Thoughts on hell...

Matthew 18
8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.


Do people teach others to cut there hands or feet off?

flesh99 said:

You essentially say that Revelation is useless for us as modern Christians and yet there is:

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

Your main reason for ignoring Revelation is due to the fact it might lead to belief in something you espouse to be false. This is self serving at best. The whole of the Bible is necessary and it is all valid.

Click to expand...

I never said it was useless. I said it was not appropriate to build doctrines about hell. It is an excellent text for understanding the persecuted church and being encouraged to faithfulness in the midst of trial.

You say I ingore it because I am self serving. This is arrogant, pompous, and false of you. It is in unbecoming for Christians to act this way. I don't ignore Revelation, but I read it carefully. I don't want to misuse God's Holy Word by thinking I understand something just because I can read English. In study, I learned about the kind of literature that Revelation is and this is a key to how to read it. You don't believe that the story of the Good Samaritan actually happed do you? A parable is a fictional story. Somewhere you learned to identify a parable and so you got the point of the story and didn't read it as history. You should apply the same understanding to the Book of Revelation.

Often people are guilty of accusing others of the very thing they are doing. Is there a chance that you want the doctrine of hell to be valid because it serves your purposes?

Joshua Howard said:

No offense intended, but I must say that my views regarding pastorfreud have just went down a good ways. You can make the Bible say anything you want if you go around analyzing it and looking for loopholes... If the Bible says there is a hell, then that's what it means. I stick to the Bible in it's litteral form, and I don't plan to stop anytime soon. Good luck in the discussion, flesh99, Very interesting.

Click to expand...

You take the whole Bible literally? Really? So you think there is an inn that the Samaritan took the wounded man to? Do you require women to be silent in church? Do you oppose long hair for men? Own slaves?

Have you cut off your right hand because you used it to touch? Are you a pacifist?

These are things I should expect from someone who take EVERYTHING literally. If you don't, then you must pick and choose what to believe.

Mongoose said:

Oh wow. I guess this stimulated more conversation than I thought.

Well, this is my last post, and I'll stay out of the rest of the conversation, due to the fact that this is a Christian-only forum and the concept of hell has evoked me to turn away from Christianity. The concept of hell repulses me and makes me distrust God. Now it is just a matter of whether I should change my faith to a different form of Christianity where the concept of hell doesn't exist or I if I should follow the scriptures as they are written and learn to despise God as much as Satan for abandoning the lost souls.

The bottom line for me is this: if there is ANY being that goes to hell, I'm going too. I won't leave them behind. Heaven can't be a perfect world if not everyone can experience it.

Click to expand...

I think there is another option for you, if you are serious. If you think in terms of the "the Bible is 100% literal vs. the Bible can't be trusted" then you are stuck with what you describe.

But you said "follow the scriptures as they are written" or not. I think you SHOULD follow the scriptures as they are written. But who determines the meaning of the text?

The text determines its own meaning
This option is the one supported by some fundamentalists. They believe the text is plain and clear and means exactly what the English translations appears to say. This is NOT a good option and it is dishonest. For one, there is no reason to support that this is how the text should be understood. It is an invention of the enlightenment. It's dishonest because it denies the influence of the reader. When someone says, "the Bible says" they should be saying "this is what I read the Bible to be saying."

The reader determines the meaning
This is what you suggest as one of the options. The reader decides that this means this or this means that. Not good. Too subjective. And it ignores the original context of the text.

The author and original audience determine the meaning
This what I believe we MUST follow. What Paul meant to say to the Corinthians and how they would have heard the message is what is meant. What Matthew meant to communicate to his audience and what they would have heard him saying is what the message is. And God inspired that message to those people through that author, so we must cautiously attempt to understand.

With that in mind, we must understand the original language. The Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic are factors. One example I like to give is the Thees and Thous in KJV. Originally, this language was used because it was more personal. "You" was considered more distant. We have a 100% turnaround today. Thee and Thou is more distant. Likewise, there are some Hebrew and Greek constructions that have a bearing on meaning. Job is written almost entirely in poetry. Some psalms are acrostics, each verse starting with a different Hebrew letter. Sometimes the author plays on words and you miss it in the English. Adam's name is one of those features.

We also have to understand the culture. Cultural practices are referred to every text and influence the meaning. We have to understand their government, their social structure, and the specific practices that are named. Otherwise, we can make a this=that mistake where we get it wrong.

We also have to understand the forms of literature. Do you treat info on the Net the same as a newspaper article? The same as the last issue of Time? The National Enquirer? A flyer on your windshield? When a rock song speaks of love, do you treat it the same as when a philosopher writes? The Bible is filled with literary forms we are not familiar with, like Apocalyse, or that are different from their modern counterparts, like biographies.

So you don't have to abandon the text. You just have to understand what you are reading. And how can you understand unless you are taught? Luther argued Solo Scriptura, then proceeded to write tons of commentaries. Did he mean all we need is the Bible? No. He meant the authority of the Bible did not require the tradition of the church to confirm it. Boy we have stretched that one.

I hope you'll reconsider the faith. God sent Jesus to show us the way to God and the way to overcome sin. We are saved from sin. Hell may exist and the wicked punished and annihilated. Or hell may not exist as a literal place, but as a figurative example of waste and destruction. Either way, Jesus focus was on eternal life starting right now, today. His focus was not on a coming kingdom in the afterlife, but a kingdom coming right now as his followers learn to connect with God and God's purposes in the world.

You take the whole Bible literally?

yes
Really?
yes
So you think there is an inn that the Samaritan took the wounded man to?
No it was a parable and identified as such
Do you require women to be silent in church?
This is current article of debate with the elders at my church, but yes I believe this, as it is what the scripture says
Do you oppose long hair for men?
yes
Own slaves?
Of course not, the instructions are not to own slaves but how to treat them IF you do.


We also have to understand the culture. Cultural practices are referred to every text and influence the meaning. We have to understand their government, their social structure, and the specific practices that are named. Otherwise, we can make a this=that mistake where we get it wrong.

So we can take Christ's basic instructions wrong and mistranslate them because we do not understand the social structure of the day? Total ****! Christ was God incarnate and said what he meant, and it holds true to this very day. Have you forgotten that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever? Or is that taken out of context? You arguments are those of relativism and are disgusting to be quite honest. This creeping relativism is destorying the church and I am proud of those among us who are willing to stand up for it regardless of how it offends people. The Bible is the final word and if what you think does not agree with it then YOU are wrong and not the scripture. This who;le contextual argument is simply an attempt to justify scripture to your preconceived notions and nothing more.

Proverbs 1
5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance-
6 for understanding proverbs and parables,
the sayings and riddles of the wise.
7 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

Psalm 78
1 O my people, hear my teaching;
listen to the words of my mouth.
2 I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter hidden things, things from of old-
3 what we have heard and known,
what our fathers have told us.

Matthew 13
35So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet:
"I will open my mouth in parables,
I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world."

Matthew 13
34Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables; he did not say anything to them without using a parable.

Mark 4
34He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything.

flesh99 said:

You take the whole Bible literally?

yes
Really?
yes

Click to expand...

So do you hate your mother and father? And do you think you should cut off your right hand if it causes you to sin?

So you think there is an inn that the Samaritan took the wounded man to?

Click to expand...

No it was a parable and identified as such

Click to expand...

Where is it identified as a parable?

Do you require women to be silent in church?

Click to expand...

This is current article of debate with the elders at my church, but yes I believe this, as it is what the scripture says

Click to expand...

And I am the disgusting one?
And you still claim to use cultural info? Just when convenient, I see.

Do you oppose long hair for men?

Click to expand...

yes
Own slaves?
Of course not, the instructions are not to own slaves but how to treat them IF you do.

Click to expand...

So would you oppose my rights to own a slave on biblical grounds?

So we can take Christ's basic instructions wrong and mistranslate them because we do not understand the social structure of the day? Total ****! Christ was God incarnate and said what he meant, and it holds true to this very day. Have you forgotten that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever? Or is that taken out of context? You arguments are those of relativism and are disgusting to be quite honest. This creeping relativism is destorying the church and I am proud of those among us who are willing to stand up for it regardless of how it offends people. The Bible is the final word and if what you think does not agree with it then YOU are wrong and not the scripture. This who;le contextual argument is simply an attempt to justify scripture to your preconceived notions and nothing more.

Click to expand...

My arguments are those of people who have studied. You presume to know becaue you read something in English. My beliefs have been shaped by the Bible, but not by picking verses out of context.

Your elders should consider doing away with the offering plate. It's not biblical. They put a chest at the door to collect offerings in the NT.

Fundamentalism is less than 200 years and it is what is destroying the church, IMO. It is filled with pride, thinking we can determine God's intent without using all the resources God has given us.

So do you hate your mother and father?


In comparison with my love for Christ, as that is the context, yes I would say that.


And do you think you should cut off your right hand if it causes you to sin?


As my hands cause me to do nothing, I cause them to act, then yes if my hand caused me to sin then I would cut it off. In fact if my hands had any sense they would carve the brains right out of my head!


So would you oppose my rights to own a slave on biblical grounds?


Yes I would. The Bible is clear that we should follow the laws of the land where we live and it is illegal to own slaves in the US.


Where is it identified as a parable?


By context it is a parable. He uses it in answer to a question, this is a parable and it is easy to see that is by context.

On the issue of women speaking in church. This is an issue of debate. Paul's words on the subject were in direct relation to order in church. He also says "as the law also says". He was refering to the social law of the land that wives were to be submissive. Allowing women to speak in church would have been seen as disorderly and could have violated the law of the land. In context it is easy to see why this directive was given and why it would not apply today. It is still debatable, but the question is where do we draw the line on using context. You have gone so far down the contextual road that you cannot see the scriptures for what they are. You accuse me of thinking I know something because I read it in English. This couldn't be more wrong. When I find a need for context the first place I turn is the original language. I spend a lot of time in interlinear Bibles, lexicons, and the like.

My arguments are from those who have studied as well. You can find anyone to back your position and claim it is from someone who has studied, having read a few books means nothing at all to be honest. I can support pretty much anything I want in scripture if I try hard enough, but this is not the case. Do you think I like idea of a literal hell? Of course not, but in the context of scripture it is obvious that it exists. There are lots of things in scripture that we do not like, this does not mean we should try to explain them away becuase they do not jive with our ideals. Ideals mind you that have been shaped by society.

Your elders should consider doing away with the offering plate. It's not biblical.

The offering plate is also not spoken out against. This is like saying we shouldn't drive because it is never mentioned in the Bible. It is hyperbole, and not even that good of hyperbole. If you like I can give a much better set of hyperbole relating to some of the things I have said

If you like I can give a much better set of hyperbole relating to some of the things I have said


That's true. I picked the last one, not the best one.

But you are still a dualist when it comes to understanding knowledge. You still believe that the Bible contains the meaning within itself somehow. You seek to extract that meaning. All the tools you listed are similar. What of understanding literary devices? You get what a parable is, but you miss the rabbinical argumentation form of Matthew 5. You miss the use of legend and myth in the Bible because of your dualistic view of truth.

Something can be true without being fact. If I said "The sun came up at 5:43 AM this morning" you would not call me a liar. But what I said was not technically true. The sun remained relatively stationary and the earth rotated so that the sun appeared on the horizon. Are fairy tales based in fact? No. Are they true? Some of them serve as excellent vehicles for truth.

When you come to learn that the meaning of the text lies not inside the words themselves, but in the way they were used, you'll be a step closer to recognizing truth. The intent of the author is what must be carried from one generation to the next, not the precise commandments. It should be clear from reading the words of Jesus what he believed regarding equality for women. This principle, coupled with Paul's principle is essential.

Of course, even fundamentalist Josh McDowell admits that the words "let your women be silent" is an addition. Comparing the copies of manuscripts we have, the oldest and most reliable do not contain these words. It was likely an addition by later scribes. Can you accept that? Or do you still believe in dualist magic?

And I am sorry, but you can't make "hate" mean "love less" without some basis. You simply pick and choose what you want to believe. If you apply scholarship, you need to do it consistently. When you do, you'll find several problems. They need not shake your faith--Jesus is still Lord. But they do need to shake the way you view the world. Your efforts to witness to the transformational power of Christ in your life will be dictated, in part, by the way you view the world.

I have no desire to debate further with you. I have seen you refer to the flood as a myth and the fact that you insult me and try to prove that I am dualistic is offensive. I have no desire to futher compromise the truth contained in the Bible by applying modern standards to doctrine. Your claims that I will come closer to the truth offend me and couldn't be farther from fact. You obviously have not read much else of what I have posted. If you read the scholars take on Christ's words about hating your mother and father you will see, from the language and era that the English words are lacking in meaning. I do go back to original languages and meanings as English is not a great language for translation from Greek and Hebrew. I explained the scholarly take on the let your women be silent passage and I am willing to accept that take if the elders in my church decide that it is the position they will take. This is what we are supposed to do at least, submit to the authority of the elders in our church. I have never stated that I was 100% correct and even present opposing viewpoints that have to be considered.

You are the one saying there is no hell. This is out of context and in fact if you had followed your own suggestions and look at the references in context of use of language in the era you would see that your claims are all inaccurate. I have been through it and do know what was in use at the time. You can clarify what is in Revelation by using other scripture, the Old Testament is the key to Revelation. Furthermore all of Revelation is not code. The smoke rising from their torment is not a veiled reference, it in fact coincides with passages in Isaiah. The Bible is clear that there is a hell and that it is very real and not just some esoteric idea.

Jesus taught more about Hell than He did about Heaven - (remembering that the Apocalypse/Revelation is the revelation of Jesus Christ to John) - but in Matthew 13 alone, He talks very clearly, several times, of the fiery furnace, where there will be eternal weeping, wailing & gnashing of teeth

Remember the reason for the global flood of Genesis 6 - "God saw how great was the wickedness of man..how every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually, & God repented that He had made man on the Earth"

The Tower of Babel did not try to reach the heavens physically: it was an attempt to usurp the rule of God thru astrology & the occult - Babel was Babylon, & was occult-dominated. That's why God destroyed it: He is a jealous God, who will not share His glory with idols or demons, so Christ slaughter Antichrist armies at Armageddon - (Joel 3, Zechariah 14, Daniel 7 & Revelation 16/19)

Hell is worse than Armageddon: eternal, conscious torment is worse than instant obliteration, so God commands all, everywhere to repent & trust in Christ's once-for-all atoning sacrifice on the cross to save us from sin, death & Hell

Revelation prophesies Jesus "trampling the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God"

Jesus said, "He who has the Son has the Father also: He who does not have the Son of God does not have the Father"

Ok, Flesh. Perhaps you aren't understanding what I mean by dualistic, but no bother. It seems it would be easier for you to just drop the subject.

Of course the flood is myth. But that doesn't mean that myth is bad or false. Myths serve a vital function of telling us who we are and the nature of the world we live in. Noah's myth is of great theological significance because it takes the flood myth and retells it with a God that is interested in humankind. Compared to its counterparts, the God of Noah's flood is 100x better than the Babylonian gods. Just because there never was a worldwide flood doesn't make the story any less valuable or its lessons any less true.

And I still say there is no ETERNAL hell. I left open the possibility of hell as a holding place or even a place of final and complete punishment. But it is not a place of eternal torment. The text does not support this concept unless you distort it. And you do.

mrversatile48 said:

Jesus taught more about Hell than He did about Heaven

Click to expand...

This is false, performing a search will prove this.

mrversatile48 said:

Hell is worse than Armageddon: eternal, conscious torment is worse than instant obliteration, so God commands all, everywhere to repent & trust in Christ's once-for-all atoning sacrifice on the cross to save us from sin, death & Hell

Click to expand...

This is one thing I've never understood, if Christ's sacrifice was to save us from hell, shouldn't he have to suffer eternal conscious torment? (Otherwise he never really suffered it for us)

mrversatile48 said:

Revelation prophesies Jesus "trampling the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God"

Click to expand...

What is Jesus' weapon?

PastorFreud said:

And I still say there is no ETERNAL hell. I left open the possibility of hell as a holding place or even a place of final and complete punishment. But it is not a place of eternal torment. The text does not support this concept unless you distort it. And you do.

Click to expand...

The text fully supports this if you do not dismiss Revelation, which you do.

I DO NOT dismiss Revelation. I use it for the purpose intended, as an apocalypse. You misuse it as a guidebook for the future.