Think of the children

[Eaquae Legit]

Lyons, what the heck does that passage you cited from 2 Timothy have to do with infants being damned or not?

[eriador]

Come to speak of it, what does any scriptural reference have to do with this topic, when there are passages that support both sides?

Why are we relying on such an inconsistent set of documents to answer our questions? And why in the world would somebody base a religion on such a muddled set of documents and beliefs!?

I'm confused. I really prefer logic to this inconclusive religion stuff.

[/rant]

[Rei]

You'd be amazed at how non-conclusive logic can be.

EL, I think lyons was saying that people who call themselves Christians and who are not JWs are "wanting to have their ears tickled" and that they "accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires" and God "turn away their ears from the truth" and to myths instead.

And lyons, although, I'll admit some skeptecism, as it strikes me as a very harsh thing to believe in hell -- hardly ear-tickling at all. Nowhere near so pleasant as all the wicked vanishing in an eternal sleep and the righteous being raised up. That doesn't make one group right or wrong, but it bears considering before using that passage.

And one comment on your bit about Gehenna and She'ol, it appears that the are the same thing to the Jews.

In regards to your usage of Ecclesiastes, while that is a valid point to look at, you might want to be careful about taking a single reference which, if I recall correctly, is not found elsewhere in the Bible (at the very most, not commonly), and from a book which very nearly did not make it into the Bible in the first place. Especially when there are a number of other sources which suggest that this passage must be considered in context rather than on its own.

[eriador]

You'd be amazed at how non-conclusive logic can be.

But isn't getting to said non-conclusion better if we do so in a logical way? I think so.

[Rei]

*snrk*

But we won't conclude at all, then. Anyway, I tend to think that we have been approaching religion fairly logically within a framework here.

[eriador]

Yeah, but I'm saying that religion itself is illogical. And how does an inconclusive religion get us any further down the road than possibly inconclusive logic?

[hive_king]

Oh, religion is extremely logical. The problem is that religious folk start with a different set of postulates, starting points if you will, so they end up at a different point.

[AnthonyByakko]

religion is extremely logical.

That's quite a statement.

[hive_king]

Most religions have insular logic. If you accept (fairly big if to most people, i know) the basic premise of the religion, that their specific deity is real, alot of what the religion teaches can be extrapolated fairly linearly.

[AnthonyByakko]

Robert A. Heinlen
Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child.

[lyons24000]

And lyons, although, I'll admit some skeptecism, as it strikes me as a very harsh thing to believe in hell -- hardly ear-tickling at all. Nowhere near so pleasant as all the wicked vanishing in an eternal sleep and the righteous being raised up. That doesn't make one group right or wrong, but it bears considering before using that passage.

People love to say, "If you don't believe in Jesus Christ then you're going to hell." They like the idea that people who do not believe what they believe are going to hell. Maybe not all people like that but I can assure you that enough people do.

And, if you actually read those two passages (John 5:28,29 and Acts 24:15) then you find that there is going to be a "resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous". So, not all of wicked will be "vanishing in an eternal sleep" but we can say that most will be resurrected because the Bible does say that the "wages of sin is death".

And one comment on your bit about Gehenna and She'ol, it appears that the are the same thing to the Jews.

I am not a Jew. And although the terms "Gehenna" and "Sheol" are from the Jews the terms I do not believe that they are the same. Sheol is the common grave of mankind and not hell, like many people believe. The NT equivalent of the OT Sheol is Hades because the Bible says that people in Hades will be resurrected.-Revelation 20:13

Gehenna, according to the Bible, is a place of everlasting destruction-hardly the same as Sheol-but corresponding directly to the Lake of Fire. And what is the Lake of Fire? The Second Death.-Revelation 20:14,15

In regards to your usage of Ecclesiastes, while that is a valid point to look at, you might want to be careful about taking a single reference which, if I recall correctly, is not found elsewhere in the Bible (at the very most, not commonly), and from a book which very nearly did not make it into the Bible in the first place. Especially when there are a number of other sources which suggest that this passage must be considered in context rather than on its own.

Eclessiastes 9:5 is not the only place in the Bible that refers to death in this regard. Ezekiel 18:4 says that soul dies, it does not go to Heaven. Psalms 146:3 and 4 say, "Do not put your trust in nobles,
Nor in the son of earthling man, to whom no salvation belongs. His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish. Lamentations 3:6 say that man is in a dark place which would correspond to the grave, not to a bright Heaven or a fiery Hell.

In the NT, we find that righteous people fell asleep in death they did not go to Heaven because they fell asleep. And really, what is the point of going to Hell if your sins are payed for at death as I mentioned at Romans 6:23. And, if people went to Heaven when they die, why would we need a resurrection? If I went to Heaven, I think it would be cruel to resurrect me back to earth. That goes for everybody.

[lyons24000]

I don't really care how you find my usage of the word "Christendom", Nick.

I want to apologize for saying that, Nick. I don't know why but it's been bothering my conscience all day when I thought about it. I'm sorry because I don't mean to offend you.

[Eaquae Legit]

lyons, I am very hesitant to whip out Ockham's Razor, since it is grossly misapplied (especially by EG fans?). But in this case it's justified. You are making things very complicated unnecessarily, and you're contorting the scriptures to resemble something that would make Gordia proud. In fact, they've called, and they want their knot back.

Not to mention saying, in effect, that your inspired scriptures are not, in fact, inspired. If the Jewish testament is holy, then it's holy. It's not "sorta holy, except when I disagree." And if it is holy, you are obligated to respect the inguistic history and facts surrounding it, the intent it was written with. If the people God inspired to write his words had "sheol" and "gehenna" as synonyms, then they're synonyms.

[lyons24000]

From the first paragraph of this website, it seems that the Jews do not really know what they believe on the matter.

Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence. However, because Judaism is primarily focused on life here and now rather than on the afterlife, Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion. It is possible for an Orthodox Jew to believe that the souls of the righteous dead go to a place similar to the Christian heaven, or that they are reincarnated through many lifetimes, or that they simply wait until the coming of the messiah, when they will be resurrected. Likewise, Orthodox Jews can believe that the souls of the wicked are tormented by demons of their own creation, or that wicked souls are simply destroyed at death, ceasing to exist.

And if from my studies of the OT and connecting it to the NT I want to take that last opinion on the matter of an afterlife, then I have a right to do that. This website expounds on one belief: Gehenna is a place of punishment. I personally do not agree with that belief and stand by my first statement. The Jews are in confusion as to what they believe.

It also seems that the author of this website holds the view that Gehenna and Sheol are the same place but he can hardly speak for all Jews. The statement...

Traditional Judaism firmly believes that death is not the end of human existence.

...seems to be a way of making us all firmly convinced that his beliefs are accurate and encircling all of Judiasm when, in fact, they are not. It's similar to an Evangelical Christian saying, "The Bible says that Jesus Christ is God" in hopes that some people who are interested in what the Bible says will blindly accept it and run with it without listening to the opposing viewpoints.

[eriador]

Most religions have insular logic. If you accept (fairly big if to most people, i know) the basic premise of the religion, that their specific deity is real, alot of what the religion teaches can be extrapolated fairly linearly.

Every time I've seen it, linear logic only results in one conclusion, not the huge mess of self-contradictory dogma that are most religions.

[Slim]

Why does every serious religious discussion end up as an argument of either whither God exists or whither somone is an idiot or not, etc. instead of actually trying to figure out what another person believes about something? Or maybe I'm just missing something here?

[lyons24000]

Slim, the reason this happens is because E_L is arrogant. Other people take a Scripture here and Scripture there to try to make the big picture and people follow them. Once I do it E_L is all over me saying I've made something that resembles a Gordian Knot.

All I'm doing is saying what I believe and giving Scriptural proof as to why I believe it and she goes on and says I'm making things complicated and twisting Scriptures. And that pisses me off. I do take offense to that.

[eriador]

The problem that I have with using scripture to back up everything is that you can find a passage to support just about everything you want to support. I'm not debating the existence of a God, but rather the validity of scripture as justification for a certain point of view.

[lyons24000]

Eriador, it's not Scripture contradicting Scripture. It's interpretation contradicting interpretation.

For example: I say, "The Bible says that when we die we are just dead. The soul does not live on after death. Ezekiel 18:4 says, 'The soul that sins is the one who will die.' You see? The Bible says that the soul dies."

Other say, "The Bible says that we will go to Heaven. Matthew 6:20 says, 'But collect for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves don't break in and steal.' You see? The Bible says that we go to Heaven."

But tell me, where in that passage does it say that we're going to Heaven. Granted, you can interpret that to mean that we're going to Heaven but it doesn't say that we're going there.

"Well, doesn't the Bible say at John 14:2-3, 'In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.' "

But who was Christ talking to? Was he talking to you and me or was he talking to his Apostles, the Twelve?

So really, it's not Scripture contradicting Scripture but intepretation contradicting intepretation. You can point to those Scriptures and have evidence for your POV but someone else can explain them in a way that counters your POV.

And that is where many people find "contradictions". It's not because they're in the Bible but people choose to see them, just like people can find anything in the Bible to support their POV.

[Jebus]

I say it's a pretty ineffective God who can't make his texts easily understood and timeless.

[starlooker]

I'm sorry I'm late to the party, but I do feel it's incumbent on me as Pweb's resident brought-up-very-theologically-Lutheran member to point out that it's not a divide wherein Catholics baptize babies, Protestants don't. Lutherans do, too (as do Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians, I believe).

In the Lutheran church it's seen as one of two sacraments (Holy Communion is the other) instituted by God wherein God's grace is given. The person doesn't have to be an agent in this -- God's grace is given without help from us. Also, we believe that it is NOT merely symbolic (as communion is not merely symbolic) but that God's grace is actually present through the water and the word.

My pastor growing up compared it to adoption. The child might grow up and reject his adoptive parents (aka, God) but unless that happens, you're family.

(I was always fuzzy on the "do unbaptized babies go to hell?" aspect of that theology.)

Myself, I love baptisms. It's one of my favorite church ceremonies to attend. I see infant baptism as making sense. Baptism (for us) is not a signal that you're committing to God. There's time as an adult/teenager/whatever for that (e.g., confirmation). Baptism is a sign of God's commitment to you.

[eriador]

I say it's a pretty ineffective God who can't make his texts easily understood and timeless.

Yes, if God gave us these texts to instruct us, shouldn't there only be only one interpretation?

[lyons24000]

Yes, if God gave us these texts to instruct us, shouldn't there only be only one interpretation?

Well, I believe that nothing has only one interpretation. When someone asks, for example, "What does this song mean?" then there is bound to be more then one interpretation.

Same thing with any holy text whether it's the Bible, Koran, or Book of Mormon, there is bound to be more then one interpretation on anything. Literal versus symbolic is a good consideration of my point. The Book of Revelation, if taken literally can be taken one way but if it's symbolic can be taken many different ways. In the end, it is your choice as to whether Revelation is symbolic or literal. Or take this passage: 2 Thessalonians 3-7...

"Let no one seduce you in any manner, because it will not come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed, the son of destruction. He is set in opposition and lifts himself up over everyone who is called “god” or an object of reverence, so that he sits down in the temple of The God, publicly showing himself to be a god. Do you not remember that, while I was yet with you, I used to tell you these things? And so now you know the thing that acts as a restraint, with a view to his being revealed in his own due time. True, the mystery of this lawlessness is already at work; but only till he who is right now acting as a restraint gets to be out of the way."

Obviously, there can be multiple interpretations for this verse. There are even moments in the Bible when it tells us that we will not know what it means.

"And as for you, O Daniel, make secret the words and seal up the book, until the time of the end. Many will rove about, and the true knowledge will become abundant."-Daniel 12:4

Until the secret words and the sealed book are brought to light and those who rove about find the true knowledge then it's open for any interpretation that anyone wants. That is how much of the Bible can be looked at.

[Eaquae Legit]

Lyons, I'm not arguing about your theology right now. Well, I suppose I am, but indirectly. I'm trying to figure out how you can claim that the people who wrote the Tanakh used the words "sheol" and "gehenna" differently, when to them they have always been synonyms. It's like saying "bag" and "sack" denote two entirely different things, in English.

This is especially important, because the Jews don't have a very specific view of the afterlife. Why would they have two such words for concepts they don't have? It's like asking English to have its own word for samsara. We just don't, because English-speakers didn't have that concept until we encountered Hinduism.

Now, if you want to say "God did it," we can leave it at that, because when you bring miracles into it, all bets are off. I won't agree, but I won't argue either. I just tend to think God didn't dictate scripture word-for-word, and also worked within the linguistic parameters of the people he inspired.

And I'm sorry about the knot comment. My late-night school frustrations shouldn't be taken out on people here.

[lyons24000]

Lyons, I'm not arguing about your theology right now. Well, I suppose I am, but indirectly. I'm trying to figure out how you can claim that the people who wrote the Tanakh used the words "sheol" and "gehenna" differently, when to them they have always been synonyms. It's like saying "bag" and "sack" denote two entirely different things, in English.

Actually, the word "Gehenna" is not in the Tanakh. Sheol is, but not Gehenna. The word Gehenna was not used until the NT. No one figured that you could use the Valley of Hinnom symbolically for something else.

(If I'm wrong, correct me, but in my studies I've never come across anything saying that Gehenna is mentioned in the Tanakh/OT.)

And I'm sorry about the knot comment. My late-night school frustrations shouldn't be taken out on people here.

And I'm sorry for calling you arrogant.

[eriador]

Yes, if God gave us these texts to instruct us, shouldn't there only be only one interpretation?

Well, I believe that nothing has only one interpretation. When someone asks, for example, "What does this song mean?" then there is bound to be more then one interpretation.

Well then, why would God rely of such a text to tell us what to do?

It doesn't make sense.

[hive_king]

It's ok, Lyons. No big deal.

My problem with the Jehovah's witness concept of the afterlife is this: when someone dies, everything-soul and body- dies. There is nothing left. According to your beliefs, God will ressurect the just. But if you think about it, it wouldn't be you. the ressurected being would look like you, act like you, and have your memories, but it would really be more like a clone. You stopped existing when you died. There was nothing left of you and nothing to carry over to connect the clone to you. Is this making any sense?

[Jebus]

Yes, if God gave us these texts to instruct us, shouldn't there only be only one interpretation?

Well, I believe that nothing has only one interpretation. When someone asks, for example, "What does this song mean?" then there is bound to be more then one interpretation.

Same thing with any holy text whether it's the Bible, Koran, or Book of Mormon, there is bound to be more then one interpretation on anything. Literal versus symbolic is a good consideration of my point. The Book of Revelation, if taken literally can be taken one way but if it's symbolic can be taken many different ways. In the end, it is your choice as to whether Revelation is symbolic or literal. Or take this passage: 2 Thessalonians 3-7...

But why would God make his guidelines on "How to Live Your Life so That You Can Get into Heaven" book symbolic? It'd be like a father giving his child a book full of symbolism and telling him if he doesn't work out EXACTLY what the book means, he's going to get slapped (or not get any dessert, depending on your beliefs).

[AnthonyByakko]

Yes, if God gave us these texts to instruct us, shouldn't there only be only one interpretation?

Well, I believe that nothing has only one interpretation. When someone asks, for example, "What does this song mean?" then there is bound to be more then one interpretation.

Same thing with any holy text whether it's the Bible, Koran, or Book of Mormon, there is bound to be more then one interpretation on anything. Literal versus symbolic is a good consideration of my point. The Book of Revelation, if taken literally can be taken one way but if it's symbolic can be taken many different ways. In the end, it is your choice as to whether Revelation is symbolic or literal. Or take this passage: 2 Thessalonians 3-7...

But why would God make his guidelines on "How to Live Your Life so That You Can Get into Heaven" book symbolic? It'd be like a father giving his child a book full of symbolism and telling him if he doesn't work out EXACTLY what the book means, he's going to get slapped (or not get any dessert, depending on your beliefs).

Which is another reason it's just so much easier to blow up a bunch of people along with yourself than all this "figuring out" business.

[lyons24000]

My problem with the Jehovah's witness concept of the afterlife is this: when someone dies, everything-soul and body- dies. There is nothing left. According to your beliefs, God will ressurect the just. But if you think about it, it wouldn't be you. the ressurected being would look like you, act like you, and have your memories, but it would really be more like a clone. You stopped existing when you died. There was nothing left of you and nothing to carry over to connect the clone to you. Is this making any sense?

You know, Nick, you are not the first person to ask the question. In fact, the Apostle Paul was asked the same question.

"Nevertheless, someone will say: 'How are the dead to be raised up? Yes, with what sort of body are they coming?"-1 Corinthians 15:35

What does Paul say to these people?

"You unreasonable person!"-1 Corinthians 15:36

And then he goes on to say some other stuff about reaping and sowing-I don't know what it all means.

According to Paul, you're unreasonable. I think he means you're making a bigger deal out of something then you need to. You're unreasonable, Nick. UNREASONABLE!!!!!

[lyons24000]

[quote="Jebus]
But why would God make his guidelines on "How to Live Your Life so That You Can Get into Heaven" book symbolic? It'd be like a father giving his child a book full of symbolism and telling him if he doesn't work out EXACTLY what the book means, he's going to get slapped (or not get any dessert, depending on your beliefs).[/quote]

Well, since I don't believe everyone is going to Heaven, just 144,000, (Revelation 14:1-3) then I cannot answer this question in the way you'd like. You see, even people who didn't follow this "How to Live Your Life..." will get a "dessert" as you've put it.

"Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice."-John 5:28"

and...

"And I have hope toward God, which hope these men themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous."-Acts 24:15

People are going to be resurrected back to Earth, not go to Heaven.

Jesus said...

"Happy are the mild-tempered ones, since they will inherit the earth."-Matthew 5:5

Since it is for the righteous and the unrighteous, everyone will be resurrected, not just those who read the book and they will get the opportunity to live on Earth forever!

[hive_king]

You know, you're not the first person to accuse me of being unreasonable, Apostle Paul! Who do you think you are, anyways? God's spokesman?

So if when I die I pay off my wages anyways, wouldn't it make sense for me, or at least for someone who knows they're going to die before Armageddeon, to run out and commit all kinds of sins and live a life of total debauchery, knowing that they'll die and it'll all be OK? I mean, if you interpret the bible to say that you get your slate wiped clean by death, whats the point of anyone staying in line when they know they'll end up in the same position as a total saint?

[Jebus]

Added to hk's question I'd also like to know what is the point of the Bible.

[lyons24000]

So if when I die I pay off my wages anyways, wouldn't it make sense for me, or at least for someone who knows they're going to die before Armageddeon, to run out and commit all kinds of sins and live a life of total debauchery, knowing that they'll die and it'll all be OK? I mean, if you interpret the bible to say that you get your slate wiped clean by death, whats the point of anyone staying in line when they know they'll end up in the same position as a total saint?

The reason you do what's right is because you never know when Armageddon is going to happen. It could happen in six months from now.

(I was going to say tomorrow but all the prophecies haven't been fulfilled)

At least, that may be a partial answer. Jehovah may feel that since you knew the truth you don't get another chance. I honestly don't know, H_K.

[hive_king]

I don't know the truth. I've been told it, but being told and knowing are two different things, don't you agree?