doesn't make it right.
Why Hell?
- Thread starter heart
- Start date
I agree. However, there's a whole lot more Christians than Atheists...
http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions
I think there's just more Atheist on this forum.
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
Theres no torture in hell. An ever increasing number of denominations now hold that references to fire in the NT are symbolic. The lake of fire in Revelation is clearly symbolic, since Hell itself is thrown into it, and Jesus' words regarding Gehenna as a place where fire burns forever refer to a small valley, called Gehenna, just outside of Jerusalem, where people would throw trash and the bodies of criminals to be burned.
There is repentance in the afterlife. Peter says that after His crucifixion, Jesus went and preached to the souls in prison, who were disobedient. Why would he bother preaching tot hem if they couldn't repent?
Because they'd just screw it up for everyone else. The commandments of God are designed to create harmony within a community. I have a friend who doesn't believe for this very reason. It's much more likely that these "commandments" are a social construct created when people realized that killing, lying, cheating, and stealing just pissed everyone off, so they shouldn't do it.
Heaven is only heaven because of the obedience of those who live there to these pro-social principals. It you let in liars and thieves, it would disrupt the harmony.
There is no punishment besides your own feeling of guilt or regret. Not only must he be merciful to the wicked, but he must be just to the righteous, too.
He does love the wicked, but he has to be fair to everyone, not just the wicked. That means he has to let the righteous live as peacefully as they are able without the wicked screwing it up and making it just like our current world. I'm sure he'd create a separate paradise for them except they'd just screw it up anyway.
No, as I said above, I think thats a misunderstanding of scripture. Probably popularized by gloom-and-doom preachers trying to terrify people into paying them tithing. There is no Biblical reason to believe that Hell is anywhere near as terrible as it is commonly conceived.
I don't think they're ok, and as I've said above, I don't think He'd think its ok either.
I dont
I guess study 2000-year-old common metaphors and use of symbolism in the popular culture of Judea?
Conversely you might argue about the meaning endlessly on discussion forums...:shrug:
The things I do now are totally worthless, the junk I collect now is just extraneous detritus.
The point of life is life.
There is no profound meaning to the suffering, joy, terror and heartbreak.
Whatever delusion gets us to the end of it without turning us all into axe murderers is fine with me.
Last edited:
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
Christ didnt come up with that parable. He borrowed it from the Gemara Babylonicum. It was an old story that the Jews were already familiar with. Jesus used it to prove a point about loving God and neighbors, not about the nature of the afterlife. By His use of the parable, He didn't sanction the doctrine of fire and torment in Hell, He was just using an idea already familiar to his listeners to teach them something, as any good teacher would do.
If, by borrowing pagan doctrine, one says that He sanctioned it as truth, than we must also say that he taught that Mammon, the God of Riches is a real God. After all, Jesus said, "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." So it's clear that just because he borrows an idea from heathens doesn't mean He thinks its true. Its just a teaching tool.
If, by borrowing pagan doctrine, one says that He sanctioned it as truth, than we must also say that he taught that Mammon, the God of Riches is a real God. After all, Jesus said, "Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." So it's clear that just because he borrows an idea from heathens doesn't mean He thinks its true. Its just a teaching tool.
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
Common sense. The same reason we know that there won't be a literal giant beast with seven heads and ten horns, which are ten kings (that is, that this beast will have ten prominent, male, world leaders growing out of his heads) which will rise up out of the ocean and chase around a pregnant lady through a forest. It's a symbol. In a Book so full of metaphors and symbols, how do you infer that this single image is literal? Even if it is literal, the lake of fire and brimstone cant be Hell because Hell is thrown into it.
When Jesus spoke of Hell, He never used thee words sheol, hades, or tartarus, like other writers did. He invariable used the word Gehenna, which is not Hell, it was a flaming trash heap outside of Jerusalem where people threw the bodies of criminals and heretics to be burned. The fire there was never quenched, day and night, and there were always worms feeding on the bodies, and the smoke ascended up forever and ever. He uses this place to represent Hell not because hell is full of worms and fire, but because it was easily the most morally and physically repugnant image with which a jew would be acquainted. For example, just because He says the Kingdom of heaven is like a treasure buried in a field (Matt 13:44) doesn't mean you can get there by digging. Just because he says its like a pearl doesnt mean you can fit in it your pocket. And just because he says its like a fish net doesn't mean he's going to drag you in against your will and club you to death. And just beecause he says Hell is like Gehenna doesnt mean its full of fire and worms.
Jesus' teachings, just like Revelation, are full of symbols, how do you infer that this one image is literal? I hope it's not just because some preacher is screaming at you about it to scare you into paying him tithing.
Last edited:
Common sense also tells that there is no afterlife. So you agree that part is metaphorical right?
i will have to remember that link next time someone says there are more non-believers...
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
No. that's not common sense at all. Theists and atheists both make silly assumptions. If we were being truly logical, we'd all be agnostic.
I am a theist though, and a christian, for reasons that aren't really relevant here.
Fireproof worms? :shrug:
How not? We have no evidence of an afterlife. No everyday experience with one. Thus: common sense tells us there isn't one.
Go away and learn what "agnostic means".
I had to give it a look: "Gehenna." A very interesting concept that gives rise to other question. It seems that much was lost when the bible was translated into English.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna
Thanks for the info, Socratic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna
Thanks for the info, Socratic.
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
If jesus' words are to be taken literally, then they're immortal fireproof worms
The absence of evidence is debatable, but even if there was none, Common sense says absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can't say there is no evidence, therefore it does not exist, unless there was evidence to the contrary. You can only say we have no evidence, therefore we don't know if it exists. Agnostic, not atheist.
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
Last edited:
Common sense says if we don't encounter we can dismiss it.
Nearly right. An agnostic says nothing can be known about the nature of god. One can believe (or not believe) in him, but still be agnostic.
what if the nature of God is natural?
What if he is? We dn't know.
Presumably, if he is and we do find that out then agnostics (and atheists) will [mostly] disappear.
what if what we don't know is already known? (do we still not know it?)
'eureka' moments can fall into this, you had the information right there all along, then out of nowhere it just clicks..
no..just relabeled..
so if it is unknown why would you look for it in the known pile?
:shrug:
just saying, the ppl still exist, its the description that changes..