The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight

[heretic888]

Continued from here.

Happy huntin'.

 

[heretic888]

Ok, let's get a few things straight here...

1) At no point did I ever refer to the Bible in itself was bovine feces. If you look at what I actually said in context, I was specifically addressing traditional Christian apologism and fundamentalist doctrine. The Bible, in my mind, is a multi-layered work that can be subject to a myriad of diverse interpretations. This is especially true in the Jewish tradition of midrash, the Christian tradition of docetism, or the Muslim tradition of tawil.

2) Contrary to popular belief, the Bible most commonly used by Christians was never written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Christian 'Old Testament' is a an intertestamental work known as the Septugaint, a Greek rendering of the Torah which has many overt transliteration changes intended to make Judaism more agreeable to the Hellenistic philosophy popular at the time. To give but one example: the Septugaint references a Messianic prophecy of a virgin birth, the Torah does not. As for the 'New Testament' itself, every one of its books are originally in Greek.

3) There are a few minority Christian groups speckled throughout the Middle East that are living exceptions to Point 2, such as the Peshitta --- but the overwhelming bulk of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians use Greek works as their source material for Biblical translations.

4) I would not agree with any definition of 'Christian' as 'one who professes belief in Jesus Christ', popular as it may be. Not all groups that are historically or currently recognized as 'Christian' believe that Jesus Christ even existed as a historical person. Even among those that do, not all subscribe to the belief that he was some sort of divine Redeemer (much in the tradition of the Hellenistic Mystery Schools). In fact, my guess is that most 'Christians' of the first two centuries CE would be excluded by popular definitions of 'Christianity' (which was far more diverse and variegated in the first few centuries of its history than it is now).

5) I don't think I should have to reiterate that the belief that God has personal opinions about life and that only a select group of special people knows what they are is both exceedingly dangerous, unabashedly irrational, and morally arrogant to the extreme. It also further reflects my previous thesis: that, for most people, any personal 'god' is simply a deified projection of their own superego (which itself is informed by authoritative sources of the culture and community one is raised up in).

6) One should be cautious when proclaiming what 'Paul' did or did not write. Of the 13 letters of the New Testament attributed to him, roughly 7 are believed to be mostly 'authentic' --- and, even among those 7, it is pretty much well-acknowledged that they were edited and manipulated by early Church authorities like Tertullian. Supposedly, the letter to the Galatians is supposed to be the least doctored of all the Pauline works. The Pastorals, by contrast, are almost univerally accepted as forgeries of later centuries.

7) While the Marcionite schools of Gnosticism is regarded as 'heresy' today, during the first two centuries CE, it was without doubt the most popular and widespread of any single sect of Christianity. The 7 'authentic' Pauline letters were written to churches that are all known to be centers of Marcionism by the middle of the 2nd century CE. This is very telling.

8) As for 'hell', it is never really clarified or explained in the New Testament. It is generally assumed that the audience had some idea on what 'hell' is (which is hades in the original Greek) in the first place, most likely with a Platonic context in mind. There is no doubt, however, that 'hell' (like much else in the New Testament) is a Hellenistic philosophical concept.

9) I stand by my earlier statement: Christianity as it is today has a living history and tradition, despite what is or is not stated in the Bible. To give but one example, early Christian theology was more prominently influenced by pseudo-Dionysius and Boethius than it was by any single Biblical book. Augustine probably has had more influence on Christian doctrine than any single sources in history (Biblical or otherwise). It is a fallacy to assume that Christianity simply equals the Bible, without qualification.

That about sums it up. Laterz.

 

[mantis]

i have a question
when you say religion bans something.. what does that mean to you?
like, why would religion ban something?

 

[heretic888]

i have a question
when you say religion bans something.. what does that mean to you?
like, why would religion ban something?

You'd have to clarify your context here...

Are you referring to doctrinal heresy?? Or, are you referring to what any given faith defines as 'evils' or 'sins'??

In either case, most religions I have experience with typically resort to an Appeal To Authority ("cuz God said so") or an Appeal To Tradition ("cuz that's how we've always done it") to defend their positions on the matter.

Laterz.

 

[mantis]

yah.. i dont know what i want to know anymore
the questions about religion could be tough to ask and to answer...
i just have different understanding of religion forbidding something..
for example they were talking about gay marriage.. so the listed a bunch of reasons and religion was one of them... my understanding is relgions bans it because of all of the rest of the reasons.. u know what i mean?
you can disregard my question though.. im not sure im expression myself right

 

[heretic888]

yah.. i dont know what i want to know anymore
the questions about religion could be tough to ask and to answer...
i just have different understanding of religion forbidding something..
for example they were talking about gay marriage.. so the listed a bunch of reasons and religion was one of them... my understanding is relgions bans it because of all of the rest of the reasons.. u know what i mean?
you can disregard my question though.. im not sure im expression myself right

I'm still not entirely sure I comprehend your meaning here.

Traditional theological apologetics are typically highly circular and self-confirming in nature, if that's what you were going for. The perfect example are traditional arguments concerning the 'infallibility' of Bible --- whereby we 'know' the Bible is the infallible Word of God simply because it says so. That is what is known as circular reasoning.

As for the origins of why any given religion bans or forbids a given way of thinking or behaving, it most likely has a lot to do with historical, economic, and cultural context. Much of the 'patriarchal' principles of many traditional religions, for example, are largely a product of agrarian and equestrian societies in which it was physically impossible for women to engage in long-term 'bread-winning' due to a lack of upper body strength and the risk of maternal miscarriage. As such, it would have been communally beneficial for women to 'submit' to men as the principle providers to the household.

This is due to limitations in technology correlating with constraints in culture. In no way is it 'divinely ordained'. My guess is much of the rules and prescripts of traditional religion are of this order.

Laterz.

 

[mantis]

i come from a different background
and do not know much about the bible and such..
but my understanding is what is referred to by the 'bible' today isnt really the bible that was revealed to Jesus, or the 'Bible' he brought to the world. i understand the current one is something like 'commentary' that Jesus' companions wrote about him, or things they reported about him. again im not too sure.. but if this is the case what you have today as the 'Bible' is infallible actually, because it is just like any other book written by humans.
Forgive me if i disagree with you when you say religions forbid certain things based on cultural, historical, or economic input. the reason for my disagreement is usually religions come to revolutionize the way people live, and to change and correct societies. this is why you always hear prophets are beging chased by a large group of people.. especially those of power and wealth.
also, in your argument you kind of ignore the women's psychological and emotional differences from men. no man strives to have kids as women do, that's because there is something in them (im not a biologist, so dont expect big complex bio words haha) that stirs their emotions to become mothers or something!
again, im not sure of anything im saying.. but talking to you is pretty informative so far
thanks

 

[BlackCatBonz]

all i have to say about the bible and god is.......prove it

the only thing people have to live with everyday is their own guilt over things which they could have done but did not do.

in the end they have forgiveness of all sins commited. this brings people peace, to know that the most heinous crimes commited dont mean squat as long as you take jesus into your heart.

whatever makes you sleep better at night.

 

[heretic888]

but my understanding is what is referred to by the 'bible' today isnt really the bible that was revealed to Jesus, or the 'Bible' he brought to the world. i understand the current one is something like 'commentary' that Jesus' companions wrote about him, or things they reported about him. again im not too sure..

What needs to be understood is that the role 'Jesus Christ' plays in the early Christian sects of the first few centuries CE, as well as the particular teachings he expounds, vary considerably from group to group. There is absolutely no sense of uniformity whatsoever among early Christianity --- which, of course, is no problem given the Christian tradition of docetism (the understanding that the Gospel narrative records 'spiritual' or 'mystical' events, and not actual biographical or historical accounts), but is a real pain in the keister to Biblical literalism.

The truth of the matter is that there were quite literally dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Christian 'Gospels' in the first few centuries CE. The four Gospels we have inherited in the Christian Bible were chosen by the Council of Nicea (circa 330 CE) for political reasons (at the behest of the recently-converted Emperor Constantine), not because they were the most popular or the most well-documented. It is well-recognized at this point, for example, that the famed Gospel of Thomas (a list of sayings and parables similar to the hypothetical Q Gospel) is as old (if not older) as the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke), and that it quite possibly served as a partial source material for them (along with Q).

In general, the 'Jesus Christ' of most early Christian groups is represented as a symbol, personification, or embodiment of the Logos (Word) and Sophia (Wisdom). Many early Christians --- like Minucius Felix, Athenagoras, Dionysius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and even Galatians' Paul --- are virtually unconcerned with the biographical or historical details of Jesus' life, or those of his supposed disciples. They seem to view him mostly as a mystical reality, a manifestation or 'vehicle' of the Logos.

Most of these early Christians, even Paul, also chastise their brethren for interpreting the Gospels literally. Minucius Felix is even more to-the-point, when he defends his fellow Christians of "worshipping a criminal that died on a piece of wood" --- making it clear in no uncertain terms that they do not wished to be accused of such "atrocities".

but if this is the case what you have today as the 'Bible' is infallible actually, because it is just like any other book written by humans.

I think what you mean to say here is that the Bible is actually fallible, like all other works of human literature.

Forgive me if i disagree with you when you say religions forbid certain things based on cultural, historical, or economic input.

So, you think its just coincidental that, say, Judaism forbids the eating of pork at a time in Hebrew history when it would have been economically beneficial to the community to invest more effort into the fish industry??

Or, say, we see roughly 90% of the principal deities in agrarian and equestrian pantheons being male --- but, coincidentally, only about 30% of the principal deities of horticultural pantheons are male (with another 30% being female and another 30% being a combination of both)??

Or, say, we see an emphasis on self-determinism, free will, and 'natural theology' when an economic middle class begins to emerge in Western Europe??

Sorry, I'm not buyin' it.

the reason for my disagreement is usually religions come to revolutionize the way people live, and to change and correct societies. this is why you always hear prophets are beging chased by a large group of people.. especially those of power and wealth.

Care to cite some historical examples??

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure many religious leaders are exactly the type of charismatic visionaries you're making them out to be. But, when it comes to sheer mythology, we can't ignore this is simply a product of the time and place it comes from.

also, in your argument you kind of ignore the women's psychological and emotional differences from men. no man strives to have kids as women do, that's because there is something in them (im not a biologist, so dont expect big complex bio words haha) that stirs their emotions to become mothers or something!

No, I didn't ignore anything.

I simply have a fuller knowledge of historical anthropology and know full well that women have not always been relegated to second-class citizens in human society. There are direct correlations with gender roles in any given culture as pertaining to a society's level of technology and their principal means of subsistance.

We see feminism flourishing in industrial and informational societies in large part because the technology no longer relies on upper body strength and no longer poses a risk of miscarriage to pregnancies.

I also know that the ideology that women don't like to pursue careers because they're biologically 'meant' to stay at home is complete load of bovine feces.

Laterz.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Originally Posted by mantis
also, in your argument you kind of ignore the women's psychological and emotional differences from men. no man strives to have kids as women do, that's because there is something in them (im not a biologist, so dont expect big complex bio words haha) that stirs their emotions to become mothers or something!

Heretic888 replied:
No, I didn't ignore anything.

I simply have a fuller knowledge of historical anthropology and know full well that women have not always been relegated to second-class citizens in human society. There are direct correlations with gender roles in any given culture as pertaining to a society's level of technology and their principal means of subsistance.

We see feminism flourishing in industrial and informational societies in large part because the technology no longer relies on upper body strength and no longer poses a risk of miscarriage to pregnancies.

I also know that the ideology that women don't like to pursue careers because they're biologically 'meant' to stay at home is complete load of bovine feces."

Herry, As always, I'm in awe of your grasp of --- stuff.:asian:

Mantis, I'm trying to understand your statement "because there is something in them ... that stirs their emotions to become mothers or something!":erg: While being pregnant and giving birth have an emotional context to them, I must admit to being mystified as to what it is that made me *emotionally want* to become a mother. Please expand upon your thoughts. KT

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Ok, let's get a few things straight here...

Bravo. Excellent post. Even though you hammered me on a point or two.

I'd give you a greenie, but the engine says I've given you too many.



Regards,



Steve

 

[kenposis]

In response to the question of God's existence, I would refer you to this site. And if you have time, there are many other topics there that might be of interest to you.
Just to put in my opinion, I believe that God is the Creator of the universe and all that it contains. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Basically anything that you can look up on the aforementioned website that they agree with, I agree with.

~Jessica

 

[hardheadjarhead]

8) As for 'hell', it is never really clarified or explained in the New Testament. It is generally assumed that the audience had some idea on what 'hell' is (which is hades in the original Greek) in the first place, most likely with a Platonic context in mind. There is no doubt, however, that 'hell' (like much else in the New Testament) is a Hellenistic philosophical concept.

9) I stand by my earlier statement: Christianity as it is today has a living history and tradition, despite what is or is not stated in the Bible. To give but one example, early Christian theology was more prominently influenced by pseudo-Dionysius and Boethius than it was by any single Biblical book. Augustine probably has had more influence on Christian doctrine than any single sources in history (Biblical or otherwise). It is a fallacy to assume that Christianity simply equals the Bible, without qualification.

I agree with your observations on Hell...and if anyone is interested in this, you might consult "The Formation of Hell" by Alan Bernstein. In the thread on Gay marriage, however, the Hell I was referring to drew upon common perceptions of Hell as a place of unending torment. When we speak of Gays and their supposed after-death punishment for their sodomy, this is the most common view espoused by Christians who condemn them. I acknowledge views less horrific...that Hell is merely an absence of the glory of God; that Hell is (for some) a cleansing of sins prior to a return to God; that Hell is a "second death" where the soul undergoes annihilation. I'd suggest that these are not well known or widely held views among those that condemn homosexuals, however.

As for Christianity not equaling the Bible, you caught me in a fallacy in my stating that I could not dance around the conflicting messages of damnation and divine love. However; I was directing that (again) at those who freely buy into the Boschian Hell of agony and who yet espouse a compassionate God. I still can not dance around that issue, but I can accept that there are those who don't dance the dance in the first place and yet call themselves Christians. With them I have no argument.

Thanks for opening this very inflammatory thread. I look forward to your posts. I have to say, Heretic, when it comes to theology I always learn something from you...I just wish you'd post more references so I can build up my Christmas wish-list for books.


Regards,


Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

In response to the question of God's existence, I would refer you to this site. And if you have time, there are many other topics there that might be of interest to you.
Just to put in my opinion, I believe that God is the Creator of the universe and all that it contains. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Basically anything that you can look up on the aforementioned website that they agree with, I agree with.

~Jessica

Normally I don't like to post twice in a row, but in dealing with two separate people that is sometimes useful.

Jessica, what have you read that counters the views espoused in the link you provided? When you weighed the arguments, what arguments from the other side did you consider?


Regards,


Steve

 

[arnisador]

Dante taught me all I need to know about Hell.

 

[heretic888]

Herry, As always, I'm in awe of your grasp of --- stuff.:asian:

Bravo. Excellent post. Even though you hammered me on a point or two.

Thanks, guys. :asian:

And, Steve, to be completely fair... you had it comin'.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

In response to the question of God's existence, I would refer you to this site. And if you have time, there are many other topics there that might be of interest to you.

The phrase 'been there, done that' suddenly comes to mind.

C'man, now, you're re-hashing those old arguments?? Descartes?? Aquinas?? Pascal?? Puh-leeze.

Sorry, but you may want to do a bit more reading on the subject of philosophy. Every one of those arguments is completely fallacious and, more often than not, circular and self-confirming. For the most part, they're all based on a priori metaphysical assumptions derived from pre-existing religious tradition.

To give but one example, let's look at Thomas Aquinas' 'Unmoved Mover' argument --- that, essentially, because all movement has a causation there must be a singular origin for all 'motion' in the universe. That origin, verily, is 'God'.

Any casual examination of this argument totally breaks it down:

1) There is no good reason to believe that the 'motion' of the universe does, in fact, not follow an unending chain of causality, which Aquinas believed to be 'impossible'.

2) There is no good reason to believe that only ONE 'Unmoved Mover' is possible.

3) There is no good reason to believe this 'Unmoved Mover' is the 'God' figure of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

All the other arguments cited in the link are pretty much as easily eroded as the above.

Just to put in my opinion, I believe that God is the Creator of the universe and all that it contains. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

In other words, an Appeal To Authority. More circular logic. Wee!

Laterz.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Dante taught me all I need to know about Hell.

Aw - you beat me to it.

Then again, that's assuming that there's a belief in Hell and more than one interpretation of it.

I agree with BlackCatBonz' statement about (I'm paraphrasing here) Hell being within the individual - i.e., you have to live with yourself and your choices and their consequences. It's interesting that we provide ourselves with opportunities for asking for forgiveness from a Divine Being (this day being the beginning of that time for me and those believing as I do, ending next Wednesday) but are we really asking that entity for forgiveness or ourselves for forgiveness? Will our bad mistakes and poor judgment magically disappear? I'm curious as to how you all see it.

 

[Andrew Green]

In response to the question of God's existence, I would refer you to this site. And if you have time, there are many other topics there that might be of interest to you.
Just to put in my opinion, I believe that God is the Creator of the universe and all that it contains. I believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Basically anything that you can look up on the aforementioned website that they agree with, I agree with.

~Jessica

I had a skim through the first page, and it's arguments for God's existance.

Those are all very common arguments that any first year philosophy student has heard, and all are full of more holes then swiss cheese...

The biblical argument fails completely as it has no logical premiss, it says "We know it in our hearts".

The Ontological one was actually shot down by a Chrisitan monk who "proved" the existance of a perfect island with it. Basically it says "I define God as something that exists, therefore he exists"

The cosmological argument fails because just because everything has an effect, and effects go back a long way, we got no idea what the initial one was. To assume it was supernatural just because we don't know is a big falacy. Like saying, I found this penny, I'm not sure how it got there, but someone must have put it there, so it must have been Elvis back from the grave.

The moral argument is just evolution, if we didn't have a moral code we wouldn't have survived, so natural selection kicks in and beings develop a moral code in order to adapt to living in groups.

 

[heretic888]

I agree with your observations on Hell...and if anyone is interested in this, you might consult "The Formation of Hell" by Alan Bernstein.

Oh, some light reading over the winter break.

In the thread on Gay marriage, however, the Hell I was referring to drew upon common perceptions of Hell as a place of unending torment. When we speak of Gays and their supposed after-death punishment for their sodomy, this is the most common view espoused by Christians who condemn them.

Yup, I'd have to agree with you there.

I'd also have to say that that particular vision of 'hell' is by and large a product of medieval theology. Obviously, we see some of the more fanatical literalists of the early Church pronounce how those that disagree with them will burn and they will laugh at their misery from the loftiness of Providence --- but those were typically minority opinions among a greater backdrop of what most Christian intellectuals considered to be an alternate school of Platonism.

Nah, we don't see the whole 'fire and brimstone' thing really taking off until sometime during the aptly-named Dark Ages. It is that legacy modern Christianity has inherited.

I acknowledge views less horrific...that Hell is merely an absence of the glory of God; that Hell is (for some) a cleansing of sins prior to a return to God; that Hell is a "second death" where the soul undergoes annihilation. I'd suggest that these are not well known or widely held views among those that condemn homosexuals, however.

Yup, again.

Personally, I'm gonna have to go with the Roman Catholic Church on this one --- 'hell' is defined as separation from 'God', it is a state of being, it is not a literal 'place'. In other words, you don't go to 'hell' when you die. You could very well be in 'hell' right now.

Come to think of it, that's, um, pretty much the Platonic context for hades, too --- that the physical body (experienced as an insolated, individual, exclusive identity as such) is a 'tomb for the soul'. Huh, imagine that. A continuity. Who'dah thunk it??

P.S.: The state of 'cleansing one of sins before returning to God' sounds more like Purgatory, in my opinion.

As for Christianity not equaling the Bible, you caught me in a fallacy in my stating that I could not dance around the conflicting messages of damnation and divine love.

Looks like, but I was really addressing some critiques others made of my previous statements.

However; I was directing that (again) at those who freely buy into the Boschian Hell of agony and who yet espouse a compassionate God. I still can not dance around that issue, but I can accept that there are those who don't dance the dance in the first place and yet call themselves Christians. With them I have no argument.

Okies.

Thanks for opening this very inflammatory thread. I look forward to your posts.

Ah aim's tah pleeze.

I have to say, Heretic, when it comes to theology I always learn something from you...I just wish you'd post more references so I can build up my Christmas wish-list for books.

Hrmmm.... well, I cited a LOT of works in my previous 'Historical Jesus' threads. Oftentimes, with direct quotations from said works. You could try perusing through those if you're looking for academic specifics.

In general, though, I post when I'm at college and don't lug around my entire library with me. Because of this, I'm pretty much jotting down what I can recall off-hand.

As a good general source, though, I'd recommend Tim Freke and Pete Gandy's The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God? and Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians, as well as Neil Douglas-Klotz's The Hidden Gospel: Decoding the Spiritual Message of the Aramaic Jesus. A good online source is Earl Doherty's The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?

Laterz.