The strange concept of eternal hell suffering.

Great Debates
101

Inferring meaning is a bad idea. You miss real points by focusing on points that may not have roots. I was talking specifically about a situation where the Bible was rendered fully false (proven as authored by L Ron Hubbard) and what I, personally, would do in that situation to illustrate my relationship with Biblical teachings.

No. Perhaps it would be best to refer to what I actually said to clear up any confusion:

My statements in response to you (twice) were intending to clarify and support this opinion. Does this clear up confusion? Honest question with no snark.

102

No - because you (or maybe I’m confusing you with the OP ) -still like to hold onto the Jesus side of this - which implies that you accept atleast some of the supernatural aspects of the bible - resurection, reward, ransom for sins to a GOD, etc - you’ve just decided what aspects are worth ‘focusing on’.

All that is fine - of course - but its not ‘logical’ from the insistence that the only reason ‘HELL’ exists is to control people - the stance from the OP - when in reality - while HELL may be the ‘punishment’ that is reffered to - HEAVEN is used just as much as a reward - and has a higher rate of conversion, can be just as used as a controller.

Now, you said a moment ago that you didn’t specify heaven, etc - but if you accept an afterlife - and you reject ‘hell’ - what else is there? is it ‘reincarnation’ on earth to try again? beaming up to some other planet for a second go as a priest king? or life in ‘heaven’ with all the other believers?

Or, if you believe in no afterlife (as I do) - then the rest of this debate is moot other than to clarify/point out logical flaws in your ‘faith’ - and before you say you haven’t proffessed a ‘faith’ - yes you ahve - if you believe in an afterlife (good, bad, etc) - that is one of the definitions of ‘faith’ from the bible.

If in the end, all you are really saying is you ‘accept the good, reject the bad’ reguardless of source - well, not much to debate there really - its a fine philosophy.

103

There is no doubt to those informed that the bible is a valid historical document, it has far too much confirmed archaeology on its side.

We have found the tomb of Darius-I the Great , mentioned in Ezra 6:1-12.

The City of Ramesses , Gen. 47:11,27 has been found.

The Nuzi tablets has been found

The Sumerian Kings list was unearthed.

The tomb of Cyrus the Great, Isaiah 45

The tomb of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the Cave of Machpelah.

We have the bone box of the High Priest Caiaphas who slapped Christ in the face

We have the bone box of Simon the Cyrenian who helped carry Jesus cross.

We have the Mari Tablets

We have the actual house of Jesus friends Mary and Martha

We have the Apostle Peters house

We have found the Via Dolorosa

History was recorded and confirmed by the bible in these unique discoveries;

The campaign of Israel by Pharaoh Shishak, ( 1 Kings 14:25-26), as found recorded on the walls of the Temple of Amun in Thebes, Egypt.

The revolt of Moab against Israel, ( 2 Kings 1:1, 3:4-27), Recorded on the Mesha Inscription.

The fall of Samaria, ( 2 Kings 17:3-6, 24, 18:9-11), to Sargon II, King of Assyria, as found recorded on his palace walls.

The campaign of the Assyrian King Sennacherib against Judah, ( 2 Kings 18:13-16), as found recorded on the Taylor Prism.

No myths, just plain historical facts.

104

Cracked article: Hell is nowhere mentioned in the Bible.

105

I do consider myself Christian in that I believe the supernatural aspects of a religious God, but I was not discussing my faith. I was discussing what I think the best light to view the bible is in. Your confusion is understandable if you considered my position and another person’s as one and the same.

And there is a large weight of archaeological evidence that is currently in absence. Remember that historical documents from the ancient past (pretty much ALL of them) are not as concerned with fact as with extolling a point of view. Facts between the Bible and archaeology are the barest of relations. Historical texts would mention historical figures to provide cultural context and not historical basis for future generations.

There is even some debate that those historical contexts were updated over time and by multiple tribes of Israel and only became fixed after the Torah became a single written document.

To think about this, let’s imagine that in the year 3000 your descendant finds a book (from the year 2500) that says:

“Under President George W Bush, the average life span quadrupled for the US’s population and people knew 40 years of peace and prosperity. His son, Barack Obama, ascended to the throne after GWB died from leading his troops valiantly in battle against the evil Afghanistani Empire.
Under President Barack Obama’s reign, who only reigned for 20 years, he mismanaged the economy so badly that everyone lost employment. Millions were killed for food and Obama was eventually deposed for lying to the Congressional Committee about having sexual relations with Mrs Lewinsky. He died in shame.”

Well, now. President George W Bush was real. President Barack Obama was real. And Mrs Lewinsky was real.

Obviously, that is a highly historical document and it’s contents can be shown to be accurate. Or maybe not. In the year 3000, we just don’t know what’s accurate beyond what we can prove.

106

Whichs says what exactly?
That they got their surroundings right, on occasion? Whoopdedoo.

107

They got it right on these occasions as well;

The siege of Lachish by Sennacherib, exactly recorded in 2 Kings 18:14,17, as found exactly recorded in the Lachish Reliefs. A stunning find.

The fall of Nineveh as predicted by the prophets Nahum and Zephaniah, ( 2:13-15), discovered by archaeologist exactly recorded on the Tablet of Nabopolasar; incredible.

The fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon, recorded in 2 Kings 24:10-14, found exactly recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles.

An Atheist may say Whoopdedoo, but an historian would say incredible find. And a Theist can have his belief confirmed by true factual history.

108

Then you and I are in more agreement than not - and for awhile, I would have been in full agreement (christian by philosphy, etc) - since then I have fully rejected any ‘supernatural’ claim as being what it is - unprovable as well as a distraction to ‘reality’.

Along with that rejection, the bible can then be fully viewed without the requirement of it being treated as something special - and that study can be even more interesting.

109

I’m failing to see how a ‘book’ (any book) that contains verifiable facts - proves that there is a supernatural ‘presence’.

We’ve got LOTS of books today that are far more accurate than the bible is - will that prove there is a god in 2000 years?

110

Christianity (and most other ancient religions) make a lot more sense if you look at them as:

  1. A way to pass down rules for living between generations, especially for people who do not have access to written materials (parables and poems are great mnemonic devices for remembering things)

  2. A comforting belief system for people whose lives were generally nasty, brutish, and short

  3. A way for powerful people to keep the peasants in line.

It’s absolutely true that the Bible is an historical document, in the sense that it describes many historical events. Why shouldn’t it? The Book of Mormon may be bollocks from front to back, but if you read it you might learn something about American history. Many Greek texts are known to be complete fiction yet used by scholars to help understand the history of the ancient world.

However, where the Bible strays from straightforward historical narrative into supernatural events, it has been proven wrong time and again. There is no record of a global flood from Noah’s time. There is no evidence that early humans had much longer lifespans. An Ark as described in the bible is a physical impossibility. The creation story in Genesis, taken literally, has no basis in science whatsoever. The Earth is not 6,000 years old, and was not created in seven days. Etc, ad nauseum.

Many modern Christians get around these contradictions by simply picking and choosing which parts of the faith they accept as literal, and which parts are mere allegory. That’s convenient if you want to reconcile your faith with science, but rather arbitrary. Especially when some concepts that are generally taken literally, such as the existence of a hell of eternal damnation, have very little textual confirmation (and directly contradict other parts of the Bible), while others like Genesis and the Flood are dismissed as allegory despite having large important sections of the Bible devoted to them.

But no one said religion had to be logical or internally consistent. That’s not its purpose.

111

Why are you asking someone who you think is making no sense questions, that makes no sense. The bible is historical, and so was Jesus, as these historical writers confirmed;

Tertullian

Josephus

Suetonius

Thallus

Lucian

Celsus

Sextus Julius Africanus

Tacitus

Origen

The Talmud

Dionysius the Areopagite

Hegesippus

Clement

Conon

Porphyry of Tyre

The Roman Emperor Trajans correspondance to Pliny the Younger

Polycarp

Eusebius

Irenaeus

Ignatius

Justin Martyr

Phlegon

Mara Bar Serapion

Julian the Apostate

Ussher

Paulus Orosius

The Toledot Yeshu

Chrysostom

Macarius the Elder

Aristides the Athenian

Barnabus Quadratus of Athens

112

I don’t see anyone in that list that was alive with Jesus at the time - googled a few names I didnt recognize, one was from the 1500s - so you’re just posting a bunch of people that ‘believed’ he was alive - that is not evidence that he was.

And a couple of items in your list are books - not people.

You’re not very good at this.

Unless your only intention is a gish gallop - in which case, your ‘ok’.

113

+1

114

How many of those historical books are primary?

It doesn’t do any credit to Jesus to say “Here is a list of books that refer to Jesus.” You might as well toss in C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell. How many of those books have references that do not derive from other books?

The list becomes much shorter.

115

Here’s a list you may like, ( or hate)

These are scientist who believed in Jesus;

Louis Aggasiz the founder of Glacial science

Charles Babbage the creator of the computer

Francis Bacon the father of the scientific method

Sir Charles Bell the first to map the brain and nervous system

Robert Boyle the father of modern chemistry

George Cuvier the founder of Comparative Anatomy

John Dalton the founder of Atomic Theory

Jean Henri Fabre the founder of Entomology

John Ambrose Fleming the founder of Electronics

James Joule the first law of Thermodynamics

Johannes Kepler the Laws of plantary motion

Carolus Linnaeus founder of Taxonomy

James Clerk Maxwell founder of Electromagnetic Theory of Light

Gregor Mendel founder of Genetics

Isaac Newton the Universal Laws of Gravitation

Blaise Pascal who contributed to Hydro statics

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory.

Oh this is no myth, great minds believed in and studied Jesus and used their science to prove him to themselves.

116

Do you have evidence that they all believed in the same god, or that any or all of them “used their science to prove him to themselves.”?

117

I think it’s more that different Christian sects concentrate on different aspects of the bible. Some focus on the hell fire, some focus on the salvation, and some focus on the way it’s punctuated (I think this last sect is called the “Grammar Nazi”).

It creates a cacophony for outsiders that makes it hard to understand what “Christian” actually means. Not only are there books that many people don’t read (especially in the US where the protestant version is more common than the Catholic version) but there are also discussions people don’t have about it’s contents, either through fiery faith (How DARE you contradict my beliefs!) or through disregard (I don’t care if another verse directly contradicts my verse. What I believe is paramount!).

The central icons of crucifixion, death, and resurrection have become the hallmarks instead of the much more valuable lessons for being a good person and trying to do right to others. The dogma has outweighed the actual good stuff. I harbor a dislike of the Roman Catholic institution as they started the trend to make their own lives better.

118

Of course, they all were in the same church, the Roman Catholic church. They believed in the same God. And another scientist that I did not list who believed in Jesus, used his science to prove many things to himself that got him in trouble with the church. Galileo Galilei. In fact these christian scientist eventually got tired of " Church controlled science", and they wanted to define the divine; they wanted to be the ones who explained the universe and the mystery of God. And they started fighting the church and eventually broke away from it. That was the birth of the scientific revolution, the church caused it.

Science wanted to be the ones that the people looked to for answers, science began as a search for the divine, they just have too much pride to remember that. Science felt that they could give the answers, instead of some Bishop or Pope that God supposedly talked to.

Know your history. The church is all in it.

119

How, exactly, did Gregor Mandel prove Jesus’ existence to himself through extensive pea-plant cross breeding and hereditary trait-line maps?

“This is truly miraculous, praise Jesus!” is not proof.

Also, your lists without discussion aren’t really useful tools to debate on. Just because a scientist believes in Jesus doesn’t mean that they have somehow proved Jesus’ existence.

120

Your sarcasm proves nothing either, and I hold no interest in it.