| 0 |
Subject: I know this will probably offend some...
Posted by: Mattinglyinthehall
- [1832399] Thu, Sep 13, 16:41
...and to those who are hurt by this, I apologize to them now.
I remember being young and in St Bernard's Catholic school, where we were taught "religion" just like we were taught science and language arts. John Lennon's "Imagine" was probably 5 or 8 years old and was my mother's favorite song. Everyone knew it and all the words, as I'm sure I did to. I could never understand though, how so many people, who I assumed all must worship God with the same passion that I was taught to at that young age, could so embrace a song that wished for a world with no religion.
How could anyone not want religion?
This was an old post from another message board I often frequent. This particular forum's topic was something like, "The Problem With Discussing Faith-Based Initiatives", which was created by a member who was involved in a previous forum where members debated Bush's faith-based and community initiative shortly after the election had been settled. Member Marburg, perhaps (at least in my opinion) the most generally knowledgeable voice (certainly the most opinionated and extreme liberal thinker) on the thread responds to several other members discussing his alleged "hatred of religious people". I personally don't share many of his more extreme views, though he certainly has been something of an influence on my thoughts of late, and has definitely sparked a new perspective on certain opinions I hold, mainly on the subject of religion. I though about this post today and was glad I was able to find it.
Take from it what you will:
To clarify, I feel no more hatred for those stricken with religion than I do other unfortunates who may have contracted ebola. Both diseases in fact, are fascinating, unique and
ingenious adaptations to existing environment. Both alas, present serious hazards to human health, as well. While the so-called hemorrhagic fevers require bodily fluid of some type for
transmission, religion is perhaps unique among diseases in being transmissible through teaching. For this reason, children are at particularly high risk for contracting religion in areas of high incidence. Their developing immune systems are often swamped with the pathogenic concepts that mercilessly assault and eventually disable their reasoning centers in the neocortex. In this
respect, religion seems to be a unique form of IATROGENIC illness--that is, a disease which may be acquired by the suggestion of the disease. There is ample documentation of such iatrogenic illness (some types of depression as well as
afflictions like repetitive stress disorder occasionally fall into this category) though our understanding of these disorders remains fragmentary. It may well be that genetic predisposition makes certain individuals prime candidates for religious disorders, though social stigmas against serious research in this area leave us with more questions than answers.
The Crusades
The Inquisition
The Holocaust
The Jihad
Northern Ireland
Falun Gong
How many more that don't come to my mind right now?
How many more will there be?
Imagine no religion. |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 130 | Chuck
ID: 398571517
Sat, Sep 15, 23:53
|
As for you Lutefisker... ;-)
First, there are some who think that the Luke 16 is not a parable. I personally am undecided. One reason they say this is that there are names given in the story. In none of Jesus' other stated parables are names given. I'll try to get back to you on that with my thoughts later.
As for what heaven/hell is:
I believe that they both are literal places. Read Revelation. Again, if you see that book as a "story" you would disagree with me. While we do not know what all the symbolism is, I believe that the premise of the book is about future events that will come.
As for your basic premise, I fully agree:
-Heaven is the presence of God
-Hell is the absense of God
The worst part of hell, I believe, is the absence of God. Even in the worst of tragedies, God is around. Imagine if God's presence (however small it may feel to us) were not around today? It would make things that much worse in dealing with tragedy.
"Rejection of Christ is man telling God that he doesn't need Him; hell is God granting man his request."
|
| 131 | Chuck
ID: 398571517
Sat, Sep 15, 23:53
|
P. S.
If anyone wants to talk about "end times" specifically, I suggest we start another thread.
:-)
|
| 132 | Roo
ID: 665497
Sun, Sep 16, 00:02
|
Not sure which thread to put this in, but it fits here as well as anywhere, given the recent discussion of heaven.
For a Muslim point of view:
"Who could have done such immense evil? I have asked this question as many times as I have seen the pictures on television. Every viewing fills me with unspeakable sadness. Are people calling themselves Muslims capable of such atrocities? Are they reading the same Koran? Are they the followers of the same Prophet Muhammad?"
P.s. Thanks Harkonnon.
|
| 133 | Lutefisker
ID: 3182118
Sun, Sep 16, 00:03
|
Chuck... about the only thing I want to say about the End times (although I have been known to say more), you already kinda said (but I may as well reiterate the point).
For the people in those towers and in those planes. The "End Time" was when the planes smacked into the buildings and the building colapsed. I pray that they were ready at that point because regardless of when the world's "End Time" is, their "End Time" was then. Our personal "End Time" may be at any moment and is literally only a heart-beat away.
|
| 134 | Chuck
ID: 398571517
Sun, Sep 16, 00:05
|
lute-- Very true. Many people say they will "find a religion when they get older". My guess is that some in that tower had the same philosophy. Additionally, some in that tower never even had a chance to pray. Another reason that "today is the day of salvation."
|
| 135 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Sun, Sep 16, 01:11
|
Chuck, you're reference John 14:6 lies at the heart of my answer to 1's question. I haven't done any homework yet, but will certainly be doing some in the next 24 hours. I do want to recommend "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel to anyone with questions regarding this issue. His second book "The Case for Faith" is a must read for any Christian who wrestles with any lingering questions or doubts (and what Christian doesn't from time to time? It's not like you make up your mind to accept His Grace and follow Him and suddenly you have all the answers.)
|
| 136 | James K Polk
ID: 42911423
Sun, Sep 16, 01:46
|
Was going to mention this before, but got busy. The philosophical questions that KKB mentioned in post 25 come from a very famous argument known as Pascal's Wager. If you're not familiar with Blaise Pascal, he was a 17th-century mathematician who was heavy into probability theory -- especially as it pertained to gambling -- as well as religion. In a way, Pascal's Wager was sort of an answer to the proofs of God's existence offered by philosophers such as Anselm and Aquinas.
The link has a lot of great information on the history of Pascal's Wager, as well as many of the criticisms levied against it by skeptics.
|
| 137 | Lutefisker
ID: 3182118
Sun, Sep 16, 02:57
|
I second the recommendation of Strobels, "A Case For Christ".
And anti-up McDowell's, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"
Both awesome apologetics, although I think that "A Case For Christ" is an easier read.
|
| 138 | Lutefisker
ID: 3182118
Sun, Sep 16, 03:26
|
Chuck/Ender RE. John 14:6 paraphrased: Christ is the way the truth and the light, no one goes through the Father except through Christ.
I agree completly.... And that should concern you ;)
Now... What does it mean to go through Christ?
My postulation is that the Native American before 1492, as an example, who had no chance to know the name of Christ, went through Christ when He looked up at the stars and said to himself, "Wow, what a beautiful sky, surely there is a great creator!! O that I would know that creator better!!!"
I use as my reasoning for this position, Romans 2:13-15 (KJV) :
" For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their coscience also bearing witness and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else EXCUSING one another"
So my question becomes: While Christ is surely the gate and is the Word that is written in all hearts, Does one need to know the name of the gate that one must go through, if one walks the path that the gate is situated on?
This question applies primarily to those who have either not heard of Christ or who have only heard of a false Christ.
Now of course, the question becomes:
And what does it mean to have heard of a false Christ?
For this, I ask a rhetorical question. Did the Native Americans who only heard of Christ through the people who killed their men, raped their women and sent their children off to slavery, and thus rejected the Christ that they were told about due to the atrocities of his so called followers, really ever hear of the true Christ?
And finally, how might the answer to the above question apply to today?
|
| 139 | James K Polk
ID: 42911423
Sun, Sep 16, 04:24
|
I haven't read much C.S. Lewis in a while, but I think he tackles a similar issue in one of his Narnia stories. Aslan talks about the righteousness of a man called Tarkaan, who, even though he serves the evil god Tash, strives to do only good. Ultimately Aslan accepts him (and changes his name, IIRC).
|
| 140 | F Gump
ID: 53837117
Sun, Sep 16, 09:29
|
LUTEFISKER
Re the story of the rich man and Lazarus, my take ...
1) I believe that it was indeed a story of an actual man that Jesus was relating, maybe even one that his followers knew of. As noted above, he used a specific name, which he does NOT do in the parables.
2) It is noteworthy that when Jesus told parables, he used accurate day-to-day settings. He was not creating "fanciful tales" to illustrate his points, but rather true-life analogies that his followers would be familiar with.
His disciples had never been to Hades, so that certainly would not have fit the "familiarity" concept. Nor was it a day-to-day scene for them, for that matter. And he certainly had no reason to "make up" fanciful language about hell/hades: in his story, all he had to do was tell it accurately and his point about "future consequences" was made.
CONCLUSION: I think Jesus was using a true story to illustrate. And, at the same time, he gave us a vivid glimpse of what hell is actually like.
|
| 142 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Sun, Sep 16, 12:15
|
Why didn't you gleefully avoid this thread, which was clearly started for discussion of religion? I'm not trying to start an argument, but I find it odd that you would post that statement in a thread which seemingly meets your demand.
|
| 143 | puckprophet
ID: 52712723
Sun, Sep 16, 12:24
|
you're right ender, i just saw a proliferation of religion across the boards as i checked in this morning..i'm just not into it..
|
| 144 | Harkonnon
ID: 50230315
Sun, Sep 16, 12:36
|
so you are another one of these false prophets ?
sorry could not resist that one ;-)
|
| 145 | Ender
ID: 13443221
Sun, Sep 16, 12:36
|
Fair enough. I understand that some people may not want to hear some or all of these discussions. Your as much entitled to your frustration as we are to our discussions.
|
| 146 | puckprophet
ID: 52712723
Sun, Sep 16, 12:42
|
yes hark.
|
| 147 | Gangman
Leader
ID: 10434285
Sun, Sep 16, 14:24
|
pp - You didn't realize that you were amongst
'bible thumpers"? Sorry.
The depth and quality of your contributions to
this thread are so insightful, that I'm just
overwhelmed....not.
Unlike you, most of the people posting in this
forum consider themselves friends, in an
abstract manner. The only reason YOU are
here is fantasy baseball. I can only speak for
myself when I write that I am here today
because this is part of my community and
there are some other things going on right
now besides TSN baseball.
I recommend you just be judicious, and avoid
any threads that don't have baseball related
titles, and you'll likely find them more secular.
Hey, and if it makes you feel better, give us a
"1" in the ratings. Me, I'll give it a "5".
|
| 148 | Lutefisker
ID: 3182118
Sun, Sep 16, 14:51
|
And, at the present... precisely what baseball were we supposed to have been discussing?
|
| 149 | Lutefisker
ID: 3182118
Sun, Sep 16, 15:11
|
F Gump... the concept that parables do not have names is a rather self-fulfilling statement and thus circular logic. I say some parables do have names and point to the story of Lazarus (coincidently - also the name of the longest living human) as an example of where a parable does have a name.
As for it being the only case of a singular example, there is only one Gospel that talks of the virgin birth. Shall we use the same logic there?
As for the day to day setting, please tell me where a mustard seed moved a mountain. I agree, Jesus did TEND to not use names in parables and he did TEND to use common settings, but I chose not to limit my Lord to only what he tended to do. He was, afterall, a rather inovative, imaginative and surprising character.
Finally, Exactly how big is Abrahams bosom. Did only Lazarus sit in it? How did the rest fit. Is it a real chasm? Can't God cross that chasm? Is there really something that God can not do?
No, I am sorry. "The bosom of Abraham", a chasm that God can not even cross but that a lesser being can speak and see across, parables directly before the story of Lazarus and directly after the story of Lazarus all lead me to believe that it is a parable.
Your opinion may of course differ... but that is the point. There is no absolute agreement on this story that is commonly known as the "parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man" and if there is any common agreement amongst scholars, it is that the most generally accepted belief is that it is a parable.
|
| 150 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Sun, Sep 16, 15:25
|
Rich man and Lazarus parable...
The context shows Jesus was getting in a dig at the expense of the pharisees. The parable means that those who appeared spiritually rich [the pharisees] would shortly be switching places with the beggars [common people] who used to feed on the scraps dropped by these 'spiritually rich' ones. Soon the common man would accept Christianity and come into a favored spiritual condition while the pharisees would lose their favored position.
There is no reason to think this story is literal. Rich people are not evil and 'damned to hell'. Poor people do not merit paradise by virtue of their poverty. A drop of water would be of no use in a fiery furnace.
Interestingly in Jeremiah 7:31 in discussing some Judeans who had taken up the religious practice of putting children thru the fire [Molech worship] God said...in order to burn their sons and daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart
So some are accussing God of inventing this thing that revolted him and that had not even occurred to him to do.
|
| 151 | Lockhart
ID: 564212815
Sun, Sep 16, 15:26
|
"Our way of life" includes both religion and sports among other things. Our "Way of Life" also is the the right to choose all, some or none of these endeavors so long as we adhere to our laws. So all of you are right, though each of you has a different way of dealing with our present events.
Sports and Religions are not the problem, human beings are the problem. Humans tend not to understand or refuse to acknowledge that each of us is an individual with a unique thought process. Some of us need Sports to cope, and some of us need Religion to cope, others may choose other outlets to cope. In hindsight, most of us need BOTH. Dan (Old)
|
| 152 | Pilewort
Donor
ID: 347142619
Sun, Sep 16, 15:27
|
sarge wrote:
"Christians as a whole, have no more lock on 'good' than any other group. Nor does membership in any church I know of, preclude a person from being a horses-ass."
Sarge, surely you don't think that divine elevation in the Islamic world via gratuitous homicide makes much sense. I know nowhere in the tenants of Christianity where dying in the name of one's cause, or killing for the sake of killing, elevates one to salvation?
Also, NOT belonging to a church doesn't guarantee one not being a horses ass.
|
| 153 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 13613719
Sun, Sep 16, 15:47
|
Funny, when I gave this thread it's title, I didn't suspect any of the things that some may find offensive to be that I am off topic. Sorry puckprophet, even though I hardly fit the description of those you malign, as I am certainly no "Bible thumper".
I am curious what you mean - that you are "just not into it". Are you telling us that you are not someone who believes in god and therefore not interested in reading the varying opinions and disagreements of those who are? I don't think that's what you mean at all.
That you are frustrated over us getting in your way of talking fantasy baseball in this time of world tragedy (which I find revolting by the way - in case you hadn't figured that out yet) seems to indicate that such discussions fail to interest you sufficiently enough for you to lend much time to them, even though they may spark some intelligent, rational or dare I even say emotionally uplifting thoughts in your head. Perhaps you are simply afraid to acknowledge the issue?
It's a shame you do not even attempt to exhibit the inner realization it must take you to understand what is happening enough to want to read through and participate in a discussion that seems so important to those who's opinions you obviously place so much faith in other subjects... like fantasy baseball. I naturally assume you are lacking in such understanding because we have clearly arrived at a time here on Earth when the questions of religion, salvation and general theology must come up to believers and non-believers alike. It certainly has here, among so many who know one another fairly well yet have never expressed their views on such subjects before - and you fail to see the significance.
Perhaps I am being harsh. Perhaps you are so affected by what has taken place that you are tired of contemplating it. Have you blasted other Roto Guru threads inspired by thoughts arising from what happened Tuesday? I have not checked.
|
| 154 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 13613719
Sun, Sep 16, 15:57
|
Pilewort, I would tend to agree with Sarge's statement;
"Christians as a whole, have no more lock on 'good' than any other group. Nor does membership in any church I know of, preclude a person from being a horses-ass."
I cannot speak for him, but my guess is you miss his meaning. Christians are no more likely to be good than any other group or random sampling of people. Are Christians more good than Muslims? No. Jews? No.
And (pretty sure this drifts further from Sarge's point, but IMO) the Crusades and other aggressive/violent movements in the name of Christianity are/were no different. Pilewort, I fully understand and respect why and that you disagree. Excuse my butting in, but I felt it appropriate as that was the focal point of my original post and the initial topic of this thread.
|
| 155 | Lutefisker
ID: 588561616
Sun, Sep 16, 17:17
|
Hmm... Here is where I get into trouble. :)
While I beleive that all people have their flaws, I honestly do believe that AS A WHOLE or ON THE AVERAGE that you are more likely to find good, moral and helpful people in places of Godly worship. The very fact that they are there tends to insinuate a search for what is just and good and right. The basic tenants that are taught in most religions is about being good, peaceful, loving, etc.
Surely it is not a LOCK that religious people who worship in religions that uplift that which is good and honorable will themselves be good and honorable and it is not a LOCK that non-religious people will be less good and honorable because they do not so worship, but there is a tendency for that to be the case, ON THE AVERAGE, due to the very nature of the choice to worship or not worship, fellowship or not fellowship and learn or not learn in such a setting.
|
| 156 | F Gump
ID: 53837117
Mon, Sep 17, 01:45
|
LUTEFISKER (post 149)
The story that Jesus told may or may not have been a true story. The fact that it is not identified as a "parable" by Luke, as is done commonly with other stories, certainly allows for the idea that it could be a true story. "Scholars" are certainly on both sides of that question.
Regarding "Abraham's bosom", as I see it, it was a figurative term used to refer to that particular place of comfort and pleasure, where Abraham was also.
Regarding the "chasm", nowhere in the story does it say that God cannot cross it. It rather says that the chasm separates those in one location from those in the other, so that it is impossible for those in one place to move to the other. The rich man asks for Lazarus to come; Abraham says "he can't."
Regarding this story being in the context with the raising of Lazarus, it wasn't. Luke did not even write about the raising of Lazarus, either before or after this story. His readers would not have understood the reference to Lazarus' resurrection, since he never mentioned it.
Further, Lazarus who was raised would NOT have made a feasible reference for a "beggar." He was middle class at the least, owning a house and welcoming guests. In fact, Jesus visited there regularly as one of his havens.
The use of the same name also is not particularly indicative either. Duplicate names were common in those days. In fact, among the 12 chosen apostles, there were three sets of duplicate names (Simon, James, Judas) - Luke 6:14-16.
---------------------------------
There were a couple of items that you said in your post in which you misspoke. In the story about the mustard seed, Jesus does NOT say that the seed can or would move a mountain. In that story, Jesus used a mustard seed as a familiar example of something tiny. His point was that a small amount of "faith" even as small as a mustard seed was capable of doing unbelievable things. Whether or not the mountains that could be moved are to be taken literally or figuratively is debated, but the point is one regarding faith and its effects, either way.
Also, Lazarus was not the longest living human. After he was raised by Jesus, at some point he subsequently died no doubt. In the interim, he was a vivid living example of Jesus power over death, and his presence was one of the compelling reasons that the religious leaders were urged to drastic action to get rid of Jesus. After Jesus himself rose from the dead, His power over death was better illustrated by Himself than by Lazarus. My guess is that Lazarus was a member of the early Church during the time of the Book of Acts, and thus a physical reminder of the power of Jesus over death, but the Bible is silent on "what later became of Lazarus" and thus I am only speculating of course.
-------------------
CONCLUSION: In my view, the story of "the rich man and Lazarus" is one of real people. But even if it is not, I believe Jesus used it as an opportunity to give a vivid and accurate description of what hell/hades is like. Within that story, He had the opportunity to include accurate details of something that only He would know: and I believe He did, for our instruction.
BALDWIN (post 150)
Yes, I agree that Jesus was using this story to make a point to the Pharisees and religious leaders. But I also believe that, in His wisdom, He used a true story to do so - that would certainly be within His ability.
There is no indication of this within the context, but it is even POSSIBLE, if it was a true story, that the particular "rich man" and the particular "Lazarus" that Jesus speaks of were people whom the listeners KNEW.
As I said, whether or not the story is "true" or not is certainly a matter of opinion. But it could be. And I believe Jesus used this story to give us a glimpse of eternity.
|
| 157 | Lutefisker
ID: 588561616
Mon, Sep 17, 02:34
|
F GUMP
I agree. Jesus COULD have been talking about a real place. But it is just as true that he MAY not have been. My point is that, as such, it is really hard to use such an ambiguous passage, that is not agreed upon by the experts, as PROOF that such a place exists.
I do apologize for mixing up Methusalah (sp?) with Lazarus. My point, however, was not affected by this error.
The point that I was trying to make was that Lazarus was a common Jewish name and was used by Jesus in the equivilent sense as one might use today if one is telling a story about some fictional character:
"Joe/Jim/George/Tom/Dick/Harry/etc was walking down the street one day and he came up to this newspaper stand and.... etc, etc,etc."
Regarding the mustard seed, I think that you have made my point beautifully. Please read your sentence exchanging the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (which is in parenthesis) for the parable of the mustard seed WHICH IS IN CAPITALIZED LETTERS. I couldn't have said it better.
"In that story, Jesus used a MUSTARD SEED(discription of Hell) as a familiar example OF SOMETHING TINY (of someplace where bad people go). His point was that A SMALL AMOUNT OF "FAITH" (goodness towards others) even as small as a mustard seed was capable of DOING UNBELIEVABLE THINGS(putting one in the bosom of Abraham rather than in a place seperated from God). Whether or not THE MOUNTAINS THAT COULD BE MOVED(the bosom of Abraham and the place of seperation)are to be taken literally or figuratively is debated, but the point is one regarding faith and its effects, either way.
|
| 158 | F Gump
ID: 53837117
Mon, Sep 17, 05:45
|
LUTEFISKER
I don't agree that your correlation holds up, in that the characteristic of the mustard seed that made the point (tininess) was accurate and familiar. "Hell" was not a "familiar" thing that Jesus could point to and talk about.
Nevertheless, if Jesus was merely "making a point" using "hell" (as he did about the tininess of the mustard seed), he would also use characteristics that are accurate regarding hell - and he uses flames, torment, etc. to draw his comparison from. Furthermore, His point was not that the rich man was decrying "separation from God" but rather that he was agonizing from flames and torment. Kinda hard to make such a point, if there are not any flames and torment, as I see it.
-----------------------
As to whether or not there is a literal heaven and a literal hell, there is no question that the Bible speaks of both, though the details are sketchy (in large part, I would think, because there are not people here who have been to either, to tell us about them!) But the hazy picture we are certainly left with is clearly of contrasting places, regardless of details: one of great reward and all the best, vs one of great punishment and condemnation. Regardless of what you choose to believe, that is the Biblical picture in general.
As for me, I believe that the few details that God HAS chosen to share with us, about both places, are for our education and understanding and should be taken as they are conveyed - including this passage here. With the relative paucity of information available to us, I do not believe that God would choose to confuse the picture with images that are not accurate, including this passage.
|
| 159 | Lutefisker
ID: 588561616
Mon, Sep 17, 06:35
|
F GUMP - I agree. There is a great difference between the final destination of "heaven" and "hell".
It just seems to me that we, as Christians, spend far to much time accenting the negative rather than the positive. Personally, I do not think much of Hell because I am assured that I will not be going there. I do know several people, however, whose biggest hangup with Christianity is the concept of an unfair and vengeful God who would eternally punish people for what we supposedly less loving beings would not eternally punish people for. That does not make sense to them (and keeps them from knowing God better) nor does it make sense to me (but I do not let this keep me from knowing God or sharing my understanding of God with others - because I really believe that God has been misread on this matter).
As for heaven, I live in the assurance that it is better than my wildest imagination, and thus I spend little time trying to figure out what it is like because I do not wish to minimize its glory.
What I do have, and I have it now, is a walk with the Holy Spirit that is awesome and beyond discription even now. Oh for the day when that feeling of peace, love and joy that I feel when I pray in the Spirit can be eternal, without interuption and complete!!! That surely is heaven!!! And the absence of that feeling for an eternity is surely hell. Beyond that... Face it... neither you nor I know for sure.
|
| 160 | sarge33rd
ID: 25818711
Mon, Sep 17, 07:00
|
Pilewort (#152): MITH hit the perverbial nail on the head in #154. I most certainly was NOT implying anything on behalf of the terrorists. Rather, I was saying simply (in my 'defense' as an Atheist) that participation in a Christian organization, does not by definition of the act, define one as a good human being. Nor does nonparticipation, make one automatically evil. Yes, there are good people in the Chrisitan segments of the population and yes, there are evil people in the non-Christian segments. As there are good and evil in any meaningful population sample.
|
| 161 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Sep 17, 07:33
|
Did you miss the scripture in Jeremiah where God says it never even occurred to him to put children thru the fire?
Three reasons for the mistaken idea of a fiery place of torment/revenge...
"The fiery Gehenna" There was a valley surrounding Jerusalem where refuse was burned and that burned constantly. Noone was tortured here. The bodies of criminals who were executed were disposed of here as they were not fitting of 'memorial tombs' and this made a fitting anology of the stae of people who were not worthy of being remembered by God for a resurection later on.
The "lake of fire" mentioned in Revelation...This refers to the 'second death' where after one has been resurected and given a second chance he is then put to death this time with no hope of return. That this lake of fire is figurative is confirmed because death itself is thrown into this lake at the end of the thousand year reign.
But...but...the bible speaks of torment...the Greek word for torment is basanos which is the same word for a 'jailer'. So when the devil is 'tormented there forever' it means there will be no relief for him, he will be restrained or 'jailed' in death forever.
Do not continue to accuse God of cruel and unusual punishment. We who are made in his image would not punish our disobedient child by putting their hand on a stove and God himself in Jer 7:31 shows it is just as unthinkable an idea for him.
|
| 162 | Judge Mental
ID: 5688147
Mon, Sep 17, 07:37
|
Aaaargh! I leave this thread for the weekend and it turns into a bible study!!
Just kidding, yesterday was sunday, after all. ;-)
Once again, I am impressed by the depth of the discussions here and the strength of opinions offered.
But where are the rest of the closet atheists out there who don't dare to speak up? I have "faith" that there are a heck of a lot more of us out there than the vocal "moral majority" would like to think.
What strikes me most about the discussions above are the wide variety of interpretations of the bible, although common themes are strong throughout. This only reinforces my skepticism. Some of you are gonna be real sorry if you were off by just a notch in what you believed.
"But St. Peter, you mean all I had to do was eat fish on fridays and I would've gotten in? Gosh darn it!"
Sort of like losing a game in overtime, that's gotta hurt even more. At least I know it won't be a close call in my case.
I saw evolution mentioned a few times above. That's another fun one to debate, but that's also another 150 posts, at least. (Evolution theory has its holes, but please don't try to tell me the earth is only 6,000 years old). ;-P
|
| 163 | F Gump
ID: 53837117
Mon, Sep 17, 09:18
|
BALDWIN
I can discuss with you the exact theological details and significance of Gehenna, Sheol, Hades, Hell, the lake of fire, etc etc, and do exegesis of each of the texts in detail. And there is more than ample Biblical support for the concept of a fiery eternity for those who do not put their faith in Christ, whether you want to accept it or not. But, we then will bog down in the details of a theological discussion that is not suited for these boards. So I will not wander there.
Since you asked again, though, I will respond to the passage in Jeremiah. Jeremiah 7:31 is CLEARLY speaking of something entirely different than the concept of "eternal judgment."
The pagan peoples that surrounded Israel were practicing HUMAN SACRIFICE (burning their children to death on altars) as a religious ritual. When the Israelites adopted this pagan practice, God condemned it here in no uncertain terms. The entire chapter, for those of you who wish to read the verse in context, is Jeremiah's condemnation of the people of Israel who had forsaken obedience to God's instructions, and substituted their own "methods" for pleasing Him.
God does not punish those who are His ""children" by eternal death or eternal punishment of any kind, that is true. The punishments in hades/hell are reserved for those who are NOT born of God as His children, in a spiritual sense.
As to the concept of "torment"...
A "jailer" as we know them (one who merely confined) was referred to by a completely different word: desmophulax. "Desmo" is the root, and from it are various uses that all revolve around the concept of binding, or being bound. To bind, strings, bonds, jailer, prison, prisoner: all of these come from that same root and concept. If the author who spoke of a "tormentor" wished to use the concept of a "jailer', this is the word he would have used.
Basanos is a completely different word, and I can find nowhere in the New Testament where it is used of jailer or restrainer. Basanos is used of physical discomfort and pain: such a concept is supported repeatedly by its use throughout the New Testament: you cannot get the concept of mere "restraint" from its common use. For those who are not theologians and wish to look for themselves at where it is used, look for the use of the word "torment" or similar in the following passages and see how the idea of physical suffering/distress is contained within that word: Matthew 4:24, 8:6, 8:29, 18:34, Mark 5:7, Luke 8:28, 16:23, 16:28, Rev. 9:5, 11:10, 12:2 ("pained"), 14:10-11, 18:7, 18:10, 18:15, 20:10.
Thus, when the text speaks of "torment" in regards to eternity for Satan and the unsaved, it is INDEED speaking very clearly of painful punishment, just as we would think.
|
| 164 | F Gump
ID: 53837117
Mon, Sep 17, 09:26
|
LUTEFISKER (post 159)
Well-stated and well-taken. To have an assurance of eternity with God is all the difference, and the relationship with Him in this life has far more significance and reward than mere "fire insurance". Very excellent and meaningful point.
|
| 165 | F Gump
ID: 53837117
Mon, Sep 17, 09:33
|
JUDGE MENTAL
You are taken aback by the amount of Biblical dicussion that has occurred here. Just be glad, then, that you did NOT respond to my post 110 (did you really want those concepts of yours in 72 responded to Biblically?) with a "yes". *LOL*
My offer to answer what you asked is still open, of course. *grin*
|
| 166 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Mon, Sep 17, 09:55
|
Re post 162 and evolution as it pertains to the topic of religion;
I recommend those of you who are interested to read through another New York Times/Abuzz thread entitled, "Macro-evolution; should this be taught as fact?". Some of the participants have theological and or medical degrees and much of the thread is way over my head, but it is quite fascinating and informative nevertheless. It also includes links to some great articles and other debates on related topics.
I believe that in order to read through or participate (though this thread has probably been dormant for some time and some of the original participants may not appreciate it's renewal as there was considerable animosity expressed there) you will have to register with Abuzz. Once registered, you should be able to find the discussion by it's title, but in case that doesn't work, here's a direct link to it:
Macro Evolution Debate
|
| 167 | Ender
ID: 52438315
Mon, Sep 17, 10:15
|
MITH, 404 error when I try the link.
|
| 168 | Mattinglyinthehall
ID: 1832399
Mon, Sep 17, 10:27
|
Ender,
You are registered with Abuzz?
If so, try this: Macro-evolution discussion. If that still doesn't work, try going to "my abuzz". At that page, type in quotes (cap sensitive) "Macro-evolution" in the "find" field they offer near the top middle of the page.
It should be the 5th (or so) result. If that still doesn't work, there are other ways in, let me know.
|
| 169 | Judge Mental
ID: 5688147
Mon, Sep 17, 10:28
|
F Gump,
Please treat my questions as rhetorical ones. Please.
*Grins back*
Though I would enjoy opening that can of worms some other day (my head has nearly recovered) I don't think I could handle it on a monday.
Thank you for asking and not prosthyletizing.
|
| 170 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Sep 17, 12:09
|
F Gump
If the author who spoke of a "tormentor" wished to use the concept of a "jailer', this is the word he would have used. Basanos is a completely different word, and I can find nowhere in the New Testament where it is used of jailer or restrainer - F Gump
You have to look no further than the parable of the slave who was forgiven a large debt in Matt 18:34 where his master, provoked to wrath, delivered him up to the jailors [ basanos ].
Another Greek word is also used to describe the eventuality of the wicked. As an example in Matt 25:46 'These shall go away into everlasting punishment [Kolosin]
Does this signify eternal pain? A footnote in the Emphatic Diaglot lists these potential meanings...
1)cutting off...pruning
2)to restrain, to repress
3)to chastise, to punish
Clearly it would be wrong to quote this passage and say this proves eternal pain given these other greek meanings for the original word.
|
| 171 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Sep 17, 12:23
|
F Gump
As to your take on Jeremiah 7:31...
It may be talking about something very different...Molech worship, as I stated however it is still actually putting your own children into a fiery furnace.
It is very deft of you to point out that the wicked are not God's children in a sense, they are not his spiritual children, but they are very much his physical children since he is the creator of all things. We would not put a disobedient childs hand on a stove or beat on even our worst enemy literally forever even if we could.
God does not put his children in a fiery furnace, not even the really really bad ones. Passing children thru a fire is a thot that had never even occured to him.
|
| 172 | Lutefisker
ID: 588561616
Mon, Sep 17, 13:00
|
Baldwin... It is nice to chat with you again :)
Thanks for the Jeremiah 7:31 qoute. I had not read that before, or more correctly had not put it in context. :)
God bless. :)
|
| 173 | F Gump
ID: 53837117
Mon, Sep 17, 14:42
|
JUDGE MENTAL
Understood. And I do indeed have "answers", but no desire to foist them upon those who are not asking questions! *LOL*
BALDWIN
RE Matt 18:34 ...The text here is translated variously as "handed him over to the scourgers" (Modern Language Bible of 1959), "delivered him to the tormentors" (King James), "sent the man to the torture chamber" (Living Bible), "delivered him to the jailer" (RSV), "turned him over to the jailers to be tortured" (NIV), "turned him over to the official torturers" (Williams), "sent the man to prison" (New Living Bible)...
According to Vine's Expository Dictionary, basanistes (used here, the noun form of the root) is a term that is properly "a torturer", or "one who elicits information by torture."
Thus the picture in Matt 18 is that of a man being turned over to tortured slavery, with whippings and beatings by the "tormentor/jailer/torturer" spurring him to work to get his debt paid through slave labor as quickly as possible.
To say that the concept of torture or punishment is NOT in view in Matthew 18:34 would certainly be disputed by most of the translators/translations. It is hard to put that sort of meaning (a mere "jailer") on a word that was used to denote torture or those who inflicted it, especially when there is a common word for "jailer" as we think of it that could have been used but was not. To derive any OTHER meaning (besides an infliction of pain) to the word must DEMAND a clear indication otherwise within a context, since "torture" or "infliction of pain" is clearly the idea that the term is used to convey.
---------------------------
RE the concept of "who is a child of God": it is a Biblical concept that the general Fatherhood of God (as Creator) does NOT convey a special familial status with God thereby. The oft-used concept of Fatherhood of God since He is our Creator, the Brotherhood of Man as His creation, and all of us as one big earth family is really not a Biblical concept at all, especially in the way it is primarily bandied about. It is not "deft wordsmanship" on my part to underscore that fact, but rather a recitation of what the Biblical message is. John 1:12 clearly indicates that it takes action in "receiving Him [Jesus as our Savior]" if we are to BECOME "children of God" in that familial sense. John 3 also talks about the spiritual birth that God requires of us.
Further, later in the same Gospel the very concept of God's attitude toward those non-children is addressed. John states that "the wrath of God abides on" those who do not believe in the Son (John 3:36).
Have you seen the deep anger that has been expressed by those directly affected by the terrorist bombings? Now imagine what sort of anger an Almighty God would be capable of. And imagine this anger not going away, but remaining. The reason? Because Jesus willingly gave His life as a substitute for them, and they will not put their trust in that brutal horrendous sacrifice that He lovingly made of Himself. To God, that is the equivalent of spitting in His face, and His anger will rest upon those who do so.
"Sinners in the Hands of An Angry God" is how Jonathan Edwards phrased it. It may not be the nice thing to mention, and it may make us squeamish to contemplate, but God indeed will punish those who reject the substitutionary death of Jesus as payment for their sins; and, alternatively, He will freely grant eternal life with Him to those who ACCEPT that gift. That is what the Bible says: and each of us must choose for ourselves what we will do with that choice.
|
| 174 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Sep 17, 15:17
|
F Gump
But of course nothing in the context shows that this slave was tortured rather that 'jailed'. The word clearly has two posible meanings as the New Living Bible plainly translates it jail. You may embellish away over how bad it must have been in that slaves prison cell in your fevered imagination but you cannot prove the point from the word basanos.
If words such as basanos and kolosin have several meanings and one conforms to my interpretation and one conforms to yours you cannot appeal simply to those words to prove your point.
Thank you very much but I understand what it means to be a spiritual child of God. You are still accusing God of passing his physical children, people he created, thru the fire. A concept that had never occured to God.
And I always talking with you Lutefisker. 8]
|
| 175 | puckprophet
ID: 52712723
Mon, Sep 17, 15:36
|
sorry to have offended some of you yesterday , i have as much misplaced anger as the next guy. peace.
|
| 176 | The_Mentors
ID: 9432248
Mon, Sep 17, 15:49
|
Religions missiles
|
| 178 | F Gump
ID: 53837117
Mon, Sep 17, 16:43
|
BALDWIN
Maybe you miss my point: more likely, I was not clear enough when I stated it before. What tells me that the slave in Matt 18 was "tortured" was the use of the word basanos (or, basanistes) itself to refer to who was in charge of him.
When we started this discussion, I thought that "torture(r)" (or the concept of pain, and its infliction) appeared as a more common meaning, since you had said it also meant jailer/restrainer; but as I research, I have found that "torture(r)" is actually the ONLY sense of this word.
I have looked back through all the lexicons, exegetical dictionaries, and exegetical commentaries (ie, those that examine the text from the original to ascertain its intended meaning) since we started this discussion and all of them UNANIMOUSLY state that the word basanos (and related words) have the idea of infliction of pain as the meaning. Mere confinement or restraint is NOT a possible meaning. The only type of jailer to whom "basanistes" referred was the torturer. So indeed, you might be able to use the word "jailer", but it was a JAILER WHO TORTURED PEOPLE. Only.
This meaning is the same throughout all of Greek literature, wherever the term is used. Abbott-Smith's Lexicon of New Testament Greek, which is the generally acknowledged standard, defines "basanistes" as "a torturer, used of a jailer" and "basanos" as "examination by torture", or "torture/torment".
The New Living Bible tells where he went (prison), but it obviously does not convey in English the full sense of what was written in Greek.
-----------------------
One last reply to your parting Jeremiah 7 allusion: you said that punishment by fire was "a concept that had never occured to God." As I said earlier, Jeremiah was rather stating that such a form of WORSHIP was not conceived of by God. There is no reference here, one way or the other, as to whether such PUNISHMENT was something that God would ever utilize. It was the idea of "worship by human sacrifice in fire" that God had never conceived of, nor desired in any way.
|
| 179 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155
Mon, Sep 17, 17:07
|
So basically by your reading God was saying 'What are you doing, stop stop, where in the ouchie gouchie did you ever get the idea to put your children thru the flames, here let me do that.'
No matter how I might like to keep this as polite and civil as posible I just cannot respect that POV.
|
| 180 | Lutefisker
ID: 588561616
Mon, Sep 17, 23:43
|
F GUMP...With your arguement regarding Matthew 18:34, I would like to thank you for giving one of the strongest arguements for purgatory that I have ever heard.
Matthew 18:34-35 "And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, TIL HE SHOULD PAY ALL THAT WAS DUE UNTO HIM. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brothers their trespasses."
Obviously, in the strictest literal sense of the word, the punishment will only continue for a time.
|
| 181 | F Gump
ID: 53837117
Tue, Sep 18, 05:46
|
BALDWIN
I will just have to agree to disagree with you and move on, then. Though I don't like your "paraphrase" and it doesn't exactly convey what I think is being written in Jeremiah, I accept your concept of disgust at what I believe God has told us. My sense is that it is what the Bible says, and as such I believe I am forced to accept it as is.
LUTEFISKER
The concept of purgatory would be a good parallel if (a) the Bible explicitly mentioned such a place or concept, and (b) we had the capacity/ability to pay for our own sins. I don't think the Bible supports either idea, even in this passage in Matt 18. (SIDE NOTE: The debt mentioned in this passage, in today's dollars, was in excess of a BILLION dollars - thus, at slave wages, it could never be repaid. The command to be a tortured slave til it was repaid would have been a permanent punishment as a result: he could not even keep up with interest on the debt.)
Additionally (and even more importantly) I also think that, if sin were something that we somehow had the ability to pay for on our own, that Jesus would never have had to die. Yet He did: there was no other way.
To discuss the theological concepts involved will be a long detailed road here, and lead to many side issues. It is wiser, I think, if we do our own study on what the Bible says about these things rather than begin what would be a lengthy and eventually sometimes acrimonious discussion in many more areas.
|
| Rate this thread: | If you wish, you may rate this thread on scale of 1-5. Ratings should indicate how valuable or interesting you believe this thread would be to other users of this forum. A '5' means that this thread is a 'must read'. A '1' means that this is a complete waste of time. If you have previously rated this thread, rating it again will delete your previous rating. If you do not want to rate this thread, but want to see how others have rated it, then click the button without entering a rating, or else click here. |
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|