Loving God = Eternal Torture?

[Vishvavajra]

But Paul also don't buy into the Platonistic dualism of the Greeks. Paul's whole deal about resurrection is that it is heavily tied to apocalyptic -- that is, that resurrection is part od God's ultimate plan for humanity that is made manifest in Jesus' resurrection. Since, for Paul, we are the body of Christ, it is within God's plan that we share in his resurrection.

No argument there. Not sure what "Platonic dualism" means, but otherwise that's spot-on.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Deidre, the Bible says hell is not some place of torment and fire and torture, but it is nothing more than the grave. Hell is the same as sheol, hades, and grave. they all mean the same thing.

Both Sh'ol and Hades, as well as "Abraham's bosom," refer to a traditional view of the underworld in which the shades of the dead wander a cold, dark, subeterranean abode. Pretty standard for Semitic and other Mediterranean cultures. So yeah, you could say it's a grave in a sense, but it's also more than that. And it's "common" in the sense that everybody was thought to end up there.

"Death" is actually a programmatic term among early Christians. It's the opposite of salvation/resurrection/"life," although not necessarily the opposite of life in the literal sense of biological functioning. People equate death with hell in the sense that hell is nowadays framed as the inverse of salvation, but there's no indication that "death" in the NT refers to an afterlife of any sort, but rather a state that all people are subject to (and may indeed be the default state of most people).

 

[Deidre]

Deidre, the Bible says hell is not some place of torment and fire and torture, but it is nothing more than the grave. Hell is the same as sheol, hades, and grave. they all mean the same thing.

We must be thinking of different Bibles. ^_^

 

[sojourner]

No argument there. Not sure what "Platonic dualism" means, but otherwise that's spot-on.

Plato believed in a corruptible body and an incorruptible soul that were essentially differentiated from each other. Paul conceptualized more of what you mentioned -- a "soul/body" -- a body that was a soul. For Paul, "soul" meant "the whole person."

 

[truthofscripture]

Both Sh'ol and Hades, as well as "Abraham's bosom," refer to a traditional view of the underworld in which the shades of the dead wander a cold, dark, subeterranean abode. Pretty standard for Semitic and other Mediterranean cultures. So yeah, you could say it's a grave in a sense, but it's also more than that. And it's "common" in the sense that everybody was thought to end up there.

"Death" is actually a programmatic term among early Christians. It's the opposite of salvation/resurrection/"life," although not necessarily the opposite of life in the literal sense of biological functioning. People equate death with hell in the sense that hell is nowadays framed as the inverse of salvation, but there's no indication that "death" in the NT refers to an afterlife of any sort, but rather a state that all people are subject to (and may indeed be the default state of most people).

Neither the Hebrew scriptures, or the Christian Greek scriptures say any of what you've posted. Where did you learn these things?

 

[sojourner]

Neither the Hebrew scriptures, or the Christian Greek scriptures say any of what you've posted. Where did you learn these things?

Yeah, they do. What you're doing is reading modern interpretations into ancient texts.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Neither the Hebrew scriptures, or the Christian Greek scriptures say any of what you've posted. Where did you learn these things?

What Hades refers to in Greek isn't actually controversial, though it is telling that it's the standard translation of Sh'ol in the LXX, which means that's surely what the NT authors are up to. As for Sh'ol, it gets several mentions in the Hebrew scriptures, and all indications are that the identification with the Greek Hades is a pretty sound analogy. It's meant to be the place from which the Witch of Endor summons the shade of Samuel, for example, in a necromantic ritual much like the one Odysseus performs in the Odyssey to talk to Tiresias, who is in Hades.

Then there's the collection of texts written in the Hellenistic period between the Hebrew Bible and the NT (e.g. the Book of Enoch), which give detailed accounts of Sh'ol that show it to be very similar to the Greek underworld in form and function. The fact that those texts didn't end up being canonized doesn't mean they weren't influential (Enoch in particular was well known to the writers of the NT) or that they don't accurately reflect the beliefs of the people at the time when the NT was written.

Abraham's Bosom, incidentally, appears to have been a subsection of Sh'ol that was something analogous to the Elysian Fields. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Luke as an alternative resting place as opposed to the nastier parts of Hades/Sh'ol.

Modern Judaism isn't really concerned with the afterlife, but ancient Judaism did have some ideas about it, and they were not the same ideas that modern Christians tend to have, but rather pretty standard ones for the ancient Mediterranean. The thing is, you have to understand that the texts of the Bible assume a lot of cultural context that they themselves don't summarily dump on you; you have to actually do the legwork and find out what they're talking about. Fortunately, we have a good deal of literature from and about the time period in question.

 

[Katzpur]

Abraham's Bosom, incidentally, appears to have been a subsection of Sh'ol that was something analogous to the Elysian Fields. It is mentioned in the Gospel of Luke as an alternative resting place as opposed to the nastier parts of Hades/Sh'ol.

Sounds like the LDS doctrine of a Spirit World subdivided into a prison-like state and a paradise-like state.

 

[JustWondering]

So, I've been an ex-Christian for about 4 years now, and one thing still irks me even to this day. In evangelical Christianity (in which I was raised...and I suppose most denominations of Christianity in general,) it is believed that God is supposedly love (1 John 4:8), yet at the same time, it is believed that God tortures people for eternity in hell. It would be one thing if it were temporary and corrective, but it isn't... it is eternal. What purpose does an eternal hell serve, exactly? Can someone who is willing to torture his own "children" for eternity be seen as "loving?" That just sort of sounds like an episode of Criminal Minds. Even if God cannot "allow sin into heaven," why not just annihilate the person, both body and soul? Why is torture necessary?

Maybe god is mentally unstable.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Uh, I don't think so. Substitutionary atonement is incongruent with earliest Christian thought.

Jesus Christ Himself said "...The Son of Man has come to serve, and to give His life as a RANSOM for many..."

Can you cite your source for "earliest Christian thought" that predates the advent of Christ?

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Apology accepted. My assurance is from knowing that He and I have a relationship in which He promises me salvation and I promise Him that I will be faithful to Him and obedient to His commandments to the best of my ability.

Okay. I understand that Jesus saves.

You understand that Jesus saves... unless you are disobedient? What happens to you if you do not obey His commands as best you can? I do not wish to put words in your mouth, I'm asking...

 

[sojourner]

Jesus Christ Himself said "...The Son of Man has come to serve, and to give His life as a RANSOM for many..."

Can you cite your source for "earliest Christian thought" that predates the advent of Christ?

Thanks.

Ah, yes. Mark 10:45. Written post-70 c.e. What about earlier sources, such as Paul, who wrote from about 48-55, and Q, written about 50? What does "ransom" mean to those early followers -- and to the earlier Hebrews? Does it mean "sacrificial death," which the Hebrews never practiced, or does it mean something else? What is the Greek term there, and what is its sense?

 

[Katzpur]

Okay. I understand that Jesus saves.

You understand that Jesus saves... unless you are disobedient? What happens to you if you do not obey His commands as best you can? I do not wish to put words in your mouth, I'm asking...

I believe I would still be saved in that I would be received into Heaven. But Jesus Christ said that He will reward every man according to his works. Greater obedience and greater faithfulness will yield a greater reward than mere lip service will.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Jesus Christ Himself said "...The Son of Man has come to serve, and to give His life as a RANSOM for many..."

Can you cite your source for "earliest Christian thought" that predates the advent of Christ?

You know good and well that the Gospels are the last-written books of the NT, and that they express a fully-formed theological tradition. Pretending that we have the direct, verbatim words of Jesus from his own lifetime is disingenuous. At best we can posit that a number of the sayings attributed to him did actually come from his teachings as they were handed down.

On top of that, I'd say the passage in question is one of many that put into Jesus's mouth things that were known at the time of writing. Just as Jesus is made to speak of the destruction of the temple a couple of generations early, so he is also made to speak of his own death. In that light, the idea that his own death would be a necessary price for the liberation of others need not suggest any sort of bizarre human sacrifice scenario; it could simply mean that he knows his teaching in that time and place will result in his death, yet he has chosen to do it anyway because his teachings will lead others to salvation.

The idea that it was actually his death that brought about salvation was a later permutation of the theological tradition. Early Christians focused on his life and emphasized his death only in the sense of something that could not actually destroy him, as a model for how others could also triumph over it. The idea that he was literally a human sacrifice would have been seen as bizarre. Even the metaphors to that effect are a bit strained, given the cultural context.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So many religious people are worried about an after life. If we all live our lives in service to others, living productive lives filled with gratitude, that isn't following the Devil.

Who said it was? .. the 'religious people' worrying about later in their existence are more likely to have a pure intention .. some people might have an ulterior motive .. we call them hypocrites. You can tell yourself that your intention is pure, but that doesn't make it so..

eg. Do most people vote to please God (or aesthetic reasons), or do they consider their personal circumstances more important?

.. So what religion should one follow to 'keep out' of hell? That is the problem. To me, it is enough to believe in a god. I don't believe that he requires me to follow Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism, etc

You are right in a sense .. Almighty God is looking for our sincerity .. so we have to decide which we think is true or which parts of a religion are true etc.

Christianity is far different than Islam...so who will see heaven and who will see hell?

Almighty God knows all, including what we try to hide from ourselves!
Christianity and Islam are not far different unless you wish to define them so. They both confirm that there is a life after death, and that we are not here by chance.

If you want to start squabbling about eating pork, or whether God is a man as well as a spiritual 'being' etc., then how does that change our responsibility to behave according to the scriptures?

If an after life exists, no one knows what it is. All religions guess. .

Even if that were true, it doesn't change anything as I say above?

 

[sojourner]

Christianity and Islam are not far different unless you wish to define them so. They both confirm that there is a life after death

How does that life after death happen? What is the nature of that life? How does that life fit in with any plan of God's?

 

[muhammad_isa]

How does that life after death happen? What is the nature of that life? How does that life fit in with any plan of God's?

Why do you ask? Curiousity?

How does it change the common values that Christans and Muslims hold?

 

[sojourner]

Why do you ask? Curiousity?

How does it change the common values that Christans and Muslims hold?

It doesn't. But it does seek to point out how the two are fundamentally different.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It doesn't. But it does seek to point out how the two are fundamentally different.

Many people hold false beliefs .. both Muslims and Christians ..
..there are many different sects in each.
Perhaps you'd like to explain these fundamental differences

 

[sojourner]

Many people hold false beliefs .. both Muslims and Christians ..
..there are many different sects in each.
Perhaps you'd like to explain these fundamental differences

I asked first:

How does that life after death happen? What is the nature of that life? How does that life fit in with any plan of God's?