"The New Testament depicts "hell", the place of eternal punishment, in a variety of ways. The most common term used for "hell" in the original Greek is γεεννα (gehenna), a direct loan of Hebrew ge-hinnom. The term is however found almost exclusively in the synoptic gospels.[12][13][14] Gehenna is most frequently described as a place of fiery torment (eg. Matthew 5:22, 18:8-9; Mark 9:43-49) although other imagery is also used such as darkness and "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (eg. Matthew 8:12; 22:13).[13]
Besides this teaching in the synoptic gospels, the concept of hell is found in other parts of the NT although the term gehenna is not used. The Johannine writings refer to the destiny of the wicked in terms of "perishing", "death" and "condemnation" or "judgment". St. Paul speaks of "wrath" and "everlasting destruction" (cf. Romans 2:7-9; 2 Thessalonians 1:9), while the general epistles use a range of terms and images including "raging fire" (Hebrews 10:27), "destruction" (2 Peter 3:7), "eternal fire" (Jude 7) and "blackest darkness" (Jude 13). The book of Revelation contains the image of a "lake of fire" and "burning sulphur" where the reprobate will be "tormented day and night for ever and ever"(eg. Revelation 20:10).[15]
The New Testament also uses the Greek word hades, usually to refer to the temporary abode of the dead (eg. Acts 2:31; Revelation 20:13).[10] Only one passage describes hades as a place of torment, the parable of Lazarus and Dives (Luke 16:19-31). Jesus here depicts a wicked man suffering fiery torment in hades, which is contrasted with the bosom of Abraham, and explains that it is impossible to cross over from one location to the other. Some scholars believe that this parable reflects the intertestamental Jewish view of hades (or sheol) as containing separate divisions for the wicked and righteous.[15][10] In Revelation 20:13-14 hades is itself thrown into the "lake of fire" after being emptied of the dead."
Upon looking at that, we have an idea that that hell is not just a stereotype of hellfire and burning death; it's more.the bible (NIV) quoth:
for god so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Sean -
"You either choose to believe or you do not."
I'm glad we finally agree on something!
Silver - I'm not ignoring the tribulation, nor am I minimizing the suffering. I'm saying that we can't question God's justice unless we take the full story into account - and that means looking ahead.
The more I read through Revelation, the more I see the Old Testament - The Seven Plagues (Exodus), the fall of Babylon (Ezra), the 144,000 (Isaiah, the Stump of Jesse).
If you're going to question God's justice (or benevolence), a far more astute question is why God would put the children of the Covenant through all that?!?
I mean, forget the non-believers for a moment. Abraham's people went through some real hard times! Generation after generation, their populations were starved, conquered, oppressed, exiled, enslaved, decimated, you name it, they went through it. If anything, God is far more cruel to God's own people than to anyone else, considering the suffering they endured. The point of it all is that even through all the suffering, the anger, the forgetfulness, the arrogance, they kept turning back to God
In Revelation, John is foretelling the hard times the Christians will go through as well, which of course they did, even through the fall of the Roman Empire and beyond. Unless we hold on to that vision of what can be - that light we know is on the other side of those big storm clouds - indeed, better to throw in with the Beast. At least you get to have some fun while God sorts out which 144,000 to call up.
Lid:
I acknowledge that Jesus either didn't say that directly or didn't mean it. It hardly matters, it was translated as such by enough of his followers that even if it was just a poor choice of words on his part it's still his fault.
That philosphy is one that I reject. How much good you have done should not be measured by how much you hurt yourself in the process. That is rediculous (particularly when you factor in that it takes money to make money and this was as true 2000 years ago when you needed to be able to afford to fund a caravan to India to sell spices as it is today when you need to be able to afford an oil rig if you are going to drill for oil) notion. The number of people that woman fed with her half cent doesn't equal the amount fed by the other man. Again how many jobs has Bill Gates created directly (Microsoft, Xbox, programmers, artists, PR, etc etc) and indirectly (Gamepro Magazine, Geek Squad to trouble shoot for you) how many more jobs does he make possible/easier do you use a computer at your job? Does it matter if it's 1%, 10% (the "accepted" tithe) or 98% and he keeps only enough to subside on?
AARGH!
1. You are wrong, Jesus did infact say it, it's whole rich man, camel, eye of a needle statement. The only question is wether it was misinterpreted misapplied what not. Which I've already ceded so I don't bloody well understand why you are still harping on this point.
2. Once again the poor woman who gave all she had was lifted above the rich man who did more good. She was already starving and she gave away what she had. She was already in financial straights. What she did makes no more sense than two thousand years earlier when starving Greeks would burn food to ask for rain to grow more food.
I reject the notion that there is a God, there for Mr. Gate's sucess is his own fault. You work on a Mac. Bloody hell. Well then for you Steve Jobs, but my point remains :-P
3. My point actually is that it is backwards to think equally of one who doesn't or can't as it does someone who can and does. Particularly those who CAN and DON'T.
I'm not even sure what your last sentence meant so I'll skip it.
1. They both said it, but Jesus said it first then this deciples ran off and interpreted. Then for the last 2000 years (give or take) we've been interpreting what they said. None of this removes the camel and needle. It's not even debatable.
2. Yes I would say that a person with no income, influence and isn't respected by anybody is worthless. They are probably worse than worthless they are probably parasitic. But we've become conditioned to believe that these people should be allowed to leech off the rest of us. It's true there are some people who have money and are harmful to the rest of us but they aren't the norm. The norm is that most people simply don't care about other people but by virtue of improving our own lives we improve the lives of those around us. It takes a very specific malicious nature to improve your own life to the detriment of those around you. It's like smiling and being cheery and bringing down the mood of the room. Sure the Joker or Lex Luthor could pull it off but most of us lack that level of evil.
3. There are personal experiences with Buhdism, Jedi (it's the third largest religion in the UK), Scientology and paganism.
I made time, he's not there. You made time, lacked the inner strength to captain your own ship and submitted to your imagination. At least from what I can tell from the majority of your opinions you don't just blindly follow the other sheep like you're supposed to.
¶ 164 I says, "We deplore war and urge the peacful settlement of all disputes among nations. From the beginning, the Christian conscience has struggled with the harsh realities of violence and war, for these evils clearly frustrate God's loving purposes for humankind....We urge the establishment of the rule of law in inernational affairs as a means of elimination of war, violence, and coercion in these affairs. We reject national policies of enforced military service as incompatible with the gospel. We acknowledge the agonizing tension created by the demand for military service by national governments. We urge all young adults to seek the counsel of the Church as they reach a conscientious decision concerning the nature of their repsonsibility as citizens. Pastors are called upon to be available for counseling with all young adults who face conscription, including those who conscientiously refuse to cooperation with a system of conscription. We support and extend the ministry of the Church to those persons who conscientiously oppose all war, or any particular war, and who therefore refuse to serve in the armed forces or to cooperate with systems of military conscription..."
@lid: I’m just going to whatever on the Jesus vs Paul money issue. I’ve explained it on a Sesame Street level and you insist that McHammer didn’t sample. Next you’ll be absolutely adamant that Power Rangers bears no resemblance to Voltron. So whatever. The philosophy of money=evil has nothing to do with Jesus. Nothing at all. You win. I’m bloody well tired of that circle.
Your basic philosophy is communism. Which is suicide. We know it to be suicide. It’s really frightening that people who claim to value their souls more highly than their bodies or their bank accounts treat their bank accounts and bodies with more respect than they treat their souls.
Oh btw I don’t think my opinion in this case is part of the minority. I just think most people are very quiet about what they think for obvious reasons.
M-H
Name an issue that isn’t mostly black and white if you don’t start bullshitting? Abortion? Nope it’s very black and white is it okay to prevent a life from coming into existence for the convience of the parents. Everything else on that issue is fluff. Partial Birth Abortions? Make up less 1% so why talk about them as a reason against. What if I was raped, or had sex with a relative? Again they make up less than 1%. Why are we discussing this? It’s like arguing that murder should be legal cus you might one day need to defend yourself against a guy on PCP. It’s bullshit and the actual issue is very cut and dry.
I had already mentioned that the Church and Science were friends until relatively recently. I would like to point out that I live in the twenty first century and what they did in the say seventeen before it doesn’t much matter anymore and just because people have been convoluting things for years doesn’t make it any less true.
I do believe that True Christians have beliefs that can be found in the Bible. I’m even willing to accept stuff that isn’t canonical if you want. I’ve nothing in particular against Gnostics (nothing more than what I hold against all religious people anyway). My opinion on Islam btw is that until the silent majority steps up and smacks down the estimated 1-10% that are crazies they are can all accurately be described as crazy.
The Christian Right is a large part of what managed to get Bush into office. How responsible for the empowerment of a man must you be before you can be held responsible for the actions of said man? Particularly when we have the option to pull him out. “Name one seriously Chrisitan group, large enough to be significant who is living by the sword right now. Don't name people in the past.” Quoted from you. The criteria wasn’t if there was a holy war, it was if a Christian group was living by the sword. Are you seriously denying that we are living by the sword, right here and right now?
I don’t see the Right calling for his impeachment, I don’t see the right out there marching with Cindy Sheehan (disrespectful bitch, if there is a God I hope he has a special torture for that harlot.) I don’t see it, infact what I see is that a year after they disagreed with him they put him right back in office. Tell me when do I get to hold them responsible for their part in Bush’s legacy? Do I have to wait for them to actually sign slips of paper, do I need to put a mark on their forehead or their right hand? Your criteria for being able to hold a group responsible for its actions are so terribly narrow that I’m not sure you could ever hold any group responsible for anything only individuals.
If you want to debate that there are other ways to interpret the Bible I don’t disagree (though I believe that when it was meant to be a metaphor they make it clear. Hell even in the verse you quoted they not only said it was a metaphor but they explained the metaphor!) there is plenty of things that are open to debate.
You’re not incorrect that for the most part I don’t waste too much energy on “middle” Christians because there is little point. When one of their stations is over run they just change clothes and pretend that they were on your side all along and it’s those other whackos you need to be worried about. Why not just by pass all of them and take down the whackos? If you’re a Christian who believes in evolution, who doesn’t hold back science in the name of some twisted morality (stem cells), if you don’t have a draconic opinion of sex that is actually provably damaging (no birth control of the Catholics, the cutting of funding for condoms in Africa where HIV is rampant) *this isn’t even expressly supported by the Bible but it is a “Christian” belief*. While I’m pro-choice (and the lines are pretty clearly religious with a few detractors from each team) I’m willing to let you be pro-life and not get lumped in with the rest. Unless your that loon andora spouting off about using the Force to convince a baby to go back to Soul land and wait for another body. I guess if she was Hindu that might make sense. . .anyway I digress. What is the point of attacking people who are usually harmless. Granted I believe that anybody who is religious is just a single hair away from being a zealot, you just need to see the right statue cry blood or find Mary in your Cinnabun *don’t pretend like every few months one of these two things don’t happen* but it’s not like smooth talkers haven’t taken over people’s minds before. Though I question if it could happen under “good” conditions. You can talk about Hitler and Stalin but they both rose to power in impoverished nations. Hungry people are easily swayed. So are cold people. I’d be curious if either of them could come to power in modern day America. Where as recently as the 60’s we were hesitant to put a Catholic in office because he’d be the Pope’s puppet. Maybe it wasn’t a legit fear but it was there.
I’m supposed to be bored and calling you stupid by now. But I’m not. Weird. I guess if I want to call somebody stupid I’ll just go explain that the Mayan Calender ends December 12, 2012 which will coincide (approximately) with the President after next and that Barrack is obviously the antichrist because everybody likes him. Actually maybe I shouldn’t touch that cus that subject REALLY pissed me off.
I'm gonna quick respond to your last part and I'll get to the bulk of things later.
Of course the past has an effect but just like you said I can't summon up the Crusades or the Inquisition as a reason why Christians are evil (though I only bring them up as examples of what can happen anyway) I don't see how you can use mideval Christians as proof that Christians are good and sane. We live today and have to deal with today. It can be useful to understand the how and why of things but the truth is that unless it's something we can go back and directly effect who really cares?
Women's Sufferage-->Prohibition----->The Mob/Mafia= Women's Suffrage is bad. All the steps are true (though you can debate that without WWI there would have been enough men in the country to vote down Prohibition so you could argue that a lack of men is what happened which sounds just as sexist and mysogynistic. No one would argue today that women's right to vote has had a negative overall effect on society *very few actually. I could probably debate that just based on simple supply and demand if women didn't work men would get paid more and we wouldn't have familes with both parents working just to make ends meet. But that would largely be me playing the Devils Advocate*
So you poingint out that two, three, four, five hundred years ago Christians didn't do x,y,z I still ask who cares? They do it today and I've pointed out several.
Also killing =/=murder. Just because people are capable of over thinking something doesn't make it so. Just like no matter how much I might hate taxes, taxes are not theft or burglarly despite the fact that they are taking what's mine, against my will and giving it to others.
Also when the world disagrees with me the world is wrong. :-P The world is wrong on a lot of things, some of which I hope to fix someday and some of which I'll just ignore and hope they go away. Like I hope if I ignore pepparoni and Pepsi long enough people will stop thinking they are appropriate choices for the only food and drink to be available at a gathering. Yeah I know my chances of hitting the lottery, getting struck by lightning in doors while getting laid by a decade worth or Playmates of the Year is higher than the chances of pepparoni and pepsi going away but I can hope right?