Sensei Meela

Right; Carrier's "basis" [which is, I assume, the references to Enoch] does not appear to be well founded. [In case you missed it, I posted those passages here] Can you explain why you think they are? That is, can you explain why, where or how Enoch and the Gospels contradict the "original" conceptions of Gehenna/Sheol/Hades [cf. Isaiah]?

Jagella

Is his argument less compelling than your argument that Gehenna cannot be translated as hell?

May I ask that we refer to these people as “Christian fundamentalists� or “conservative Christians�? Pejorative words are in poor taste, in my opinion.

At least one of these fundamentalists made an argument that the “weeping and gnashing� of teeth that we read in the gospels refers to hell. You dismissed such arguments by impugning the integrity of people that in most cases you don’t know or even know of.

Carrier evidently felt that such evidence was adequate to establish that the Jews used such words to refer to an afterlife that was believed to be eternal. I would agree. How much evidence does one need to realize that multiple passages in the New Testament that refer to a hellish place of suffering for the souls of unbelievers is indeed a result of Jewish thought?

Perhaps, but I believe we should not get too hung up on the meanings of individual words. What’s really important is the meanings of entire passages.

Jagella

Amaleq13

We don't know since we haven't seen his argument. We've only seen his conclusion.

Jagella

Actually, Roman Catholics also believe in hell, and I learned this fact when I was raised as a Catholic. Much like any other Christian sect, Catholics use the New Testament as the basis for their hell doctrine. If we believe you, then all the Christian theologians—Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, and others—have deliberately and maliciously read into the New Testament the dogma of an everlasting place of punishment for sinners. In addition, you have read “the Greek� and based on your perfect understanding of some words like “Gehenna� and “Sheol� which you insist cannot mean what we think of as “hell,� you have uncovered this subterfuge. Is it just me, or does anybody else here see that this argument is less than convincing? Christian leaders might be dishonest about a lot of things, but I cannot understand why they would lie about what the New Testament has to say about the afterlife.

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic

If his argument is based upon nothing more than the translation of a Hebrew word into a Greek word in the Septuagint then, yes, his argument fails to convince (here's a hint for you- ALL Hebrew words are translated into Greek in the LXX....some of them incorrectly).
I will decline your request and continue to use the term "fundy" as I don't believe it's perjorative and it's a term with a longstanding history and usage on this message board. If you have a problem with the term you are free to take it up with the administrators and petition them to alter board policy. Frankly, I suspect that your objection is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt to gain some sort of moral high ground. I will ignore such attempts in the future.
This is a lie and I don't appreciate it. Here is the entirety of my response to Peterman's argument.
As you can see. I did NOT impugn Peterson's integrity, nor did I dismiss his argument. I ask that in the future you represent my statements in a more honest manner.
Carrier does. I don't. Others may decide for themselves.
You don't say.
Well...ANY evidence would be a good start. So far we've seen none.
You have shown nothing in the passages which would support your case.

Diogenes the Cynic

The RCC defines hell as separation from God. The current Pope has stated that the "flames," etc, are allegorical:
So this angle is a complete non-starter. The RCC does not believe that Hell is literally a place of eternal fire.

Even if the Church did believe that, it would not add any weight to your argument as the Church believes in a number of things which are not found in scripture, including Purgatory, the Trinity, Original Sin, the Immaculate Conception and the perpetual virginity of Mary, just to name a few. The fact that the Catholic Church believes something does not mean it's in the Bible.

Jagella

Then I will ignore your posts in the future. I simply don’t have the stomach for such tactics. I got out of Christianity because it impugns unbelievers, and I don’t wish to endure or witness such animosity from anybody else—including other atheists.

Good luck with your unorthodox ideas. Maybe someday they’ll gain credibility, but I’m not betting the farm on it.

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic

Before you go, do you want to apologize for lying about me?

Amaleq13

Jagella,

I think you have misinterpreted the target of any "animosity". It is not directed at you, personally, but at your repeatedly asserted conclusion combined with a reluctance to offer any specific evidence that leads to it. Repeating the conclusions of scholars isn't the same as describing the evidence and it is frustrating that you seem not to realize this despite repeated attempts to convince you otherwise. You may think it is a reliable approach to assume tradition is true until proven contrary but many her consider that a wholly unreliable approach.

Even if the conclusion were held exclusively by conservative scholars, presenting a solid case based on evidence would serve to make that conclusion more credible.

I, for one, am entirely willing to accept the conclusion but not until I see an actual argument supporting it rather than scholars, even one I greatly respect, repeating it.

Jagella

I believe you might be misinterpreting what I meant when I referred to animosity. I was not saying that I’ve been the target of animosity: What I meant is that conservative Christians have been the target for stereotyping and expletives on this thread. While I am by no means a defender of many fundamentalist Christians, I don’t broad brush them either or I try not to. Individual apologists, as many of us know, are very often intellectually dishonest and will distort history and science to whitewash their religion. Nevertheless, I submit that we should judge them as individuals, and attack their arguments rather than attack them personally unless their personal integrity is the issue, of course. Otherwise, we should stick with the issues which normally are not focused on the personal integrity of some apologist.

As for the evidence I’ve allegedly not provided to back up my contention that hell is and always has been a major dogma of Christendom, all I can say is that I have provided evidence that others here have judged as inadequate. I disagree with the assessment that my evidence is inadequate, but we have our opinions. I see no reason to argue further. If there’s any good evidence for the position that hell is not a doctrine of the New Testament, then I sure haven’t seen any good evidence for that! Nevertheless, as an open-minded person, I will continue to keep my eyes open to see if such a position is indeed tenable, but I’m not holding my breath that I will find evidence for that position any time soon.

Jagella