I never said that there had to be multiple interpretations. You are free to lay out the arguments that persuade you of any single interpretation–as you have done.
However, others who are not persuaded by the same arguments have no obligation to accept your interpretation. At most, one interpretation will be true. (All may be false, of course.) However, when one goes beyond declaring one’s own interpretation to the point of declaring that others must be false and that the issue is settled in one’s favor, one has simply let a bit of hubris lead one over the line.
If you have no belief at all in any of this why even bother to join in the debate? Simply to play Devil’s Advocate?
And it has nothing to do with hubris. It has nothing to do with proving I’m “right” and others are “wrong”
The only thing I want is to represent Christianity the way I believe the Bible presents it. The traditional belief of eternal torture for finite crimes portrays a God that is the biggest tyrant in the universe. Traditional Christianity tries to excuse that because it doesn’t know what else to do with the issue.
But if the misinterpretations are cleared up, it’s easy to see that God is, in fact, a God of love, as John Clay said in a previous post (he is worthy to be praised).
If want to call that hubris then sure, call it whatever you want.
Due to the genocide and harsh punishments (death) in the OT I wouldn’t say it is “easy” to see God as a God of love… but I think he could be worthy of praise since he’s not particularly sadistic and some aspects of his creation are impressive. At the moment I’m not sure whether I’d want to praise him for an eternity though… maybe I’d rather he make me burn up.
I did not say I had no belief. I said that my belief is not relevant to the discussion.
Go back and look at my posts to this thread. This is the Straight Dope. My contributions were specific to presenting factual information that was being missed in the discussion. Everyone is welcome to the interpretations that resonate best with them. However, an awareness of the apocalyptic writings that were in circulation at the time, the widespread use of the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Scriptures, and the Hellenistic culture (rather than the specific beliefs of the Jews of the Levant), all play a part in shaping the texts that we find in the canon. Those are the issues that I raised in an effort to bring all the facts supporting anyone’s beliefs to the discussion.
You then tried to make some big point that Luke 16 is a parable, as if anyone had claimed otherwise. This ignored the fact that for the parable to work, the audience had to have some understanding of the words and images employed. Your fascination with whether that passage is literal or symbolic ignores the audience.
For the rest of our interactions, you have continued to try to argue against points I have not raised and now you want to claim that if I am not arguing my personal beliefs, I have no role in the discussion. meh
Sorry but you’ve been very antagonistic and condescending to me. Perhaps it wasn’t your intent to sound that way. Perhaps I read more into it that I should have.
I will take some time to read your comments later on today.
So I read your comments, and while you do provide some interesting history, you are basically explaining it from the point of view that the Jews of the time were likely to believe the same concepts as the Greeks of the time. Which is fine, that is true. Remember though that just like today, there were different sects and different interpretations even back then. The Pharisees believed in Hades just as the Greeks did, but with a Jewish spin on the concept. The Saducees on the other hand, were pretty much in the annihilation camp, as they did not believe in an afterlife at all. And there were other groups as well all with different variations.
So first of all, even back then there was no consensus on interpretation. Rather, it was just like today, as you said, every group interpreted it the way they wanted to.
Second of all, Jesus never made an effort to correct either group on anything. He simply called them all hypocrites and a generation of vipers, etc etc.
Third of all, most Protestant Christians ignore the apocryphal books. If one is to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then we have to believe that the books which were chosen are indeed the books that God wanted to choose. The Book of Enoch is pretty much ignored by both Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant groups. It was never considered to be canon to anyone except some smaller Christian sects, and this is where the doctrine of eternal torture gets most of its basis from. If it were that important, God would have made sure that it became canon just like the other books.
This is all, of course, assuming that the person is a believer in Jesus. A secular person will probably not consider the Bible to have any divine inspiration at all, but rather just a collection of tales, some of them allegorical in the history of the Jewish people. Such a person really would have no interest in trying to decipher any doctrine from the Bible, since such a person would discard them all outright.
Such a person would also view all of the texts as having equal authority (none).
Such a person would wonder at the mind of someone who does think it is the word of their God (or inspired), but then actively chooses to take out only bits and pieces when he likes to, and simply ignores other bits.
Such a person would also wonder at the mind that accepts this book as the True Word of God (or inspired), but then just shrugs when the texts contradict each other or are just plainly incorrect. Then, all of a sudden it is not a rule book but more of an errrmm.. “Spiritual Guide” or something.
You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want. To the unbeliever it is, however, always a bit of a puzzle how believers can claim authority from the Bible while they themselves just chuck whole chunks of that same Holy Book in the bin.
I don’t see how the Greeks as much influence on old testament Hebrew beliefs.
Egyptian and Mesopotamian theories of the afterlife probably had more impact on them.
Abrarham is originally from Ur, and they had some ideas that are still with us today.
They had a stairway to heaven, but I’m not sure if anyone but gods got to use it. I don’t know if dead people got to go to heaven in their religion. That might be reserved for gods. For people dust is their food, mud is their bread and they are clothed in feathers like a bird (I assume that means rags).
They had a hell with seven gates to pass through, but it was ruled by a woman.
And, surprisingly, there were zombies. The hell queen threatens to rise up the dead to feast on the living.
Depends on whether “God” is some type of extraterrestrial influence.
I believe there is technically no “afterlife”. But I do believe that there are extraterrestrials out there advanced enough that for all intents and purposes, can act as “Gods” to us.
They probably have the capability to resurrect the dead. They or “He” if it is a single entity.
It might sound like a kooky theory, but if it ends up to be false, and there is no afterlife at all, what difference does it make in the end? We won’t remember this debate at all.
I hope this okay as a reply ,but I find it hard to believe a Good, Loving , Supreme Being would allow a monster he created would destroy his other beings, knowing all things ahead of time. And why if Heaven is such a perfect place of Happiness why Satan and the other Angels revolted. And he would have known ahead of time that If He created a monster, he being all knowing could see into the see into the future. I am only a mortal who does not know all things, but if I knew a being that I knew would be evil, I would not create it in the first place! It just doesn’t add up to me.
