Page 19 of 45 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 442

Thread: Why do people believe in hell?

  1. Top | #181
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,252
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    9,096
    Rep Power
    59
    The most contemptuous form of revenge is not to deem one’s adversary worth taking vengeance upon. Many have taken small injuries much more seriously to heart than they need, by revenging them: that man is great and noble who like a large wild animal hears unmoved the tiny curs that bark at him.”


    --Seneca

    It seems to me that "blaspheming the Holy Spirit" is more about becoming offended when something that we hold sacred is insulted. Witness the man who can happily swap insults with his friends, but as soon as you say one bad word about his mother he flies into a rage.

    Of course, as Seneca teaches, the bigger person doesn't feel insulted by the smaller one. A wise man doesn't say, "How dare you insult me! You must be punished!" It's only the wise man's underlings who feel it necessary to take umbrage on their leader's behalf.

  2. Top | #182
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,542
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,598
    Rep Power
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Some quotes from 2nd Century Christian leaders and/or texts:



    Ignatius of Antioch
    “Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil teaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into unquenchable fire: and so will anyone who listens to him” (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1–2 [A.D. 110]).

    (use just one from your example to shorten quote)
    .......

    It would seem difficult to make a reasonable case that hell as eternal torture was anything other than pretty central to early christian teachings and beliefs, whatever more palatable interpretations were made later, including by some people in recent times.


    How much has scripture changed, from the times of those 2nd century leaders in your list (or earlier) to the scripture we have available to us now? It hasn't changed of course, so what makes them understand the bible more than theologians of today, who can scrutinizes and study the bible vigorously?
    Gnosticism came about around then, and they seem to have read it differently with an alternative viewpoint of hell.

  3. Top | #183
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,618
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    How much has scripture changed, from the times of those 2nd century leaders in your list (or earlier) to the scripture we have available to us now? It hasn't changed of course, so what makes them understand the bible more than theologians of today, who can scrutinizes and study the bible vigorously?
    Well, for one thing, theologians today are two thousand years removed from actual events. Under normal circumstances, that would be considered quite a big disadvantage, in historiographical reliability terms. Straight from the horse's mouth (well, not that much removed from it) and all that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Gnosticism came about around then, and they seem to have read it differently with an alternative viewpoint of hell.
    Yes. Different interpretations abound, and have done ever since almost day 1 of the cult, after the death of the founder, it seems.

    My point was mainly about what became 'standard/mainstream christianity' and its doctrines. Gnosticism never really even got close to being that. Most of the quoted churchmen were apparently the forerunners of it. The texts that eventually made it into the bible are examples of it, by and large.

    My other general point is that there is basically far too much evidence from early Christianity, both from the bible and from early church writings, of belief in hell as eternal torture, to make a convincingly reasonable case that it wasn't what was generally and commonly accepted.

    It may have been, as I agreed before, that eternal torture in hell was not Jesus' belief, and it may not have been the belief of other early versions of Christianity which eventually lost out to orthodoxy, what Bart Erhmann calls "Lost Christianities".
    Last edited by ruby sparks; 01-17-2020 at 06:05 PM.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

  4. Top | #184
    Super Moderator Atheos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Heart of the Bible Belt
    Posts
    2,743
    Archived
    5,807
    Total Posts
    8,550
    Rep Power
    64
    Even when I was a believer I didn't buy the "It's just a parable" line when it comes to the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

    Name one other parable that described things that could not happen. You can't. A sower went forth to sow and the seeds fell in various places exactly like you'd expect them to in real life.

    A man is journeying and falls among ruffians who beat him and leave him for dead. A couple of people walk by without getting involved. A 3rd person stops and helps the guy. Exactly the sorts of things that happen in real life.

    Whether it's a bridegroom being late for his wedding while the maidens burn the oil lamps or a young man squandering his inheritance living large, not one single parable attributed to Jesus involves things that don't happen in real life.

    Except of course this one, if you truly want to insist that it is a parable. In which other parable does the main protagonist have a name? When I was a preacher I adamantly taught that this was literal truth from someone who had seen all of these things happen. He was offering us a glimpse of what is beyond that veil behind which we cannot see.

    Ironically I now am quite sure that none of this stuff actually happened. Sometimes irony can be pretty ironic, huh?

  5. Top | #185
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,542
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,598
    Rep Power
    27
    Even when I was a believer I didn't buy the "It's just a parable" line when it comes to the story of the rich man and Lazarus.
    I go along with DBT who says "it reads what its says" i.e. parable. I share your irony.
    Last edited by Learner; 01-17-2020 at 06:17 PM. Reason: rephrase

  6. Top | #186
    Super Moderator ruby sparks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Posts
    8,618
    Rep Power
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Atheos View Post
    Even when I was a believer I didn't buy the "It's just a parable" line when it comes to the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

    Name one other parable that described things that could not happen. You can't. A sower went forth to sow and the seeds fell in various places exactly like you'd expect them to in real life.

    A man is journeying and falls among ruffians who beat him and leave him for dead. A couple of people walk by without getting involved. A 3rd person stops and helps the guy. Exactly the sorts of things that happen in real life.

    Whether it's a bridegroom being late for his wedding while the maidens burn the oil lamps or a young man squandering his inheritance living large, not one single parable attributed to Jesus involves things that don't happen in real life.

    Except of course this one, if you truly want to insist that it is a parable. In which other parable does the main protagonist have a name? When I was a preacher I adamantly taught that this was literal truth from someone who had seen all of these things happen. He was offering us a glimpse of what is beyond that veil behind which we cannot see.

    Ironically I now am quite sure that none of this stuff actually happened. Sometimes irony can be pretty ironic, huh?
    The thing about parables and allegory is, as DBT says, what are they about, even if they are parables and allegories..... about.....a scenario that is...... just horrible?

    So, I can make one up. There was this guy and he did the wrong thing and then because of that he fell down a manhole into a sewer full of human excrement and never got out again and no one ever heard his cries. It's not exactly a suitable bedtime story for children, unless you're trying to scare the bejeezus out of them.

    And let's face it, it would be one heck of an unlikely coincidence if all the nice stuff was meant literally and all the horrible stuff wasn't. Wouldn't that be convenient, for a production of Godspell maybe.
    "Let us hope that it is not so. Or if it is, let us pray that the fact does not become generally known."

  7. Top | #187
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,542
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,598
    Rep Power
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Chris Date gives his explanation, that does not mean he actually resolves the issue. And yes, Abraham and the rich man is a parable but the terms of parable do not entail annihilation but eternal torment, the rich man is not described in terms of dead in the grave, he is suffering for his sins. The dead do not suffer, the dead do not regret.

    Plus the parable supports the other verses describing eternal torment for the devil and his minions, ncluding those standing on the left - the goats - stated to meet the same fate....so we are still left with a contradiction. To add, death as in annihilation is not eternal punishment. The dead, once dead, suffer no further punishment.
    Well yes the physical body that is. The souls go to hades. It's well within the biblical concept of God, who could wake souls from their sleep or ressurect the dead.

    No contradiction if it's both annihilation and eternal punishment, judged by the weightiness of their sins, so to speak (we are still learning with study of course).

  8. Top | #188
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    16,896
    Archived
    42,293
    Total Posts
    59,189
    Rep Power
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    (we are still learning with study of course).
    Why would you need to learn with study? If this is a thing that a guy is doing and he's interested in us knowing what he's doing, wouldn't he just ... tell us in a straightforward manner or something?

  9. Top | #189
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    4,307
    Rep Power
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by ruby sparks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    How much has scripture changed, from the times of those 2nd century leaders in your list (or earlier) to the scripture we have available to us now? It hasn't changed of course, so what makes them understand the bible more than theologians of today, who can scrutinizes and study the bible vigorously?
    Well, for one thing, theologians today are two thousand years removed from actual events. Under normal circumstances, that would be considered quite a big disadvantage, in historiographical reliability terms. Straight from the horse's mouth (well, not that much removed from it) and all that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    Gnosticism came about around then, and they seem to have read it differently with an alternative viewpoint of hell.
    Yes. Different interpretations abound, and have done ever since almost day 1 of the cult, after the death of the founder, it seems.

    My point was mainly about what became 'standard/mainstream christianity' and its doctrines. Gnosticism never really even got close to being that. Most of the quoted churchmen were apparently the forerunners of it. The texts that eventually made it into the bible are examples of it, by and large.

    My other general point is that there is basically far too much evidence from early Christianity, both from the bible and from early church writings, of belief in hell as eternal torture, to make a convincingly reasonable case that it wasn't what was generally and commonly accepted.

    It may have been, as I agreed before, that eternal torture in hell was not Jesus' belief, and it may not have been the belief of other early versions of Christianity which eventually lost out to orthodoxy, what Bart Erhmann calls "Lost Christianities".
    Where do you get the idea that Gnosticism was "never close to mainstream"? The vast majority of the literature we possess from the 2nd-3rd centuries is Gnostic in character, and the orthodox gospels are shot themselves shot through with Gnostic termknology in places, especially true of Paul (who only rarely references Jesus as a material organism but constantly describes the cosmic role of Christ). Just because the Vatican later came out on top doesn't mean their theology was always dominant.

  10. Top | #190
    Veteran Member Lion IRC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,159
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lion IRC View Post
    I don't think non-stamp collecting is the same as blaspheming the Holy Spirit.
    The color baldness doesn't violate the 1st Commandment.
    Don't you need to 'believe in Jesus' in order to be saved?
    I'd love to answer that but there's a no preaching rule here and I don't want to trigger any snowflake atheists.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •