The Bible Hell

M

Max35

Tank
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
1,280
Reaction score
0
For all the Bible-thumping sadists who believe hell is eternal damnation, here's a link you should visit:

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.html

Here is an important excerpt from the article:

"Hell in the Bible in all the fifty-five instances in which the word occurs always refers to the present and never to the immortal world."
 
It's complete rubbish anyway.

Hell doesn't exist, the bible is a truthful as lord of the rings. And people call kathakasung crazy.
 
Solaris said:
It's complete rubbish anyway.

Hell doesn't exist, the bible is a truthful as lord of the rings. And people call kathakasung crazy.
Click to expand...

A few questions, what is complete rubbish? The Bible, or the article I posted? (I think you are referring to the Bible).

Second who are you calling crazy by your implication, exactly?
 
Max35 said:
A few questions, what is complete rubbish? The Bible, or the article I posted? (I think you are referring to the Bible).
Click to expand...
The bible of course. I don't see much point in over reading a peace of text, that contradicts itself, looking for translation errors and such to reach a conclusion. It's like reading lord of the rings, adding up all the commas and concluding that Frodo was exactly 4ft2inch big, whats the point?
Second who are you calling crazy by your implication, exactly?
Click to expand...
People who believe fictitious texts to be the ultimate truth.
 
Hell is a steeped in paganism construct introduced into christianity hundreds of years after christ ...the biblical hell was the hebrew version that isnt the same as the current christian belief ..so pretty much anything about burning for your sins came long after the death of jebus

in other words it just a fanciful tale in a book full of fanciful stories not meant to even remotely be taken as historical fact ...poppycock nonsense meant to scare children and the dim witted
 
Solaris said:
The bible of course. I don't see much point in over reading a peace of text, that contradicts itself, looking for translation errors and such to reach a conclusion. It's like reading lord of the rings, adding up all the commas and concluding that Frodo was exactly 4ft2inch big, whats the point?

People who believe fictitious texts to be the ultimate truth.
Click to expand...
However, the Bible had a very important function in years gone by, it layed down laws which at the time made a lot of sense. It provided answers to unanswerable questions.

It's had a good run.
 
Solaris and CptStern win the prize, sorry guys. :)

724you_win_the_prize.jpg




But seriously, I can't stand religious nutjobs. They believe everything the bible/koran/[insert holy book here] says... because the books tell them too. BUH!




ComradeBadger said:
However, the Bible had a very important function in years gone by, it layed down laws which at the time made a lot of sense. It provided answers to unanswerable questions.

It's had a good run.
Click to expand...

Yeah but we don't a huge book of nonsense to tell us that we should be nice to our fellow humans.
We should'nt need the threat of hell to persuade us not to do mean things, we shouldn't do them anyway!
 
Like it or not, it did perform an important function - it gave great justification to the system it supported.

Ah, but people DO need the threat of something to stop them from doing bad things - be it hell, prison, a fine, community service etc
 
Of course it played an important role in keeping society but unless your trying to defend feudalism thats not so great a thing.
 
It's something I always wondered. Where the hell (no pun intedned) did the church(es) pull Hell out of. All the preaching from the Bible I have heard say if you're good you live forever with God, if you're evil you die and that's it, you're dead. Where did the idea of Hell bloody well come from. (I haven't read the article yet, I'll read it now)
 
Solaris said:
Of course it played an important role in keeping society but unless your trying to defend feudalism thats not so great a thing.
Click to expand...
I'm not, religion functions as a second system, a means of justifying the status quo - the first system, the means of government.
 
Max35 said:
For all the Bible-thumping sadists who believe hell is eternal damnation, here's a link you should visit:

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.html

Here is an important excerpt from the article:

"Hell in the Bible in all the fifty-five instances in which the word occurs always refers to the present and never to the immortal world."
Click to expand...

What will Black Metal bands sing about now!?
 
CptStern said:
Hell is a steeped in paganism construct introduced into christianity hundreds of years after christ ...the biblical hell was the hebrew version that isnt the same as the current christian belief ..so pretty much anything about burning for your sins came long after the death of jebus

in other words it just a fanciful tale in a book full of fanciful stories not meant to even remotely be taken as historical fact ...poppycock nonsense meant to scare children and the dim witted
Click to expand...

That is true. Although "Not even taken remotely as historical fact", I'm not so sure. Have you ever heard of Sir William Ramsey? He was a former Atheist who went to disprove the Bible, but proved Luke's meticulous description of certain Middle East locations...or something. I'll have to look it up again. I'm not saying it is dead-on accurate as a history book, far from it (as it has been proved it has been "edited") but there is a faint shining of historical truth to it.

Hmm, I wonder if I should but my first post as my sig?
 
Max35 said:
That is true. Although "Not even taken remotely as historical fact", I'm not so sure. Have you ever heard of Sir William Ramsey? He was a former Atheist who went to disprove the Bible, but proved Luke's meticulous description of certain Middle East locations...or something. I'll have to look it up again. I'm not saying it is dead-on accurate as a history book, far from it (as it has been proved it has been "edited") but there is a faint shining of historical truth to it.

Hmm, I wonder if I should but my first post as my sig?
Click to expand...

sure there's historical truth ..those locations did exist ..however the events protrayed within the bible are what's in question here ...and there's no historical basis for many of the events depicted in the bible ..noah's ark, the expulsion from paradise etc etc etc etc
 
Considering the bible was witten SO long after Jesus was around, none of the stories could be accurate anyway.
Anyone who takes it as law (and abides by it completely) is probably stupid enough to think Jesus wrote it himself. But in reality, Jesus was too busy turning water into wine for his orgy-parties, far too busy to bother writing a book about being good.
 
dekstar said:
Considering the bible was witten SO long after Jesus was around, none of the stories could be accurate anyway.
Anyone who takes it as law (and abides by it completely) is probably stupid enough to think Jesus wrote it himself.
Click to expand...
The old testment wasn't.

To be honest, I think thoose who do NOT take it literally are the stupid ones.
 
well depends what we're talking about ..the bible is made up of the old and new testaments ..the old testament is basically the jewish torah ..but you're correct in saying much of the new testament was written hundreds of years after the death of jebus ..we need Mechagodzilla in here to set the record straight (I'm too lazy to look up origins cuz once I start reading passages from the bible my eyes glaze over and my iq drops by about 40 points and for some reason I just cant continue)
 
CptStern said:
sure there's historical truth ..those locations did exist ..however the events protrayed within the bible are what's in question here ...and there's no historical basis for many of the events depicted in the bible ..noah's ark, the expulsion from paradise etc etc etc etc
Click to expand...

Yes, I know you were referring to the events, the Sir Ramsey thing was just an example..a bad one at that. Anyway, I'm sure there are some small collection of events that have a ring of historical truth to them. But I'm just too unambitious to find any.
 
well dont look at me:

" ...and lord said onto Ezekiel "go forth and spread the word for I am the .."

/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, wha? sorry did I nod off?
 
Stern I swear your posts have been getting more stupid and jackasical (No, that's not a word, so sue me)
 
meh not that your opinion matters in the least so I dont see the biggie ..you could always just ignore it ..seems the logical thing to do buuuut noooo you've got to thrown in your 2 cents like a good little troll
 
CptStern said:
meh not that your opinion matters in the least so I dont see the biggie ..you could always just ignore it ..seems the logical thing to do buuuut noooo you've got to thrown in your 2 cents like a good little troll
Click to expand...

Its ironic that the words logic and bible are uttered in the same thread :D
 
well so long as there are quantifiers like "ill-" preceding words like "logical" then it's all good
 
CptStern said:
meh not that your opinion matters in the least
Click to expand...
That's an ironic statement coming from anyone who has spent any amount of time in the politics section (Even though I've probably said something along those lines myself :angel:)

CptStern said:
..you could always just ignore it ..seems the logical thing to do buuuut noooo you've got to thrown in your 2 cents like a good little troll
Click to expand...
:)
 
Rim-Fire said:
That's an ironic statement coming from anyone who has spent any amount of time in the politics section (Even though I've probably said something along those lines myself :angel:)


:)
Click to expand...


yes but my opinions are supported by facts ...so it's not just an "opinion" :)
 
The Bible .. ahh yes. You're all just jealous because nothing you ever write will drive so many people to believe a load of children's stories.
Me however ..
 
Instinct said:
The Bible .. ahh yes. You're all just jealous because nothing you ever write will drive so many people to believe a load of children's stories.
Me however ..
Click to expand...

them I will write the best bible ever, it will hav tigers and cadillacs
 
Just an FYI, people who believe in God don't need to think of hell as a pit of fire or whatever. Simply being away from God is 'hell' in their eyes. The linked article didn't disprove anything except it showed that a variation of the meaning could be miss interpreted.
 
Asus said:
Just an FYI, people who believe in God don't need to think of hell as a pit of fire or whatever. Simply being away from God is 'hell' in their eyes. The linked article didn't disprove anything except it showed that a variation of the meaning could be miss interpreted.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
Like the virgin mary was a mistranslation of "young mary". It had nothing to do with a sexless birth.
 
hmmm sexless birth? you mean immaculate conception
 
CptStern said:
the new testament was written hundreds of years after the death of jebus ..we need Mechagodzilla in here to set the record straight
Click to expand...

The New Testament as we know it today is a severely edited document that has been modified quite a bit from its original meaning.

The first accounts of Jesus' philosophies were written approximately twenty years after Jesus had died. These first copies were fairly close to the Old Testament in terms of content. Jesus elaborated on the rules of Old Testament stressing overall the importance of having both faith and obedience to the Old Testament laws. Jesus provided clearer, more strict definitions (and punishments) for various sins, but did not actually change any of the OT rules.
Originally, Jesus "cleansed the world of sin" by cracking down harsher than ever before.


People followed this Old Testament: Extended Cut for approximately a century after Jesus had died, until a priest by the name of Paul of Tarsus began teaching his own version of events.

Apparently unable to reconcile the lovey Christ with the horrible brutality of the Old Testament, Paul preached against the Christians who followed the Old Testament and declared that it no longer applied. Instead of cleansing sin by being a hard-ass, Paul declared that Jesus' greatest act was "being killed by the romans as a sin-cleansing blood sacrifice", in the same way priests at the time would slay cattle to attone for making graven images or whatever. Except, said Paul, the effect of this sacrifice was permanent: it conveniently canceled out everything that was taught in the Old Testament and most of the New Testament.
In other words, everything that disagreed with Paul.

So rather than having a balance of faith and obedience, Paul declared that obedience had died along with Christ, leaving only faith as a requirement. This easier, sanitized version of God's Law was very popular, to the point that the Old-Testament users basically died out. Paul's teachings were eventually canonized as the official story, while parts of the original writings (which tended to contradict him) were gradually removed.

For example, originally, there were something like thirty gospels:
* Gospel of Thomas
* Gospel of Judas
* Gospel of Philip
* Gospel of Peter
* Gospel of Mary Magdalene
* Gospel of James
* Gospel of Bartholomew
* Gospel of Barnabas
* Gospel of Andrew
* Gospel of Nicodemus
* Gospel of Matthias
* Gospel of the Egyptians
* Gospel of the Hebrews
* Gospel of the Nazoraeans
* Gospel of the Ebionites
* Gospel of Eve
* Gospel of Truth
* Gospel of Perfection
* Gospel of Four Heavenly Realms
* Gospel of Twelve
* Gospel of Seventy
* Gospel of Thaddaeus
* Gospel of Cerinthus
* Gospel of Basilides
* Gospel of Marcion
* Gospel of Appelles
* Gospel of Bardesanes
* Gospel of Mani
* Gospel of Matthew
* Gospel of Mark
* Gospel of Luke
* Gospel of John

Over centuries, all but the last four (in bold) were removed from the biblical canon and largely forgotten.
So that's how the New Testament was turned into the one we have preached as the literal truth today.
 
Asus said:
Just an FYI, people who believe in God don't need to think of hell as a pit of fire or whatever. Simply being away from God is 'hell' in their eyes. The linked article didn't disprove anything except it showed that a variation of the meaning could be miss interpreted.
Click to expand...

It proved quite a bit actually. It's not "could be misinterpreted," it HAS been misinterpreted (along with mistranslations, etc) by quite a few people who believe Hell is a pit of fire. Read the quote in my first post, about "Hell is referred to this mortal world, not an ethereal pit of fire," (paraphrase)


Also, I have to go hunting for another site that addresses the whole "eternal separation from God" concept, in fact it outright refutes it and declares it blasphemy. I'll probably post it tomorrow.

Anyway, I understand about people believing in God think separation is a form of Hell in itself. The whole point was that it refutes a doctrine of mindless torture and sadism. So, yes, it proved much in my opinion. This is a pretty big shift from the common beliefs.

EDIT: Here is the other link:

http://www.savioroftheworld.net/greek.htm

Also, here is the quote from my first post:

"Hell in the Bible in all the fifty-five instances in which the word occurs always refers to the present and never to the immortal world."

This is the opinion of scholars, unless someone else more educated comes along, this is as accurate as it's going to get. I'm not sure if you read the whole thing, but the last two lines of the article sum it up well. In the Bible there is NO ETERNAL PUNISHMENT, according to quite a few educated people. btw, I'm only referring to the first link. They could be wrong (about the Bible), but I don't see any detailed evidence to the contrary. So, honestly, I'm not sure how you think it doesn't disprove anything.

One last quote to clear things up (from the first article):

"Thus the word Hell in the Bible, whether translated from Sheol, Hadees, Gehenna, or Tartarus, yields no countenance to the doctrine of even future, much less endless punishment." So, ALL variations of the meaning have nothing to do with "eternal torment."
 
I have a question for Mecha, who seems to know quite a bit about this little book. Do the two articles I posted disprove "Hell" as we have known it? (within the fiction, of course, never believed in it), or are they just more or less based on opinion? They seem accurate, but they are just a collection of net articles after all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
B
The cut missions of Half-Life: Decay
Replies
2
Views
21K
Evo
Evo
CptStern
Republican says Evolution "straight from the pits of hell"
Replies
8
Views
4K
vivanetx
vivanetx
Acurt1982
The Success and Failure of Silence: Gordon Freeman in 'Half Life' and 'Half Life 2'
Replies
1
Views
2K
Chowder
Chowder
Back
Top