Did a God or Gods create the universe? EDITED
-
@unknownuser said:
But I don't quite see how you can so conclusively say that 1st century Judaism and before were just taking ideas from Nordic myths and such.
I never said that. I said that the generations of idiotic christians that built upon the Jewish foundation did that.
@unknownuser said:
At least with the phrase Hades which is used in the Bible, there was some semantic borrowing but that doesn't mean they were adopting the greek idea of hell
Hades is in the Bible because it was translated from Aramaic into Greek...and that's where the problems started. You can't translate using other, roughly equivalent concepts without the concept itself being bastardised. It was further bastardised when translated from Greek to English.
Either Christianity is based on some fundamental "truth" imparted to the chosen people, or it's not. If it's not, then it is man-made fiction. There is no room whatsoever for an elaboration of the original Books of the Torah that essentially form the Old Testament.
Yet the Jews did not have anything like medieval vision of satan or hell. There is no fallen angel doing battle with god. In the jewish tradition satan is essentially acting under god's orders trying to trick people to test them. The origin of the word satan means the 'hinderer'. He's not god's enemy...he's literally a devil's advocate.
The present notion of satan and hell is, as the bishop states, an invention of the church for the purpose of control. He may be atypical over there, but he certainly isn't over here. I've heard the Archbishop of Canterbury say essentially the same thing in an interview with Richard Dawkins. What you don't realise is how far off kilter American christianity is with much of the rest of the world.
@TIG
Alain De Botton speaks a lot of sense. It's probably easier to implement over here, though, than in the States...because religious people over here are much less didactic. Nor do they feel the need to constantly wear their faith on their sleeve...especially if running for political office. -
Solo, I'm familiar with all of your points but I fail to see the relevancy. What are you getting at?
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
I never said that. I said that the generations of idiotic christians that built upon the Jewish foundation did that.
Well, you'll get very little argument from me or any other Christian who's done even a scant bit of thinking or research, that people have done a fabulous job of adding a lot of extraneous information to our idea of hell beyond where the Bible takes us on the subject. Obviously some folks in the middle ages and thereabouts took this to new heights which have continued right on to today in our cartoons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tlkf6zUcpg
It's become quite a difficult task to separate what the Bible says of hell from what we learned of hell on tv and in movies. But it's a task we must and do face. So again, you'll not find me defending those things which 'idiotic christians' have built upon the Biblical teachings of hell.
@unknownuser said:
Hades is in the Bible because it was translated from Aramaic into Greek...and that's where the problems started. You can't translate using other, roughly equivalent concepts without the concept itself being bastardised. It was further bastardised when translated from Greek to English.
Either Christianity is based on some fundamental "truth" imparted to the chosen people, or it's not. If it's not, then it is man-made fiction. There is no room whatsoever for an elaboration of the original Books of the Torah that essentially form the Old Testament.
Is your suggestion here that any development of theology equates to that theology being fiction? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. My understanding, although it's been some time since I researched this is that for many years Jews simply weren't that interested in the after life. That seems odd to us, but it seems to be the way of things based on how little they discuss it. Perhaps this had to do with a history of slavery under the Egyptians which were seemingly obsessed with the after life. It wasn't until the intertestamental period when they really started getting interested in what happens after death and developing the theology. It's into that period that Jesus comes - the only person we know of who might have 1st hand knowledge into the plan. And by-in-large he's content to just use the same sort of picture of the afterlife that existed at the time, with one major caveat. Whereas the powerful religious folks of the day did indeed use hell as a sort of tool to knock around the little guys (it was going on long before hellfire and brimstone preachers or Dante), Jesus completely flipped the idea of hell on it's head. Jesus' stories were of the wealthy suffering in hell, of the respected religious officials being 'sons of hell,' and conversely of the poor and the sinners inheriting the earth and being blessed. It's my contention that we know almost nothing of hell for sure, not because we can't trust the Bible or Jesus, but because when he discusses it, it's not for the purpose of letting us in on what it's literally like. He's almost always using it to make a point about hypocrisy, greed, etc.
If your contention is nothing more than that our modern day understanding of hell, as represented by movies and books is influenced heavily by Norse mythology or any number of things, you might well be right but I don't believe either is true so you'll get no argument here.
@unknownuser said:
I've heard the Archbishop of Canterbury say essentially the same thing in an interview with Richard Dawkins.
I don't know much about him other than the fact that he's no fan of Spong's. Do you have a link to that video?
-Brodie
-
@idahoj said:
There are those who believe that hell is an existence without God. That when the Final Judgement comes, those who refused God will find themselves still with eternal life, but without hope of redemption or God's grace. To me, that would be worse than the popular concept of hell as a "brimstone and fire, eternal torment at the hands of demons" kind of place.
Really, or are you just saying that? Aren't they exactly the same thing but in one you also happen to be burning and being poked with pitch forks?
-Brodie
-
There are those who believe that hell is an existence without God. That when the Final Judgement comes, those who refused God will find themselves still with eternal life, but without hope of redemption or God's grace. To me, that would be worse than the popular concept of hell as a "brimstone and fire, eternal torment at the hands of demons" kind of place.
There is an interesting commentary here: http://gracethrufaith.com/ikvot-hamashiach/the-outer-darkness/ if you are interested.
Cheers.
-
Hell is other people...
-
@unknownuser said:
Really, or are you just saying that? Aren't they exactly the same thing but in one you also happen to be burning and being poked with pitch forks?
I believe they are not the same. Being in a "fire and brimstone hell" implies physical torment, that would imply having a physical body to feel pain. But the body is dead, inert. So, why would God recreate one's body, stuff their soul back in it and then send it somewhere to be horribly abused? Why would constant pain and anguish bring someone to God? But even in Sheol, Hades, Hell, whatever, one can still find hope in God's grace if he or she repents. There would always be that glimmer inside for salvation, the courage and hope to endure torment and pain.
To borrow a paragraph from the site I linked previously:
@unknownuser said:
Remember, the words obscurity, extreme anguish and utter despair are associated with the phrase Outer Darkness. To be there is to be cut off from the presence of the Lord and everyone else, existing in total obscurity. The dictionary defines anguish as excruciating or acute distress, suffering, or pain, and despair as a state of utter hopelessness.
Mark 3:29 - "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." This would lead to being cast into "outer darkness" where there is no hope of attaining God's grace. No God, no hope, no love, no grace. A truly empty and pointless existence, with the "weeping and gnashing of teeth", that comes from knowing God is forever out of reach.
To me, that would be "hell" indeed.
Cheers.
-
@unknownuser said:
I believe they are not the same.
Nor do I. My point was that the only difference is the fire, so far as I can see. If I had the choice between being separated from God, or being separated from God AND on fire, I'd think the former would be the obvious choice.
@unknownuser said:
Being in a "fire and brimstone hell" implies physical torment, that would imply having a physical body to feel pain. But the body is dead, inert. So, why would God recreate one's body, stuff their soul back in it and then send it somewhere to be horribly abused? Why would constant pain and anguish bring someone to God? But even in Sheol, Hades, Hell, whatever, one can still find hope in God's grace if he or she repents.
Maybe you're adding an extra element in here that wasn't expressed well originally. Are you trying to say the two (hypothetical) options are a) eternal separation from God or b) temporary but painful separation from God? I don't quite see how a physical sort of hell with fire necessarily implies the possibility for repentance or escape. That's kind of the problem most people have with it as far as I can tell.
@unknownuser said:
There would always be that glimmer inside for salvation, the courage and hope to endure torment and pain.
To borrow a paragraph from the site I linked previously:
@unknownuser said:
Remember, the words obscurity, extreme anguish and utter despair are associated with the phrase Outer Darkness. To be there is to be cut off from the presence of the Lord and everyone else, existing in total obscurity. The dictionary defines anguish as excruciating or acute distress, suffering, or pain, and despair as a state of utter hopelessness.
Mark 3:29 - "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." This would lead to being cast into "outer darkness" where there is no hope of attaining God's grace. No God, no hope, no love, no grace. A truly empty and pointless existence, with the "weeping and gnashing of teeth", that comes from knowing God is forever out of reach.
To me, that would be "hell" indeed.
Well, ya...but I'm not sure how that's mutually exclusive from a firey hell. Couldn't you have a firey hell AND those things? I think that is in fact the popular idea of what hell is.
-Brodie
-
@unknownuser said:
Maybe you're adding an extra element in here that wasn't expressed well originally. Are you trying to say the two (hypothetical) options are a) eternal separation from God or b) temporary but painful separation from God? I don't quite see how a physical sort of hell with fire necessarily implies the possibility for repentance or escape. That's kind of the problem most people have with it as far as I can tell.
I believe the "hell" that most people conceive of is the "first death". This place is temporary. It isn't until Rev 20:14, "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death." that Satan, his followers and those of whom Matthew speaks of in verses 12:31-32 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. "And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the {age} to come." shall be sent for eternity.
Now, some consider the first "hell" as a place where people can still repent and find God's grace and redemption. It's their last chance. If they don't repent, then they remain in "hell" and are cast into the lake of fire along with Satan and his defeated followers for the "second death". Is the first hell "fire and brimstone", it seems unlikely.
Here's where some differ about the "second death". That it's not a "fire and brimstone" kind of place, but instead, it is the "outer darkness", where they are cut off for all eternity from God. The prospect of "physical pain and suffering" is not the punishment, but knowing there is no hope of salvation, ever, is the real punishment. One that they brought on themselves and now have to live with it for eternity.
The arguments for hell NOT to be a "fire and brimstone" kind of place, was due in part, to this rationale: If the "presence" of a person after death is spiritual, then how does the prospect of being in eternal "pain" work? Pain is a physical sensation as far as we know, and it seems unlikely that a spiritual being would be effected.
Either way, whether one considers a complete separation from God, or a complete separation from God with eternal torment added in, I wouldn't care to find myself there in either case.
Cheers.
-
[flash=600,400:18cdke89]http://www.youtube.com/v/icTrzUuWlHI?version=3&[/flash:18cdke89]
[flash=600,400:18cdke89]http://www.youtube.com/v/_teA-EG7Ac0?version=3&[/flash:18cdke89]
-
-
-
@unknownuser said:
@tig said:
Hell is other people...
"Hell is other people."
Jean-Paul Sartre
["L'enfer, c'est les autres."]
-
@solo said:
I'd like to add the greek word "tartaroos" or tartarus from which Hell is translated in 2 Peter 2:4 which describes the deeps parts of the dark pit where the fallen angels are reserved for punishment. This is the same place the demons in the swine did not want Jesus to sent them; that is, the Abyss. Also, consider a careful study in the same context of 2 Peter and that is 2 Peter 2:9 which places the deceased wicked in the same place as the fallen angels.
@ âSoloâ.
Rebellious angels, incarcerated in Tartarus, have nothing in common with Satanâs angels, who are in âfreedomâ... It is obvious that you have not studied the subject...! -
Where 'go' the souls of men to death?
Old Testament speaks about Sheol/Hades, and tells us that the souls of the dead go there."Sheol" should not be confused with the term "grave" (or 'hole'), for which Jews have separate/dedicated term, and only use it when referring to human BODY, such as in these verses: Genesis 5:20, 50:5; Deuteronomy 34:6; Isaia 53:9, etc.
The term âSheolâ is distorted in ignorance or deliberately, by some religious groups, as "grave".Read some texts about Sheol, such as those from Job 7:9, Psalm 6:5, 16:8-10, 86:13..., to begin to edify ...!
It is easy to notice that like difference between body and soul, so is a distinction between "grave and "Sheol".
Even in same verse, for example in Psalm 16:10, respectively : âFor You will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption/dissolutionâ (prophecy, targeting the Messiah), is the distinction between SOUL, which arrives in Sheol, and the body subjected to decay, which reached the grave.
Refer to this, both, apostle Peter, in his sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:27), and apostle Paul, in his sermon (Acts 13:27), held in the synagogue of Antioch of Pisidia.The term "Sheol" comes from Sha'ul/Shaâal which means âplace of tensionâ, âplace of questionsâ, âplace of turmoil/of strugglesâ ... It originally consisted of two 'compartments':
a) Department of the UNSAVED SOULS (unchanged department), which is characterized by terror and suffering, awaiting âthe Last Judgementâ;
b) Paradise (moved to Heaven, once the resurrection of Jesus Christ), for the SOULS OF THE FAITFUL, which were "comforted" and waiting to be solved by the redemption plan prepared by God (work already accomplished by Messiah/Jesus Christ).Both, the unsaved souls, and saved souls, do not experience annihilation...!
-
I might be a Norse mythology nerd; (actually it was a unit on my degree course...quite useful for one contemplating historical illustration; I can read runic script too) However, I'm not in the same league with Norse mythology as many people seem to be with Jewish mythology....and there is no difference....they are both mythologies...a colourful illustration of the mindset extant at the time.
The single difference is that I recognise the fact that they are both just mythologies, whilst others mistake one for reality. It matters not a jot if that particular mythology 'works' for you. Other mythologies work equally well for millions of others; if they didn't, they wouldn't have lasted. The only reason that the christian mythology replaced the Nordic one is that it is far better suited to civilized living, promising as it does, heaven for the righteous rather than those who die in battle (not a very sensible long-term strategy).
Hinduism, on the other hand, has far older roots than christianity. The texts of the Vedas are equally claimed to have been 'revealed'. On that basis, Ganesh the elephant god or Hanuman the monkey god have every bit as much validity as the christian concept of heaven and hell.Theology is fiction. You can't get away from the fact. It doesn't matter how much you have studied ancient texts and wrestled with the precise meaning of words. It doesn't matter how well-reasoned or rational your arguments may seem...be they by historical figures like Thomas Aquinas or modern apologists like William Lane craig...they are all based upon an irrational and utterly unproveable premise...that there is a deity...and what is more, that it's your deity and not the other guy's. It's the ultimate house built on sand.
Theology does have its uses. It's an interesting intellectual exercise; and it is a very useful vehicle for the contemplation of moral and ethical questions...as are many other areas of philosophy. But the only 'truth' it reveals is how we can more effectively live as human beings in the company of other human beings. These are the only universal truths it can offer...those concerning the workings of the human mind. It has nothing to do with physical reality.
If it turns out that there is a god, then one thing is for sure...he will have very little in common with any of those concocted by the limited imagination of man. -
@alan fraser said:
But the only 'truth' it reveals is how we can more effectively live as human beings in the company of other human beings. These are the only universal truths it can offer...those concerning the workings of the human mind. It has nothing to do with physical reality.
Thanks Alan! I totally agree with this bottom line. Well put. God is a human construct, no matter which way and by which society it gets constructed.
-
@andybot said:
God is a human construct, no matter which way and by which society it gets constructed.
You are wrong, 'andybot', that is an IDOL...!
-
@alan fraser said:
Theology is fiction.
It sounds like you're basically taking this as a given - a sort of a priori truth. If that's indeed your starting point, then that will certainly affect the lens through which you view everything.
@unknownuser said:
You can't get away from the fact. It doesn't matter how much you have studied ancient texts and wrestled with the precise meaning of words. It doesn't matter how well-reasoned or rational your arguments may seem...
You seem to be admitting here that no argument, no matter how reasonable and rational could ever sway you. Again, if you're 1st principle is that all theology is fiction, this may make sense. However, I'm not sure I've ever met someone who understands the exact nature of their bias so well and yet persists in it. Am I perhaps misunderstanding what you're saying?
@unknownuser said:
be they by historical figures like Thomas Aquinas or modern apologists like William Lane craig...they are all based upon an irrational and utterly unproveable premise...that there is a deity...and what is more, that it's your deity and not the other guy's. It's the ultimate house built on sand.
If you understand things from my perspective, I believe there's good historical evidence that Jesus was resurrected and go from there. There are side issues which further convince me but this is my central foundation and I don't believe it's sandy at all. It hasn't been the point of this thread so far, but I've yet to hear an alternative that fits the historical facts better than the resurrection.
@unknownuser said:
If it turns out that there is a god, then one thing is for sure...
Herm...perhaps I did misunderstand your a priori position?
@unknownuser said:
he will have very little in common with any of those concocted by the limited imagination of man.
Well, if we're hypothesizing here, wouldn't it be just as valid to suggest that if there's a God, he'd be fully capable of communicating with us? Maybe we couldn't fully understand him but that doesn't mean we couldn't understand him at all.
-Brodie
-
EVERY human 'construct' of God is equivalent == an IDOL, [if you will].
Cornel,
What proof do you have that YOUR VERY OWN SPECIAL VERSION of God is the EXACTLY CORRECT one... and that anybody else's is therefore COMPLETELY WRONG, and invalid?
Your only proof is that your scriptures tell you so !
It's a circular argument removed from critical investigation.
That ISN'T proof - it's assumption !
For Christ sake... please, please, get real!!!!!!!!
What planet do you live on
You are as big an apostate of common-sense, as the atheists are of 'belief' !
Advertisement