Hell

[Ryu]

Originally Posted by Noblethe3rd

He has a good point but the reasoning could have been better. The bible is a contradiction because God is portrayed as a ruthless murder of people yet wants people to see him as a caring God, a compassionate God. Take the crossing of the Red Sea in Exodus. God killed the Egyptians, everyone of them that came after them simply because it was their duty to serve the Pharoah. What about their lifes? What about their family? Frankly God is a prick and his true intentions are so muddled that I can't believe anyone would claim to know anything solidified about him.

That is what I don't like about people who consider God's acts of both ending and saving people's lives, ruthless. It's never good enough. If God let the Egyptians hunt the Israelites down, you'd accuse him of being ruthless because he didn't protect the lives of innocent people, and for not punishing the Egyptians who would've went home afterwards saying thanks to their false gods.
And when God kills people to secure the safety of innocent people, you accuse him of being ruthless because he supposedly doesn't think about the families of those who were going to murder innocent people, who all had enough time and the proof to change their minds.

Now if some of the Egyptians actually knew they were doing the wrong thing, then God would've helped them. And hell, maybe God will even resurrect some of them in the future, but by killing the Egyptians he was saving the lives of innocent people who had been held in captivity for years, whom would've been done for if God would've decided to listen to an unsatisfied prick like you and not do anything about the attack.

[Phoenix]

If God let the Egyptians hunt the Israelites down, you'd accuse him of being ruthless because he didn't protect the lives of innocent people, and for not punishing the Egyptians who would've went home afterwards saying thanks to their false gods.
And when God kills people to secure the safety of innocent people, you accuse him of being ruthless because he supposedly doesn't think about the families of those who were going to murder innocent people, who all had enough time and the proof to change their minds.

God is omnipotent. He could've magically transported the Israelites anywhere in the world. He could've amde an invincible wall around them. He didn't, he chose to kill.

[quitejaded]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

How can you rationalize it? Use your mind, how can you explain a cotnradiction in the Bible?

It might have been a parable.
It might have occured before anyone said the dead know nothing.

Regardless of whether it really is a contradiction or not, I don't think you should dismiss it when trying to find out what 'Hades' means in the bible.

[Ryu]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

God is omnipotent. He could've magically transported the Israelites anywhere in the world. He could've amde an invincible wall around them. He didn't, he chose to kill.

Just like the Egyptians chose to kill a nation that clearly had a powerful God supporting them? If he transported them, the Egyptians would've searched the entire world, stubborn as they were, or just continue trying to break through the magical shield. If someone ignores over 10 miracles and still decides to kill innocent people, it doesn't matter whether God magically transports them or kills them.

And since we're still on the hades subject, I always believed hades to be 'the grave', in the Lazarus scripture. Hades was translated with Sheol most of the time, and the other way around, both meaning the symbolical collective grave of humanity, where everyone goes after they die, whether they were righteous or not.

[Phoenix]

It might have been a parable.

To which one?

It might have occured before anyone said the dead know nothing.

I'm fairly sure the Old Testament goes before the New Testament, but I wouldn't bet my life on it.

Regardless of whether it really is a contradiction or not, I don't think you should dismiss it when trying to find out what 'Hades' means in the bible.

Again, QJ, if one of your pages in the Bible said "lololololz, Gawd syucks!@@!ONE#@!!@", would you take it as canon?

[quitejaded]

We're talking about use of language!

[doublesword2]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Ah, good old hell. Don't we all miss our religion teacher preaching to us how we were going to hell if we weren't good? ... I suppose not, but we still remember the info they gave us about that horrid place, don't we.

In 2 Pet. 2:4, the word "Tartarus" is translated into Hell. Ignoring the fact that this word is attributed to Greek mythology, not christian (an interesting event in itself), it specifies it's the place where rebel angels are held. The word fire or flame is never mentioned in the whole place, it's just their home.

NT, Matthew 5:22. A place called Geena (Gehenna) is here translated into hell. Fire everywhere, bad. Guess what? It's a physical place where bodies are cremated. You could go to it right now, it's on Jerusalem.

Other places, such as Luke 16:23, translate hades (another concept from greco-roman mythology) to indicate death, invisiblity, unconsciousness. Not an ember in sight, in fact, according to the verse, all dead go here. Why? Because when you die, your brain stops working.

To go out with a bang, the last important word that is translated into Hell: Sheol. It means underworld, grave or pit. It means death, not torture.

Yes, the Bible says people like me who don't believe in Christ will have eternal punishment, but any foold knows death is eternal. Again, the Middle Age Church is to blame for trying to corrupt their own religion.

Thoughts and feelings?

I respect your beliefs, but you shouldn't create topics meant to flame christians. Flaming is against the rules.

[kairigirl]

^It's not created to flame Christians. :/ It's created cause he was pry bored and thought it would be a good topic to discuss. And it is, seeing how there are multiple viewpoints and it's often that someone has brought it up in other topics, why not make it official?

Anyways, do you have something to add to the topic? I personally don't, I still don't have much evidence or something against Ryu. x-x

[Riku's Dawn]

Can we get back on topic?Anyway,what about hell,hm?

[Phoenix]

We're talking about use of language!

QJ, I know I'm uber and all that, but regretfully, I'm no telepath...... yet. You need to specify to what you're responding to.

I respect your beliefs, but you shouldn't create topics meant to flame christians. Flaming is against the rules.

And so anything and everything that goes against the accepted modern christian dogma is a flame.

[quitejaded]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

QJ, I know I'm uber and all that, but regretfully, I'm no telepath...... yet. You need to specify to what you're responding to.

:/

You dismiss Luke 16 because it is contradictory to the bible.

Though it makes sense (with YOUR logic -- I believe you take it out of context) to dismiss Luke 16 as proof of exsistance of hell, it doesn't make sense to dismiss it when interpretting the use of Hades in the bible.

[Phoenix]

You dismiss Luke 16 because it is contradictory to the bible.

Though it makes sense (with YOUR logic -- I believe you take it out of context) to dismiss Luke 16 as proof of exsistance of hell, it doesn't make sense to dismiss it when interpretting the use of Hades in the bible.

QJ, did you read what I posted?:

Again, QJ, if one of your pages in the Bible said "lololololz, Gawd syucks!@@!ONE#@!!@", would you take it as canon?

I'm not looking at this from a "Bible must be infallible" point of view, you'd have better luck with Wielder, I'm looking at it from a historian's point of view, where books normally contradict each other in small details.

Truthfully speaking, 10 tons of evidence vs. that small verse is a no-brainer.

[Ryu]

Bah, since Feenee decided to mention my name, and since I was kinda eager to join this discussion, I might as well do so. >.>

From my point of view, the story in Luke 16 is an illustration, all symbolical. Jesus made up this illustration in relation to the arrogant attitude of the Pharisees towards the 'lower' classes. First of all, why this can't be taken literally, Lazarus hasn't done anything to deserve eternal life, neither did the rich man do anything to deserve eternal 'torment'. Their only properties mentioned were that Lazarus was poor, and the rich man was obviously, rich. Also, the scripture would imply that people in heaven can communicate with the ones in hell, and it would imply that one drop of water could cool someone in a giant oven.

Since the whole illustration is symbolical, every aspect of it should represent something. Lazarus represents the lower classes that were eager to listen to Jesus, and the rich man represents the Pharisees who looked down on the lower classes, didn't accept Jesus and still expected to be accepted by God.
In the end Lazarus (the common people) gets accepted by God, while the rich man (the Pharisees) feels the 'pain and torment' of being the one who loses this time, and doesn't gain God's approval.

As for the Hades thing, Hades = death, the grave, etc. Like Feenee said, the Bible says that the dead know nothing. So instead of immediately assuming the Bible is contradicting itself, you could also just make the more sensible assumption that their 'deaths' are symbolical (just like everything else in these verses), and that they represent the time at which Lazarus realizes he's been accepted by God, and the rich man realizes he hasn't been accepted. As a result, the rich man feels the spiritual pain and torment of being turned down, and asks Lazarus to share in the spiritual pleasure he is currently experiencing, so to speak.

I didn't feel like going over every page of your discussion, Feenee and QJ, so I thought I'd just explain my whole stance on the subject.

[Phoenix]

Or what Wiely said. Either way, it works.

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Thoughts and feelings?

Primarily the former, supplemented by the latter. Let's begin.

The concept of this thread, as I understand it, is to prove that the Bible does not support the existence of Hell. This statement, while certainly arguable, is incomplete.

The components or inspirations of the classical conception of Hell come from (as listed in this thread and my own memory) Greco-Roman Hades and Tartarus, Norse Hel, Hebrew Sheol, and the physical location Gehenna.

First is Hades- the comparison to Hell is all but nonexistent. People die, they go to Hades, the land of the dead. Nothing especially good or bad about it (except that life in the realm of the living is preferable of course).

The second is Tartarus- this one actually seems to have significant connection. It is a place of punishment for those who have been uniquely "bad" in life, as well as the dwelling place of the defeated Titans. Not a nice place.

The third is Hel- the obvious connection is the name (if one assumes that they were not merely taking the Teutonic word without any affiliation), and it was also a fairly dismal place. Hel is ruled over by Hel (they share the name), and it is a cold and rather miserable place, home of those who did not die valiantly in battle or some other form worthy of Valhalla.

Fourth is Sheol- this originated as merely a semi-poetic description of death, but actually evolved into a concept not unlike that of Hades, as a realm of death. However, there is little connection beyond that.

Last is Gehenna- the refuge heap where fire was set both to garbage and the dishonorable dead. It is also associated with earlier pagan practices and abominations.


Now, let's see if we can account for the creation of "Hell". We have the name from Hel, which also provided the rather dismal land of the dead. We have the punishments provided by Tartarus. We have death from Sheol. We have another take on the realm of the dead from Hades. And we have fire, dishonor, and abominations from Gehenna.

From this, one could argue that Hell has a remarkably prominent place in the Bible- its many and varied aspects are described using these accounts of mythological places which the people of the time would have been well-acquainted with. What did the midiaeval priests do then, aside from putting these views together into a single, coherent entity, one which is described in full in the pages of both the Old and New Testaments?

Saying something is or is not supported in the Bible is a remarkably loose accusation, subject entirely to interpretation, not simply by those supporting the concepts accused but also by those accusing.


Now that we got that concise introduction out of the way, let's look to some specific elements of this thread and the arguments provided.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I just said there is no hell in the Bible, and I proved it.

Just to clarify on the point of proof- you have not proven that there is no hell in the Bible until you have cited the entire book (including all variations), addressed every single possible mistranslation, and eliminated any possibility for interpretation contrary to your own. Either get started on that, or rephrase this and like proclamations.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I have to say, the idea of a benign god *not* torturing his creations for all eternity is certainly less outrageous.

Benign God?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Tartarus. Place where rebel *angels* go, and not a speck of fire around.

Is the point in contention Hell as a bad place or Hell as a fiery place? I can see the cause for attacking any doubt on the former, but the latter seems somewhat trivial, no?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Could mean a deal of things. It could by symbolic, ot it could be talking about Gehenna, since that's where dead people were cremated, in other words, a death threat.

The interpretation goes both ways- it could mean that the person who is angered and insults his brother, calling him a fool, is subject to go to Hell. The use of symbolism, in this case, would most likely fall to Gehenna being used as symbolism to describe that particular aspect of such a Hell. It would also seem something of a legal oddity for one who calls his brother a fool to be killed and thrown into Gehenna, whereas the concept of religious punishment for such an offense is fairly common in this context.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Yes, it matters very much who's talking. What if Jesus is talking?[...]Then to Jesus, the usual laws don't apply, do they?

This is not clear to me. Your question was "who was speaking of Lazarus and Dives" (the common name given to the rich man)?

To answer your question, the three speakers are Jesus, Dives (the rich man), and Abraham. Jesus is relating the story, Dives and Abraham converse during it.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

And I gave you a few examples on where the whole situation changes depending on the speaker. Is that difficult to understand?

Who the speaker is has been made apparent. Elucidate on how the whole situation might change, if you think it does.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

That the Bible says many times that the *dead know nothing*.
Ecclesiastes 9:5, "For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing."

This is the one verse you provided stating that the dead know nothing. Also, taken in context, it could be given that those who are dead know nothing more of life or the joys of being in the realm of the living.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Do you admit it's a contradiction? The Bible cannot have contradictions. It leaves us with 2 choices, then:

1. We're reading the Lazarus text wrong.
2. It was edited by humans.

I tend to go with the last one since it is the *only* place where it is alluded that you will suffer after death

I like how you only added those choices which conform to your argument. However, we also have:

3. We're reading the text from Ecclesiastes wrong.

Along with others I could come up with should reason number three not seem quite logical in and of itself. Luke presents a very clear and exact picture of the situation, as told by Jesus Christ. Ecclesiastes is rather more... interesting in its portrayal of ideas, should the entire chapter and surrounding texts be read.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Many things were edited in the Bible. That verse must've been one of them.

Must it have?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Hell wasn't edited into the Bible, it was mistranslated and given an inaccurate view.

"Mistranslated" is such a relative and loose accusation. So, Hell is described in the Bible in a form of amalgamation- what's wrong with that type of description? Many popular concepts from the Bible are presented in different perspectives throughout the different books- God being a good example.

Originally Posted by quitejaded

You just have a sick and twisted pleasure out of distorting and confusing the debate.

The real bugger of it all is how skilled he is at it.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Oh, but it can count. All you need to do is find someway to rationalize it.

Why? Where was the rationalization for Ecclesiastes, the only verse provided which could possibly be translated into contradicting this second verse?

Originally Posted by Phoenix

Well, as I showed in this topic, hell doesn't exist in the Bible.

*"Well, as I showed in this topic, the classical conception of hell doesn't exist in my interpretation of the Bible."

*Fixed it for you.

Originally Posted by Ryu

And since we're still on the hades subject, I always believed hades to be 'the grave', in the Lazarus scripture. Hades was translated with Sheol most of the time, and the other way around, both meaning the symbolical collective grave of humanity, where everyone goes after they die, whether they were righteous or not.

It doesn't really work with the context though.

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I'm looking at it from a historian's point of view, where books normally contradict each other in small details. Truthfully speaking, 10 tons of evidence vs. that small verse is a no-brainer.

It's one verse versus one verse, or even less, one interpretation versus one interpretation. Not so clear cut.

Originally Posted by Ryu

Bah, since Feenee decided to mention my name, and since I was kinda eager to join this discussion, I might as well do so. >.>

I quoted this merely to signify which post was being referred to without copying the entire thing- here Ryu provides an interesting interpretation of the passage in Luke as symbolism. It is quite good for the most part- but still interpretation.

Originally Posted by kairigirl

As for the immoral state..what the heck is America then? The world itself is kind of going down the drain. Compared to a lot of things there are a lot of immoral people. Society is slowing letting things slip by that were once considered immoral and now are accepted.

It's all relative- even if taken entirely from a single person's viewpoint, humanity has both advanced and degraded in the innumerable areas associated with morality.

Originally Posted by DDM

"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (Revelation 20:10)
This shows that, in Christian beliefs, Hell is most certainly real.

It depends entirely on your interpretation of Revelations- it's not an easy book to quote for backing (as if any of them were).

Originally Posted by Noblethe3rd

The bible is a contradiction because God is portrayed as a ruthless murder of people yet wants people to see him as a caring God, a compassionate God.

"Compassionate God" is a new concept.

Originally Posted by Ryu

That is what I don't like about people who consider God's acts of both ending and saving people's lives, ruthless. It's never good enough. If God let the Egyptians hunt the Israelites down, you'd accuse him of being ruthless because he didn't protect the lives of innocent people, and for not punishing the Egyptians who would've went home afterwards saying thanks to their false gods.

If Phoenix rejoins in this part of discussion I will be forced to switch sides immediately, but, until then, I can reflect similarly to him on the fact that it's a real shame an omnipotent God couldn't find a way to free his people without killing so many innocent and guilty in the process. Especially considering he put Pharaoh up to the chase, what with the hardening of the heart and all.

Originally Posted by Ryu

And when God kills people to secure the safety of innocent people, you accuse him of being ruthless because he supposedly doesn't think about the families of those who were going to murder innocent people, who all had enough time and the proof to change their minds.

I still think Jericho got screwed over. They were just sitting there, minding their own business, and the only people to survive were the traitors. No conversion attempts whatsoever. The tactics don't ever get much better either.

Originally Posted by Ryu

Just like the Egyptians chose to kill a nation that clearly had a powerful God supporting them?

A powerful God who repeatedly hardened Pharaoh's heart to do just such a thing, as it happens.

Originally Posted by Ryu

If he transported them, the Egyptians would've searched the entire world, stubborn as they were, or just continue trying to break through the magical shield. If someone ignores over 10 miracles and still decides to kill innocent people, it doesn't matter whether God magically transports them or kills them.

God couldn't just make them decide to stop?


As a last note, Phoenix, can you get me the actual words translated into "Hell" for these verses? Matthew 5: 29-30 Matthew 25: 41-46


Why did I ever leave religious debate?