Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 01-13-2008, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

If most of the "regulars" know that, then they should know better not to ask that question.

Oh? So, if someone tells me that I'll burn in hell forever if I don't believe in Jesus, I should not ask them, "Why should I believe that?"

Well, then, what do you think my response should be?

juergen · 01-13-2008, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I don't argue against Christians. I argue against what Christians believe. Many of them believe in a hell that exactly fits the commonly used definition.

If you believe in some other kind of hell, then we can discuss your belief, if you care to defend it. But I suspect you don't.

You "suspect" incorrectly.

http://www.bibletopics.com/BibleStudy/149.htm

Thanks for the link! It looks interesting.

itsamysteryhuh · 01-13-2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

If most of the "regulars" know that, then they should know better not to ask that question.

Oh? So, if someone tells me that I'll burn in hell forever if I don't believe in Jesus, I should not ask them, "Why should I believe that?"

Well, then, what do you think my response should be?

Tell them the meaning (and origins) of the word "hell." If they don't like it, just agree to disagree and walk away.

itsamysteryhuh · 01-13-2008, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

By human translators (prone to error and/or influence).

As are human writers. Quibbling about translation is irrelevant to the issue that you are trying to avoid.

All I see is you wriggling to avoid the logic of the passage. You want to change order and deny consequences. If that is acceptable to you then, why bother in the first place?

The "etc.," is everyone else not found in the book of life, the cowardly, the polluted, the unbelieving, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars. (That's most of us.)

(When you refer to the bible it is a normal courtesy to cite exactly what you are referring to, so one doesn't have to read your mind or look for what you are talking about.)

If the lake of fire is the second death and in the lake of fire is where one is tormented day and night for ever, the term "second death" doesn't relate well to the notion of death, which apparently is the first death, for it has a clear continuative aspect to it: you know, "for ever".

Death, 20:14, goes into the lake of fire, ie the end of existence no longer has effect. The "second death" is (in) the burning lake. If the existence of the "etcs" were to have ended (unlike the beast and the false prophet), you wouldn't need a lake that continues to burn to put them in.

I can understand your conscience leading you to pervert the text.

Do you imagine that, although the beast and the false prophet -- ending up in the lake of fire -- continue their existence therein, those nominated in 21:8 don't? Isn't that their destiny (or "part"), to be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, along with the beast and the false prophet?

The contrast in 21:7-8 is between those who get it good (the water of life) and those who get it bad (the lake of fire). This also implies a continuation for both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

If it's not burning forever and ever, and those "regulars" here know this, why do they continue to use an argument such as "I don't/won't believe in a God that burns people in 'hell' forever and ever?"

I personally have never used the argument. I'm interested in your active fleeing from the significance of the text. It clearly bothers you and you need to be in denial because otherwise, it would seem, you could not reconcile two sides of your life, modern thinking feeling with ancient religious retributional. You, being saved, shouldn't care about the nasty implications of god's plans for the "etcs".

spin

:huh:? Maybe the lake continues to burn for the beast and the false prophet, but is also a good place for the second death (of the wicked) to occur.

How would you know if I'm saved or not? I'm not one of those who believe that you can get saved one Sunday at church and then forget about it (ie, start to sin again, etc.). But, in any case, the Bible does say that salvation is available by believing in Jesus Christ (along with repenting and living as he would want us to live after repenting).

Anyway, the lake of fire is discussed in Revelations (chapters 19 and 20).

makerowner · 01-13-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

Actually, the Bible says murderers, etc., will have their part in the lake of fire, which is the second death. It also says that the SMOKE from their torment (the pain, loss, etc. they feel during their part in the lake of fire) will rise forever and ever. So, if it's truly burning forever and ever, why is it referred to as their part rather than, say, their eternity? If it's not burning forever and ever, and those "regulars" here know this, why do they continue to use an argument such as "I don't/won't believe in a God that burns people in 'hell' forever and ever?"

The word translated 'part' here is the Greek μερος, which often has the meaning 'lot' or 'destiny', see for example Matthew 24:51 (KJV): "And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion (μερος) with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Even better is Rev. 20:6 (KJV) "Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part (μερος) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." Surely you don't think that the resurrection is temporary as well?
The meaning of Rev. 21:8 is clearer in the RSV: "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.""

spin · 01-13-2008, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As are human writers. Quibbling about translation is irrelevant to the issue that you are trying to avoid.

All I see is you wriggling to avoid the logic of the passage. You want to change order and deny consequences. If that is acceptable to you then, why bother in the first place?

The "etc.," is everyone else not found in the book of life, the cowardly, the polluted, the unbelieving, the fornicators, the sorcerers, the idolaters, and all liars. (That's most of us.)

(When you refer to the bible it is a normal courtesy to cite exactly what you are referring to, so one doesn't have to read your mind or look for what you are talking about.)

If the lake of fire is the second death and in the lake of fire is where one is tormented day and night for ever, the term "second death" doesn't relate well to the notion of death, which apparently is the first death, for it has a clear continuative aspect to it: you know, "for ever".

Death, 20:14, goes into the lake of fire, ie the end of existence no longer has effect. The "second death" is (in) the burning lake. If the existence of the "etcs" were to have ended (unlike the beast and the false prophet), you wouldn't need a lake that continues to burn to put them in.

I can understand your conscience leading you to pervert the text.

Do you imagine that, although the beast and the false prophet -- ending up in the lake of fire -- continue their existence therein, those nominated in 21:8 don't? Isn't that their destiny (or "part"), to be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, along with the beast and the false prophet?

The contrast in 21:7-8 is between those who get it good (the water of life) and those who get it bad (the lake of fire). This also implies a continuation for both.

I personally have never used the argument. I'm interested in your active fleeing from the significance of the text. It clearly bothers you and you need to be in denial because otherwise, it would seem, you could not reconcile two sides of your life, modern thinking feeling with ancient religious retributional. You, being saved, shouldn't care about the nasty implications of god's plans for the "etcs".

:huh:? Maybe the lake continues to burn for the beast and the false prophet, but is also a good place for the second death (of the wicked) to occur.

You are not dealing with what was said to you.

The lake is the second death, being in the lake is the second death. Death is put in the lake, so death and the second death are not the same sorts of things.

Why do you continue to claim different outcomes for those placed in the burning lake?

It's plain that you don't know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

How would you know if I'm saved or not? I'm not one of those who believe that you can get saved one Sunday at church and then forget about it (ie, start to sin again, etc.). But, in any case, the Bible does say that salvation is available by believing in Jesus Christ (along with repenting and living as he would want us to live after repenting).

Anything not to deal with the problem you yourself started. I can appreciate your difficulty though, given the reaction of those who refer to suffering hell fire eternally. Not very humane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

Anyway, the lake of fire is discussed in Revelations (chapters 19 and 20).

You should have noted that I was citing from there, giving chapter and verse. What I asked was to give exact references when you cite phrases and ideas derived from the text, and to do so specifically when you are refer to them.

spin

itsamysteryhuh · 01-14-2008, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

Actually, the Bible says murderers, etc., will have their part in the lake of fire, which is the second death. It also says that the SMOKE from their torment (the pain, loss, etc. they feel during their part in the lake of fire) will rise forever and ever. So, if it's truly burning forever and ever, why is it referred to as their part rather than, say, their eternity? If it's not burning forever and ever, and those "regulars" here know this, why do they continue to use an argument such as "I don't/won't believe in a God that burns people in 'hell' forever and ever?"

The word translated 'part' here is the Greek μερος, which often has the meaning 'lot' or 'destiny', see for example Matthew 24:51 (KJV): "And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion (μερος) with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Even better is Rev. 20:6 (KJV) "Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part (μερος) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." Surely you don't think that the resurrection is temporary as well?
The meaning of Rev. 21:8 is clearer in the RSV: "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.""

No, there's no reason to believe that the gift of "eternal life" is temporary. In addition, Matthew 24:51's "part" seems to be different than Revelations 20:6's "part"... the former seeming to refer to "lot" or "destiny" and the latter seeming to be more similar to "take part in" ("he that hath part in" = "he that takes part in").

itsamysteryhuh · 01-14-2008, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

:huh:? Maybe the lake continues to burn for the beast and the false prophet, but is also a good place for the second death (of the wicked) to occur.

You are not dealing with what was said to you.

The lake is the second death, being in the lake is the second death. Death is put in the lake, so death and the second death are not the same sorts of things.

Why do you continue to claim different outcomes for those placed in the burning lake?

It's plain that you don't know.

Anything not to deal with the problem you yourself started. I can appreciate your difficulty though, given the reaction of those who refer to suffering hell fire eternally. Not very humane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

Anyway, the lake of fire is discussed in Revelations (chapters 19 and 20).

You should have noted that I was citing from there, giving chapter and verse. What I asked was to give exact references when you cite phrases and ideas derived from the text, and to do so specifically when you are refer to them.

spin

Your post doesn't seem to make much sense (not to me anyway). However, I did wonder about the "humane" part of burning forever, and that's why I ended up ultimately wondering about the true meaning of "hell" in the Bible.

My points were basically as follows:

1. Referring to a place of burning (rather than referring to the grave) when using the term "hell" would seem to be erroneous based on the original text for the term "hell."

2. Since the term "hell" seems to mean "the grave" (re: it is like a pit, it is dark, etc.), and does not seem to mean "a place of eternal burning for those unsaved," it seems erroneous for atheists to refer to "hell" as a "place of eternal burning" when discussing how "humane" such a place is.

makerowner · 01-14-2008, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

The word translated 'part' here is the Greek μερος, which often has the meaning 'lot' or 'destiny', see for example Matthew 24:51 (KJV): "And shall cut him asunder, and appoint [him] his portion (μερος) with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Even better is Rev. 20:6 (KJV) "Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part (μερος) in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years." Surely you don't think that the resurrection is temporary as well?
The meaning of Rev. 21:8 is clearer in the RSV: "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death.""

No, there's no reason to believe that the gift of "eternal life" is temporary. In addition, Matthew 24:51's "part" seems to be different than Revelations 20:6's "part"... the former seeming to refer to "lot" or "destiny" and the latter seeming to be more similar to "take part in" ("he that hath part in" = "he that takes part in").

I'm not sure exactly what the distinction is that you're making between μερος in Matthew 24:51 and μερος in Rev. 21:8. Could you explain that please?
You stated that the word 'part' here referred to a temporary punishment:

Quote:

So, if it's truly burning forever and ever, why is it referred to as their part rather than, say, their eternity?

Why do you feel that the word μερος is temporary in one verse, but eternal in another?
Going back to the topic, there are verses where sinners are claimed to be condemned to a fiery hell, and the implication is that they suffer forever: "And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go to hell (γεεννα), to the unquenchable fire." (Mar. 9:43 RSV). There is also reference to suffering in Hades: "and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus in his bosom." (Luke 16:23 RSV)

spin · 01-14-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You are not dealing with what was said to you.

The lake is the second death, being in the lake is the second death. Death is put in the lake, so death and the second death are not the same sorts of things.

Why do you continue to claim different outcomes for those placed in the burning lake?

It's plain that you don't know.

Anything not to deal with the problem you yourself started. I can appreciate your difficulty though, given the reaction of those who refer to suffering hell fire eternally. Not very humane.

You should have noted that I was citing from there, giving chapter and verse. What I asked was to give exact references when you cite phrases and ideas derived from the text, and to do so specifically when you are refer to them.

Your post doesn't seem to make much sense (not to me anyway). However, I did wonder about the "humane" part of burning forever, and that's why I ended up ultimately wondering about the true meaning of "hell" in the Bible.

I can understand you having difficulty. You don't like the text as it is, so you avoid the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

My points were basically as follows:

1. Referring to a place of burning (rather than referring to the grave) when using the term "hell" would seem to be erroneous based on the original text for the term "hell."

Please use the original language to justify this statement. I have already indicated that hell translates a number of different words in Greek. All you have to do is look at it. Do so, and come back with your findings. If you don't look at the text you'll never know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

2. Since the term "hell" seems to mean "the grave" (re: it is like a pit, it is dark, etc.),...

Just think a little before you continue. Remember "hell fire" (h geenna tou puros --Mt 5:22b, Mk 9:47)? Or what about "hell, the unquenchable fire" (Mk 9:45)? Doesn't fit your pleasant little cover up, does it? Read the text, not what you want to read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

...and does not seem to mean "a place of eternal burning for those unsaved,"

Do go on believing that and don't read the bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by itsamysteryhuh

it seems erroneous for atheists to refer to "hell" as a "place of eternal burning" when discussing how "humane" such a place is.

You are still quibbling about words and missing the content. The word "hell" is used for gehenna, described as the "unquenchable fire". The burning lake is where the devil, the false prophet and all the people whose names aren't in the book of life end up, cooked in the unquenchable fire.

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.