Will Atheists & Polyheists burn in Hell according to Bible?

[JoStories]

No one will "roast in hell", since as far as the scriptures are concerned, they indicate pretty clearly that hell is the same as sheol and hades: the common grave of mankind. The concept of a burning fiery hell comes from false religions and from Dante's Inferno, a work of fiction, and from pagan religions. Pagans have always believed that we have an immortal "soul", but the scriptures teach the opposite. They teach that soul and life are synonyms, not two separate parts of us. The scriptures say that nothing survives death, and that our thoughts do perish. They say that Adam, the first man, BECAME a living soul, not that he was given a soul.

There really is no devil or hell in paganism, at least not in the way you imply. The belief in the immortal soul in paganism is most often seen as the soul that reincarnates, a somewhat common belief in that religion, although not all hold it. It is very individual. Although, as a segue, I will say there is a god that can be construed to be somewhat like the Christian devil; the horned God. Still, it is not similar to what Christians think of.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's really disturbing how some Christians pretend to know more about the God of the Bible than Jews, to whom the Bible really belongs.

You know, that's really offensive. Aren't you of Italian descent? Then you better not read the Eddas or practice Asatru because you aren't Germanic (except for a tiny percent per your DNA test). You better go worship Jupiter. The Bible is part of world heritage now, and Christians most certainly have a "right" to it.

 

[jonathan180iq]

You know, that's really offensive. Aren't you of Italian descent? Then you better not read the Eddas or practice Asatru because you aren't Germanic (except for a tiny percent per your DNA test). You better go worship Jupiter. The Bible is part of world heritage now, and Christians most certainly have a "right" to it.

I don't mean to speak for him, but I think he meant that it's not the place of a modern off-shoot, like Christianity, to tell the parent religion how the parent religion is supposed to interpret the original holy books. The new off-shoot can explain, for example, how they interpret their holy books. But not to the point of demanding that the original documents be viewed only through the light of the off-shoot's interpretation.

 

[JoStories]

So why would anyone worship a God whom you have to fear of offending and would send you on a fast track to eternal torment and punishment? That sounds a bit sado-masochistic. It's really disturbing how some Christians pretend to know more about the God of the Bible than Jews, to whom the Bible really belongs. Stop reading Paul and John (but you can listen to their music ) and read books like Daniel.

Don't you think,that that is a bit unfair, that is, to say that the bible only belongs to the Jews. For one thing, Jews would never call it a 'Bible', because for them, it is the Talmud, Tanakh, or Torah. There are literally millions of people who consider the Bible the book of their faith.

 

[JoStories]

I don't mean to speak for him, but I think he meant that it's not the place of a modern off-shoot, like Christianity, to tell the parent religion how the parent religion is supposed to interpret the original holy books. The new off-shoot can explain, for example, how they interpret their holy books. But not to the point of demanding that the original documents be viewed only through the light of the off-shoot's interpretation.

But isn't that how all holy books are viewed and seen? All religions are based on interpretatoin. Even in the time of Jesus, if we accept that he existed, the faiths developed were based on eyewitness testimony handed down over several generations and through multiple sources. Rabbis make a life out of study of the Torah. And even then, it continues. Just my thoughts.

 

[jonathan180iq]

But isn't that how all holy books are viewed and seen? All religions are based on interpretatoin. Even in the time of Jesus, if we accept that he existed, the faiths developed were based on eyewitness testimony handed down over several generations and through multiple sources. Rabbis make a life out of study of the Torah. And even then, it continues. Just my thoughts.

Certainly. Everything is an evolution of a previous through process. But what gives the upstart the authority to tell the parent how the parent thinks?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't mean to speak for him, but I think he meant that it's not the place of a modern off-shoot, like Christianity, to tell the parent religion how the parent religion is supposed to interpret the original holy books. The new off-shoot can explain, for example, how they interpret their holy books. But not to the point of demanding that the original documents be viewed only through the light of the off-shoot's interpretation.

I think you understand how Christianity views itself. It was started by a Jew that is recognized as the Messiah by His followers and spread by Jews. We view ourselves as the inheritors of the Israelite religion and that the Jews who did not accept Christ are mistaken. So it's pretty dumb in Christian thinking to say that the Old Testament belongs to a group who we view as having broken their Covenant to God. At the very least, it should be accepted that both Christianity and Judaism have equal claim on the Hebrew Bible, and the right to interpret it in the manner of each of our traditions. That's the only view that is fair to both sides, without being anti-Christian or anti-Judaic.

 

[Jainarayan]

Don't you think,that that is a bit unfair, that is, to say that the bible only belongs to the Jews. For one thing, Jews would never call it a 'Bible', because for them, it is the Talmud, Tanakh, or Torah. There are literally millions of people who consider the Bible the book of their faith.

I know what Jews call it, I was trying to keep it simple. No I don't believe it is unfair because, and I will rephrase it: "It's really disturbing how some Christians pretend to know more about the Tanakh than Jews, to whom the Tanakh really belongs." Christians interpret the Tanakh in whatever way suits them and disregard the teachings and interpretations of Talmudic scholars who know much more about it and what it means. Remember Matthew 5:18? Many Christians don't, meaning they cherry-pick. Sorry, most of the Old Law was not done away with.

 

[Jainarayan]

You know, that's really offensive. Aren't you of Italian descent? Then you better not read the Eddas or practice Asatru because you aren't Germanic (except for a tiny percent per your DNA test). You better go worship Jupiter. The Bible is part of world heritage now, and Christians most certainly have a "right" to it.

Not eeeeven a good try. I don't interpret the Eddas as they suit me, as Christians do with the Bible. They interpret and twist a religious text. The Eddas and Sagas are not directives or religious texts. They are tales and stories of what is believed to have occurred in the past. I can practice Ásatrú without ever having read the Eddas or Sagas. I can practice Ásatrú simply for what it is, faithfulness to the Aesir, and I can learn about the Aesir from children's story books.

 

[Unification]

My dear jewish and christian friends of RF. Do u believe what bible says that disbelievers from muslims, atheists and polytheists will be roasted in hell?

Yes or no and why

Hell is a conscious state of mental torment. I see more religious church building people in this state just as much as anyone else in the world, if not more. Living in fear and sorrow, no peace or objective oneness with the rest of mankind, being fleeced for money, and being brainwashed into lies for being naive.

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't mean to speak for him, but I think he meant that it's not the place of a modern off-shoot, like Christianity, to tell the parent religion how the parent religion is supposed to interpret the original holy books. The new off-shoot can explain, for example, how they interpret their holy books. But not to the point of demanding that the original documents be viewed only through the light of the off-shoot's interpretation.

Thank you. I could not have said it better myself.

Oh, wait... I didn't.

 

[Unification]

Yes, The origins of a burning place of torment is pagan and has no place in the bible.

“The Greek word Hades is sometimes, but misleadingly, translated “hell” in English ..... In from:
Religion and Spirituality: Hell: Origins of an Idea

Anyone can google up hell and get at the truth.

"Hell" is neither a Hebrew or a Greek word (both Old and New Testaments were written in those languages), nor did it primarily indicate "a place of torment." Biblical translators actually derived it from a secular German word - spelled hel - meaning nothing more than concealed or covered. The concept of a demon regulated horror-house was indeed derived from that word, but it actually evolved from Teutonic mythology.
^^^^^from:
Merciful Truth : The Origin of Hell
I do believe the wrod hel was used by druids to scare hell outa illiterates. Probably hell came into use about 1300 years after the bible texts were writen.
Rev. Rob Bell in his book LOVE WINS goes into detail about why hell ain't there, shouldn't be in any Christian bible.

I'm not sure why the belief of a loving God would not send people to hell, but a loving God would return and murder and destroy people. Sounds very contradicting and dogmatic.

 

[Jainarayan]

Rabbis make a life out of study of the Torah. And even then, it continues. Just my thoughts.

I daresay many Christians today don't even know about Talmudic studies. And therein lies the problem. The texts are interpreted, studied and debated by those who are in a far better position, because they know it and live it. Not to mention reading, writing, speaking and most importantly, understanding the nuances of Hebrew. Can Pope Francis or Patriarch Bartholomew, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or Patriarch Kyrill say that? My wager is no. Yet they claim to know the Bible.

 

[Unification]

I know what Jews call it, I was trying to keep it simple. No I don't believe it is unfair because, and I will rephrase it: "It's really disturbing how some Christians pretend to know more about the Tanakh than Jews, to whom the Tanakh really belongs." Christians interpret the Tanakh in whatever way suits them and disregard the teachings and interpretations of Talmudic scholars who know much more about it and what it means. Remember Matthew 5:18? Many Christians don't, meaning they cherry-pick. Sorry, most of the Old Law was not done away with.

Many religions are all disturbing in themselves because they are all subjective, create divide, and not objectivity, peace, oneness, are responsible for lots of murder, war, violence, hate for one another, arguing, degrading of women, abuse of children, greed, etc.
The " interpretations" belong to a particular religion, not the texts themselves. How different religions define God in THEIR image and create their own mental images and objects doesn't make the texts solely theirs, and making them solely theirs would also be defining God how they choose making God a respector of persons. The laws are all taught literally and outwardly when they are meant internally and spiritually.

 

[Unification]

I daresay many Christians today don't even know about Talmudic studies. And therein lies the problem. The texts are interpreted, studied and debated by those who are in a far better position, because they know it and live it. Not to mention reading, writing, speaking and most importantly, understanding the nuances of Hebrew. Can Pope Francis or Patriarch Bartholomew, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or Patriarch Kyrill say that? My wager is no. Yet they claim to know the Bible.

Talmudic studies would be different from the scripture themselves. Just as Christian studies would be different from the scripture themselves. All subjective.
God is one and no respector of persons. When one learns the objective and spiritual meaning behind them and realizes the scriptures all apply to every single human, regardless of race, religion, heritage, color, nationality, shape, etc There lies the truth.

 

[Jainarayan]

Talmudic studies would be different from the scripture themselves. Just as Christian studies would be different from the scripture themselves. All subjective.
God is one and no respector of persons. When one learns the objective and spiritual meaning behind them and realizes the scriptures all apply to every single human, regardless of race, religion, heritage, color,

I agree to a point, but my point is that the Tanakh has been studied by Jewish scholars for at least 2,000 - 2,500 years. I don't know that any of the church fathers ever took rabbinic studies into account when writing on Christian theology, which didn't even start until (and I'm being generous) the 4th century CE.Yet the "Old Testament" is quoted today with reckless abandon by people with no roots in its traditions.

 

[JoStories]

Certainly. Everything is an evolution of a previous through process. But what gives the upstart the authority to tell the parent how the parent thinks?

Scratching head....not sure I fully understand your question Jonathan. Are you asking what gave the religion the right to tell people what to think? If that is the question, then I have no answer. Personally, I don't feel children should be subjected to religion until they have the capacity for abstract thought and can decide what they beleive for themselves.

 

[JoStories]

I daresay many Christians today don't even know about Talmudic studies. And therein lies the problem. The texts are interpreted, studied and debated by those who are in a far better position, because they know it and live it. Not to mention reading, writing, speaking and most importantly, understanding the nuances of Hebrew. Can Pope Francis or Patriarch Bartholomew, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or Patriarch Kyrill say that? My wager is no. Yet they claim to know the Bible.

Honestly, I have no idea if pope Benedict can read Ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. I suspect he can read some though as he is not too bad as popes go. I can say I have been studying the bible among other faiths and sacred books for about 3 decades, on a scholarly level the last 10, and would I still have a lot to learn. I don't know that we can know all about the bible in one lifetime.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think you understand how Christianity views itself. It was started by a Jew that is recognized as the Messiah by His followers and spread by Jews. We view ourselves as the inheritors of the Israelite religion and that the Jews who did not accept Christ are mistaken. So it's pretty dumb in Christian thinking to say that the Old Testament belongs to a group who we view as having broken their Covenant to God. At the very least, it should be accepted that both Christianity and Judaism have equal claim on the Hebrew Bible, and the right to interpret it in the manner of each of our traditions. That's the only view that is fair to both sides, without being anti-Christian or anti-Judaic.

To the victors go the spoils, right?
So Christianity has blossomed into the largest religion in the world, thanks in part to a many number of Historical figures, not the least of which is Constantine. Does that size give validity to the Christian claim anymore so than Judaisms many years of existence give weight to it?

Just because Christianity is popular doesn't make it valid, right? And just because it claims to have a higher understanding of Jewish texts doesn't make it so, does it?
Why then is it allowed for Christianity to tell the actual writers of Talmud and Tanakh how to interpret their texts?

While you can view them as having broken their covenant with god, what real authority do Christians have to make that claim, other than what they were taught about theology by the church fathers and the Pauline epistles?

The last part of your statement is absolutely right. And that's the whole point. Keep your traditions and your interpretations all you like. But don't try and tell others that their interpretation is flawed just because you don't like it.

 

[JoStories]

I know what Jews call it, I was trying to keep it simple. No I don't believe it is unfair because, and I will rephrase it: "It's really disturbing how some Christians pretend to know more about the Tanakh than Jews, to whom the Tanakh really belongs." Christians interpret the Tanakh in whatever way suits them and disregard the teachings and interpretations of Talmudic scholars who know much more about it and what it means. Remember Matthew 5:18? Many Christians don't, meaning they cherry-pick. Sorry, most of the Old Law was not done away with.

With regard to Christians not understanding the Tanakh, we agree. I fully recognize that they take the Tanakh and misread it to prophesy their messiah, when that is wrong. And I also agree many don't study it at all. They parrot. However, IMO, it's their life and their choice. Who am I to say they are wrong?