I have come to believe that God is a merciful God who loves all of his children beyond anything we can imagine. No one will be sentenced to eternal damnation. I believe that life after death will be far different than anything we imagine – just as the Creator is far beyond our ability to pin down with words.
We need to stop hitting each other over the head as if we really understand anything.
It is always assumed that people commit a finite amount of sins here on earth which could be compensated for in a finite period of time - thus, eternal punishment is unjust. But what if those who are sent to hell rage against God more and more, thus continually adding to their guilt?
If true (this is not stated in the bible), people’s guilt would not diminish with time but rather would increase.
I believe in the reality of eternal punishment because that is what the bible teaches, and I believe by faith it is the inspired word of God.
People are happy to accept an eternity in paradise when it is far more than we think we deserve.
Really?
Where?
I wouldn’t presume to speak for them, but my impression is that it’s often this way because fundamentalists are easy targets for incisive debate - they’re also quite easy to categorise into neat little pigeon holes and people at both extremes of the scale seem to like doing that.
Liberals, or whatever it is you want to call those people who occupy the grey area between the extremes are moretricky to deal with; if, for example, you assert “HAH!, the Bible is probably inaccurate, so this faith business is all subjective” and your opponent says “Yeah, I see what you mean, but so what?”, it sort of takes the wind out of your sails and We Can’t Have That.
Thanks, Dio. I don’t think you were pedantic. It was an important correction.
The bible mentiones eternal punishment in Matth. 25:46, also Daniel 12:2
Ahhhhhhh some facts and rational thinking. What a relief. I’m getting all weepy eyed.
Read my post # 62, and remove the snarkiness, which I don’t mean to direct at you.
“This verse says this” and “that verse says that” are not valid in such a discussion.
WHY do they say that? Contextually, culturally, historically, linguistically?
I would like to hear you, Joe Keysor, explain in these contexts, or other equally valid ones, where and how the Bible teaches that eternal punishment exists.
While the Bible might be divine, its divinity is not a proof of your interpretation.
For example, if I say, “It’s going to rain,” what does that mean? Now, soon, tomorrow, eventually? You need more than just one phrase from me in order to make sense of it, even if you take it on faith that I know it will rain.
I like this board, and may even pay to stay on after my trial month runs up. It is refreshing to get some serious challenges. Sorry to write such a long post, I have tried to be brief.
The bible plainly teaches that there will be punishment in a lake of fire (I use the King James, which I believe is the most accurate and authoritative translation in English, though its archaic language is a difficulty for many).
Of course, this does not refer to eternity, but let us note first the existence of a place of punishment. Now, is it unjust, that people should be punished in some fashion and to some extent for the wrongs they have done? The concept of punishment is not, in and of itself, unjust, but just.
As to eternity, Rev. 20:10 says that the devil will be tormented for ever and ever, so eternity is plainly stated for the devil at least (not for each individual). Matth. 25:46 does refer to “everlasting punishment” for the wicked. Mark 9:44 refers to fire that “never shall be quenched: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” Odd, that there should be some kind of a tormenting worm that dies not, and a fire that dies not, while the objects of the punishment have ceased to exist. Revelation 19:3 says the smoke of the great whore will rise up “for ever and ever.”
True, whether or not the bible is accurate is a different question. Also, if the bible is accurate, it does not follow that all of my interpretations of it are accurate.
As to pros and cons and debate, there is a place for that, but one could write a whole book on this subject, which I have neither the time nor the inclination to do. If I did, I doubt you would study it carefully!
You say " ‘This verse says this’ and ‘that verse says that’ are not valid in such a discussion. WHY do they say that? Contextually, culturally, historically, linguistically?" Who says they are not valid? Jesus says there will be eternal punishment - one can argue if that is true or false, but the meaning is clear enough. Why did he say that? because, I believe, he was giving us truths from God for our benefit. Culturally? Historically? These are eternal truths that transcend culture and history and apply to all men everywhere. Linguistically? Linguistically, the statement “There will be a day of judgement and those who are forgiven of their sins will go to heaven while those who are not will go to a place of punishment” has this meaning - “There will be a day of judgement and those who are forgiven of their sins will go to heaven while those who are not will go to a place of punishment.”
I am not trying to be clever, but that is my sincere belief. This will almost certainly not be to your satisfaction, but these are, according to the bible, spiritual mysteries that are foolishness to the natural mind (I Corinthians 2:13-14)
Would you like to debate this argument concerning the justice of eternal punishment? It is not from the bible, but is my own speculation:
Matthew 25:46 does not refer to Gehenna or to hell but to everlasting punishment.
Mark 9:43 says “into the fire that never shall be quenched” - this does not depend on the meaning of Gehenna, which precedes it. The bible also describes God as light, incontrast to “the outer darkness” (Matth. 8:12) where there will be not annihilation but weeping and gnashing of teeth.
That the Christian conception of hell refers to an ancient Jewish eschatological belief is a dogmatic assertion not warranted by an objective consideration of the verses I have posted - for the sake of brevity please see the immediately preceding thread.
Hell is not a mistranslation of Gehenna, but an apt transference of an earthly type or example to an eternal truth (as is often done in the New Testament). Anyway, I doubt that a cynic can do more than raise objections. He cannot, in my view, enter into the spirit of the book he is examining.
The Greek word which is translated “forever”, “eternal”, and “everlasting” is “aionian”, more literally “pertaining to the aion”. The phrase “forever and ever” is literally “for aions of aions”. Now, they MAY denote eternity, especially when they refer to God and the Life inherited by His children, but they need not. It depends on the context. A more accurate English translation for “aionian” might be “ongoing”, which could refer to eternity or temporality.
Basically, there are three schools of thought in Christian circles-
Traditional- eternal punishment for immortal souls-
the soul exists infinitely to suffer whatever damnation it incurs.
Annihilation- eternal punishment for mortal souls-
the damned soul goes through a temporal process of final eternal destruction .
Universalist- temporal punishment for immortalized souls-
the condemned soul is punished justly for its sins & till it opens itself to
God’s Love whereupon its reconciled to Him.
There are of course subsets in each group.
I believe in universal opportunity- that every soul will get whatever opportunity is required for reconciliation with God through Christ, I also believe in a sense in God’s universal embrace- that God/Jesus will bring every soul into His/Their Presence. The symbol in both the Jewish and Christian Scriptures for the Presence of God is Fire (and in some places even brimstone, Isaiah 30 & Rev 14)-
every soul will enter God/Jesus’s Fiery Love and Justice- hopefully the vast majority will reconcile to Him, but for those who refuse- they may have to languish eternally in the Rejected Love of God or God in His mercy may allow them to eventually burn out of existence.
God’s Fire in Gehenna “Hell” is eternal, the soulds within it may or may not be. At any rate, God is technically not punishing anyone. God is just being God. Those who refuse surrender to Him just can’t stand Him. There are Judgement parables, attributed to Christ, in which the Judge (Jesus &/or Father God) tells the damned soul to go away or the damned soul complains of its fate- they can be reconciled to my interpretation by seeing those damned souls as desiring, even demanding the benefits of God’s Presence, but on their own terms. They are in His Presence griping while refusing to join His Household. (Notice that not once are the damned shown as apologizing or asking- they are complaining & trying to justify themselves.)
Welcome to the SDMB. Consider a membership. I’m been here several months and find the discussions very interesting and informative. You’ll find some very intelligent and well informed dopers that will challenge you and offer some researchable facts and not just opinions.
I’m not a bible scholar in any way but I’ve done enough reading to see that there is some disagreement among scholars on the translation from the earliest texts. Whenever I read the bible I keep that in mind. I also have to consider who chose which writings to include and why they were chosen.
From other readings I gather that the KJV is not usually regarded as the most accurate and authoritative translation. Haven’t there been numerous corrections since the first drafting? Perhaps other posters have more references in this area.
Welcome, Joe, and well met.
I would disagree with you in saying that there is a difference between punishment and justice; furthermore, that, while the lake endures, the burned do not.
As far as Chapter 9 of Mark’s Gospel, again, it is not the torment that is unending, but the fire. ‘The worm’ is an allusion to previous literary conceit and not central to (or even a part of) Jesus’s teachings.
This is the danger that quoting individual verse presents to the continuation of discussion. I refer you again to my “it’s going to rain” metaphor. “Unending fire” might imply “unending torment,” but a closer reading shows no reason to connect the two.
As far as Revelation goes, I don’t pretend to have a handle on that (no one in their right mind does), but ‘the great whore’ is generally considered to be Babylon, Rome, the Vatican, modern civilization, contemporary morals, or whatever the anti-church du jour happens to be- and the idea behind its forever burning is simply to communicate the eternity of Christ’s Church and the finite (and prone to a violent end) reality of corporeal life.
Be careful about assuming what I will and won’t do.
Now, I don’t want to trash your sincere beliefs, and I don’t mean to do so here. But truth is made to shine through examionation, so here goes.
Actually, I argue that Jesus did not say there will be eternal punishment. I argue that Jesus preached destruction of the sinful and communion with God through Him. The same meaning that you say is so clear regarding eternal punishment, I say is so clear regarding the destruction of the sinful. So it’s not so clear.
And, since you and I are BOTH using the Bible as our ultimate authority, the burden is on each of us to prove that the ultimate authority says what we believe it to say.
Again, we agree here, but we don’t agree HOW.
Truth does, but the packaging does not.
When Paul admonishes the Church in Ephesus not to resist temporal authority, and for slaves to obey, for example, it is my contention that he is not telling everyone everywhere to shut up and do as told by the government. He is actually telling a very small group of very persecuted people not to draw attention to themselves or start an impossibly doomed-to-fail revolution- especially as Paul believed in the imminent Second Coming.
Now, there are supremacist groups that use Paul’s letter to the Ephesians as justification for slavery, which is part of history and was once culturally accepted. But that certainly doesn’t make it right.
Sure, it means that, if you have your translation correct and if your interpretation of the ideas behind the words are correct, across two thousand years, three languages, and a whole lot of revision. But, even assuming that they are, a “place of punishment” does not state or even imply eternity.
The wages of sin is death, not Hell. The fires may burn forever, but it only takes them a second to incinerate me.
Again, you and I disagree here. Jesus was Jewish. Preaching to Jews about a new Covenant with God and a new Law. His education was Jewish. His worldview was Jewish. The people to whom he had to relate were Jewish. Objectively speaking, it stands to reason that Jesus’s teachings were Jewish. Remember, he called himself the “Son of Man,” which was a traditional Jewish title for a traditional Jewish prophet.
While we might agree, we still disagree on whether that eternal truth is “eternal punishment” or “destruction of the body.”
This is disingenous. Who determines who is a cynic? You? Does the fact that someone diagrees with you make that person a “cynic” and do his refutations of your beliefs then become “objections?”
You cannot claim the authority of the Bible as your own, Joe, because many others do the same and because no one really can.
I do get the distinct impression that your faith holds to the more (for lack of a better term) “fundamentalist” bent than mine. While that doesn’t make you a bad person in my eyes, it does not give you a pass on gathering evidence either.
Faith is strengthened by questioning.
I am afraid that that is an assertion that would need to be supported.
The New Testament was written in Greek. Those places where the word “hell” appears in English translations are translations of the Aramaic word “gehenna” (with the exception of the single Lucan reference to Hades). To assert that the translation of an Aramaic word in a Greek text to an English word (which, ironically, came from the Norse place of endless cold) through the Latin infernus, is the “real” meaning of the word requires an explanation, not an assertion.
There are explanations, of course, but the weight that one lends to one explanation over another is probably going to be colored by the belief that one brings to the exigesis (whether that belief be one of the flavors of Christianity or some flavor of skepticism or criticism).
Alternatively, a skeptic* may not be blinded by the accumulation of 1900 years of accreted commentary finding the “spirit” of the book in theology that may be only 150 or 480 or 750 years old with the errors that may have entered in those times and so gain a clearer view of the original meaning–or not, skeptics do bring their own biases, of course.
*(The “cynic” was a nice play on the username, but if carried too literally, demonstrates an ignorance of just who Diogenes the Cynic was, historically, along with an ignorance of the beliefs and education of the user who carries that name.)
I notice you didnt bother to read further where i stated that not all property deeds have to have “vatican” as the title holder. however, to be fully recognised tributes and fees must be paid. i was pointing out that most money doesnt just slip into the innards of a deacon’s pocket book the accounting practices at the vatican are very complex actually.
However, i watched that figure on a documentary. i dont know where to begin to look for such information but i’ll look. in the mean time i acknowledge that you had the superior debate on this issue.
and as for slavery and the church
it’s pretty long so i suggest you bookmark…dont just skim it. i missed alot of pertinent points when i did that.
ill post more links if you’re still not convinced.
[QUOTE=FriarTed]
Very interesting thanks. I’ve always found it enlightening to realize the possibilities available to us when exposed to the original text and not just accepting a single translation as the only and authoratative option.
You may find it interesting to note that RLDS scripture, the Doctrine and Covenants,section 76 speaks of different degrees of reward for people and the opportunity to continue our learning and growth. They describe the only people who are cast out as the sons of perdition. These are the ones who come to a full knowledge of God but because of free will, they still choose not to be in God’s presence.
There’s a section in the Book of Mormon that describes the unquenchable fire as the light that shines trough us in the presence of God. As the bible says. Everything is revealed and nothing is hidden. Being in the presence of God without being prepared is more painful than not being in God’s presence. Like going from the darkness and staring directly into the sun. It’s too much to bear.
Interesting point. In some parables the people claim to be worshipping God and seem surprised to find Jesus telling them “you never knew me”
Let me get this straight:
You asserted that the Catholic Church supported slavery in connection with U.S. Supreme Court decisions by holding that black people were not (fully) human.
As support for your position, you link to a site that clearly states:
In other words, years before the U.S. became a country, the Catholic Church condemned slavery. It was opposed by slavers who made the argument that the people enslaved were not fully human. The Church rejected that argument, continuing to hold that slavery was wrong. Some later historians distorted that condemnation to pretend that the Church supported that which it actually condemned. You then assert–in contradiction to your own citation–that the reference to badly written history supports your position.
Through the rest of the article, no mention is made of the U.S. Supreme Court, which was my actual question about your actual statement.
(This is not to claim that there was never hypocritical acceptance of slavery within the church; there often (not always) was. However, your claim that the Church held that blacks were not human is directly contradicted by your citation and the linkage to U.S. laws and courts does not even appear.)
As to your property claims, I will simply assert that they are wrong. There are numerous cases of different diocese acting ijn ways that the Vatican does not approve with the Vatican taking no action to control the “property” involved. Basically, your assertion is simply that there is some sort of imaginary “ownership” conferred by a moral requirement to obey church laws. Without a demonstration of such an event, I will place my knowledge of Church practice against your rather vague assertions. And I further note that you have done nothing to bolster your “30%” claim that has no basis in fact.
If you take what you just said and wait two thousand years…what do you think its going to be like at that time?
It’s a complicated concept. just how you typed up that slightly complex answer just shows how futile it is to try and wade through what bible references actually mean assuming you translate properly in the first place.
Interesting. What would you consider destruction of the sinful. I see sin as the things that seperate us from God. It occurs in our minds and hearts and translates into action. So could Jesus promising the destruction of the sinful be a promise that the things that seperate us from God will be destroyed.
1 Cor 3:
13Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.
14If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
Good point. I sometimes make the comparision of the purest water going through an impure filter. What comes out may be great, but it is still changed by the filter it passed through.
How true. Many times in a discussion I try to point out that what some people point out as spiritual truth, or the word of God, is really *their interpertation * of whatever authority they cite. {often the bible} Of course each person must make their own judgement call on meaning, but they still should note the difference beween their opinion or chosen viewpoint, and “eternal truth” and the “will of God”
Well, then. I reckon we should toss out Euclid’s Elements. Surely, it can no longer be understood.