Does the Afterlife have a literal Hell?

[Arach Angle]

its so funny that people think we know enough to judge how our planet should be operating. a god of all hate and a god of all love do not even match what we see. what type of person ignores observation to maintain a personal statement of belief?

logically, if there is something after death, like katz says, I think it will be without the interactions of our bodies and we may understand how the universe works without the physical limits of our body.

on an emotional level, we will love others until they can love themselves. and of course vise versa.

due to the nature of, well nature, "proper" mixtures can be off a bit in any given volume of the universe.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by thrillobyte

I may believe it's nonsense, but we're fighting an army the size of a population of China and we cannot win a war against a population that immense.

Oh, yes, you can.

Originally Posted by Derek41

The Catholic Church often gets accused of inventing the concept of Hell, maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

They didn't. It was the Greeks.

The Greeks mistranslated a text by Berossus. Berossus was a Greek, a Phrygian I think, who lived in the Babylonian Empire and was a member of the royal court. His works survived until maybe the 5th Century, because Greek and Roman historians quote his works.

It was mistranslated in part by the Greek view of the Earth, that it was flat and the center of the Universe, in spite of the fact that older civilizations had known for several thousand years the Earth was round and orbited the Sun.

This error was compounded by later scholars, who intentionally mistranslated the text. As with all sciences, including archaeology and anthropology, there are working groups, and these groups actually control the information you receive. It was in the 1980s, I don't remember the exact date, but after a much heated debate, they finally agreed to translate the word at issue as "netherworld" instead of "underworld" even though none of the related texts say either.

The best translation is "down-under" and it means exactly what you think it means: somewhere in the Southern Hemisphere, like Australia or New Zealand, except this was used specifically to describe an area in southern Africa.

Scholars just can't put aside their rigid beliefs and accept the fact that 5,000 years ago, people sailed from the Persian Gulf to southern Africa and conducted trade, just like they can't accept the fact that Australasians -- the people who lived on the islands between Indonesia and Australia -- sailed east, landed in South America and ended up in Brasil 25,000 years ago, in spite of the DNA evidence that proves that's exactly what happened.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I believe that acceptance of Jesus Christ's Atonement and repentance of one's sins ...

Except that's totally unnecessary.

If you had ever read and understood the bible, you'd know that 950+ years before Jesus existed, everyone's sins were forgiven each year on the Day of Atonement, yes, Hebrews and Gentiles alike.