Hell: Not A Bible Teaching

[DLH]

If an argument IS merely an insult, it's not an argument. But adding an insult to an argument doesn't in any way affect the argument itself. Judging the argument based on the temperament of the argumentator is a fallacy.

But we weren't having an argument. You didn't take up a contradictory position.

Insults, if used correctly, can be very useful. In this case, DLH just stuck his foot in it and showed just how much of a typical "Christian" he is. His insult was anti-intellectual, which just demonstrated how he behaves when actually challenged with reason, something he has revealed his true contempt for.

Reason? There was no reasoning. I stated a position and you stated disinterest.

No, if I merely disagreed, he probably wouldn't have insulted me.

Having said that, watch what the intellectual does next . . .

It was because I challenged him to put away the trite textualism and actually engage with logic on matters of genuine philosophy.

[Laughs] That is funny!

A somewhat civil, if not xenophobic response to my, at least now admittedly perceived "trite" textualism is finally now updated in status to that of well beneath genuine philosophy! It's my fault! Damn! I knew I shouldn't have said the poster possessed an empty fucking head! This never would have happened.

He isn't up for it, and isn't capable of it, so he took a cheap shot against what he views as sophistry (challenging Christian dogma on grounds of logic, rather than with the Bible) and ran off with his tail between his legs.

He thought it was a witty way to depart. Anti-intellectuals usually think that way.

You crack me up.

[omegaflare]

I disagree, I do not follow Hebrew translation because this language was destroyed 2000 years ago, it was revived via dead sea scrolls but most of the Hebrews writings were intelligible due to destruction caused on the manuscript. That guy from the 1800s had to re-engineered the Hebrew language using man-made slanted lines and then he went eureka "this is the Hebrew language!" No wonder why people use the word "Yeshua" way too often where there is no biblical reference to it (especially in the KJV Bible).

Now, hell is a literal place of torment as indicated in Luke 16:19-31. This is not a parable because for several reason:

1) Luke himself was a historian and a scholar as well; if it were a parable then he would have mentioned it just like any other parable in the Bible. Jesus would have done the same thing: if it were a parable then he would introduce the audience otherwise, but in this case he didn't.

2) A parable cannot have a literal reference to human name. Period. Lazarus is a real person as confirmed in the manuscript as written by one of the Pharisees.

"Notice, Jesus did NOT say this was a parable; therefore, WE MUST ACCEPT IT AS LITERAL! Also notice that in all of Jesus’ parables, He always referred to a “certain man” or a “far off country.” Jesus never used specific names in His parables. Jesus used specific names in this account: Lazarus and Abraham. This is a factual account of something that happened. The word TORMENT(S) is found mentioned 3 times in verses 23, 25 and 28. Just as today, A MAN IS ONLY AS GOOD AS HIS WORD. We must believe then that JESUS SAID WHAT HE MEANT and MEANT WHAT HE SAID! The rich man was not a criminal, he was not a drug dealer, he was not a murderer, etc. What was it that kept the rich man from getting saved? Ready for this? He thought he had heaven on earth so he didn’t take the Word of God seriously.

The rich man lived for himself. He could have cared less about the poor—people such as Lazarus. Lazarus was very poor and diseased. The rich man was very rich and stingy. Lazarus ate the crumbs out of the garbage pail of the rich man. The rich man was selfish and self-centered but that’s not what sent him to hell. He went to hell because he never put his FAITH in Christ as Savior. He was guilty of the worst sin of all—UNBELIEF. He never stopped long enough to consider his ways and turn to God for the forgiveness of his sins. He probably thought the preacher was a quack and the Word of God was just another religious book. Unfortunately, hell became his new home because of his wealthy pride that blinded him in unbelief."

Source: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/salvatio ... f_hell.htm

3) HELL IS REAL! First, I am aware that exception claims require exceptional evidence. I am just using biblical reference to back this up.

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, PREPARED FOR THE DEVIL AND HIS ANGELS. (Matthew 25:41).

Revelation 14:11, "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night."

Revelation 20:12, 15, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life...And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

Isaiah 66:24, "And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be abhorring unto all flesh."

Jude 7, "Sodom and Gomorrha...are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Matthew 13:41-42, "The Son of man (Jesus) shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Revelation 21:8, "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

Isaiah 14:11-15 (Satan's final doom), "Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee...all they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee...thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

Daniel 12:2, "And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and EVERLASTING contempt."

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather FEAR HIM which is able to DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND BODY IN HELL” (Matthew 10:28). God has the power to destroy both our soul as well as our body.

4) If “hell” only refers to the grave, then why should we FEAR?

5) Everlasting means everlasting; if the punishment in the afterlife is temporary: just complete obliterate our body, soul, mind and conscious then we have nothing to fear; but the Bible states otherwise using a) worm that dieth not; b) everlasting punishment; c) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever (if there's no more people to dump in hell then then the smoke wouldn't ascend up forever); d) no rest day nor night; e) Lake of Fire cannot be a literal reference to death/grave because the bible reads, "...which burneth with fire and brimstone" (Rev 21:8). Do the grave ascendeth up smoke? NO! Is there brimstone and sulfur in the grave? NO! Is there worms crawling in the grave? NO! Do the dead "wail and gnashes their teeth" in the grave? NO! All of these references are referring to literal place of hell.

Here's the problem: NO ONE WENT TO HELL AND MADE IT OUT ALIVE! NO ONE SAW NOR TASTE DEATH AND LIVE TO TELL ABOUT IT. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. My argument is entirely flawed because I cannot prove that hell exist or what will happen when we die; I merely placed my faith that hell and the Lake of Fire is real.

We will only know when we pass away, satisfied?

[brimstoneSalad]

I guess to me civil conversations are not necessarily without an occasional imperfect emotional flawed outbreak. In fact, civility can, in some cases, be equally distasteful.

That almost sounded like an apology. But yes, false civility can be just as distasteful.

But we weren't having an argument. You didn't take up a contradictory position.

Not on the main point, no, but on several tangential points. However, I was just defending you there:

Sucked the intellectual bullshit right out of your . . . [ha] . . . empty fucking head.

Do you realize how pointless it is to "talk the talk" and then throw in an insult? It pretty much destroys your argument...

Being an asshole doesn't destroy your argument; a sound argument is sound, whether it's presented by somebody who is being as nice as they come, or a complete asshole.

You can't judge a book by its cover. Although in this case, the contents are lacking too.

And I think I can see how I can help you understand that, and why it's probably pointless for you to have conversations with atheists (unless you change your tune):

I mean that, unlike the Bible you can make up philosophy and metaphysics up as you go. Bible interpretation you could do that, I suppose, but you would be held accountable to the Bible.

No, you can't. We see it in the opposite way.

Philosophy is held accountable to logic, which is strict and rigorous. You can't just make things up. Everything has to be consistent.

In metaphysics you can create a model, but at a certain point that model will fail when challenged, or stand up to challenge and remain a viable possibility- over time, more bad models are eliminated, and more elegant ones are created.

Having a model of something doesn't necessarily mean it's true, but if it's consistent as far as anybody can see, then it is a perceptual possibility, and it is not completely irrational to believe that model could be the actual model.

This is where theistic metaphysics comes in, and fails pretty quickly. Show me a viable model (one I can not find a contradiction in), and I will go from atheist to agnostic. Simple as that.

There is a lot of bad, pseudo-philosophy out there, and you may have been exposed to the wrong sort in the past.
Also see my thread here: http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... f=17&t=572
It is an important problem in philosophy that a large part of the field are too preoccupied with congratulating themselves on being unbiased, accepting, and open to anything that they fail to identify and expel the absolutely absurd. That doesn't make it legitimate.

Meanwhile, Biblical interpretations are held accountable to the Bible? By whom? There is no recognized authority on Earth to do so (whereas logic is self evident, e.g. 2 + 2 = 4 is axiomatically true, and people don't argue about this). Every theist may claim they talk to god, and yet they still disagree; so that's clearly not a reliable source either since it's impossible to determine who is right, if any are at all.

Even if you used the foremost experts, at most you have dubious attempts to interpret ancient text for which there remain no native speakers of its original language and dialects. Ancient texts, that furthermore, were written by many authors and contain numerous contradictions (thus making a single consistent interpretation impossible). You can try to take the spirit of it, and use a consensus by taking what most of the authors say and throwing out the outliers, but who is to say the outliers were wrong and the others right?

And here's the kicker: We don't consider the bible, even if you had a time machine to ask the writers, an authority.
We don't consider it an authority on reality, and we don't even consider it an authority on what Christians (or whatever Jesus/Paul/etc. follower you call yourself) believe or even what they should believe.

The only thing that defines what Christians believe is what they say they believe, and how they interpret their scripture and anything else they go off of. When people think the bible teaches something, it teaches that thing because that's what they said it teaches (and probably what their translation/version more explicitly does teach).

I know you think all of your learning on history, and dead languages and dialects and how they're used has some meaning to us, but it doesn't. You could be completely 100% right about everything the original writers intended, and we wouldn't care, because that's not what most Christians believe, and we only care about what Christians actually believe.

Gallup has more authority on what Christianity is than the Bible does.

You're after some "one true belief" which likely none of us actually believe exists at all. So, to us, all you're doing is playing head games with yourself, and doing parlor tricks of retro-translation for people who actually think the bible is important to anything at all.

And you may convince some people. People who define themselves as Bible believers, and think it has credibility, may ooh and ahh at your mastery of whatever scripture. But we lack the prerequisite tendency to care at all about what the bible says -- we care about what religious people think the bible says, and how most people interpret the bible, and what it seems to say based on the average naive reading.

Unless you're willing to engage philosophically, on grounds of logic, explaining and justifying your metaphysics, then there is no means by which you can communicate with educated atheists.

You think the only thing we'll actually listen to (logic and empirical evidence [not authority]) is useless and unimportant respectively. We think the only thing you actually know, textualism, is pointless because even if you're right it doesn't matter to us.

There is no overlap.

Far be it from me to give you advice to improve your outreach to atheists, but unless you learn some philosophy (and gain a little respect for it, because you'll need that), you simply can not engage with us in any meaningful way.

When you see Atheists referencing or talking about the bible, it's not because WE care about it, it's because we know Christians care about it, and it's a matter of coming to where they are to have the conversation they're willing to have.

[Sigh] It isn't that I don't "believe" in ethics/morality, it's that I am aware that they are highly subject to interpretation/misinterpretation.

And you think the Bible is not subject to interpretation/misinterpretation, right?

Well, as I explained above, we differ on that.

Most of us here do NOT believe that ethics are subject to interpretation, or at all subjective or conjectural. Morality is objective, and if you would take the time to read more here, you would see how we use and define these matters. Issues like these are accountable to logic, they are discussed logically, and when there are contradictions in certain views, those views are simply wrong.

Christianity, on the other hand, is or isn't moral depending upon the eye of the beholder.

No, Christianity is or isn't moral depending on its effects in the world. When it encourages people to embrace hedonistic lifestyles and indifference to their harmful effects on other sentient beings, it becomes immoral. There's no matter of perception to it, just empirical facts regarding consequences.

Perhaps you see those of a different diet than you as a moral failure. Thus the subjective and conjectural.

Harm to sentient beings usually results from moral failure when somebody could do something about it. There's nothing subjective or conjectural about it. Morality is concern for the other, rather than merely the self. And because logic provides no consistent framework to disregard the suffering of other sentient beings for arbitrary reasons, like species, doing so results in a false morality.

Diet has nothing to do with it, innately. And people causing harm would be immoral whether I was doing the same thing or not (and I would be too if I joined them in doing so). Denial of the fact doesn't change it. Most people are moral or immoral whether they admit it or not, whether they even understand correctly what that means, or not.

There are two ways to interpret anything. Right and wrong.

That's the case with philosophy and ethics, since it is grounded in logic. It is not the case with the Bible; although a given line could be interpreted correctly or not on linguistic grounds, there are two problems:
1. You'll never know if you're right or not, because you don't have a time machine .
2. There were many writers with different ideas, so there is no single correct interpretation because there is no single correct and consistent message to interpret for the whole Bible.

What I'm doing is discussing the Bible, and Pagan teachings having influenced what people think the Bible teaches.

No, they influenced how the writers thought, and what they believed too. Yeshua didn't write anything that survived (if he wrote anything at all), and anyway, even if he did, he was influenced by Roman beliefs too (probably more the philosophers than the priests; this was a time when religion was under attack in Rome by the rational philosophies of the Atomists). Religion isn't one thing, it's a big stew where concepts and ideas diffuse across cultures and over time.

An ancient tribal king, El, became a god (there are stories that clearly go back to his human life), who was king of the gods in the region, who eventually became YHWH (who 'said' he was El) to some ancient Canaanite cult, and there were more stories, diffusing from everywhere around and some invented or exaggerated, the henotheistic Jews eventually stopped believing in the other gods over time, demoting them to demons or angels, Moses was created (possibly as another historical figure, exaggerated and with stories told, possibly retroactively imagined like LaoTzu) along with the Exodus myth (which was built up as a pseudohistory over centuries), and ah, now we start getting into actual recorded history. And when we get to Rome, Jews began seriously rejecting the anthropomorphic qualities of their god, due to Roman influence (likely being able to see your own mistakes in others, and distancing themselves), and it became a more philosophical and deistic figure. Jesus may or may not have existed, but probably did as some figure who bears no resemblance to anything in the Bible or believed by Christians. Gnostic metaphysics had a strong influence in Early Christianity, and Saul's fabrications won out. Over time bits and pieces of scripture became more or less popular; mostly the narrative stuff became popular, and the more esoteric and metaphysical fell to the wayside, and the Nicene council basically grabbed all the popular stuff and decided that was the bible, although even by that time very few originals were left (where's the Q source now?), and it's been fluffed up beyond recognition.

It's all just a huge mess of cross pollination and fabrication. Roman influence was substantial, to Judaism, and in the Bible through the understandings that carried the second and third and on hand accounts, which were only comprehended based on their similarities or differences from Roman beliefs (close enough is good enough for memory), and only passed on because people thought they understood them in pagan terms. Nothing survived except by its ease of comparison to paganism.

All of this only matters, really, in so far as Christians care about it. We don't really care about it. We only learn this stuff to have discussions with Christians where they are.

But yeah, you're deeply confused about the force of selective biases on early scripture and its ability to be recorded and copied.

Saul is pretty much the only thing that's authentic to him and not as subject to those biases, but that's only because he was a crazy person and made stuff up out of thin air, hallucinations, or outright deception for his own reasons.

1. They don't know what I'm talking about, while 2. Suggesting some method which would marginalize it's importance

That's where you don't understand. I know exactly what you're talking about, and I'm not marginalizing its importance to others; it's just unimportant to us and you need to understand why. It only matters to us to the extent other people care about it, but we're not going to try to argue with you about your own delusions unless you present a shared standard (like logic, which is what I was trying to get you to engage with).

You think that hell doesn't exist -- great! That's all you have to say. You think the bible says hell doesn't exist -- fine! That's your interpretation, and we believe you believe that.

We only care about what you -- any Christian, Paulist, whatever -- believe about the bible. That's what matters.

We don't care what the bible "actually says" because we don't believe it actually says anything. It's not even wrong. It's contradictory and incoherent by nature. You can read out of it anything you want -- and everybody pretty much does. Even if you could prove one line said something, which you can't because you don't have a time machine to ask the writer, you still can't provide any real interpretation for the whole bible.

Okay. I suppose on a philosophical level it wouldn't be at all necessary to establish whether or not said divinity had, in fact, done so, and then you could superimpose that with the possibility that he hadn't, and from there discuss the morality/ethics of the people who either proposed he had in order to either assassinate His character or, perhaps more interesting, the morality/ethics of the people that insist their own divinity in fact had, for their own false moral superiority.

You could look at the morality of people's claims, sure, but I was talking about the TRUTH value of those claims regarding YHWH's morality.

See:

possibilities.jpg

That can only be determined based on their beliefs about YHWH. So, it's easy to demonstrate it is immoral if they believe hell exists and is a place of torture. If you don't believe that, fine, that argument won't work for you.

The most relevant matter . . . Interesting. The Greek word for torture would be relevant.

Then if the Bible uses the word for torture, or anything implying it, with regards to Hades or any other associated word, then it would seem to imply the typical Christian interpretation is correct. If it doesn't, then that's the important point. Whether it's a place to wait or wander around, or it's just non-existence, is more or less irrelevant to the ethical matter since it doesn't make a big difference.

See the image above. If you want to arrive at the conclusion that YHWH is maybe not evil (to defend against the claim that it is evil), the important question is: Is YHWH torturing people? Not whether the place itself exists.

And that may be an easier argument to make. You only have to argue that hell doesn't exist, OR that it's a place of loafing about and waiting even if it does.

Anyway, like I said, it only matters what you believe the bible says, because we don't believe it really says anything. All you have to do is say you don't believe YHWH is torturing people, or leaving them to be tortured. For the purposes of argument (as to whether YHWH is evil), the existence or non-existence of the place itself, if it is benign, is mostly irrelevant.