Hell

[Savior of Dawn]

Originally Posted by Hidden

My remark was misread or misstated then- your thread makes the claim that the mediaeval church had no biblical backing in their view of Hell, I make the claim that they did if one looks at it in a matter of interpretation and Hell as an amalgamation. Hence, the argument is addressed.

So... I can call Chuck-E-Cheese hell and be backed up by the bible? One could interpret it as anything.

Originally Posted by Hidden

Describe for me the "unbiased interpretation".

An interpretation without personal views interferring, which is obviously a contradiction. Therefore, the bible will never be correctly interpreted.


I do have to say, I am confused on death. According to Christianity, death is the only way you can achieve enlightenment (By going to heaven, mostly. Or something really weird like that.) So how is dying and going to hell a punishment? Didn't you achieve enlightenment? Aren't you under God's direct realm? Isn't Hell a 'holy' place where Satan does God's bidding?

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by Savior of Dawn

So... I can call Chuck-E-Cheese hell and be backed up by the bible? One could interpret it as anything.

True, one could, theoretically, interpret the Bible (or any work) as anything. However, I've provided what *I* hold to be a considerable (if not convincing to all) argument defending the mediaeval church's concept of Hell based off of the Bible- where's yours?

Originally Posted by Savior of Dawn

An interpretation without personal views interferring, which is obviously a contradiction. Therefore, the bible will never be correctly interpreted.

*Therefore, the bible will never be interpreted without bias.* Who's to say that necessarily validates your own assertion however?

Originally Posted by Savior of Dawn

I do have to say, I am confused on death. According to Christianity, death is the only way you can achieve enlightenment (By going to heaven, mostly. Or something really weird like that.) So how is dying and going to hell a punishment? Didn't you achieve enlightenment? Aren't you under God's direct realm? Isn't Hell a 'holy' place where Satan does God's bidding?

God's relationship with Satan, with or without direct reference to any model of "hell", is a matter you'll have to take up with Square Ninja most like.

What intrigues me is your concentration on enlightenment- do expand on this "Christian value".

[Savior of Dawn]

Originally Posted by Hidden

True, one could, theoretically, interpret the Bible (or any work) as anything. However, I've provided what *I* hold to be a considerable (if not convincing to all) argument defending the mediaeval church's concept of Hell based off of the Bible- where's yours?

The mideival concept of Hell was to control people. Nobody can deny that rich religious people profited off the fear of sin. They even had slips of paper you could buy that would get you free of your sin.

Originally Posted by Hidden

*Therefore, the bible will never be interpreted without bias.* Who's to say that necessarily validates your own assertion however?

That means that you cannot validate your own assertation, it means that somebody can deny it since you cannot prove it.

What intrigues me is your concentration on enlightenment- do expand on this "Christian value".

From what I can tell, to achieve enlightenment, one must become as close as possible to god. To "Be with God." According to Christianity, the only way to do that is to go to heaven and be in God's realm. Why do we have to die for something that nobody can explain, that nobody can prove, how does being with God make you so special?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Hidden

I'm still not entirely certain I agree with the blame being laid on me here. You could always type faster.

I type fast enough, seeing as how you complain about me always changing the topic in msn.

Other way around, Phoenix, whether the Mediaeval concept of Hell is right or wrong has no effect on your argument being right or wrong. We can neither prove nor disprove the former, but the latter is quite open to cross-examination.

No? Can both my argument and the Medieval concept of hell be right at the same time?

My remark was misread or misstated then- your thread makes the claim that the mediaeval church had no biblical backing in their view of Hell, I make the claim that they did if one looks at it in a matter of interpretation and Hell as an amalgamation. Hence, the argument is addressed.

What, saying all prophets are really one counts as proof because it's an amalgamation?

Entirely subjective- the guy could hate his family and suffer from painful and debilitating illness otherwise; we took away an eternity of pain and suffering. Point is, death can no more be considered either a punishment or a blessing than life.

But seeing as how the Bible God sees life only as a blessing, why can't he see death only as a curse?

The man can never be sad again, either. He lost an eternity of what?

Life.

This is why I'm attempting to validate the perspective that death is not eternal punishment. This is why the entire first half of this post is relevant.

But a state can be eternal easily. How do you explain eternal death, without changing the word death with dying for no biblical reason?

The person has merely been moved from one state of existence to another- if you want, you may define this move itself as a "punishment" (though it's still entirely subjective) due to the fact that the man is actually *losing* something. This is called "dying". See above for separation of dying and death.

Dying = losing something.

Death = lost something.

If you keep losing the same thing, without actually completely losing it, you weren't punished. Your life hasn't been taken away, you still have it, and you will never lose it.

Oh, so God now views death as eternal punishment, not humans. Support this.

You mean God views death as punishment, or eternal punishment? 'Cause the dozens of "eternal death"s are enough to prove that God views death as eternal punishment. But if you meant simple punishment, well, because for every sin, God has one answer, death. Does God say "You shall torture adulters"? A little, since they're being stoned, but with the ultimate result of death. It's obvious he doesn't see it as a blessing, or else he'd be blessing sinners. He treats death as punishment throughout the whole Bible. This is indisputable.

Moot distinction- you understand the analogy, answer it or ask me to rephrase it if you must.

Please do. Try to fit it in one sentence, though.

Why should I put that much effort into it? Simply go back through your passages, read them, and then reflect on this previously-written argument on page 6-7 of this thread.

I'm reading pages 6, 7, and now 8. Haven't found one Bible verse from your part.

Describe for me the "unbiased interpretation".

You and your damn semantics. Relatively unbiased interpretation. Happy?

I admit to my ignorance of the situation, you claim unverified truth through memory; I have no shame.

Because my memory is top-notch, eh?

I'll bring back the original point then- people may assume there is a hell because of what they are taught, people may assume the earth is flat because of what they are taught, and people may assume that evolution is the cause of our current stage of life on this planet because of what they are taught. The discussion was centered around the "folly" of what one is taught then.

Good for those people. I don't give a damn about them. People can be taught Santa eats puppies, good for them, the discussion is centered on what can be proved.

On the contrary- Islam and politics (at least in certain Middle-Eastern countries) have a far greater relationship than Christianity and politics here. And if your complaint is homosexual marriage, then that argument should be brought against an ineffective state.

But I don't live in the Middle-Eastern countries, do I?

None whatsoever, but that's yet to stop me.

Fair enough.

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by Savior of Dawn

The mideival concept of Hell was to control people. Nobody can deny that rich religious people profited off the fear of sin. They even had slips of paper you could buy that would get you free of your sin.

You have a passage without quotable inaccuracy here, but I remain dubious of the intent. True, nobody can deny that the rich religious people profited off the fear of sin- one can deny, however, the first sentence stating that the mediaeval concept of Hell was created simply to control those people.

I have provided an alternative theory, providing argument for the mediaeval church's biblical backing in their interpretation of Hell, which could also be used to suggest that there was a different reason for their use of just such a model (all arguable, of course). What of that?

Originally Posted by Savior of Dawn

That means that you cannot validate your own assertation, it means that somebody can deny it since you cannot prove it.

I am afraid I shall have to beg clarification here- are you stating that one who interprets the Bible can not validate their own assertion so that someone may deny it for lack of proof, or that I myself can not validate my own assertion on the matter?

For the time being, I shall assume the former, and attempt to answer for it: One can "validate" their own interpretation of the Bible through any form of convincing argument; the fact that they can not prove it does not change this (understand, I am going by a personal conception of the definition of "validate", and so this is subject to question). Now, you are of course correct in stating that they can not prove their interpretation, and so any may deny its legitimacy- what I was specifically questioning, however, was your former statement. "Therefore the Bible will never be correctly interpreted." The question, then, is "is the correct interpretation necessarily the unbiased one?"

Originally Posted by Savior of Dawn

From what I can tell, to achieve enlightenment, one must become as close as possible to god. To "Be with God."

Ah, it was mainly the term "enlightenment" which confused me then- crossed too close to Buddhist concepts and I became crisscrossed momentarily.

Originally Posted by Savior of Dawn

According to Christianity, the only way to do that is to go to heaven and be in God's realm.

First off, I must give the mandatory warning- "According to Christianity" is not a phrase to use in religious debate. It just generally doesn't work out.

Originally Posted by Savior of Dawn

Why do we have to die for something that nobody can explain, that nobody can prove,

The concept generally is as follows- "being with God" is considered the reward for a Christian life. One therefore focuses on living well so that they may receive eternal life or eternal blessing in the afterlife. So yes, in effect, it is a goal; the goal, however, is very rarely considered "to die", but rather to live so that one is blessed after death. The reason most often given for such a blessing to only be achieved after death is merely the imperfection of life on this world, though other concepts are out there as well of course.

Originally Posted by Savior of Dawn

how does being with God make you so special?

You're hosted by an omnipotent being in a realm of pure goodness... you're in the "Cool Club" now. Other concepts such as understanding, bliss, pleasure, sinless being, et cetera may be worked in as well.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I type fast enough, seeing as how you complain about me always changing the topic in msn.

So you're incurably fickle in discussion... and how did this power outage come about? Storm? Breaker trouble? Act of God?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

No? Can both my argument and the Medieval concept of hell be right at the same time?

I suppose not, but we're arguing your viewpoint nonetheless, seeing as it can possibly be resolved in this life.

Granted, if I'm forced to continue this needless clarification of hardly relevant points, there's no guarantee of that goal either.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

What, saying all prophets are really one counts as proof because it's an amalgamation?

That would be an interesting discussion...

But, drawn back to the present, no; it could arguably count as legitimate interpretation, which is what we are questioning.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

But seeing as how the Bible God sees life only as a blessing, why can't he see death only as a curse?

He could...
a) if you backed up your first assertion of God viewing life only as a blessing,
b) you could support the concept that every single bad thing that happens to humanity is intended punishment from God, and
c) you can effectively disclaim any situation where death might seem an acceptable, if not good, fate.

If you manage all of those, I might consider conceding the point... unless I disagree.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Life.

For better or for worse (which is also the name of a comic strip).

Originally Posted by Phoenix

But a state can be eternal easily. How do you explain eternal death, without changing the word death with dying for no biblical reason?

Explaining eternal death is easy- it is a state absent of life. It's explaining eternal death as a punishment that's the hard part. Explain to me again how it is that a person can be punished for eternity... without even being aware of it?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Dying = losing something.

Death = lost something.

If you keep losing the same thing, without actually completely losing it, you weren't punished. Your life hasn't been taken away, you still have it, and you will never lose it.

Good point- "eternal dying" doesn't serve as a good punishment either.

So, we now have eliminated "eternal dying" because the eternal bit doesn't work- they lose something, but they really can't go on losing it forever can they? Yet we still are attempting to keep "eternal death" simply because the eternal bit does work there- even though the "loss" (which I am still of the opinion is the only part which qualifies as "punishment") has already occurred in the past, and, moreover, the person suffering from said past "loss" is no longer even aware of it.

That brings up another question which has just recently occurred to me- "death" in this sense means that the person no longer exists, correct? So, if the person under "punishment" doesn't even technically exist at all... how exactly does that work?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

You mean God views death as punishment, or eternal punishment? 'Cause the dozens of "eternal death"s are enough to prove that God views death as eternal punishment.

Proof through repetition... "eternal life" is used just as many times, does he view it as eternal punishment as well, or did I miss something?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

But if you meant simple punishment, well, because for every sin, God has one answer, death.

Come on now, give him credit for creativity- he's had plenty of unique punishments. I mean, come on- a plague of frogs (technically "reptiles")? That's original!

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Does God say "You shall torture adulters"? A little, since they're being stoned, but with the ultimate result of death. It's obvious he doesn't see it as a blessing, or else he'd be blessing sinners. He treats death as punishment throughout the whole Bible. This is indisputable.

I'd say the punishment is the pain and suffering and dying. The process of losing one's life (generally in a painful manner). Death has always seemed somewhat more of a practical side of the matter to me... keeps the society from having to deal with the person again.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Please do. Try to fit it in one sentence, though.

One sentence? Surely you jest.

A thief steals a person's car, crashes it, and is taken to court; is the thief to be tried for a single, finite crime for taking the man's car or an ongoing, eternal crime for forcing the man to go on for eternity without his car?

Saved by the most likely improperly used semi-colon once again.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I'm reading pages 6, 7, and now 8. Haven't found one Bible verse from your part.

That's because I provided none- I used yours instead. The reason I felt justified for using your passages is described on the argument at the bottom of page 7, which I even went so far as partially quoting for ease of reference in a recent post.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

You and your damn semantics. Relatively unbiased interpretation. Happy?

Oh yes, now their "my semantics".

You know you love the semantics.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Because my memory is top-notch, eh?

Of course, Phoenix. Just like I've always said.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Good for those people. I don't give a damn about them. People can be taught Santa eats puppies, good for them, the discussion is centered on what can be proved.

Point conceded.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

But I don't live in the Middle-Eastern countries, do I?

What's that have to do with anything? The complaint still should be brought to an ineffective government, not the religion.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Fair enough.

Hardly, but we can leave it at that.

[Phoenix]

I have provided an alternative theory, providing argument for the mediaeval church's biblical backing in their interpretation of Hell, which could also be used to suggest that there was a different reason for their use of just such a model (all arguable, of course). What of that?

You phail at providing direct Bible verses for it, which should be abundant, considering the many times "hell" is mentioned.

The concept generally is as follows- "being with God" is considered the reward for a Christian life. One therefore focuses on living well so that they may receive eternal life or eternal blessing in the afterlife. So yes, in effect, it is a goal; the goal, however, is very rarely considered "to die", but rather to live so that one is blessed after death. The reason most often given for such a blessing to only be achieved after death is merely the imperfection of life on this world, though other concepts are out there as well of course.

Why do christians cry at funerals then? Nobody can mourn for years if they think the other person is as happy as they could be.

So you're incurably fickle in discussion... and how did this power outage come about? Storm? Breaker trouble? Act of God?

No, no, and in the Soviet Union, God acts you..... or something like that.

I suppose not, but we're arguing your viewpoint nonetheless, seeing as it can possibly be resolved in this life.

My viewpoint is the one backed with the most proof, making it FTW in debates ._.

That would be an interesting discussion...

But, drawn back to the present, no; it could arguably count as legitimate interpretation, which is what we are questioning.

... no, shush, debates get long because you use up post space for the hypothetical and obviously wrong by all acounts except for the hypothetical ._.

He could...
a) if you backed up your first assertion of God viewing life only as a blessing,

Tree of Life? Eternal life? Dude! I won't look for all this stuff because of your whim, you know this as well as I do

b) you could support the concept that every single bad thing that happens to humanity is intended punishment from God, and

Exo 4:11
And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Not exactly for humanity, but it looked fun.

c) you can effectively disclaim any situation where death might seem an acceptable, if not good, fate.

Why? God's reasoning > man's reasoning. If God deems it a punishment, whether the individuals do the same matters little.

Explaining eternal death is easy- it is a state absent of life. It's explaining eternal death as a punishment that's the hard part. Explain to me again how it is that a person can be punished for eternity... without even being aware of it?

Our definitions differ. You say only the instant where you lose your life can be counted as punishment. I say that whole time where you can't feel or think, where you can'y enjoy or even be aware of life is punishment. It's a P.O.V., and perhaps I won't be able to prove it to you because it's an opinion, but that matters little. Death being a punishment is just a flag for me, not where I'm centering my whole argument. Eternal death as the Bible illustrates it is much more feasible and logical than eternal torture.

So, we now have eliminated "eternal dying" because the eternal bit doesn't work- they lose something, but they really can't go on losing it forever can they? Yet we still are attempting to keep "eternal death" simply because the eternal bit does work there- even though the "loss" (which I am still of the opinion is the only part which qualifies as "punishment") has already occurred in the past, and, moreover, the person suffering from said past "loss" is no longer even aware of it.

That brings up another question which has just recently occurred to me- "death" in this sense means that the person no longer exists, correct? So, if the person under "punishment" doesn't even technically exist at all... how exactly does that work?

If God meant for all humans to exist forever (which he did), taking away a human's existence when he considers life to be something naturally of a human is a punishment indeed. He is destroying a humans' natural lifespan (which is eternity).

Proof through repetition... "eternal life" is used just as many times, does he view it as eternal punishment as well, or did I miss something?

No, but I recall saying death is the punishment, not life. I have this vague feeling that I said life was good and death was bad... what's wrong with you?

pquote]Come on now, give him credit for creativity- he's had plenty of unique punishments. I mean, come on- a plague of frogs (technically "reptiles")? That's original![/quote]

Who was being punished there? Or rather, who's fault was it that they were being punished? Was the last plague related to death somehow, maybe?

I'd say the punishment is the pain and suffering and dying. The process of losing one's life (generally in a painful manner). Death has always seemed somewhat more of a practical side of the matter to me... keeps the society from having to deal with the person again.

One sentence? Surely you jest.

A thief steals a person's car, crashes it, and is taken to court; is the thief to be tried for a single, finite crime for taking the man's car or an ongoing, eternal crime for forcing the man to go on for eternity without his car?

Saved by the most likely improperly used semi-colon once again.

Ooh, but if a finite sin befits an infinite punishment (according to the Bible), does this argument even apply?

That's because I provided none- I used yours instead. The reason I felt justified for using your passages is described on the argument at the bottom of page 7, which I even went so far as partially quoting for ease of reference in a recent post.

So you used vague interpretation. Come on, here! The Bible talks about it every other page, find me a verse that says "I t0rtur3 j00, lol".

What's that have to do with anything? The complaint still should be brought to an ineffective government, not the religion.

So, even though they talk about free will, they're not at fault for forbidding things only because they're forbidden in the Bible?

[Savior of Dawn]

Originally Posted by Hidden

You have a passage without quotable inaccuracy here, but I remain dubious of the intent. True, nobody can deny that the rich religious people profited off the fear of sin- one can deny, however, the first sentence stating that the mediaeval concept of Hell was created simply to control those people.


I have provided an alternative theory, providing argument for the mediaeval church's biblical backing in their interpretation of Hell, which could also be used to suggest that there was a different reason for their use of just such a model (all arguable, of course). What of that?

I suppose I can't honestly say that it was for only controlling people. Nonetheless, it certainly is a convenient way of controlling.

Originally Posted by Hidden

I am afraid I shall have to beg clarification here- are you stating that one who interprets the Bible can not validate their own assertion so that someone may deny it for lack of proof, or that I myself can not validate my own assertion on the matter?

For the time being, I shall assume the former, and attempt to answer for it: One can "validate" their own interpretation of the Bible through any form of convincing argument; the fact that they can not prove it does not change this (understand, I am going by a personal conception of the definition of "validate", and so this is subject to question). Now, you are of course correct in stating that they can not prove their interpretation, and so any may deny its legitimacy- what I was specifically questioning, however, was your former statement. "Therefore the Bible will never be correctly interpreted." The question, then, is "is the correct interpretation necessarily the unbiased one?"

Both, actually. To answer the bottom question, supposedly so. They want an unbiased interpretation, one that is entirely true, yet..they don't. They want their version of the bible, but somebody else want their own version, which is different. Thus, there really isn't a 'correct' interpretation for everybody. The same applies to, everything, really.

Originally Posted by Hidden

Ah, it was mainly the term "enlightenment" which confused me then- crossed too close to Buddhist concepts and I became crisscrossed momentarily.

My apologies then, I couldn't really think of of a better term to use.

Originally Posted by Hidden

First off, I must give the mandatory warning- "According to Christianity" is not a phrase to use in religious debate. It just generally doesn't work out.

Unless one is explaining something through the view of a single religion to aid their point.

[quote=Hidden]
The concept generally is as follows- "being with God" is considered the reward for a Christian life. One therefore focuses on living well so that they may receive eternal life or eternal blessing in the afterlife. So yes, in effect, it is a goal; the goal, however, is very rarely considered "to die", but rather to live so that one is blessed after death. The reason most often given for such a blessing to only be achieved after death is merely the imperfection of life on this world, though other concepts are out there as well of course.
[quote]
Dead= No longer on earth, Earth= Imperfection, basically.

Originally Posted by Hidden

You're hosted by an omnipotent being in a realm of pure goodness... you're in the "Cool Club" now. Other concepts such as understanding, bliss, pleasure, sinless being, et cetera may be worked in as well.

Can't one be with God simply by going to church? Supposedly, you're not limited by earthly feelings in heaven, but that just takes away the fun from it in my opinion.

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

You phail at providing direct Bible verses for it, which should be abundant, considering the many times "hell" is mentioned.

Yes, and you fail at finding any fault whatsoever in my argument of amalgamation- you simply state that your viewpoint is a legitimate argument as well (which I do not deny). Make you a deal: I'll stop failing when you do.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Why do christians cry at funerals then? Nobody can mourn for years if they think the other person is as happy as they could be.

They cry for themselves- selfish grief.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

No, no, and in the Soviet Union, God acts you..... or something like that.

You just suffer from random power outages when answering my long posts and attempt to channel Yakov Smirnov. Got it.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

My viewpoint is the one backed with the most proof, making it FTW in debates ._.

Pfft, proof- it's the Bible. Interpretation is the subject in question, and mine (or at least the one I've been defending through this argument, I'm unaware if the concept of "amalgamation" has been directly addressed before) has been popularly backed a few thousand years more than yours. FTW.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

... no, shush, debates get long because you use up post space for the hypothetical and obviously wrong by all acounts except for the hypothetical ._.

You're the one introducing new interpretations- and the argument could rather easily be worked around to a considerable front.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Tree of Life? Eternal life? Dude! I won't look for all this stuff because of your whim, you know this as well as I do

You deny my whim? I'm shocked.

Even should God view life as a gift, it's not necessarily a good one by his own accounts- the entire Bible is filled with stories about how crappy these peoples' lives are, even though they are the "chosen by God". Why didn't God just tell the Hebrews in Egypt "Stop complaining, at least you're alive, and that's a blessing!"

Oh, or maybe Job, he sure had a jolly life. Then, after the trial, he has blessed days, more so than his early life, and when he dies, no mention of eternal life is given.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Exo 4:11
And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the LORD?

Not exactly for humanity, but it looked fun.

Fun indeed- but I might note that this was actually reassurance to Moses when he feared his speech impediment would stop him from convincing Pharaoh or his own people. John 9: 'As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned"'

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Why? God's reasoning > man's reasoning. If God deems it a punishment, whether the individuals do the same matters little.

And, thus far, all our proof that God deems "eternal death" (rather than pain, suffering, or even 'dying') a punishment is your interpretation. Not to mention the fact that it is, I would assume, a punishment intended for humans- hence, if humans do not find it as punishment, it wouldn't be that remarkably effective as a punishment.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Our definitions differ. You say only the instant where you lose your life can be counted as punishment. I say that whole time where you can't feel or think, where you can'y enjoy or even be aware of life is punishment. It's a P.O.V., and perhaps I won't be able to prove it to you because it's an opinion, but that matters little.

Possibly that's all it is, but I'm still curious how you can punish someone who no longer exists.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Death being a punishment is just a flag for me, not where I'm centering my whole argument. Eternal death as the Bible illustrates it is much more feasible and logical than eternal torture.

I'll admit that it is as feasible, but I still believe we are discussing the feasibility of the mediaeval church's interpretation.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

If God meant for all humans to exist forever (which he did), taking away a human's existence when he considers life to be something naturally of a human is a punishment indeed. He is destroying a humans' natural lifespan (which is eternity).

He might have intended for two humans to exist forever, those being Adam and Eve, and even that is questionable. Genesis 3: 22 'Then the Lord God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"'. Seems kind of odd he didn't offer that beforehand if this was indeed his intent.

Not to mention, a lot of the major figures in the Old Testament died without it being a matter of grave sadness, nor was any mention of "eternal life" to be found.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

No, but I recall saying death is the punishment, not life. I have this vague feeling that I said life was good and death was bad... what's wrong with you?

Simply clarifying that, thus far, your proof that God considers "eternal death" as "eternal punishment" is that he's said "eternal death" a lot.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Who was being punished there? Or rather, who's fault was it that they were being punished? Was the last plague related to death somehow, maybe?

The Egyptians were being punished because of God, and yes to the last question.

...it's still original...

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Ooh, but if a finite sin befits an infinite punishment (according to the Bible), does this argument even apply?

Stop playing around with the moot technicalities, you understand the question.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

So you used vague interpretation. Come on, here! The Bible talks about it every other page, find me a verse that says "I t0rtur3 j00, lol".

Well, we've already addressed the different possible interpretations of Matthew's comments dealing with "eternal fire" and "eternal punishment", but here are two more for thought.

Matthew 24: 50- (part of a parable) 'the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know. He will cut him to pieces and put him with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Mark 9: 42 "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea."

Both of these, to my personal judgment, sound somewhat worse than a simple death and then unawareness. But, as you say, it's all left to opinion.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

So, even though they talk about free will, they're not at fault for forbidding things only because they're forbidden in the Bible?

Not anymore than they are for forbidding things such as belief in other gods- it's a religion, this means those who are part of it generally hold the same beliefs and follow the same rules (to an extent within denominational considerations and other factors of course).

If your complaint is against the banning of homosexual marriage, your complaint is still against an ineffective government- the body in charge of such matters.

Originally Posted by Savior of Dawn

I suppose I can't honestly say that it was for only controlling people. Nonetheless, it certainly is a convenient way of controlling.

Beyond any doubt.

Originally Posted by Savior of Dawn

Both, actually. To answer the bottom question, supposedly so. They want an unbiased interpretation, one that is entirely true, yet..they don't. They want their version of the bible, but somebody else want their own version, which is different. Thus, there really isn't a 'correct' interpretation for everybody. The same applies to, everything, really.

So, there's no possibility that someone actually has come up with the "correct" interpretation (despite personal bias) and everyone else is simply wrong? The correct interpretation must be one which pleases everyone or no one? Why can't it be subjective, and some people just get... left out?

Originally Posted by Savior of Dawn

My apologies then, I couldn't really think of of a better term to use.

Now that I understand the context, it serves well enough.

Originally Posted by Savior of Dawn

Unless one is explaining something through the view of a single religion to aid their point.

And for Christianity, that one view which could be attributed to the entire religion is "There is a God, and Jesus Christ is his Son, the Messiah". The view you addressed was not that one view however- and other interpretations do exist (though not necessarily mainstream).

Originally Posted by Savior of Dawn

Can't one be with God simply by going to church? Supposedly, you're not limited by earthly feelings in heaven, but that just takes away the fun from it in my opinion.

Some interpretations agree with this (hence the above statement), but, for the mainstream Heaven>Earth concept, it is generally that one doesn't have to deal with the imperfections of Earth anymore (and also are granted an eternal life absent of any pain or suffering) which makes this state the reward.

[Savior of Dawn]

Originally Posted by Hidden

So, there's no possibility that someone actually has come up with the "correct" interpretation (despite personal bias) and everyone else is simply wrong? The correct interpretation must be one which pleases everyone or no one? Why can't it be subjective, and some people just get... left out?

Well, all of the version of the bible has left people out, thus why people often complain about it, christian or not. The supposed excuse is that they were inspired by God, and if someone says they are wrong, they are blasphemous. Again, a loophole for whoever is in power to get what they want. Anybody can make their own version of the bible, as long as it's scarey enough to make people believe in it.

However, I still believe tehre is no 'Correct' interpretation. It's like adapting a book to a screenplay (Obscure comparison, but nonetheless) there isn't a correct way to do it, there simply is a way to make it good adaptionk or a bad adaption. That's entirely subjective due to opinion of the reader or writer.

Originally Posted by Hidden

And for Christianity, that one view which could be attributed to the entire religion is "There is a God, and Jesus Christ is his Son, the Messiah". The view you addressed was not that one view however- and other interpretations do exist (though not necessarily mainstream).

I'll have to admit that I don't have great knowledge of the bible, so I have to go wth what's generally accepted as "fact" in Christianity.

[/quote=Hidden]
Some interpretations agree with this (hence the above statement), but, for the mainstream Heaven>Earth concept, it is generally that one doesn't have to deal with the imperfections of Earth anymore (and also are granted an eternal life absent of any pain or suffering) which makes this state the reward.[/quote]

I just find that concept a loophole to make people faithful. If Earth is so imperfect, then why are we put on it in the first place? Doesn't God love us all?

[Phoenix]

Originally Posted by Hidden

Yes, and you fail at finding any fault whatsoever in my argument of amalgamation- you simply state that your viewpoint is a legitimate argument as well (which I do not deny). Make you a deal: I'll stop failing when you do.

Besides the fact that you base it on speculation?

Provide Bible verses for your view of hell, like I've been doing.

They cry for themselves- selfish grief.

Oh really? Not logical. When women send their sons to another country to study and never come back, they don't cry like this. They cry, yes, but they don't grive to this extent.

Pfft, proof- it's the Bible. Interpretation is the subject in question, and mine (or at least the one I've been defending through this argument, I'm unaware if the concept of "amalgamation" has been directly addressed before) has been popularly backed a few thousand years more than yours. FTW.

Throwing poop has been around for longer than civilization, to boot. Tell me, the days where your concept was popular, who was allowed to think about it anyway?

You're the one introducing new interpretations- and the argument could rather easily be worked around to a considerable front.

New? Hardly. I think the dictionary has a definition of death long before I was born.

Even should God view life as a gift, it's not necessarily a good one by his own accounts- the entire Bible is filled with stories about how crappy these peoples' lives are, even though they are the "chosen by God".

Exactly! Their lives may be miserable, but God considers his chosen ones to be above all blessed.

Why didn't God just tell the Hebrews in Egypt "Stop complaining, at least you're alive, and that's a blessing!"

Moses sure did.

Oh, or maybe Job, he sure had a jolly life. Then, after the trial, he has blessed days, more so than his early life, and when he dies, no mention of eternal life is given.

Not taking into account the changing times, are you? Again, life. Was his blessing death, since you say it can be good? No, his reward was life.

Fun indeed- but I might note that this was actually reassurance to Moses when he feared his speech impediment would stop him from convincing Pharaoh or his own people. John 9: 'As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned"'

Again, forgetting the changing times? Did God lie to make Moses feel better?

And, thus far, all our proof that God deems "eternal death" (rather than pain, suffering, or even 'dying') a punishment is your interpretation. Not to mention the fact that it is, I would assume, a punishment intended for humans- hence, if humans do not find it as punishment, it wouldn't be that remarkably effective as a punishment.

Again, definition of words. Do they use a different word for "death" or "eternal" in the Bible?

Possibly that's all it is, but I'm still curious how you can punish someone who no longer exists.

By not letting them exist.

I'll admit that it is as feasible, but I still believe we are discussing the feasibility of the mediaeval church's interpretation.

"As feasible" should mean that you have the exact number of verses to prove your hell claim than the ones I have. So if I bring "eternal death" 20 times, you should be able to provide "eternal torture" 20 times. Or, what the heck, let's go wild, any kind of pain, torture, suffering that takes place in Sheol or Tartarus when humans are involved (no, the words darkness, outside, fire and lake of fire don't count).

He might have intended for two humans to exist forever, those being Adam and Eve, and even that is questionable.

Seeing as how he also intended for them to have children, you have the wonder if God was unable to do math.

Genesis 3: 22 'Then the Lord God said, "See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"'. Seems kind of odd he didn't offer that beforehand if this was indeed his intent.

Seems kind of odd he'd even put an evil tree and allowed an evil being in his perfect garden.

Not to mention, a lot of the major figures in the Old Testament died without it being a matter of grave sadness, nor was any mention of "eternal life" to be found.

Changing times. In the OT, only very special people (like Elijah [sp?]) were allowed to have eternal life.

Simply clarifying that, thus far, your proof that God considers "eternal death" as "eternal punishment" is that he's said "eternal death" a lot.

No, my proof is logic. Humans will have eternal death. Humans will also have eternal punishment. We call it "connect the dots".

The Egyptians were being punished because of God,

No, because of God's tampering with the Pharaoh. And even if God didn't tamper, you know as well as I that one man cannot say no to the Pharaoh.

and yes to the last question.

Yosh.

Stop playing around with the moot technicalities, you understand the question.

And you understand mine?

Matthew 24: 50- (part of a parable) 'the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know. He will cut him to pieces and put him with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Ooh, a parable. Seeing as how it's a parable, a metaphor, "weeping and gnashing of teeth" are interchangeable for any punishment, period.

Mark 9: 42 "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea."

..... yes? If God considers death to be the ultimate price (for the wages of sin is death), then anything is better than dying.

Not anymore than they are for forbidding things such as belief in other gods- it's a religion, this means those who are part of it generally hold the same beliefs and follow the same rules (to an extent within denominational considerations and other factors of course).

Exactly, *in* the religion, and even there, they're not allowed to physically forbid them. But tell me, do laws the march and whine about apply to only christians or to everyone?

If your complaint is against the banning of homosexual marriage, your complaint is still against an ineffective government- the body in charge of such matters.

Now who's centering the blame only on one thing?

[Square Ninja]