Perfect! God grant that I may someday be that eloquent! 
Polycarp:
*I think Libertarian and Jodi, between them, have said most of what I need to say. *
How about, how you say you follow the teachings of Jesus and then reject his “Hell-as-vengeance-on-unbelievers” teachings?
How about other stuff that Jesus taught that I don’t think you will follow or agree with? Need I give examples?
Now if their are teachings of Jesus in the bible that you don’t follow, I can only think of 3 reasons. One that you don’t think that Jesus actually said a particular teaching because his biographers were unreliable. As such I would think that you should hold all his teachings suspect. Another would be that you don’t have enough respect for his teachings to do what he asks. The last being a combination of the above 2 worded so nicely so that not even the Pope would take offense.
Do you have another reason that I’m missing?
It’s my contention that the Bible is, not a standalone unitary document containing “God’s Word” (it itself says it isn’t – read the first and last verses of the Gospel of John as proof)
See now this is just what I am talking about. You are obviously taking the above mentioned verses as being true of something because it suits you, yet have no problem completely discounting “God’s word” when it doesn’t. The above mentioned quotes are a classic example because you really have to use some ingenuity to get them to say what you want. Lets look at them.
John 1:1
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Most literalists that I have spoken with take “Word” (figuratively, hehe) as meaning Jesus. As such when god was flooding the planet Jesus was right there with him, helping make the rain. Now you may have another meaning for “Word” but I don’t see this as even remotely saying that Jesus was quoted somewhere other than the gospels. I wouldn’t even classify this as weak evidence in favor of your point let alone “proof.”
John 21:25
“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.”
This just says that Jesus did lots of stuff that wasn’t recorded. Considering he didn’t live that long, I would think that saying the world couldn’t contain the books required to document this is at least a slight hyperbole. Still it only says that the books should be written it does not say that they ever were.
And why are you talking about “gods word” rather than Jesus’ word since you distance yourself from the former?
Any one of the people intent on finding ‘Biblical contradictions’ can show you an equal number of passages where the writer ascribes to God the condoning or even commanding of genocide, hatred of others, and so on.
Yes, and you discount this. Perhaps they are right and this love stuff is wrong. That would be consistent with you not having answers for “the problem of evil.”
What you’ve described as “cherry picking” is attempting to figure out what from this mass of confusing evidence is supposed to be the “real picture of God” – and I find that in the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels – keeping in mind that each writer had his own personal agenda and paints Jesus from a slightly different perspective, but reading past the individual portraits to the Man they all illuminate different aspects of.
Yes, and in the gospels Jesus was the god of hellfire. All that lip service about love and yet he will cast you into a lake if fire forever for simple disbelief. As I said way back, at least the OT god just smote you and got it over with. Not fair, by any means but a lot better than what Jesus describes.
So here we are full circle again.
Badchad, I am not in the mood right now, for reasons you can see in other threads if you care to, to respond levelly and without offense to this.
For now, let me ask you two things:
-
What commands of Jesus you see me failing to follow? How do you arrive at the conclusions I am not? (It may be that you do actually see me as failing to do so, and I’m just either falling short of what I strive to do, or being incompetent at communicating what I’m doing, so don’t take this as hostile – you’ve made an assertion; I’m asking for clarification or specifics, so we can discuss it, that’s all.)
-
Is it your contention that because Sir Isaac Newton failed to take relativitistic effects into account, the Principia Mathematica and his works on physics are useless? Or that one can get nothing out of Shakespeare because of his reference to the sea coast of Bohemia? What I’m hearing you saying here is that for you, as for some of our fundy. friends, the Bible is an all-or-nothing, black-or-white proposition – that it might contain both truth and falsehood, and that there might be a way to determine which is which, is foreign to your view. If that’s wrong, please correct me – but it seems implicit in your attempts to prove my views inconsistent.
Separate debate, sir. Nowhere in the gospels is Jesus described as the god of hellfire; I assume you’re being metaphorical – but by doing so you’re buying into an evangelical paradigm on what Jesus’s teachings on the afterlife were. It would definitely be worth discussing, but I don’t believe I’ve contended anything on this topic here, so if this is intended to refute my imagery of the Evangelists as four artists painting Jesus’s portrait from differing viewpoints, I think it falls short of addressing what I had to say.
Jumping in…
I’m a biblical literalist, and I have two questions that (hopefully) pertain to this discussion. I was thinking of chiming in but I better ask them first:
-
Why do you feel the source of the bible has any bearing on the truth of what it says?
-
Are you referring to biblical literalism as opposed to an allegorical or spiritualized hermeneutic, or simply giving label to the idea that people believe that Jesus really did walk on the water, or get up from the grave, or make a man who had never walked suddenly get up?
I don’t get over here enough - you guys do have great discussions.
MG
Actually, what Christianity says is that those who perish do so because their sin is not atoned for. I guess you could say that an indication of this is that they do not believe.*
Which is a fancy way of saying that somebody has to pay the debt of sin you owe to God. Not for your specific sinful actions, but for being a characteristically sinful person. You have a fallen, human nature.
Either you accept Christ’s payment to God for your sin or you pay for it yourself - and that includes the lake of fire.
The NT standard of righteousness is indeed more merciful than the OT.
MG
*This would be a good place to insert that in the OT, after the Exodus, the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years until the entire first generation - everybody over 20 years old - perished. It is important to note that ALL of those who perished ‘believed’ in God. Not one was guilty of disbelief. They had seen God part the Red Sea, and heard His voice, and asked Moses to go talk to Him on their behalf because they were so scared by His presence. But, though they believed inGod, they did not believe what God said. That was the crucial difference then, and it probably has importance now as well.
Why do I owe any debt to God? I don’t think I’m a “characteristically sinful person.” I *know[/] my wife and child are not. I don’t owe anybody’s God a damn thing, and even if I did, I can think of nothing more absurd than a blood sacrifice.
Wow, very Chickian, and also unbiblical. Hell as a place of eternal torment does not exist in the Bible, and even if Jesus did teach such a thing (which he didn’t) that would support badchad’s assertion that God is an angry, hateful monster, unworthy of a moment’s love or devotion. Fortunately for Christians, the New Testament cannot be used to prove that God throws people in Hell.
BadChad, you have proven yourself quite adept at arguing about the size, shape and variety of every tree. Too bad you have no ability to recognize the forest.
You seem to think Christians must accept every part of the Bible as true and that those who “cherrypick” are guilty of hypocrisy and logical contradictions. Perhaps there would be some merit to that discussion if religion were a game of logic and people had to justify accepting some portions of the Bible and not others.
But the point Polycarp keeps making _ and this is the forest you cannot recognize _ is that this is not just an issue of logic but also of emotion and faith. He believes he knows God/Jesus in a direct, personal way. He believes that gives him insight into what portions of the Bible are literally true, what portions are parable or poetry and what portions are misinterpretations of God’s word by fallible humans.
It is as if someone wrote a biography of someone you know. You would read it and recognize some portions as dead-on accurate, some as basically right but with some details wrong and some just flat wrong. You would not feel bound by logic to accept the entire biography or reject it entirely. You would use your knowledge to sort the valuable parts from the useless.
Now, you are free to believe that Polycarp is mistaken about his religious experiences. You can argue that he wanted a change in his life and so invented/imagined his theophany. But you cannot disprove his claim and you cannot argue that he must accept or reject the Bible in its entirety.
At least, that’s my interpretation as an atheist.
PS – I always find Polycarp’s comments on religion to be helpful and thought-provoking. Yours, however, are not. They seem to be motivated by anger and petulance. Perhaps you could take a step back and think more carefully about the views Poly is offering.
I think Lib mentioned this, but I figure it bears repeating: You have been cherry-picking bible verses and taking them out of context.
It still seems to me as though you want to raise up a strawman to attack an individual’s (Polycarp’s beliefs. As far as I can see you’ve been applying motives to his posts. Granted you haven’t only insulted Poly, you have consistentally though.
I think Clark K raised a good point about you missing the forest.
Also, I found your attack on Lib to be terribly tasteless. You dismiss him and his good points with a quick raise of the hand, declaring his views on religion to be insane. Of course I’m sure that if you were required to give any proof to this you would most certainly cherry-pick from his points as you seem to love to do (with the bible that is).
Well, Lib doesn’t claim to be doing that:
So “God” by Lib’s definition does not mean “Jesus”. It doesn’t mean “the god of the Bible”. It doesn’t mean “Allah”. As a matter of fact, it doesn’t mean “an aware being”, it doesn’t mean “a good entity”, it doesn’t mean “a sentient creator”, it doesn’t mean “a him” (capital OR small H).
The fact that the definition of Lib’s “G” does not include awareness means that he and badchad are speaking of two seperate things when they say God. It also renders the logic proof worthless to this conversation. It is a trick that Lib plays to make his faith-based worldview seem reasonable. It is an intellectually dishonest trick. When he continues to ignore the point (no matter who raises the objection - i.e. “I wasn’t addressing you!”) and constantly brings up the proof as evidence of a god in the classic sense of the word (aware, powerful, choice-making creature), he is doing himself, and all who read, a disservice.
DaLovin’ Dj
Your post was excellent, short and thought-provoking. My favorite kind!
With all due respect, I don’t like your calling logic a game. Those of us who haven’t had a spiritual experience thus far in our lives have nothing else to go on in our pursuit for the truth. Also, your later assertion that religion was also emotion and faith do not convince those of us who have experienced these two things being used as a force of destruction. I believe that emotion and faith are both based in logical thinking… for example, being afraid of Hannibal at the gates can only happen if you logically knew that Hannibal was powerful and dangerous, or if the people around you are very afraid and you had faith that they knew what they were talking about.
As it relates to the OP, Polycarp’s theophany also follows logic. If God is guiding him in what parts of scripture are true, then Polycarp would have to be insane to not follow the advice of the Almighty. However, the rest of us can’t know if Polycarp is really hearing God or his own intellect. We need some logical proof that the former is happening.
The variety of interpretations of scriptures (and the variety of what’s called “scripture”) seems to me that there’s no one guiding spirit, but rather multiple human intellects with all their wonderful differences in culture, upbringing, wisdom, etc.
I think badchad is presenting good arguments, though he also has been a little sassy. Polycarp has been more dignified, but others opposed to badchad have been far more mouthy… and he has been mellow about it. I thought he needed some defending on this. 
-k
Hi dude,
Your opinion isn’t the one that matters. It doesn’t matter what you think of you; it matters what God thinks of you, because He is the one with the power to judge you.
If you don’t believe that, then it’s obviously not a problem.
Chickian? What a lovely ad hominem. Not necessary to answer.
Unbiblical? Ok, I’ll post some scripture even though I doubt you will look at it…
Hell exists as a Biblical concept, a place of torment, and the torment is everlasting:
Matthew 5:22 (Anyone who calls his brother ‘fool’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.)
Matthew 10:28 (Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.)
Luke 16:23 (In hell, where he was in torment, [the rich man] looked up and saw Abraham far away with Lazarus by his side.)
Mk 9:48 (In hell, the worm does not sleep and the fire is not quenched.)
Fire is a characteristic of hell, and both the soul and body are destroyed there. It is a place where people are in torment. The worm does not die and the fire is not quenched; therefore, hell is said to be everlasting.
I honestly don’t know where you came up with the idea that God doesn’t send people to hell. It certainly is in the New Testament, and it’s quite clear:
Revelation 20:10-15 –
10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beaast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them
12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.
13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done.
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
15 If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Also, you see from v 10 that the lake of fire is in fact eternal torment. And, those who are judged go into the lake of fire with the devil, the Beast and the false prophet.
So, my question to you is,
Who throws these people into the lake of fire? The devil, beast and false prophet can’t do it - they are in the lake of fire. And, they have no right to judge a man’s works. That can only be done by God; indeed, Jesus said he did not come to judge, and saved man is never allowed to judge; sinful man would not logically judge himself and throw himself into the lake of fire.
So who throws them there if it isn’t God?
And, if that makes you assert that God is a monster rather than cry for his mercy, I am not sure what to say.
MG
Mean Girl,
You’ve conflated a few things which you believe are references to the Christian notion of “Hell” but when those things are understood in their proper linguistic and literary context, they are nothing of the sort.
Let’s take the Matthew quotations first. The word translated as “Hell” is actually the Greek word [symbol]Innon[/symbol] (Hinnon). The Valley of Hinnon (“Gehenna” in Hebrew, “Gehennon” in Aramaic) was (and is) a real valley southeast of Jerusalem. It had reputedly been a site for child sacrifice in ancient times. In Jesus’ time it was a garbage dump, especially for animal carcasses and for the bodies of criminals. Fires burned perpetually (and worms did not sleep) in the valley in order to destroy the rotting corpses. The Jews believed that a body, once it had been consumed by fire, could not be resurrected on judgement day.
Jesus was making a statement about utter annihilation, not eternal punishment.
Revelation is highly metaphorical in nature, and the “lake of fire” is again, a place of annihilation not torment. (Torment is only for the devil and his minions). It’s all allegorical anyway. It’s revenge fantasy against the Romans.
Hell was not a Jewish concept. None of Jesus’ followers would have known what he was talking about if he had mentioned a place of eternal torment.
Pictures of Hell today.
You were doing fine until you got here. I’m not sure you can justify the absolute declaration you have made.
Certainly, the Christian notion of hell, as it exists today, was not a part of Jewish theology. However, Jewish apocryphal works from that period had borrowed the imagery of the fires of that valley and used them as metaphors for punishment that was temporal and, occasionally, eternal. There are cryptic references to it in the Assumption of Moses and in the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch. In Esdras Gehenna indicates a furnace within sight of Paradise (much as it appears in Luke’s story of capter 16). 1 Enoch makes several references to it in the context of a place of torment and punishment.
Christians may have added the “eternal” aspect to it or they may have simply picked up an idea current in some Jewish thought at the time, that then fell out of favor among the Jews after the theological retrenchment following the fall of Jerusalem. However, I am not persuaded that the contemporaries of Jesus would not have understood a reference to a place of continuing torment.
The far more prevalent view was that of Hades (or Sheol) as a sort of underground holding tank for the dead. (The concept of the soul, itself, was not strongly developed yet, the dead were just seen as sort of insubstantial shadows awaiting their bodily resurrection) and while some Greek notions of torment in Taratarus may have crept into this view, Sheol was still: a.) a temporary place, not a permanent one, and b.) was for everybody not just for bad people. The Jews believed that judgement day would involve a mass resurrection of the dead, after which the bad people would be annhilated in fire (the “second death” of Revelation) and the good people would live in a new paradise on Earth. Much of the apocryphal imagery you cite is poetic or metaphorical in nature not literal (The story you alluded to in Luke refers to Hades, btw, not Gehenna).
Having said all that, it was probably still an overstatement on my part to say th apsotles would have had no concept at all of otherwordly punishment, but I still think annihilation was the greater fear and I’m pretty sure they would hav been baffled by Dante’s visions.
Oh jeez…that DOES look like hell…
“Well, remember that a little urban planning can improve anything, even Texas!” --“Jerry Farnsworth”
Actually I’ve been to Hell and let me tell you, it was hot!
The Hell Chamber of Commerce websiote. (And you thought you had a tough marketing job! ;))
Now that’s funny!
It would seem that you are backing off from your earlier positions here. Here you are accepting the notion that the accounts were intended to be literal, in the first quote, and in the latter three possibilities of the second.
OK, but then you agree that the Bible itself - as it was originally written and intended to be understood - does NOT support (all of) your positions. But you disagree with it, feeling that it is flawed in parts etc. This is similar to the position advocated by Libertarian earlier.
Whether it is intellectually dishonest would depend on whether you attempt, in other discussions, to present your viewpoints as being supported, or even consistent with the “true” interpretation of the Bible. You appear to be admitting here that it is not. You can not turn around elsewhere and claim that it is.
What is the basis for this (bizarre) assertion?