spin

I did ask you to think about it, LP675.

Mageth

The Bible is more explicit on Hell than it is on Heaven, paradise, etc. So if you are willing to consider the Biblical hell as metaphorical, how about the Biblical Heaven? Shouldn't it be considered metaphorically as well?

Mageth

Of course, if you decide to go, remember that you'll need to ignore the fact that all of those who do not accept the invitation (far more than actually do, BTW), are relegated by the Host to the torture chamber in the basement.

Imagine going to a birthday party for an acquaintance's child. Several neighborhood children are there, but you notice that the some of the birthday child's best friends an siblings are not. You ask the host, "Where are the rest of the kids you invited, and where are the rest of your children?" His answer: "Oh, they didn't want to come, so they're spending the party in the basement getting their little bottoms spanked."

LP675

Well, that’s an interesting question. We do know that most probably the occupants of heaven will have some sort of embodied form 1 Cor 15:50-54 (much like Christ’s resurrected body). But as Paul says “it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"—(1 Cor 2:9). So it seems to indicate our speculations most likely will be off the mark.

But as I tried to make clear before, accepting either as a metaphor certainly isn’t rejecting the reality of Heaven or Hell. Just how closely the reality resembles the metaphor is what I am unsure of.

blt to go

Very good point. Problem is, christians like the idea of Heaven, and "let's all go there," but shy away from the concept of eternal torture, as described.

I would agree, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Both are actual, or neither are.

Again, looking at the Rich man vs. Lazarus cited above, Sheol is described as being at the least EXTREMELY unpleasant. The rich man begs for just a moist finger on his tongue. He wants to keep his family out, even if he has to stay.

This is not just a "bad vacation." This is a place NOONE wants to be.

And, the description of the lake of fire is worse.

So, LP675, I would agree, trying to descibe it accurately is futile, and the descriptions given may be allegorical, it certainly is NOT the place I would want to be.

gregor

Umm, exsqueeze me? You said:

"We do know that. . ."

?WE KNOW?

Actually, we know absolutely nothing. We have no verifiable evidence of a hereafter. We have the musings of some late Iron-age semi-nomads (OT) and the writings of a few down-trodden first and second century losers (NT). And I don't mean loser in a perjorative sense - they lost their place in the Jewish church and their country to the Romans.

With this backdrop, we have two options:

1. God really spoke to these few people and there is a hell.

2. There is no hell. And since these few people had no success in life (and to antagonize those who didn't share their earthly theological belief) they invented hell. (e.g. "You'll get your punishment in the afterlife.")

Which is more believable, I'll leave it to you to decide

spin

Ya know, if we are to trust Revelation, LP675 isn't going to heaven either.

For us there's a lake of fire. For the good guys there's -- not heaven, for that goes as well, but -- the new earth and a new jerusalem which comes down from a new heaven, though we're not supposed to ask where God will be if both heaven and earth go... maybe the change is so instantaneous, it blinks from old to new... but then if he did a good job in the first place why need a new anything?... anyway the LP675s of the world will end up -- tough luck fellahs -- in boring old new earth, where they have to eke out eternity doing whatever it is that will not bore them to permanent tears after a few thousand years. Perhaps the'll take up makrame or body building. Once they've made a fw million wall hangings or kept their bodies in total perfection for a few thousand years, they'll have to find something else to do. Origami, transcendental meditation, learn a musical instrument -- either everyone will have perfect pitch or they'll have ear plugs --, or perhaps learn a skill, brain surgery or how to cook chinese food, or maybe one will just want to adore God all day long millennium in and millenium out and that will be as good as a permanent orgasm. After an eon or so, they'll probably start jumping in the lake of fire.


spin

Mageth

A bit of an aside, but I'm a bit amused, and puzzled, that Christians typically admit that Jesus often talked in parables that should not be taken literally but metaphorically, but then sometimes turn around and cite the "Lazarus and the Rich Man" parable as a possibly or even probably fairly accurate description of hell/the afterlife.

If it's a parable, it's meant to be taken metaphorically, to teach a lesson. It should not be relied on at all as an accurate or possibly accurate description of the afterlife.

blt to go

The reason for that is the use of an actual name: "Lazarus."

I would agree if the story said, "A rich man and a poor man..." This use differentiates it from the other "parables."

Not sure it makes MUCH difference, as even in an allegory it is not painted as "simply uncomfortable."

Mageth

Originally posted by blt to go
The reason for that is the use of an actual name: "Lazarus."

I would agree if the story said, "A rich man and a poor man..." This use differentiates it from the other "parables."

Who it introduces as "a poor man named Lazarus". I don't see how labeling one of the characters in a parable is supposed to make the story more literal. And note that Jesus doesn't use an actual name for the rich man, who is the one portrayed as being in Hell.

If Jesus, by using the name "Lazarus", intented for the story to be taken more literally than his other parables, why not tag a name on the rich man?

Lots of fairy tales, fables and parables use names for their characters, BTW; all are intended to be taken metaphorically and not literally. Giving a name to a fox or a bird, or even a human, doesn't make a parable or fable more literal.

Not sure it makes MUCH difference, as even in an allegory it is not painted as "simply uncomfortable."

But if it's a parable or allegory, it's not intended to be taken literally.