excreationist

I've just been told about the following site:
http://www.jewishnotgreek.com/

It gives alternative views on passages that are used to support the idea that hell involves eternal torment.

I found it quite convincing. I am more of a fan of the Christian God now though I am currently an atheist.

It is very long but it has to be in order to explain why the Biblical support for eternal torment seemed overwhelming.

hjalti

I haven't read alll of the stuff you linked (besides, it seems to be by some fundamentalist believer), but the idea that some people would be tormented eternally was clearly believed by some Jews, e.g. this verse from the book of Judith (which is in the bible of most Christians!):

So when Jesus speaks about "eternal fire" and "eternal punishment" I think it's more probable that he was talking about eternal torment/punshment, and not "eternal non-existence" or something like that.

excreationist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith
I think that is only believed by Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians.... they are a slight majority though.

hjalti

Yes, those two are something like 2/3 (which I consider more than a slight majority). And the bible I own (published by the Lutheran state church) contains the book of Judith.

excreationist

I'm talking about the parts of the Bible that all Christians use, not just a majority of them.

Angra Mainyu

When you say ‘more of a fan’, that gives me the impression that you consider him good, or at least not particularly evil. However, I’m not entirely sure that that’s what you’re saying.
Maybe you consider Yahweh to be an imaginary moral monster, but believe that he would be even a lot worse if the story contained an infinite Hell.

So, I’d like to ask for clarification if you don't mind.

Bingo the Clown-O

Fwiw the “fire and worms motif” can be found here:

Isaiah 66:22-24
“For just as the new heavens and the new earth I am about to make will remain standing before me,” says Yahweh, “so your descendants and your name will remain. From one month to the next and from one Sabbath to the next, all flesh will bow down to worship me,” says Yahweh. “They will go out and observe the corpses of those who rebelled against me, for the worms that eat them will not die, and their fire will not be extinguished, and they will be an abhorrence to all flesh.”

Note that it is the fire and the worms that are everlasting; not (necessarily) the souls of the bad guys.

On the other hand, the passage below suggests that at least some folks will suffer. Note the “everlasting abhorance” motif.

Daniel 12:1-2
At that time Michael, the great prince who watches over your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress unlike any other from the nation’s beginning up to that time. But at that time your own people, all those whose names are found written in the book, will escape. Many of those who sleep in the dusty ground will awake – some to everlasting life, and others to shame and everlasting abhorrence.

Angra Mainyu

excreationist,

While I’m afraid I do not have time to fully read it for now, so I will not take a stance on he makes some successful arguments about the proper interpretation of the biblical text, I read part of the essay and concluded that at least the first part has decisive problems, such as the following:

For example, the author asks what is done to murderers in American society, and points out that they’re not tortured endlessly (i.e., for life); the author points out that the torturing a young murderer for five decades nonstop would be an excessive punishment, etc.

He claims that even an ‘unsaved’ person knows that, and claims that that’s because they retain some of the moral law - which he attributes to Yahweh - in their minds.

However, if one takes a look at the Old Testament, one can find plenty of cases in which the punishment does not fit the crime, either. Even if one goes by any criminal system in the US, the punishments applied in the Old Testament are not used, and would be called ‘cruel and unusual’, In fact, there are punishments for actions or situations that do not deserve any punishment whatsoever.

The problem is that the author is appealing to two things in order to make this point.

a. The reader’s sense of right and wrong.
b. A comparison with an American criminal justice system.

However, the problem is that if I go by a. (and you may try that too), then clearly Yahweh imposed horribly unjust punishments in the Old Testament, and by b., the punishments would still be ‘cruel and unusual’.

While that eternal punishment would be infinitely more unjust, the point remains that the very method that the author proposes as a means of assessing whether Yahweh would impose infinite torment under the assumption that Yahweh is just yields the conclusion that not only would he not impose infinite torment, but he would not impose any of many of the punishments that he imposes according to the Old Testament.

Now, there are two potential conclusions.
1. Yahweh is unjust. But that would contradict the author’s hypothesis that he is just, and which is a hypothesis that he uses to make his case. So, that would defeat his case.
2. Yahweh might be just, but very many Old Testament passages are false (i.e., that Yahweh did not command any of those unjust punishments), and so are many New Testament passages, unless the authors of the New Testament were mistaken in their belief that they were true (and so was Jesus, but that part is not needed in my reply).

Yet, with regard to 2., the author himself cites the Old Testament regularly, without suggesting it’s false or invented, in support of his claim that Hell is not infinite. He also uses in support of his views what he claims the authors of the New Testament believed about the Old Testament. But surely, the authors of the Old Testament believed that Mosaic Law was entirely from Yahweh.

So, it seems that 2. is, by the author’s own lights, out of the question. But then, 1. contradicts one of the author’s assumptions. So, the case defeats itself. It's true that later the author might make good points about proper interpretation, but the first part doesn't work, because it's self-defeating (I'm going by my moral sense as we usually do when assessing moral matters, but that's precisely one of the methods proposed by the author; I suggest you try with yours)

Perspicuo

That is not the style of analysis done here. There is not official canon when speaking of Biblical origins and the mutual and recursive relationships between beliefs and scriptures.

And definitely, the deuterocanonical books are at the very foundation of Christianity. The NT draws from them extensively.

Angra Mainyu

Regarding Daniel 12:1-2, the author of the OP cited in the essay claims that the contempt is everlasting (the translation he uses says 'contempt', but either way, he claims contempt and abhorrence will be everlasting), but that's on the part of those in Heaven.