itsamysteryhuh

"Hell," meaning "the grave," does seem to exist. Just visit a local cemetary.

Sorry, but I do not rely on my imagination. Doing so would be useless.

itsamysteryhuh

Refer to the OP.



Right, but most likely figuratively speaking. Flames/fire can also mean "ordeal" (ie, a not-so-pleasant situation) and "torment" can mean "anguish" or "despair" (re: "hell fire").

"At" here deals with a place where an event (the Judgement) is to take place.


The phrase "second death." It seems that those unsaved will be destroyed and made dead for eternity (rather than having a chance at the gift of eternal life). If it were eternal torment by fire, there would seem to be no need at all to use the phrase "second death."

Doug Shaver

OK. Now I will ask you the same thing I ask anybody who gives me the conventional spiel about us skeptics burning forever: Why should I believe any of that?

spin

You don't understand the problem. You rail against "hell" and make it separate from gehenna, yet it is a translation of gehenna, which the OP erroneously doesn't acknowledge.

The OP doesn't refer to tartarus, translated as "hell", and doesn't say how you get hades as a synonym for the "grave".

Try to concentrate on the subject and answer the question I posed in the previous post as to which should be translated as "hell" so there can be no equivocation in your intentions.

Recourse to figurative language is often because there is no textual argument.

Now you're making things up. flox is a no-boner.

What makes you think judgment takes place in gehenna?

And what does "death" mean (without "second")? Rev 20:14 tells us that the lake of fire, where the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be tormented for ever, is the "second death". Now, for some reason, you want to redefine it.

It surely depends on what "second death" means. You have yet to give a satisfactory definition which is supported by biblical indications.


spin

juergen

I'm sorry, I got horribly confused here...different posts, different links, different neurons firing than expected...Please disregard whatever question regarding Universalism.

Julian

I would like to ask spin (and anyone else who knows about this) about Hinnom. Why did this valley become synonymous with a concept of hell? Is it because it was full of burning garbage, as well as burning bodies or people and animals, i.e. a nasty place of death and garbage? Also, how does it relate to Sheol? While it is obvious that itsamystery is a christian who doesn't like the christian text and therefore arbitrarily changes it to suit his needs, I am curious as to the extent that one can nail down the terms and their meaning as they would have considered them 2000+ years ago. Does either term relate at all to Hades which seems to have been fairly close to what we would consider hell, Dante's overzealous viewpoint notwithstanding?

Julian

aa5874

So, everyone will go to "hell", regardless of belief or non-belief, based on a visit to the local cemetary.

Well you did imagine this, and it may have been useless. A visit to the local cemetary would not confirm your imagination, as stated below.

.

spin

The Hebrew tradition has it that there was a place for sacrifices to Molech in the Valley of Hinnom (or of Ben-Hinnom), eg 2 Kgs 23:10. Jeremiah develops on this situation in 7:31f, where the Valley of Hinnom becomes a burial ground -- ostensibly from what causes Jerusalem to become a waste at the start of the exile -- and the valley will be filled with bodies (see also Jer 19:6f). This is rendered even more picturesque in Isa 66:24 with the worm that won't die and the fire that can't be quenched.

1 Enoch, in apocalyptic mode, alludes to the valley in Ch.27: "This accursed valley is for those who are accursed for ever: Here shall all the accursed be gathered together who utter with their lips against the Lord unseemly words and of His glory speak hard things. Here shall they be gathered together,and here shall be their place of judgment. In the last days there shall be upon them the spectacle of righteous judgment in the presence of the righteous for ever"

So, by the start of the 2nd c. BCE, naughty people would end up in the valley for their wrongs.

I haven't really answered your question, because I can't see too many people having sacrificed children to Molech there, if any. There may merely have been a place of worship for Molech, which gained ill-repute from the priests of YHWH -- just think of some of the early anti-christian rumors and wonder about their veracity. But once the bad name was gained, its ill-repute steadily grew, as we can see. However I'd hazard to guess the actual timeline of the development. The end of Isaiah for example is often dated as hellenistic.

Sheol was the traditional place of departed people and though there was awareness, there was no return (with the exception of Samuel temporarily brought back by the witch of Endor). It has gates and is never satisfied.

I'd say that Sheol relates better with traditional Jewish thought as against gehenna, which is apocalyptic. This suggests that they basically belong to two separate sub-traditions, but I haven't looked into it closely.


spin

Perm

Oh so I will suffer an eternal death in the lake of fire. What was your original point in this thread again? Something about how inhumane the common vernacular for hell to be?

No, there is no evidence of this. At least, no more than there is evidence for any of the other religions before or after your bible was written.

This is called an argument from incredulity. It's a logical fallacy. You can start to read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

It's a logical fallacy because you "personally feel" there "must be something more." That's a completely vacuous statement and an unsupported assertion. You can "feel" that little green men are going to take you away to Mars in your sleep tonight, that does not make it so.. nor does it make it any more likely to be so in the future.

To paraphrase your statement above: "I have my own feelings about how the world works, and the bible fits my preconceived world view." It is quite another issue to then apply your imagination to my reality.

Oh boy, here we go. Just a friendly suggestion: you might want to do at least a little bit of research before you make a complete fool of yourself on an infidel's forum. What you just proposed was Pascal's wager, which has been refuted dozens of ways.. maybe hundreds.

You can read more about Pascal's wager here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

You can read one of the refutations of Pascal's wager here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...er/heaven.html

If you care to prove yourself wrong even further, feel free to Google "Pascal's Wager refutation," though if you've managed to keep yourself ignorant of any views but your own up to this point, I have no reason to believe you'll go about diligently researching why you're completely wrong.

Indeed. Rest assured that my reasons are evidence, or lack thereof, of any supernatural deity. My mind is open though, so feel free to provide some.


Right, so I'll repeat my earlier question. What, exactly, is your point in this thread again? You do realize there are tomes of theological debate regarding these topics? Do you have the definitive answers to solve this debate? I think not. Furthermore, you'll confuse and scare your fellow Christians by letting them in on the fact that there is no evidence for any of this, your best bet is just to reiterate "burned to death for an eternity in a lake of fire" over and over. It's worked for nearly 2 millennium, why stop now?

itsamysteryhuh

Just get a large, more in-depth Bible with a dictionary in the back, look up "Hell," then get referred to the word "Hades" and see what it says.