Hell and Christianity

[Rhyfelwyr]

Do you think the idea of Hell is compatible with the wider message of the Bible?

The strange thing with this issue is that you can't place it along the usual liberal/fundamentalist lines, or at least not how you might expect it to fit. It tends to be the more moderate Christians that believe in traditional ideas of hell, whereas those who deny it's existence often come from the more radical fundamentalist sects.

I do believe Hell exists. I know I could just go an quote a couple of verses, but it's more than that, it's part of my wider understanding of Christianity as a whole. Although I will also admit that it isn't so clear cut I could really give an opinion with any certainty when it comes to the specifics.

Any thoughts from others on this?

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think to understand ‘hell’ as it was meant you have to look long & hard at the context in which it occurs. I am not a very learned person when it comes to theology; but as I understand it, hell is only really very important in the context of ‘salvation’. That is; you have people who receive ‘salvation’ and you have those who don't and those who don't, they go to hell. So it is not really ‘hell’ that is so important. What is important is ‘salvation’, and that ‘good will triumph’, that keeping faith may not be easy at all times but that it is also faith which will at the end reward you. This is distinct from taking matters into your own hand and being an obstructive warrior of the faith (Maccabees); this is more the quiet enduring kind of faith (Ruth).

The problem I have with the idea of a wider message of the bible is that it is a body of somewhat awkard fitting theological views that clearly shifts a lot too. The closest analogy would be the repeated & doomed attempts of Mathematicians to find one basic set of axioms from which all of the known body of Math could be constructed by induction.

[Lord Winter]

I think it makes a large difference in what way you define as hell. If you define hell as an eternal inescapable place of punishment you violate Christan core values like forgiveness and love. However I think there is room for hell if it is treated as a temporary step to one's eventual repentance. Either way the idea of a fire and brimstone hell full of pain and torture is ridiculous and needs to go.

[Hax]

Bah, just when you thought that life on this earth wasn't quite bad enough.




There is one fundamental issue: Where do sadomasochists go? Hell for them is Heaven and vice versa. I think Hell and Heaven are personal concepts.

[ajaxfetish]

I think Hell and Heaven are personal concepts.

"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heav'n of hell, a hell of heav'n"

Ajax

[Fragony]

Hell exists all right, it's the morning train to Amsterdam

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you think the idea of Hell is compatible with the wider message of the Bible?

The strange thing with this issue is that you can't place it along the usual liberal/fundamentalist lines, or at least not how you might expect it to fit. It tends to be the more moderate Christians that believe in traditional ideas of hell, whereas those who deny it's existence often come from the more radical fundamentalist sects.

I do believe Hell exists. I know I could just go an quote a couple of verses, but it's more than that, it's part of my wider understanding of Christianity as a whole. Although I will also admit that it isn't so clear cut I could really give an opinion with any certainty when it comes to the specifics.

Any thoughts from others on this?

Yes, lots.


I think it makes a large difference in what way you define as hell. If you define hell as an eternal inescapable place of punishment you violate Christan core values like forgiveness and love. However I think there is room for hell if it is treated as a temporary step to one's eventual repentance. Either way the idea of a fire and brimstone hell full of pain and torture is ridiculous and needs to go.

On the contrary, the idea of suffering and "paying your dues" was considered incompatable with Christianity by Protestants and that was why they dropped purgatory. I think Tellos was on the right track when he said the focus was on "salvation" but that word still emplies "salvation from hell" which is really a tangental part of Christianity, not a central one.

Central to Christianity is the idea of a broken relationship with God, and fixing that relationship. If you fix the relationship then when you die you go to be with God again (Heaven) and if you don't then you are without God (in Hell). My own view of Hell is not "fire and brimstone" because I think that's as much an allegory as the precious metals and stones that make up the New Jerusalem.

Hell is a total absense of God, which means a total absense of everything, even "suffering" as we are able to understand it, an eternity in the void, and I can imagine nothing worse than that. Of course, for that to conception of Hell to work man needs to choose whether to accept or reject God, he needs Free Will.

[Fragony]

For the early protestants damnation was fixed from the beginning, you were either doomed or you weren't. Protestants looked differently at salvation, they believed that 'good works' wasn't just the work you did for god but also to the community as it was god's community, before the reformation only work for god was considered as good works, this is a horribly old fashioned though as the lines are quite blurry. But making profit was a sign from god that they were on the right track, but they do believed in HELL AND SUFFERING. You either get there or you don't, so look for signs.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

For the early protestants damnation was fixed from the beginning, you were either doomed or you weren't. Protestants looked differently at salvation, they believed that 'good works' wasn't just the work you did for god but also to the community as it was god's community, before the reformation only work for god was considered as good works, this is a horribly old fashioned though as the lines are quite blurry. But making profit was a sign from god that they were on the right track, but they do believed in HELL AND SUFFERING. You either get there or you don't, so look for signs.

That's only true in places, it depends on your form of "Protestantism" and your definition of "early". Luther was unwilling to define the relationship between Free Will, Salvation and Damnation, ultimately coming down on a slight re-wording of traditional Christian theology and a fuzzy "division" between "worldy" and "Godly" matters.

You are, by the way, flot out wrong about the Catholic attitude to "works" as Medieval Catholicism considered all works od "charity" works of piety, so that rebuilding your local Church went alongside helping the poor or caring for Lepers.

[Fragony]

Agreed, this is only true for Calvinism my bad. I admit that it's a horribly outdated theory, but it's still useful for understanding the rise of the modern age if you are interested in economical theory. What is important is that 'normal' labour became a virtue whose rewards were seen as god looking kindly upon you, while before the reformation only work for 'the church' was considered virtues.

edit, church isn't really the correct word but you know what I mean

[CountArach]

Agreed, this is only true for Calvinism my bad. I admit that it's a horribly outdated theory, but it's still useful for understanding the rise of the modern age if you are interested in economical theory. What is important is that 'normal' labour became a virtue whose rewards were seen as god being kindly upon you, while before the reformation only work for the church was considered virtues.
Someone has been reading Weber I see ;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Agreed, this is only true for Calvinism my bad. I admit that it's a horribly outdated theory, but it's still useful for understanding the rise of the modern age if you are interested in economical theory. What is important is that 'normal' labour became a virtue whose rewards were seen as god being kindly upon you, while before the reformation only work for the church was considered virtues.

Ah, I see yor point. However, I think this was only true after the Reformation, as Catholics prior to the Reformation were expected to work hard to maintain the Body of Christ, i.e. the serf was bound by God to work his Master's land and the Lord was bound by God to protect his vassals, while the Priest was bound to pray for the souls of both.

Thence we have the "Three Orders" of life, those who Work, Fight, and Pray, which went to make up pre-Renaissance Europe.

[Fragony]

CA my boy! And his critics :bow:

[Fragony]

Ah, I see yor point. However, I think this was only true after the Reformation, as Catholics prior to the Reformation were expected to work hard to maintain the Body of Christ, i.e. the serf was bound by God to work his Master's land and the Lord was bound by God to protect his vassals, while the Priest was bound to pray for the souls of both.

Thence we have the "Three Orders" of life, those who Work, Fight, and Pray, which went to make up pre-Renaissance Europe.

Yes but that is really the change, it's an outdated idea that there was no godly dimension to manual labour before the reformation, just about every guild had it's own patron saint for example, but with the reformation all these tree orders became part of a single entity where everybody does it's part, the christian community, people weren't concious about their religion like that before the reformation, there was no alternative. If you look at art from the period for example you will always see religious procedures happing with a city in the background

[Rhyfelwyr]

Those are good point there Frag, but I have to say I came across Weber in my politics course last year, and I think his understanding of Protestantism and it's effects on society are a bit off at times.

First of all, take his fundemental idea - that Calvinism was the main cause of the development of capitalism. Maybe it's just the Marxist in me, but I think he has got the cause and effect the wrong way round here. Don't get me wrong, Calvinism and capitalism definetely complemented each other once they were developing alongside, but I would say that it was the social/economic factors which caused Calvinism to develop where it did, rather than vice-versa. For example, take England - the growth in the importance of trade over the old feudal system cleary predates the development of Puritanism - and when Puritanism did develop, it just happened to be in the major commercial centres amongst the artisans and merchants etc. Also, it's not just the theology that mattered, there was also the issue of church governance. The Catholic Church with its hierarchy was seen as an oppressive force upholding the old feudal order and supporting increasingly absolutist monarchs whose control over trade was so strict it was almost an early form of state capitalism. Calvinism, on the other hand, brought a more democratic form of church governance through either Presbyterianism or Congregationalism - and as they say, there's no king without the bishops.

Another way to tell whether capitalism or Calvinism caused each other is to look at the states which are the exception to the rule. So take Scotland for example - a more backward country than Puritan England or the Netherlands, yet despite becoming fiercely Calvinist, it remained backward and feudal until the 18th century, by which time deism was in all likelihood as prominent amongst the enlightenment figures (Adam Smith, Hume etc) as Calvinism (though they couldn't say it out loud or they got executed). Anyway, if Calvinism really caused the development of capitalism, this should as a rule have happened in Scotland as well, but it didn't.

Secondly, I think he over emphasises the idea that people believed wealth was a sign of salvation, or the 'prosperity doctrine' as we call it today. I have never seen this idea amongst any of the major Calvinist figures of the previous centuries, from Calvin himself, to John Owen, John Murray etc. What they do say is that God may bless 'the elect' with prosperity, he may maintain them with what they have, or he may take everything away. What I do gather though is that the Calvinist work ethic seems to stem from the strict nature of the theology - so basically if you're not working as hard as you can and using everything God gave you, then you are being slothful, and that is a sin and a sign of reprobation.

[Fragony]

First of all, take his fundemental idea - that Calvinism was the main cause of the development of capitalism. Maybe it's just the Marxist in me, but I think he has got the cause and effect the wrong way round here.

Depends on how far you take it back, and how far you let it go on. Weber took the wrong age to take as a starting point but there is a pretty much consistent developement afterwards, Weber is a marxist I would say. There are many things wrong with the Weber theory most of all the rationalized society, but the longer the timespan the more he makes sense.

edit: before anyone gets confused, marxist means a logical development here not politics.

[Strike For The South]

Hell has nothing to do with good and evil.

Hell has everything to do with you accepting Jesus and his gift.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hell has nothing to do with good and evil.

Hell has everything to do with you accepting Jesus and his gift.

I agree 100% that it's about whether or not you accept Jesus, and not if you're good or evil. But some people say God is evil if such a thing as hell exists.

I am just curious as to what the Christians (or others) on this board say, since there is such a wide range of views. The views could range from anything to saying that hell doesn't exist, or that hell is just symbolic for separation from God, or that people simply deserve to go to hell.


First of all, take his fundemental idea - that Calvinism was the main cause of the development of capitalism. Maybe it's just the Marxist in me, but I think he has got the cause and effect the wrong way round here.

Depends on how far you take it back, and how far you let it go on. Weber took the wrong age to take as a starting point but there is a pretty much consistent developement afterwards, Weber is a marxist I would say. There are many things wrong with the Weber theory most of all the rationalized society, but the longer the timespan the more he makes sense.

edit: before anyone gets confused, marxist means a logical development here not politics.

Surely Weber is arguing the opposite of the Marxist view? Weber seems to say that Calvinist beliefs were the trigger for the development of capitalism. A Marxist on the other hand would say that market forces and the development of social structures are the sole factors which drive change in society. Different ideologies such as Calvinism would only be expressions of these.

[Fragony]

A marxist view means something different for historians, has nothing to do with economic theory, it's assuming a certain chain of events, a natural progression.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A marxist view means something different for historians, has nothing to do with economic theory, it's assuming a certain chain of events, a natural progression.

I know the Marxist view of history is something different from a political Marxist/communist, but as I understand it the defining point of Marxist historians is that they see all human history as being the development of the economy and class structure, and that these are the only factors which shape historical progression.

Of course, Marxist historians do take the view that society progresses through a set number of stages and that these developments are all pretty much inevitable... but surely that isn't the main point in the Marxist historical outlook. Even Adam Smith pushed the idea that there were four stages of society (primitive - nomadic - arable - commercial), known as 'stadialism'. All Marx did really was stick another stage on the end.

[Fragony]

You should see it as a method of reasoning, from abc or to cba, it has nothing to do with an opinion, just seeing history as a set of consequences instead of random events. In that way Weber is a Marxist historian.

[The Wizard]

Weberian history is different from Marxian history. Marx saw history as the result of mankind's different ways of interacting with the world around it ("modes of production"), Weber was an idealist IIRC.

[Louis VI the Fat]

First of all, take his fundemental idea - that Calvinism was the main cause of the development of capitalism. Maybe it's just the Marxist in me, but I think he has got the cause and effect the wrong way round here.

Depends on how far you take it back, and how far you let it go on. Weber took the wrong age to take as a starting point but there is a pretty much consistent developement afterwards, Weber is a marxist I would say. There are many things wrong with the Weber theory most of all the rationalized society, but the longer the timespan the more he makes sense.

edit: before anyone gets confused, marxist means a logical development here not politics.Hell is waking up to find oneself in an alternate reality where Fragony is a refined intellectual, talking about stuff I do not understand. :mean:



My boy. :sweetheart:

[Beskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkykJ5uFqPI

This thread reminded me of this.

[CountArach]

Another way to tell whether capitalism or Calvinism caused each other is to look at the states which are the exception to the rule. So take Scotland for example - a more backward country than Puritan England or the Netherlands, yet despite becoming fiercely Calvinist, it remained backward and feudal until the 18th century, by which time deism was in all likelihood as prominent amongst the enlightenment figures (Adam Smith, Hume etc) as Calvinism (though they couldn't say it out loud or they got executed). Anyway, if Calvinism really caused the development of capitalism, this should as a rule have happened in Scotland as well, but it didn't.
Weber believed that there were multiple paths to Capitalism, and that Calvinism was just one of them.

edit: before anyone gets confused, marxist means a logical development here not politics.

A marxist view means something different for historians, has nothing to do with economic theory, it's assuming a certain chain of events, a natural progression.
Nah, that's a Modernist historian. Marxist historians are still Marxists (Look at Hobsbawm, etc) in the economic sense and still look for that guiding hand of economic development, but they are by their very nature also Modernist. Modernist historians look for an overarching grand narrative to history and look at the inter-linking developments between two points (a diachronic analysis). This is as opposed to post-modern historians who would rather perform a synchronic analysis of a society, which is just a snapshot of a society at one given moment.

[Kralizec]

Somewhat off topic, can somebody tell me what the jewish take on the afterlife is?


A marxist view means something different for historians, has nothing to do with economic theory, it's assuming a certain chain of events, a natural progression.

You should be using the word "deterministic" instead. Marxism is indeed deterministic, to the point of absurdity...

[Strike For The South]

I agree 100% that it's about whether or not you accept Jesus, and not if you're good or evil. But some people say God is evil if such a thing as hell exists.

.

My cliif notes.

-There is an ongoing war between God and Satan for the souls on Earth
-Temptation and leading some of the flock astray is Satans way of waging this war.
-Let me make this clear there is a hell because there is evil but it is not because God is evil
-It is because Satan is, God is merciful and just and all we have to do is accept him and follow the teachings of jesus Christ.

That is what I beilive and I know it's not popular here.

[Lord Winter]

Yes, lots.



On the contrary, the idea of suffering and "paying your dues" was considered incompatable with Christianity by Protestants and that was why they dropped purgatory. I think Tellos was on the right track when he said the focus was on "salvation" but that word still emplies "salvation from hell" which is really a tangental part of Christianity, not a central one.

Central to Christianity is the idea of a broken relationship with God, and fixing that relationship. If you fix the relationship then when you die you go to be with God again (Heaven) and if you don't then you are without God (in Hell). My own view of Hell is not "fire and brimstone" because I think that's as much an allegory as the precious metals and stones that make up the New Jerusalem.

Hell is a total absense of God, which means a total absense of everything, even "suffering" as we are able to understand it, an eternity in the void, and I can imagine nothing worse than that. Of course, for that to conception of Hell to work man needs to choose whether to accept or reject God, he needs Free Will.

True, but according to most protestants God's salvation is still conditional upon accepting Christ by your death. The idea of hell in which I was speaking of is not so much purgatory as it is another chance to make peace with god. Would God truly allow something as simple as death to come in the way of an eventual reunion with one of his children? Remember the prodigal son, it is not the saved who god reaches out to as much as those who can be brought back into the flock. The existence of a permanent hell contradicts to many things to hold any weight.

[drone]

There has to be a hell with the fire and brimstone and dudes with pitchforks. All those metal bands from the 80's couldn't have been lying to me. :devil:

[Fragony]

Marxist historians are still Marxists (Look at Hobsbawm, etc) in the economic sense and still look for that guiding hand of economic development, but they are by their very nature also Modernist.

It's a relatively new approach to include social/economic factors to the greater picture, I would say it emerged at the same time. Ok, there is a difference between a Marxist historian and a marxist approach.

[The Wizard]

Somewhat off topic, can somebody tell me what the jewish take on the afterlife is?

Depends on the Jewish sect (the old saying "When there's two Jews, there are three opinions" applies). Generally there's no hell, in the sense of there being a fiery place of damnation waiting, at all times, for any sinner after he dies. There is Gehenna, a somber gray place much like the Asphodel Meadows of Hades. IIRC, depending on the tradition, souls either dwell there until the Last Judgment, or simply lie in the ground where they were buried until the same event. Only at that point, when the Meshioch has come, together with the end of the world, is a final judgment spoken by God, at which point sinners are cast into a fiery pit much like the Western conception of Hell and the good are taken to a new, idyllic world (cf. the world post-Ragnarok).

So there's no hell in the sense of it waiting for you right now, only at the end of time. You can make your peace with Adonai in that time. I'm not a practicing Jew, though (on the contrary, hoho), so I might be wrong.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

My cliif notes.

-There is an ongoing war between God and Satan for the souls on Earth
-Temptation and leading some of the flock astray is Satans way of waging this war.
-Let me make this clear there is a hell because there is evil but it is not because God is evil
-It is because Satan is, God is merciful and just and all we have to do is accept him and follow the teachings of jesus Christ.

That is what I beilive and I know it's not popular here.

The problem I have with foregrounding Satan and God in this (very Calvinistic) way is that it removes too much responsibility for our own actions, it allows you to move that responsibility to an external power and absolve yourself.


I agree 100% that it's about whether or not you accept Jesus, and not if you're good or evil. But some people say God is evil if such a thing as hell exists.

I am just curious as to what the Christians (or others) on this board say, since there is such a wide range of views. The views could range from anything to saying that hell doesn't exist, or that hell is just symbolic for separation from God, or that people simply deserve to go to hell.

I think that seperating "being evil" from "rejecting God" is strange. It implies there is a seperation between Good and God.


True, but according to most protestants God's salvation is still conditional upon accepting Christ by your death. The idea of hell in which I was speaking of is not so much purgatory as it is another chance to make peace with god. Would God truly allow something as simple as death to come in the way of an eventual reunion with one of his children? Remember the prodigal son, it is not the saved who god reaches out to as much as those who can be brought back into the flock. The existence of a permanent hell contradicts to many things to hold any weight.

You just described Catholic Purgatory. The prodigal Son goes back to his Father, the Father waits but does not drag his son home. What kind of God (Father) beats his children and demands they love him?

Hell is fundamentally a seperation from God, such a seperation must be chosen, not enforced.

[Fragony]

Hell is fundamentally a seperation from God, such a seperation must be chosen, not enforced.

Then I must be in hell already and it's pretty fun really.

[CountArach]

It's a relatively new approach to include social/economic factors to the greater picture, I would say it emerged at the same time. Ok, there is a difference between a Marxist historian and a marxist approach.
Modernist historiography goes all the way back to von Ranke who wanted to find evidence of the work of God in history and saw something of a guiding hand. Marxists simply look at one approach to this 'guiding hand' (economic determinism) and say that it is the sole driving force of history.

[Fragony]

Sorry but you are wrong, determinism is indeed the better word, it assumes a certain outcome. Can be about anything.

[Ironside]

I think that seperating "being evil" from "rejecting God" is strange. It implies there is a seperation between Good and God.


I'll give you a hint: Godfearing is related to fear (the loving kind of fear but still). Mass punishment of a people because you do as He says, because you reject what He says, is good? The Old testament God is not good.

A less personal note, wouldn't Good=God mean that no human can be good without knowing God?

[The Wizard]

A friend of mine once posited an interesting question: is the God of Jesus, all-forgiving as he is, just? Do you want to forgive someone like Stalin, Hitler or Mao? Do they belong in Heaven, do they deserve compassion?

He was of the opinion that such a God was just. I was not. Adonai, "the God of the Old Testament", is a just god. Harsh, but just. There must be consequences for your actions. Truly evil men deserve to burn.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think it's good people are discussing the Jewish beliefs, since they could be the key to understanding what exactly Jesus meant when he commented on heaven/hell. Also, I should point out, the Christian view is not as clear cut as people here seem to believe it is (in that they think you either go straight to heaven/hell, and that's you). Both the Orthodox Churches and Calvinists believe in two seperate holding places for the dead, until heaven/hell are created at judgment day. The intermediate place for the saints is usually called 'Abraham's Bosom', whereas heaven is a new perfect earth (not a place of floating spirits in the clouds or anything like that). Other groups like the Seventh-Day Adventists believe in the idea of 'soul sleeping' until the final judgment, and then the saints are resurrected to live on the new earth, while 'hell' is the name for the conditions on earth which the reprobate will live in before being they are completely destroyed (the second death). (and I just pointed out the Adventist example because even though they are a small church, they really emphasise the Jewish roots of the Christian beliefs).


I think that seperating "being evil" from "rejecting God" is strange. It implies there is a seperation between Good and God.

I meant it's not about people being good as if that it's one of their own inherent qualities. I just meant that the order of things is not 'you are good = you follow Jesus', it's a case of 'you follow Jesus = you willl do good'.

Also, do you believe that people must attribute any good they do to God? I would say that, but it's not what I would have guessed you believe given your stance on free will.

[Ronin]

George Carlin made some extremely point on this discussion.
Carlin On religion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo)

The most revelant part to this discussion:


Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you. He loves you, and He needs money! He always needs money! He's all-powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing, and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!

[Strike For The South]

The problem I have with foregrounding Satan and God in this (very Calvinistic) way is that it removes too much responsibility for our own actions, it allows you to move that responsibility to an external power and absolve yourself.
.

How so? To truly be one of the flock you must follow these teachings as well. We are still held accountable here on earth and to God all sins are equaled because in the next life they are of no consequnece if you accepted Jesus and lived up to his teachings to the best of your abilities.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'll give you a hint: Godfearing is related to fear (the loving kind of fear but still). Mass punishment of a people because you do as He says, because you reject what He says, is good? The Old testament God is not good.

A less personal note, wouldn't Good=God mean that no human can be good without knowing God?

Two interesting points. The first is dealt with early in Genesis 18 when God promises he will not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if ten righteous men are found within the cities and the plane, the cities and the plane are destroyed.

The second point has two answers, either those without God lack goodness, or no one is truly without God. Anecdotal evidence would point to the latter, that even those who wholly reject God are not wholly apart from him in this life.


A friend of mine once posited an interesting question: is the God of Jesus, all-forgiving as he is, just? Do you want to forgive someone like Stalin, Hitler or Mao? Do they belong in Heaven, do they deserve compassion?

He was of the opinion that such a God was just. I was not. Adonai, "the God of the Old Testament", is a just god. Harsh, but just. There must be consequences for your actions. Truly evil men deserve to burn.

Well, in order to be forgiven you have to be truly penitent, and not merely afraid for your soul. Imagine the amount of penitence appropriate to Hitler's, Stalin's, or Mao's crimes. Imagine the amount of mental suffering that would produce.


How so? To truly be one of the flock you must follow these teachings as well. We are still held accountable here on earth and to God all sins are equaled because in the next life they are of no consequnece if you accepted Jesus and lived up to his teachings to the best of your abilities.

Quite so, but the way you put it the first time makes hummanity sound like a collection of pieces on a draughts board.

[Ironside]

Two interesting points. The first is dealt with early in Genesis 18 when God promises he will not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah if ten righteous men are found within the cities and the plane, the cities and the plane are destroyed.


I was refering to the power trip God does in Exodus, when hardening the heart of Pharaoh, to then punish the Egyptians for that Pharaoh refuses to let the Israelis go. God finally culminates this by sending down the destroyer (nice name, a demon?) and kills all first born sons of Egypt, as he previously predicted...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I was refering to the power trip God does in Exodus, when hardening the heart of Pharaoh, to then punish the Egyptians for that Pharaoh refuses to let the Israelis go. God finally culminates this by sending down the destroyer (nice name, a demon?) and kills all first born sons of Egypt, as he previously predicted...

You're in danger of being openly offensive now. I'm sorry, a "demon"? I don't have Exodus here with me, but the point is made in Genesis. God is just, so if he does something it is just even if it doesn't look it. That is the narrative of the Bible.

[Fragony]

"so basically if you're not working as hard as you can and using everything God gave you, then you are being slothful, and that is a sin and a sign of reprobation."

SHame on me for not reading earlier. The early protestants had a mission to reinstall gods kingdom on earth, and not working the fields as hard as you can was a sin because they had to treat the world as best as they could. Weber didn't get that and cherry-picked from some quotes, it's pretty easy to go in with a stretched leg, the harships of labour weren't actually underapreciated.

[Ironside]

You're in danger of being openly offensive now. I'm sorry, a "demon"? I don't have Exodus here with me, but the point is made in Genesis. God is just, so if he does something it is just even if it doesn't look it. That is the narrative of the Bible.

Exodus 12:23
When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.

The only mention of the destroyer in the Bible, but it's not God and it's one cruel entity.
Seems to differ a lot between translations on that one though, but the never ones from original Hebrew are the ones mentioning the destroyer as an entity.

Exodus 11:10
Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.

That's just before unleashing The Plague on the Firstborn. The LORD does it multiple times before that.

I'm simply telling that the actions God doesn't make sense even beyond the shroud of not understanding God's actions. There's hundreds of ways to handle the Exodus without looking cruel, manipulative and getting an excuse for displaying powers.
As you might have guessed, should God irrefutably exist, he would need a lot of explaination before I would consider worshipping him, because he leaves very few indications of being good.

You might like this link http://www.biblegateway.com/. Got the whole bible in quite a bit of versions.
The one I quoted are the new international version.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Exodus 12:23
When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.

The only mention of the destroyer in the Bible, but it's not God and it's one cruel entity.
Seems to differ a lot between translations on that one though, but the never ones from original Hebrew are the ones mentioning the destroyer as an entity.

I believe it's usually assumed to be Urial, the Angel of Death. In any case, where is it "cruel"?


Exodus 11:10
Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders before Pharaoh, but the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let the Israelites go out of his country.

That's just before unleashing The Plague on the Firstborn. The LORD does it multiple times before that.

Well, I suppose God doesn't look too good there, I could go over the theological justification regarding kingship, but at the end of the day Exodus does not reflect real events, so the issue lies with the author, not God.


I'm simply telling that the actions God doesn't make sense even beyond the shroud of not understanding God's actions. There's hundreds of ways to handle the Exodus without looking cruel, manipulative and getting an excuse for displaying powers.
As you might have guessed, should God irrefutably exist, he would need a lot of explaination before I would consider worshipping him, because he leaves very few indications of being good.

You might like this link http://www.biblegateway.com/. Got the whole bible in quite a bit of versions.
The one I quoted are the new international version.

Faith in God vs Faith in the Bible.

Choose one or the other.

[Strike For The South]

Quite so, but the way you put it the first time makes hummanity sound like a collection of pieces on a CHECKER board.

It's kinda of like that...

[Skullheadhq]

If hell exists, where would it be?

[Aemilius Paulus]

If hell exists, where would it be?
Good Lord, as if religion was not fantasy-like enough, you have to ask this? :tongue::dizzy2: If the existence of God was to proven, heaven or hell would be a very minor thing to explain. Supposing God plays by the rules, if he is that proverbial 'watchmaker', hell or heaven could be in another dimension. But given all the other irrational evidence, I would say this is the least of our troubles...

[The Wizard]

Your talk of Elohim punishing the Egyptians has made me need to listen to Metallica...


Well, in order to be forgiven you have to be truly penitent, and not merely afraid for your soul. Imagine the amount of penitence appropriate to Hitler's, Stalin's, or Mao's crimes. Imagine the amount of mental suffering that would produce.

My friend posited that the God of Jesus is all-forgiving, regardless of what you've done.


If hell exists, where would it be?

Ohio

[Hax]

I agree with Fragony.





There, it's out.

[drone]

Ohio

:no: Everybody knows it's Detroit.

[Fragony]

I agree with Fragony.





There, it's out.

don't fight it

[Strike For The South]

Ohio

a man after my own heart

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's kinda of like that...

Says your religion, but not mine. Two factors mitigate against the view, in my opinion.

1. It does not glorify God, because it reduces him from King and Father to merely Tyrant, making him merely the Devils opposite.

2. It harms hummanity and leads to Sin by removing the feeling of personal responsibility.


Your talk of Elohim punishing the Egyptians has made me need to listen to Metallica...

My friend posited that the God of Jesus is all-forgiving, regardless of what you've done.

I agree with your friend, but in order to benefit from forgiveness you have to accept it; which requires penitence; which provokes anguish in the Soul for Sin.

[Kralizec]

You underestimate man's abilities at mental gymnastics.

[Louis VI the Fat]

:no: Everybody knows it's Detroit.Which calls for the classic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSp2KGMQEk8

The first time I saw it, in the movie, I wet myself laughing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You underestimate man's abilities at mental gymnastics.

How so?

[CountArach]

Sorry but you are wrong, determinism is indeed the better word, it assumes a certain outcome. Can be about anything.
We don't disagree. I'm just saying that Marxism has its own specific language for it.