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?
™ Version 4.2
