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.
It’s not about accepting legitimate authority it’s about rejecting illegitimate authority.
A drunk peddling booze won’t be asked to facilitate at the local meeting of AA but that does not mean the members are consigning him to the outgroup.
It just means that at the present time he is at cross purposes to the membership
peace
Patrick,
“The Atheist Zone” I suspect.
I think it is shorthand for “Gregory is having a tantrum”.
Did you know that you can visit hell without dying, and perhaps even return from hell still alive?
Sultan’s Pool
Ben Hinnom Valley
Hi Gregory,
Thanks for your question and for the links. So far I only glanced briefly at your links, and if I’ve misunderstood them I hope to correct that in the near future. As yet I have not gone on to full universalism. Right now I would say I am closer to annihilationism, but I deny the reality of any literal hell. Death is the end. No soul carrying on after death. No immortal soul. No punishment after death.
This does raise a question that I am still working on, such as the death of death. So my mind is not made up.
Some notable Gregory’s in Christian history. A name I’d not be ashamed to give to a son.
Do you have in mind a particular creed?
Yeah, well, from what I’ve been reading lately your vision isn’t all that reliable. 😉
How about Notgregory? I mean, how much can someone infer from Walto?
It’s the place where “objective truth” and “empirical knowledge” trump everything else.
It’s the place where “operational definitions” are more desirable than gold.
It’s the atheist vision of heaven, if they could only be rid of the those who are skeptical of their vision.
Whatever it is, it’s not what you envisioned when you created it. You’re sort of like the deist god. The absentee landlord. but instead of returning and being pissed as hell about what your “stewards” have done with it, you feign ignorance.
Like France? Oh please.
Still waiting for keiths to offer a reason to accept his interpretation of the text. But we’ve all heard this before I’m sure.
keiths sez x.
critic says you need to defend x.
keiths sez i defend my postions.
critic says you do when you do and you don’t when you don’t.
What is your basis for your literal interpretation of the text, keiths?
Is it the repeated instances of where John is given the interpretation of the things he saw in which what he saw was not to be taken literally?
Seven stars. Not literal stars.
Seven candlesticks. Not literal candlesticks.
Do I need to go on?
You could go on, if you have something to say.
Something more substantive than not TSZ.
What Hells Await Me
Poor Mung is still going on about candlesticks and stars, but my earlier comment remains unanswered:
Poor Mung.
He was happy to quote Revelation when he (mistakenly) thought it supported his position:
Now I’ve shown him that a mere four verses earlier, the Bible contradicts him:
Now he’s babbling about candlesticks and stars. Anything but address the actual verse I quoted.
Keep squirming, Mr. “I don’t just read the Bible, I study it.”.
Get over it. My comments go unanswered all the time.
Do you have an argument?
Mung,
Purported Tu Quoque. Sophisticated bible study!
Richardthughes sliding into oblivion.
Mung, can you pop into UD and see if there’s anyone more capable? You’ve tried. Kthnxbai.
Awaiting an actual argument.
Mung,
Facts aren’t arguments.
I’ve already conceded that atheists get to invent their own facts, so what’s your point?
Why does my presentation of my beliefs about hell conflict with the facts you know to be true about hell?
Judgmental Jesus:
Judgmental Jesus:
Judgmental Jesus:
Judgmental Jesus:
Mung,
No one in this thread claimed that Jesus doesn’t (or didn’t) judge.
The question Lizzie and fifth were disputing was whether Jesus commanded us not to judge.
keiths, did Jesus ever mention “the lake of fire” that you’re hanging your hopes of hell on?
I’m not “hanging my hopes” on the lake of fire.
I’m pointing out that either you, the Bible, or both are wrong about Satan. Which is it?
Sure you are. You’ve latched on to a verse and it’s become your “proof” text. The irony is exquisite. Where else, in all of scripture, is “the lake of fire” mentioned?
You asked for this debate keiths, You begged for it. Man up.
I could care less. If you want to talk about Satan start another thread. This is a thread about hell in response to your repeated whining that I was for some reason too cowardly to set forth my views about hell.
Your view is that the bible teaches a literal hell of literal fire that is a literal place of torment to which people like you are consigned for all eternity for punishment (or whatever). Defend your view, if you can.
Mung,
This is pitiful, even by your standards.
You wrote:
The Bible says:
How can someone who no longer exists be “tormented day and night for ever and ever”?
Who is wrong — you, the Bible, or both?
Man up. (LOL)
How do you throw things into a metaphorical lake of fire?
Mung your claim was that Christians were instructed to judge. I merely cited a passage where Jesus specifically instructed his followers not to.
I didn’t claim that the bible says that Jesus does not judge. I simply pointed out a new testament passage that is a direct contradiction to your claim that “Christians are instructed to judge”.
It’s presumably something you need to sort out. It’s not my problem, because I don’t regard the New Testament as divine revelation, but as a series of documents, written by different human beings at different times, reflecting different interpretations of a story that may or may not have been handed down by different routes from different sources, and thus not surprisingly sometimes mutually contradictory.
Can you support any of that with links?
How does one throw a fit?
How does one throw a game/match?
How does one throw up?
If the lake of fire is hell, why is it not so translated?
When you have a counter-argument my replies will become less pitiful. I have already explained that the language is symbolic, that it is given in imagery, and why this is the case. All you have done is say that it isn’t. Try a different approach.
Imagery. The white throne isn’t a literal physical throne on which God literally sits and the earth and heavens don’t literally flee to nowhere.
Not a literal prostitute.
All 32 of them.
Mung,
No, I’ve pointed out the amusing irony of your quoting the book of Revelation in support of your beliefs, only to find — when an atheist points it out — that your beliefs are contradicted by Revelation only four verses earlier.
That’s pretty funny, Mr. “I don’t read the Bible, I study it.”
keiths, we all understand you think the bible should be interpreted literally, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. But you have failed to defend that view.
That’s pretty pathetic, Mr. “I defend my positions.”
Are you somehow above taking your own advice? Just roll with it.
The bible was taken literally for most of two thousand years, until that became untenable. All those people were unutterably stupid, it seems. Or perhaps the Logos just lied to them.
There is an alternative. That alternative is that your claim is false and or misleading. Your claim would require us to believe that the bible was not written by humans nor intended for humans. It would require that we ignore history.
Taking the bible literally does not mean reading it in a woodenly literalistic manner. I take the Bible very literally but that does not mean that I think the “grapes of wrath” are California seedless.
I think a lot of times what we think of as taking the Bible literately in the past was actually abandoning the literal meaning for something more metaphorical.
for example the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 says
—-And the earth was waste and void; ASV
or
—-And the earth was waste and empty DBT
Read this literally and you think of a barren desert. However in the KJV we read
—-And the earth was without form, and void
Read this and you probably think of a lava lamp, a clump of amorphous chaos. I think that image in your mind is a result on not reading the text literally but metaphorically to match the “science” that was current in medieval Europe at the time of the translation.
Humans are fallible temporal creatures and understand any communication in relation to the context of what they know. It takes time and effort to get the intended message in any correspondence and we often get it wrong.
peace
This whole thread is a funny LOLfest. Bravo!
There are a number of different views in Christendom about hell and about the fate of people after death. You might think that only one view is considered orthodox or that only one view has been the dominant view throughout church history. One such view can be called the traditional view of hell.
I disagree with this view of hell, I disagree that it’s necessarily the orthodox view of hell, and I disagree that it has been the dominant view of hell throughout church history.
Now I have no intention of laying out the full case for my views in a blog post. If you disagree with my views feel free to present an argument as to why they are incorrect and be prepared to defend your position (keiths).
In the book All You Want To Know About Hell, author Steve Gregg sets out the broad contours of the traditional belief:
1.) The soul was created immortal
2.) Fire may be literal or figurative
3.) Repentance will be unavailing or nonexistence in hell
4.) The saints’ happiness will not be compromised by the damnation of the lost.
If the traditional view of hell allows for the figurative use of fire, then the claim that keiths is making, that in Scripture fire is always literal, is without basis.
Responding that “the bible sez you’re wrong” is simply pathetic. It indicates no interest whatsoever in discussing the issues. I set forth my views on hell. What other view of hell are they in conflict with, and why?
Hello Mr. Philo expert not I am! How many times did Philo mention Gehenna?
Mung,
Do you really want me to check? Why?
Mung,
Show us where I have made that claim. Link, please.
Empire wide census Mung? Is that a metaphor for something else?
Mung,
You already know how to do that. Definitely.
Here you go.
Enjoy!
Mung, I note that you didn’t actually address the claim that for nearly two thousand years educated people expected to find evidence of a global flood. Was that a metaphor?
I don’t think that was the case most ancient people would have no idea that the earth was a globe.
peace
Do you doubt that Caesar would want to know how many subjects there were in his empire?
peace