Avatar

What really bothers me is the near-salivatory glee that seems to come over some Christian denominations when Hell is bought up. Some of these guys seem to revel in the notion of untold masses of people suffering horribly for the terrible crime of not being part of their little corner of Delusion, Anycountry. What the hell is up with that?

Mageth

Some people just really, really like to be right.

"I told ya so, I told ya so; doncha know I told ya so!"

mata leao

so mageth you were dead wrong for 45 years but now want us all to believe you are 100% right about religion! Please dont be offended if I choose to get my theology and my hebrew lexicon from a more "reliable" and less bipolar source! and you also missed , utterly I might add, the whole point of discussing the concept of purification by fire as regarding an amelioration of hell, so quick you were to want to find fault with anything a Christian might say. Your fixation causes you to miss the forest for the trees.

Mageth

More information on the etymology of "holocaust":

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/docs/HolocaustUsage.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

I can find nothing that translates or associates "holocaust" with a "purify by fire" meaning.

Mageth

Your words, not mine. And I was discussing etymology, not religion, BTW.

Why this line, though? I have no idea what your point with this is supposed to be, other than general persniketiness.

I've given you, what, four sources so far, including an etymology source and a Roman Catholic theological source? And you've, what, made (and repeated) an unsupported assertion and told me to talk to my pastor?

Sheesh.

You're simply wrong on this one. You should just admit it.

Didn't miss it. As a theological point, "purifying Hell" may or may not have merit. It certainly seems like a bit nicer sort of Hell than the eternal suffering one, I must admit. But I don't see much Biblical support for it, though. And I have little interest in arguing it one way or the other (I, of course, lack belief in any sort of Hell). Try running it by some Christian theologians that are interested in the ins and outs of Hell.

However, I was pointing out that your lead-in from "holocaust" to that theological point is, well, plain wrong, as holocaust clearly does not mean what you think it means. "Holocaust" means "(totally) consumed by fire", not "purified by fire." You'd do yourself a service by doing more thorough research on the words you use to base a theological point on.

And yes, if you make a glaring error like that, I (or someone else) will call you on it. Same goes for me - if I make an error, someone will call me on it. Goes with the territory around here.

Umm, what fixation?

mata leao

uhh mageth, brother, should you ever consider higher education beyond the undergrad level, you might wish to steer clear of citing "Wkipedia" as a scholarly source! and you have everything completely bassackwards by the way, you jumped to look up the word holocaust, instead of converting "purify by fire" into Hebrew and comparing the theological definitions. Discussing with you is like discussing with Sauron, who seems more interested in avoiding the ultimate issue than anything else. If something is purified by fire then would it belong in hell? the freshman seminary answer would be NO. In hebrew, when there was a blood curse on the land it could be lifted by sacrifice burned by fire. was there a curse over the jewish homeland? some theologisan say yes. somehting to think about, if thinking is ok here on IIDB

Mageth

Umm, that was but one of four sources I cited, mata.

BTW, don't call me "brother". I have one living and one deceased brother. You are not among them.

"Holocaust" clearly does not mean "purify by fire", as you have claimed.

What ultimate issue are you referring to?

Umm, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? IOW, discuss that particular theological question with theologians that care about the subject. I don't even believe in hell. And, since I'm an atheist that lacks belief in a hell of any sort, I'm puzzled as to why you'd be so insistent in getting my theological opinion on your "purified by fire Hell" bit in any case. :huh:

But the sacrifice itself would be consumed by the fire, not "purified" by the fire. Sacrifice is represented (at least in part) as a purification ritual - the sacrifice (burnt offering part, anyway) would be consumed by the fire. The sacrifice/burnt offering itself is not "purified"; it's the object/person for which the sacrifice/burnt offering was made. The burnt offering itself, the thing subjected to fire, would be consumed. And that's the part that "holocaust" refers to - "consumed by fire" - not the purification bit.

You may have a valid theological point buried in there somewhere, BTW. You just need to work on it a bit. Your approach so far is flawed.

Umm, that's a bit of a non-sequitur....

Is there a Loch Ness monster? Some eyewitnesses say yes.

"Holocaust" clearly means "consumed by fire", not "purified by fire". Something to think about in mata leao land, if thinking is OK there.

Mageth

BTW, I find this rather amusing:

coming from someone who recommended that I "ask [my] pastor what the Hebrew word for Holocaust is and what it means."

mata leao

<deleted> the jewish race was NOT consumed by the fire of the holocaust. and you just dont seem to be able to understand the theology any further than that. Do you teach bible study in the Christian church you attend every week? God, I hope not!

Toto

Mod request: please avoid sniping, unseemly personal comments, and inflammatory references to psychological states.