Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Orange Wizard]

Not to mention all those verses where Jesus talks about trees (i.e. people) not bearing fruit (i.e. Fruits of the Spirit) and being cut down and thrown into the fire.

He also smote a fig tree because he didn't get figs from it. If that's not the most literal metaphor ever I don't know what is.

[Adragis]

I always felt sorry for that fig tree
What if it wasn't the season for figs?

[lemon10]

I have an insight in regard to the "problem of hell" that may be salient. Basically, how severe of a punishment something is can be seen as how much worse it makes a person's condition, so while being flayed alive in a pit of lava may be severe to us living in 21st century free countries it would be a comparatively much more mild worsening of conditions to someone living in ancient squalor under mosaic law.

In the bible, the actual punishment of hell is spending an eternity without God. You would go through the judgement, so you would witness God's full glory, then be sentenced to a life without him forever.

No, that isn't what the bible says hell is. While various sects believe thats what hell is, the bible never really says that. Honestly, its pretty vague on the whole matter, and what it does say seems to imply an eternity of hellfire and torment.

[Orange Wizard]

Pretty sure it's specified that it should have had fruit. Something to do with the leaves.

what it does say seems to imply an eternity of hellfire and torment

A lot of churches teach that while Hell is eternal, the suffering isn't, because your soul is destroyed. Basically brief pain and then nothing, like dreamless sleep.
Very liberal churches tend to ignore Hell entirely. It's only the really conservative ones (like mine) that hold to eternal torment as... gospel.

[Helgoland]

No, that isn't what the bible says hell is. While various sects believe thats what hell is, the bible never really says that.

It's really really weird how deeply ingrained sola scriptura is even among the areligious folks here.

[Graknorke]

No, that isn't what the bible says hell is. While various sects believe thats what hell is, the bible never really says that.

It's really really weird how deeply ingrained sola scriptura is even among the areligious folks here.

It kind of is the entire basis of Christianity. The god that created everything told people a bunch of stuff and to write it down, and since he said it, it's the absolute truth.

[TD1]

Precisely. People place their faith in the Bible, not what their contemporaries say. When the Bible is evil, it kind of disrupts their entire ideology. You're free to believe whatever future amendments that you want, but a changing moral zeitgeist is only ever a flaw for validity. Granted, I'm glad it's happened - got rid of some of the more disturbing aspects of the faith. It's nice some people don't say we're all doomed to eternal fire and torture if we don't love our father who never comes to visit us, but it's really not like that in the original, supposedly absolute, text.

Really, I'm saying have free reign to change it as you please (for the better, preferably) but the family knife that's had its handle changed half a dozen times, and the blade changed four times, isn't the same family knife anymore. Even if the blade and handle are better quality.

[Arx]

I find it fascinating how religion's advocates always interpret the texts in the most positive way possible, and its detractors always interpret them in the most negative way possible.

It kind of is the entire basis of Christianity. The god that created everything told people a bunch of stuff and to write it down, and since he said it, it's the absolute truth.

I think you're reinforcing Helgo's point. As is Dwarfy.

[Graknorke]

I find it fascinating how religion's advocates always interpret the texts in the most positive way possible, and its detractors always interpret them in the most negative way possible.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that the nice things are actually bad and people are just interpreting them wrong. There's a difference between being negative, and being realistic about a negative thing.

I think you're reinforcing Helgo's point. As is Dwarfy.

Well yeah. I'm not denying that it is, but it's also reasonable that it is. It's written into the religious texts that the whole thing is meant to be based off. Unless you're saying that disagreeing with the religion's ultimate authority figure on matters of religion is sensible?

[Arx]

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

I find it fascinating how religion's advocates always interpret the texts in the most positive way possible, and its detractors always interpret them in the most negative way possible.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that the nice things are actually bad and people are just interpreting them wrong. There's a difference between being negative, and being realistic about a negative thing.

And yet people consistently say "hell is definitely eternal torment!" Despite the fact that as far as I can tell it's just as reasonable to believe in annihilation.

[Graknorke]

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Is there some nuanced difference in translation that I missed?

And yet people consistently say "hell is definitely eternal torment!" Despite the fact that as far as I can tell it's just as reasonable to believe in annihilation.

Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”

Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”
Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”

?

[Arx]

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Is there some nuanced difference in translation that I missed?

In the KJV it's implicitly only referring to Revelations, and in the NIV it's explicitly only referring to Revelations, which paints a pretty clear picture of what John meant.

And yet people consistently say "hell is definitely eternal torment!" Despite the fact that as far as I can tell it's just as reasonable to believe in annihilation.

Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”

Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”
Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”

?

Only one of those is incompatible with annihilation doctrine, and it is specifically referring to 'worshippers of the Beast', which is a concept entirely distinct from just being a non-believer.

[Graknorke]

In the KJV it's implicitly only referring to Revelations, and in the NIV it's explicitly only referring to Revelations, which paints a pretty clear picture of what John meant.

If trying to change the future is such a heinous crime, what makes you think that rewriting history would be any better?

Only one of those is incompatible with annihilation doctrine, and it is specifically referring to 'worshippers of the Beast', which is a concept entirely distinct from just being a non-believer.

So you only get tortured for a bit before being killed for good? I can almost feel the love.
And I'm not really sure that there is a difference between being a devil worshipper and a non-believer. You either grovel to Jesus for forgiveness, or you don't and are stuck with original sin along with all the other stuff you've done.

[Arx]

In the KJV it's implicitly only referring to Revelations, and in the NIV it's explicitly only referring to Revelations, which paints a pretty clear picture of what John meant.

If trying to change the future is such a heinous crime, what makes you think that rewriting history would be any better?

...rewriting history? Not following sola scriptura isn't rewriting history. I was mostly pointing out that your argument that the Bible says not to add anything is invalid.

Only one of those is incompatible with annihilation doctrine, and it is specifically referring to 'worshippers of the Beast', which is a concept entirely distinct from just being a non-believer.

So you only get tortured for a bit before being killed for good? I can almost feel the love.
And I'm not really sure that there is a difference between being a devil worshipper and a non-believer. You either grovel to Jesus for forgiveness, or you don't and are stuck with original sin along with all the other stuff you've done.

You will notice that all of the quotes referring to pain are from Revelations and referring to worshippers of the Beast. Matthew just refers to being distraught about annihilation.

I'd also like to point out how gloriously out of context "Revelation 20:14" is. The first half of the verse goes "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire." Quite possibly the worst case of quote mining in the history of these threads.

And last, you don't see the difference between not believing in Jesus and choosing to worship the Beast? You can see no difference at all?

[Telgin]

I think that comment was more directed at the absurdity of such a situation: where some believe that being a nonbeliever is just as bad as committing any kind of sin imaginable.  The church I still get dragged to believes that any sin you commit can and will send you to eternal burning torment.  That means that if you buy something on Sunday (a sin) then you're going to be joining Stalin and Hitler in Hell forever.  Or if you've just never been saved, same thing even if you're an absolute saint otherwise.

I should probably try rereading Revelation and apparently Matthew at some point so I can try to understand the annihilation / isolation from God point of view.  I don't remember ever seeing much to support it, but I fully admit that I actively try to avoid reading the Bible these days.