The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight

[Marginal]

Once again the actual point was ignored for a much easier bend of the arguement.

Nope. What I've seen so far is someone states something, then you break out the ol' "That's not Christianity as I would define it." chestnut.

What I am saying (and its pretty obvious to most reasonable adults) is that you cannot argue or debate with differing premises.

But here you are.

Unless of course this thread is less about true sound debate and just a place to inflate fallacious opinions.

You wouldn't be mired in semantical dickering if you thought otherwise.

Would you mind outlining your belief of the afterlife's variance in OT books? Complete with scriptures refrencing this from more than one chapter of one book?

I offered an example of this variance already. If you can't read my posts, and ignore the meat in favor of easy dodges...

Speaking of fallicies....What scholars? How many scholars? Scholars from what religion, with what education?

*sigh*

My deffinition of Christianity for this thread comes from the bible. I may be mistaken but I thought the name of this thread was The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight. So, taking the biblical deffinition of Christianity, the subject of hell is quite steadfast....at least within the confines of the bible.

Except that it's not. Takes a lot of willful ignorance to ignore the fact that the Bible wasn't even assembled until well after Christ's death, and that it was assembleed under various historical pressures, politics etc.

It would be much more fruitfull to have my points actually proven wrong rather than my background or my alleged fallacies attacked.

It's never fruitful to disprove nonarguments.

Again, staying within the confines of this thread (the bible) your point is invalid. The bible defines itself as the authority and only true words of God....to refrence or compare with other texts, writings, or myths is simply out of the context of our debate.

Nope.

 

[BlackCatBonz]

i would like to point out that the title of the thread did include the words "other topics of casual delight"

i would take other to mean the myths and mythologies and related facts or debunking thereof.

 

[mantis]

If I may?

Since you're asking, and nobody (you included) is giving, I'll take the first stab at it, so...


For the sake of this thread (already four pages long), the definition of "Christian" is....



.... drumroll please....


Any religion who's core, fundamental beliefs are centered around any and all supposed teachings and accounts of the "historical" figure known popularly around the world as Christ.

How's that? Are we (all of us) ready to state and defend our positions now? Is this official enough for this thread?

im not sure this is what 7starMantis is asking.. he's just complaining that people label things like this is "christian" this is "unchristian", this is "American", this is "unamerican" and so on... he asking who decides which acts are christians and which arent.
my point when i said " a set definition of christian, are you kidding?!" was that churches tend to manipulate people's minds and tell them "hey, this is christian, and this is not" to basically tell people what to do, and what not to do leaving them no space to argue to disagree...

 

[Ray]

I wasn't taking a position on the matter--just making an observation. We have Mormon friends who have this problem a lot. They were excluded from the local Christian homeschooling group, for example, on the grounds that their belief in a prophet after Jesus made them non-Christians in the same way as for Muslims.

I don't think that "traditional" Christians exclude Mormons from their definition {of Christians} because there were post-Jesus prophets [Joseph Smith, Brigham Young...Gordon B. Hinckley] since Agabus {for one, in Acts} was a post-Jesus prophet.

The traditional Christians would say that because Mormons do not accept the belief of the trinity that Mormons are not Christian. There are other doctrinal differences too. Although most sects and denominations have differences, traditional Christianity will not bear a difference on the trinity.

I believe that Christianity was Helenized over the years; and that by the end of Constantine's life it was different than intended by Christ and the Apostles. You might say I believe in a great and universal apostasy.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

On second thought the word "historical" might be best excised from tradrocket's definition of a Christian. This would allow inclusion of a docetic Christ in our discussions, heretical though it be. We could then discuss both the docetic and historical figure if we felt the need.

We can define Christianity, then, as the set of all Christians outlined by that definition above. Those who accept the Nicene creed fit very easily into it, as do those anti-Nicene heresies.

As for the Bible, the thread's title suggests one can freely discuss it in the context of its role in the development of Western secular and ecclisiastical thought; its development as a canon; its interpretation by scholars, theologians and minor luminaries; its various translations; Hellenistic influence on the New Testament as well as later post-exile literature...you name it.

Ditto Hell. We can discuss extra-biblical perceptions of Hell; Western and Eastern conceptions of the underworld that may have influenced Biblical development of Hell; post-canonical interpretations of Hell...and so on.

Anybody is free here to use any definition they please, of course...as long at they clearly state that as their definition and be prepared to have others reject it. That includes, of course, the definition described above.

Heretic, in starting this thread, placed no limitation on the parameters of discussion.


Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

So Jehovah's Witnesses aren't Christian?

Wow...I dont know what else to say but wow. You can not be serious. I've never seen a more perfect example of someone pulling out twisted, misquoted views from a pretty straightforward statement. C'mon, at least come up with a new way to avoid the topics at hand.

Nope. What I've seen so far is someone states something, then you break out the ol' "That's not Christianity as I would define it." chestnut.

Well hey, your contributions to defining it for the sake of this thread have been very benficial!

You wouldn't be mired in semantical dickering if you thought otherwise.

Again, you can't seem to refuse the temptation to simply blurt back to me what I've accused others of doing. Lets stick to the topic of the thread, eh? This is like debating beauty without defining who is beautiful....many people disagree on what is beautiful. In the same way, many people disagree with what is "Christian".

I offered an example of this variance already. If you can't read my posts, and ignore the meat in favor of easy dodges...

Its interesting, I've found that across the board when asked for a serious layout of claimed views with evidentiary proof, regardless of the side, everyone just says..."I've allready done it...re-read my posts". But, that really helps further this discussion!

*sigh*

My feeling exactly *sigh*. I guess its just too much work to offer proof of claims and views.

Except that it's not. Takes a lot of willful ignorance to ignore the fact that the Bible wasn't even assembled until well after Christ's death, and that it was assembleed under various historical pressures, politics etc.

Man, you seem intent on arguing false points. No where did I say anything about ignoring that fact...in truth I adressed it allready. I gave the "Christian" or biblical explination for it as well....try reading through the entire thread.

It's never fruitful to disprove nonarguments.

And so by your authority alone, we are to label my points as "nonarguments". You have brought an amazing shaft of light into my clouded view, thank you.

Oh, and as long as your going to counter my points with things like

Nope

its pretty useless to even read your posts.
Focus man, focus....if you could just refute my points with fact or somehow show them as incorrect it would be much better for your arguemnt than simply attacking me personally.

7sm

 

[tradrockrat]

Any religion who's core, fundamental beliefs are centered around any and all supposed teachings and accounts of the figure known popularly around the world as Christ.

OK, good points made about the definition. Historical is out. As for excluding the definition based on one word in the tittle of this thread - The Bible, Hell, and Other Topics of Casual Delight - forget it. You wanted a definition, here it is. Any variation from this definition should be prefaced as such so that the discussion can move ahead and not get stuck in small circles of semantics.

 

[7starmantis]

As for the Bible, the thread's title suggests one can freely discuss it in the context of its role in the development of Western secular and ecclisiastical thought; its development as a canon; its interpretation by scholars, theologians and minor luminaries; its various translations; Hellenistic influence on the New Testament as well as later post-exile literature...you name it.

i would like to point out that the title of the thread did include the words "other topics of casual delight"

i would take other to mean the myths and mythologies and related facts or debunking thereof.

Very good points, your both correct.
However, discussion of extra-biblical cirricula being welcomed, it still does not address the issue of contradictions. We may discuss other myths, religions, etc but when we conect them to the bible we create a false bridge. See, the bible teaches that those other texts and such are not to be regarded as factual or truthful, so to disprove the bible with something the bible refutes as false is circular and tired.

Let me make a statement here, it seems as though people are associating my argument as my own world view, that would be a mistake. I'm the type of person that doesn't really care what you believe as long as you know why you believe it. The bible is simply something I was forced to study and I know alot about, I just hate seeing faulty arguments passed off as truth when trying to disprove the bible. I could spend just as much time disproving the bible as I could proving it....including scriptures....I know the ones used to contradict each other and I know the "answers" to those "riddles" if you will, but my point in this thread is that heritical movements are being labeled as "Christian" and biblically that is incorrect. In essence its being said, "This person or movement (X) being biblical in nature, disproves the bible (Y) because they contradict". However, the bible (Y) allready refutes the person or movement (X). Thats circular arguments and quite dizzying.

7sm

 

[Flatlander]

my point in this thread is that heritical movements are being labeled as "Christian" and biblically that is incorrect.

So, to rephrase then, the "heretical" movements are not Christian in the context of a "biblical christian definition". Would that be a fair assessment?

And further, because we cannot refute biblical claims with evidence from a non-biblical source and remain within a biblical context, any argument contrary (if we are to accept your definition of Christian within a biblical context as being consistent and well defined) would then be invalid and moot.

Would that be a fair assessment?

 

[BlackCatBonz]

Very good points, your both correct.
However, discussion of extra-biblical cirricula being welcomed, it still does not address the issue of contradictions. We may discuss other myths, religions, etc but when we conect them to the bible we create a false bridge.

1. See, the bible teaches that those other texts and such are not to be regarded as factual or truthful, so to disprove the bible with something the bible refutes as false is circular and tired.

Let me make a statement here, it seems as though people are associating my argument as my own world view, that would be a mistake. I'm the type of person that doesn't really care what you believe as long as you know why you believe it. The bible is simply something I was forced to study and I know alot about, I just hate seeing faulty arguments passed off as truth when trying to disprove the bible. I could spend just as much time disproving the bible as I could proving it....including scriptures....I know the ones used to contradict each other and I know the "answers" to those "riddles" if you will, but
2.my point in this thread is that heritical movements are being labeled as "Christian" and biblically that is incorrect. In essence its being said, "This person or movement (X) being biblical in nature, disproves the bible (Y) because they contradict". However,
3.the bible (Y) allready refutes the person or movement (X). Thats circular arguments and quite dizzying.

7sm

1. there is a reason that the bible teaches this.......political and spiritual pressure.
2. i think what i am doing is labeling christianity as a heretical movement that has nothing to do with the old testament.
3.see #1.

there are too many conflicts that take place in the bible from one book to the next......there is nothing that creates a cohesive doctrine.
Is god benevolent or malevolent.

i dont think there is anything that gives any proof that this is an historical piece of work.

if a god really needed to create something in order to feel good about himself, to create an animal to worship him.....wouldnt this make him less than perfect, as he puts it in the bible?

"And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good."

how the heck does he know whats good?

 

[The Kai]

"how the heck does he know whats good?"

Perhaps it refers to the idea that he was pleased with his results. Like a painting that you finish-to you it's good, you're neighbor kindly calls it interesting and the critic? ouch

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Shall we then narrow our focus for the moment and all go to Hell?

What is Hell within the parameters of Christianity we've now defined? Note that personal opinions that contrast with theological or historical views are acceptable, though every bit as vulnerable (if not moreso).

What, other than some marriages some of us have had, is Hell?



Regards,



Steve

 

[mrhnau]

Shall we then narrow our focus for the moment and all go to Hell?

What is Hell within the parameters of Christianity we've now defined? Note that personal opinions that contrast with theological or historical views are acceptable, though every bit as vulnerable (if not moreso).

What, other than some marriages some of us have had, is Hell?

One of the most popular definitions I've heard is simply the abscence of God. Think of the Rich Man and Lazarus parable in the gospels (forget which ones).

Sounds like a simple concept, but if God is truly God and truly in control, what would life be w/out that? Normal laws of nature would not apply, nor would God's mercy in any sense. Is it a firey pit? Some merit of that in the bible, but if I recall correctly, mostly for Satan, Antichrist and False prophet in Revelations.

MrH

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Is it a firey pit? Some merit of that in the bible, but if I recall correctly, mostly for Satan, Antichrist and False prophet in Revelations.

MrH

Refer to my post in the Gay marriage section. Quite a few NT references cite Hell, "burning," the lake of fire, and "the outer darkness" for those who stray.

This, as has been pointed out, gave rise to a number of rather horrid interpretations of Hell over the last two thousand years. Recall Dante's vision of it, and Heironymous Bosch's artwork.

Current interpretations run the gamut from an absence from God, such as you've mentioned, to the infinite flames of torture.



Regards,


Steve

 

[BlackCatBonz]

"how the heck does he know whats good?"

Perhaps it refers to the idea that he was pleased with his results. Like a painting that you finish-to you it's good, you're neighbor kindly calls it interesting and the critic? ouch

quite an astute observation........it was sarcasm.
what the hell does an omnipotent being care if something is good or not.
if he was entirely perfect......making the observation that something was merely good wouldnt be quite up to par.
what was he referencing the good comment to? all of the other screw ups?
did he ever make anything that wasnt written about that he looked at and thought.....hmmmm mediocre

 

[mrhnau]

quite an astute observation........it was sarcasm.

what the hell does an omnipotent being care if something is good or not.

if he was entirely perfect......making the observation that something was merely good wouldnt be quite up to par.
what was he referencing the good comment to? all of the other screw ups?
did he ever make anything that wasnt written about that he looked at and thought.....hmmmm mediocre

*scratches head*

I realize men are not perfect, but I have a decent idea of wrong or right. I realize its wrong to torture and kill someone. As a father (which I currently am not), I would try to instill what I believe to be the truth of right and wrong. I would want my offspring to understand the difference. Isn't that what a good parent is supposed to do?

Apply the logic to your statement. Why do I care if my son is good or evil? What reference do I use? Is he "ok" if he only kills 10 people if another kills 100? If he smokes a little pot he is ok, because everyone else is smoking crack? A parent(God) has an ideal to which we are held.

make anything mediocre? whats your point?

MrH

 

[Andrew Green]

Which leads to the big question....

Could God roll a reefer so large even he couldn't smoke it?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Which leads to the big question....

Could God roll a reefer so large even he couldn't smoke it?

Ah, but if he did, he would not be a generous God. He would not be able to pass said joint to the angel next to him, for lo...the cherubim would not be big enough to be able to take a hit.

Getting back to Hell...is there, like, junk weed in Hell? Does it have seeds and stems and all that crud?

Here is a good link on Hell...sadly it doesn't clarify the issue of weed:


http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/beliefs/hell.htm


Regards,


Steve

 

[7starmantis]

So, to rephrase then, the "heretical" movements are not Christian in the context of a "biblical christian definition". Would that be a fair assessment?

Yes, according to a biblical deffinition.

And further, because we cannot refute biblical claims with evidence from a non-biblical source and remain within a biblical context, any argument contrary (if we are to accept your definition of Christian within a biblical context as being consistent and well defined) would then be invalid and moot.

Would that be a fair assessment?

Eh...yes. However, I'm not saying thats the way it is, just that if you begin to refute of biblical claims from non-biblical source to a "Born Again Christian" they will tell you exactly what you said. I was simply trying to convey that disproving the bible to a "believer" with somethin other than the bible is moot in their eyes. It would be interesting to see biblical claims refuted with biblical sources.

1. there is a reason that the bible teaches this.......political and spiritual pressure.
2. i think what i am doing is labeling christianity as a heretical movement that has nothing to do with the old testament.
3.see #1.

Your correct, but I wasn't offering any reasoning behind what the bible teaches, or trying to say what it teaches is true, just the fact that is what it teaches, and followers will be hard pressed to believe anything outside of that.

there are too many conflicts that take place in the bible from one book to the next......there is nothing that creates a cohesive doctrine.
Is god benevolent or malevolent.

This is what I would love to see discussed. Biblical claims refuted by biblical means. Would you mind expounding on these and giving refrences? (uh oh) Is benevolent or malevolent the only two choices here?

if a god really needed to create something in order to feel good about himself, to create an animal to worship him.....wouldnt this make him less than perfect, as he puts it in the bible?

This is what I was referign to when I spoke of half claims from not undestanding the source. The bible doesn't say God needed to create something to feel good, or to be worshiped. What it does say is that he wanted fellowship and chosen worship. See in the bible, all of heaven (excepted 3, or 2 now) has no choice in its duties, man on the other hand, does have a choice. Wouldn't you rather have a woman love you for who you are and not just because she's a robot that has to "love" you? Thats what the bible says about God's creation.

what was he referencing the good comment to? all of the other screw ups?
did he ever make anything that wasnt written about that he looked at and thought.....hmmmm mediocre

Well, if you want to get technical he did make man, then realize it wasn't good for him to be alone and made woman....of course this is after your comment on the time line.

What is Hell within the parameters of Christianity we've now defined? Note that personal opinions that contrast with theological or historical views are acceptable, though every bit as vulnerable (if not moreso).

Well, accepting said deffinition it could be many things. Accepting a purely biblical def. it would be a lake of fire created for Satan (Lucifer) and his deamons (1/3 of the angels of heaven). But now opened for all those who do not trust in him.

7sm

 

[heretic888]

This may be a bit late, but...

I wasn't trying to misquote you, in fact I wasn't actually refering to you specifically, just using your words in my point. A bit of plagerism if you will.

Ok, just so we're clear on the context I voiced my arguments within.

Your correct, it is subject to many interpretations...does that fact alone make all interpretations correct, or only one correct?

Nope.

This gets a little technical, but Paul actually outlines the different 'levels' of interpretation and understanding in some of his letters. Namely, a 'physical' (hylic or sarkic), a 'mental' or 'intellectual' (psychic), and a 'spiritual' (pneumatic). Likewise, he also differentiates between 'uninitiated' and 'initiated' Christians.

While this explanation clearly is dependent somewhat on Pythagoreanism and Platonism, it also has precedent in Judaic tradition. Midrash is the Jewish tradition of interpreting scriptures and writings of prophets allegorically or symbolically, and carries with it pretty much the same 'levels' of interpretation (literal, moral, and spiritual).

I wouldn't personally refer to docetism as a Christian tradition, many would even claim it as heritical. I'm actually kind of confused why you would refer to it as Christian tradition. Christological tendencies don't make it a Christian tradition.

Sorry, but my understanding of 'Christianity' is not limited to 'the guys that won'. Just because Constantine started wiping everybody else does not mean the interpretation he supported have the corner market here.

Part of the problem here is that the school you are declaring to be 'Christianity' here doesn't really seem to have really existed before the middle of the 2nd century. Even then, it had very little jurisdiction outside of Rome. For that matter, true Christian 'doctrine' as it exists today was hammered out in the Council of Nicea around 330 CE. We don't see anything exactly like it before this historic meeting.

By contrast, the 'docetic' schools of 'Christological' thought were very, very widespread by this time --- having roots in Syria, Egypt, Asia Minor, and other places. It is literally an unwieldly thought to assume that all these 'modifications' or 'adaptations' to the original 'Christianity' took place everywhere in the known world, consequently became the dominant 'Christian' school of thought in all these places, and the only place literalist 'Christian' school retained its 'purity' was Rome.

I'm gonna go with Occam's Razor on this one.

In fact, I think in order for a good discussion we need to define Christian or Christianity. While some refer to themselves as christians, others would denounce them as christians. How do we use the term in this debate without defining what it means?

Personally, I simply ignore this sectarian squabbling altogether.

Christianity, to me, is a historical phenomenon. Regardless of what opinion you may or may not have regarding any given denomination or sect's claim to the name, they all have a shared history. The history is what is important here, not some weird sense of ideological 'purity'.

Likewise with other religions. You could easily make the claim that Japan's Pure Land Buddhism deviates wildly from the supposed 'original teachings' of Siddhartha Gautama (assuming he actually existed). A heaven, hell, personal savior, and salvation through grace all seem to not exactly be your standard Buddhist fare. But, the point remains, the Pure Land sect is a school of Buddhism --- not matter how 'heretical' you claim their position is.

There is really no proof to support the belief that the bible (OT) was originally written completely in hebrew or any other language. Most of the earliest descovered portions are however.

Almost all of the Torah in its Hebrew form has been discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is easily verified.

Thats a half statement. Greek works as their source material for New Testament biblical translation, I would agree.

I'm sorry if you're having issues with this, but the overwhelming majority of Christian Churches use the Septugaint for their 'Old Testament'. In the Synoptics, whenever Jesus cites the Torah, he is quoting from the Septugaint. The Septugaint is the background text the authors had in mind here.

Again, there are some exceptions to this --- like the Syrian Peshitta --- but these are the exception to the rule.

Thats the problem, we need a deffinition. There are way too many floating around. Personally according to the bible, a christian would be "one who professes belief in Jesus Christ". I dont see the problem with using that deffinition.

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of 'Christians' of the first two centuries CE are excluded by this literalist definition. Justin Martyr is the first 'Christian' we know of that would inequivocably fall into this categorization.

Since the bible is what is being debated here, shouldn't we seek to find its definition of Christian?

The Bible has many different interpretations of 'Christian', as Paul himself makes very clear. He distinguishes between 'uninitiated' vs 'initated' and 'psychic' vs 'pneumatic' Christians all the time.

We can't make posts, one using a historical definition from the first few centuries, and one using a deffinition of current times. I think you need to look at the root of the word Christian, and its inception and creation (no pun intended). Its original usage had much more of a precise deffinition then it does now, in my opinion.

The problem here is that 'the Bible' as we have it is largely a post-Nicene work. None of the books we have inherited date before the 300's.

Ergo, it is fallacious to claim it unqualifiably represents the 'original usage' of anything.

Very good point! Only your now defining christians as a whole as people who believe that "God" has personal opinions about life and that only they know them. I wouldn't call that belief Christian in the biblical deffinition of the word. In fact, any person who claims to know God's opinions would be called out as a false prophet in any group I grew up in.

I actually never attributed this to 'Christians' or to any group in particular, I was simply addressing some theological points that Ray brought up.

I agree with you there. I do think however that most "christians" hold faith in that God has control over current (past) events, including the manipulations of the gospel.

So, God's fine with forgery??

Furthermore, God's fine with later apologetics putting into Paul's mouth ideas that he most assuredly taught against in his authentic letters (i.e., a literal 'physical' resurrection)??

Sorry, not buyin' it.

Its pretty widely accepted that God did not physically write the scriptures himself, correct? In the eyes of most "christians" it wouldn't matter who manipulated or rewrote, or changed the text, its still under Gods protection and control. I'm just telling you that is what your going to come up against with that argument.

If that happens, I will say three simple words: Appeal To Authority.

Again, your using the label Christian in a way I wouldn't agree with, but even so its not impossible or improbably that christian(my deffinition) groups existed within major centers of Marcionism. In fact, that could very well explain Paul's urgency in his letters.

Like Steve said, Marcionism wasn't even born yet so this claim is rather weak.

Furthermore, it is difficult to make such a claim in light of the fact that only Gnostics like Marcion and Valentinus even use Paul in the first few centuries CE. Paul is never mentioned by the likes of Justin Martyr. He is only mentioned by later literalist writers like Irenaeus and Tertullian when the anti-Gnostic 'Pastoral' letters 'magically' appeared in late 2nd and early 3rd centuries to refute docetism.

Your asking us to accept your idea or feeling of having no doubt? Not being clearly explained is cause for discrediting the New Testament, the Bible, or Hell itself?

No, I'm pointing out that it was assumed that the reader already had some idea of what 'hell' was in the first place. Given the Hellenistic context of the New Testament as a whole, it would not be surprising to find a Hellenistic context for 'hell' (hades in the original Greek).

It would also be in keeping with the Platonic and Mithraic philosophy Paul expounds in his letters, too.

Again, your appealing to our intelligence to accept your own beliefs. You are saying early Christianity was more influenced by X than by Y. Can you prove that X influenced Christianity more than Y?

People formulate doctrine and dogma, not books. Augustine was one of these people.

Laterz.