|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Gaping Maw of Hell
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
I'm aware of about four or five different end results that Christians believe could happen to us when we shuffle off this mortal coil.
1. Everyone goes to heaven.
2. Some go to heaven, others go to heaven after pulling time in purgatory, some are left in limbo, the rest are tossed into the gaping maw of hell by their loving heavenly father for the purpose of suffering the conscious, unending torments of damnation throughout all eternity.
3. Some go to heaven, the rest are tossed into the gaping maw.
4. Some go to heaven, the lost just stay dead.
5. Some go to heaven, the rest are punished with destruction, the pain, suffering and duration of which is related to their evil deeds in life.
6. Whatever the lady behind the counter at the Circle K has to say.
If I had to lay five bucks on it, I'd say #5 is the most consistent with our scriptures. Do folks want to look at it together and, if we do, is purgatory the right place?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
You're missing the bodily resurrection and the new heavens/new earth thing. Heaven is not the end.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You're missing the bodily resurrection and the new heavens/new earth thing. Heaven is not the end.
which, fwiw, my $5 would say is most consistent w/ Scripture (and the creeds)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
Can I make the rather obvious point that, if using Scripture results in a number of different and mutually incompatible results, then either:
a. Scriptural inerrancy must be abandoned; or
b. there is something here which we don't understand. Maybe God's plans are beyond our current understanding?
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
a. Scriptural inerrancy must be abandoned;
Just this. Nothing else.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
How about heaven is open to everyone, but people who find they can't stand it leave and find a place as remote from God and heaven as possible. There they make each other miserable because everyone is surrounded by selfish bastards. The name used for the places where they gather themselves together is Hell.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
a. Scriptural inerrancy must be abandoned;
Just this. Nothing else.
To be replaced by what?
It is impossible to assert anything about any aspect of reality, unless you are working on some assumptions which are themselves held to be incontestably true. Even the most extreme sceptic cannot be sceptical unless he absolutely believes in the validity of the method by which he is able to exercise his scepticism (for example, logic or empiricism).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
By faith and reason.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
But faith and reason needs a starting point.
Accepting the Bible as a divinely inspired work is still valid.
the other choice is that heaven and hell are something we find on earth, not after. And accept that the bible does not actually tell us a great deal about what happens after we die.
Which would mean that we cannot know what happens. We can trust that God is good and reasonable and will deal with us in an acceptable way. But that it may be as much based on whether we spread heaven or hell while we are here on earth.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But faith and reason needs a starting point.
Accepting the Bible as a divinely inspired work is still valid.
the other choice is that heaven and hell are something we find on earth, not after. And accept that the bible does not actually tell us a great deal about what happens after we die.
Which would mean that we cannot know what happens. We can trust that God is good and reasonable and will deal with us in an acceptable way. But that it may be as much based on whether we spread heaven or hell while we are here on earth.
There is more than one text that is claimed to be divinely inspired.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
You're missing the bodily resurrection and the new heavens/new earth thing. Heaven is not the end.
No. Heaven on earth is the end. But the judgement issue is the same:
the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
How about heaven is open to everyone, but people who find they can't stand it leave and find a place as remote from God and heaven as possible. There they make each other miserable because everyone is surrounded by selfish bastards. The name used for the places where they gather themselves together is Hell.
I like that theory (I gather from here the Orthodox tend to it), and that and some form of purgatorial-universalism are I think the only ways I can tie the two threads that go throughout the bible (and also a individual wish that things here matter, and the obvious fact of eternity being eternal).
Granted we have a limited perspective, but with the other (Christian) views I find there's a (worse) ugly clash somewhere*. And one so ugly it's hard to imagine anything reconciling it without lapsing into nonsense.
I can believe one possible (and obviously at the important time we'll have the full facts) but not very well as definite.
*and even worse with many of the non-christian ones (except possibly re-incarnation or a (probably chistianified)viking one)
[ 08. June 2014, 11:40: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
a. Scriptural inerrancy must be abandoned;
Just this. Nothing else.
Well yes.
But then what?
Scripture still needs to be taken into account because it provides the best insight we have to the time of Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But faith and reason needs a starting point.
Accepting the Bible as a divinely inspired work is still valid.
<snip>
Which would mean that we cannot know what happens. We can trust that God is good and reasonable and will deal with us in an acceptable way. But that it may be as much based on whether we spread heaven or hell while we are here on earth.
Both very wise comments. I've noticed alot of your posts are full of wisdom these days catty. Have you always been thus or have I only noticed since you stopped haranguing me in Hell. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
I lean towards #4, with "go to heaven" being a shorthand for the eventual resurrection of the body. There are definitely texts which suggest that the wicked dead will be resurrected to face judgement and be condemned, but condemned only, I think, to eternal death. Most of the Scriptural references to what we call "hell" are to a punishment that lasts eternally (i.e. death with no possibility of resurrection) rather than to an eternal conscious process of punishment. Yes, there are a few texts that seem to suggest eternal punishment -- but that's the basic problem with reading the Bible as inerrant; there are always texts which can be read different ways.
Overall I think the Scriptural evidence is heavily on the side of the wages of sin being death, and humans being mortal creatures doomed to die without the gift of eternal life. The idea that God would grant the gift of eternal life just for the purpose of torturing someone forever seems to me to create a god that it is not possible to worship.
[ 08. June 2014, 11:58: Message edited by: Trudy Scrumptious ]
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Overall I think the Scriptural evidence is heavily on the side of the wages of sin being death, and humans being mortal creatures doomed to die without the gift of eternal life. The idea that God would grant the gift of eternal life just for the purpose of torturing someone forever seems to me to create a god that it is not possible to worship. [/QB]
I don't find annihilationism any nicer or comforting than conscious torment. The idea of people simply disappearing as if they never existed strikes me as upsetting, as if God made a mistake in creating them and decided to erase them from history.
My ancestors are all non-Christian to my knowledge. It would seemed weird in heaven to know that my ancestors disappeared and yet I would still carry their DNA.
Universal reconciliation IMHO is the best theology that I can resolve with a God of infinite love and mercy.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I don't find annihilationism any nicer or comforting than conscious torment. The idea of people simply disappearing as if they never existed strikes me as upsetting, as if God made a mistake in creating them and decided to erase them from history.
Upsetting, yes. Horrendous torment? No.
What if God gives them every chance here and in the hereafter to love Her and be with Her and those who love Her?
If they still say 'no' then annihilation would be the best of the alternatives imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
the other choice is that heaven and hell are something we find on earth, not after. And accept that the bible does not actually tell us a great deal about what happens after we die.
The idea that something happens is itself pretty strange to me.
When we look at the wise, they die; fool and dolt perish together and leave their wealth to others. Their graves are their homes forever .. though they named lands their own.
Mortals cannot abide in their pomp; they are like the animals that perish.
Though in their lifetime they count themselves happy – for you are praised when you do well for yourself – they will go to the company of their ancestors, who will never again see the light.
The robust words of Psalm 49.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But faith and reason needs a starting point.
Accepting the Bible as a divinely inspired work is still valid.
There is more than one text that is claimed to be divinely inspired.
I never said otherwise. Although, TBH, many sacred books are claimed to be dictated or written by God, not inspired.
Evensong - I have always said wise thing, especially while discussing you in Hell.
Actually, my wisdom tends to be lacking in hell, to be replaced by some relaxing ranting.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Can I make the rather obvious point that, if using Scripture results in a number of different and mutually incompatible results, then either:
a. Scriptural inerrancy must be abandoned; or
b. there is something here which we don't understand. Maybe God's plans are beyond our current understanding?
c. this is a topic on which Scripture is mostly silent (perhaps a variant of b)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
If they still say 'no' then annihilation would be the best of the alternatives imo.
But what if God never withdraws from them the opportunity to repent? That means that He would need to keep them in existence and conscious in order to enable them to exercise choice. After all, a non-existent or unconscious person cannot exercise choice.
Annihilationism, therefore, is inconsistent with a God of everlasting love - a love that never gives up on anyone. Of course, this implies that hell is actually purgatory.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I don't find annihilationism any nicer or comforting than conscious torment.
I don't find my annihilation a matter for deep concern. Obviously I worry about those left behind and I would prefer the end not to be too unpleasant.
A leaflet through the door said: "You could spend eternity with you family." I feel I've done that. But really being anything forever? Thanks but if it's an option I'd prefer not.
Wouldn't mind hanging around to see how homo sapiens turn out but even if that's a billion years, it's less than the splittest of split seconds of eternity.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But what if God never withdraws from them the opportunity to repent? That means that He would need to keep them in existence and conscious in order to enable them to exercise choice. After all, a non-existent or unconscious person cannot exercise choice.
What is a non-existent person?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless
The idea that something happens is itself pretty strange to me.
Interestingly, I think the exact opposite. The idea that a person who physically dies is completely snuffed out and ceases to exist, is bizarre.
This belief implies that we are all just nothing more than physical machines, which produce a grand illusion that we call 'life'. According to this theory, this life is nothing more than the functioning of certain physical processes, which somehow, by magic it seems, throw up other properties, such as reason, affections, sense of purpose, free will, morals and and the most bizarre and illusory of all: consciousness.
Unless it can be proven that consciousness is produced by the physical processes of the natural organism, then we cannot be sure that physical death implies the total non-existence of the person. But it is clear that this proof is highly elusive, if not completely unattainable. I remember writing something on a thread a couple of years ago about the difficulty of explaining consciousness in purely natural terms. I managed to find it and the post is here.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Unless it can be proven that consciousness is produced by the physical processes of the natural organism, then we cannot be sure that physical death implies the total non-existence of the person.
Consciousness may be made of a different stuff from physical objects but that says nothing about it longevity. It may, for example, be in some way dependent on the physical body and so die with it. It may be able to exist on its own but have no means of communication with other consciousnesses, it may be absorbed into some sort of universal consciousness. Is there something it would be like to be mere consciousness? And what would it be conscious of? At the moment consciousness seems to me just a word with no obviously coherent meaning (even after reading your post).
Consider someone like my mother descending into the final stages of dementia. Does she still have a consciousness (albeit undetectable by physical means)? Is her consciousness free of Alzheimer's and does she then know, in some sense, what is happening to her body? By any test we can use, or in terms of normal philosophical concepts, my mother has less consciousness than most mammals. So if she is conscious, are they? Maybe your computer is more conscious than you imagine.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Candide
Apprentice
# 15755
|
Posted
The concept of hell has had century upon century as one of the leading (if not the primary) methods of social control. Hell in this sense, is simply the judgement of society on undesirable behavior. And I'm not so sure it can be disentangled from that web anymore.
Don't get me wrong. "Social control" has far from always been a bad thing. For instance, the fear of hell spoken from the pulpit, did a great deal to curb personal violence in my national history.
Still. It leaves a legacy. The fear remains, even when the need to instill that fear, has greatly diminished.
When it comes to theology, I most certainly wear the duncecap, and have no clue which of the alternative views of hell in OP that is the best supported by scripture. Still, the clues that do exists, seem to me to be vague.
At the same time, hell is often a place / concept which is still spoken of with considerable certainty (albeit less and less). Could that certainty be (at least partially) the result of that social control, of that fear, rather than a scriptural source?
Posts: 36 | From: Norway | Registered: Jul 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
We all go to heaven. Some love it, some are miserable because they no longer can have the illusion of being superior, of being the center of attention, of deserving public praise and admiration, or whatever false values they live by. Only question in my mind is whether hell is heaven as experienced by some or whether God in kindness created a place for heaven-haters to flee to and continue living their illusions. An insane asylum.
Job of this life is to develop a personality that can delight in heaven instead of hating it.
Judgment? We see who we are, the ways we have treated others, that "there is no health in us." No external judge has to impose judgement on us, we judge and condemn ourselves. Jesus came to save us from our self-condemnation. Our righteousness is in him not in us.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
a. Scriptural inerrancy must be abandoned;
Just this. Nothing else.
To be replaced by what?
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
By faith and reason.
That's a good Tony-Blair-Esque conceptual statement. Like the old joke: "Mr Blair would like breakfast to be nutritious and ethical, and be a fitting start to a productive day of doing good things." It doesn't say what he wants to eat.
It is true that a consensus on exegesis is almost impossible to achieve, but I think it is easy to agree on a few principles that could bring us closer together.
When a crowd of people are facing different directions and moving towards different objectives, any attempt to make them all jump to the same conclusion is futile. It makes far more sense to set achievable targets. Before nudging people together, first establish a common communication method.
For example:
Accept that we can't even agree on the status of Sacred Scripture (ooh - my use of capitals is a clue!) as an authority.
Research first, hypothesise later. By that, I mean if we want to come to a definitive conclusion regarding what the Bible says about marriage (for example,) then we need to exhaustively examine every single last reference to marriage - and not just what it says in our preferred translation, but track those translations back to their sources, and look at the cross references in those sources. In short, cherry-picking and proof-texting are not acceptable.
Context is everything. By that, I mean we need to know that many of the Psalms were written during exile in Babylon and include texts from Canaanite prayers, and we need to know the socio-cultural implications of homosexuality that influenced Paul. We need to aware that there are two versions of the Flood that simple do not allow an inerrant interpretation (is it two or seven?)
In short, the simplistic belief in "scriptural inerrancy" needs to be replaced by an informed, scholarly, reasoned, dare-I-say hermeneutic understanding.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I tend to think that heaven and hell are over-rated and one of those areas within Christianity that makes outsiders shake their heads, wonder about credulity and idiocy, and the focus on all the wrong things. With much of the behaviour of Christians in violation of the ideas and message of the religion's founder. God having good understanding of business, war, hypercompetitiveness etc.
Much of the focus on heaven and hell seems to be ensuring one's immortal soul gets a nice eternal home versus a nasty one. It is self centred. And I think it stinks. Better in my view is to let those mysteries take care of themselves and live as if the present mattered, that other people matters, that things outside of ourselves mattered, and that being kind and behaving lovingly is more important than any ticket to heaven or hell. If you can combine your heaven/hell belief with decent, loving behaviour, I'm willing to tolerate a bit of that self centred focus on your own soul, just not very much, and it had better not be your main focus.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
...... If you can combine your heaven/hell belief with decent, loving behaviour, I'm willing to tolerate a bit of that self centred focus on your own soul, just not very much, and it had better not be your main focus.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Can I make the rather obvious point that, if using Scripture results in a number of different and mutually incompatible results, then either:
a. Scriptural inerrancy must be abandoned; or
b. there is something here which we don't understand. Maybe God's plans are beyond our current understanding?
c. What Scripture is saying is blindingly obvious but we just don't like to face up to the implications of it
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Gareth, we're COMPLETELY in agreement. Reason necessitates the abandonment of inerrancy. Which is why faith is necessary.
How metaphor can be inerrant I don't understand.
The apostle Paul proclaimed errancy. Jesus and Peter for two took license with scripture. Jesus most breathtakingly of all bar none of course.
How a sentence with a highly specific context can be carved eternally and universally in stone I don't understand. Especially when the same narrative makes it obvious that's not how it was understood (Dee-Eye-Vee-Oh-Ar-Cee-Ee anyone?)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Can I make the rather obvious point that, if using Scripture results in a number of different and mutually incompatible results, then either:
a. Scriptural inerrancy must be abandoned; or
b. there is something here which we don't understand. Maybe God's plans are beyond our current understanding?
c. What Scripture is saying is blindingly obvious but we just don't like to face up to the implications of it
Sorry, Truman, I just don't see the logic of your post. Yes, of course, it's simple if we are good little boys and girls and just look at the Bible verses we are supposed to look at. It's when you look at some of the other verses that things start not to add up. This seems pretty obvious to me; have you seen something I haven't seen? and if so, what? or have I misunderstood your post completely? if you could state just what proposition you are defending, it might make things clearer.
And as for obvious implications; again I am not sure just what you mean by this. If it's more of the usual - believers/the just/my particular sect (take your choice) are saved, everyone else is toast - then I can't square this with the idea of a loving God who cares about us. It just doesn't work.
I'm sorry if I am not making myself clear. Perhaps you think I am saying something I'm not. Or vice versa. I hope you realise that I am actually defending (or trying to) the idea that the Bible is a trustworthy document and that Christian belief is reasonable and logical.
If you look at the other thread which started this topic - the one about the Eskimo - I left a post at the bottom of this which might, or might not, be relevant.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
How about heaven is open to everyone, but people who find they can't stand it leave and find a place as remote from God and heaven as possible. There they make each other miserable because everyone is surrounded by selfish bastards. The name used for the places where they gather themselves together is Hell.
There's always the allegory of the long spoons.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Gareth, we're COMPLETELY in agreement. Reason necessitates the abandonment of inerrancy. Which is why faith is necessary.
How metaphor can be inerrant I don't understand.
The apostle Paul proclaimed errancy. Jesus and Peter for two took license with scripture. Jesus most breathtakingly of all bar none of course.
How a sentence with a highly specific context can be carved eternally and universally in stone I don't understand. Especially when the same narrative makes it obvious that's not how it was understood (Dee-Eye-Vee-Oh-Ar-Cee-Ee anyone?)
I used to collect Bibles - by which I mean different translations and interpretations. This is because you can choose your translations to affirm or refute the belief of your choice, and I have always found that fascinating. The ability of some people to choose a source that suits their prejudices and then claim authority has entertained me.
The most extreme examples of this actually made me laugh: the different translations of the Bible into Arabic (a language I failed to practice after learning, and have now lost.) The SPCK made a translation that is still regarded as authoritative, but catastrophically dull and lacking authority. It was challenged by the American Bible Society - which created an alternative translation based on the KJV, and attempted to mimic the 'old fashioned' language of the KJV by using archaic vocabulary.
These attempts were matched by later attempts to create a translation in various vernacular dialects - every last one of which was an imposition by funding evangelists onto Arab culture. In essence, every single translation was funded with the intention of converting Arabs to Christianity, and failed because of it.
I have four different Catholic Bible translations, and have been told that one is for prayer, one is for reflection, one is for personal study, and the last for revision for exams.
Puppets and strings come to mind...
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
How about heaven is open to everyone, but people who find they can't stand it leave and find a place as remote from God and heaven as possible....
There's always the allegory of the long spoons.
Yes, exactly. The rules and the environment are the same for everyone, it's a matter of what we make of them, starting here and now.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Schroedinger's cat - I completely accept the Bible as divinely inspired but that doesn't help. Samuel was inspired to command genocide. Divinely? I.e. directly, by the same voice that called him so touchingly and awesomely as a little boy?
Blackbeard: a. Scriptural inerrancy must be abandoned;
AND
b. there is something here which we don't understand. Maybe God's plans are beyond our current understanding?
to the degree that they always have been whenever we literalize ANY of the figures of speech He inspired, in our flat reading.
When we stop, all we have is Jesus. He is the plan. He is the understanding. The Bronze Age narrative is not flat, it rises exponentially to, in Him. How towers above it from alpha to omega.
Jesus is the right end of the telescope, to be used to see God, the future and the past. There is NO other lens or point of origin.
THAT'S why we don't burn, crush or hang witches. Not for ooooooh the last 200 years out of 2000 ... it obviously is taking a while still to see His plan, Him clearly in other regards yet.
[ 08. June 2014, 21:11: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
The Bible tells us that there is a heaven.
We like that so we believe the Bible and believe in heaven.
The very same Bible tells us that there is a hell.
We don't like that so we don't believe the Bible and don't believe in hell.
Seems to me to be illogical to believe in the one and not believe in the other when both beliefs come from the same source documents.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
.....Seems to me to be illogical to believe in the one and not believe in the other when both beliefs come from the same source documents.
Dear Mudfrog,
Seems to me to be illogical to use bits of a source document to support a doctrine when other bits of that same document do not support, indeed contradict, said doctrine.
It also seems to me to be illogical, or at any rate silly and completely indefensible, to hold on to a doctrine when it gives every appearance of leading to a logical absurdity (as various posts on this and other threads point out). At the least, we should wonder what's going on and seek some explanation.
What I am doing is to try to make some sense of all this.
At the same time, I want to believe in a God who is a God of justice, of mercy and of love - as the Bible tells me he is. Wild optimist that I am, I consider that it is possible and reasonable to believe this, and further, believe that the Bible is a good guide in this respect.
And that's it.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I tend to think that heaven and hell are over-rated... and the focus on all the wrong things. With much of the behaviour of Christians in violation of the ideas and message of the religion's founder.
Yup.
Sometimes way too much is made of "it's all about believing in Jesus, not about how you treat you fellow human in daily life."
Or maybe how you treat your fellow human shows whether or not you actually believe in Jesus?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible tells us that there is a heaven.
We like that so we believe the Bible and believe in heaven.
The very same Bible tells us that there is a hell.
We don't like that so we don't believe the Bible and don't believe in hell.
Seems to me to be illogical to believe in the one and not believe in the other when both beliefs come from the same source documents.
The Bible is not a single book. It is a library of multiple sources spanning different times of history.
There is no evidence that the ancient Hebrews before the Babylonian exile believed in separate realms for the righteous and the unrighteous. All we have is the concept of "Sheol" which corresponds to other ancient peoples' version of the Underworld, a gloomy misty realm for everyone.
The only story that does indicate a heaven and a hell is the story of Lazarus and Dives. But the purpose of the story is about charity/justice to the poor in the present life. I do not think Jesus' intent in that parable was to explain literally the afterlife.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwalchmai
Shipmate
# 17802
|
Posted
My journey back into understanding Christianity has started from two premises: there is no life after death and the Bible was written by human beings, not by God.
I am not so arrogant as to rule out the possibility of some kind of life after death entirely - science tells us that the universe is stranger than we can imagine - but there is no evidence that life or consciousness continues after the physical body has died.
If there is no life after death, then Christianity ceases to be a means of earning brownie points in this life to ensure a place in heaven and instead becomes a way of living this life that we have in all its fullness and possibilities. Jesus's teaching about the Kingdom of God is that the Kingdom is here and now, not in some future existence. Hell is also here and now.
As to the bible, it was eloquently put by Bishop John Pritchard in his book Ten that the bible records humanity's attempts to understand God and how that understanding has developed over hundreds of years. From that standpoint, inconsistencies in the Bible are understandable.
Posts: 133 | From: England | Registered: Aug 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It is completely logical to accept and reject specific details of the bible, and to live contentedly with the contradictions. I have never understood the problem. Is it not the sign of a mature person, to be able to tolerate two (or more) mutually contradictory ideas and feelings at once? Even when they are about the same thing. And, no, specific verses in then bible were not written just for you specially.
And when in doubt, read the psalms.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Overall I think the Scriptural evidence is heavily on the side of the wages of sin being death, and humans being mortal creatures doomed to die without the gift of eternal life. The idea that God would grant the gift of eternal life just for the purpose of torturing someone forever seems to me to create a god that it is not possible to worship .
If we take Scripture as a whole, Old and New Testaments, I would agree with this. Although Matthew 25, for example, speaks of eternal damnation, there's a dispute among langauge experts as to whether the Greek word for eternal means age-enduring, which would make hell more purgatorial. St Paul writes of God reconciling all things in Christ, so Scripture isn't consistent here, probably because we know so little about what happens when we die. But I can't relate to the idea of a God who creates people, resurrects them or leaves them alive, for the purposes of eternally torturing them, unless....
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvengelical:
Annihilationism, therefore, is inconsistent with a God of everlasting love - a love that never gives up on anyone. Of course, this implies that hell is actually purgatory.
If God really treats us like His lost sheep, and keeps searching until He finds us, that would be a reason to keep people in conscious existence, but as EE points out, again it would be more purgatory than eternal hell.
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Maybe God's plans are beyond our current understanding?
All descriptions of the afterlife are, at best, metaphorical, and at worst, totally confused. There is no consistency in Scripture, or in the way theologians have interpreted it throughout two millennia. I think the humility to acknowledge that we don't have anything but a faint insight into God's plans is useful. But I don't feel bound to believe that anyone is in eternal conscious torment.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I tend to think that heaven and hell are over-rated and one of those areas within Christianity that makes outsiders shake their heads, wonder about credulity and idiocy, and the focus on all the wrong things....Much of the focus on heaven and hell seems to be ensuring one's immortal soul gets a nice eternal home versus a nasty one. It is self centred. And I think it stinks. Better in my view is to let those mysteries take care of themselves and live as if the present mattered, that other people matters, that things outside of ourselves mattered, and that being kind and behaving lovingly is more important than any ticket to heaven or hell.
This is an aspect in which Christianity is inferior to Judaism, in which the idea of seeking a place in the afterlife would be meaningless. It's doing God's will in the present moment which that we should be focussing on, trusting that He will do what is best for us. And Christ's will is that we love one another ashe loves us.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Bible tells us that there is a heaven.
We like that so we believe the Bible and believe in heaven.
The very same Bible tells us that there is a hell.
We don't like that so we don't believe the Bible and don't believe in hell.
Seems to me to be illogical to believe in the one and not believe in the other when both beliefs come from the same source documents.
The Bible is not a single book. It is a library of multiple sources spanning different times of history.
There is no evidence that the ancient Hebrews before the Babylonian exile believed in separate realms for the righteous and the unrighteous. All we have is the concept of "Sheol" which corresponds to other ancient peoples' version of the Underworld, a gloomy misty realm for everyone.
The only story that does indicate a heaven and a hell is the story of Lazarus and Dives. But the purpose of the story is about charity/justice to the poor in the present life. I do not think Jesus' intent in that parable was to explain literally the afterlife.
Even if you ignore the entire OT and the parable of Dives and Lazarus, there is enough in the words of Jesus in just any one of the Gospels, to show that there is a heaven and a hell. You cannot accept Jesus' assurances of a place in the Father's house but then dismiss his warnings about hell. If you believe what he said about one, you must logically believe what he says about the other.
And if he was 'wrong' about hell then maybe he was wrong about heaven too - you certainly have no grounds for assurance of heaven from the Gospels if you doubt other teaching which you imply is equally uncertain.
[ 09. June 2014, 06:28: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What is hell? What is heaven?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What is hell? What is heaven?
And why do people often have such strong opinions on the subject without being able to answer that?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Schroedinger's cat - I completely accept the Bible as divinely inspired but that doesn't help. Samuel was inspired to command genocide. Divinely? I.e. directly, by the same voice that called him so touchingly and awesomely as a little boy?
You are mistaking the book being divinely inspired and the necessity of the people in it being always divinely inspired.
Without wanting to get into a detailed analysis, maybe the story is about how people hear God sometimes badly, sometimes well. It is a story about people engaging in an exploration of God. Or God reaching out to people. However you want to look at it.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Even if you ignore the entire OT and the parable of Dives and Lazarus, there is enough in the words of Jesus in just any one of the Gospels, to show that there is a heaven and a hell. You cannot accept Jesus' assurances of a place in the Father's house but then dismiss his warnings about hell. If you believe what he said about one, you must logically believe what he says about the other.
Not if they contradict each other. A loving God that seeks the losts' salvation cannot be reconciled with an eternal torturer.
You logically have to find a different answer.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And if he was 'wrong' about hell then maybe he was wrong about heaven too - you certainly have no grounds for assurance of heaven from the Gospels if you doubt other teaching which you imply is equally uncertain.
This is a failure of logic again. You do not have to see the whole bible as meaningless if there are some inherent contradictions. You just have to find the Spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Even if you ignore the entire OT and the parable of Dives and Lazarus, there is enough in the words of Jesus in just any one of the Gospels, to show that there is a heaven and a hell. You cannot accept Jesus' assurances of a place in the Father's house but then dismiss his warnings about hell. If you believe what he said about one, you must logically believe what he says about the other.
Not if they contradict each other. A loving God that seeks the losts' salvation cannot be reconciled with an eternal torturer.
You logically have to find a different answer.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And if he was 'wrong' about hell then maybe he was wrong about heaven too - you certainly have no grounds for assurance of heaven from the Gospels if you doubt other teaching which you imply is equally uncertain.
This is a failure of logic again. You do not have to see the whole bible as meaningless if there are some inherent contradictions. You just have to find the Spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law.
No, I am not commenting on the nature of heaven or hell - I believe the language used is symbolic, even though I believe the place/state of heaven and hell are actual; but that, AFAIAC, is another conversation.
What I am saying, evidently very badly, is that if you want to believe in the Christian understanding of heaven you have to go to the book that tells you there is a heaven; that's where you are getting your information about this place.
However, when it comes to hell, and again, the Bible is the only place where you'll find a Christian understanding of hell, you dismiss it or explain it away.
What I am saying is fine, yes, reject the contradiction if you like (if that's what you perceive), but what makes you so sure that there is, in fact, a heaven or even a god?
I'm playing devil's advocate here, with my Dawkins' head, and asking you basically: if your collection of varied religious texts are your only ground for believing in heaven or hell, what makes you sure that in rejecting hell you don't actually have to reject all notions of heaven as well because the source documents are 'flawed, inconsistent and unproven'?
You like heaven so you you accept what Jesus sauys about it - many mansions, life eternal, paradise, etc.
But you don't like hell so your reject the words of the same man who also told you about the nice stuff. That's the problem. If the horrid stuff is a bad belief what makes you think the nice belief about heaven is also true? If Jesus is wrong about outer darkness and torment, then maybe, just maybe, he's also wrong about many mansions and paradise.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
