Yet again we see DU does not reflect the greater population in theology

[dmallind]

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/More-Americans-Believe-Devil-Hell/story.aspx?guid=%7B9FF6758C-00C0-4673-81B9-6D506085F974%7D


62% of the US believes in hell and 59% in the Devil. We can assume that at the very least the 59% then believe in a hell of punishment as opposed to this "separation from God" that is supposed to tone down the loathsome cruelty and hatred requisite in the doctrine of eternal damnation, because where else could the Devil they believe in be and what else would he be for?

Obviously the vast majority of people who believe in hell and the Devil are Xians. Muslims may believe in these concepts, but they are about 1% of the population. Jews have no hell, and nonbelievers have neither.

So let's take off a couple of percent for the other faiths and say that 57% of the people believe in teh Devil and hell and are Christians. This is a bit over 70% of Christians then (57/80). Remember that's nearly 80% who believe in hell - I'm reducing it probably too much but to exclude those who believe in a non-punishment hell and eschew the Devil, plus believers in other religions who hold these ideas.

So please stop trying to tell us that the people who think a perfect all-loving god would and should burn us forever in agony for not grovelling sufficiently to him are a fringe minority of fundies and that most Christians are of teh kinder gentler stripe that somehow can't get the same publicity. Time and time again in surveys and in real life examples (such as the thread about the successful minister who abandoned the concept of hell and lost his entire congregation, ending up in the UU as no Christians would follow him) we see that it's just not true - the vast majority of Christians in the broader population are bloodthirsty vengeful tyrants who want nonbelievers to fry. Pretending they don't want this means that they must think God is mistaken in doing so. DU Xians may (or may not - few seem willing to preach universal salvation which is the only reconcilable doctrine for a benevolent omnipotent deity) be an exception, but you are not the Christians who have the power or the influence or the numbers to control that message or doctrine and its impact on society and law.

The 70% who want to smell burning flesh are, and it shows.

[amdezurik]

1. well that was pretty incoherent...

[dmallind]

2. Really? What part did you not understand?

[amdezurik]

4. let us begin here;

Muslims may believe in these concepts, but they are about 1% of the population

pulled right out of your butt.

[dmallind]

6. Really?

Leaving aside for a moment that that's not what "incoherent" means...

Here's a cite for the population of Muslims. I actually rounded up

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_islam_usa.html

The Qu'ran is clear on the existence of both hell and the Devil (Iblis).

So how, even with any meaning of incoherent, was that out of my butt?

[theoldman]

8. 6 million divided by 300 million equals 2% if my math is correct.

There are about the same number of Jews. The number is so small it's insignificant compared to the number of Christians.

[dmallind]

9. Read the link. Where is the 6 million figure and who does it count?

Are all those people believing Muslims or Muslims like I am an Anglican because of my birth?

Oh and OK use 2% if you like - does it change my claim in a substantive way?

[amdezurik]

11. well yes it does

it shows you are sloppy in your presentation and most likely in your "logic". You posit that all or most christians are mean people and perhaps in your experience most of them have been. but for you to even PRETEND that is even close to a significant sample is simply a lie. And for you to pretend that your post was in anyway close to objective is another one.

[dmallind]

19. You are stretching just out of spite

Since all we have to deal with is round numbers and incomplete data, and I in every case took the most cobnservative estimate, what does it matter if 69% or 70& of Christians are those whop expound hell?

Dince my entire point is that teh majority of Christians believe in a hell of damnation do you really think pissing about with teh farctional number of Muslims can make any difference that would bring that to under 50? And you complain about my logic?

How is this NOT a significant sample of Christians?

My objectivity is not the issue. I am using the numbers of a respected polling company. Please tell me how 62% of the population believing in hell and 59% in the Devil in a country that is 80% Christian (and where few non-Xians believe in either hell or the devil) can feasibly NOT mean that most Christians believe in a hell with a devil in it? I mean come on just because I didn;t lie down like a dog and whimper when you called me incoherent can you make your irrational resentment any clearer than to dispute the conclusion?

[ZombieHorde]

30. 1% off? Really? You are fucking with us.

[dmallind]

36. And it's a questionable 1%

the only number I've seen that high is the CAIR guesstimate. No survey of religious belief I'm aware of points to even the 1% I rounded up to, and most come in significantly below.

[theoldman]

16. Like I said, it's an insignificant number especially if only about

10% of that 2% are devout.

[dmallind]

28. And while we're at it...where IS the real source for tha 6 million?

This survey say 0.6% in 2001. Muslims, in a time of anti-Muslim bigotry and stricter immigration scrutiny, have more that tripled in 7 years when they only managed to jsut double in the previous 11? (survey has both 1990 and 2001 data)

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm


It's not that ever so unbiased CAIR estimate come up with by a non demographer who admitted he was guessing is it?

[amdezurik]

12. tell that to AIPAC

[dmallind]

20. And that would be relevant how?

[Sandrine for you]

54. I"m not an American and I"m not a Xtians, but think that the Xtians

believe that the really bad people, like Cheney, will go to hell. I don't Think that most of the XTians really think that the other religious tradition or the atheist will go to hell.

[amdezurik]

5. then we can go on to the confused syntax

run-on sentences that seem to change the subject at least twice before a period is stumbeled upon. Not saying you were WRONG, just that your communication leaves a lot to be desired...

[dmallind]

7. Most people can manage compound phrases

Please cite examples of grossly incorrect syntax or other errors not obvious typos. I certainly make them, but hardly to the level of incoherence for a reader beyond beginning level (and no that's not an accusation you are a beginning reader - it's an accusation you exaggerated the claim of incoherence).

I'll grant you I'm not pithy or brief. Guilty as charged.

[Hokie]

3. Amen!

:evilgrin: Sorry, I couldn't resist. I agree from personal experience that reasonable Christians are a minority.

[cosmik debris]

10. You know that you hit a nerve

When they whine about a 1% rounding error and your literary style.

:popcorn:

[amdezurik]

13. now I am a "they"?

GFY, if you had any clue you would know that I am anything but a religious person and in fact consider it a psychosis.

[cosmik debris]

15. It's the Grammar Nazis! Run for the hills!

You are clearly a bitter person with an axe to grind. You POV is not nearly as obvious as that fact. But that fact is quite obvious.

[knitter4democracy]

14. I'm not sure I agree with your assumptions.

Just because someone believes in Satan doesn't necessarily follow that they believe in hell the way you describe. I'm just saying, surveys always leave stuff out, and I'm sure they made sure to word things so people just made knee-jerk reactions or tried to figure out which box they fit into best.

[dmallind]

21. Well that's POSSIBLE

but really - can you explain how a commonly held doctrine (that would make the numbers significantly different) believes in a hell and a Devil but not a hell of punishment? I can't say I've come across it but if it's there in large enough numbers then sure it would weaken the case.

[knitter4democracy]

24. But what do they think the punishment is and who'll be punished?

For example, strictly theologically, my church would say that my STBX, should he keel over dead today (Lord, I hope not), would go to hell. I'm not so sure about that, though it's a nice thought for when I'm really mad at him. The idea that he'll get what's coming to him after all the pain he's caused makes me feel a wee bit better. Sad, sure, but I'm just going day-by-day here. That indulgence doesn't mean that I would personally send him to hell or hope that he'll burn in the lake of fire for eternity. I'm not that harsh.

And what do people mean by the devil? I know Christians who really believe in the red guy with horns who is almost God-like in his ability to be everywhere and hurt anyone, but I also know Christians who use that term to mean evil in the world in any form, not an actual entity. I know Christians who think Dante's Inferno comes a lot closer to what hell's like than anything in the Bible, and I know Christians who believe the Book of Revelations's descriptions of hell literally, and I even know Christians who think hell is separation from God, which would be torment enough for me. Same word, many different definitions and descriptions.

[dmallind]

26. If hell and the Devil exist...

Does that not imply a belief in at least somewhat traditionalist theology? Sure there may be different ideas of what hell is (heck there are different ideas in the Bible, so who can blame them), but hell is ALWAYS for the other, the unbeliever, the unrighteous, the "nabal". From our point of view, does it matter if it's fire or ice or demons or eternal unsatisfied hunger? I sue the fiery terms in my OP because that is the traditional Xian hell, but if somebody leans towards Dante's version does it really make them any less malevolent to want those who disagree with them to go there?

I honestly can't think of anyone who believes in a devil and hell who does not think atheists go there. There may be some pure works folks out there who follow James and exclude the rest, and who accept that atheists CAN do good works, but I've not come across them and unlikely to be enough to skew these numbers I would imagine.

[knitter4democracy]

27. I know many who are on the fence about atheists.

St. Paul himself said that those who don't believe in the Gospel because they've never heard it will be judged according to their own beliefs, and I think that's one of those verses that gives God wiggle room. I also know that my church encourages us not to judge or even think about hell and judgement, focusing instead on our own need for mercy. I'm just glad that it's not my decision what'll happen.

[ZombieHorde]

31. hell is separation from God

Does this mean that atheists are already in hell?

[dmallind]

37. Apparently

and I'm quite enjoying it.

Yet another tough question for the kinder gentler Xians. If hell is merely separation, what makes it differ from this life for atheists? It's easy to say "well God's there whetehr you like it or not" but even if we grant that wild hypothesis, what difference would it make to me if he weren't? Unless you get into just another version of punishment hell by saying all good things come from God and therefore after death in a separation hell, only bad things happen, there is no point. And if you go that route, it's after all just another torture hell of punishment and damnation, with or without fire (depending on whether God is protecting us from fire or not).

[knitter4democracy]

40. Nope. You have to believe in God for that punishment to work.

:)

[nebenaube]

17. nope...

I seriously doubt there are really more than 29% of the population that can truly claim to actually be practicing christians.

[dmallind]

22. But then we get into no true scotsmanism

If 80% say they are Christians, what defensible reason can we come up with beyond that logical fallacy to say they are not? Christianity defined as Christ-like behavior or specific observations is disingenuous at best. Belief in Christ as divine makes a Christian.

[moggie]

18. Are you familiar with the "drilling to hell" story?

This is a lurid tale (which reads like something from Weekly World News) about how geologists drilling a very deep bore in Siberia recorded sounds of human screams: the sounds of hell! And then their drill broke through into the hollow centre of the Earth: into hell itself! And a bat-like creature emerged from the hole and taunted the geologists! You can find it all over the net, but the best account I've seen is here:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/d/drilltohellfacts.htm

It seems to have been publicised (as true) by the Trinity Broadcasting Network, a Christian broadcaster. And you can tell from the way it continues to be repeated around the net that it appeals to a lot of Christians. This despite the fact that it's about as far from sophisticated theology as you can get: there's no "separation from God" here, just a crude (and cruel) version of reality which a child ought to be able to see through.

Here's one of the saddest parts of the story, from the above URL:

Secondly, in August of 1990, I was contacted by the pastor of a small church in Flagstaff, Arizona, who informed me that he had proof that this story was true. Apparently, a man from his church, who was believed to be a PhD in Physics from MIT, came forward in private to claim that he was a scientist who had been on a secret mission in Russia for the past year and had met with Mikhail Gorbachev several times. He verified that the Drilling to Hell story was indeed true. He claimed:

A hole was drilled deep into the crust of the earth in Siberia and a large cavity was found. Unfortunately, news of this was leaked to the press and was distorted. It is true that a recording was made of the sounds from deep in the hole, but the intense heat destroyed the microphone in spite of special cooling material around it, so that only seventeen seconds of sounds could be captured. At the present time, scientists are drilling a second hole to confirm what was found the first time. And a better system is being developed for cooling the microphone.

The scientist went on to claim that he was helping to design this microphone and was returning to Siberia shortly to further document the phenomenon. He planned to return in about a year with more confirming information on this amazing phenomenon.

Six months later, I got a letter from another member of the church saying that this man had turned out to be neither a graduate of MIT nor a scientist. In fact, he had skipped town with over $20,000 collected from church members who wanted to help finance his expedition.

This story refuses to die.

[dmallind]

23. Oh yes indeed

Gotta be honest and say I've not seen it pushed seriously at DU as factual, but certainly elsewhere. Another (admittedly anecdotal) example of the widespread appeal of eternal torment as long as it's somebody else being tormented.

[Dorian Gray]

25. Just because people

believe in hell doesn't mean that they want people to go there or suffer there.

[dmallind]

29. So they disagree then with an omniscient god who made it for us?

How can a Christian argue with damnation if they believe it exists and is, inescapably, the work of their God?

Remember while atheists are alive the scheme will be to convert him and so Xians will want a living atheist to avoid hell (by conversion of course). But hell is irrelevant to the living. Once that atheist dies unconverted does the Christian then want the atheist to get salvation anyway? How can they - what would the point of a salvation-based faith be if its adherents believe in or desire salvation for those not of the faith? How many examples of separation do there have to be in both OT and NT to make it clearer that not all are saved, and nonbelievers are not among those who are?

[Dorian Gray]

42. Your understanding of

theology is vastly different than mine. I suspect that no matter what I say, it will fall upon deaf ears, so I'm not going to bother arguing the concepts of heaven or hell. But I do want to say that it's patently ridiculous to assume that any person who believes in Hell would actually wish that a non-believer (OR ANYBODY) would suffer there. I don't wish that people suffer on this earth, let alone off of it. And how is that going against God's will? In which religious text does it say that he wishes or desires people to be cast into Hell?

Honestly, I don't understand the argument you are making because it's so foreign to me.

[dmallind]

46. Not falling on deaf ears at all. I welcome reasoned disagreement opn this issue

Theology is fascinating to me because it is so open to interpretation.

That said, we obviously approach this from different viewpoints, and with no insult intended I am probably more able to look at the subject without any pre-existing axiomatic assumptions about what God is or should be than someone who believes in a god with certain characteristics. I am merely looking at this like I would any other character or scenario in myth or literature - which is probably why it is so foreign to you. I am after all to the faithful an outsider - like an interested but objective tourist in another country. So here's how I come to that conclusion.

Assumptions I make about Christian theology:

Hell exists as a place for punishment. Jesus himself says this in scripture. Surveys and popularity of some denominations/preachers over others imply it's a majority view among believers.

God is omnipotent and perfect - again scripturally sound, rarely if ever challenged by any believer.

Hell is the destination of unrepentant sinners and those who knowingly reject the divinity of Christ. Sometimes challenged, but only by a small subset who follow the doctrine of universal salvation. Even separation from God would have to include some punishment by withdrawal of his presence or what dofference would there be to an atheist between earth and hell?


The reasoning from this:

If hell exists along with a perfect and omnipotent god, then it is the will of that perfect and omnipotent god that hell should exist as it is, or he is not omnipotent.


If it is the will of an omnipotent God that hell exists as is, hell must be perfectly right and correct in every detail, or he is not perfect.

If nonbelievers and the unrepetant are bound for hell, it must be the will of God, and perfectly correct, for them to be in hell, or God is neither omnipotent nor perfect.

If believers seek to convert atheists and the unrepentamt while they are alive, it is therefore perfectly in accordance with the great commission, and can be assumed to be altruistic in that they wish us to avoid hell.

However once an atheist dies unconverted, it is God's perfect will that they be condemned to hell (see above - with a perfect omnipotent god it could not be otherwise). This answers your final question. If people EVER go to hell, it MUST be the will of God and therefore his desire. If he desired sinneres and nonbelievers not to go to hell by what force was he compelled to create hell in the first place, and set up the rules about who goes there? Clearly no force can compel an omnipotent being to do anything, and clearly a perfect being makes no errors in judgement.

And so then if a believer does not seek a dead unconverted atheist to be in hell, they are rebelling against the perfect will of God.

[Dorian Gray]

48. The problem I have with your suppositions above

is that it takes away the whole concept of Free Will, which is espoused by many Christian Churches. (Episcopalian, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox (Greek/Russian/etc.). God, though omnipotent, allows for humans to have Free Will. Which in and of itself absolves God from the whole concept of wanting people to burn in Hell. We make our choices on this earth. And I don't know any fundamentalists where I live, so I can't speak for them. But, though I would imagine maybe some of them might actively "seek a dead unconverted atheist to be in hell," (I'm thinking of the Westboro Baptist group), I don't know anybody else who does. Most people who are religiously Christian that I know would pray that people are not in Hell through God's mercy. And there is no rebelling against the perfect will of God in hoping or praying for that.

[dmallind]

49. Sorry - should have covered that before - but was too long already

I understand the concept of free will in standard Xian theology, but I think it misses two key points.

1) Is it really free? God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. It's one thing to say he does not want robots, which is the usual strawman against challenges to free will, but he does make us (or he is not the Creator), and he does know everything that we will do and decide in our life (or he is not omniscient) and he could make us any other way, without making us simply automata, that would change what will we do and decide (or he is not omnipotent). For example he could have made me with free will perfectly intact, but without the proclivity towards logical empiricism (or heck he could have made it so logical empiricism was never even developed) that makes me unwilling to accept his existence. I would still be able to decide, but I would have decided differently, and been saved. Obviously if I can come up with a scenario that would give me both free will and salvation so can God do for everyone. But no - God made my soul knowing full well it would be atheistic, knowing full well he could have made it differently, and still made it the same way. How then can we imagine that a perfect being who is all powerful did not want it thus? Note I'm obviously speaking in the hypothetical here. I no more blame God for making me an atheist than I blame Albus Dumbledore for not teaching me magic, but if God exists as described in mainstream Christianity he by definition did make me knowingly as an atheist.

Let's however assume that for ineffable reasons God needs/wants to make atheists. Perhaps we're a sort of mini yetzer hara as mentioned elsewhere in this thread - there to serve as challenges and obstacles to the faithful, given free will like you but made in a way so we choose to deny God so that others can see him more clearly. With a triple omni god who can say what is possible?

That still leaves the bigger reason free will does not absolve God of hell, and him and his followers of the desire to see us in it, to me - one that ineffability cannot answer.

2) If man has completely free will to deny God, and God does not WANT any to go to hell, why is hell an option? Why are the rules on who goes there as clear as they are? Why does the Bible repeatedly mention that most of us will not be saved? I MAY have free will even if I can't see how with a triple omni god as my creator, but we sure as sugar know that God DOES have free will. If we accept that anything can compel God, then we deny his supremacy or even divinity unless you posit a greater god above him, which Xians certainly do not. So what about my sin makes God have to punish it if he does not want to? What about lack of belief is it that means there has to be a hell for those who lack belief to go to? Furthermore by what force are we compelled to stay in hell. It's certainly not our free will to remain in torment I would imagine, and any force that keeps us in hell must by definition be either God or done by the will and with the consent of God. God must want hell to exist or it would not, and he must want the rules for who goes there to be as they are, or they would be different. Once you accept that (and I can see no logical way to do so without denying God is God) then we're back to the original contention - God must want some people to be condemned to a hell of punishment and any of his followers who do not must then be rebelling against divine will.

The typical response to this is an anlaogy to prisons - we don't WANT to spend billions locking people up, but their actions force us to do so to protect others. This does not stand up to scrutiny though. Judges do not make people knowing they will be criminals and with the power to make them non-criminals (yes even with free will - most crime comes out of poverty, desperation, lack of education and job opportunities etc - we would not need robots to avoid most crimes if everyone was well educated and well fed with a good job). Judges are not omnipotent and lack the ability to redeem or rehabilitate without punishment. God has other options. Heck even we have other options - restitution, community service, counselling, etc - why are we more flexible with punishment than a perfect all powerful god?

[Dorian Gray]

52. You have some interesting perspectives

and it's fodder for thought. However, I fully believe that God doesn't make our personality. We are formed by our life experiences and genetic makeup. I no more blame God for my pre-disposition toward a sweet tooth than I believe you should (I know you don't actually, as you don't believe in the Christian God, but for argument's sake) for your predisposition toward logical empiricism. Isn't it our life's experience compounded with our familial upbringing and DNA that make us who we are? Life experiences, also a part of the whole Free Will concept.


As for Hell being an option, I think most Christians would say that God's desire for us to NOT choose Hell is apparent in His sending His Son to us. That is how he battles damnation, by offering us a viable alternative. The rest, when we come at our respective beliefs from the vastly different perspectives that we do, I don't think we'll ever agree. But I'd like to thank you for being respectful in your discussion of this topic.

[dmallind]

53. Likewise - and some more thoughts

Well certaiinly I of course accept that nature and nurture both play a part in our predispositions. Obviously being an atheist I think that's ALL that plays a part. But that's because I'm not a believer. Were I to believe in a creator god who is omniscient, I could not escape the conclusion that he decided it.

Look at it this way. Regardless of your position on ensoulment, whether it be that of traducianism - a soul created along with the body by the act of procreation, as it seems to be, or creationism - God creating an individual soul for each fetus at some debatable step in the process (and there is scriiptural evidence for both) you probably agree that God created us as a species, and that God is omniscient.

So at the moment of creation - whether that be of my individual soul (I lean towards the creationist side as far as ensoulment goes - scripture supporting this is later, clearer and more fully developed - see Isa 42, Ecc 12, Heb 12 et al- than that supporting traducianism, which is mostly in Genesis) or at teh moment of initial creation of Adam, an omniscient god would not only know what Adam would do, or what we would do, but what the last human left alive on earth at some point in the future would do. And he created us with that knowledge, and with the unfettered ability to do differently.

By the way as is doubtless becoming clear, I consider the standard Xian doctrine of a "triple omni" god to be its greatest flaw and what will ultimately I beleive lead to its osolescence. As more people become more and more educated, the idea of what omni really means will become more and more a logical obstacle to worshipping God in that sense. This is of course far from original or even recent an opinion - Epicurus nailed it with his famous statement on theodicy for a start. I honestly don't think the early church really understood the implications of omniscience, omnipotence and most certainly omnibenevolence. Free will - the standard response to theodicy, eventually on close examination becomes either unsupportable, in which case we see Calvinism as the only option for believers, and boy is that a tough sell these days, or an indication of a malevolent deity, in which case worship becomes at best fear and Christianity loses all its positive selling points. I expect, admittedly long after my death, the current belief will either be amended to exclude at least one and probably two of the omnis and move towards a creator god barely distinguishable from Deism except he takes some interest from time to time, but has limited involvement and power, or will become grim fatalism.

I'm not gloating over this or wishing for it. I have no beef with the belief qua belief, and only resent Christianity when it imposes its doctrine either overtly or implicitly on secular society (which is the fault of the believers not the belief). I find the ideas deeply interesting too, but only in the sense of allowing a puzzle like this thread to be fully examined.

[Meshuga]

32. You say, "Jews have no hell, and nonbelievers have neither"

Jews have no Satan as in the connotation you might be using. Satan in Judaism is a word given to an inclination (as in an inclination to do evil). But there is no being called Satan.

As far as hell, since there is no dogma for the afterlife you would have to ask the specific Jew what he/she believes. Some may believe in "nothing happens," others may believe in reincarnation, you can find Jews who believe in hell, or whatever.

It is like asking people if they believe in a specific superstition, you may get different answers.

[dmallind]

35. I am no Rabbi, but never heard of a Jewish hell

The Torah mentions only the grave, and at least those whom I've talked with believe our bodies simply await resurrection after death.

I'm sure it's feasible that some small number of individual Jews believe in a hell, but with Jews again less than 2% of the population, by no stretch will it change the outcome even if far more common than I assume.

[Meshuga]

41. My point is not to prove that the idea of hell is an universally accepted concept in Judaism

In fact, I thought I was pretty clear about the non-existence of a Jewish dogma of an afterlife. All I am commenting on is about what some Jews believe in their own personal view.

However, from what I understand there is gehinom which is a place of punishment that some Jews (i.e., Chabadniks who are not hard to find) believe bad people go in the afterlife. Granted, it is not the same as the Christian idea of hell where one is punished for eternity but a place of temporary punishment. And gehinom is a concept that comes from rabbinical literature.

But what I said about hell was just a comment because the main correction I wanted to make was about Satan since, in Judaism, Satan is pretty much a word that could sometimes anthropomorphize "yetzer hara" (inclination for doing evil) but not really a being like in the Conservative Christian universal saga for souls, for example.

[dmallind]

45. I knew what you meant, sorry for confusion - and more followup

My main point was that this will not change the results to a significant degree. When we have the starting point that we have, even the entire Jewish population let alone a small subset would not change the conclusion. I also have to confess I was unaware of the Lubavitch view of punishment. It doesn't seem to fit well with their insistence on the importance of the rational intellect over emotion. Any idea if that theology is original or added by Schneersohn? Not a branch of Judaism I've spent much time studying at all I admit.

But honestly I was more of the opinion that Satan whenever named in the Tanakh as an idividual rather than as a noun for adversary or obstacle was merely seen as a messenger of God who in the end helps mankind by providing them challenges to overcome. I didn;t think it included the concept of the big D Devil, who in Xian theology is exclusively seen as evil and antagonistic to God's will.

Even my understanding of yetzer hara (which I confess is scant) is that of a challenge set to help people grow where the idea is to overcome rather than be tempted. Yes I know enough Hebrew to know what the words literally mean, but as presumably someone who knows at least as much and probably much more, you certainly know that literal meanings in Hebrew are often misleading.

So if the Jewish view of Satan is that of an agent of God entirely in his control who is deployed to help test and grow the faith of his people, how many Jews would personify this as "the Devil" with all the implicit evil and soul-hungriness in the term?

[Meshuga]

50. No need to apologize

I just wanted to stress that hell is not an universal Jewish belief.

About Chabad Lubavitch, that is what I hear from their rabbis. If you go to their website and do search on "what happens after you die" you will see them explaining what they believe, however, they also like to speak in metaphoric language so I don't know whether the rabbis believe in this concept but I know for a fact that some of their followers take it literally.

About satan, like you mentioned, "satan" is a Hebrew word for "adversary" or "prosecutor" and "ha'satan" ("the adversary") is used in the bible to replace the name of a specific adversaries to the Jewish people instead of using the real name. And satan is also a character (not a fallen angel but an angel doing work on behalf of God) in the book of Job. But in Judaism, the book of Job is just a literary work that tackles the "why bad things happening to good people" topic not a historical event.

At some point satan did become a term for a prosecuting angel in Rabbinical Literature but only for aggadic purposes. You also see a lot of demonic language in the Babylonian Talmud since Jewish scholars in Babylon lived under Sassanian rule where Zoroastrianism was the official religion so there is an influence from a Zoroastrian society in there.

But like you pointed out, the "bid D" idea of satan is foreign to Judaism therefore the concept of fighting for human souls is also not a Jewish concept. The aggatic Satan is not a main character in Jewish theology. It is folklore, much like the belief that the spirit of Lilith might come to take newborn babies away.

Jewish law is for Jews only to follow and satan represents the adversary to following Jewish law. If Satan is a being then we can conclude that Satan is only around to fuck with the Jews. He doesn't want our souls he just wants to fuck with us. :-)

As far as yetzer hara (inclination to do bad) and yetzer hatov (inclination to do good), they are terms used to explain the concept in Judaism that it is human nature to potentially do either good or bad. Jewish law and Jewish ethics is the Jewish way of making sure Jews exercise yetzer hatov. Like other people have their own ways and methods of doing the same.

[Jim__]

33. I wonder how accurate the poll is.

According to Harris, we have no idea:

Respondents for this survey were selected from among those who have agreed to participate in Harris Interactive surveys. The data have been weighted to reflect the composition of the adult population. Because the sample is based on those who agreed to participate in the Harris Interactive panel, no estimates of theoretical sampling error can be calculated.

[dmallind]

38. Matches pretty well with others though.

[anonymous171]

34. Let it out. nt

[dmallind]

39. What do you think I was holding in?

If you think that's a rant you've not seen me rant.

[Silent3]

43. You're giving people too much credit for consistency

Ask the same questions in different ways, you'll get different answers. Ask different questions about related subject matter, answers which should follow a certain logical pattern and fit together in a sensible way if there happened to be a coherent belief structure behind those answers, and you'll usually get an inconsistent mess.

I don't think you can strongly conclude that "70% (of Christians) want to smell burning flesh... and it shows" based on these statistics you present. You base your conclusion on envisioning a consistent Christian world view which includes both hell and the devil as real things. I'll bet in most cases, however, if you had a chance to dig deeper, you'd find that many of these people are thinking of hell as anything from "hell on earth" to "separation from God" to some sort of abstract suffering not quite like a literal "lake of fire", and that they're thinking of the devil as any number of vague embodiments of evil, not necessarily a guy who's in charge of that hell they said they believe in.

From what I can tell most people's faith is blissfully unfettered by the constraints of logic and consistency. Ask someone what they believe and you'll get wrote repetition of stock answers, obligatory answers, and answers that are energized by emotion and not reason, few if any of which were ever carefully checked for consistency with other answers the same person might give.

[Silent3]

47. "rote" not "wrote"

I hate the time limit on editing posts on DU! x(

[dmallind]

51. Quite probably true in the abstract

But would not that inconsistency even out? Can we assume that some of those who said they believe in the Devil may not do so as I understand it, but then NOT also assume that some of those who said they do not, really do (for example they may be picky about such a being having the name of "Satan" or "Lucifer" or "Iblis" instead).

Trust me I realize logical consistency on this subject is almost by definition absent (anyone who cares that much about logical consistency either does not believe, or believes in such a way that they would likely answer no to such declarative questions about hell and the Devil unless they recieved a detailed exegesis on what was intended), but to me there is still a huge enough majority here that cannot be nibbled away at. The numbers may be fungible, but it's not as if this is the only survey that showed hell to be a majority belief, or as if the real world examples of which denominations/preachers etc thrive do not agree with the data. Most Christians do indeed believe in hell, or preachers who sell it would not be far more popular than those who do not.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

44. Quite probably there would be a difference between the types of snap responses

that polls require and what a person would believe if they were asked to think through the implications of their positions and consider specific cases.

It might work like this, "Do you believe in hell?" Reflexive response: "Yes."

Next question: "What sins do you believe would merit punishment for all eternity with no hope of escape?"

Answer: "Uh...."

Next question: "Do you believe that non-Christians are going to hell?"

Answer: "That's what I've been told."

Next question: "Do you believe that that the Hindu doctor who took care of you when you had cancer is going to hell?"

Answer: "Uh..."

My impression is that the "uh..." response would be what you'd get from all but the most hardcore fundamentalists.

[YankeyMCC]

57. Likely maybe but

most people don't even want to be asked those follow up questions. At least most people I've met, many get angry in fact.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. Utter nonsense.

To suggest that everyone who believes in hell is a "bloodthirsty tyrant" is just silly.

Don't assume that just because if you believed in hell you would consider yourself logically constrained to hold a position, it means that everyone else who believes in hell actually does hold that position.

[quaker bill]

56. You read far too much into

the survey results. I imagine it was a yes or no question. The notion that any more than a very modest portion of even these believers desire anyone to "fry" is unsubstantiated by the posted survey results. A large portion of the Christians I know who believe in hell (very few if any Quakers do), do not feel it is their place to judge anyone's faith or lack thereof. It is just not the sort of thing they engage in. They just raise their kids, try to make sense of their own lives, and largely leave others alone in their lives and faith or lack thereof.

Very few folks go to Church to become involved in converting or judging others. They mostly go for social contact and to participate in charitable work. It is clear that some go to engage in judgement, but truly not all that many.