Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's a book by JB Philips. He describes several misconceptions about who God is. If you deny he'll because you just don't think God would send someone there, you are ignoring some of Gods attributes in order to focus on others. So your god is too small.
Then you ignore the Demiurge's great evil.
Perhaps JB Philips' mind was too small; for if you deny God's mercy because you just don't think God would be like that, you are ignoring some of God's attributes in order to focus on others.
Thinking of the God as outlined in the Roman Catholic Christian 400AD cannon, one would assume there eventually should be some sort of hell. Although it would be hard to guess, because some of the books incorporated would say those dead are sleeping and others would say those dead are alive in afterlifes.
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I think Visio (If I may pinch - hit as he hasn't responded) is suggesting that God is beyond human notions of what it just.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basiliximab
...
I feel that that is exactly what he is saying. The idea might be an unpopular one (and I'm not trying to sound mean or argumentative or anything, 'cause that's not what I'm trying to do), but I think what he's trying to say is that we can't understand God based on our limited perceptions of what is just and right. If we take God according to our standards of justice, hell and eternal torment (especially tied in with predestination) is beyond all means of argument I would say undeniably unjust, on our terms. Seems like that would turn a lot of people away from the worship of such a God, wouldn't it? Well it seems like it would to me.
It seems that perhaps a lot of people would be more alright with the mind of a person according to this understanding, for they feel that they would be able to act in a more just manner than this God that in their understanding would unjustly torment people [I'd like to mention again that I'm not trying to argue, I'm just bringing up ideas as they come to me (for I've got a whole lot of learning to do yet), in what I hope is a respectful and courteous manner. And If I've offended someone, I hope they will let me know in what manner, so that I can try to avoid it in any further posts I may write. Thanks.].
It is quite clear that the hell -doctrine is firmly believed because it is doctrine. Whether the Bible -mentions are really clear -cut is arguable, but there is plenty that looks like it. The problem with Hell -threat is that it doesn't seem to fit with the rather gushingly love -dovey God we are getting peddled just now (no names, no infringements ). Even the more lovey god of the New Testament has this problem because in the OT, there was a lot of punishment (of his own people as often as not) but in the NT we got more Hellthreat. So, in a way, Lovey -god seems even nastier since, while you might sit your people on the naughty step, stop their pocket money or utterly destroy their playroom and kick them out of the house just to teach them a lesson, where is the lesson in eternal torture?
There are two ways around this - to revise the Hellthreat doctrine to remove what seems to be unjust or to bite the bullet and say it is just simply because God is doing it. Frankly I find both utterly unacceptable and I say that Hellthreat is nonsense, the doctrine is rubbish and the God associated with it does not exist.
A god may exist, but hell doesn't. Calling This existence 'Hell' or trying to wangle it into a voluntary separation from God is just fiddling with semantics.
P.s Your respectful and non -confrontational tone excites my respect. For myself, I don't care if anyone is offended, so long as they are made to Think.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 07-07-2013 at 04:31 AM..
Reason: I think a capital 'T' would look nice.
When I was young I found a King Jame's bible at the library that had margins in it. In the margins the word hell (Sheol and Hades) that we translate as a burning fire meant only "the common grave of mankind." I then checked out these two words in Strong's Exhaustive Bible Concordance, and it meant the same, a grave. The Lake of Fire in the Bible was just a garbage dump that they kept burning. Criminals were thrown into this dump when they died. I would think since Jesus used parables that people would consider this another parable, but they don't. People want to believe that the bad will be punished in an eternal fire.
A little history: Gehenna or the Lake of fire means "valley of Hinnom," for it is the Greek form of the Hebrew GEHINNOM (Joshua 18:16, LXX)... This valley lay to the west and south of ancient Jerusalem. (Joshua 15:8; 18:16; Jeremiah 19:2, 6)
King Josiah had the valley polluted, particularly the part called Topheth, and it came to be the dumping place and incinerator for the filth of Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:10).
Here the bodies of dead animals were thrown to be consumed in the fires to which sulphur or brimstone was added to assist the burning. Occasionally the bodies of executed criminals were thrown in who were thought too vile to have a resurrection from the dead and hence a decent burial and memorial tomb.
If such dead bodies landed in the fire they were consumed that way, but if their carcasses landed upon a ledge of the deep ravine their putrefying flesh collected worms or maggots, which did not die until they had consumed the fleshy parts, leaving only the skeletons lying to corrode away.
No living animals or human creatures were pitched into Gehenna to be burned alive or tormented. Hence the place could never symbolize an invisible region where human souls are tormented in literal fire and attacked by undying immortal worms forever and ever (Isaiah 66:24). So basically it is a symbolic place, not to be taken literally. And didn't Jesus speak in parables that most men couldn't understand?
It seems to me that Man made God in is own image and not the other way around. Man decided that their God was hate, anger, revenge, and etc.
And yet there are few men that if their children had committed a crime, even a heinous one, would then torment them forever in a burning fire, and yet we want this God that Jesus says is LOVE, to do just that to those He created. Instead God desires all to be saved, just as the Bible says, and what God desires God gets. Therefore, will not all will be saved?
“This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
- 1 Timothy 2:3-4
But what about Paul’s statement that God wants everyone to be saved? If not all people will be saved? (Matt. 25:31–46) Do Paul’s words contradict the truth that no purpose of the Lord’s can be thwarted (Job 42:2; Matt. 19:26)?
And does not the Bible also say, "Come let us reason together?"
Should we not have Compassion for those that are doing wrong? Do you not realize that those who are doing wrong are suffering already and that they are already in a hell of their own creation? What purpose does it serve for anyone to be burned eternally? Is your God that punitive? I don't think so. I think that the Bible has been misinterpreted to suit man's needs, and in this case it is his need to punish one with something very horrible.
So I feel if God desires all to be saved, then by God's Grace they will be, and it is not for us to ask how. I remember one NDE experience where the person felt that when someone dies they will experience God's LOVE and will not be able to resist such LOVE.
This is insightful as usual, mordant. The things we learn early on become gestalt sooner. Gestalts cannot be changed. This is why the churches want to get people indoctrinated as early as possible.
At some level I think it was realized that whoever gets to frame perceptions and describe the boundaries of the conversation, wins. It is a pattern with all religions to either form perceptions in children or hijack and leverage existing perceptions in adults.
I believe that it's possible to rise above the primal organization of one's thought patterns, but you may be correct in that these patterns form a set-point that doesn't move much, or at all, and condemn us to expending large amounts of energy to function in a manner that isn't actually intuitive for us.
A relative of mine comes to mind, here ... she is the youngest of a brood of three, and came along just before her mother died and the kids were more or less left to run feral and to fend for themselves by an emotionally unavailable and avoidant father. She was always the one forgotten in the corner, and this has become a lens through which she seems compelled to view her whole life. She's in her late forties now, has never married or had a long lasting relationship. She takes up offense at others for anything even remotely smacking of not paying attention to her or caring ... she resents an older sibling for having what she sees as the white picket fence fantasy life she never had, with husband and children ... she's gropy and acquisitive and competitive in any situation that involves sharing with her siblings. Basically she resents other people for just being themselves if it in any way reinforces her lifelong role as a fifth wheel. She doesn't seem able to be genuinely happy for the good fortune of others if it is an area she's been unfortunate in.
She's in therapy and to her credit she's working on being appropriately assertive but when she tries to assert herself it's kind of a ghastly, tone-deaf, ham-fisted performance that clearly has no intuition behind it, she's just imitating what she's observed in others or been coached by her therapist, who, I suspect, is a longsuffering soul indeed.
I have known many people throughout my life who are haunted by their dysfunctional past. I also recognize myself as a product of my own primal scenes, even though they are relatively functional ones. I do not see us as being able to escape these "gestalts" but I see it as our job to bring them to awareness and master them as best we can. That is the best inoculation against being manipulated by any -ion, -ism or ideology.
In response to those who say that God is just too hard to understand (or he is too big) and therefore, it's possible for him to be extremely cruel and loving at the same time...
My point was this:
some people tell you: this is the truth... (like for example, the Bible is the truth). But why should you believe them? How do you decide whether something they said is the truth or not? The only tool you have is your logic and your gut feeling. If something you heard doesn't really make sense, don't say: "well, I just don't understand it, but it must be the truth"? Why must it be?
There are thousands of claims that people have made over the years. And we know that most of it is untrue (or at least we believe it). So why should any take something that doesn't make logical sense and say: I will believe it (for no good reason), even though it doesn't make sense, even though it seems unjust, even though I rather it not be true. Well, then why believe it?
If there was proof, then ok, you have to believe it. But there is no proof!
So why does anyone need to believe that God created hell? And then say: well, I don't understand how he could have... he is bigger than me, he is beyond my comprehension, so I suppose it's possible that he could have created hell and still be loving and just... I just can't see it yet.
In that case, you should believe that there are invisible pink elephants in the sky just because someone told you that there are. You could say: I have no logical reason to believe that. Or you could say: reality is bigger than me, so I guess I'll believe it, because, for all I know, it's true. The latter is what Christians do when they believe in hell while at the same time not really comprehending how God could have done it...
It's extremely easy for humans to be confused. There are many times we say to ourselves: how could I have not seen that before... So I am not surprised at all if someone doesn't understand something. So I will not say: how is it that this person is not getting it? Because I know that it's way too easy not to get something. I just hope that some things get through to some people at some point...
There are many contradictions that are happening within our society. Just read "conversations with God" books and you will see how it shows that the rules we make for our lives contradict our own rules, but we can't see that most of the time. Also, Jesus in the Bible said that we blame others for doing things we do ourselves. We are just too blind. And, as the Book 3 (conversations with god) says: (paraphrasing) we can't stop being blind until we first realize it and accept it.
The book 3 mentioned how a human race is very primitive still, like in nursery school. And the writer (speaking to god) felt insulted. And god replied: you feel insulted because your ego wants you to be what you are not. But the truth is: in order for you to get out of nursery, you have to first admit that you are there. Something like that....
By the way, the hell idea is not about justice, it's about vengeance. Justice is about making sure that people are treated well. Punishment is about correcting a person, making sure he does better in the future. But vengeance is about making someone pay for mistakes. So this is hell. It's all about vengeance and please don't fool yourselves thinking that it's about justice. It has nothing to do with justice. Hell is god saying: if you don't love me, if you don't obey me, you will pay for it.
I can't give you another rep LoveWisdom, but you are certainly right that hell isn't about justice, unless you can believe that what one person does in this small lifetime deserves eternal punishment. Or even that God would punish someone forever just because this person did not believe in Him or in Christ. I loved your other posts as well. I could never love a vengeful God as it goes against all that I believe and feel that is based on justice.
So this is hell. It's all about vengeance and please don't fool yourselves thinking that it's about justice. It has nothing to do with justice. Hell is god saying: if you don't love me, if you don't obey me, you will pay for it.
Yep; "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord; I will repay". He really grooves on vengeance.
That said, justice to me is mixed up in most people's minds with vengeance because they have the idea that to obtain justice you must have vengeance at least sometimes. For example, a just outcome to murder in its more deliberate and conscienceless forms, is seem as the death of the murderer.
The odd thing about hell is that as presented, it doesn't really even scratch this itch. Not if you're an evangelical who believes anyone can be forgiven and "once save, always saved", at least. If Hitler had "accepted Jesus" he would not go to hell and there would be no revenge even though the blood of millions cries out for it. If god can say "nevermind" for any arbitrary sin, then why wouldn't he bestow the gift of faith on everyone and be done with it? He could shut down the ovens that keep hell going and save a ton on his heating bills.
Yep; "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord; I will repay". He really grooves on vengeance.
That said, justice to me is mixed up in most people's minds with vengeance because they have the idea that to obtain justice you must have vengeance at least sometimes. For example, a just outcome to murder in its more deliberate and conscienceless forms, is seem as the death of the murderer.
The odd thing about hell is that as presented, it doesn't really even scratch this itch. Not if you're an evangelical who believes anyone can be forgiven and "once save, always saved", at least. If Hitler had "accepted Jesus" he would not go to hell and there would be no revenge even though the blood of millions cries out for it. If god can say "nevermind" for any arbitrary sin, then why wouldn't he bestow the gift of faith on everyone and be done with it? He could shut down the ovens that keep hell going and save a ton on his heating bills.
It does feel as though God is playing power games. You have to repent only in such a way and at this time. Later it will be too late. And you can only repent BEFORE you die because after death it's too late. There is a teaching that during the end of the days people will be searching for God's word and he will keep it away from them. There is also a verse which says that God closed the eyes of some so that they wouldn't see the truth and believe.
Some Christians say: if you accept Christ before tribulation/end of days, then you were saved by blood of Jesus. If you accept Christ during tribulation, then you earn your salvation by your own blood (in other words, you would have to suffer and be killed). But they don't seem to realize that many Christians already have suffered and were killed for Christ. So what's the difference? Did they also earn salvation by their own blood since they had to shed their blood?
It's just one example of many which shows that some things just don't make sense.
Last edited by LoveWisdom; 07-07-2013 at 03:33 PM..
OK, I am fed up with a lot of stuff the media is saying 'bout hell and such, so I have come to unleash my wrath of truth apon thee. (no, I'm not pretending to be god) In the direct translation of the scrolls of the HOLY SRIPTURES, ''hell'' in this time was defined as the grave. So whenever someone said, or god said, Eternity in ''hell'' he meant ''The grave''!! Thanks for listening. Now, LoveWisdom, I have to say I was impressed and actually agreed with what to said regarding why they believe in such a thing and why It's not true. You said the truth and that makes me happy. But the truth is no one goes anywhere when they die. So If you've read the bible correctly Jesus said that ''The living are a where that they are dyeing, but the dead are a where of nothing.'' So how would they feel anything. He mentioned nothing of any souls or anything of the sort. Thank you again. I'm a jahovah's witness, and I approve this message.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveWisdom
I was thinking about this. So I thought I would write some things down. Maybe it will set free some of the poor souls who live in fear.
I've been there, I know how it is to be a victim of someone's bad teachings, even if you don't realize that you're a victim. I guess that's why I am sympathetic.
Christians speak, but they are so blinded by their beliefs that they don't even notice what horrible things they say. In America, we as people (who are supposedly evil compared to God), have this rule: some punishments are considered cruel and unusual.
Supposedly God is better than people (according to Jesus from the Bible).
But, this God, who is better than us, supposedly invented a cruel an unusual punishment... for who? For those HE LOVES! It says that God loved sinners so much that he gave the life of his son for them. So that means that he loves sinners.... But then to punish them with this kind of "hell"? Just because they disobeyed or didn't believe? Christians say this with ease. Oh, yes, God is loving, but he is holy. And I guess being holy gives God the right to be unimaginably cruel to those he loves?
If Christians were not blinded, they would say: ok, so God is cruel. We have to fear and surrender because we can't do anything, he is a bully and he is more powerful than us. And he also likes to boast about how he is powerful and we are nothing (truly like a bully).
But no, Christians boast of his love! What kind of love is it that allows the ones he loves to be tortured for eternity! Did anyone even think of what "eternal torture" means? I think if they watched movies with torture and then added "eternal" factor to them, the truth would shock them into reality and open their eyes! Once they see something like that, they would not be able to call their God loving. They would have to admit that he is more like the idea of Satan.
I know that fear is the biggest motivator in Christian religion. They would be AFRAID to think this way (to even allow such thoughts into their heads). And this fear is what keeps them blinded. They are not allowed to think, for fear that God would punish them. And therefore, they are able to say nonsense because they are not realizing what they are saying: "God is so loving. But he is also holy".
(What "holy" really means is -unimaginably cruel monster who has a license to be as evil as he wants to, because he created us and he has the right to be bad and he is forcing us to say that he is loving, because if we don't, he'll punish us.) But they can't allow such thoughts into their heads because they don't want to be sent into eternal torture. And I don't blame them.
In our day and age, someone with such characteristics (as God has) would just be considered a bad person. I mean even the mafia boss loves someone, even the mafia boss could sacrifice his life for someone he really loves. But what determines whether he is good or bad person is how he treats others, those who don't do things exactly as he says. So, a mafia boss would not be good to those who disobey him. And God is not either. Except that God is much much worse. So, if mafia boss is considered a bad person, surely God is too...?
Some people say that Paul was soooo loving that he said that he rather be cut off from Christ for the sake of his brothers (in order to save them). So, you are telling me that Paul was ready to go to hell for the sake of some people? I don't think so. Paul was ok with being cut off from Christ because Paul never believed in eternal hell. He NEVER mentioned it. So where did Christians get this idea that Paul believed in hell?
Well, because one day a group of people sat down and decided to put some random books (with beliefs) together into one collection. And this collection gave birth to the religion of Christianity. Remember, the books were put together after Paul was long gone and dead.
So, first, why were the books put together into one collection (which was called THE BIBLE)?
It's because the ruler of that time wanted to make Christianity a religion of the state. But he had a problem on his hands: there were so many little different teachings within Christianity that was making all confused. Which little denomination to follow? Which was the true one? So he got together some of the leaders and had them create something unified. So the creed was born: we believe in such and such...
And then they took some of the books and put them together and said: these books belong to one faith, called Christianity. But were these people inspired by God to put the books together? No. Why not? Because while this group of Christians decided that certain books belonged in the Bible, the later group decided that the previous group was wrong and mistakenly included the "false" books. So if God inspired the book gathering, how did he allow "false" books to be put in the Bible? Or maybe God only inspired the second group? But who is to say which gathering was the inspired one?
Who can say? Who can know?
Christians arbitrarily (without proof) believe that the books were inspired. That means they have to believe whatever the books say is the truth.
Therefore, whatever is written there belongs to one faith. Therefore, if some things don't make sense, they have to be forced to make sense.
In reality, some of the things were from one faith and others were from a different one. But if you put them all together and call them "one faith", you would have to be creating something even more different.
So, some elements in the BIBLE were from one denomination, other elements were from another. Some things were from Jewish religion and some were from some others. And people were forced to make everything fit. That was the job of apologists. There was a joke: apologists are the ones who apologize for God's bad behavior. Apologists are the ones who very creatively make things fit even when they don't.
So two ideas, different ones, were put into one. So for example, the "hell" of which Jesus was talking about was ASCRIBED to Paul. So even though Paul himself never mentioned it, it was ASSUMED that Paul (since he was in the Bible) must have believed everything in these books (in the Bible).
But hello, Paul wasn't even alive when the Bible was created! We have no idea if Paul believed in all the things which were in the books of the Bible. Who knows what Paul believed exactly. We can only go by a few of his letters. As I said, there were too many sects and denominations during the first Christians' days and later.
But one thing is clear: Paul never mentioned hell (only dying) and therefore he did not believe in hell. And the second proof for that is that he was willing to be cut off from Christ. If he believed in hell, I don't think he would be willing then.
We don't know how much of Jesus' teachings (as written in the gospels) Paul really believed. We can't really truly know which parts Paul believed. We do know that Paul and Peter sometimes disagreed in their beliefs. We do know that Paul even boasted that his teachings came straight from his revelations from God, not from Jesus' disciples. So how similar were they? Only "god" knows so to speak.
So, hell mentioned in the gospels, was that a hell of our days? Most likely not. Jesus was speaking to Jews and Jesus was Jewish also. (although not a traditional Jew). Jesus spoke to them in their context. And in their context, the word hell was referring to the fire where the criminals were burned and various animals and garbage. And the word hell was also referring to the fact that Jews believed that if your soul is not buried (but is burned), it will get lost, disappear. So THAT'S the reason they were afraid of being burned. NOT because of eternal torture.
Eternal torture idea was born within Greek Mythology. There was a king of Hades (hell), who tortured souls in the lake of fire.
So hell mentioned in the gospels even is not the same hell as mentioned in the Greek Mythology. And Paul never mentioned hell at all. But these two things, misunderstood, were put together and it was assumed that hell was the same as Greek Hell and since Paul was in the Bible, that must mean he believed in all that also. Plus John of the Bible added some "eternal lake of fire" into his texts. Who knows where he got his ideas. Most likely he put together many different ones and made soup out of everything. That's probably why Revelation doesn't make sense.
So the Bible came to be because a ruler of the country wanted people to unify their beliefs. The books were added by people and were not inspired by God because if they were, they wouldn't be changed later. It was assumed that Paul believed in hell only because Paul's writings ended up in the same books which may have mentioned "hell" in other books. But even that is questionable because that "hell" may not be the same as modern idea of hell.
Therefore, this Christianity is... just a mixture of beliefs mixed together over time. And hell was just a bad idea which got mixed into it. But really, if you think about it, it doesn't make sense. It's too awful to even consider as reality. It's too cruel to ever ascribe to a Loving Wise Entity. Be wise! And think! and do not become a slave to fear because of some nonsense created by people over time.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). Even the more lovey god of the New Testament has this problem because in the OT, there was a lot of punishment (of his own people as often as not) but in the NT we got more Hellthreat. So, in a way, Lovey -god seems even nastier since, while you might sit your people on the naughty step, stop their pocket money or utterly destroy their playroom and kick them out of the house just to teach them a lesson, where is the lesson in eternal torture? 
Your thinking 'bout this to hard
