Diogenes the Cynic

This is a false statement.

I think that you are trying to create a disingenuous point of moral indignation for no other reason than to give yourself an excuse to flee a debate in which you are doing poorly. That is your right to do so, but don't think I don't see through it.

And I will reiterate once more that you have not provided any real evidence to prove your case. You have made a lot of noise. You have made a couple of unsupported appeals to dubious authority (people who read Greek and believe in Hell but do not explain why), you have provided one fundamentalist who thinks that the phrase "gnashing of teeth" proves that Gehenna is eternal and you have provided Richard Carrier who cites Enoch (which promises destruction) and the translation of Sheol as Hades in the Septuagint.

This amounts to three points of actual argument as opposed to bald conclusions and I have addressed all three points head on.

I have NOT impugned the personal integrity of single person you've cited, nor have I "stereotyped" anyone. Pointing out that an individual does not seem to be credentialed in a relevant field is not an attack on that person's character and MORE IMPORTANTLY, I still addressed every point of argument you presented, regardless of the credentials of your proffered authority.

Amaleq13

Thanks for the clarification but I don't see where this has actually happened in the thread. I know that hasn't been the position I've taken.

Asking to see the specific evidence and arguments that lead to their conclusion is entirely reasonable given that they are, by definition, significantly emotionally attached to those conclusions which are, in turn, inextricably connected to their religious beliefs. The potential for bias is so glaringly apparent that it would be irrational not to ask for more than just their conclusions.

There is, just as clearly, no such concern with regard to Mr. Carrier but we are still more interested in how he reached his conclusion than the fact that he seems to agree with you. This isn't about adding up the number of scholars favoring one conclusion or the other but trying to understand their consideration of the evidence.

What little we've seen from your reprinting of Carrier's position is more actual argument than you've provided throughout the thread. He doesn't rely on English translations that replace the original words but, instead, looks for evidence of the alleged beliefs outside and/or prior to Christianity. His conclusion is not evidence but his reference to other texts is evidence that can be considered by others in determining the strength of the conclusion.

Jagella

You may find an example of such expletives at:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=113310&page=1

Actually, I should have ended the debate with this person at that time, but I hung in there to see if there was any merit to his claims, and so far I am very unimpressed with any evidence offered for the position he holds.

The potential for bias is a universal problem that is not peculiar to religious fundamentalists. Atheists can be very biased as well. I do hope you would not want to have your comments brushed aside by Christians as being biased for no other reason than that you are an atheist.

I agree, but I was asked to provide the name of a “reputable Bible scholar� who recognizes the dogma of hell in the New Testament. I provided that scholar only to have yet more demands made. I was shooting at a moving target, you might say.

Like I tried to point out earlier on this thread, you don’t get very far by researching other texts. The Greek texts that are often used to hopefully clarify the New Testament are not consistent, and those who refer to them disagree as to their meaning as much as translations in English and other languages.

In any case, if I remember correctly, I started this thread by asking about this denial of the hell dogma being in the New Testament. Since the position that hell is a major dogma of the New Testament is perhaps common knowledge, I would like to see good evidence that hell appears nowhere in the Bible. So far, I’ve seen little if any evidence that such is the case.

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic

:rolling:

You're morally outraged because I called Thomas Aquinas a "religious fanatic" in a different thread?

You are really reaching to find some moral high horse to ride out of this debate on.

First of all that was in a different thread so you have failed to support your accusations that I have impugned anyone in this one.

Secondly, the fact that I called a famous, medievel theologian a "fanatic" is hardly a sweeping pronouncement about religious conservatives or fundamentalists in the 21st century. You made a false accusation in THIS thread that I have been attacking the character of your sources and stereotyping Christian fundamentalists.

Thirdly, you did not provide any sort of argument even by Aquinas to support your position, you only cited him as a Christian theologian who believed in Hell.
This has not happened to you. Saying it over and over again will not make it true.
What other "demands" have I made? I addressed whatever arguments you quoted from Richard Carrier and left it for others to decide if they believed that Carrier's case was covincing.
This is a completely baclwards and fallacious statement of the evidence. It is NOT "common knowedge" that "Hell is a major dogma of the New Testament." It is a common BELIEF and that is vastly different. Most people are not very Biblically literate and there are a lot of false assumptions out there. A Biblical "hell" is one of them.

It is YOUR assertion that eternal hell is in the New Testament. It is a flat matter of fact that the word, "hell" is not in the Bible. It is a flat matter of fact the the words which have often been translated as such have completely different meanings in Greek and Hebrew. The ball is therefore in YOUR court to show just cause as to why those Greek and Hebrew words should be translated as "Hell." You have utterly failed to do so.

Amaleq13

Why do you persist in mischaracterizing what has been said? Reread my post. I do not advocate nor attempt to "brush aside" the offered opinions of conservative Christian scholars. Instead, I indicate that it is only reasonable to want to see the basis for any conclusion they offer. It should be clear from the fact that I apply the same standard to Richard Carrier that this really has nothing to do with "brushing aside" fundamentalist opinions. With regard to the former, it would be naive to ignore the potential bias in favor of their religious beliefs as well as the possibility they might be relying on a poor argument or unreliable evidence. With regard to the latter, he, too, might just be mistaken. The only way anyone can tell is if we know how the bloody hell they reached their freaking conclusion! Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? I expect the same from anyone considering my own conclusions.

If you have a grasp of what constitutes a rational argument, the request for the basis of Carrier's conclusion should not have come as a surprise. I don't recall anyone suggesting that a name, alone, would be sufficient to establish the claim. It seems to me to have been suggested as a really good start to offering a rational and compelling argument supporting your conclusion.

On the contrary, we all think Carrier has gone farther in presenting an actual argument in the brief excerpt you provided than you have in this entire thread. And he did so by referring to other texts for support.

You've made this claim repeatedly but you haven't offered a single example of someone denying that the original Greek contains the word 'Gehenna' so I fail to see how this is relevant even if it is true.

I'm not terribly interested in any attempt to place the burden of proof on those opposing your position. I am, however, interested in what position the actual evidence best supports regardless of "common knowledge" or "tradition".

Peter Kirby

I started reading this thread from the beginning, but around the third page I was getting a headache because of the amount of heated bickering.

What would be nice to see is a single piece in which a person summarizes his or her position on the afterlife in the New Testament, covering most of the issues and relevant passages. Then, perhaps, something worthwhile could emerge from the thread. Then a more meaningful response could be made and/or the piece could be published (at Christian Origins for example).

best,
Peter Kirby

itsamysteryhuh

Let's not forget that both words, fire and torment, can have various meanings. For example, the word 'fire' can mean a severe test or trial, and the word 'torment' can mean great physical OR mental anguish.

Amaleq13

Diogenes seems to me to have presented his position fairly clearly though it might not be neatly contained in a single post. I suspect that Mr. Carrier is our best hope for a cogent defense of the "traditional" view but I'm not sure he's interested enough to take the time.

Diogenes the Cynic

I'd like to do a little more reading and research to get my ducks in a row and arrange my sources but I think I could do a point by point analysis of all the NT passages. I haven't studied Hebrew so I wouldn't feel comfortable critiquing the Tanakh passages, though.

Jagella

I feel the same way, Peter.

My feelings regarding this claim that hell appears nowhere in the New Testament is that such a position is a radical reinterpretation indeed. Be that as it may, I don’t completely discount it although it’s tempting to do so. My suggestion to anybody who holds the opinion that hell was “read in� to the New Testament by the church not long after this document was written, is that he or she write a book about it. In order for this idea to be taken seriously, one should make sure to research the topic thoroughly. Moreover, the researcher should come up with as much specific information as possible such as the time and place in which hell was read into the New Testament took place. He or she should provide names of the people who are responsible, if possible. Finally, the researcher should fairly and thoroughly discuss objections to this hypothesis and explain how these objections don’t refute the theory.

Jagella