catholicism?
That which is declared in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, or that which is held by a considerable variety of people who claim to be Catholics? Or something else altogether?”

I don’t know what Catholicism is true. My point is that there are at least 2 types of Catholicism: that of the average Catholic and that of the Catholic theologians. Each type could probably be broken down further. See response to Agent Smith below.


Bitter Crank: “If you somehow manage to follow the plainly spoken teachings of Jesus”
I don’t find the teachings plainly spoken. Neither do Christian denominations; that’s why there are so many of them. Even about the supremely question of how to be saved, denominations disagree.


Agent Smith: “Folk religion is basically an introductory course to religious doctrine.”
In Catholic school, I was taught 1) if you died with an unforgiven mortal sin, you went to hell forever, 2) a child over the age of reason (i.e., 7 years old) could commit a mortal sin, 3) intentionally missing Mass on Sunday was a mortal sin.

Do you know of any Catholic theologian who accepts those teachings? Any theologian who says “Yes, poor Johnny Smith skipped Mass last Sunday and suddenly died. Poor kid is now in hell begin torture, forever.” Or, “Mr. Jones was a decent enough person. But he only went to Mass on Christmas and Easter. Now he’s suffering incredible torments with little Johnny Smith.”

In my experience, theologians often teach something quite different that what I learned in Catholic school, not merely a more nuanced version.

Do you know of any Catholic theologian who accepts those teachings? Any theologian who says “Yes, poor Johnny Smith skipped Mass last Sunday and suddenly died. Poor kid is now in hell begin torture, forever.” Or, “Mr. Jones was a decent enough person. But he only went to Mass on Christmas and Easter. Now he’s suffering incredible torments with little Johnny Smith.” — Art48

Roman Catholic theologians follow the Catechism of the RCC. There, it is stated what conditions must be fulfilled for a person to commit mortal sin and to thus go to hell. (It's quite difficult to get there. Hitler, for example, might not actually qualify for eternal damnation, as far as the Catechism of the RCC goes.)

Ordinary Roman Catholics are usually not fluent in the Catechism of the RCC; they have their own folk beliefs.

In my experience, theologians often teach something quite different that what I learned in Catholic school, not merely a more nuanced version.

Yes. Roman Catholicism is one of the few religions with a catechism, an actual metatext that defines the religion's doctrine. RC is, doctrinally, well-defined, which makes the discrepancies between the official doctrine and the various folk beliefs held by ordinary Roman Catholics more egregious.

I asked you which Roman Catholicism you think is the right one. I think this is the question you need to answer in order to address the OP.

The question can be asked more generally:
Which version of a religion is the right one: The one that is codified in its foundational religious texts, or the one espoused by the people who claim to be members of said religion?

An observation from histories of religions:

Which version of a religion is the right one: The one that is codified in its foundational religious texts, or the one espoused by the people who claim to be members of said religion? — baker

The latter (heteropraxy ~ ethos) always predates and gradually subverts 'systems of control' imposed by the former (orthodoxy ~ telos).

gradually subverts 'systems of control' imposed by the former (orthodoxy ~ telos). — 180 Proof

Only if the religion is in fact ineffective, or if people believe it to be ineffective (such as by not practicing what they preach).

Religions are, on principle, supposed to be a means to an end. Practing in line with the doctrine should lead to the declared goal.

The one that is codified in its foundational religious texts, or the one espoused by the people who claim to be members of said religion? — baker

Christianity isn't really codified in the new testament is it? It's hardly an unambiguous watertight legal document.

Someone told me that I lack a “subtly nuanced” understanding of heaven and hell, meaning, I suppose, that I lacked a theologian’s understanding. — Art48

That was me.

There's nothing interesting in defeating the weakest form of a position. If, for instance, millions believe the world were created in 6 days, you hardly need to spend dozens of pages explaining to a fairly well educated crowd that could not have been. We all knew all the problems with that position before you shared your knowledge with us.

The interesting question is how you would respond to the strongest form of the argument in favor of a position (like Christianity). Such a discussion would require that you actually know what that argument is and it would require that you have spent some time thinking about it.

The fact that many, if not most, church goers really can't explain to you the subtleties of their ideology and cannot intelligently respond to objections might prove that the state of religious education among those claiming religion is lacking, but it doesn't say anything interesting to the person searching for underlying meaning derivable from the belief system.

That is, I should reject Christianity because under close analysis it doesn't provide adequate answers, but not because the bulk of Christians adhere to a simplified version of Christianity that I find unappealing.

Hell is one of those ideas where the NT and OT seemingly contradict quite blatantly, but then again I haven't read the NT in its entirety. Personally, I don't see how the idea of everlasting torment is at all compatible with a merciful God, so I side with the OT on this one. I believe the traditional Jewish view is that hell/Gehinnom is a place where the soul is cleansed of its sins so that it can stand in the presence of God once that process is done. I've noticed a pattern where the NT takes concepts from the OT and magnifies them by x100.

I cannot find any scriptural basis for an eternal hell in the OT.

Baker: Ordinary Roman Catholics are usually not fluent in the Catechism of the RCC; they have their own folk beliefs.

You ignore the beginning of my post.
IN CATHOLIC SCHOOL, I was taught 1) if you died with an unforgiven mortal sin, you went to hell forever, 2) a child over the age of reason (i.e., 7 years old) could commit a mortal sin, 3) intentionally missing Mass on Sunday was a mortal sin.

I didn’t learn the above from kids on the street. I learned it from nuns and priests. If fact, most Catholics do not believe intentionally missing mass, using contraception, etc. are mortal sins that could send them to hell.


Baker: I asked you which Roman Catholicism you think is the right one. I think this is the question you need to answer in order to address the OP.

They are simply two different views. That catechism view is the minority view.


Hanover: There's nothing interesting in defeating the weakest form of a position.

There’s something very interesting in defeating the most popular, widespread form of a position, a position that motivates people’s votes.


Hanover: I should reject Christianity because under close analysis it doesn't provide adequate answers . . .

OK, different Christian denominations have contradictory view about how to get saved. Jesus and/or the Bible don’t provide an adequate answer.

Christianity isn't really codified in the new testament is it? It's hardly an unambiguous watertight legal document. — bert1

The subtopic here is specifically Roman Catholicism, whose doctrine is codified in the Catechism of the RCC.

Baker: Ordinary Roman Catholics are usually not fluent in the Catechism of the RCC; they have their own folk beliefs.

You ignore the beginning of my post.
IN CATHOLIC SCHOOL, I was taught 1) if you died with an unforgiven mortal sin, you went to hell forever, 2) a child over the age of reason (i.e., 7 years old) could commit a mortal sin, 3) intentionally missing Mass on Sunday was a mortal sin. — Art48

Which means that you were taught in accordance with RCC doctrine as codified in the Catechism of the RCC.

I didn’t learn the above from kids on the street. I learned it from nuns and priests. If fact, most Catholics do not believe intentionally missing mass, using contraception, etc. are mortal sins that could send them to hell.

Baker: I asked you which Roman Catholicism you think is the right one. I think this is the question you need to answer in order to address the OP.

They are simply two different views. That catechism view is the minority view.

You don't seem to understand how Roman Catholicism works. In RC, the institution of the Church comes first, it's above the individual person. The individual person is expendable. The individual person cannot unilaterally decide to be a member of the RCC; it's up to the RCC to either grant such membership to a particular person or to refuse it. The RCC can excommunicate a person.

The fact that many people who consider themselves Roman Catholics believe all kinds of things that are not in the Catechism of the RCC doesn't change RC doctrine or the supremacy of the RC institution.

They are simply two different views. That catechism view is the minority view.

They are simply two different views. — Art48

The RCC doesn't share your opinion. Neither does the pope, not even Pope Francis.

That catechism view is the minority view. — Art48

You do realize that if an adult person wants to convert to Roman Catholicism, they have to pass a program called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rite_of_Christian_Initiation_of_Adults, and that this program is based in the Catechism?

Certainly, the clergy think highly of themselves.
But the great majority of Catholics don't care, or even know, what is in the catechism.

But you seem to be confirming the OP's view about "folk" versus theological views.
So, what is your point? The OP has:

Good people living forever in heaven and evil people living forever in hell is a common, widely held belief in Christianity. It’s fair, I think, to judge Christianity on its common beliefs, not the beliefs of a relatively small group of scholars. (Two billion Christians versus how many Christian theologians?)
It would be unfair to do otherwise.

What about that, if anything, do you disagree with?

I stated that Christianity believes in good people living forever in heaven and evil people living forever in hell....I was describing the view of the great majority of Christians. — Art48

The quicker you set them right, the better the world will be. It only remains to show that they are wrong or that there's no reason to suppose they are right. It would be a disappointing waste of effort to persuade millions of people that they won't live forever in heaven when actually they will. You need to get that point straight with everyone first. Unfortunately, nobody has any idea whether such a belief is true or not. So I guess another strategy is needed to assess 'folk' versus 'nuanced' beliefs.

I've often wondered whether many religious people have a semi-detached commitment to the stated tenets of their own religion. I expect you'll find Christians who believe in astrology and re-incarnation as many non-Christians do. The Creed of the established church in England states that we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. But if you do walk around looking for the resurrection of the dead then you're likely to be detained for questioning by mental health professionals. Religious belief is a slippery concept.

Certainly, the clergy think highly of themselves. — Art48

The clergy think highly of themselves.

Lol!

But you seem to be confirming the OP's view about "folk" versus theological views.

Yes.

So, what is your point?

You said

I lack a theologian’s understanding of heaven and hell. — Art48

and I began to address that.

Good people living forever in heaven and evil people living forever in hell is a common, widely held belief in Christianity. It’s fair, I think, to judge Christianity on its common beliefs, not the beliefs of a relatively small group of scholars. (Two billion Christians versus how many Christian theologians?)
It would be unfair to do otherwise.

What about that, if anything, do you disagree with?

For one, there is no unified Christianity. Different Christian sects espouse different things.

For two, if we're supposed to ignore the actual religious doctrine, and just focus on what "the majority" of members of some religion espouse, then we're potentially committing the fallacy of appealing to the majority, whereby it's not even clear what this supposed majority actually believes (we'd need to find out empirically).

I lack a theologian’s understanding of heaven and hell.

So what?

I was describing the view of the great majority of Christians. Why should the “subtly nuanced” understanding of the theologians matter?

The view of the theologians represents the official doctrine of a religion. (Which also happens to be the one that the common members at least nominally assent to.)
If you think that the official doctrine of a religion is something that can be done away with, or that it's something that yet needs to be established, in every time and place, empirically, by polling those who profess to be members, then this makes religion an unintelligible concept.

Why should the “subtly nuanced” understanding of the theologians matter? — Art48

EXACTLY!

Snobs are everywhere. There is a god, of whom you or anyone else does not KNOW he or she exists, and nobody knows anything about him or her. Yet people argue about the god's will, ambition, judgment, metasubstance, etc.

Bunch of idiots. If you want to believe, fine, that's as valid a worldview as anything else. But don't be ridiculous by arguing that your faith is superior to someone else's faith. (You being the general you not you, Art48.) All faiths, and all Christian faiths, are subject to verification, of which none has been made. So don't someone show me his face and tell me I'm wrong in my FAITH. That's ultimately impossible to determine.

It’s fair, I think, to judge Christianity on its common beliefs, not the beliefs of a relatively small group of scholars — Art48

There are many different folk versions of Christianity - conservatives and radicals; literalists and allegorists. There isn't really a folk Christianity. There are outlooks in common - often sectarian or geographic in origin - but believer's views area all over the place. Some Christians embrace diversity and the rainbow flags; others think the Bible tells them to 'hate fags'; some think the Bible is a collection of myths - allegories; others think it is all true. Some think Jesus did miracles; some think the teachings are important but the miracle stories are legends.

Religious people are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are religious. — paraphrase of J.S. Mill (re: conservatives)

Amen.

Religious people are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are religious. — paraphrase of J.S. Mills (re: conservatives)

Hmm, interesting. If it's true, then it may merely be because most people are religious (to some degree) and also that most people are quite stupid when compared with the very intelligent. We could note that heterosexuals are not necessarily two-legged, but most two-legged people are heterosexuals. That example brings out the lack of logical connection. The statement is true merely because most people have two legs and also most people are heterosexual.