I am one of those Christians who underwent a true “born again” experience. Surely the absolute worst kind of Christian. I had a life-changing experience that fundamentally changed the sort of person I was. You’re not going to de-convert me so please stop trying.
I could just jump right in and state my view on hell, but first I’d like to make some remarks that I think have a bearing on my view. I don’t know that it’s particularly possible to change someone’s mind about hell by just talking about hell in isolation.
I think the framework from which one views scripture plays a significant role in interpretation and my framework comes from a lengthy study of bible prophecy. It involved my transition from a belief in a “pre-tribulation rapture” where Jesus is going to return any day now (Dispensationalism) to a position known as Preterism, in which Jesus has already returned. This involved the abandonment of “literal” interpretations of certain key texts (e.g., the moon turning to blood). Not Literal. Jesus returning on a white horse with clothes soaked in blood and a sword coming out of his mouth. Not literal. The New Jerusalem. Not literal. And of course, there’s that (in)famous “lake of fire.” Also not literal.
So in a nutshell. That’s my take on hell.
It’s not a literal physical place with a literal physical flaming lake of fire that people will be tossed into to endure eternal agony.
Of course, the actual reasoning was not that simple. There were other passages that needed to be considered. But those are details.
So. I am not here to rescue you from hell.
Thanks, Mung.
Can you say more about Preterism, and your present non-literal understanding of bible prophesy?
Mung,
You’ve told us what you don’t believe about hell, but we’d still like to know what you do believe about it.
Hell is that place where there is piped in harp muzak, 24 hours a day.
Heaven is that other place, where you get to chat around the fireside.
—-
To get closer to the topic — back as a Christian (roughly, my teen years), it seemed clear to me that Peter and Paul had believed that Jesus would return within their lifetimes. My conclusion was that either he had already returned or he was never going to return. The rapture story just seemed like nonsense. So maybe that was not too far from the munged view.
I’m a not literalist also. I don’t take any of it literally. I take it as manipulative fiction.
I do not think it was written by hypocrites. I have far too much experience with delusions to think believers do not honestly believe.
Exactly. The evidence that the apostles believed that Jesus would return soon is overwhelming. To deny it is to do violence to the text. And the most likely source of this belief is from the words of Jesus himself.
So either they were wrong, and Jesus was wrong, or there’s a way to interpret the text that doesn’t involve them being deluded and Jesus being a false prophet.
But not in a mood to accomodate the Thomases of the world. Sink or swim for later generations.
Put simply, preterism is the view that most or all of bible prophecy was fulfilled in the past. Generally speaking it’s split into two camps, full preterism and partial preterism. Full preterism holds there are no prophecies in scripture which refer to yet future events and partial preterism holds that there are still some.
So for example partial preterists still hold to a future coming of Jesus along with a final judgment. Where they both agree is that many texts that futurists (non-preterists) say are still future and remain yet to be fulfilled were in fact already fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
On non literal interpretation:
This language is not meant to be taken literally. It’s figurative. It’s imagery.
This is to be taken literally:
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
So it’s not that all prophecy is non-literal. It’s that prophecy, like the rest of scripture, employs language that is not always literal and language that is not intended to be taken literally. Jesus was using imagery lifted straight from the Hebrew prophets. Understanding these allusions helps determine how the language is meant to be interpreted.
Closer to the subject of hell fire would be this text:
Literal trees? Literal fruit? A literal axe? Literal wheat and literal chaff? But all of a sudden a literal hell fire?
So I say if I don’t interpret the trees and axe and wheat and chaff literally, I don’t have a good reason to interpret this fire as referring to a literal hell of eternal fire.
Mung,
The problem is that preterism also does violence to the text.
The second coming is supposed to be unmistakable:
And:
If you don’t want to do violence to the text, it looks like “the Bible was wrong again” is your best choice.
P.S. Don’t forget to tell us what you believe about hell.
Yes, I agree. But I haven’t seen a persuasive rendering of that last thing yet.
Although there is a fourth: People were wrong about most of the Jesus story, who quite possibly hadn’t said any of those things, but his life had spawned a lot of stories by the time anyone wrote them down, by which time the idea had got about that he was due back very soon.
These things happen all the time.
So how DO you interpret it? What is the alternative interpretation that you favour?
You seem to have some difficulty understanding the English language.
Let me help you:
“You’ve told us what you do believe about hell, that it is not …”
Go on. Your question now is?
I don’t know that my way of interpreting the passage is an alternative interpretation. It’s probably mainstream. I don’t know of anyone who thinks John was describing something that was going to happen to literal trees, wheat or chaff. I don’t know anyone who thinks the Scribes and Pharisees were literal serpents and vipers.
It’s all imagery. John saw the coming judgment and this is the language he used to describe it, in keeping with the language of the Hebrew prophets.
Dictionary of Biblical Imagery
Are you asking for references to the Jewish scriptures that such language is drawn from?
No, I’m asking for your interpretation of those passages. What do you think they mean? What do you think it means to say that Jesus is already returned, for example?
LOL. Now Lizzie is experiencing it for herself.
“For the axe as a symbol of judgment, cf. Is. 10:15.”
“The felling of trees is a prophetic image of judgment in a number of Old Testament texts.”
“Destruction by fire is a universal image of judgment, and is often used by the Matthean Jesus.”
The Gospel of Matthew
It’s language, using imagery, intended to invoke recall of Old Testament texts indicating an imminent judgment. It reinforces the literal language:
7 Many Pharisees and Sadducees came to be baptized by John. He said to them, “You children of snakes! Who warned you to escape from the angry judgment that is coming soon? 8 Produce fruit that shows you have changed your hearts and lives. 9 And don’t even think about saying to yourselves, Abraham is our father. I tell you that God is able to raise up Abraham’s children from these stones. 10 The ax is already at the root of the trees.
Not only is the New Testament full of references to the soon return of Jesus, it is also full of references to an impending judgment.
It came to pass in AD70.
Mung,
The same as before.
OMagain, hotshoe, petrushka, and I (and now Lizzie) would like to know what you believe about hell.
We know you aren’t a literalist, but we don’t know what you actually believe. Why not tell us?
OK. I looked up Preterism in wikipedia and it said this:
Is that related to what you are talking about it? I get I don’t get even in a non-literal way why the “return of Jesus” should be a metaphor for the destruction of Jerusalem, and certainly not as a divine judgement against the Jews.
It was unmistakable. Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70.
I don’t know what is wrong with you keiths, but demanding that I adhere to your literal interpretation of texts when I have plainly stated that I do not hold to such a wooden literalism seems to me to exhibit just a small amount of bad faith on your part.
Let me also make you aware that I believe the contents of the book of Revelation were composed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and concern those same events. I also believe that most if not all of the New Testament was composed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
So if I find that your objections just don’t move me perhaps you can understand why. I have been applying myself to these issues for literally decades. You, otoh, are not going to be convinced regardless of what I say and don’t show any indication you’ve studied either hell or preterism.
You’ve passed the course Biblical Literalism 101. Congratulations.
If it was a judgement against the Jews, it didn’t take. Hitler did a more thorough job than the Romans, but not in the allotted time.
The thing about evangelical religions — all of them — is their notion that failure to pay attention to nutball preachers is offensive to god. It’s not like a sane person can tell one from another. I’m not aware of any prophets who offered up disclaimers or warnings that they might be wrong. So they all claim to be the TRVTH.
Mung,
I’m with Lizzie, who wrote:
Everyone was supposed to recognize the second coming as the second coming, and you don’t have to read these verses literally to see that:
And:
As I said:
Hi Elizabeth,
I appreciate your approach to this discussion. For inviting me to post my thoughts and then seeking to understand where I am coming from.
The text quoted by keiths says:
“…so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”
keiths apparently take this to mean that Jesus will be personally visible. He can be excused. Many Christians think so. Like hell, Christians disagree on these texts.
“…and they shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory;”
Is “to see” something limited to physical eyesight? I think we can all agree that such a limited interpretation of what it means “to see” something is not even warranted in our day.
But more importantly, what is this talk of clouds? Again, one should go to the Old Testament texts. I won’t bore you with all the details unless you just insist. 🙂
Coming in the Clouds
The position I am taking is set out quite well in this book:
The Parousia: The New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming
For a more modern treatment:
The Last Days according to Jesus: When Did Jesus Say He Would Return?
There was no physical return of Jesus to the earth in the sense of him appearing in a human body visible to every human on earth up in the sky. His coming was a vindication of his claims to be the Messiah and the evidence was the destruction of Jerusalem.
If I’ve not answered your question please say so.
keiths, a place has been prepared for you:
The Grand Inquisitor
Mung,
No, I took it non-literally to mean that everyone would be aware that Jesus had returned. Read the verses again — that’s what they say.
The destruction of Jerusalem doesn’t qualify.
Everyone everywhere? Like everyone everywhere sees a flash of lightning?
Well, since that’s what Jesus was talking about, why not?
24 And having gone forth, Jesus departed from the temple, and his disciples came near to show him the buildings of the temple,
2 and Jesus said to them, `Do ye not see all these? verily I say to you, There may not be left here a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down.’
3 And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what [is] the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?’
If you say enough ambiguous things, you can’t be wrong, particularly if you are allowed to disown the things that seem to be literal.
This is not a game that can be played by ordinary people. Only by Pharisees.
Mung,
According to the Bible:
The sensible conclusion is that the prophecy failed.
Or that “every” does not mean every, but is just another one of the exaggerations for propaganda effect which the bible is stuffed full of — maybe “every” means something like “every one who is paying attention to the secret messages” in these verses.
I mean, I know they have rules for how they tell which verses are completely made up, which are metaphors, and which (maybe a few) are literal truth, and I know they justify those rules with all kinds of arcane vocabulary and deep scholarship traditions and references to ancient literary forms – and for all I can tell, numerology and astrology too.
What I don’t get is why they’re so confident that they’ve actually hit on the correct set of rules to lead to the correct non-literal interpretation, especially when one type of christian (ie Mung) must admit that another type of christian using the same type of exegesis hits upon a completely different non-literal interpretation of the exact same passage. So whence the unseemly pride? Whence the undeserved snark towards those who have not taken (/wasted) the time to study the non-obvious (possibly correct but possibly group-thinky delusional) meanings?
Mung says about keiths:
Isn’t that even more applicable to Mung, bad faith in not accepting some christian elder’s carefully explicated position that fiery lake of hell is literal and real?
Yes, Mung is a better person for not accepting that. Really, I’m on Mung’s side that the widely-taught doctrine of hell is wrong. But I’m tellin ya: I don’t find it a bit convincing when Mung says, basically, “Dude, don’t be a fool, it’s not meant to be literal, it’s all mixed in with a bunch of clearly non-literal imagery and you should know better”.
Hmm. Here’s what some christians tell me:
Ya know what I hear? I hear them telling me I’m a fool not to believe in a literal fiery hell and I’m going to end up there forever for not listening to Jesus.
Why is Mung correct and they’re not? The fact that they’re sniveling bullies who corrupt children, murder women, and burn people here on Earth, too impatient to wait for god to send their enemies to hell? But that doesn’t make them incorrect (about god’s messages in the bible) it just makes them morally filthy.
It’s not as if there’s any kind of test we can perform to find out which of them is more likely correct. Short of dying.
” You’re not going to de-convert me so please stop trying.”
So much for being open minded and rational.
Thanks, Mung. I guess I am still puzzled by the non-literal interpretation of the second coming, specifically.
Do you mean that “his coming” is a metaphor for something like “you will see that I was right in my predictions”?
Also, does it not bother you that God would punish “the Jews” because of Caiaphas?
OK, I think I get it. “I will return” means “I will return to judge” and the evidence for the “return to judge” is the destruction of Jerusalem “as judgement.”
Mung,
I’ve not seen anybody attempt to deconvert you. If being forced to address inconsistencies and plain nonsense in your source of religion is seen by you as an attempt at deconversion that says more about your relationship with your religion then the people you think are trying to “deconvert” you.
And don’t you find it ironic that you ask others to be skeptical about what they think about evolution but refuse to apply what you ask of others to yourself?
This always makes me laugh. Had your parents been Muslim you’d be advocating with the same fervour for the Koran and would have been just as sure.
And that’s the problem with religion in a nutshell. The reality based community does not have similar problems as after all there is only one reality. But there are many religions.
(C) sophisticated theology.
I just don’t see how any of this gets the human race anywhere it wants to be any faster. It’s just a waste of time, fairytales for humanities child period where dark corners hid ghosts and stars heralded virgin births.
hotshoe_ correctly points out there are equally compelling arguments on both sides of the issue. However the nature of the beast is that there is no correct answer and there can never be one. Unlike science, in religion you get to have your own facts!
Just think how the world could progress if the energy put into these “literal or not” arguments could be redirected somewhere where it could actually be constructive.
Worth repeating:
Mung:
Honestly, Mung, your complaint rings hollow, as much of your recent manic output concerns religion and/or issues challenges “to the atheists.”
Titles of some of your recent
trolling effortsposts:– Angry at God (“So why are atheists angry at God?”)
– Testimony to Miracles
– A Minimal Materialism (addressed “to the atheists”)
– The Cosmological Argument (for the existence of God)
– Is Religious Belief Natural?
To which we now add:
– Munging Hell.
Then you call the waaaambulance when your religious views are challenged.
Take a little responsibility, Mung.
OMagain,
That reminds me of Penn Jillette’s similar observation:
“If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.”
One thing a lot of atheists (mostly ex fundies I suspect) seem not to understand is that a lot of believers don’t think that “evidence” is even relevant to what they believe.
So saying: your beliefs are not supported by evidence entirely misses the issue. The reason people believe in God, at least for a lot of people, is that they have experienced something that they perceive as divine.
You aren’t going to make a convert, or a de-convert by pointing to the objective evidence for and against one scriptural interpretation rather than another. We believe in God because we experience divine presence. If we never do that, we probably give up believing fairly early in life. But sometimes we change our perception of the experience – attribute it to a non-divine source.
But you can’t do that from the outside.
The only way that people who have had a divine experience will be convinced it’s solely in their heads is when we get to the point we can turn such experiences on and off at will.
With tDCS on the horizon, such is not too far off I feel.
I like that, and I agree that it’s significant.
Mung,
If you were born to a Muslim family and grew up a Muslim, is it your belief you would have converted to a Christian eventually, as Christianity is self-evidently true (presumably you consider it such) and Islam is not?
Elizabeth,
I agree, and I certainly don’t expect (or necessarily desire) to deconvert anyone here.
My issue, and this is much more of a problem in the U.S. than in England at the moment, is that the people who hold fundamentalist beliefs vote based on those beliefs. That results in laws that treat homosexuals unfairly, restrict reproductive rights, push sectarian claims into public school science classes, and on and on. If the fundamentalists want to have their private beliefs, I have no objection (although I’m often willing to have a debate with them). As soon as they use those beliefs to justify oppressing other people, they have an obligation to support their claims with real evidence.
I don’t see that that would make any difference.
Ghostly experiences can be generated on demand:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26516-ever-felt-a-ghostly-presence-now-we-know-why/
Ultra-low sound can induce a state of terror which can happen naturally in some “haunted” rooms. So there people who previously believed in ghosts might well stop believing if these new explanations make more sense.
But sure, belief is largely insulated from logic so it won’t make any difference today, but as the generations pass and the explanations for what was considered “mystical” become available then the idea that people are really talking to god will become just another historical delusion.
OMagain:
I really like this example:
I’ve got speakers that can hit 19 hz (I think), audible (really more feelable than audible) in certain corners of the room.
I’m going to sit there and see if I can contact my dear departed uncle Thadeus. (Or, short of that, Jonathan Harris). Or at least hallucinate him.
I’m waiting for WJM to come along and explain that ghosts like low-frequency sound. When the sound goes away, so do the ghosts. Why would they stay without that lovely sound?
Silly ‘skeptics’.
I’m not actually talking (when I talk of experiencing “divine presence” ) of spooky feelings that there might be a ghost around.
Sure, we can artificially induce weird experiences, and then demonstrate that they were a neural artefact.
I wasn’t actually referring to that. When I talk of “experiencing the divine presence” I’m talking much more about something like “the still small voice of calm” that we can be aware of when we put aside our immediate desires and impulses and tap into a more considered and other-centred sense of our options.
I no longer call that “still small voice” the “voice of God” but it is no less real, and no less worth listening to now that I locate it our human capacity to sublimate the self into a wider sense of our place in the extended human and non-human universe.
You have obviously become a god unto yourself, Ms. Lizzie. And you appear to live now in that self-centred abyss of hell. Thanks to an educational pathway of music, architecture, psycho- for that damnable twist of fate?