Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 2,338 - 2,349 of 6,170
Actually, a lot of Revelations is symbolic. How could death be thrown literally into a lake of fire? What could fire do to death? Exactly. Death will be destroyed forever, is what that scripture is actually saying. The lake of fire is what is called "the second death" which means no resurrection. Period. IN other words, they're not coming back. And hell? What is the actual word that is being translated "hell"? It is actually the common grave of mankind. "Sheol" is another Bible word for it. Have you ever heard of "helling potatoes"? It means to put them in a cellar, underground. It doesn't mean make potato chips out of them.
no, don't stop...I love to discuss this info, it's encouraging I think. wouldn't we all want an end to our age old enemy, death? There ain't nobody he ain't touched. Man, if Adam and Eve, believe the story or not, if they hadn't eaten that fruit, they'd still be here.
Posts 2,338 - 2,349 of 6,170
Colonel, whould it make a difference if you designed the ants, and the molecular structure of the ant farm container. What if the God to people ratio is even greater than that of ant to man. I can't make an ant.
Antitheist: Someone who has an aversion to belief in God.
I mention this term because it's stronger than 'atheist', and often follows a person's disillusionment with some religion (usually Christianity). There was period of a year where I called myself an atheist, but it would be more accurate to say I was an antitheist.
The thing with antitheism is that it's nearly always anti- some specific religion. But this is just another way of affirming acceptance of that religion's premises (God is good and perfect, God expects a great deal of people, etc.). Most antitheists don't consider that there might be another way of looking at it.
A more flippant definition of antitheist would be 'Someone who hates the God in which he/she doesn't believe.'
Food for thought, from someone who's been there.
I mention this term because it's stronger than 'atheist', and often follows a person's disillusionment with some religion (usually Christianity). There was period of a year where I called myself an atheist, but it would be more accurate to say I was an antitheist.
The thing with antitheism is that it's nearly always anti- some specific religion. But this is just another way of affirming acceptance of that religion's premises (God is good and perfect, God expects a great deal of people, etc.). Most antitheists don't consider that there might be another way of looking at it.
A more flippant definition of antitheist would be 'Someone who hates the God in which he/she doesn't believe.'
Food for thought, from someone who's been there.
Is it God or religion that most people hate? A lot of "religion" is the doctrin of power hungry men, most of which were quite wicked. Religion was used to control a rabble of mostly ignorant, hungry, barbaric people.
*shrugs* Lots of people have trouble separating the two (God and religious institutions). That's the main reason I brought up antitheism.
Good point about anti-theism Ulrike. I think that fervant and pasionate disblief in a particular religion/god is the shadow of deep belief in that religion. In fact, I believe a period of strong disbelief is part of many religious traditions.
To borrow from Christianity, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." Revelation 3:15-16. In addition to answering the rather blasphamous question of whether the devine spits or swallows, it points out that what the religion/god is looking for is someone passionately engaged, one way or the other.
To borrow from Christianity, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I wish that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth." Revelation 3:15-16. In addition to answering the rather blasphamous question of whether the devine spits or swallows, it points out that what the religion/god is looking for is someone passionately engaged, one way or the other.
((>if He does exist, he probably doesn't give a crap whether you believe in him or not. A perfect being couldn't possibly be so egotistical that you'd have to kiss his ass regularly to avoid eternal burnination>
Amen to that. Personally I can see no place in nature where something so tremendously wasteful and sadistic as an *ETERNAL* storage place or pure torture for things that failed to beg forgiveness within the first *100 years (tops)* of their presumably infinite span of being.))
I don't believe either that A God who would have created things for us to enjoy would even think of creating or having a place where those creations would spend eternity burning. I don't know how much you guys are familiar with the ancient religions of the land of Mesopotamia, Caanan...well, they had rituals where they would actually burn their sons and daughters in the fire to the god Baal. Disgusting, huh? But the prophet Jeremiah in ...Jeremiah 19:5, he gives a message to Israel, and it's from God, and this is what God says, "And they built the high places of the Baal inorder to burn their sons in the fire as whole burnt offerings to the Baal, something that I had not commanded or spoken of, and that had not come up into my heart."
Now if the idea of burning people had never come into his heart, then why would he burn people in something like "hell"? That's what I asked myself. Simple answer...There is no fiery hell. I did a lot of research on it, and back around the first century of our common era, just after Christ and the founders of the Christian church died, the church took in ideas and doctrines from other sources, to blend in Christian religion with the greek and roman philosopy, and guess what? the notion of a fiery hell was one of those philosophies from the greeks and "pagan" sources. And ever since then, confusion on certain Bible words has continued the idea in "christian" churches. Nobody seemed to mind in the middle ages...at least not the clergy. That's how religion kept people in fear and obedience...Be good or you'll burn in FIRE AND BRIMSTONE!!!
sorry...got carried away...
Anyway, the idea of fiery hell, if you do enough research far back, came from a nation called Babylon, back in ancient times. At least that's as far as I've traced it.
Amen to that. Personally I can see no place in nature where something so tremendously wasteful and sadistic as an *ETERNAL* storage place or pure torture for things that failed to beg forgiveness within the first *100 years (tops)* of their presumably infinite span of being.))
I don't believe either that A God who would have created things for us to enjoy would even think of creating or having a place where those creations would spend eternity burning. I don't know how much you guys are familiar with the ancient religions of the land of Mesopotamia, Caanan...well, they had rituals where they would actually burn their sons and daughters in the fire to the god Baal. Disgusting, huh? But the prophet Jeremiah in ...Jeremiah 19:5, he gives a message to Israel, and it's from God, and this is what God says, "And they built the high places of the Baal inorder to burn their sons in the fire as whole burnt offerings to the Baal, something that I had not commanded or spoken of, and that had not come up into my heart."
Now if the idea of burning people had never come into his heart, then why would he burn people in something like "hell"? That's what I asked myself. Simple answer...There is no fiery hell. I did a lot of research on it, and back around the first century of our common era, just after Christ and the founders of the Christian church died, the church took in ideas and doctrines from other sources, to blend in Christian religion with the greek and roman philosopy, and guess what? the notion of a fiery hell was one of those philosophies from the greeks and "pagan" sources. And ever since then, confusion on certain Bible words has continued the idea in "christian" churches. Nobody seemed to mind in the middle ages...at least not the clergy. That's how religion kept people in fear and obedience...Be good or you'll burn in FIRE AND BRIMSTONE!!!
sorry...got carried away...
Anyway, the idea of fiery hell, if you do enough research far back, came from a nation called Babylon, back in ancient times. At least that's as far as I've traced it.
I respect your views, Charles, but I don't think it's fair to take the word of a Jewish writer at face value when he is describing competing religions of his time. Propaganda is not a new practice, and there were wars going on over the centuries that the old testiment was collected. I know the Bible says it is the inspired word of G-d/God, but there are lots of people claiming to speak for the devine--that doesn't make it so. I guess this is a matter of personal faith.
Not to jump on the "anti-Chistian" bandwagon (I have great respect for sincere believers), but I am pretty sure I remember both fire and brimstone in the Book of Revelations. Look for example at Chapter 20 versees 14 and 15, "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire and this is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast unto the lake of fire." See also Revelations 21:8 "But the fearful...[sinners of various sorts]...and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." I could go on, but I won't.
I was raised Luthern and I'm pretty sure about the weeping and the gnashing of teeth--it is in the Bible. Now you do not have to accept the Bible as the literal and only word of God (I do not), but if you are going to quote the Bible as proof of some truth, you have to admit the unpleasant parts are "God's word" as well. And if God allowed parts of the Bible to be twisted and misinterpreted, how can any of the Bible be taken as absolute proof of God's word?
Not to jump on the "anti-Chistian" bandwagon (I have great respect for sincere believers), but I am pretty sure I remember both fire and brimstone in the Book of Revelations. Look for example at Chapter 20 versees 14 and 15, "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire and this is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast unto the lake of fire." See also Revelations 21:8 "But the fearful...[sinners of various sorts]...and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." I could go on, but I won't.
I was raised Luthern and I'm pretty sure about the weeping and the gnashing of teeth--it is in the Bible. Now you do not have to accept the Bible as the literal and only word of God (I do not), but if you are going to quote the Bible as proof of some truth, you have to admit the unpleasant parts are "God's word" as well. And if God allowed parts of the Bible to be twisted and misinterpreted, how can any of the Bible be taken as absolute proof of God's word?
Actually, a lot of Revelations is symbolic. How could death be thrown literally into a lake of fire? What could fire do to death? Exactly. Death will be destroyed forever, is what that scripture is actually saying. The lake of fire is what is called "the second death" which means no resurrection. Period. IN other words, they're not coming back. And hell? What is the actual word that is being translated "hell"? It is actually the common grave of mankind. "Sheol" is another Bible word for it. Have you ever heard of "helling potatoes"? It means to put them in a cellar, underground. It doesn't mean make potato chips out of them.
no, don't stop...I love to discuss this info, it's encouraging I think. wouldn't we all want an end to our age old enemy, death? There ain't nobody he ain't touched. Man, if Adam and Eve, believe the story or not, if they hadn't eaten that fruit, they'd still be here.
a lot of things are just based on our own experience. Take time for example. It is not nessarly eternal as it is just a measurement. Time can be warped in space. and time measurements are based on phyics. what happens if you are in a different universe? the concept of time won't nessarly be the same there. In theory anything is possible. To limit our understanding to what we think is right is being ignorante of the fact that we really do know so little about this universe.
nowadays the only thing most scientists agree on as far as space goes is that almost every theory they have ever had about what's all possible is being thrown out the window.
Ya, I find the relativity theory really cool, cause time is really relative. In fact, if we had the technology, and could go faster than the speed of light, we could speed off to some distant planet, turn a super powered telescope toward the earth, and see what we did yesterday.
Theoretically possible. cool to talk about.
Theoretically possible. cool to talk about.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar