Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on May 11, 2005, 09:25:03 PM
-
For some time now, I've been studying the Old and New Testaments to answer some questions about the widespread Christian and Muslim beliefs in hellfire and damnation.
Using some topical Bibles and indexes I have been somewhat surprisedto find that there is not a single reference in the Old Testament to a literal, burning Hell. References to it in the Torah and other books of this old Hebrew literary work use one of two terms which have been translated into the more familiar "Hell" of the English language. These terms are "sheol" and "gehenna," meaning death and the grave.
References to a burning Hell seem to be found exclusively in the New Testament, and even then in only a few of its books.
How can one explain this discrepancy?
I have a theory about that...but too little evidence to substantiate it.
It is highly possible, in my opinion, that Hell is largely a construction of the early church, created to enhance its spiritual and temporal powers. Between the reigns of the emperors Constantine and Theodosius, a number of church councils were held to consolidate the beliefs of the various Christian sects of the Roman Empire. One of the tasks of these councils was to review the various writings about the life of Christ and his teachings that were floating about the eastern Mediterranean world.
Any writings about Hell would have been a useful tool for the Church to whip in line errant members and heretical teachers. Coupled with the newly found power of excommunication, the Church would, especially in Theodosius' day, have been able to establish a power base in Roman society. This seems especially plausible to me because Theodosius, who was a bit of a religious fanatic, bears a great deal or responsibility for the burning of the Library of Alexandria, which contained "pagan and heretical" books.
I believe that were were made in God's image. Not in the traditional interpretation, but in a spiritual and emotional sense. I could not take my worst enemy and throw him into a place where he would burn forever in torment. I no longer believe my God could either. An unrepentant soul might be swept from existence, but not consigned to trillions of years of eternal torment.
Your thoughts.
-
Let's play the "Torment Seagoon with ceaseless religious questions game!"
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Let's play the "Torment Seagoon with ceaseless religious questions game!"
:rofl :rofl :rofl
I/m tied up elsewhere, or I'd try to take some of the
"heat"
off Seagoon...
-
Ahee...:D
No...seriously...
-
I believe scripture teaches that hell is eternal separation for the creator. I believe that the choice is an individual one. we are all accountable and we will be called to give an accounting for our conduct. I believe I will have a representative with a cancelled check for my transgressions. I believe many will not.
-
It's a book.
People wrote it.
So is Lord of the Rings.
That isn't true either.
-
Originally posted by storch
I believe scripture teaches that hell is eternal separation for the creator. I believe that the choice is an individual one. we are all accountable and we will be called to give an accounting for our conduct. I believe I will have a representative with a cancelled check for my transgressions. I believe many will not.
Pretty clear creed, storch!:aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Let's play the "Torment Seagoon with ceaseless religious questions game!"
more like:
"Lets play make Skuzzy rip what's left of the shreds of hair on his head out endlessly reading all these montinical religous based threads until he finally has a homicidal rampage, destroys HTC, the servers, and closes the o'club once for all"
-
Hello Shuckins,
Just off the top of my head, Isaiah 66:25 is a reference to enemies of God suffering some kind of torment and shame and in the context of fire.
In fact, the word, ge-henna (gei hinnom in Hebrew) is a small vale just beside the Old City of Jerusalem (not far from where I live btw). From what I've read, this vale was the city dump in ancient times, and there were trash fires in it on occasion. The vale was also the site where apostate Israelites practiced the horrible rites of false god Molech, burning their infant children as a religious rite.
So, coupled with the passage in Isaiah, the area gei hinnom, the smelly, smokey city dump, came to be known as the location where apostates would suffer their punishment.
Isaiah wrote his prophecies ~ 700 years before Messiah. That gave the Jewish people much time to develop the ideas contained in nascent form in those prophecies, and others. In fact, the extra-biblical Jewish writings that precede the founding of the Christian church contain the ideas found in the NT. For example, Jesus used the term "bosom of Abraham" to describe the place of repose the poor beggar wound up. That idea was current in Jewish thought of those days. So such ideas in NT were not a late invention of Roman authorities to consolidate temporal or spiritual power.
As far as eternal punishment goes, it is a hard concept to digest. But having been a naturalist and an atheist I find that idea much less perplexing than that of random events from a randomly generated, purposeless universe, leading to eternal non-sentient oblivion after ~ 70 years of life.
Via Con Dios
Cement
-
What's with all the religious posts this week? Full moon or something? Second to politics has to be one of the most boring and pointless topics possible.
Cripes, even the MA is more interesting.
:lol
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Sparks
It's a book.
People wrote it.
So is Lord of the Rings.
That isn't true either.
-
After being *here up north* for a while... I wouldn't mind a little heat.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Let's play the "Torment Seagoon with ceaseless religious questions game!"
Lol, thanks Sandman, :aok that games too easy. I can seldom resist the bait.
My apologies though this time, I'll try my best, but I'm still really sick and it seems to be getting worse...
Shuckins, the church did not "create" the doctrine of eternal punishment. Even if one does not believe the teaching of the Bible, if you follow the flow of the bible from beginning to end as it records the unfolding history of redemption, you cannot help but come away with certain facts:
1) that all men are fallen and sinful and thus worthy of eternal punishment
2) that God would be just to leave them all in a condemned condition
3) that God so loved his fallen creation that in order to redeem some from this damned condition, he sent his son into the world as a Good shepherd to lay down his life a ransom for His sheep.
4) IF God could have effected the salvation of mankind from their sins in any other way other than the sacrifice of His beloved and only begotten Son , he would surely have done so.
Therefore, the main emphasis of the church has been the proclamation of Christ's saving work and the free offer of salvation from eternal punishment
--------------
Anyway Shuckins, if you are really interested here is a historical and biblical overview of the doctrine from an able theologian whom I've been blessed to know over the past few years:
"Historically the Church has generally held the doctrine of the eternal punishment of the wicked. This no doubt is true because of the clear teaching of the Bible on the subject. Henry Buis in his Doctrine of Eternal Punishment surveys the history of the doctrine. He indicates that the reaction to the doctrine of eternal punishment was in part due to the excesses of some of the preaching of the middle ages and early Reformation. There are two main lines of argument against eternal punishment. The first is the liberal doctrine of universalism. This view holds that God is love, and the very idea of eternal punishment is inconsistent with this understanding of God’s nature. There may be some punishment for the wicked, but ultimately all will be saved. This is the official position of the Unitarian Universalist Association. It is the position generally held by modernists or liberals in the mainline denominations.
The other form of opposition to eternal punishment comes from those who believe in annihilation. This doctrine holds that the wicked simply go out of existence, are annihilated at death, while believers are granted the gift of immortality. This was held by Arnobius in the 4th century, and by the Socinians during the 16th century. Today it is taught by Seventh–Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses see annihilation as punishment for sin, whereas Seventh–Day Adventists hold that the wicked will suffer punishment, and then escape from it by being annihilated.
Jesus taught more about hell than any other spokesman of the New Testament. “And be not afraid of them that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). Here Jesus taught that both body and soul suffer in hell. The language “destroy” might give the impression that Jesus taught annihilation. “And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed or halt, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire. And if thine eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire” (Matt. 18:8–9). Notice the phrase “eternal fire” in this citation. The implication is clearly that the punishment of hell fire is eternal.
In Mark 9:43 the fire is called “unquenchable.” “And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off. It is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire...” Again in verse 48 hell is described as the place where the worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. “If the figures used in this passage do not mean unending suffering, they mean nothing at all.” 4 Matthew 25:46 speaks of “eternal punishment.” “And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal life.”
John 3:16 contrasts perishing with eternal life. The implication is eternal perishing. When this is compared with John 3:36 this perishing is described in terms of the wrath of God abiding on the unbeliever. Thus the perishing is not annihilation, but being under the wrath of God eternally. “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
Paul spoke of suffering eternal punishment and exclusion from the presence of God in 2 Thess. 1.
“7. and to you that are afflicted rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire, 8. rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus: 9. who shall suffer punishment, [even] eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might...”
Jude also speaks specifically of eternal punishment.
“ . Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them, having in like manner with these given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. . . . 13. Wild waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame. Wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness hath been reserved forever.”
The book of Revelation has some of the most explicit descriptions of punishment as eternal.
“Rev. 14:10. He also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of his anger; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the Lamb: 11. and the smoke of their torment goeth up for ever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, they that worship the beast and his image, and whoso receiveth the mark of his name.”
“Rev. 21:8. But for the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part [shall be] in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death.”
Hoekema ends his treatment of eternal punishment with the following pointed words:
“What is the significance of the doctrine of eternal punishment? Biblical teaching on hell should add a note of deep seriousness to our preaching and Bible teaching. We shall speak about hell with reluctance, with grief, perhaps even with tears––but speak about it we must. . . . For our missionary enterprise, the doctrine of hell should spur us on to greater zeal and urgency. If it be true that people in foreign lands may be bound for a Christless eternity unless they hear the gospel, how eager we should be to bring them that gospel! For ‘how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?’ (Rom. 10:14).”
[Smith, Morton H. Systematic Theology, Volume One : Prolegomena, Theology, Anthropology, Christology.]
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Even if one does not believe the teaching of the Bible, if you follow the flow of the bible from beginning to end as it records the unfolding history of redemption, you cannot help but come away with certain facts:
You misspelled 'assertions'.
I don't believe that your bible is anything but a book, written by humans, with as many agendas as there were people involved in it's creation. These agendas ranged from good (share the wonder of my belief with others, help people be good to each other) to ambiguous (this is a helpful tool to control people) to downright bad (Slaves, obey thy masters! Women is cattle, shut them up).
I have read it, from cover to cover, and I walked away with those ASSERTIONS. They are not facts, at least, not inherently so. You may choose to believe they are for yourself, but don't assume facts not in evidence.
-
If you have ever been to a Southern Baptist Church you might think that the entirerity of the Bible contained "Hell, brimstone, and damnation."
No dancing, it leads to fornification.
No drinking, it leads to fornification.
My father and I moved to a small Texas town when I was in 9th grade. We attended several church services and even invited the preacher over to the house. He gave us his spiel. It went something like the italicized above.
Now, my father doesn't really dance and I've never known him to be much of a drinker (except the time he tore an abdominal muscle water skiing, he got pretty drunk before going to the emergency room) but he didn't feel that dancing and drinking necessarily led to fornification.
We began to visit the Methodist church after that.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
What's with all the religious posts this week? Full moon or something? Second to politics has to be one of the most boring and pointless topics possible.
Cripes, even the MA is more interesting.
:lol
...-Gixer
Gixer,
An experiment I've sometimes unintentionally performed is to go into a restaurant and begin speaking in a normal conversational tone over the meal about the church or Christian doctrine. After a while, I've often noticed that some of the conversations at nearby tables are now in some way concerned with the church or religion. The same doesn't hold true if I'm discussing say hunting or Russian novels.
The fact is that the human heart has a burning desire to have questions about eternity answered. That's why even the particularly mediocre "Left Behind" series of novels did so well.
As Augustine framed the phenomena in his Confessions: "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you."
So it doesn't surprise me at all that one conversation about religion inevitably spawns others.
As for the pointlessness of it, sure its pointless if we conceive of our lives as a momentary and meaningless "blip" in the constant of death, but if we view life as but a tiny fraction of the soul's eternal existence, then discussions of religion make infinitely more sense than all the discussions of money, leisure, and politics that so enrapture us. Seen in that perspective, why discuss even the "gold that perishes" when we could be speaking of our eternal state?
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You misspelled 'assertions'.
I don't believe that your bible is anything but a book, written by humans, with as many agendas as there were people involved in it's creation. These agendas ranged from good (share the wonder of my belief with others, help people be good to each other) to ambiguous (this is a helpful tool to control people) to downright bad (Slaves, obey thy masters! Women is cattle, shut them up).
I have read it, from cover to cover, and I walked away with those ASSERTIONS. They are not facts, at least, not inherently so. You may choose to believe they are for yourself, but don't assume facts not in evidence.
Hi Chairboy,
1) You'll recall that I stated, "Even if one does not believe the teaching of the Bible" that it is just a fact that the Bible teaches these doctrines. The doctrines themselves are indeed merely assertions which you do not believe, but they are in there. Therefore if someone is called to be an ambassador of Christ, one will proclaim the words that he has been given.
2) I believe you are confusing the Bible with the Koran and the Hadith, there are no verses in the Bible that teach Christians to shut up their women, keep them veiled or entirely covered, or treat them as Cattle.
3) Regarding "facts not in evidence", I wonder what your standard for "evidence" is? Should we assume that Mohommed never existed because no one living has ever seen him? Or should we automatically assume that Buddha never said those sayings attributed to him? What about Plato - are his works medieval forgeries because we don't have one extant work written in his own hand (in fact we have more and older copies of the books of the bible than we do the works of Plato)? Socrates is even worse, all we have about him is hearsay evidence. Did he never exist? Should we assume a hermeneutic of absolute suspicion about everything? If so, why do we teach Darwinian evolution in the schools? Or ancient history for that matter? If not, why do people automatically assume that stance in regards to Christianity?
- SEAGOON
-
I admire your persistance in these religious matters Seagoon..
Not to be confused with sharing your belives.
:aok padre!
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Chairboy,
1) You'll recall that I stated, "Even if one does not believe the teaching of the Bible" that it is just a fact that the Bible teaches these doctrines.
Nope. Here's your exact quote:you cannot help but come away with certain facts
Originally posted by Seagoon
2) I believe you are confusing the Bible with the Koran and the Hadith, there are no verses in the Bible that teach Christians to shut up their women, keep them veiled or entirely covered, or treat them as Cattle.
Too easy. I didn't mention anything about keeping them veiled or covered, btw. Here are some examples that bolster my assertion that the bible ain't a friend of womenfolk:
1 Corinthians 14:34:
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in
submission, as the Law says.
1 Timothy 2:11:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
Genesis 3:16:
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give
birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."
1 Corinthians 11:5:
And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head--it is just
as though her head were shaved.
...and so on.
By 'assuming facts not in evidence', it should be obvious that I'm referring to you stating that a read of the bible comes away with the 'facts' that you then listed off, when they are actually nothing but assertions.
-
i asked god about hell, and first he said he should have given humans a bigger brain, but then he said "but that would take all the fun out of watching us run in circles".
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Your thoughts.
Hell as a concept is a graeco-roman construct, very much of the new testament era. Quite fitting really, since Christianity has very much in common with what we know about greek and roman so-called "mystery" religions.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Nope. Here's your exact quote:
Too easy. I didn't mention anything about keeping them veiled or covered, btw. Here are some examples that bolster my assertion that the bible ain't a friend of womenfolk:
...and so on.
Chairboy,
The quotes you use with the exception Genesis 3 simply speak of the restrictions against women holding office and preaching and teaching in the church, none of them are held by competent Christian exegetes as teaching that women must be silent at all times. If you doubt this and think its some sort of modern revisionist interpretation, I can send you Calvin's commentary from the 1540s on these verses.
Genesis 3 speaks of the universal consequences of man's rebellion and the fall. If this was "anti-woman" were the weighty consequences that befell Adam, "Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it All the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, And you shall eat the herb of the field. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return." anti-man or anti-farmer?
None of these verses say, "shut up your wives" or "treat them as animals" far from it, the Bible has other verses regarding the treatment of women you failed to mention:
Col 3:19 Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them.
Eph. 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,
26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,
27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.
28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.
29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church.
1 Cor. 7:3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
I'm having difficulty understanding why you believe that merely because the bible isn't absolutely egalitarian and recognizes God ordained differences both in function and role between the sexes that it is anti-woman? Is it anti-child when it says: Col. 3:20 "Children, obey your parents in all things, for this is well pleasing to the Lord." Does the fact that the Bible teaches that there is a hierarchial relationship between the Father and the Son, with the Son (who is equal with the father) voluntarily submitting and doing His Father's will, make the Bible "anti-Jesus?" Why is submission necessarily "anti?" Christians are called upon to serve one another, to die to self, we are even told to be about the business of "submitting to one another in the fear of God." Even Jesus said:
Matt. 20:26 "Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.
27 "And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave --
28 "just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
- SEAGOON
-
BTW - with the thread name, I couldn't resist posting this:
(http://www.t-shirthumor.com/Merchant2/graphics/fullsize400/helf_lg2.gif)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Nope. Here's your exact quote:
Too easy. I didn't mention anything about keeping them veiled or covered, btw. Here are some examples that bolster my assertion that the bible ain't a friend of womenfolk:
...and so on.
By 'assuming facts not in evidence', it should be obvious that I'm referring to you stating that a read of the bible comes away with the 'facts' that you then listed off, when they are actually nothing but assertions.
Got any more of those chick things, theres a couple of catholic girls in our office that are quite annoying...
-
Originally posted by Sparks
It's a book.
People wrote it.
So is Lord of the Rings.
That isn't true either.
Tell that to God when you see him. :lol
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Got any more of those chick things, theres a couple of catholic girls in our office that are quite annoying...
Google 'biblical misogyny' for plenty.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Got any more of those chick things, theres a couple of catholic girls in our office that are quite annoying...
Catholic girls are SEKSY in their littler Catholic school girl outfits!!!1
I even tried to get my wife to buy one. RAAAWWWRRR!!!!11
She got the maid outfit instead. It's okay, but it's not the Catholic school girl outfit though.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Tell that to God when you see him. :lol
Maybe he doesnt "see" "people" ?
Do you? ;)