Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The evolution of hell: how rhetoric changes religion
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 3 of 66 (600786)
01-17-2011 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ApostateAbe
01-15-2011 6:44 PM


What the Hell?
Abe writes:
Christians are divided about whether to interpret the fires of hell literally or metaphorically. Metaphorical fires are often preferred because it is difficult to imagine why even an insane person would choose the prolonged pain of fire.
For the purpose of discussion, all reference to Hell must of necessity be metaphorical and hypothetical. I personally believe that if such a place existed, humans would never be sent there. They would end up there by rejecting what is by definition not there. (Or by accepting the absence of same)
Abe writes:
Hell, then, is not so much a place of inflicting torture, but it is a place that the damned souls willingly choose.
An alcoholic willingly chooses alcohol even though they know intellectually that it is destroying them. Perhaps our question is whether the choice was made with a sane mind.
Strobel, quoted writes:
The punishment of hell is separation from God, bringing shame, anguish, and regret.
Which then brings up the question of what would cause anyone to prefer separation? The answer is that some cherish their right to freely choose more than they do acceptance of an authority that takes away their freedom to choose.
\

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-15-2011 6:44 PM ApostateAbe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-17-2011 10:52 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 66 by jaywill, posted 02-07-2011 1:01 PM Phat has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 52 of 66 (601258)
01-19-2011 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ApostateAbe
01-17-2011 8:02 PM


The evolution of rhetoric concerning religion
Abe writes:
Phat, do you have any thoughts about how rhetoric against hell affects the Christian doctrines of hell? I wrote this thread to show that rhetoric against religion really does matter.
Hmmmm....
Asking rhetorical questions is always a good way to approach a topic.
bluescat48 writes:
hell, like heaven and any other repository of the hypothetical "soul," is nothing more than a human invention, from imagination ...
While we know that human imagination is the only source that we can see, and logically we deduce that the Bible was humanly written, does not take away the possibility that God may exist and may have preceded human imagination. Hell may well be a human invention, as may Heaven, as may God. Perhaps a question: Is Hell logical? Sorta like a trashcan for imperfect souls who willingly or unwillingly ended up on the cutting room floor?
Iblis writes:
Theologically, hell may have once represented a place which was free of God, the dreary Sheol of Hebrew myth, but this is no longer the case. With the nature of God being eternal, having become human he has always been human, having died he has become eternal Death -- "the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world" -- and having visited hell he resides there eternally.
Well that certainly complicates things! What reason would God have to eternally reside in Hell? Just because God can hypothetically be in any place or plane does not mean that God must be in these places.
GDR writes:
I don't see it so much as choosing between heaven and hell as choosing whether we are to live a life that is self focused or a life that is God focused.
Or perhaps the choice is self focus versus "others" focus.
IMB Hell was never created for humans. (Metaphorically also)
Hell was a place for spirits who wanted to be self focused and shunned the idea of God focus, for whatever reason. Clearly, humans used the concept as a means of controlling the behavior of the religious.
Abe, to bluescat48 writes:
If you underestimate the influence of Darwin's theory on religion and philosophy, then I suggest that you find another way to explain the rise of atheism.
Perhaps the question would be "Whats wrong with a rise in the number of atheists"?
nwr writes:
Scientists tend to be skeptical. Those that believed in a God, mostly took a deistic like view of God - roughly, deism + Jesus. And they were probably full of doubt about the miracles.
Which is fine, IMHO. Its always good to be skeptical and have more questions.
Perhaps a question:
Do we need to have a reason to believe in God?
and...
Is the God that we imagine in our heads and hearts due to blind faith alone? What type of God can we agree on, if possible? Is it important for humans to be in agreement on a complex issue such as personal and religious beliefs?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ApostateAbe, posted 01-17-2011 8:02 PM ApostateAbe has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024