Archived - A thread about nothing....

[Wayfinder]

The previous points notwithstanding, your message struck me as deserving a respectful answer...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hnelson59
wayfinder, i agree that hell is a place of complete separation from God. this in and of itself could be considered torment. however, i am not sure i agree that it is not "hellfire." the following are all from the NIV translation.

Eternal separation from God would indeed be terrible... especially when contrasted with the hope of eternal life. However, is the concept of hellfire supported Biblically?

I have studied the NIV translation, along with many other translations of the Bible. I've discussed the NIV translation with people of many various religions, and there is a very large group opinion that the NIV was not translated as accurately or dogma-free as they would have us believe. That is my finding. I wanted to state this first, as groundwork.

Matthew 5:22
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.

The Greek Interlinear Bible makes a direct translation of the Greek as follows:

"accountable will be into the Gehenna of the fire."

Or in our language, "will be accountable to the fire of Gehenna." This provides a little insight into the matter. We have to remember Jesus was speaking to Jews. The Jews did not believe in a "hellfire". That was a Greek pagan teaching. Gehenna was a garbage dump directly outside of Jerusalem. It was kept constantly burning by throwing sulfer into it. The bodies of the most vile criminals were thrown into this dump. It was considered by the Jews that anyone thrown into Gehenna rather than having a proper burial, would never have a resurrection (as was their hope for the future). So in Jesus' illustration, he was not telling the Jews they would burn forever in some sadistic place of torment; he was pointing out to them-- in terms they could understand-- that they would be condemned to eternal death without a resurrection.

Matthew 18:9
And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

The very same applies to this scripture. Direct translation: "... the Gehenna of the fire." The NIV translating this as "the fire of hell" is a translation which (in my opinion) bends the original text to fit pre-determined dogma. It's not an honest, integral, correct translation.

Mark 9:43
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 into hell, where the fire never goes out.

Same with this scripture. Again... Gehenna. When he speaks of the "fire than never goes out"... since the Jews did not have a belief in Hellfire (and Jesus was not teaching such a Greek philosophy) he is here emphasizing the fact that the everlasting destruction which they will face will have no end. As the valley of Gehenna was kept burning by the Jews, the everlasting death of such individuals would be "kept burning" by God... meaning that there would be no reprieve. The decision would be final, for all eternity.

Luke 16:22-24
"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell,where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.' (this one was a parable)

As you stated, this is a parable. A parable is a fanciful story to make a point. To believe that this is literal, a person would have to accept that a) People are conscious when they die (which is directly against Ecclesiastes 9:5 which states clearly, "The dead are conscious of nothing at all"). b) that Abraham was already resurrected and in heaven prior to the sacrifice of Jesus (the Bible clearly says that Jesus opened the way to heaven and that he himself was the firstborn of the dead) c) That Abraham could actually see this poor man being tormented in fire (an unappetizing concept for heaven-dwellers, to say the least) and that d) a drop of water would be sufficient to assist this man.

This story is by reasonable understanding a parable, similar to our "fox and the grapes" story. Jesus obviously did not intend for his listeners to believe that there was literally such a place of torment.

unless i am missing something really major, i don't think jesus meant anything other than hell will be "fire and torment"


My guess is that what you're missing is this (if I may state without insult): You've been taught the concept of hellfire all your life. It's natural to accept that belief in the light of the above scriptures, as they appear in the King James, NIV, and some biased translations which do not properly reflect the original wording. However, when one actually looks deep into these matters, we see that there are other explanations.

We have to examine the Bible as a whole and reason upon what we find:

1) As already pointed out, Ecclesiastes 9:5 states that "the dead are conscious of nothing at all." That's pretty black and white.

2) Are we to believe that God is a being of love, mercy, kindness, long-suffering, graciousness, righteousness and supreme justice... unless someone sins for a few years, then he throws all that to the side and places them in a place of mind-numbing, burning torture for the rest of eternity? Why, even we humans would not consider doing such a thing to our worst enemy. Why would we believe God would be capable of such a monstrous thing? No, the Bible teaches that if people disregard God's law, they "return to the dust"... ie, they die. He may find it necessary to destroy them because they refuse to follow his law (just as we sometimes destroy vile criminals) but the Bible does not present God as a sadistic torturer.

3) IF people either go straight to heaven or straight to hellfire when they die... then how does that fit in with the concept of a massive future resurrection presented in several areas of the Bible? Who would be resurrected? No, the resurrection only makes sense if we accept the concept that the dead are dead... they are asleep... unconscious... awaiting God's judgement and resurrection back to life. That's why the salvation of Jesus Christ is so important. The afterlife doesn't just happen automatically-- God is required to do so, at His time, and by His decision.

4) When Lazarus was resurrected, there was no mention by him or anyone else of a heavenly (or otherwise) experience. In fact, there was nothing of the sort mentioned by anyone who was resurrected by either the old prophets, Jesus, or the apostles, either before or after Jesus' death and resurrection. That would seem a glaring ommission.

5) If people instantly went to heaven or hell... then would the resurrections performed by the apostles Paul and Peter really have been of service to those they resurrected? No, those resurrections would only be of benefit if those people were dead, unconscious, awaiting a future resurrection by God. It would have extended their current life on earth and allowed them to remain with their families for the remainder of a natural life.

If one considers the scriptures as a whole and logically reasons things out, the truth that the Bible presents about death overcomes the traditional teachings of man-made religions.

[Xyress]

The same thing happens among religionists (possibly even moreso). I can't tell you how many times I've seen people bend the Bible to the beliefs that their parents taught them while they were growing up.

You do not need to prove that the Bible is true if you don't want to, but even though you've heard all of these arguments before, I haven't heard everything you have to say. I think you present some interesting opinions that I haven't heard before. You've clearly put a lot of time into your beliefs.

That said, I wonder if you had put such ferver towards Islam, could you have developed the same arguments towards its veracity? If you can explain away things like Noah's Ark and the countless contradictions in the Bible, then clearly you could do the same for another religion. You say that you've seen countless people bend towards the beliefs their parents taught them. I'm interested to hear how you grew up and came into your beliefs.

I would guess that most of us here grew up with some form of Christianity. You say that we were spoon-fed evolution theories and the big bang ... but many of us were spoon-fed Christian beliefs at the same time. Some of us looked at both sides and made an informed opinion that it is much more likely that there is no supreme being watching over us. Some of us don't believe that knowledge is the root of all evil ... but I bet there were some rulers back in Biblical times that would have liked all of their people to believe that.

[Xyress]

Originally posted by Wayfinder
People believe what they choose to believe. I have no reason to accept your teachings. I find them illogical and there's nothing to gain in them. According to your evolutionist beliefs, you're going to come to an end and cease to exist. To tell the truth, that doesn't really ring my chimes.

So basically you are saying that your beliefs are built on the consequences of not believing? You have nothing to gain from believing something else? I'm not trying to gain anything - just trying to find the truth. When you put aside your fears and look at both sides equally, you might see that it makes a lot more sense that we evolved to the point we are now rather than a supernatural being creating us.

Originally posted by Wayfinder
I see a leaf, and I see a man, and I say, "Hey, these are so complex they could not have possibly occured by chance circumstance. They have to have had intelligent design."

Do you draw the same conclusions about God? He has to be more complex than we are - so he must also have also been a product of intelligent design, right?

The problem with one creator of the Universe is that it doesn't really help us understand how the Universe was created at all - it only takes it up one more level. If God could just be, then couldn't the Universe also just be? Is the Universe more complex than God?

[hnelson59]

Originally posted by Wayfinder
The Greek Interlinear Bible makes a direct translation of the Greek as follows:

"accountable will be into the Gehenna of the fire."

thanks for the response. very enlightening. in my limited studies i have used mostly strong's and then various translations of the bible - nkjv, niv, rsv, et al (i really enjoy the message).

i did take some basic theology through liberty university - hope that does not make you cringe! :D

anyway - i am not set on the "hellfire" thing, always curious as to what else is out there and your reference is not one i am faniliar with but sounds like i should be.

i am a christian who happens to be attending a nazarene church. i have been a member of the american baptist (the one i attended did not support homosexuality), southern baptist and as a kid a methodist church.

my basic belief is that the bible is true. period. i may not have done the research you have, but like you it makes more sense to me than "it just happened" and like you i feel i do not have to prove its truth only present its truth to others.

it is too bad you did not become involved in the thread on gay marriage - that would have been interesting! :D

again, thanks for the response - any day i learn something new is a good day!:approve:

[Howard2k]

Hey Wayfinder.



One more thing I'd like to hear yourv(and anyone else's) thoughts on is something that X touched on. Supposing that you had been born in Saudia Arabia. Would you now believe in Islam with the same conviction with which you believe in your current train of thought?

Why is it that there are so comparatively few xtians in the middle east, if being born into a religion is not the MAJOR influence on our beliefs?

Ditto Muslims 'learning' the path in Western nations?

[Jwilker]

I'd still like to see some of the observations you've made. I have yet to see any evidence to support your belief that evolution is wrong. You keep saying it's volumes but maybe we could get a peek.

You mention other ideas on fossils... such as?

I've heard all this other stuff before. It's the same believe because you should arguments. I have yet to meet some one who can argue against evolution with actual data to back it up.

[Wayfinder]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xyress
So basically you are saying that your beliefs are built on the consequences of not believing?

No, that's not at all what I said. That's twisting my words. I believe I was quite clear when I stated that I believe what I do because I've studied the matter on BOTH sides and come to a valid conclusion based on the examination of data and fact.


You have nothing to gain from believing something else? I'm not trying to gain anything - just trying to find the truth. When you put aside your fears and look at both sides equally, you might see that it makes a lot more sense that we evolved to the point we are now rather than a supernatural being creating us.

My question is why it is you find it more logical that we evolved from chance circumstance, than the concept that we were designed by a being more intelligent and powerful than we are.


Do you draw the same conclusions about God? He has to be more complex than we are - so he must also have also been a product of intelligent design, right?

I would get into this, but I'm sure you'll agree it would be to no purpose. I've argued this before with others. The same folks who argue that God couldn't possibly have always existed will claim that matter/energy either always existed or came from nothing. It's a dead-end, fruitless debate.

Again, people believe what they choose to believe.

[Wayfinder]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hnelson59
thanks for the response. very enlightening. i did take some basic theology through liberty university - hope that does not make you cringe! :D

Not at all. Well, not much. :p

anyway - i am not set on the "hellfire" thing, always curious as to what else is out there and your reference is not one i am faniliar with but sounds like i should be.

Yah, you know, that's one of the things that just never did jive with me. Even before I began to seriously study the Bible, when people told me that "God is love" and then turned around and said that God burned people forever for a few measly years of sinning... that just never made sense. So when I found arguments to the contrary, things started to fall into place.

The reference I used is the "Westcott and Hort Interlinear Reference", which presents the original Greek text, a direct-to-english translation of that text, and then a modern-day Biblical translation of the text. So that's three nice references contained in one book. I've found it to be a valuable study source. There are a number of interlinear Bibles on the market but I like this one because it does present the direct-to-english, which some lack.

my basic belief is that the bible is true. period. i may not have done the research you have, but like you it makes more sense to me than "it just happened" and like you i feel i do not have to prove its truth only present its truth to others.

Yup, that pretty much sums up my beliefs. I don't feel it's proper for me to try to cram my beliefs down the throat of someone who either believes differently, disagrees, or doesn't want to know. But if someone is earnestly seeking information, that's another thing.

it is too bad you did not become involved in the thread on gay marriage - that would have been interesting! :D

Sorry I missed it. But I'm afraid my position would have been short, to the point and probably unpopular.

again, thanks for the response - any day i learn something new is a good day!:approve:

It's pleasant to meet folks who are open minded. I don't ask that people agree with me... just that they don't close themselves to other possible lines of thought. I try to do so myself (in fact, a woman just a couple of weeks ago pointed out to me an error in my Biblical history that taught me a little meekness-- :p )

So like you, I always try to keep my mind open. Except when it comes to evolution of course, 'cause that's just plain balmy.

[Wayfinder]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Howard2k
Hey Wayfinder.

One more thing I'd like to hear yourv(and anyone else's) thoughts on is something that X touched on. Supposing that you had been born in Saudia Arabia. Would you now believe in Islam with the same conviction with which you believe in your current train of thought?
Why is it that there are so comparatively few xtians in the middle east, if being born into a religion is not the MAJOR influence on our beliefs?


Hiya.

Yup, there's no doubt that the environment into which we're born strongly influences our future beliefs (either positively or negatively). I believe I made a statement back there somewhere which agrees with you on this.

In fact, quite a bit of my life has been spent unlearning things that I learned as a child. I think that if we mature properly, that's something we all go through. (Don't want to get into specifics in my case... that's a bit private).

Yes, there are Muslims who are firmly entrenched in their beliefs, as there are numerous other religions and walks of life.

But I have always been of the belief that there is one, universal truth (or to be more specific, a set of individual truths that form a universal package). Fire burns. Gravity pulls. Lack of heat freezes. Lack of morality harms.

I believe the moral laws are just as real and important and universal as other laws. Not everything is black and white. There are some gray areas (even the Bible allows for such). But then, there are black and white areas, absolutes which should not be broken. If they are, serious consequences follow.

Those universal laws and truths apply no matter how someone is raised. If he's raised a Muslim, even if he's taught to kill "infidels"... there's something deep inside him that says, "This is wrong"... even if he's consciously unwilling to admit it. And unfortunately, some people are brainwashed to such a great extent that there is almost nothing that could ever change their opinions.

If you'll permit, I have always wondered why it is that some evolutionists (and religionists, to be frank) actually get angry when I tell them the simple truth of what the Bible teaches. Why get angry? I personally believe that it's because God has placed in each individual a deep, inner knowledge of what is right and wrong, and when I present God's viewpoint on matters, that makes people feel very uneasy, threatened, because down somewhere deep inside... they know. And they don't like someone pointing out that their lifestyle is not acceptable... because down deep inside they already know that, no matter how much they may argue and rationalize to the contrary. That's just my opinion based on personal observation, nothing more.

The Christian Bible teaches that God judges each person individually as to whether they are righteous or not. The guidelines by which that judgement is done is God's, not man's not tradition's. If God looks inside the heart of a man and discerns that "This man is not Christian, but his heart is righteous and all he has to do is learn the facts to make him whole"... then that is God's judgement to make, not mine. If God decides on judgement day to spare a Muslim because that particular person is judged by God to be essentially good... then I will applaud that decision as great tolerance and mercy.

But at the same time, if a proclaimed Christian is judged to be unrighteous... that same perfect justice would require appropriate judgement.

In the end, it's God's call. So I hope that helps explain the Biblical view of God's justice. He's not as intolerant and viscious as some religions would have us believe... but he doesn't tolerate wickedness either. God is merciful... but He's impossible to fool.

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Jwilker
It's the same believe because you should arguments.

Forgive me, but... huh?
:p

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by star50fiveoh
.
.

I loved your pong graphic. Very simple, unoffensive, funny and highly appropriate. :D

[Wayfinder]

Originally posted by Jwilker
I'd still like to see some of the observations you've made. I have yet to see any evidence to support your belief that evolution is wrong. You keep saying it's volumes but maybe we could get a peek.

You mention other ideas on fossils... such as?

Well, as I stated earlier I learned long ago to not argue with evolutionists on their own ground... because they never, ever accept the scientific evidence I present, no matter how valid. If people disagree with the basic concept that DNA and RNA scream intelligent design-- nothing else I present is going to be accepted either. So I no longer bother. I don't even argue the DNA/RNA thing anymore. They either accept what's right before their eyes, or they don't. It's their choice.

However, as a simple, easily recognized concept... the fossil record even among scientists is largely open to individual interpretation. Five scientists can study a fossil and come up with ten different explanations. People often disagree with one another as to what particular fossil data means.

I mean, realistically speaking, there is even heavy debate within the scientific community as to the accuracy of Carbon 14 dating.

So in the end, anything that is open to interpretation... is not hard science. And if it's open to interpretation even among scientists... then imagine what it is open to when we get into the concept of creation, a world once ravaged by a global flood, etc.

Add to this that Satan is just as real as molecules. He's just as wicked and evil as the Bible presents. He is intent on misleading people away from the truth of God. One of his greatest weapons is that scientists don't believe he exists. The worst enemy you can have is one that you don't realize is there. The Bible says that Satan is the great deceiver who "blinds the minds of the unbelievers". I have seen people completely ignore hard evidence right before their eyes... as I'm sure most everyone here has witnessed at one time or another.

I find the fossil record to be inconclusive. It's full of gaping data holes and contradictory findings, even among learned scholars. That's part of the reason the evolution theory is still a theory. And I don't discuss it because, if you've studied the fossil record and haven't reached the same conclusion... what will it matter what I say? I will not be able to present enough factual information to convince you, and to tell the truth, I have neither the time, nor the desire to do so.

My obligation is to help people understand what the Bible says. That's the extent of it. Whether they believe or not, again, is their choice.

[Wayfinder]

Dunno what happened here. I musta quoted my own message rather than editing. Since I don't know how to delete these things... Discard. :p

[Wayfinder]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xyress
You do not need to prove that the Bible is true if you don't want to, but even though you've heard all of these arguments before, I haven't heard everything you have to say. I think you present some interesting opinions that I haven't heard before. You've clearly put a lot of time into your beliefs.

Pleased you're enjoying them, regardless of your agreement or not. That after all, is the purpose of discussion isn't it... just to get people to think, regardless of what conclusions they draw. Even though we disagree in beliefs, I've enjoyed your posts as well.

If you can explain away things like Noah's Ark and the countless contradictions in the Bible

Two thoughts on these two subjects: in every instance that someone has shown to me a supposed contradiction in the Bible, upon research it was discovered the flaw was not in the Bible... but a lack of knowledge on their part. Every time, without exception. So after literally dozens of such experiences-- I have come to believe the Bible, not claims as to its inaccuracy. They just never prove valid.

The other thing is that about the flood of Noah's day. I've heard people rake this one up one side and down the other and to tell the truth, I just don't get it. Every major culture on earth, Christian or not, has an ancient tale about a group of people that survived a vast flood, usually earthwide. A global flood is scientifically feasible (I've checked the data). So why do people continue to harp on this? The only conclusion that I draw is the same about Bible critics: they just plain haven't researched it properly.

I am fully convinced that if we were to actually find the ark itself, there would be people who would choose to rationalize it away. And the only reason I can see for that, is because they don't WANT to believe.

[Howard2k]

btw, :cheers: to the guy/girl that sent me the "anonymous" nasty email.

Not as anonymous as you might think.