lynx wrote:
> Sean McHugh wrote:
> > lynx wrote:
> >> Sean McHugh wrote
> >>> lynx wrote:
> >>>> Sean McHugh wrote:
<snip>
> >> 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?
Ath's referring to the Church as the 'bride' comes from Revelation:
<http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19920108en.html>
Athanasius took it a step further and presented the 'bride' identity
more pragmatically, as do other Christian evangelists. Revelation
is already bad enough. As you have previously done, you defended the
Christian and biblical metalanguage. I think that if the Bible is
supposed to be as imperative as Christians would have one believe,
its language should be very precise, not fluffy. By the way, I was
hoping you might explain how you can obtain your exegetical 'take'
from the several verses I presented below. You made no comment
whatsoever. So did you find those verses clear, or didn't you?
> > 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' ??
Another typo . . . Mea culpa! But how come you worried about a typo
but didn't mention the several quoted verses that would deem your
'take' to be untenable? I submit that the only way you can possibly
get around those verses is to employ a generously liberal reading, but
that would require your being disloyal to fundamentalism. Featuring
and ridiculing the typo served as a distraction to your inability to
deal with the problem.
>> That is by no means an exhaustive list.
> > 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?
That should be 'whom' and 'English' should be spelt with a capital.
What a shame you didn't write more - perhaps next time. To answer,
you condemn Rowland for just about everything, and the latest issue
was/is his non commitment with regard Hell espousal. When you aren't
doing the criticising yourself, you were/are saying "Yes" to
fundamentalists who are doing it for you. As for whom you have not
being criticising or condemning on the subject, that would be the
usual list of fundamentalists, those upon whom you lavish praise for
their ability to discern bull**** from truth. . . . So how did you go,
Peter? Did you get through the "english"?
> > 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.
Ah, but what if I said I was offering my opinion? Doesn't that,
according to your protocol, justify just about any comment - at least
from you? In any case, we all inadvertently ask for advice
when we post to Usenet. I therefore decline your interesting request,
that I wait for your permission. There was nothing offensive with what
I said. And while we are on the subject, here is a bit more advice.
You would do well to worry about you own manners.
<snip>
> >>>>> 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.
Er, why was I _supposed_ to mention the "bleeding obvious" if it
was/is "bleeding obvious"? I suspect we are all quite aware that our
thoughts don't have a negative causal effect, let alone a
retrospective negative causal effect on transcendental bodies'
potential to exist. And so when you say "stupid" to the tooth fairy
proposal, one automatically assumes that you are aware that your
contempt doesn't cause her to not exist. But is that non causality
something that we _now_ need to mention every time in these
theological discussions or does that requirement only apply to
God/Jesus and his peripherals (like demons, angels and hell)? I submit
that the latter would represent a form of special pleading on your
part, which is essentially what I previously suggested.
~ special pleading
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_specialpleading.htm?rd=1
> I'm sorry that the concept/teaching of hell
> bothers you so much.
No, you are sorry that you are floundering.
> It [concept/teaching of hell] doesn't bother me.
Of course not. What bothers you is that it is _not_ being taught.
> [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.
If you can't play the ball (and clearly you can't) then play the
player . . . right Pete? That was off topic, personal and
contrived. Given my strong objections last time you pulled this (even
more rudely), it is clear that it was issued for diversion and
provocation. My intolerance isn't helped by the fact that Gladys -
another of your fundamentalist mentors? - has used the same ploy on
numerous occasions, even though the Creationism that I criticise
with her, was never part of my Catholic education. Despite the
virtuous light in which you ****tray yourself (fundamentalists always
do), tactics like this show that you aren't that concerned about
honesty or integrity - unless it's the honesty/integrity of others. I
criticise a lot of things, Peter, as do you. I rubbish Hell (with no
special frequency) because it is idiotic and is _one_ of the ways I
can show the problems/incongruities within Christianity. Hell is
actually good for atheism and even if you don't know it, most of the
Christian churches now do.
> >>> 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!
What, no fearful eschatological confessions found between the lines?
Sean McHugh
|
