Just a thought...

Kidchameleon · 21-07-2012 04:09PM

robindch wrote: »

Can you tell us what's "harmless" about telling innocent, trusting children that they'll burn in hell?

I completely agree, telling a child that would be extremely harmful. Tell me something, is it the Church saying those things to children? Lets say for a second that Jesus and god are real. Can you imagine Jesus or god saying that to a child? I certainly cant. I don't give a crap what the bible says. Its a complete mish-mash of authors, translations and agendas, written over hundreds of years. It does not reflect true Christianity.

In two thirds of the old testament there is no mention of hell at all. "Sheol", the old testament word that is sometimes translated as hell, only means "grave" by definition and it is where everyone in the old testament went when they died, good or evil. Thus the old testament does not contain the concept of hell. The King James bible (which most modern bibles are based on) wrongly translates the word "Sheol" as hell a total of 31 times in the old testament, thus setting a foundation for that doctrine in the new testament. Jesus was a Jew and Jews do not believe in hell (the Jewish version of the old testament has no concept of hell in it). So why would Jesus teach his followers about a place he doesn't even believe in? Why would a loving god cast his children to a place to suffer forever? I would certainly not do that to my daughter, no matter what she has done wrong. So either I'm better than god, or god would not do that either. I'm sure all of you would agree that the church would alter the bible and their teachings to suit their agenda. The concepts of hell then can and should be attributed to Catholicism, it was and still is used to control, manipulate and scare church followers. Hell has nothing to do with Christianity, it was completely fabricated by the Catholic church.

Improbable · 21-07-2012 04:55PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I completely agree, telling a child that would be extremely harmful. Tell me something, is it the Church saying those things to children? Lets say for a second that Jesus and god are real. Can you imagine Jesus or god saying that to a child? I certainly cant. I don't give a crap what the bible says. Its a complete mish-mash of authors, translations and agendas, written over hundreds of years. It does not reflect true Christianity.

In two thirds of the old testament there is no mention of hell at all. "Sheol", the old testament word that is sometimes translated as hell, only means "grave" by definition and it is where everyone in the old testament went when they died, good or evil. Thus the old testament does not contain the concept of hell. The King James bible (which most modern bibles are based on) wrongly translates the word "Sheol" as hell a total of 31 times in the old testament, thus setting a foundation for that doctrine in the new testament. Jesus was a Jew and Jews do not believe in hell (the Jewish version of the old testament has no concept of hell in it). So why would Jesus teach his followers about a place he doesn't even believe in? Why would a loving god cast his children to a place to suffer forever? I would certainly not do that to my daughter, no matter what she has done wrong. So either I'm better than god, or god would not do that either. I'm sure all of you would agree that the church would alter the bible and their teachings to suit their agenda. The concepts of hell then can and should be attributed to Catholicism, it was and still is used to control, manipulate and scare church followers. Hell has nothing to do with Christianity, it was completely fabricated by the Catholic church.

And you simply choose to ignore the fact that Sheol was a place where people were cut off from god. Given that Christians would presumably place a lot of weight in that and given the fact that everyone went there regardless of whether they were bad or good, I don't see how that's a better situation from that point of view.

To be honest, all of this is a poorly constructed no true scotsman argument where you jag from bad arguments to worse arguments. God wouldn't send his children to suffer? Wasn't Jesus on Earth to suffer and wasn't he sent there by his father? Not only can you not claim that god wouldn't do that, You can't even claim that god didn't do that. So either Jesus was ok with sending your children to suffer or he was rightfully pissed the hell off with god for sending him to suffer. Gotta pick one.

Kidchameleon · 21-07-2012 05:06PM

Improbable wrote: »

And you simply choose to ignore the fact that Sheol was a place where people were cut off from god. Given that Christians would presumably place a lot of weight in that and given the fact that everyone went there regardless of whether they were bad or good, I don't see how that's a better situation from that point of view.

To be honest, all of this is a poorly constructed no true scotsman argument where you jag from bad arguments to worse arguments. God wouldn't send his children to suffer? Wasn't Jesus on Earth to suffer and wasn't he sent there by his father? Not only can you not claim that god wouldn't do that, You can't even claim that god didn't do that. So either Jesus was ok with sending your children to suffer or he was rightfully pissed the hell off with god for sending him to suffer. Gotta pick one.

I'm not ignoring anything, perhaps if you provided a link to your source then ill read up on it.

I think you are however ignoring what I'm saying. I would not send my child to hell to burn forever, but would I send her off to save mankind? Maybe. Would be up to her I suppose. But punish her for wrong doing? Not a chance.

Improbable · 21-07-2012 05:45PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I'm not ignoring anything, perhaps if you provided a link to your source then ill read up on it.

I think you are however ignoring what I'm saying. I would not send my child to hell to burn forever, but would I send her off to save mankind? Maybe. Would be up to her I suppose. But punish her for wrong doing? Not a chance.

Mercer Dictionary of the Bible

Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

So Jesus certainly seems to approve of that and given that you've stated he doesn't believe in hell but in sheol where everyone goes after they die regardless of whether they've been bad or good, the children don't even have the benefit of going to heaven after being killed.

NotForResale · 21-07-2012 05:59PM

Improbable wrote: »

So Jesus certainly seems to approve of that and given that you've stated he doesn't believe in hell but in sheol where everyone goes after they die regardless of whether they've been bad or good, the children don't even have the benefit of going to heaven after being killed.

Kind of makes pascals wager irrelevant.

oldrnwisr · 21-07-2012 06:32PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

In two thirds of the old testament there is no mention of hell at all. "Sheol", the old testament word that is sometimes translated as hell, only means "grave" by definition and it is where everyone in the old testament went when they died, good or evil. Thus the old testament does not contain the concept of hell. The King James bible (which most modern bibles are based on) wrongly translates the word "Sheol" as hell a total of 31 times in the old testament, thus setting a foundation for that doctrine in the new testament. Jesus was a Jew and Jews do not believe in hell (the Jewish version of the old testament has no concept of hell in it). So why would Jesus teach his followers about a place he doesn't even believe in? Why would a loving god cast his children to a place to suffer forever? I would certainly not do that to my daughter, no matter what she has done wrong. So either I'm better than god, or god would not do that either. I'm sure all of you would agree that the church would alter the bible and their teachings to suit their agenda. The concepts of hell then can and should be attributed to Catholicism, it was and still is used to control, manipulate and scare church followers. Hell has nothing to do with Christianity, it was completely fabricated by the Catholic church.

Yes, you are correct in that the Old Testament does not have a concept of hell in the way we understand it today. Sheol, taken to mean grave, would even run counter to the entire Christian concept of an afterlife since Job 7:9 states:

"As a cloud vanishes and is gone, so one who goes down to the grave does not return."

This would seem to preclude any possibility of life after death or resurrection.

However, you are wrong about this ideological change being the result of a deliberate alteration by the Catholic Church. The current concept of hell was well established before the new testament was written and Jesus when he speaks of hell refers to it as Gehenna meaning a place of punishment.
Gehenna comes from the Hebrew Gehinnom and refers to the Valley of Hinnom one of two valleys which surrounded the Old City of Jerusalem. Here the Old Testament tells us in 2 Chronicles 28 and Jeremiah 7 that followers of Molech offered their children as burnt sacrifices. This is where the idea of souls being tormented in fire in hell comes from.
Gehenna is first used as a reference to a place of punishment in the non-canonical Book of Enoch. Here the old Jewish concept of Sheol becomes divided into four sections, one for the faithful, one for the moderately good, one for the moderately wicked and one for the very wicked. Other non-canonical books written during the intertestamental period of Second Temple such as 2 Esdras and The Assumption of Moses serve to establish the idea of Gehenna as a place of punishment.
Thus by the time Jesus would even have been born the concept of hell would already have metamorphised from the traditional idea of Sheol. Interestingly, there is a similar transformation during the intertestamental period in the depiction of Satan with the character of Satan in the Old Testament acting as an agent of God or doing God's will whereas by the time the New Testament begins Satan has become a malevolent presence seeking to challenge the authority of God.

EDIT: One more question. If, as you say at the start of your post you don't give a crap what the bible says and consider it to be a mish-mash, how then do you form your opinion about the character of God or Jesus and how do you know that this opinion is even valid?

oldrnwisr · 21-07-2012 06:50PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I completely agree, telling a child that would be extremely harmful. Tell me something, is it the Church saying those things to children? Lets say for a second that Jesus and god are real. Can you imagine Jesus or god saying that to a child? I certainly cant. I don't give a crap what the bible says. Its a complete mish-mash of authors, translations and agendas, written over hundreds of years. It does not reflect true Christianity.

Despite the edit on my last post I think that this is important enough to reply to on its own since it cuts to the heart of your entire argument. It seems clear from this post and your other posts that you have a reasonably clear idea of what you think Jesus would and would not do (and similarly God). How did you arrive at this conclusion? In the same breath, however, you say that you don't care what the bible says because it's a mish-mash of different authors which doesn't reflect true Christianity. Sorry but that's rather like sawing through the tree branch you're sitting on.
The way your post comes across is that you've concluded that Jesus was a good person incapable of malice and would never teach anything as dangerous as eternal damnation and you're going to disregard any evidence from the Bible (or anything else presumably) which contradicts that premise. But that would be silly, wouldn't it?

In short, if the Bible does not reflect true Christianity then how do you determine that Jesus would or would not have preached about eternal damnation?

Angrybastard · 21-07-2012 06:58PM

I was recently given a book about Shabhala, which is a from a Buddhist view. However, the book was written for non-Buddhists.
As an atheist, I had reservations, but there's a lot of wonderful wisdom in there which I reckon could enhance anybody's life.
Thing is, most religions, as far as I can tell, contain certain moral codes which, if people followed, would make the world better.

It's the other stuff, like, gay folk, fornicators, and other innocent people burning in hell that makes me gag.

Kidchameleon · 21-07-2012 07:01PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Despite the edit on my last post I think that this is important enough to reply to on its own since it cuts to the heart of your entire argument. It seems clear from this post and your other posts that you have a reasonably clear idea of what you think Jesus would and would not do (and similarly God). How did you arrive at this conclusion? In the same breath, however, you say that you don't care what the bible says because it's a mish-mash of different authors which doesn't reflect true Christianity. Sorry but that's rather like sawing through the tree branch you're sitting on.
The way your post comes across is that you've concluded that Jesus was a good person incapable of malice and would never teach anything as dangerous as eternal damnation and you're going to disregard any evidence from the Bible (or anything else presumably) which contradicts that premise. But that would be silly, wouldn't it?

In short, if the Bible does not reflect true Christianity then how do you determine that Jesus would or would not have preached about eternal damnation?

AFAIK, Gehinnom was a rubbish tip where people burned their junk, just outside of Jerusalem. Apparently, there were flames going there non stop, or what seemed like forever / eternity. But its just a place, nothing like another realm where people suffer or anything.

I do not believe in god, I don't believe that a man named Jesus existed or performed miracles. I don't believe the bible. My basis for thinking god would not punish people in hell is common sense. No god would do that to their children. Perhaps the fact that I'm a father myself has also led me to this conclusion.

old hippy · 21-07-2012 07:04PM

Angrybastard wrote: »

I was recently given a book about Shabhala, which is a from a Buddhist view. However, the book was written for non-Buddhists.
As an atheist, I had reservations, but there's a lot of wonderful wisdom in there which I reckon could enhance anybody's life.
Thing is, most religions, as far as I can tell, contain certain moral codes which, if people followed, would make the world better.

It's the other stuff, like, gay folk, fornicators, and other innocent people burning in hell that makes me gag.

Sure. Most religions have a central core message about respecting each other, love, peace and equality. I don't think anyone would have problems with that. I don't. But personally, it's the centuries of (usually male) dogma that builds up around the message and ends up almost obscuring it - that's what I object to. And the celestial stuff. I don't buy it. But otherwise, Siddartha and Jesus would be alright to hang out with.

Sonics2k · 21-07-2012 07:11PM

Angrybastard wrote: »

I was recently given a book about Shabhala, which is a from a Buddhist view. However, the book was written for non-Buddhists.
As an atheist, I had reservations, but there's a lot of wonderful wisdom in there which I reckon could enhance anybody's life.
Thing is, most religions, as far as I can tell, contain certain moral codes which, if people followed, would make the world better.

It's the other stuff, like, gay folk, fornicators, and other innocent people burning in hell that makes me gag.

The central of most religions are basically the same, be nice to people, don't be a díck and so on and so forth.

What terrifies me is that some people need religion in order to understand these very basic things, and then say they'll go to some mystical heaven because of it.

oldrnwisr · 21-07-2012 07:19PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

AFAIK, Gehinnom was a rubbish tip where people burned their junk, just outside of Jerusalem. Apparently, there were flames going there non stop, or what seemed like forever / eternity. But its just a place, nothing like another realm where people suffer or anything.

I do not believe in god, I don't believe that a man named Jesus existed or performed miracles. I don't believe the bible. My basis for thinking god would not punish people in hell is common sense. No god would do that to their children. Perhaps the fact that I'm a father myself has also led me to this conclusion.

No, Gehinnom was described in the Old Testament as a place of sacrifice.

"He burned sacrifices in the Valley of Ben Hinnom and sacrificed his children in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites."
2 Chronicles 28:3

"He sacrificed his children in the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced divination and witchcraft, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the Lord, arousing his anger."
2 Chronicles 33:6

"He desecrated Topheth, which was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, so no one could use it to sacrifice their son or daughter in the fire to Molek."
2 Kings 23: 10

When the author of The Assumption of Moses referred to the place of punishment for the wicked he called it Gehenna as a reference to the valley described in the OT. The author is not speaking about the literal valley but rather using the valley's association with burnt sacrifices to create an image of punishment by fire for the wicked. This is how we get, by the end of the New Testament to this:

"The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."
Revelations 20:13-15

I don't know where you got the idea of a rubbish tip from but this might help explain things: Gehenna (wiki)

Now as for your other comment, leaving aside Jesus and the Bible entirely, you have said that God would not do that to his children and that this is "common sense." Why? Why must an omnisicent being that we could correctly call God automatically be good? Just because you have an all-powerful deity doesn't mean he's not a bastard.

Sonics2k · 21-07-2012 07:23PM

Like I said before, reading oldrnwisrs posts are like literary porn to me.

Kidchameleon · 21-07-2012 07:33PM

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Now as for your other comment, leaving aside Jesus and the Bible entirely, you have said that God would not do that to his children and that this is "common sense." Why? Why must an omnisicent being that we could correctly call God automatically be good? Just because you have an all-powerful deity doesn't mean he's not a bastard.

Very very true, I suppose plenty of parents out there a terrible to their kids. I really don't have a reply for that other than you could be right there.

Angrybastard · 21-07-2012 08:08PM

The Old Testament (let's leave aside the N.T. for the moment) is fiction.
Anybody with a reasonable brain surely sees that.

Sonics2k · 21-07-2012 08:09PM

Angrybastard wrote: »

The Old Testament (let's leave aside the N.T. for the moment) is fiction.
Anybody with a reasonable brain surely sees that.

The Bible is much like the DaVinci Code, we know bits of it historically possible, and we know the rest is complete fiction.

Angrybastard · 22-07-2012 07:08AM

Sonics2k wrote: »

The Bible is much like the DaVinci Code, we know bits of it historically possible, and we know the rest is complete fiction.

I'd imagine the DaVinci code is more likely to have historical facts than the bible.
Interesting point, as an aside: When Cain killed Abel, God put a mark on him and told him to wander the world outside Paradise, which I'd imagine was quite a pisser, considering there was nobody else in the world at this stage from what my memory of the Christian Brothers recalls.
Anyway, Mormons, those lunatics, one of which is running in the U.S election, believe that black people carry the "mark of Cain." The mark being the "blackness".
An inherent racist running against a black dude for the big job in America.
Even the Da Vinci code couldn't come up with funny sh1t like that.:rolleyes:

old hippy · 22-07-2012 11:51AM

Angrybastard wrote: »

I'd imagine the DaVinci code is more likely to have historical facts than the bible.
Interesting point, as an aside: When Cain killed Abel, God put a mark on him and told him to wander the world outside Paradise, which I'd imagine was quite a pisser, considering there was nobody else in the world at this stage from what my memory of the Christian Brothers recalls.
Anyway, Mormons, those lunatics, one of which is running in the U.S election, believe that black people carry the "mark of Cain." The mark being the "blackness".
An inherent racist running against a black dude for the big job in America.
Even the Da Vinci code couldn't come up with funny sh1t like that.:rolleyes:

I wasn't aware that Mormons believed that. I guess Mormon HQ must have been annoyed with The Osmonds and The Jacksons being mates!

Seriously, doesn't the Christian Bible (OT) condone slavery?

Lots of weird objectionable stuff in all religions...

Stereomaniac · 22-07-2012 11:56AM

Hmm. No more than it condones prostitution or stoning people I'd say. Wasn't it just a case of "it's all in the game", at the time that it was written? I dunno what else is in there, but crucifixion is pretty much talked about as being normal in there as well. Scary thought really!

recedite · 22-07-2012 05:26PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The concepts of hell then can and should be attributed to Catholicism, it was and still is used to control, manipulate and scare church followers. Hell has nothing to do with Christianity, it was completely fabricated by the Catholic church.

Is there any Christian church that reflects your view?

Kidchameleon · 22-07-2012 06:04PM

recedite wrote: »

Is there any Christian church that reflects your view?

If you mean a Catholic church then I couldn't tell ya, not Catholic myself.

recedite · 22-07-2012 06:24PM

I mean what I said; Christian.

Kidchameleon · 22-07-2012 10:33PM

recedite wrote: »

I mean what I said; Christian.

Ok I understand now, well a little bit of research does indeed point to a few Christian churches that do not believe in hell.

Check this out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_Hell

doctoremma · 23-07-2012 10:10AM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Calling someones beliefs silly is an attack on the person.

I don't think so.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" and all that.

recedite · 23-07-2012 10:46PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

a little bit of research does indeed point to a few Christian churches that do not believe in hell.

Its just that some "hells" are worse than others, but there is always one place for unbelievers and another place for the somewhat smug believers.
You could always start up your own Christian church with just one afterlife for everyone. Also, leave out all the nasty stuff from the bible, and just include the luvvy duvvy stuff. Maybe call it "The Un-Catholic Church of Mom and Apple Pie". All carrot and no stick.
I'm not sure the punters would go for it though. I think they quite like the "promise" that they are going to a better place than us. Otherwise what's the point of them doing all that worshipping?

Sarky · 23-07-2012 10:48PM

I imagine the worship helps them deal with the guilt and self-loathing that religion tends to implant in people.

Kidchameleon · 23-07-2012 10:50PM

recedite wrote: »

Its just that some "hells" are worse than others, but there is always one place for unbelievers and another place for the somewhat smug believers.
You could always start up your own Christian church with just one afterlife for everyone. Also, leave out all the nasty stuff from the bible, and just include the luvvy duvvy stuff. Maybe call it "The Un-Catholic Church of Mom and Apple Pie". All carrot and no stick.
I'm not sure the punters would go for it though. I think they quite like the "promise" that they are going to a better place than us. Otherwise what's the point of them doing all that worshipping?

I'm not a Catholic, but in the days that I was, if I remember correctly, afterlife was only one small part of things, it was mostly about living your life right.

recedite · 23-07-2012 11:00PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

afterlife was only one small part of things, it was mostly about living your life right.

Living your life right so you can get a ticket to heaven, and not get your ass roasted.

Sonics2k · 23-07-2012 11:47PM

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I'm not a Catholic, but in the days that I was, if I remember correctly, afterlife was only one small part of things, it was mostly about living your life right.

As a Catholic?

No that's not true as all.

As someone on the Christianity forums said quite recently it's all about the eternal life in Heaven. This life here is quite meaningless, and is only a means to an end.

If you go read the thread over there about the €12million church, you'll see how the Catholics there believe handing out bibles and teaching people about Jesus Christ is far more important than actually y'know, feeding and clothing people.

MagicMarker · 23-07-2012 11:49PM

Sonics2k wrote: »

As a Catholic?

No that's not true as all.

As someone on the Christianity forums said quite recently it's all about the eternal life in Heaven. This life here is quite meaningless, and is only a means to an end.

If you go read the thread over there about the €12million church, you'll see how the Catholics there believe handing out bibles and teaching people about Jesus Christ is far more important than actually y'know, feeding and clothing people.

Just a thought...

Comments