The sick concept of Eternal hell suffering.

[want to be hindu]

This would only be true if Jesus were incapable of using fire as a metaphor. In context it is clear that the statement you mention is metaphorical, which is not true of the statements about the lake of fire in Revelation or other mentions of fire in hell.

Nobody interpreted the book of Revelation ( up till the 19th century) literally.The book of Revelation was seen as apocalyptic literature not to be interpreted as literal. You must understand the type of literature you are reading to correctly interrupt it. You cant read poems as prose.

Gregory of Nazianzus and many other early christians in the 4th century argued against including this book in the New Testament , mostly because of the difficulties of interpreting it. :help:In fact Martin Luther at first thought the book so hard to understand he wanted to kick it out of the bible. John Calvin did not write a commentary on it. It was the only book in the new testament he did not cover.

Why do you think the meaning of Hell in Revelation so easy to understand ?:slap:

 

[Imagist]

This is clear because of 1700 years of the concept of eternal hell was the only teaching allowed in the church. The words have come to mean what the "orthodox christians" want them to mean.

In the 3rd century the idea of hell was not as clear.

The great theologian Origen (d 254 ad) believed and many of the early church writers agreed with him. That Hell was not eternal.But Christian theology crystallized around the opposite view: the Devil is everlastingly damned to an everlasting Hell, and Dante put it in a famous nutshell with the inscription over the gate to his Inferno—Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.

Contrast Dante to the great philosopher Origen.

"In my opinion the outer darkness [ HELL ] is not to be understand so much to be some dark atmosphere with out any light. Rather,it refers to those persons who, being plunged in the darkness of profound ignorance, have been placed beyonded the reach of any light of understanding."

Origen was the head of the famous catechetical school in Alexandria he is called the Father of Christian Theology.

Later interpretations, including Origen's, are irrelevant when we have the original source: the bible.

The bible clearly describes this place of eternal fire and suffering, as I have stated before. It is easy to understand these descriptions. If you believe that they are not easy to understand, please go back in the thread and read the passages that I have quoted, then ask for an explanation and I will be happy to both offer an explanation and back it up with evidence.

 

[want to be hindu]

Later interpretations, including Origen's, are irrelevant when we have the original source: the bible.

The bible clearly describes this place of eternal fire and suffering, as I have stated before. It is easy to understand these descriptions. If you believe that they are not easy to understand, please go back in the thread and read the passages that I have quoted, then ask for an explanation and I will be happy to both offer an explanation and back it up with evidence.

I think you should look in to Textural Criticism. I have never seen an Atheist who uses a fundamentalist system of exegesis to study the bible. Your explanations do not take the culture and litature of the people you are talking about in to account. You dont understand the use of parables and apocalyptic literature in the Roman world. I think you can make an arguement for Hell being eternal many have that are very good. I think you can also make an arguement that it is not. I dont care I like parts of the bible other parts I leave to the Christians. If you attack the beliefs of others you should have all your ducks in a row.

 

[want to be hindu]

Later interpretations, including Origen's, are irrelevant when we have the original source: the bible.

What better way of understanding literature then to read the comments of people who used the same langauge and made comments on the text close to the same time. I cant see how thats irrelevant.

 

[Imagist]

I think you should look in to Textural Criticism. I have never seen an Atheist who uses a fundamentalist system of exegesis to study the bible. Your explanations do not take the culture and litature of the people you are talking about in to account. You dont understand the use of parables and apocalyptic literature in the Roman world. I think you can make an arguement for Hell being eternal many have that are very good. I think you can also make an arguement that it is not. I dont care I like parts of the bible other parts I leave to the Christians. If you attack the beliefs of others you should have all your ducks in a row.

I am taking an exegetical stance, not because I take the bible seriously at all, but in order to make a proof by contradiction, which works by assuming that an initial assumption and then showing how it results in an inconsistency. In this case, the initial assumption I am taking is that Christian fundamentalist beliefs are correct. Since Christian fundamentalist beliefs have no regard for the intent of the original authors, neither does my initial assumption.

The issue at hand is that the Christian fundamentalists are attempting to rewrite their beliefs in order to clean out the inconsistencies I am pointing out.

 

[mickiel]

The sick concept of eternal hell suffering has infiltrated most all existing forms of religion. It is prevelent and on rushing in the very mentality of humanity. And it has literally wrecked Gods reputation amoung curious seekers of God. A kind of crazy doctrine, it is proof and evidence of the deception that has taken root and grown in our cultures.

Peace.

 

[Imagist]

The sick concept of eternal hell suffering has infiltrated most all existing forms of religion. It is prevelent and on rushing in the very mentality of humanity. And it has literally wrecked Gods reputation amoung curious seekers of God. A kind of crazy doctrine, it is proof and evidence of the deception that has taken root and grown in our cultures.

Peace.

Since all you're doing is saying the same thing and not providing any evidence, Biblical, logical, or otherwise, I'm going to restate my point:

The sick concept of eternal hell suffering exists because, according to your own Bible, God tortures people eternally in hell. Saying that accusations of eternal torture have wrecked the Christian god's reputation is like saying that allegations of terrorism have wrecked Osama Bin Laden's reputation. Their reputations may be wrecked, but they have only themselves to blame: they did it.

 

[mickiel]

Since all you're doing is saying the same thing and not providing any evidence, Biblical, logical, or otherwise, I'm going to restate my point:

The sick concept of eternal hell suffering exists because, according to your own Bible, God tortures people eternally in hell. Saying that accusations of eternal torture have wrecked the Christian god's reputation is like saying that allegations of terrorism have wrecked Osama Bin Laden's reputation. Their reputations may be wrecked, but they have only themselves to blame: they did it.

I have not tried to sdupply evidence or to convince, I hold no intrest in convincing anyone of anything. I am merely stateing my views. It does not matter to me what you believe, nor am I interested in proving to you what I believe. What I see, is for me. What you see, is for you.

And thats just how it is.

Peace.

 

[Masourga]

It's pretty hard for me to take any of the Bible "seriously". It was written by men, and as all of us do (being humans and all), I have a pretty good amount of experience with the nature of man. Many of you even mention that a particular "book" of the Bible was decided to be included, or this one was almost taken out or expunged. How easily would it have been, at any time, for an earlier author of parts of the Bible to have infused his own agenda into his writing? It's the reason the Bible isn't coherent. It's the reason it was ever able to be revised in the first place (and the second place, and the third, and the fourth, etc. - ad nauseum). Someone with the "authority" to act under the pretense of the old "God told me so" routine didn't like what one of his predecessor's wrote. So he re-wrote, added to, or changed it. What we have today is the equivalent product of the old grade-school game, where you tell the person in the first row something, very quietly, and tell everyone to pass it on down the line. At the end you have something completely different than what you started with. Looking for "God's" word in the mess is, in my opinion, an exercise in futility. I'm not saying the Bible doesn't have gems of knowledge and wisdom between it's covers. I would dare say that no other book has nearly as many. But never has a single one been written by anything other than an inked quill in a man's hand.

 

[mickiel]

It's pretty hard for me to take any of the Bible "seriously". It was written by men, and as all of us do (being humans and all), I have a pretty good amount of experience with the nature of man. Many of you even mention that a particular "book" of the Bible was decided to be included, or this one was almost taken out or expunged. How easily would it have been, at any time, for an earlier author of parts of the Bible to have infused his own agenda into his writing? It's the reason the Bible isn't coherent. It's the reason it was ever able to be revised in the first place (and the second place, and the third, and the fourth, etc. - ad nauseum). Someone with the "authority" to act under the pretense of the old "God told me so" routine didn't like what one of his predecessor's wrote. So he re-wrote, added to, or changed it. What we have today is the equivalent product of the old grade-school game, where you tell the person in the first row something, very quietly, and tell everyone to pass it on down the line. At the end you have something completely different than what you started with. Looking for "God's" word in the mess is, in my opinion, an exercise in futility. I'm not saying the Bible doesn't have gems of knowledge and wisdom between it's covers. I would dare say that no other book has nearly as many. But never has a single one been written by anything other than an inked quill in a man's hand.

The book simply is not for you. Listen, the bible is not for everyone, it is not to be forced on anyone, and its just like any other book, you can take it or leave it.

Its just that simple. It is NOT for everyone, and I would disagree with those who claim it is. The book is for believers, and even most of them are getting nothing from it. Its just really a testement, a docuement given to humanity as a " Witness of God", NOT a conversion tatic, or a thing to sweep our belief and influence it.

It simply bears witness of God, a letter telling of the truth that God does exist, it is NOT a letter to prove or convince humans that God exist.

Peace.

 

[Masourga]

NOT a letter to prove or convince humans that God exist.

Not quite sure why this is the response to what I had wrote. You got one thing right - the book itself isn't for me. But, to say that the existence of the Bible isn't due, in part, to someone's belief that it would help to support the religion and help to CONVERT others is ludicrous. In it's purest intention, and what it's stoutest proponents would tell you is exactly what you have said, that it is merely bearing witness to God's interaction with the world. But that is the ideal, and far from the true stuff that Bible is made of.

 

[mickiel]

Not quite sure why this is the response to what I had wrote. You got one thing right - the book itself isn't for me. But, to say that the existence of the Bible isn't due, in part, to someone's belief that it would help to support the religion and help to CONVERT others is ludicrous. In it's purest intention, and what it's stoutest proponents would tell you is exactly what you have said, that it is merely bearing witness to God's interaction with the world. But that is the ideal, and far from the true stuff that Bible is made of.

Well it is within the human gall, to try to interpit what is not for us. Thus, unbelievers in the bible, somehow think they can explain the bible to themselves and others, and it is really they, who hold the need to convince themselves that the bible is not relevant.

The bible can only be relevant to a certain kind of mindset. Devoid of that mindset, the book is just as meaningless as a comic book. If God wanted to convert the world, it would be converted. He does not. If God wanted to convince a human of his existance, it would be done, he does not want to convince. The unbelief of the vast majority of humankind, is the proof that God is not interested in convincing humans of his existence. What God desires, that he gets, and nothing could stop it.

People do not believe in God or the bible, because thats how God wants them to be.

Its just as simple as that. Once this is understood, then a person who understands God somewhat, willNOT try to convince others of his existence and validity.

Peace.

 

[drs]

Well it is within the human gall, to try to interpit what is not for us. Thus, unbelievers in the bible, somehow think they can explain the bible to themselves and others, and it is really they, who hold the need to convince themselves that the bible is not relevant.

The bible can only be relevant to a certain kind of mindset. Devoid of that mindset, the book is just as meaningless as a comic book. If God wanted to convert the world, it would be converted. He does not. If God wanted to convince a human of his existance, it would be done, he does not want to convince. The unbelief of the vast majority of humankind, is the proof that God is not interested in convincing humans of his existence. What God desires, that he gets, and nothing could stop it.

People do not believe in God or the bible, because thats how God wants them to be.

Its just as simple as that. Once this is understood, then a person who understands God somewhat, willNOT try to convince others of his existence and validity.

Peace.

people do not believe in GOD or the bible because that is how GOD wants them to be.

Ofcourse there are people who believe in the bible I am one of them and before you ask I believe in it all, not like those who are not of GOD and believe whatever sounds good to them or what they think they can understand in there own worldly wisdom and logic.

 

[mickiel]

not like those who are not of GOD and believe whatever sounds good to them or what they think they can understand in there own worldly wisdom and logic.

Not like those who are " Not of God." Not of God, thats funny, and sad at the same time. Not of God. There is no such thing as a human " Not being of God", the whole earth is the Lords, all humans are of God, created by him, and for him.

God is simply not paying attention to most humans at this time, or at any time in human history. All humans are destined to be with God, and nothing can stop their predestined lives.

I just don't pay much attention to how certain believers like to exclude so much of humanity from one day being with God.

Peace.

 

[AK4]

Heres something for all you guys who believe in the dispicable doctrine of eternal barbequing of most of mankind to read


http://www.geocities.com/tws490/wnetern.html?20082

 

[SpiritualBeing]

I would just like to say something. In the field of Spiritualism, a Spiritualist does not believe in 'hell'. Spiritualism is an ever growing community of believers. I myself take pride in my ability of Spiritual healing, and after a re-think, I do not really believe in hell.

As God states in the bible (somewhere), "In my house, there are many mansions." I translate this as saying that there will always be a place in the Spirit Realm to correspond. I do not believe in eternal suffering. I believe that you have a place for everyone in the Spirit Realm, no matter your creed, colour or sexual orientation.

CB

P.S. I would like to take this time to apologise to Mickiel for the way I acted towards him at the start of this topic. I was rather snappy and quick to judge, and for this, I apologise.

 

[mickiel]

CB

P.S. I would like to take this time to apologise to Mickiel for the way I acted towards him at the start of this topic. I was rather snappy and quick to judge, and for this, I apologise.

Apoligy accepted with no problems at all. My prayer is that your, and my understanding grow pass ourselves, our religions, and get to Gods truth that is Light.

And that truth is a far distance from what we have been taught. It looks nothing like we thought it did.

Peace to you on your journey.

 

[SpiritualBeing]

Thank you for accepting. I agree with you that people have been conditioned into thinking different thinngs that may or may not be true. We all seem to be taught things because they are the way they've 'always been done'. I believe that, if we learn to break away from this, then we may be able to have a more open relationship with God.

In the words of Dr. Wayne W. Dyer, "We must learn to have a mind that is open to everything and attached to nothing.'

 

[Dirty Penguin]

As God states in the bible (somewhere), "In my house, there are many mansions." I translate this as saying that there will always be a place in the Spirit Realm to correspond. I do not believe in eternal suffering. I believe that you have a place for everyone in the Spirit Realm, no matter your creed, colour or sexual orientation.

Actually that is the biblical Yeshua saying that in reference to his god's house there are many mansions (John 14:2). I haven't found a place where the biblical God says this.

 

[SpiritualBeing]

I'm not sure what Yeshua is, so I can't have gotten it from there. The only book I know from where I could have gotten this is the Bible. Perhaps I'm wrong though, you may be right.