Hell is human creations

Also, you didn't explain where you got this idea that hell is a place of corrective punishment for a limited amount of time.

MatrixSamurai27

The Bible. There's tons of threads and posts in this union explaining it in greater detail. :)ChiliDragon

Well it would be kind of hard to refute the idea if the verses supporting it are posted over various threads. Why not show which Scriptures support it here? Also, what do you make of my explanation of hell? Could you be comfortable with that?

It doesn't have to be that strong. It can be more that they refuse to become a Christian because they don't want to change their lifestyle.

MatrixSamurai27

And why would they, considering that they do not see any reason to do so?  If they were convinced of the benefit that would be reaped by changing their lifestyle, they would do so.

However, my confusion remains... if you were not a Christian, why would you care if you got to be with the Christian god after you died or not? To clarify: My confusion are caused by the few but vocal atheists that are rabidly against Christianity, but still are genuinely upset when it is suggested that according to the Christian mythos they will not be allowed in Heaven.

ChiliDragon

I don't think it's that they want to be with the Christian God when they die, but more that they do not believe it justified to send someone to eternal torture simply for having led the wrong life on Earth, especially considering that they would not know until they died that that was the case.

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"]The Bible. There's tons of threads and posts in this union explaining it in greater detail. :)MatrixSamurai27

Well it would be kind of hard to refute the idea if the verses supporting it are posted over various threads. Why not show which Scriptures support it here? Also, what do you make of my explanation of hell? Could you be comfortable with that?

It's right on pages 1 and 2 of this thread. :P  The problem centers around the Greek phrase aionion kolasin, which is traditionally translated into English as "eternal punishment" in Matthew 25:46.  There are two problems with this translation, however: aionion does not mean "eternal", but rather "pertaining to a period of time of unspecified duration", and kolasin refers to a corrective punishment; timoria is the word that refers to a vengeful punishment intended to cause suffering.  Koine Greek is an exceptionally precise language; there is very much that is lost when it is translated into English, which has words that have several disparate meanings.

It's right on pages 1 and 2 of this thread. :P  The problem centers around the Greek phrase aionion kolasin, which is traditionally translated into English as "eternal punishment" in Matthew 25:46.  There are two problems with this translation, however: aionionkolasin refers to a corrective punishment; timoria is the word that refers to a vengeful punishment intended to cause suffering.  Koine Greek is an exceptionally precise language; there is very much that is lost when it is translated into English, which has words that have several disparate meanings. does not mean "eternal", but rather "pertaining to a period of time of unspecified duration", and

GabuEx

Several problems here. If you're going to argue that the greek word aionion can't mean eternal here for the punishment, then it can't mean eternal for the "life" part mentioned in the very same sentence. Secondly, as for kolasin, it can have other meanings.

"The word for 'punishment' here (kolasis) has a sense of 'pruning' or 'stopping short one's development' and that this may or may not indicate conscious pain [Fire that Consumes by Edward Fudge, 197]."

-Source

The other things this word can fit perfectly with my contention that hell is a place of shame and seperation of God and not physical torture. C.S. Lewis lays it out perfectly in his book, The Great Divorce, how seperation from God can cause humans to lose their humanity in hell (stopping short one's development). Also,

We instead see the contrary: just as Jesus went against the teachings of the Pharisees on several other occasions, so too here is Jesus telling us that instead of eternal torment, no, God loves you, and will always love you, and any punishment for wrongdoing will be corrective and temporary. This fits in perfectly with his message of unconditional and unending love for all mankind - the idea of eternal torment of the damned, not so much.GabuEx

You say this punishment has to do with God's love for the sinner, but the only other place in the NT where the greek word kolasin is used is in 1st John 4:18 where John specifically connects it with fear and contrasts it with love.

Finally, Daniel 12:2 says that the the unrighteous are raised to experience everlasting shame and disgrace, which is a translation from the Hebrew. I could give more verses to support the my view of hell, but I will first wait to see how you respond.

Haha, yes. I always had the question in the back of my mind, when not thinking about it, "If someone never heard about Jesus Christ in their lifetime, then do they go to Heaven or Hell?" There really are only two options: They go to Heaven and the whole purpose of Jesus' Atonement is essentially nullified, and they go to Hell and the God that is love that I know does not exist, and the God of hate reigns the universe. I cannot accept either, of course, and I have found an answer to such a problem in Mormonism. Nobody else could give me an answer to that question. Android339

Um, with people who have never heard the Gospel, God can still credit Jesus' righteousness to them. The atonement is still necessary because they will have, of course, sinned in their lives.

Several problems here. If you're going to argue that the greek word aionion can't mean eternal here for the punishment, then it can't mean eternal for the "life" part mentioned in the very same sentence.

MatrixSamurai27

And it doesn't. It refers to the same thing mentioned in Revelation 2:24-26:

"Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan's so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you): Only hold on to what you have until I come. To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations."

Confer with John 14:21:

"Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

...and Romans 2:7:

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and incorruptibility, (God) will give aionion life."

Additionally, look at the preamble to the parable of the sheep and the goats (in which the phrase aionion kolasin is located):

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory." (Matthew 25:30)

Who is the Son of Man? Jesus. What will happen when the Jesus returns? He will give authority to those who overcome and do his will to the end. Therefore, what is the aionion life that is mentioned in Matthew 25:46? It is the life given to those who will have authority over the nations when Jesus returns. How could he give eternal life to those who are still on Earth, living within the span of finite time and in the physical realm of our universe?

Secondly, as for kolasin, it can have other meanings. "The word for 'punishment' here (kolasis) has a sense of 'pruning' or 'stopping short one's development' and that this may or may not indicate conscious pain [Fire that Consumes by Edward Fudge, 197]."

MatrixSamurai27

That's not what kolasis means. You are correct that it has its roots in the word kolazo (i.e., to prune), but here is the thing: what is the intention behind one's actions when one prunes a tree or a hedge? The act of pruning cuts off either dead or poorly placed branches such that the tree can then grow better. If a human is pruned, thus, we cannot conclude that this represents that human's destruction, but rather it is the removal of what is preventing the human from growing. The human is not the one that is pruned from something else; the human is the one being pruned. Which is precisely what punishment for the purpose of improvement implies.

Here is a question: if you wish to contest the idea that kolasin means "punishment for the purposes of correction", then tell me what differentiates that word from timoria, which is another Greek word that is translated into English as "punishment".

The other things this word can fit perfectly with my contention that hell is a place of shame and seperation of God and not physical torture. C.S. Lewis lays it out perfectly in his book, The Great Divorce, how seperation from God can cause humans to lose their humanity in hell (stopping short one's development).

MatrixSamurai27

But that is not remotely in congruence with the description of hell in Revelation:

"If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb." (Revelation 14:9-10)

"Tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb" - that doesn't sound too much to me like separation from God that is not physical torture.

Clement of Alexandria, a prominent early Christian, wrote the following on this topic:

"1 John 2:2. 'And not only for our sins,'--that is for those of the faithful, - is the Lord the propitiator, does he say, 'but also for the whole world.' He, indeed, saves all; but some [He saves] converting them by punishments; others, however, who follow voluntarily [He saves] with dignity of honour; so 'that every knee should bow to Him, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth;' that is, angels, men, and souls that before His advent have departed from this temporal life."

Additionally, Gregory of Nyssa, a pivotal contributor to the Nicene Creed, had this to say:

"Wherefore, that at the same time liberty of free-will should be left to nature and yet the evil be purged away, the wisdom of God discovered this plan; to suffer man to do what he would, that having tasted the evil which he desired, and learning by experience for what wretchedness he had bartered away the blessings he had, he might of his own will hasten back with desire to the first blessedness ... either being purged in this life through prayer and discipline, or after his departure hence through the furnace of cleansing fire."

The consensus was basically unanimous among the early fathers of the church who read and understood the original Greek books of the New Testament: hell is not eternal; it is a place of purging and cleansing for the purposes of the ultimate reconciliation of all mankind to God.

One thing I should additionally touch on is the mention of burning sulfur in hell as described in Revelation. Many read this as if it were just an ominous setting; these are those who do not understand the true significance of burning sulfur. At the time the New Testament was written (and for quite a while thereafter), sulfur was believed to have divine qualities of purification, and burning sulfur was often used to fumigate sick rooms. Thus the burning sulfur is not a means of torture, but rather a symbolic means of purification - just as I said.

You say this punishment has to do with God's love for the sinner, but the only other place in the NT where the greek word kolasin is used is in 1st John 4:18 where John specifically connects it with fear and contrasts it with love.

MatrixSamurai27

Well, let's examine this verse:

"There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

To respond to this, it is useful (as it often is) to go to the Greek. Literally, speaking, this part:

"But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment."

...is translated from this Greek:

ho teleia agape exo ballei ho phobos hoti ho phobos kolasis echo

Literally, this can be rendered as follows:

the (mature/perfect) love outside is-casting the fear that the fear chastening is-having

In other words, to keep floweriness to a minimum, one can translate this as follows:

"The perfect (or mature) love is casting out the fear; the fear is having chastening."

This is not saying that kolasis is incompatible with or does not originate from love. Taken with the rest of the verse as a whole, this is simply saying that the one who is too afraid to embrace the message that Jesus delivered is one who will require kolasis after death, and that a perfect (or mature) love indwelling in a human will result in this fear being cast aside. Or, alternatively, one could read it as saying that that fear brings punishment in this life, never mind the next - again, no contradiction there with what I've been saying. Keep in mind that universalists do not believe that people who die in sin just get a free ticket to heaven - they most certainly receive a punishment in hell. They additionally, however, do not believe that people are subjected to this punishment forever; they believe that the purpose of this punishment is to reconcile the one being punished with God.

Finally, Daniel 12:2 says that the the unrighteous are raised to experience everlasting shame and disgrace, which is a translation from the Hebrew.

MatrixSamurai27

That is as much a mistranslation as that of aionion. The Hebrew word in Daniel 12:2 is olam, which literally means "in the far distance". When used chronologically, it refers to a very distant time, but nonetheless one whose time span between now and then is finite. The ancient Hebrew did not even have any sense of infinity at all; to translate a word from that language into "eternal" is to show much more the imparted beliefs of the translator than the actual meaning of the text. When you make your translators sign statements affirming their belief in eternal punishment (which is the case for a number of translations)... well, it's rather obvious what your Biblical translation is going to contain.

I don't think it's that they want to be with the Christian God when they die, but more that they do not believe it justified to send someone to eternal torture simply for having led the wrong life on Earth, especially considering that they would not know until they died that that was the case.GabuEx

Also, what do you make of my explanation of hell? Could you be comfortable with that?MatrixSamurai27

Quite frankly, I am not old enough to have thouroghly studied bible translations, and even though I do not believe in god I still wish to study such things. I would probably prefer studying foriegn religious texts, however, as the bible is so American mainstream. You encounter it everyday, and then in detail on this forum.

The Mormon arguement on this forum is a quite good one, by the way, although my beliefs don't line up with it.

Several problems here. If you're going to argue that the greek word aionion can't mean eternal here for the punishment, then it can't mean eternal for the "life" part mentioned in the very same sentence. Secondly, as for kolasin, it can have other meanings. "The word for 'punishment' here (kolasis) has a sense of 'pruning' or 'stopping short one's development' and that this may or may not indicate conscious pain [Fire that Consumes by Edward Fudge, 197]."

The other things this word can fit perfectly with my contention that hell is a place of shame and seperation of God and not physical torture. C.S. Lewis lays it out perfectly in his book, The Great Divorce, how seperation from God can cause humans to lose their humanity in hell (stopping short one's development). Also,

MatrixSamurai27

In this dialogue the distinction between the words "kolazo" and "timoro" is crystal clear (the two -Socrates and Protagoras- are discussing about the judicial system of Athens and the reason behind punishment) and if you find a print of said dialogue with notes by a scholar (in other words, not just the dialogue but an analysis on it) you will I believe find plenty clarifications on the matter, of etymological nature and not only.

And it doesn't. It refers to the same thing mentioned in Revelation 2:24-26:

"Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan's so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you): Only hold on to what you have until I come. To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations."

Confer with John 14:21:

"Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

...and Romans 2:7:

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and incorruptibility, (God) will give aionion life."

Additionally, look at the preamble to the parable of the sheep and the goats (in which the phrase aionion kolasin is located):

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory." (Matthew 25:30)

Who is the Son of Man? Jesus. What will happen when the Jesus returns? He will give authority to those who overcome and do his will to the end. Therefore, what is the aionion life that is mentioned in Matthew 25:46? It is the life given to those who will have authority over the nations when Jesus returns. How could he give eternal life to those who are still on Earth, living within the span of finite time and in the physical realm of our universe?GabuEx

Um, I didn't say the eternal life mentioned in Matthew 25 was given to people still on Earth. Furthermore, the Romans 2:7 cite works against you, saying the righteous will be given incorruptible life (which means it doesn't end). What you offered above gives me no reason to take the life part of the Matthew 25 verse as nothing other than eternal while taking the punishment part as a finite period of time.

That's not what kolasis means. You are correct that it has its roots in the word kolazo (i.e., to prune), but here is the thing: what is the intention behind one's actions when one prunes a tree or a hedge? The act of pruning cuts off either dead or poorly placed branches such that the tree can then grow better. If a human is pruned, thus, we cannot conclude that this represents that human's destruction, but rather it is the removal of what is preventing the human from growing. The human is not the one that is pruned from something else; the human is the one being pruned. Which is precisely what punishment for the purpose of improvement implies.

Here is a question: if you wish to contest the idea that kolasin means "punishment for the purposes of correction", then tell me what differentiates that word from timoria, which is another Greek word that is translated into English as "punishment".GabuEx

Once again, the pruning imagery gels with my interpretation as well. The damned are cut off from God and the righteous. You haven't shown why the Matthew 25 verse must indicate that the pruning refers to the people having stuff cut off from them instead of them being cut off from God and the righteous. You just asserted that's what the passage says. Also, you said it can have to do with the prevention of the human growing, which is in line with my idea of hell where people will never have the chance to grow in grace anymore. This verse can't establish your case. You're going to have to supply other verses.

But that is not remotely in congruence with the description of hell in Revelation:

"If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb." (Revelation 14:9-10)

"Tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb" - that doesn't sound too much to me like separation from God that is not physical torture.GabuEx

Revelation is the only place where "torment" is mentioned as the nature of eternal punishment. Also, Revelation is apocalyptic literature, so there is license to exaggerate. This means we definitely can't say from these verses that physical torture is the nature of eternal punishment. Anyway, the fire imagery used to describe eternal punishment in several places of the NT is perfectly consistent with the idea of your face burning in shame. Also, the people around back then would have immediately understood that fiery imagery can be used to just indicate punishment, but not the actual nature of the punishment.

That is as much a mistranslation as that of aionion. The Hebrew word in Daniel 12:2 is olam, which literally means "in the far distance". When used chronologically, it refers to a very distant time, but nonetheless one whose time span between now and then is finite. The ancient Hebrew did not even have any sense of infinity at all; to translate a word from that language into "eternal" is to show much more the imparted beliefs of the translator than the actual meaning of the text. When you make your translators sign statements affirming their belief in eternal punishment (which is the case for a number of translations)... well, it's rather obvious what your Biblical translation is going to contain.GabuEx

I am quite aware olam can mean different things than just eternal, but that doesn't mean it can't mean eternal. So these people that would be resurrected, they will die again? Also, I doubt every bible translation requires its translators to affirm belief in eternal punishment. Also, just because they believe in it doesn't necessarily mean they will let their bias influence how they translate a passage. Everyone has a bias, some influence people towards being truthful, while others do not.

I don't see how what I'm comfortable with has any relevance to this, but for the record, not really. :P I object to it because it doesn't make sense. If God was okay with any part of humanity suffering for all eternity, why did he bother being crucified to save us in the first place?ChiliDragon

Well he wants everyone to be saved, and the saved also need a means to salvation. God's nature requires that he punish sin, so a substitutionary atonement is necessary for the purpose of satisfying God's wrath towards sin (at least so the people who choose him won't have to endure the punishment).

Um, I didn't say the eternal life mentioned in Matthew 25 was given to people still on Earth. Furthermore, the Romans 2:7 cite works against you, saying the righteous will be given incorruptible life (which means it doesn't end). What you offered above gives me no reason to take the life part of the Matthew 25 verse as nothing other than eternal while taking the punishment part as a finite period of time.

MatrixSamurai27

Well, maybe we might be helped by some context in the form of a rough timeline and of an examination of things related to the word aionion.  Let's first turn to Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians:

"We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age (aionos) or of the rulers of this age (aionos), who are coming to nothing." (1 Corinthians 2:6)

This Greek word aion (aionos, but it's the same root word) is the direct ancestor of the English word "eon" - that is, "an age; a span of time of finite but unspecified length."  The word is used in the same way in almost all of Paul's epistles, in fact:

"Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age (aionos), according to the will of our God and Father" (Galatians 1:3-4)

"That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age (aioni) but also in the one to come." (Ephesians 1:19-21)

(Here we get another recurring theme that I will return to later, that of a coming age in addition to the present one, but shelve that in the back of your mind for now.)

"I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness - the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages (aionon) and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints." (Colossians 1:25-26)

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age (mellon), so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life." (1 Timothy 6:17-19)

OK, I think that's enough - you get the idea.

"But wait," you're probably thinking, "that last one isn't a form of aion!"

Well, no, it isn't, which makes the translation into "age" a bit incorrect, but it's close enough.  Mellon can be roughly translated as "that which is about to be".  So, clearly, Paul was telling Timothy here that something was going to be happening.  What's that?  Well, this makes a good segue into the topic of the coming age that you've until this point had filed in the back of your mind, so bring it out.

We know, first, that Satan is regarded as the god of this age:

"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." (2 Corinthians 4:4)

It's not explicitly stated, but given that it's singular and that it wants very much that people cannot see the light of the gospel, I think we can hazard a pretty good guess who this is.

So, we know that Paul alluded to something that is coming and that we must have a firm foundation in doing good for when it arrives.  What is it?  Well, we've basically already been told in Revelation:

"Behold, I am coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy in this book." (Revelation 22:7)

And this connection is made blatantly obvious even in one of the versions of the gospel:

"As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. 'Tell us,' they said, 'when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?'" (Matthew 24:3)

So, we know that we live in one age, an age ruled by Satan.  And we know that there is an age to come as well, an age ruled by Jesus.  Perhaps it is becoming clearer, then, precisely what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 25:46.  What he said in Matthew 25:46 does not live in isolation, but rather is part of a broader discussion between him and his disciples regarding his next coming, a discussion that was spurred by this very question.  Thus the meaning of aionion kolasin and aionion zoen is, in my view, patently clear: it is kolasin or zoen that spans the aion of Jesus.

There's just one more piece of the puzzle before we can wrap this up, and that is with regards to the duration of the aion or age of Jesus.  Now, the obvious answer is "forever", but this just isn't so.  Let's return to the first epistle to the Corinthians:

"Then the end will come, when he (Jesus) hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he 'has put everything under his feet.' Now when it says that 'everything' has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Corinthians 15:24-28 )

Now we've reached the end.  Jesus' reign is not eternal, but rather lasts only until Jesus has put all enemies under his feet, at which point even Jesus himself will be made subject to God the Father.  If the kolasin and zoen are truly aionion as they are described - that is to say, "age-during", as Young's Literal Translation puts it - then they must end when Jesus' reign ends.

Does this mean that those made alive will cease to be alive when that happens?  Certainly not!  It only means that life in the age of Jesus will have come to an end.  Take a look at one of the verses above:

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death." (1 Corinthians 15:26)

The Greek word here translated into "destroyed" is katargeo, which can be defined as "to abolish; to annul; to do away with."  At the very end, death itself is abolished.  And we know that abolition carries with it an implied retroactivity - when slavery was abolished, this meant not only that no further people could be enslaved, but also that anyone already suffering under slavery was released.  And the exact same is true here: not only does this mean that no further death will occur, but it also means that any effects that death has had are null and void.

Thus we come to the true meaning of a verse just before this passage:

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive." (1 Corinthians 15:22)

This is not "all in Christ", but "in Christ all" - all will be made alive in the end, "so that God may be all in all" (panta en pasin - "everything in all things").  Thus our conclusion: it is not some elected minority who will live forever in the grace of God at the end of time, but everyone.  As I've said to others, we ought not to approach this with apprehension, but rather with joyous rapture - Jesus truly will be as victorious over death as he said he would be.

"When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: 'Death has been swallowed up in victory.'" (1 Corinthians 15:54)

Once again, the pruning imagery gels with my interpretation as well. The damned are cut off from God and the righteous. You haven't shown why the Matthew 25 verse must indicate that the pruning refers to the people having stuff cut off from them instead of them being cut off from God and the righteous. You just asserted that's what the passage says. Also, you said it can have to do with the prevention of the human growing, which is in line with my idea of hell where people will never have the chance to grow in grace anymore. This verse can't establish your case. You're going to have to supply other verses.

MatrixSamurai27

I obviously can't use that verse to prove this, because the verse gives no definition whatsoever.  And since the Bible as a whole contains that word only two times, neither of which remotely attempts to define it, I can't use the Bible as a whole to define it, either.  However, I can turn to an old Greek Christian named Clement of Alexandria, one of whose writings clearly illustrates the difference between kolasin and timoria (translation of relevent words left out):

"For there are partial padeiai which are called kolasis, which many of us who have been in transgression incur by falling away from the Lord's people. But as children are chastised by their teacher, or their father, so are we by Providence. But God does not timoria for timoria is retaliation for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised collectively and individually."

Taken in context, the meaning here of kolasis (same root as kolasin) absolutely could not be clearer.  Clement was a Christian who lived in the late second century, who understood perfectly the original Greek of the New Testament - and who wrote precisely what you see above.  There is no reason not to conclude, therefore, that this was not how the early Greeks understood the word.

I notice, as well, that you did not even attempt to identify the difference between kolasin and timoria.

Revelation is the only place where "torment" is mentioned as the nature of eternal punishment. Also, Revelation is apocalyptic literature, so there is license to exaggerate. This means we definitely can't say from these verses that physical torture is the nature of eternal punishment. Anyway, the fire imagery used to describe eternal punishment in several places of the NT is perfectly consistent with the idea of your face burning in shame. Also, the people around back then would have immediately understood that fiery imagery can be used to just indicate punishment, but not the actual nature of the punishment.

MatrixSamurai27

No offense, but this is plainly just hand-waving in an attempt to say "that doesn't count" without actually addressing the points being made.  Revelation says in no uncertain terms that those being punished are in the presence of the Lamb.  Period.  You can't look at that verse and then tell me that the punishment is separation from God when it plainly says right there that Jesus is present.

And yes, the fire imagery is certainly possibly symbolic, but not in the way you might think.  I said in my post - which you seem not to have even quoted - that burning sulfur held a substantial symbolic power, but as an agent of divine purification.  This isn't just something that can be ignored; it is fundamentally important to understand what the purpose is of the punishment of those in the lake of burning sulfur, and is something that jives perfectly with everything I've been saying.

Moving on, the early church fathers weren't infallible, so I won't comment on those cites.

MatrixSamurai27

Come on, this is just more hand-waving.  We can't have a dialog if you aren't willing to even acknowledge what I was saying.  By no means was I saying the early church fathers were infallible.  What I was saying is this: every single Christian we have on record in the first five centuries for whom the original Greek New Testament was their primary source for Biblical insight believed that the aionion kolasin was temporary and that all men would be reconciled to God.

Ponder that for a moment, if you will.  There is not a single record of any Christian, ever, in the first five centuries of the religion, for whom Greek was their primary language of learning, who believed in eternal torment.  It was not until the Latin translation took over and was forcefully propagated by the early Roman Catholic Church that the doctrine of eternal torment took solid root.

And now that you've thought about it for a moment, answer if you will this question.  Which is more likely: that it took five hundred years and a translation into Latin before humans finally figured out what the Bible said, and that every single one of those Christians who understood the Greek was mistaken (and I can give you pages upon pages of quotes from such people)... or that the original Greek New Testament really did preach the salvation of all mankind?

I am quite aware olam can mean different things than just eternal, but that doesn't mean it can't mean eternal.

MatrixSamurai27

Yes, it does.  The Hebrew of the Old Testament did not even have the concept of eternity.  It just was not in the vocabulary, full stop.  Thus, no Hebrew word can be translated into "eternal" without some hefty mental gymnastics.

Also, I doubt every bible translation requires its translators to affirm belief in eternal punishment. Also, just because they believe in it doesn't necessarily mean they will let their bias influence how they translate a passage. Everyone has a bias, some influence people towards being truthful, while others do not.

MatrixSamurai27

Oh, no, not every Bible translation requires its translators to affirm belief in eternal punishment.  There are over a dozen translations that contain no such doctrine anywhere in their pages; I imagine that the translators for those did not do so.  I further imagine that these translators were the ones that had truly read without the blinding effects of tradition this beautiful statement to Timothy:

"This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance (and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:9-10)

Jesus additionally saves those who believe from the aionion kolasin that is required to purify those who die in sin.  But by no means does "especially" remove what precedes it from the tent formed by the sentence in which it appears.  If I say that I like science, and especially physics, then I do not say that I only like physics to the exclusion of the rest, but rather that I like it all.

Similarly, though many try and try and try some more, the end result is the same: Jesus is the Savior of all men.  And that, my friend, is the truly Good News.

By the way, since I have a rather strong feeling that certain individuals are reading this, let me additionally touch on attempts such as this that aim to prove that the earliest Christians believed in eternal damnation.

There really is honestly not much to say here other than to present the actual untranslated form in which these writings appeared.

First, the epistle of Barnabas - the translation offered is this:

"The way of darkness is crooked, and it is full of cursing. It is the way of eternal death with punishment."

But the actual text is this:

H de ton melanos odos estin skolia kai kata ras meste. Olos gar estin odos thanatou aioniou meta timorias.

Yep, it's aionios again. The translators don't even tell you this; I had to go look it up myself.

Next, Second Clement - the translation offered is this:

"If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment"

But the actual text is this:

Poiountes gar to thelema tou Christou euresomen anapausin ei de mege ouden emas rusetai ek tes aioniou kilaseos

That's right, aionios again. (Side note: the citation in the link is wrong; that text actually comes from 2 Clement 6:7.)

How about the Martyrdom of Polycarp? Again, the translation offered is this:

"They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire"

And, yes, the actual text is this:

Pro ophthalmon gar eichon phugein to aionion kai medepote sbennumenon

Yeah, you guessed it.

I could go on, but you get the idea. The bottom line is that, far from proving anything about what the earliest Christians actually believed, all that that page proves is that its author is dead-set on believing that aionios means "eternal" - something that I think we already knew. Not only that, but to present only the English translation without providing the original Greek (which may be found here, by the way) is exceptionally disingenuous, as it is thoroughly begging the very question at hand - that is, the meaning of aionios.

That the page would then additionally have the sheer and utter audacity to include such people as Clement of Alexandria in the group of those who allegedly believed in eternal punishment, when there is plenty of incontrovertible evidence that he believed in no such thing - well, that just blows my mind.

I implore everyone reading stuff like this to be willing to identify and then challenge their preconceptions - no matter how hard a square peg is pounded into a round hole, it isn't going to fit.

I notice, as well, that you did not even attempt to identify the difference between kolasin and timoria.

GabuEx

I didn't because I don't need the Greek word for punishment to be timoria for the passage to support my view. I can get by just fine with kolasin.

I will have time sometime later (a couple of weeks or so) to address everything else you said.

I didn't because I don't need the Greek word for punishment to be timoria for the passage to support my view. I can get by just fine with kolasin.

MatrixSamurai27

But here's the thing: you have stated quite clearly that you do not believe kolasis to refer to punishment with the intent to improve the one being punished.  And if punishment is not intended to improve the one being punished, then the only other conclusion is that it must be an end unto itself.  Yet, here is where we run into a problem: the Greek word for punishment for the sake of punishment is timoria.  You are thus effectively asserting that kolasis is a synonym for timoria.

Yet, there are many texts such as the one from Clement of Alexandria that draw a clear distinction between kolasis and timoria: far from being synonyms, all the evidence points to them being mutually exclusive in nature.  So if you are to assert that kolasis does not refer to punishment with the intent to bring about an improvement, then to what form of punishment does it refer such that it is differentiated from timoria?  This is a question that you absolutely must answer for your position to be tenable.  Kolasis cannot refer to punishment for the sake of punishment, as that would make it timoria.  But you assert that it also does not refer to punishment for the sake of improvement.  Then what options remain?

And if you wish to assert that it refers to estrangement of the one being punished from the one doling out punishment, then here are two additional questions: how is this not timoria, and can you provide me with any use of kolasis in existence concurrent with the date of writing of the gospel according to Matthew?  The New Testament was written in Koine Greek - the Greek of the commoners of the time - and thus we must conclude that it was written to be understood by all those reading it.  Therefore, we must conclude that any interpretation of a word that is not in accordance with the general understanding of that word by the people at large is an untenable interpretation.  So if one cannot find such an sense of kolasis anywhere else in recorded Koine Greek literature, the assertion cannot be made that that is what it means.

By the way, just two last pieces of food for thought about the lake of burning sulfur and the lake of fire:

First, the Koine Greek word for "fire", which appears many times in the New Testament, is πυρ.  This is traditionally transliterated into the Latin alphabet as pyr; this is the ancestor of such English words as "pyrotechnics", etc.

There is, however, another possible way to transliterate this into the Latin alphabet: pur.  And this looks a lot like another English word: "pure", which is derived from the Latin word purus.

And here's the thing: it is a linguistic fact that purus and πυρ are lingustic siblings: that is to say, they have the same linguistic parent.  And this makes perfect sense: "pure" at the time of the New Testament was often used to refer to the state of precious metals such as gold that were cleansed of imperfections through the application of fire.  In other words, purity and fire are inextricably linked in a symbolic sense.

Second, the Koine Greek word for "sulfur", which appears in Revelation and elsewhere, is θειον.  This is traditionally transliterated into English as theion. Yet the Koine Greek word for "divine", which appears in Acts 17:29 to describe God's being, is... θειον - theion.

If you want evidence of the divine symbolism in sulfur, I cannot imagine anything better.

So we have two things: that fire is inextricably linked to purity, and that sulfur is inextricably linked to divinity.  And we additionally have that those who die in sin are subjected to these two things.  I implore you, therefore, to thoughtfully consider just what is meant by this subjection.  Are we, who are being subjected to clear agents of purification and divinity, truly being removed from God?  Or is it something... entirely different?

And as one last appeal, I bring you this information not as your adversary, nor as your opponent, but rather as your brother in Christ who wishes so much for all to understand the true majesty and glory of the love that is God.  Please don't take this as attacking what you believe - I simply feel that this is something that is so important to understand.

Okay, I said that was the last, but I actually have one more piece of food for thought:

The English word "hell", though often translated in English Bibles from the Hebrew word Sheol and the Greek words Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus, in fact finds its origin in none of these words.  "Hell" ultimately comes from the Old Norse word Hel, the name of the mythical and rather unappealing place under the third root of Yggdrasil where those who died ingloriously or who were dishonorable in life spend eternity.

So here are my last queries (really this time): if "hell" truly is a Biblically supported concept, then why does the word have as its direct ancestor a piece of Norse mythology rather than something taken from the Hebrew or Greek of the Bible, and why is it utterly unrelated to the words from which it is translated in the Bible?  If hell is clearly discussed in the Bible, why did the King James Version translate three Greek words into that one singular English word?  And if hell is such a well-defined concept in the Bible, then why does it appear in the King James Version sixty-four times but in the New American Standard Version thirteen times, and in Young's Literal Translation zero times?  Why can Biblical translators plainly not agree one bit on what portions of the Bible actually talk about this place rather than about the grave or about places on Earth?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I notice, as well, that you did not even attempt to identify the difference between kolasin and timoria.

MatrixSamurai27

I didn't because I don't need the Greek word for punishment to be timoria for the passage to support my view. I can get by just fine with kolasin.

I will have time sometime later (a couple of weeks or so) to address everything else you said.

Read it up. I already gave you a suggestion where to find info on this.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I notice, as well, that you did not even attempt to identify the difference between kolasin and timoria.

MatrixSamurai27

I didn't because I don't need the Greek word for punishment to be timoria for the passage to support my view. I can get by just fine with kolasin.

I will have time sometime later (a couple of weeks or so) to address everything else you said.

Hey Gabu not sure if you've come across this yet but have a looksie here.domatron23

>_______>

Hey Gabu not sure if you've come across this yet but have a looksie here.domatron23

Check a few posts up in this very thread. :P 

[QUOTE="domatron23"]Hey Gabu not sure if you've come across this yet but have a looksie here.GabuEx

Check a few posts up in this very thread. :P 

Well that's what I get for not reading the whole topic.

Actually hang on. I'm not entirely sure you've addressed what blackregiment wrote Gabu. Your post above is a response to one of the websites that he posted but it doesn't address this bit.

I have found that the universalist evangelists base their case on the translation of the Greek Word. aiōnios, which they portray as meaning an "indefinite but finite period of time"or "age", "a period of finite, though maybe of long duration", but not forever. Their whole gospel of universal salvation is built upon an incorrect definition of this word when taken in context.

Here is the definition from Thayer's Greek Definitions

aiōnios

Thayer Definition:

1) without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be

2) without beginning

3) without end, never to cease, everlasting

Part of Speech: adjective

A Related Word by Thayer's/Strong's Number: from G165

aiōn

Thayer Definition:

1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity

2) the worlds, universe

3) period of time, age

Part of Speech: noun masculine

And from Strong's Hebrew/Greek Dictionary

aiōnios

ahee-o'-nee-os

From G165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well): - eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).

Notice how they pick one meaning of the Word that suits their eisogesis?blackregiment

Are those definitions wrong?

Actually hang on. I'm not entirely sure you've addressed what blackregiment wrote Gabu. Your post above is a response to one of the websites that he posted but it doesn't address this bit.

(quote)

Are those definitions wrong?

domatron23

Considering that my past dozen or so posts in this thread have been almost entirely dedicated to giving evidence that that is not what aionion means, I didn't particularly feel compelled to put forth any additional argument towards that end.

Thayer's definitions are riddled with instances of special-casing the Bible everywhere it's necessary when the actual defintion of a word is inconvenient for traditional Christian doctrine.  A good example is pisteuo - just look at the definition provided:

1. to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in

--a. of the thing believed

----1. to credit, have confidence

--b. in a moral or religious reference

----1. used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul

----2. to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith

1bc) mere acknowledgment of some fact or event: intellectual faith

2. to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity

--a. to be intrusted with a thing

The bolded part is generally presented with a smug grin to say "aha, gotcha!"  But here's the part where someone thinking logically ought to have a huge red flag pop up in the back of their heads.  The New Testament was written in Koine Greek - the language of the common people.  One can logically conclude therefore that it was written to be understood.  So then why are we being told that words used in the New Testament have a different meaning that is never seen anywhere else in the language?

The answer is basically what I said above: the actual definition of the word isn't good enough for their doctrines, so they "clarify" (i.e., redefine) its meaning in the New Testament.  So, we have one of two choices: either we accept the idea that the authors of the New Testament intended to redefine key words and used them in a way that was never seen anywhere else, thereby ensuring that no one would actually understand what the text said - or we accept the idea that the compilers' traditional doctrines have utterly disabled them from providing objective definitions of the Greek in the New Testament.

I'm going with door number 2. 

The answer is basically what I said above: the actual definition of the word isn't good enough for their doctrines, so they "clarify" (i.e., redefine) its meaning in the New Testament.  So, we have one of two choices: either we accept the idea that the authors of the New Testament intended to redefine key words and used them in a way that was never seen anywhere else, thereby ensuring that no one would actually understand what the text said - or we accept the idea that the compilers' traditional doctrines have utterly disabled them from providing objective definitions of the Greek in the New Testament.

I'm going with door number 2. 

 

GabuEx

Ah okay so its Thayers Greek definitions which are at fault here. They've defined the words according to what they think they should mean rather than what they actually do which I suppose makes the argument for eternal damnation question begging.

I know you've been beatin the crap out of this particular dead horse of late so thanks for putting up with my questions.

Ah okay so its Thayers Greek definitions which are at fault here. They've defined the words according to what they think they should mean rather than what they actually do which I suppose makes the argument for eternal damnation question begging.

domatron23

As much question begging as it was to present passages containing only aionios in an attempt to assert that aionios means "eternal", yes. :P 

 

I know you've been beatin the crap out of this particular dead horse of late so thanks for putting up with my questions.

domatron23

Nah, it's fine.

Interestingly enough, they do actually admit that kolasis does indeed mean "correction", so... I really don't know how someone could claim that God is going to give people a corrective punishment for all eternity.  I suppose someone looking at that would assert that it only "sometimes" means "correction", which is pretty much the ubiquitous "out" for an unfortunate Greek word.

One thing I should additionally touch on is the mention of burning sulfur in hell as described in Revelation. Many read this as if it were just an ominous setting; these are those who do not understand the true significance of burning sulfur. At the time the New Testament was written (and for quite a while thereafter), sulfur was believed to have divine qualities of purification, and burning sulfur was often used to fumigate sick rooms. Thus the burning sulfur is not a means of torture, but rather a symbolic means of purification - just as I said.GabuEx

Okay I'm going to go through a couple of things piecemeal, but later on I will address everything you said. You need to provide a source for the claim the readers of the NT would see sulfur as having qualities of divine purification. Also, you need to provide a source that it was used to fumigate sick rooms in the 1st century (and from my correspondance with another person about this, from what they can find, sick rooms didn't exist until the 17th or 18th century).

If you can show that they could see it as an agent of divine purification, you will still need to show scripturally why that was in view in Revelation because there are other things it can seen as based on OT scriptures. If your sole reason for thinking it is is because of the supposed consensus among Christians about hell for the 1st 5 centuries, then I will address that later (I waved off your argument before because you just cited a couple of people, you didn't make it clear that you were asserting a near total consensus for the 1st 5 centuries of christianity).

Okay I'm going to go through a couple of things piecemeal, but later on I will address everything you said. You need to provide a source for the claim the readers of the NT would see sulfur as having qualities of divine purification. Also, you need to provide a source that it was used to fumigate sick rooms in the 1st century (and from my correspondance with another person about this, from what they can find, sick rooms didn't exist until the 17th or 18th century).

If you can show that they could see it as an agent of divine purification, you will still need to show scripturally why that was in view in Revelation because there are other things it can seen as based on OT scriptures. If your sole reason for thinking it is is because of the supposed consensus among Christians about hell for the 1st 5 centuries, then I will address that later (I waved off your argument before because you just cited a couple of people, you didn't make it clear that you were asserting a near total consensus for the 1st 5 centuries of christianity).

MatrixSamurai27

Well, first, take a gander at this exerpt from Homer's Odyssey, a work dating centuries before the birth of Christ:

"Old woman, bring some sulphur, and make a fire, so I can purge the hall from this pollution."

You can find a more thorough report here, if you care to look.  Pliny the Elder and Ovid, two contemporaries of Jesus, both praise it for its medicinal purification abilities.

sulfur - theion

divine - theios

Notice some similarity there?  The Greek words for "sulfur" and "divine" are directly related - there can be no other explanation for this other than that sulfur was indeed considered divine.

Regarding evidence that this was the intended view in Revelation, I'm really not sure what you're asking for there.  The very word for "sulfur" has the same origins as the word for "divine", and it has been used all throughout history as an agent of purification.  It seems, then, that the burden of proof is on the one claiming that it isn't intended to be viewed as the same in Revelation, not on the one claiming that it is, because such a view would be marked divergence from the general historical consensus regarding how sulfur was seen throughout history.

Regarding evidence that this was the intended view in Revelation, I'm really not sure what you're asking for there.  The very word for "sulfur" has the same origins as the word for "divine", and it has been used all throughout history as an agent of purification.  It seems, then, that the burden of proof is on the one claiming that it isn't intended to be viewed as the same in Revelation, not on the one claiming that it is, because such a view would be marked divergence from the general historical consensus regarding how sulfur was seen throughout history.GabuEx

Well considering a Jewish person (John who would thus be familar with the OT) very likely wrote Revelation, he has used OT imagery all throughout Revelation. In the OT, sulfur is associated with divine judgment and not the corrective kind, most prominently in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Thus, considering this, I will need a bit more reason to think he automatically intended his readers understand the imagery based on it's common uses, instead of its OT parallels.

Well considering a Jewish person (John who would thus be familar with the OT) very likely wrote Revelation, he has used OT imagery all throughout Revelation. In the OT, sulfur is associated with divine judgment and not the corrective kind, most prominently in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Thus, considering this, I will need a bit more reason to think he automatically intended his readers understand the imagery based on it's common uses, instead of its OT parallels.

MatrixSamurai27

Well, here's the thing regarding Sodom and Gomorrah.  People look at Sodom and Gomorrah as though the punishment meted towards it was final and annihilatory in nature, and then conclude that the lake of burning sulfur is the same.  But that just isn't so:

"This is what the Sovereign LORD says: Because you poured out your wealth and exposed your nakedness in your promiscuity with your lovers, and because of all your detestable idols, and because you gave them your children's blood, therefore I am going to gather all your lovers, with whom you found pleasure, those you loved as well as those you hated. I will gather them against you from all around and will strip you in front of them, and they will see all your nakedness. I will sentence you to the punishment of women who commit adultery and who shed blood; I will bring upon you the blood vengeance of my wrath and jealous anger. Then I will hand you over to your lovers, and they will tear down your mounds and destroy your lofty shrines. They will strip you of your clothes and take your fine jewelry and leave you naked and bare. They will bring a mob against you, who will stone you and hack you to pieces with their swords. They will burn down your houses and inflict punishment on you in the sight of many women. I will put a stop to your prostitution, and you will no longer pay your lovers. Then my wrath against you will subside and my jealous anger will turn away from you; I will be calm and no longer angry." (Ezekiel 16:36-42)

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. .... However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them, so that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in giving them comfort. And your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to what they were before; and you and your daughters will return to what you were before." (Ezekiel 16:49-50,53-55)

Indeed, punishment in the form of burning sulfur was brought upon Sodom... but there was nothing final about it; Sodom was restored to what it was before - once the "prostitution" ends (that is to say, ensnaring oneself in pagan sacrifices and putting idols and false gods in the place of God), then his anger subsides.  The purpose of the lake of burning sulfur is exactly the same: it destroys the prideful sense of self in those who die in sin that causes them to turn from God, but not in a final sense with respect to the one receiving this punishment; rather, it purifies the soul, bringing it to the ultimate love and glory of God.  And once that happens, just as it did for Sodom, the anger of God subsides and gives way to the mercy that endures forever. (Psalm 136)

For how can we declare that "mercy triumphs over judgment" (James 2:13) if it is the case that the vast masses will be subject to unceasing, merciless judgment for all eternity?  The Greek word here translated to "triumph" is katakauchaomai, a word referring to the rejoicing at the sight of another's defeat - and until there be no sting of judgment left in existence, there can never truly be such a triumph, as clearly mercy will have had no final victory with which to lord over judgment.  If it is truly the case that mercy triumphs over judgment, then we must conclude that, in the end, mercy will indeed have the last laugh.

Well, if I may refer back to the first few posts of the conversation, someone (I don't feel like quoting right now) stated that when listening to atheist podcasts and the like, they noticed that atheist seemed more worried about Hell than most theists.

This is understandable, as if they happen to be wrong, then they are certainly condemed. It is offputting the way that they sem to lack confidence in their belief, however.

Now, I shouldn't be one to talk, as an agnostic-ish person, but if you have commited to atheism I think you should completely commit to it, and not worry about if your wrong, if you don't plan on converting yourself.

I live every day, and I NEVER think about the possibility of myself being condemed for disbelief. I just don't care that much, real life presents problems enough for me. The only time I think about religion is when I come to these forums. Although it seems to be an increasingly popular topic at school, which is not making me happy... :(

I suppose I am a living case of "Ignorance is bliss".

Well, if I may refer back to the first few posts of the conversation, someone (I don't feel like quoting right now) stated that when listening to atheist podcasts and the like, they noticed that atheist seemed more worried about Hell than most theists.

This is understandable, as if they happen to be wrong, then they are certainly condemed. It is offputting the way that they sem to lack confidence in their belief, however.

Now, I shouldn't be one to talk, as an agnostic-ish person, but if you have commited to atheism I think you should completely commit to it, and not worry about if your wrong, if you don't plan on converting yourself.

I live every day, and I NEVER think about the possibility of myself being condemed for disbelief. I just don't care that much, real life presents problems enough for me. The only time I think about religion is when I come to these forums. Although it seems to be an increasingly popular topic at school, which is not making me happy... :(

I suppose I am a living case of "Ignorance is bliss".

itsTolkien_time

That sounds more like denial than ignorance since you are actually aware of it. :P

[QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]

Well, if I may refer back to the first few posts of the conversation, someone (I don't feel like quoting right now) stated that when listening to atheist podcasts and the like, they noticed that atheist seemed more worried about Hell than most theists.

This is understandable, as if they happen to be wrong, then they are certainly condemed. It is offputting the way that they sem to lack confidence in their belief, however.

Now, I shouldn't be one to talk, as an agnostic-ish person, but if you have commited to atheism I think you should completely commit to it, and not worry about if your wrong, if you don't plan on converting yourself.

I live every day, and I NEVER think about the possibility of myself being condemed for disbelief. I just don't care that much, real life presents problems enough for me. The only time I think about religion is when I come to these forums. Although it seems to be an increasingly popular topic at school, which is not making me happy... :(

I suppose I am a living case of "Ignorance is bliss".

mindstorm

That sounds more like denial than ignorance since you are actually aware of it. :P

And you cant really call that denial.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

That sounds more like denial than ignorance since you are actually aware of it. :P

Teenaged

And you cant really call that denial.

Then how are these "atheists" afraid of hell as he mentions? :P

[spoiler] do not overlooke the fact I put atheists in quotations [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]

That sounds more like denial than ignorance since you are actually aware of it. :P

mindstorm

And you cant really call that denial.

Then how are these "atheists" afraid of hell as he mentions? :P

 do not overlooke the fact I put atheists in quotations

He was referring to himself saying "Maybe I am a living example of ignorance = bliss" (something along those lines).

And as he said himself he doesnt struggle to put the thought out of his mind, he just rarely thinks about the possibility of it.

Which is not denial.

Anyway I understand now you were referring to his first paragraph but I just immediately thought you were referring to the phrase I quoted by ItsTolkien. :D

I think that what mindstorm is saying, which is true, is that "ignorance" refers to the situation where a person is not even aware of a possibility.  Not thinking about that possibility is thus not really a state of ignorance, but rather one where you are aware of the possibility but deny its likelihood of being true (hence "denial"). 

I think that what mindstorm is saying, which is true, is that "ignorance" refers to the situation where a person is not even aware of a possibility.  Not thinking about that possibility is thus not really a state of ignorance, but rather one where you are aware of the possibility but deny its likelihood of being true (hence "denial"). 

GabuEx

I think that what mindstorm is saying, which is true, is that "ignorance" refers to the situation where a person is not even aware of a possibility.  Not thinking about that possibility is thus not really a state of ignorance, but rather one where you are aware of the possibility but deny its likelihood of being true (hence "denial"). 

GabuEx

I more understand denial to mean that you believe in something but refuse to acknowledge it.

EDIT: actually sorry I mean for that to apply to being "in denial".

I think that what mindstorm is saying, which is true, is that "ignorance" refers to the situation where a person is not even aware of a possibility.  Not thinking about that possibility is thus not really a state of ignorance, but rather one where you are aware of the possibility but deny its likelihood of being true (hence "denial"). 

GabuEx

Woot, you are a good commentary to myself. :P

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I think that what mindstorm is saying, which is true, is that "ignorance" refers to the situation where a person is not even aware of a possibility.  Not thinking about that possibility is thus not really a state of ignorance, but rather one where you are aware of the possibility but deny its likelihood of being true (hence "denial"). 

mindstorm

Woot, you are a good commentary to myself. :P

You just let me know if you ever need a Gabu's Commentary on Mindstorm's Commentary on the Bible. :P 

I've always viewed the concept of hell as an eternal torture chamber where you go if you're bad (or, even worse, if you believed the wrong thing) to be quite possibly the sickest thing ever imagined, and I cannot understand how people can properly function while truly believing that the vast majority of humanity will go there.GabuEx

i agree with gabu here....i mean god to me seems kind of evil when he sends his "perfect" creatures to hell for all eternity...... i find that to be mean of god.......and if heaven and hell did exist the thought of being in heaven forever seems boring don't you think?

and if heaven and hell did exist the thought of being in heaven forever seems boring don't you think?twilightpanda

[QUOTE="twilightpanda"]and if heaven and hell did exist the thought of being in heaven forever seems boring don't you think?ChiliDragon

ya but i am the kind of person who gets bored really easily even if i am happy :P

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="twilightpanda"]and if heaven and hell did exist the thought of being in heaven forever seems boring don't you think?twilightpanda

ya but i am the kind of person who gets bored really easily even if i am happy :P

I guarentee heaven will not be boring.  Indeed, there will not be orgies and drunkenness but this fun and enjoyment will be good and eternal.  Essentually, heaven is eternal bliss with the one we love most dearly, Jesus Christ.  If we do not love Jesus, well that would explain why we might not look forward to heaven.

[QUOTE="twilightpanda"]

[QUOTE="ChiliDragon"][QUOTE="twilightpanda"]and if heaven and hell did exist the thought of being in heaven forever seems boring don't you think?mindstorm

ya but i am the kind of person who gets bored really easily even if i am happy :P

I guarentee heaven will not be boring.  Indeed, there will not be orgies and drunkenness but this fun and enjoyment will be good and eternal.  Essentually, heaven is eternal bliss with the one we love most dearly, Jesus Christ.  If we do not love Jesus, well that would explain why we might not look forward to heaven.

i don't even know the guy and you want me to spend an eternity with him? D:

:P

i don't even know the guy and you want me to spend an eternity with him? D:

:P

twilightpanda

Think of it like a blind date that is guaranteed to turn out well. :P

[QUOTE="twilightpanda"]

i don't even know the guy and you want me to spend an eternity with him? D:

:P

mindstorm

Think of it like a blind date that is guaranteed to turn out well. :P

lol but he has long hair and his half-naked......i don't like guys like that :P