Aren't we all a little afraid of extreme fundamentalism, regardless of the subject?
Even people I agree with, who are extremely fundamental, scare me.
Moral questions
- Thread starter Silver
- Start date
Even people I agree with, who are extremely fundamental, scare me.
I should have clarified that a little. I'm talking about the average North Korean as being evil, I'm talking about the North Korean leadership.
the average North Korean isn't evil, they're there because they can't leave. They have no choice.
The North Korean leadership is evil
Welll you need to define Christian then. I do know that Christadelphians do not believe in Hell.
7th Day Adventists don't believe in hell, or any afterlife until the Rapture.
Jesus said "test everything," as what's-his-name (the self-educated uber-Christian guy who used to post here all the time, and very intelligently) used to quote. So there are other strains of and within any religion than the absolutist theocratic totalitarian nightmare version Silver's presenting. Personally, I can't understand how Christians aren't all shoeless hippy anarchists.
I don't think you can characterize religion as something in-itself, philosophically, Silver. You can only look at what happens on the ground, and that comes out for both good and ill.
That said, it's pretty easy to look at the plethora of ill associated with religion and condemn the entire enterprise, and I don't understand the appeal of religion to most people. But I'm also a pretty wierd guy, I guess.
Jesus said "test everything," as what's-his-name (the self-educated uber-Christian guy who used to post here all the time, and very intelligently) used to quote. So there are other strains of and within any religion than the absolutist theocratic totalitarian nightmare version Silver's presenting. Personally, I can't understand how Christians aren't all shoeless hippy anarchists.
I don't think you can characterize religion as something in-itself, philosophically, Silver. You can only look at what happens on the ground, and that comes out for both good and ill.
That said, it's pretty easy to look at the plethora of ill associated with religion and condemn the entire enterprise, and I don't understand the appeal of religion to most people. But I'm also a pretty wierd guy, I guess.
Andyman?
Wow, skip out on RM a few days and miss all this!!
I don't know how you connected organized religion to your points of evil, but I won't debate that. So you're mad at God because he promotes torcher and you know this because you read a few books. Books written and interpreted by men. Since historically, man is always correct because God made him so, your arguement against God could have validity.
Unless of course you look back. This is a bright forum, but sometimes we need to be reminded that hindsite is 20x20, thus it's easy to crucify the Germans now. Of course why didn't we God fearing Americans fight the Germans before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor during all this evil??
It might have been easier to argue that man is evil, man is son of God in his image, therefore maybe God is evil??
One thing I do know, writing a paper on the existence of hell must have been hell. Is that why you got rid of the paper and wiped your memory clean Opie
I don't know how you connected organized religion to your points of evil, but I won't debate that. So you're mad at God because he promotes torcher and you know this because you read a few books. Books written and interpreted by men. Since historically, man is always correct because God made him so, your arguement against God could have validity.
Unless of course you look back. This is a bright forum, but sometimes we need to be reminded that hindsite is 20x20, thus it's easy to crucify the Germans now. Of course why didn't we God fearing Americans fight the Germans before Japan bombed Pearl Harbor during all this evil??
It might have been easier to argue that man is evil, man is son of God in his image, therefore maybe God is evil??
One thing I do know, writing a paper on the existence of hell must have been hell. Is that why you got rid of the paper and wiped your memory clean Opie
I started to... see things... know things...One thing I do know, writing a paper on the existence of hell must have been hell. Is that why you got rid of the paper and wiped your memory clean Opie
Isn't religion based solely on faith. I thought you weren't allowed to question things, the priest says that's the way it is and thats that
I think you should stop there.... Before you set off to many alarm bells at NSA and Homeland security.
For the purposes of this thread, it's someone who takes what the Bible writes at face value. A Christian who doesn't believe in hell hasn't read that big boring book past the genealogies part, or he's picking and choosing to fit his own whims.
That is cheating a little, I know, because my normal definition of a Christian is someone who believes in the divinity of Christ.
Anyways, hell only applies to point 2. Point 1 is well illustrated by the Old Testament story of Korah. I'd like to point out that God saw fit to kill little kids because dad thought Moses was getting a little big for his britches. So the best you can say is that be removing hell from the equation is that God is still evil, but perhaps not infinitely.
I'm not mad at God. I'm also not mad at unicorns...
That's cheating a lot because even as an atheist I could build a strong argument that there is no scriptural reference to prove the existence of hell and also the question about the divinity of Christ as one with more than one angle.
If you're determined to choose your own definitions for all the terms within this thread then you might as well answer your own question and to hell with the debate.
You stole my post.
Ed: Well, except for me being utterly pedantic about the "prove the existence of hell" part--you meant to say that there's no scriptural reference clearly declaring that hell exists, correct? We're not saying scripture "proves" anything, I think...
And when I looked for one many years ago, I did find an offhand remark by Jesus saying something about someone or other being "liable to the hell of fire..." but that was it. Might be a lot more, but I'm not a biblical scholar or anything.
You can't make an argument about the non-existence of hell in the Bible without interpreting the whole book as allegory. I guess you could also argue that the Bible has been badly translated over the years, but that's a big black mark against the infallibility of the book, and of God as well. It would sort of be a dick move to be all powerful and let people read a bad translation of your instruction manual to them, wouldn't it?
As far as the definitions go, Christians can't even decide on who other Christians are. God help us poor atheists when trying to make that judgement...
Nice Die Hard quote...
Stockholm Syndrome is what you were looking for...
Anything that needs to be taken on faith and can be manipulated to a certain end by an individual is inherently evil.
No one saw me, you can't prove nuffink. I wasn't there and anyway I was just watching it for a mate.
Yes you can. Are you asking me to do so? I'd rather not as it's rather tiresome considering the reasons why I know that it can be done, and very convincingly, it's just whether I consider it worth my time. I'd much rather that you took my word for it.
Just as one aspect I can clearly remember though consider that you're not necessarily talking about the original Hebrew or Greek, but a translation and the word 'hell' is an old English term meaning earth.
Edit: Bear in mind I am an atheist and have no thought that the book is anything other than allegory anyway! (Though I would not be using that viewpoint in regard to arguing the non-existence of the classic Catholic hell.)
He better not cuz he wouldn't take my word for it and yet, he hasn't established that the bible clearly states the otherwordly definition of hell.
You killed Jesus for chrissakes, no-one's gonna take your word on matters pertaining to him...
Who said any book was infallible? Only fundamentalists do...that's not all Christians or religious people. And to say God has to do this, do that, or control some particular, with human reasoning, is to assume we can comprehend the infinite. I mean, if God is an infinite being of some sort, there's absolutely no way we could possibly comprehend God except as an abstract concept anyhow.
That will piss off some Christians, for sure, who think with the reasoning you put forward in your post, but again, that is NOT all Christians or religious people in general.
Don't bother. You are aware that best case you're making an argument that most Christians wouldn't buy, right? I still don't think I'm stretching my definition of the Christian God as described in the Bible overly far here (in fact, I'd guess that a majority of Christians would argue that you'd be the one doing that) but you are of course free to disagree with me.
Until I figure out how to make the earth open up and swallow you and your family whole, that is. I gotta go read Numbers (I think) again
The bible is a book and nothing more get over it.
Every translation is different, people interpolate it to say whatever they want. Its just a book, a very old book.
Egad, you even quoted the edit statement where I stated I'm an athiest and the book is nothing and then tell me that? Are you drunk or just inattentive?
I wouldn't disagree with that, I would entirely expect that your definition of God & Hell is the one that most Christians would buy.
BTW, did you hear that the lying, hypocritical **** Blair has converted to Catholicism?
The use of interpolate has me a littled baffled too.
What was he before? Anglican? Isn't that basically Catholic without the pederasty?
That's like a chocolate chip cookie with no milk.
Maybe more like a hot dog without the bun?
Madness quote?
very bored
Since when does the entire book have to be interpreted symbolically if one part of it is interpreted that way? I don't see how that makes sense.
I would agree that many, probably most, Christians believe in some kind of hell, but many do not. Biblical inerrancy or infallibility is probably adhered to in lesser numbers (or, in my own opinion, is not actually adhered to by anyone, but some Christians like to think they adhere to it).
There are many good reasons found in Christian religion not to believe in hell or to believe that nobody is ever actually sent there. This may not be a most prevalent view, but many theologians have more or less come to this conclusions- coservatives and liberals, Protestants and Catholics.
As for the Bible itself. There are very few references to "hell." In, for example, the NRSV (a very common translation) it is used only a handful of times. In the Old Testament and other Jewish writings, hell doesn't really come up. "Sheol" is referred to, but that is very different from modern understandings of hell.
As far as I know, the Greek word used in the gospels (and one letter) for hell actually refers to a specific place outside of Jerusalem- the reference itself is metaphorical in a way. In every instance in which this word is used in the NRSV and it is translated as "hell," there is a note that says what the Greek word is. This is most often done when there is intentional non-literal translation or when then word is ambiguous.
The Valley of Hinnom?
Nope. The Gaza strip. Maybe the Bible is an accurate prophetic book after all...
I'm not ready to side with Silver yet, but I find it laughable the efforts made in this thread to pretend that American church-going Christians don't believe in a very literal hell (underground, fire, Satan, the whole bit).
That it is ambiguous in the Bible, sure. That it is unclear in the minds of modern Christians and Christian leadership? Please.
That it is ambiguous in the Bible, sure. That it is unclear in the minds of modern Christians and Christian leadership? Please.
Not quite, but I know the song you're thinking of; Shut Up.