Sean McHugh wrote:
> lynx wrote:
>
>> Sean McHugh wrote
>>> lynx wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sean McHugh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm guessing that your position is one of holding some things
sacred.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I think that's a principle that's being lost in todays society, and
one
>>>> that shouldn't be. As I've been saying, in one way or another, we
don't
>>>> seem to be drawing any lines (and I'm not talking just about
religion)
>>>> or if we do, we keep crossing them.
>>>>
>>> Sometimes we have no choice. For instance, mankind had to stop
>>> believing that thunder was the gods getting angry. Hell, especially
>>> the Middle Ages version that I was originally taught, is simply
>>> untenable. It is less credible than what one, as a child, was told
>>> about Santa Claus coming down the chimney.
>>>
>> We do have choices however when it comes to social values.
>>
>
> Granted, but if you are thinking of the threat of Hell as a way to
> instil social values,
I wasn't.
> you can forget it. Once it is realised the
> emperor has no clothes, they can't be thought back on. Hell just
> doesn't work today.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes
>
>>>>> I understand that. However, because I don't believe in Christianity
at
>>>>> all, for me it can't be sacred. That's why I can't see how someone
>>>>> could be sceptical yet demand that Hell (a Rowland versus
>>>>> fundamentalism issue in another strand/thread) be held sacred.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> If you're suggesting that I hold the doctrine of hell sacred, then
let
>>>> me say that I don't. I only make the point that it's an essential
part
>>>> of christian belief, and to deny that it is is wrong.
>>>>
>>> No, Hell has been a dynamic construct and as such is _not_ essential.
>>>
>> I guess I think of Christianity as being bible based, and hell is
>> integral to biblical theology:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/pffos
>>
>
> Your statement, along with your citation list being from the Old and
> New Testament, implies that the Bible contains one theology. It
> contains two major religions/theologies and several sub
> religions/theologies. It also contains very different echatologies.
> Despite the efforts of the Christian translators, the Old Testament
> does not refer to a place of eternal punishment (with eternal flames)
> for sinners; the New Testament (and its Jesus), on the other hand,
> does.
>
>
ok.
>>> When I began school we were taught about Hell (by enthusiastic nuns)
>>> as a fiery pit where we would sizzle and fry for eternity if we missed
>>> going to church on a Sunday. By the time I left school, Hell was
>>> hardly mentioned and when it was, it was spoken of as a place where
>>> one is deprived of God. That only became official in 1999:
>>>
>>> ~ In 1999, Pope John Paul II made headlines by saying hell should be
>>> ~ seen not as a fiery underworld but as "the state of those who
>>> ~ freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source
>>> ~ of all life and joy."
>>>
>>>
>> That's pretty much my view of it. 'Hell' is the hell we create for
>> ourselves here on earth!
>>
>
> So how do you read this, Peter:
>
> ~ And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake
> ~ of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are,
> ~ and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. [Rev 20:10]
>
> Now I recall the other day, when I was criticising the Bible's
> silly and deliberately unclear language, you defended it to Rowland.
>
I can recall 'defending' some comment by Athanasius, which wasn't
biblical quotation. Is that what you're referring to?
> So is that bit clear to you? If so, how do you get your above 'take'
> from that? Here are a few more:
>
> ~ Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor,
> ~ and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the
> ~ chaff with unquenchable fire. [Mat 3:12]
>
> ~ Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. [Mat 5:22]
>
> ~ And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall
> ~ be wailing and gna****ng of teeth. [Mat 13:42]
>
> ~ Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off,
> ~ and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into
> ~ life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet
> ~ to be cast into everlasting fire. [Mat 18:8]
>
> ~ Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from
> ~ me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil
> ~ and his angels: [Mat 25:41]
>
>
> That is by no means an exhaustive list. I suggest that the reason that
> you and others now to read
'now to read' ??
> the descriptions right out of the text is
> because you know that they are gross and ludicrous. But I suggest,
> that if you are going to condemn others for avoiding (through
> embarrassment) the preaching of Hell,
In english please. Who am I condemning or not?
> then _you_ should not
> try to water it down till it becomes meaningless, as you have done in
> your 'take'.
>
>
>
Thanks, but if I want or need your advice, I'll ask for it.
>>> Now the Catholics represent a big slice of Christianity, but it isn't
>>> only the Catholics who have essentially abandoned Hell. Billy Graham
>>> was a fire-and-brimstone Gospel preacher, however his Hell no longer
>>> holds eternal flames. The modified descriptions aren't even as nasty
>>> as what we were taught about purgatory. Hell is now more on par with
>>> Catholicism's Limbo (since abandoned), a place to which babies went if
>>> they died before receiving Baptism. So, gone is the threat of Hell
>>> fire and only a renamed Limbo remains. But even this pseudo-Hell gets
>>> hushed up in churches today. Here is a comment from Harvey Cox Jr. a
>>> religious historian and professor at Harvard Divinity School:
>>>
>>> ~ You can go to a whole lot of churches week after week, and you'd be
>>> ~ startled even to hear a mention of hell.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> To me Hell's absurdity is only exceeded by its obscenity and
>>>>> associated pomposity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> That's irrelevant with regard to it's reality or not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Of course it is relevant! Firstly, something that is _absurd_ tends to
>>> be toward the bottom of the low-credibility pack, meaning it's
>>> extremely unlucky to be true. Secondly, the _obscenity_ aspect is at
>>> odds with a supposedly perfectly good God. Its creator would need to
>>> be an absolute monster. The two proposals become mutually destructive.
>>> Thirdly, those brandi****ng Hell tend to pontificate and try to instil
>>> fear into their subjects. It is a means by which they and the Church
>>> seek to exert power. For a long time it worked as an effective device
>>> to gain control the people and their money. As such it had all the
>>> earmarks of a scam, if not extortion.
>>>
>>>
>> Granted. I was saying that what ppl may think about hell is irrelevant
>> to whether it actually exists or not.
>>
>
> I think you are trying to get Hell's credibility in through the back
> door. If not, then I don't understand the purpose of your comment. I
> am quite sure that you would not be breaking your neck to submit that
> what we think of the Rainbow Serpent is irrelevant to whether it
> exists or not. So other than for special pleading and offering a
> defence for it, why do it for Hell? Hell is nonsense for the the same
> reasons that the Rainbow Serpent and flying pigs are nonsense and Hell
> has additional reasons for being nonsense.
>
No, I was just stating the bleeding obvious, since you seem to have
overlooked or discounted it. I'm sorry that the concept/teaching of hell
bothers you so much. It doesn't bother me. Perhaps that's due to your
experiences during your school days that you mentioned recently.
>
>
>>> Like it or not, Christianity is an evolving thing. The Jews didn't
>>> have Hell.
>>>
>> ?? http://tinyurl.com/3o6j4o
>>
>
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006031504358
>
> Did you ask yourself if Jews believe in Hell? Have you ever heard a
> Jew threatening someone with eternal punishment in Hell?
>
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006031504358
>
> ~ Jews do not believe in Hell, because by definition, Hell is the
> ~ place for the ETERNAL punishment of the soul, in the next life,
> ~ for the sins committed in this life. Although Judaism certainly
> ~ believes in a punishment in the next life for the sins committed
> ~ in this life, Jews do not believe in Hell because we believe Gd
> ~ to be forgiving, compassionate, and merciful. So, the idea of an
> ~ ETERNAL punishment makes Gd look Cruel, and prevents us from
> ~ believing in a hell.
>
> ~ Every time in the Christian translation of the Hebrew Scriptures
> ~ the text reads, 'hell,' it is a bad translation. The word usually
> ~ MIStranslated this way is the Hebrew word, 'Sheol,' which comes
> ~ from the same word meaning 'question', and so 'Sheol' is 'the
> ~ Unknown.'
>
>
> Doing a search on the occurrences of a word might seem like being
> thorough, but it isn't. What you needed to do, at a minimum, was find
> what word was translated as "Hell" and then do a search on _that_
> word. The Hebrew word that gets translated to 'Hell' is she'owl
> (H7585) which is often written as 'sheol'. The first occurrence of
> 'sheol' occurs in Genesis 37:35. There it is merely translated to
> 'grave'. Here is a list of the first ten occurrences of 'sheol' with
> the corresponding KJV translation:
>
>
> Gen 37:35 --> 'grave'
> Gen 42:38 --> 'grave'
> Gen 44:29 --> 'grave'
> Gen 44:31 --> 'grave'
> Num 16:30 --> 'pit'
> Num 16:33 --> 'pit'
> Deu 32:22 --> 'hell'
> 1 Sam 2:6 --> 'grave'
> 2 Sam 22:6 --> 'hell'
> 1 Ki 2:6 --> 'grave'
>
>
> All up, sheol gets translated to 'grave' 31 times, to 'pit' 3 times
> and to 'hell' 31 times. It should be clear that there is expedience
> happening here and Christians in the translating, have imposed their
> eschatology onto the Old Testament. By the way, don't bother seeking
> the assistance of the Strongs Dictionary because it was made up _from_
> the KJV, so naturally it will agree with it. It simply presents all
> the 'definitions' determined by the KJV translators. The bottom line
> is that the Jews, who wrote the Old Testament, did not (and still
> don't) believe in a place of eternal torment/punishment for sinners.
>
>
>
ok, thanks!
> <snip>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Sean McHugh
>
--
rgds,
Pete
=====
http://pw352.blogspot.com/
'I'm not young enough to know everything' -Oscar Wilde
|
