I see all too many who are absolutely ready to accept an eternal "heaven" with absolutely no problem, yet automatically reject an eternal "hell" at the same time.
It seems like the problems with "hell" is the lack of alternatives to eternal punishment.
1. Annihilate everyone, which seems unjust as there is zero punishment for sin. 2. Universalism, which also seems unjust as it ignores punishment. Further, I see no scriptural support that demands that universalism be accepted.
3. Some sort of purgatory like situation. Where sins are punished for a time, yet there is a point where the punishment ends. Obviously, there is nothing close to scriptural support for this.
I think that the problem is getting hung up on our limited, human, understanding of what "just" means and our limited, human, understanding of how seriously YHWH takes sin. When we impose our limited, human, concepts of "just" on YHWH we assume that He is limited as we are, and that our understanding defines His.
I firmly believe that the problem with "hell" is that it's depicted as eternal. based on answers to questions I've asked, I am convinced that the severity of the punishment isn't as concerning as the duration, and that an eternity of any punishment would be objected to.
Which is one of your problems. It's why I've never gotten bogged down is specifics about "hell". It's why I use quotes around the word "hell".
If there's no agreement on the fact that Jesus teaches that there is some form of eternal punishment and some form of eternal reward, then the details are meaningless. That your initial response is to jump straight into the secondary details, as if denying the "lake of fire" somehow denies any possibility of eternal punishment, doesn't fill me with hope.
How about if we try this. 2 yes/no questions. Whether of not this continues in this form depends on your answers.
1. Does Jesus teach or refer to some form of eternal life in the presence of Himself/YHWH?
2. Does Jesus teach or refer to some form of eternal consequences for sin?
Yes or no. Failure to answer as requested will communicate volumes about your desire to understand.
If you answer those before you waste a bunch of time Googling a lot of worthless information, that's on you.
John 5:24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. 30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
"Universalism, which also seems unjust as it ignores punishment. "
Says who?
Why can misdeeds not be punished in a measure commiserate to the misdeed? Indeed, isn't that essential to being loving and just?
We're talking about a theoretical, undefined, objectively unknown afterlife. If you can imagine that a god might punish someone's misdeeds with an eternity of torture, why can't you imagine a measured, appropriately-scaled punishment? That way, you don't have to imagine that we have to redefine love and justice, right?
What part of "seems" has you so flummoxed? If Justice involves punishment for "evil/sin/etc" then lack of punishment SEEMS counter to virtually any notion of justice.
Who says that misdeeds are NOT punished commensurate to the misdeed? I don't know, is it? Is your definition of "love and justice" the definition that all must adhere to?
I'll note that this ignores my previous comment and my problems with arguing about secondary things, when the primary questions remain unanswered.
I have no interest in discussing theoretical, hypothetical, secondary questions without establishing a baseline. Now, after you answer the two yes/no questions, then you can make a case for your hunch.
"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned."
Yes or no, does Jesus teach us that we will be saved by being good?
Yes or no, does Jesus teach only those who do what is actually evil will be condemned?
Do you see the problem you have with this rather shallow approach to playing with deep questions?
"Is your definition of "love and justice" the definition that all must adhere to?"
I don't have a personal, unique-to-me definition of those terms. I'm just talking about those notions as they are nearly universally recognized/defined.
Are you of the theory that humans are completely incapable of understanding those words? Based upon what?
To clarify, we may not know the perfect just answer to situations like the woman who kills her rapist husband. Should she have NO punishment? Life in prison? Does it depend on the circumstances? Probably the first or last option, but I don't understand justice perfectly... but I/we DO generally understand justice pretty clear, generally. It's just not that hard.
Thanks for trying, but you just are incapable of following directions.
In this case, IF He did "teach or refer" to either extreme of "eternal life" (whether it was figurative or not), then He DID "teach or refer" to one or both options.
That you want to muddy the waters, is immaterial, however. Are you seriously claiming that Jesus teaching or referring to one or the other options was "figurative"? (Again, it's a question that only needs a yes/no)
You continue to ask the same idiotic questions as if they haven't been answered multiple times before.
In this case, the theoretical existence of "figurative language" is SOME of Jesus' teachings has no bearing on whether or not any SPECIFIC teaching is "figurative".
Irrelevant, you are the one introducing this "figurative language" straw man into the conversation, therefore the onus is on you to definitively identify a specific passage as "figurative language" and to provide an explanation for the meaning that fits the context and the plain meaning of the text.
Given that reality, the answer to both of the questions is "yes", you just don't have the courage to admit that.
If one looks at Jesus' teachings context, then no. If one insists on ripping this one small portion of a larger discourse out of context, and ignoring the rest of Jesus' teaching, one could reach that conclusion. It's a shallow, surface level, eisegesis, but that's how you roll.
To do what you won't, no.
ALso to do what won't, yes.
Of course I see the problem when you play these silly, shallow, games and act as if you've made some big point.
FYI, again in the context of the whole of Jesus' teachings, Jesus teaches that all of us have sinned or done what is "actually evil", and that some will be saved. You're looking it this based on your obsession with taking Matt 25 in a wooden. literal, sense ignoring the fact that the behavior always comes second.
So the actual answer to my question is yes. You DO have a definition that you use that you've borrowed from others, and assume that your definition applies beyond yourself.
No.
I'm not wasting time with your off topic straw men. I'll indulge your self serving bullshit when it's ostensibly an answer to a question (up to a point).
If one insists on ripping this one small portion of a larger discourse out of context, and ignoring the rest of Jesus' teaching, one could reach that conclusion. It's a shallow, surface level, eisegesis, but that's how you roll.
YES! You GET IT! It IS possible that Jesus literally said, "Hate your parents" BUT that he did not literally teach that!
It IS possible that Jesus literally said, "Those who are good will be saved" and not literally teach that!
AND, in the same vein, it IS possible that Jesus literally uttered the words "fiery lake for those not saved..." AND he did not literally teach that.
THAT is exactly what I'm talking about. Taking Jesus IN CONTEXT, of course, hell no, did he ever teach that his Father was a grubby little pissant incapable of and unwilling to forgiving some people and who, indeed, created the majority of humanity for the purpose of torturing them forever. OF COURSE, that is not Jesus' literal teaching, in context.
FYI, again in the context of the whole of Jesus' teachings, Jesus teaches that all of us have sinned or done what is "actually evil",
NO. As you have demonstrated, just because Jesus utters a line does not make that line, taken literally, "Jesus' teaching." You HAVE to consider context. JESUS NEVER TAUGHT THAT ALL OF US ARE LITERALLY EVIL AS EVIL IS DEFINED. That some humans want to put words in Jesus' mouth or twist his teachings does not make it so.
At the very least, can you concede that the theory that Jesus taught that all humans are evil is a subjective human opinion and theory held by people like you and NOT what Jesus actually said?
Can you concede that whether or not Jesus intended to teach a literal ever-lasting torture notion of hell for most of humanity is a literal subjective human opinion and interpretation of Jesus' teachings, and NOT authoritatively, objectively factual?
....And that people of good faith actually can disagree with that human theory and find it offensive to the notion of a good, just and loving God, as taught in the Bible?
the actual answer to my question is yes. You DO have a definition that you use that you've borrowed from others
NO. I am simply using THE DEFINITIONS of those words.
Do you theorize that there is some super-secret definition of these words that is unknown to humanity but that YOU and those who agree with you have super-secret access to?
Come on, little brother. Be rational.
IF you are theorizing that there is this vague, unknown and unknowable supersecret definition that exists, say so. GIVE US YOUR PERSONAL human definitions of these words. It's a reasonable question to ask in this kind of conversation.
I mean, you CAN see, can't you, that if you want to define commonly understood notions in an upside down, backwards and on the face of it, EVIL way, it's reasonable that you give your definition and your source? AND admit it's one you can't prove, just one that you hold so that you can demean and demonize an almighty God? (not that this is your intent, it's just the reality of it all.)
Just fyi: The ONE place (that I can think of) where the word "Evil" is often used to translate Jesus' words as regards to humanity is Matthew 7. The Greek word there is translated, "full of labors, annoyances, hardships..." You know, typical humanity and our lack of perfection. But NOT "Evil" in the sense of murderous, raping, stealing from the poor and beating babies.
I'll give you credit. You are fully committed to the bit regardless of what anyone else says. Your commitment to ignoring the trees in favor of the forest is impressive. Your commitment to straw men is equally impressive.
No, why would I "concede" something that you've spewed out with zero proof, just because you made some bullshit up?
You can disagree with whatever you want. Disagree away, just stop pretending that your unproven, hunches, represent anything beyond your personal opinions and that the rest of us can ignore them.
No, I do theorize that YHWH is not limited by the ability of human understanding and that it's entirely reasonable that He might have a better grasp of topics that you have subjective opinions on.
No, I do theorize that YHWH is not limited by the ability of human understanding and that it's entirely reasonable that He might have a better grasp of topics that you have subjective opinions on.
NO ONE IS suggesting that God doesn't understand love, justice, mercy or the perfect peanut butter sandwich better than anyone. THAT's not the question.
The questions are: A. Do you have some super-secret, arcane and unknown definition of Justice or Love that is different than the normal obvious meanings of those words? B. DO you think that we are wholly incapable of understanding Love and Justice OR C. do you think that we basically get it, even if imperfectly?
Do you think that love and justice are beyond human understanding, generally speaking and, if so, what other words are you guessing that we don't understand reasonably well? Dog? Car? Pollution?
This is just silly nothingness and your intellectual cowardice to even TRY to address these questions is all the evidence anyone needs to see that.
Still won't focus on the two questions and provide simple. direct, yes/no answers.
I gave direct and absolutely clear answers to the questions, noting the reality that there exists texts in the Bible that are figurative.
YES, there are texts where Jesus mentions the notion of hell.
YES, there are texts where Jesus teaches us to hate our parents.
YES, there are texts where Jesus teaches us to not have savings, if we take the texts literally.
The question is NOT do these texts exist. The question is, should they be taken literally or not and THAT is a matter of human opinion - EVEN when the answer is astoundingly obvious (ie, no, of course, we shouldn't hate our parents and NO, hell no, of course, there is no hell as more medieval and modern religionists theorize.
That is the literal, factual, obvious and respectful answer. I don't know why you have a hard time accepting that.
The "I do..." was a separate response after the answer. My bad.
What's interesting is that after I answer your question, it just emboldens you to demand more answers to off topis questions, after you couldn't answer two simple, direct questions with simple, direct answers.
A. No. I am humble enough to think that it's possible, even likely, that YHWH's understanding of those things is significantly beyond my own and I have no desire to limit Him based on my understanding.
B. No. I think that we've come to some level of understanding (from culture to culture) and managed to codify a reasonable (if imperfect) system of "justice". I do no see any reason to think that we are capable of understanding YHWH's ways or thoughts on those topis at anywhere close to perfection. C. From a legal system standpoint, we do the best we can. From a "standing in front of the God who created all that exists" standpoint, significantly less so.
Because asking the same questions over and over, in the same comment is always a great idea. As to your obsession with off topic, straw men, that I really don't understand.
For someone who couldn't provide simple direct answers to simple direct questions, and who's chosen to impose their off topic, random, straw men, bullshit, on this thread that's quite the claim.
Well, the fact that you did not do so would be a problem for most people, but clearly not for you.
That you somehow think that the existence of texts that use figurative language prove that Jesus' specific mentions were absolutely figurative language is just more of your unproven, off topic, straw man, bullshit.
That you are incapable of focusing on those two questions/concepts, if you will, but insist on throwing shit at the wall in the desperate hope that something will stick and divert attention from the actual point of MY post, at MY blog speak volumes.
So the answer to my actual questions is unequivocally yes. You just need to obfuscate that fact by invention a bunch of off topic bullshit. That you theorize some crap about literalness as an excuse to dismiss what Jesus says (as a whole) in stead of actually proving that the individual claims are objectively "figurative language" tells me that you are either scared to do so, or that you know you can't. Therefore it's easier to dismiss them as being "figurative" without bothering to prove your claim.
I'll note that you have made the objective claim "that there is no hell". If you'd care to prove this, I'll be waiting.
Unless this is one of those bullshit diversions, where you (kind of ) admit that there is a "hell" but that the "medieval" folks described it wrong. Which leaves you with 2 problems. 1. You just acknowledged the "hell" does exist. 2. You just made the objective claim the the "medieval..." are wrong.
It's so cute when you claim to be respectful, while actually being the opposite. When you claim that your opinions are "factual", yet choose not to prove that claim.
I'll note that you have made the objective claim "that there is no hell". If you'd care to prove this, I'll be waiting.
There is no objective proof of a theoretical eternal torment for the theoretical "lost souls" who theoretically represent the majority (vast majority?) of humanity as some religionists believe. We, of course, can not prove a negative. I'm just noting that rational people throughout the ages have found no data - biblical or otherwise - supporting the existence of an actual hell as medieval and modern religionists hypothesize.
Again, to be clear: There is ZERO data to suggest the existence of a hell as religionists theorize. It's a human opinion/set of theories held by some religionists that they can't objectively prove.
Do you think you can prove a hell that is anything like you religionists hypothesize? Or are you glad to admit it's an unproven theory?
Now, I WILL note that there are literally all manner of hell-like existences - people suffering under poverty, slavery and oppression, for instance. Women being sexually preyed upon by vulgar, deviant men, for instance. THAT sort of hell objectively exists.
I'm not speaking of that hell. I'm speaking of Dante's and other religionists' opinions of hell as a place of eternal torture where, these religionists theorize, a somehow perfectly loving and just "god" chooses to send people to be tortured for eternity. There is NO objective proof to support that rather insane and evil theory.
I think that the problem is getting hung up on our limited, human, understanding of what "just" means and our limited, human, understanding of how seriously YHWH takes sin. When we impose our limited, human, concepts of "just" on YHWH we assume that He is limited as we are
I am imposing nothing upon God, just fyi. I assume that God is a perfect God of love and justice and grace. I assume that we who are created in God's image are generally able to understand these notions. NOT perfectly, just generally, but reasonably so.
It's not like, I don't guess, that God created the idea of UP but secretly, this "god" defines up as "DOWN," which we would have no way of knowing, as it defies reason and our common understanding.
Help me understand your personal human opinions, Craig:
Do you think humans are incapable of understanding, generally, notions like love, grace and justice?
Do you think that inability to understand includes YOU?
Do you think that there IS something like the religionists' "dante-like" hell?
Do you recognize that this is an unproven opinion on your part?
Do you recognize that other humans in good faith do NOT share that opinion that such a teaching is biblical, rational or moral?
Do you think people must affirm your personal human opinions on some topics in order to be saved?
There's no way to agree with someone who will continually pervert Scripture as it suits him to do so in any given situation where he is proven to be wrong. Jesus did not "literally teach" us to hate our parents, because hating one's parents wasn't the teaching. So, "context" is something fixed and Dan won't regard context as it stands, thus what he rips from it can be molded anyway he likes in order to "win".
Thus, no "answer" to any question is legitimate if it doesn't answer on the terms of the questioner. Dan fears a trap, which in reality is truth. Dan asks questions to trap, disregarding truth to get answers which reflect his invention.
Whether or not we store up treasures on earth was not the teaching. Thus, the question is just another deflection and diversion. Dan doesn't want to answer because it makes him either and advocate for or in opposition of the truth. Actually, he prefers the latter. That's evident in his MO of discourse.
Once again Dan while dares to condescend, he intentionally ignores what justice is. It is NOT merely punishment commensurate with a crime (or reward commensurate with goodness). It is what the lawgiver says is proper punishment. God is the lawgiver. He gets to decide what "justice" means for rejecting His law, not self-serving people like Dan. Who is the aggrieved party? It's God. As He is the Law, He gets to decide how serious is an infraction of His Law, as all Law is based on His notion of good and evil and the measure of either.
Any refusal or objection to any comment on any passage or verse of Scripture on the basis of it being "figurative" requires an explanation for what the literal teaching is, and evidence to back it up. To dodge with the claim of "figurative" language is intolerable and is actually a white flag of surrender. The worst part is Dan reserves for himself the right and authority to dictate what is or isn't literal or figurative as it serves him to so label any verse or passage. He's not only not the arbiter for deciding which is which, he lacks the intellect and honesty and worse, the self-sacrificing devotion to the Will of God to dare opine on such distinctions.
Art, that is both correct and obvious. Simply noting that one believes something to be "figurative language" without providing an explaining is lazy, simplistic, and more than likely simply a way to dodge.
You made the claim, yet you can't prove it and instead offer this vacuous word salad.
I haven't made a claim, therefore I have nothing to prove. You made the claim, hence the onus is on you to prove your claim, not offer excuses for why you can't.
However, your excuses do make an excellent point.
As you probably ignored, my whole purpose was summarized in earlier.
1. Is there (per Jesus) some eternal life in the presence of YHWH. 2. Is there (per Jesus) some eternal life outside of the presence of YHWH.
For the sake of simplicity, "heaven/hell". I've offered nothing about either beyond the suggestion that one of the two will be more pleasant, and one will be less pleasant.
You've chosen to ignore this fundamental issue in favor of ranting about your hunches about what you think other people believe on the topic. In other words, you've jumped ahead multiple steps because you're obsessed with attacking beliefs that you don't agree with. Instead of focusing on some very basic issues, you've jumped ahead and made a claim of fact, "there is no hell". When asked to prove this claim you've offered excuses, and hidden behind obfuscation (There's no hell like some people describe).
So, go back to the beginning and deal with the two original questions asked, without imposing your prejudices on the subject.
Sure you are, your imposing your hunches about "justice, grace, and mercy" on YHWH. You insist that there is no possible way that YHWH could look at those things differently than you do.
I've answered versions of these idiotic questions before, and see no reason to do so again.
I simply don't care and see no reason to enable you in your attempt to hijack this thread with off topic bullshit.
You made the claim, hence the onus is on you to prove your claim, not offer excuses for why you can't.
You are not understanding how logic works. I'm saying quite clearly: THERE IS NO KNOWN DATA TO SUPPORT IN AN OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE WAY AN EVERLASTING HELL OF TORTURE FOR LOST SOULS. OR, that there is a "god" who is theoretically perfectly loving and just but who has created the vast majority of humanity to be tortured in hell for an eternity. These are BOTH unproven awful human theories.
And that is the fact.
Now, if you want to disprove those facts (that there is no objective data to prove these awful human theories), THEN the onus is on you.
We've been through all this before. IF someone claims the purple unicorns on the moon, all rational people have to say is "There is no data to prove it" and THEN, the onus is on the people making the rather unlikely claim.
That you somehow think that the existence of texts that use figurative language prove that Jesus' specific mentions were absolutely figurative language is just more of your unproven, off topic, straw man, bullshit.
What I've noted is the simple reality of what the Biblical authors do and don't say and how they say it.
1. As a point of fact, there are figurative texts in the Bible and there are literal texts in the Bible.
2. As a point of fact, the text does not always tell us what is literal and what is figurative (hyperbole, poetic, imagery, etc).
3. Therefore, if SOME want to claim "Here is a text and IT SHOULD be taken literally," then the onus is on them to support that claim and provide objective authoritative data as to why they choose to interpret said passage literally.
3A. UNLESS, they just want to say, "It seems to me that it should be taken literally, but I can't prove it and I'm glad to admit that."
In a rational adult conversation where people are making rather horrifying claims that serve to demonize and belittle god, it's a reasonable thing to point out AND a reasonable thing to agree upon.
Craig:
your imposing your hunches about "justice, grace, and mercy" on YHWH.
I'm saying these are common words that are not hard to understand, even if living them out perfect is hard/impossible.
DO YOU DISAGREE?
I'm saying that IF YOU WANT TO THEORIZE that "god" says justice but means cruel horrific atrocities that are anything BUT just... that this "god" has another meaning for justice, THEN the onus is on you to justify that blasphemy.
Once again, I'm saying quite clearly that I see NO objective data that makes me want to think that God Almighty is anything but loving and just as that is normally understood OR that "god" has some supersecret vague and undefined alternative notions about what is loving or just.
IF YOU have some proof of this blasphemous theory, present it if you want.
Failing that, we can recognize that of course, you have no data to prove this blasphemy. It is an irrational, unloving, unjust and unbiblical human tradition, naught else.
You keep saying I haven't answered the two questions. I have as directly and clearly as possible, and I've explained how I've answered it and WHY my answer is not a simple yes or no answer, because the text in question demands a caveat.
Marshal doesn't get it and demonstrates this with his comment.
Jesus did not "literally teach" us to hate our parents, because hating one's parents wasn't the teaching.
But here is the text in question:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters —yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.”
The literal teaching is IF YOU DON'T HATE your loved ones and your own life, then you can't be my disciple. That IS the literal words in the teaching.
But does it mean that? NO, of course not.
So, when addressing a SPECIFIC isolated verse, and are asked to say, "Did Jesus say..." then the factual response is, "YES, Jesus said that, but clearly NO, Jesus did not teach that."
That is MY answer to your two instances.
Just as you all would answer for that instance above.
So, once again, and more specifically, your questions:
1. Does Jesus teach or refer to some form of eternal life in the presence of Himself/YHWH?
"YES, Jesus REFERRED to something like that that, but clearly NO, Jesus did not teach that."
2. Does Jesus teach or refer to some form of eternal consequences for sin?
"YES, Jesus REFERRED to something like that that, but clearly NO, Jesus did not teach that. That's a B-grade horror movie plot, why would he?"
You're right. I don't understand how your logic works. You insist that others "prove" claims that they make (even when they don't make a claim), yet you somehow construct a "logical" excuse that exempts you from being held to the same standards that you demand of others.
Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. You saying that there is "no known evidence" (which really means no evidence that you personally "know" or or that you'll accept) does not support the actual claim that you actually made. (There is no hell) Now you could admit that your claim was stupid and that you misspoke, or you can try to play around with moving goal posts to keep your self from admitting your mistakes.
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MADE A SPECIFIC CLAIM OF FACT. I MADE NO CLAIM OF FACT. YET YOU DEMAND THAT I PROVE A CLAIM I HAVE NOT MADE, WHILE YOU REFUSE TO PROVE A CLAIM THAT YOU DID MAKE.
1. So. The existence of some "figurative texts" in scripture does not prove that the specific texts under discussion are absolutely "figurative". That's like saying that the existence of Oak trees, means the every tree is an Oak.
2. So. That the text doesn't "tell us", does not mean that the text in question is automatically figurative.
3. What a strange notion. It assumes that there is absolutely ZERO "data" ever over the last 2000+ years. It also assumes that someone who claims that the existence of "figurative texts" is somehow exempt from proving their claims about specific texts. I get it, it's your double standard.
3. See 3. The fact that you exempt yourself from the standards you impose on others pretty much invalidates your bitching.
I'm saying that we have NO WAY (or NO EVIDENCE) that demands that YHWH holds our exact positions on things like justice. That we apprehend a small piece of those concepts, does not mean that we comprehend on the same level or in the same way as YHWH.
Since I don't want to "theorize" whatever bullshit you make up, I'll pass and note that you're idiotic practice of pretending that your bullshit represents what others really think isn't a good look.
Coming from someone who has less "data" than those he bitches about, yet simply assumes his hunches are correct, that's funny as hell.
"It also assumes that someone who claims that the existence of "figurative texts" is somehow exempt from proving their claims about specific texts."
I've not said I'm exempt from proving my claims. When I make fact claims, I give my data. When I make opinion claims, I give my reasoning of why I think the opinion is rational.
"That you double down on insisting that you can definitively decide what Jesus was "teaching" leaves me in awe at your arrogance and hubris."
What are you talking about? You asked me to answer the questions and I've BEEN answering them, giving you what I believe to be the most reasonable understanding.
I see all too many who are absolutely ready to accept an eternal "heaven" with absolutely no problem, yet automatically reject an eternal "hell" at the same time.
There ARE many who are willing to entertain the crazy notion that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God, a God who is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should have everlasting life... that such a God might save us to an everlasting heaven one day. It's not an irrational conclusion. IF there is a heaven surrounding and embodied by a perfectly loving God, that Loving Parent may want to gather all their children to them in eternity.
On the face of it, one can see how this is a reasonable conclusion.
On the other hand, many do NOT embrace a theoretical hell where most humans will be punished for an eternity by the same theoretical loving God, for the crime of being imperfect and having a "sin nature" which led them to "sin..." This is not rationally consistent for many people. What kind of deviant parent would torture their child for a lifetime - let alone an eternity - and especially for the foibles common to humanity?
Can you see that these are, on the face of it, plausible, rational positions to take, given the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God?
Is that on topic? It seems to be to me, but you have pretty strong opinions about what your topics are.
Still trying to decipher what you mean by me being arrogant and having hubris for having strong opinions about Jesus' teachings.
I see in the link to WK and Wm Lane Craig, whom he is quoting significantly, that they both have strong opinions about things like a "resurrection body" and their opinions of an afterlife.
For instance, WK said:
I’m an evangelical Protestant Christian, and I think that view of the world is correct according to logic and evidence.
And Craig says:
This physical body will be raised from the dead and transformed to immortal life.
So, presumably they are speaking of the conservative evangelical protestant view of the world and the theoretical afterlife. But they state their opinions on these matters definitively, as if the "logic and evidence" is agreeing with this traditional view.
And those are certainly their opinions that they are welcome to.
I, on the other hand, disagree strongly with that personal opinion and human tradition and think the logic and evidence works strongly against them on some points, and on other points, we just simply don't know any authoritative details.
And yet, you do not call Lane or WK arrogant for strongly holding their opinions, only me for holding my opinions.
IF I had to guess (and you can tell me if I'm mistaken), you do not object to people holding their opinions on these kinds of topics. You object to me stating my opinions decisively and in a certain way (even while I acknowledge that none of us can prove these matters), AND you object to me noting the reality that THEY/YOU also can't prove these matters in any authoritative and objective sense.
I suspect you want me to REALLY downplay my opinion because it is my opinion, but you want me to be quiet about their opinions, because it's not merely their opinions, it's... something more. A fact? Proven?
I don't know. You tell me: What makes my opinion arrogant and theirs/yours not?
Dan conflates the literal words used with the teaching those words are intended to convey, just so he can continue pretending Christ didn't teach about heaven and hell.
Dan conflates many things. Most of the time there doesn't appear to be any reason for doing so beyond Dan's desire to dictate what scripture really means.
You're right, you haven't "said" that, you just don't. You simply announce that your hunches are "reality" or "obvious" or whatever other synonym you choose and therefore exempt from proof.
You literally made a fact claim, didn't prove your fact claim, and are choosing to either ignore it or move the goal posts and pretend like your fact claim isn't.
Actually Jesus didn't really teach that as a universal principle. He was using the example of a farmer who chose to place his faith somewhere other than in YHWH. Strangely enough, Dan doesn't have a problem with YHWH killing this farmer for his actions. Killing someone for preparing for a possible future event seems extreme and unjust.
I'm noting the reality that you keep insisting that you know what Jesus was really teaching. To place yourself in the position to pass judgement on what Jesus was really teaching, and to conflate your biased, subjective, unproven, flawed, imperfect, hunches for Jesus' teaching shows an astounding degree of hubris and arrogance.
Your ability to take something so simple and make is so convoluted as to be nonsensical is impressive.
The key word in my first sentence being "eternal". The notion that we're so amazingly good that everyone, no matter what they've done, deserve some sort of eternal "heaven", yet that "hell" (no matter how one defines "hell") comes with a metaphorical "get out of jail free" card based on (who knows) but presumably our good works or actions.
Look, if you want to man up and deny the existence of "hell" (some form of punishment after death, without getting bogged down in details) great, feel free. All you need to do is explain what Jesus was talking about when He referenced "hell" (or any of His other terms to describe it).
No.
You finally make an on topic comment and act as if the multitude of off topic comments don't exist.
Yes, I do have opinions about what the topics of my posts on my blog are. Given the wild abandon you delete people's comments claiming that they're off topic, it seems strange that you'd criticize me for trying to force you to stay close to the topic. Maybe I should start acting like you , deleting your off toic comments, and lying about their content.
If you can't see the difference what they are doing and your demands that we accept your hunches are what Jesus really meant, no matter how far your hunches stray from the plain meaning of the text, I can't help you.
Although, given the high value you place on credentials, it seems strange that you would place yourself on the same level as an acknowledged expert in his field like Craig.
Yes, I object to you asserting that you know what Jesus really meant when you can't prove your claims and lack the education or expertise to make your claims with authority.
OH, Dan will indeed sometimes provide "data". Unfortunately, he chooses data by title, not by digesting the text to see if it actually supports his premise. Far, far more often than not, it doesn't come close to doing that.
I'm going to treat you like you're stupid for a minute and try to explain what this post is about.
1. If,as you seem to believe, there is no afterlife at all then why would you waste so much time arguing about the nature of something you claim doesn't exist?
2. If you believe that "heaven" exists, but "hell" doesn't then it's is completely insane for you to bitch about the theoretical conditions in a place you insist is fictional.
You are obsessed with imposing your hunches about justice on YHWH that you can't conceive of the possibility that you could possibly be wrong in your insistence that "hell doesn't exist", yet your argument isn't even about the existence of some sort of "hell", but it's about your anger at how "hell" is depicted in extrabiblical/fictional works.
Last time, I am only using the terms "heaven/hell" because they are common and convenient.
For the purpose of this very basic post, I'm simply trying to discuss the existence of two realms after death.
What those realm look like, what the details are, is irrelevant.
One is with YHWH. One is without YHWH.
One is more pleasant. One is less.
If you want to bitch about the temperature of the flames in "hell", I'm not interested.
On the rare occasions Dan deigns to provide "data" it tends to not say what he claims it says (because he just reads the titles as you note), and it's often from an advocacy group. It's another example of his demanding that we provide "data" (what standards he wants are undefined) for everything, while he hides behind "It's my opinion." yet acts as if his opinion is fact.
"1. If,as you seem to believe, there is no afterlife at all then why would you waste so much time arguing about the nature of something you claim doesn't exist?"
A. As I have said, I personally believe in some kind of heavenish afterlife.
B. At the same time, I acknowledge the fact that I/we can't prove it in any objective manner.
C. And, if there. IS a heavenly afterlife, we can't objectively verify any specifics of it.
Why talk about it then?
Because along with theories of a heavenly afterlife, many religion issues promote a theory of a hellish afterlife, one that many religion issues describe as a fact and that most people will be tortured there for an eternity.
This human theory/tradition is promoted by many as a fact and presume to speak for God and that tradition causes harm and anguish for many and has long been used as a club to keep people in submission to these theories.
"For the purpose of this very basic post, I'm simply trying to discuss the existence of two realms after death.
What those realm look like, what the details are, is irrelevant."
I disagree. I'm convinced the topic of hell and related "sinners in the hands of an angry god" theories and traditions have been horribly harmful and abusive. If we don't begin with that, AND the reality that we can prove none of our opinions on theoretical afterlife scenarios, we are missing an important human rights and logical stepping stone.
Good question, why do you talk about things you claim lack any proof and have no idea about specifics?
When you say "human tradition" speaks of a "hell", you'd have to explain away Jesus Himself speaking of a "hall", and being very clear that "many" would end up there.
What an absurd notion. That is "human theory/tradition", which can't be proven (according to you), about which we have virtually zero details, which absolutely ZERO people are forced to believe in, can somehow magically cause harm. What an absolutely nonsensical human theory. It's like claiming that ghosts cause harm or big foot causes harm. Of course this harm can't quantified, objectively measured or proven, and isn't physical but you're fighting the good fight against this imaginary scourge.
This notion that somehow people are forced to accept and kept in "submission" could be the stupidest thing you've ever said.
I wonder if it's possible that your actions and theology could actually be the opposite of the Truth, and that you personally could be causing harm to people who believe (because of you) that they'll be welcomed into YHWH's presence only to be told "Go away, I never knew you.".
No, wasting time arguing against something that doesn't exist because you believe that it magically causes "harm', makes absolutely no sense.
I'd ask you for objective. measurable, quantifiable proof of this "harm", but I know you don't have any and wouldn't provide it if you did.
I don't care what you think or what bizarre human hunches you hold. Because I'm not concerned about defining the precise nature of either option, before some consensus that both options exist.
That you've convinced yourself that the 100% optional belief in the traditional Christina view of the afterlife, is irrelevant. As you can't prove that you are correct, and no one is being forced against their will to convert.
Now, if forced conversion and forced belief in an actual religious system that actually causes quantifiable, measurable, verifiable, physical harm to actual people is really something that concerns you you could absolutely fight against that scourge right now. But it's easier to fight against made up threats, than real ones.
"24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man."
Interesting notion. Jesus starts his explanation affirming that what He says is "Very" True. Why would Jesus start be assuring His listeners that He was telling them the Truth, only to tell them something that was not the Truth?
"Whoever hears My words and believes Me...". He seems definitive that good deeds are NOT what gets someone out of judgement. Yet Dan would assert that works are literally the most important aspect of the gospel. He's also clear that "those who hear will live.". Why would He mislead people about this?
28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. 30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
Why would Jesus, after assuring His listeners that He was telling them the Truth, then tell them that some people will be "condemned"? Was this some sort of "human tradition" that Jesus used to con or pressure people into following Him?
This is one small passage that calls into question Dan's human tradition and Dan's claims that there's no "data" (aren't the words of Jesus "data"?) in multiple ways.
65 comments:
I see all too many who are absolutely ready to accept an eternal "heaven" with absolutely no problem, yet automatically reject an eternal "hell" at the same time.
It seems like the problems with "hell" is the lack of alternatives to eternal punishment.
1. Annihilate everyone, which seems unjust as there is zero punishment for sin.
2. Universalism, which also seems unjust as it ignores punishment. Further, I see no scriptural support that demands that universalism be accepted.
3. Some sort of purgatory like situation. Where sins are punished for a time, yet there is a point where the punishment ends. Obviously, there is nothing close to scriptural support for this.
I think that the problem is getting hung up on our limited, human, understanding of what "just" means and our limited, human, understanding of how seriously YHWH takes sin. When we impose our limited, human, concepts of "just" on YHWH we assume that He is limited as we are, and that our understanding defines His.
I firmly believe that the problem with "hell" is that it's depicted as eternal. based on answers to questions I've asked, I am convinced that the severity of the punishment isn't as concerning as the duration, and that an eternity of any punishment would be objected to.
Some of the biblical problems of theories on hell, which is primarily, It's not biblical.
https://www.paulmclellan.com/blog/2019/4/9/hell-as-a-lake-of-fire-for-eternal-punishment-does-not-exist-in-the-bible
More later.
Dan
Which is one of your problems. It's why I've never gotten bogged down is specifics about "hell". It's why I use quotes around the word "hell".
If there's no agreement on the fact that Jesus teaches that there is some form of eternal punishment and some form of eternal reward, then the details are meaningless. That your initial response is to jump straight into the secondary details, as if denying the "lake of fire" somehow denies any possibility of eternal punishment, doesn't fill me with hope.
How about if we try this. 2 yes/no questions. Whether of not this continues in this form depends on your answers.
1. Does Jesus teach or refer to some form of eternal life in the presence of Himself/YHWH?
2. Does Jesus teach or refer to some form of eternal consequences for sin?
Yes or no. Failure to answer as requested will communicate volumes about your desire to understand.
If you answer those before you waste a bunch of time Googling a lot of worthless information, that's on you.
John 5:24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man.
28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. 30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
Craig theorized...
"Universalism, which also seems unjust as it ignores punishment. "
Says who?
Why can misdeeds not be punished in a measure commiserate to the misdeed? Indeed, isn't that essential to being loving and just?
We're talking about a theoretical, undefined, objectively unknown afterlife. If you can imagine that a god might punish someone's misdeeds with an eternity of torture, why can't you imagine a measured, appropriately-scaled punishment? That way, you don't have to imagine that we have to redefine love and justice, right?
Dan
"1. Does Jesus teach or refer to some form of eternal life in the presence of Himself/YHWH?"
Yes, unless the teachings were intended to be figurative.
"2. Does Jesus teach or refer to some form of eternal consequences for sin?"
No. Unless some of his texts are intended to be taken somehow literally.
Unless you deal with the reality of the existence of figurative language in the bible, you're not dealing with the reality of biblical understanding.
Do you acknowledge the existence of figurative texts in the biblical stories?
Do you have some authoritative, definitive way to determine which texts are best understood literally?
Dan
Jesus literally tells us to NOT store up treasures on earth. Yes or no, did jesus teach us it was sin to have savings?
Dan
What part of "seems" has you so flummoxed? If Justice involves punishment for "evil/sin/etc" then lack of punishment SEEMS counter to virtually any notion of justice.
Who says that misdeeds are NOT punished commensurate to the misdeed? I don't know, is it? Is your definition of "love and justice" the definition that all must adhere to?
I'll note that this ignores my previous comment and my problems with arguing about secondary things, when the primary questions remain unanswered.
I have no interest in discussing theoretical, hypothetical, secondary questions without establishing a baseline. Now, after you answer the two yes/no questions, then you can make a case for your hunch.
Or, to use the passage you cited...
"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned."
Yes or no, does Jesus teach us that we will be saved by being good?
Yes or no, does Jesus teach only those who do what is actually evil will be condemned?
Do you see the problem you have with this rather shallow approach to playing with deep questions?
Dan
To answer another of your questions...
"Is your definition of "love and justice" the definition that all must adhere to?"
I don't have a personal, unique-to-me definition of those terms. I'm just talking about those notions as they are nearly universally recognized/defined.
Are you of the theory that humans are completely incapable of understanding those words? Based upon what?
To clarify, we may not know the perfect just answer to situations like the woman who kills her rapist husband. Should she have NO punishment? Life in prison? Does it depend on the circumstances? Probably the first or last option, but I don't understand justice perfectly... but I/we DO generally understand justice pretty clear, generally. It's just not that hard.
Dan
Thanks for trying, but you just are incapable of following directions.
In this case, IF He did "teach or refer" to either extreme of "eternal life" (whether it was figurative or not), then He DID "teach or refer" to one or both options.
That you want to muddy the waters, is immaterial, however. Are you seriously claiming that Jesus teaching or referring to one or the other options was "figurative"? (Again, it's a question that only needs a yes/no)
You continue to ask the same idiotic questions as if they haven't been answered multiple times before.
In this case, the theoretical existence of "figurative language" is SOME of Jesus' teachings has no bearing on whether or not any SPECIFIC teaching is "figurative".
Irrelevant, you are the one introducing this "figurative language" straw man into the conversation, therefore the onus is on you to definitively identify a specific passage as "figurative language" and to provide an explanation for the meaning that fits the context and the plain meaning of the text.
Given that reality, the answer to both of the questions is "yes", you just don't have the courage to admit that.
Irrelevant, out of context, straw man, and off topic.
If one looks at Jesus' teachings context, then no. If one insists on ripping this one small portion of a larger discourse out of context, and ignoring the rest of Jesus' teaching, one could reach that conclusion. It's a shallow, surface level, eisegesis, but that's how you roll.
To do what you won't, no.
ALso to do what won't, yes.
Of course I see the problem when you play these silly, shallow, games and act as if you've made some big point.
FYI, again in the context of the whole of Jesus' teachings, Jesus teaches that all of us have sinned or done what is "actually evil", and that some will be saved. You're looking it this based on your obsession with taking Matt 25 in a wooden. literal, sense ignoring the fact that the behavior always comes second.
So the actual answer to my question is yes. You DO have a definition that you use that you've borrowed from others, and assume that your definition applies beyond yourself.
No.
I'm not wasting time with your off topic straw men. I'll indulge your self serving bullshit when it's ostensibly an answer to a question (up to a point).
Craig:
If one insists on ripping this one small portion of a larger discourse out of context, and ignoring the rest of Jesus' teaching, one could reach that conclusion. It's a shallow, surface level, eisegesis, but that's how you roll.
YES! You GET IT! It IS possible that Jesus literally said, "Hate your parents" BUT that he did not literally teach that!
It IS possible that Jesus literally said, "Those who are good will be saved" and not literally teach that!
AND, in the same vein, it IS possible that Jesus literally uttered the words "fiery lake for those not saved..." AND he did not literally teach that.
THAT is exactly what I'm talking about. Taking Jesus IN CONTEXT, of course, hell no, did he ever teach that his Father was a grubby little pissant incapable of and unwilling to forgiving some people and who, indeed, created the majority of humanity for the purpose of torturing them forever. OF COURSE, that is not Jesus' literal teaching, in context.
EVEN IF some religionists hold that theory.
Do you agree?
Craig theorized:
FYI, again in the context of the whole of Jesus' teachings, Jesus teaches that all of us have sinned or done what is "actually evil",
NO. As you have demonstrated, just because Jesus utters a line does not make that line, taken literally, "Jesus' teaching." You HAVE to consider context. JESUS NEVER TAUGHT THAT ALL OF US ARE LITERALLY EVIL AS EVIL IS DEFINED. That some humans want to put words in Jesus' mouth or twist his teachings does not make it so.
At the very least, can you concede that the theory that Jesus taught that all humans are evil is a subjective human opinion and theory held by people like you and NOT what Jesus actually said?
Can you concede that whether or not Jesus intended to teach a literal ever-lasting torture notion of hell for most of humanity is a literal subjective human opinion and interpretation of Jesus' teachings, and NOT authoritatively, objectively factual?
....And that people of good faith actually can disagree with that human theory and find it offensive to the notion of a good, just and loving God, as taught in the Bible?
Craig irrationally said:
the actual answer to my question is yes. You DO have a definition that you use that you've borrowed from others
NO. I am simply using THE DEFINITIONS of those words.
Do you theorize that there is some super-secret definition of these words that is unknown to humanity but that YOU and those who agree with you have super-secret access to?
Come on, little brother. Be rational.
IF you are theorizing that there is this vague, unknown and unknowable supersecret definition that exists, say so. GIVE US YOUR PERSONAL human definitions of these words. It's a reasonable question to ask in this kind of conversation.
I mean, you CAN see, can't you, that if you want to define commonly understood notions in an upside down, backwards and on the face of it, EVIL way, it's reasonable that you give your definition and your source? AND admit it's one you can't prove, just one that you hold so that you can demean and demonize an almighty God? (not that this is your intent, it's just the reality of it all.)
Tell me, Craig, do you have a definition for Unicorn and do you think it applies beyond your own personal human definition?
This is silly and the world is too full of actual troubles and woes to waste time on nonsense.
Just fyi: The ONE place (that I can think of) where the word "Evil" is often used to translate Jesus' words as regards to humanity is Matthew 7. The Greek word there is translated, "full of labors, annoyances, hardships..." You know, typical humanity and our lack of perfection. But NOT "Evil" in the sense of murderous, raping, stealing from the poor and beating babies.
Just fyi.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/4415/how-should-%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%81%E1%BD%B9%CF%82-be-translated-in-matthew-711-and-why
To insist that Jesus "taught" that humanity is "evil" in the standard sense is question-begging at best.
Well, that's quite the condescending bunch of unproven bullshit straw men.
I'll give you credit. You are fully committed to the bit regardless of what anyone else says. Your commitment to ignoring the trees in favor of the forest is impressive. Your commitment to straw men is equally impressive.
No, why would I "concede" something that you've spewed out with zero proof, just because you made some bullshit up?
You can disagree with whatever you want. Disagree away, just stop pretending that your unproven, hunches, represent anything beyond your personal opinions and that the rest of us can ignore them.
Yet you are so committed to wasting loads of time on this sort of unproven nonsense.
Yes, definitions that you've gotten from others.
No, I do theorize that YHWH is not limited by the ability of human understanding and that it's entirely reasonable that He might have a better grasp of topics that you have subjective opinions on.
Still won't focus on the two questions and provide simple. direct, yes/no answers.
Craig dodged my reasonable question and said:
No, I do theorize that YHWH is not limited by the ability of human understanding and that it's entirely reasonable that He might have a better grasp of topics that you have subjective opinions on.
NO ONE IS suggesting that God doesn't understand love, justice, mercy or the perfect peanut butter sandwich better than anyone. THAT's not the question.
The questions are:
A. Do you have some super-secret, arcane and unknown definition of Justice or Love that is different than the normal obvious meanings of those words?
B. DO you think that we are wholly incapable of understanding Love and Justice OR
C. do you think that we basically get it, even if imperfectly?
Do you think that love and justice are beyond human understanding, generally speaking and, if so, what other words are you guessing that we don't understand reasonably well? Dog? Car? Pollution?
This is just silly nothingness and your intellectual cowardice to even TRY to address these questions is all the evidence anyone needs to see that.
Craig stupidly, falsely claimed:
Still won't focus on the two questions and provide simple. direct, yes/no answers.
I gave direct and absolutely clear answers to the questions, noting the reality that there exists texts in the Bible that are figurative.
YES, there are texts where Jesus mentions the notion of hell.
YES, there are texts where Jesus teaches us to hate our parents.
YES, there are texts where Jesus teaches us to not have savings, if we take the texts literally.
The question is NOT do these texts exist. The question is, should they be taken literally or not and THAT is a matter of human opinion - EVEN when the answer is astoundingly obvious (ie, no, of course, we shouldn't hate our parents and NO, hell no, of course, there is no hell as more medieval and modern religionists theorize.
That is the literal, factual, obvious and respectful answer. I don't know why you have a hard time accepting that.
I apologize, I hit the wrong key.
The answer to your question is...
"No."
The "I do..." was a separate response after the answer. My bad.
What's interesting is that after I answer your question, it just emboldens you to demand more answers to off topis questions, after you couldn't answer two simple, direct questions with simple, direct answers.
A. No. I am humble enough to think that it's possible, even likely, that YHWH's understanding of those things is significantly beyond my own and I have no desire to limit Him based on my understanding.
B. No. I think that we've come to some level of understanding (from culture to culture) and managed to codify a reasonable (if imperfect) system of "justice". I do no see any reason to think that we are capable of understanding YHWH's ways or thoughts on those topis at anywhere close to perfection.
C. From a legal system standpoint, we do the best we can. From a "standing in front of the God who created all that exists" standpoint, significantly less so.
Because asking the same questions over and over, in the same comment is always a great idea. As to your obsession with off topic, straw men, that I really don't understand.
For someone who couldn't provide simple direct answers to simple direct questions, and who's chosen to impose their off topic, random, straw men, bullshit, on this thread that's quite the claim.
Well, the fact that you did not do so would be a problem for most people, but clearly not for you.
That you somehow think that the existence of texts that use figurative language prove that Jesus' specific mentions were absolutely figurative language is just more of your unproven, off topic, straw man, bullshit.
That you are incapable of focusing on those two questions/concepts, if you will, but insist on throwing shit at the wall in the desperate hope that something will stick and divert attention from the actual point of MY post, at MY blog speak volumes.
So the answer to my actual questions is unequivocally yes. You just need to obfuscate that fact by invention a bunch of off topic bullshit. That you theorize some crap about literalness as an excuse to dismiss what Jesus says (as a whole) in stead of actually proving that the individual claims are objectively "figurative language" tells me that you are either scared to do so, or that you know you can't. Therefore it's easier to dismiss them as being "figurative" without bothering to prove your claim.
I'll note that you have made the objective claim "that there is no hell". If you'd care to prove this, I'll be waiting.
Unless this is one of those bullshit diversions, where you (kind of ) admit that there is a "hell" but that the "medieval" folks described it wrong. Which leaves you with 2 problems. 1. You just acknowledged the "hell" does exist. 2. You just made the objective claim the the "medieval..." are wrong.
It's so cute when you claim to be respectful, while actually being the opposite. When you claim that your opinions are "factual", yet choose not to prove that claim.
I'll note that you have made the objective claim "that there is no hell". If you'd care to prove this, I'll be waiting.
There is no objective proof of a theoretical eternal torment for the theoretical "lost souls" who theoretically represent the majority (vast majority?) of humanity as some religionists believe. We, of course, can not prove a negative. I'm just noting that rational people throughout the ages have found no data - biblical or otherwise - supporting the existence of an actual hell as medieval and modern religionists hypothesize.
Again, to be clear: There is ZERO data to suggest the existence of a hell as religionists theorize. It's a human opinion/set of theories held by some religionists that they can't objectively prove.
Do you think you can prove a hell that is anything like you religionists hypothesize? Or are you glad to admit it's an unproven theory?
Now, I WILL note that there are literally all manner of hell-like existences - people suffering under poverty, slavery and oppression, for instance. Women being sexually preyed upon by vulgar, deviant men, for instance. THAT sort of hell objectively exists.
I'm not speaking of that hell. I'm speaking of Dante's and other religionists' opinions of hell as a place of eternal torture where, these religionists theorize, a somehow perfectly loving and just "god" chooses to send people to be tortured for eternity. There is NO objective proof to support that rather insane and evil theory.
Craig theorized:
I think that the problem is getting hung up on our limited, human, understanding of what "just" means and our limited, human, understanding of how seriously YHWH takes sin. When we impose our limited, human, concepts of "just" on YHWH we assume that He is limited as we are
I am imposing nothing upon God, just fyi. I assume that God is a perfect God of love and justice and grace. I assume that we who are created in God's image are generally able to understand these notions. NOT perfectly, just generally, but reasonably so.
It's not like, I don't guess, that God created the idea of UP but secretly, this "god" defines up as "DOWN," which we would have no way of knowing, as it defies reason and our common understanding.
Help me understand your personal human opinions, Craig:
Do you think humans are incapable of understanding, generally, notions like love, grace and justice?
Do you think that inability to understand includes YOU?
Do you think that there IS something like the religionists' "dante-like" hell?
Do you recognize that this is an unproven opinion on your part?
Do you recognize that other humans in good faith do NOT share that opinion that such a teaching is biblical, rational or moral?
Do you think people must affirm your personal human opinions on some topics in order to be saved?
There's no way to agree with someone who will continually pervert Scripture as it suits him to do so in any given situation where he is proven to be wrong. Jesus did not "literally teach" us to hate our parents, because hating one's parents wasn't the teaching. So, "context" is something fixed and Dan won't regard context as it stands, thus what he rips from it can be molded anyway he likes in order to "win".
Thus, no "answer" to any question is legitimate if it doesn't answer on the terms of the questioner. Dan fears a trap, which in reality is truth. Dan asks questions to trap, disregarding truth to get answers which reflect his invention.
Whether or not we store up treasures on earth was not the teaching. Thus, the question is just another deflection and diversion. Dan doesn't want to answer because it makes him either and advocate for or in opposition of the truth. Actually, he prefers the latter. That's evident in his MO of discourse.
Once again Dan while dares to condescend, he intentionally ignores what justice is. It is NOT merely punishment commensurate with a crime (or reward commensurate with goodness). It is what the lawgiver says is proper punishment. God is the lawgiver. He gets to decide what "justice" means for rejecting His law, not self-serving people like Dan. Who is the aggrieved party? It's God. As He is the Law, He gets to decide how serious is an infraction of His Law, as all Law is based on His notion of good and evil and the measure of either.
Any refusal or objection to any comment on any passage or verse of Scripture on the basis of it being "figurative" requires an explanation for what the literal teaching is, and evidence to back it up. To dodge with the claim of "figurative" language is intolerable and is actually a white flag of surrender. The worst part is Dan reserves for himself the right and authority to dictate what is or isn't literal or figurative as it serves him to so label any verse or passage. He's not only not the arbiter for deciding which is which, he lacks the intellect and honesty and worse, the self-sacrificing devotion to the Will of God to dare opine on such distinctions.
Art, that is both correct and obvious. Simply noting that one believes something to be "figurative language" without providing an explaining is lazy, simplistic, and more than likely simply a way to dodge.
You made the claim, yet you can't prove it and instead offer this vacuous word salad.
I haven't made a claim, therefore I have nothing to prove. You made the claim, hence the onus is on you to prove your claim, not offer excuses for why you can't.
However, your excuses do make an excellent point.
As you probably ignored, my whole purpose was summarized in earlier.
1. Is there (per Jesus) some eternal life in the presence of YHWH.
2. Is there (per Jesus) some eternal life outside of the presence of YHWH.
For the sake of simplicity, "heaven/hell". I've offered nothing about either beyond the suggestion that one of the two will be more pleasant, and one will be less pleasant.
You've chosen to ignore this fundamental issue in favor of ranting about your hunches about what you think other people believe on the topic. In other words, you've jumped ahead multiple steps because you're obsessed with attacking beliefs that you don't agree with. Instead of focusing on some very basic issues, you've jumped ahead and made a claim of fact, "there is no hell". When asked to prove this claim you've offered excuses, and hidden behind obfuscation (There's no hell like some people describe).
So, go back to the beginning and deal with the two original questions asked, without imposing your prejudices on the subject.
Sure you are, your imposing your hunches about "justice, grace, and mercy" on YHWH. You insist that there is no possible way that YHWH could look at those things differently than you do.
I've answered versions of these idiotic questions before, and see no reason to do so again.
I simply don't care and see no reason to enable you in your attempt to hijack this thread with off topic bullshit.
You made the claim, hence the onus is on you to prove your claim, not offer excuses for why you can't.
You are not understanding how logic works. I'm saying quite clearly: THERE IS NO KNOWN DATA TO SUPPORT IN AN OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE WAY AN EVERLASTING HELL OF TORTURE FOR LOST SOULS. OR, that there is a "god" who is theoretically perfectly loving and just but who has created the vast majority of humanity to be tortured in hell for an eternity. These are BOTH unproven awful human theories.
And that is the fact.
Now, if you want to disprove those facts (that there is no objective data to prove these awful human theories), THEN the onus is on you.
We've been through all this before. IF someone claims the purple unicorns on the moon, all rational people have to say is "There is no data to prove it" and THEN, the onus is on the people making the rather unlikely claim.
That's logic 101.
Craig:
That you somehow think that the existence of texts that use figurative language prove that Jesus' specific mentions were absolutely figurative language is just more of your unproven, off topic, straw man, bullshit.
What I've noted is the simple reality of what the Biblical authors do and don't say and how they say it.
1. As a point of fact, there are figurative texts in the Bible and there are literal texts in the Bible.
2. As a point of fact, the text does not always tell us what is literal and what is figurative (hyperbole, poetic, imagery, etc).
3. Therefore, if SOME want to claim "Here is a text and IT SHOULD be taken literally," then the onus is on them to support that claim and provide objective authoritative data as to why they choose to interpret said passage literally.
3A. UNLESS, they just want to say, "It seems to me that it should be taken literally, but I can't prove it and I'm glad to admit that."
In a rational adult conversation where people are making rather horrifying claims that serve to demonize and belittle god, it's a reasonable thing to point out AND a reasonable thing to agree upon.
Craig:
your imposing your hunches about "justice, grace, and mercy" on YHWH.
I'm saying these are common words that are not hard to understand, even if living them out perfect is hard/impossible.
DO YOU DISAGREE?
I'm saying that IF YOU WANT TO THEORIZE that "god" says justice but means cruel horrific atrocities that are anything BUT just... that this "god" has another meaning for justice, THEN the onus is on you to justify that blasphemy.
Once again, I'm saying quite clearly that I see NO objective data that makes me want to think that God Almighty is anything but loving and just as that is normally understood OR that "god" has some supersecret vague and undefined alternative notions about what is loving or just.
IF YOU have some proof of this blasphemous theory, present it if you want.
Failing that, we can recognize that of course, you have no data to prove this blasphemy. It is an irrational, unloving, unjust and unbiblical human tradition, naught else.
You keep saying I haven't answered the two questions. I have as directly and clearly as possible, and I've explained how I've answered it and WHY my answer is not a simple yes or no answer, because the text in question demands a caveat.
Marshal doesn't get it and demonstrates this with his comment.
Jesus did not "literally teach" us to hate our parents, because hating one's parents wasn't the teaching.
But here is the text in question:
“If anyone comes to me and
does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters
—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.”
The literal teaching is IF YOU DON'T HATE your loved ones and your own life, then you can't be my disciple. That IS the literal words in the teaching.
But does it mean that? NO, of course not.
So, when addressing a SPECIFIC isolated verse, and are asked to say, "Did Jesus say..." then the factual response is, "YES, Jesus said that, but clearly NO, Jesus did not teach that."
That is MY answer to your two instances.
Just as you all would answer for that instance above.
So, once again, and more specifically, your questions:
1. Does Jesus teach or refer to some form of eternal life in the presence of Himself/YHWH?
"YES, Jesus REFERRED to something like that that,
but clearly NO, Jesus did not teach that."
2. Does Jesus teach or refer to some form of eternal consequences for sin?
"YES, Jesus REFERRED to something like that that,
but clearly NO, Jesus did not teach that. That's a B-grade horror movie plot, why would he?"
Questions answered, move on.
You're right. I don't understand how your logic works. You insist that others "prove" claims that they make (even when they don't make a claim), yet you somehow construct a "logical" excuse that exempts you from being held to the same standards that you demand of others.
Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. You saying that there is "no known evidence" (which really means no evidence that you personally "know" or or that you'll accept) does not support the actual claim that you actually made. (There is no hell) Now you could admit that your claim was stupid and that you misspoke, or you can try to play around with moving goal posts to keep your self from admitting your mistakes.
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MADE A SPECIFIC CLAIM OF FACT. I MADE NO CLAIM OF FACT. YET YOU DEMAND THAT I PROVE A CLAIM I HAVE NOT MADE, WHILE YOU REFUSE TO PROVE A CLAIM THAT YOU DID MAKE.
You making something up, pretending that your imaginary claim was made by me, and then demanding that I prove your claim is bullshit.
1. So. The existence of some "figurative texts" in scripture does not prove that the specific texts under discussion are absolutely "figurative". That's like saying that the existence of Oak trees, means the every tree is an Oak.
2. So. That the text doesn't "tell us", does not mean that the text in question is automatically figurative.
3. What a strange notion. It assumes that there is absolutely ZERO "data" ever over the last 2000+ years. It also assumes that someone who claims that the existence of "figurative texts" is somehow exempt from proving their claims about specific texts. I get it, it's your double standard.
3. See 3. The fact that you exempt yourself from the standards you impose on others pretty much invalidates your bitching.
I'm saying that we have NO WAY (or NO EVIDENCE) that demands that YHWH holds our exact positions on things like justice. That we apprehend a small piece of those concepts, does not mean that we comprehend on the same level or in the same way as YHWH.
Since I don't want to "theorize" whatever bullshit you make up, I'll pass and note that you're idiotic practice of pretending that your bullshit represents what others really think isn't a good look.
Coming from someone who has less "data" than those he bitches about, yet simply assumes his hunches are correct, that's funny as hell.
That you double down on insisting that you can definitively decide what Jesus was "teaching" leaves me in awe at your arrogance and hubris.
Craig irrationally stated...
"It also assumes that someone who claims that the existence of "figurative texts" is somehow exempt from proving their claims about specific texts."
I've not said I'm exempt from proving my claims. When I make fact claims, I give my data. When I make opinion claims, I give my reasoning of why I think the opinion is rational.
Just to correct your misunderstanding.
Dan
Craig...
"That you double down on insisting that you can definitively decide what Jesus was "teaching" leaves me in awe at your arrogance and hubris."
What are you talking about? You asked me to answer the questions and I've BEEN answering them, giving you what I believe to be the most reasonable understanding.
What's wrong with that?
Will you answer any of these questions, yourself?
Dan
Addressing your opening line:
I see all too many who are absolutely ready to accept an eternal "heaven" with absolutely no problem, yet automatically reject an eternal "hell" at the same time.
There ARE many who are willing to entertain the crazy notion that a perfectly loving, perfectly just God, a God who is not willing that ANY should perish but that ALL should have everlasting life... that such a God might save us to an everlasting heaven one day. It's not an irrational conclusion. IF there is a heaven surrounding and embodied by a perfectly loving God, that Loving Parent may want to gather all their children to them in eternity.
On the face of it, one can see how this is a reasonable conclusion.
On the other hand, many do NOT embrace a theoretical hell where most humans will be punished for an eternity by the same theoretical loving God, for the crime of being imperfect and having a "sin nature" which led them to "sin..." This is not rationally consistent for many people. What kind of deviant parent would torture their child for a lifetime - let alone an eternity - and especially for the foibles common to humanity?
Can you see that these are, on the face of it, plausible, rational positions to take, given the notion of a perfectly loving, perfectly just God?
Is that on topic? It seems to be to me, but you have pretty strong opinions about what your topics are.
Still trying to decipher what you mean by me being arrogant and having hubris for having strong opinions about Jesus' teachings.
I see in the link to WK and Wm Lane Craig, whom he is quoting significantly, that they both have strong opinions about things like a "resurrection body" and their opinions of an afterlife.
For instance, WK said:
I’m an evangelical Protestant Christian, and I think that view of the world is correct according to logic and evidence.
And Craig says:
This physical body will be raised from the dead and transformed to immortal life.
So, presumably they are speaking of the conservative evangelical protestant view of the world and the theoretical afterlife. But they state their opinions on these matters definitively, as if the "logic and evidence" is agreeing with this traditional view.
And those are certainly their opinions that they are welcome to.
I, on the other hand, disagree strongly with that personal opinion and human tradition and think the logic and evidence works strongly against them on some points, and on other points, we just simply don't know any authoritative details.
And yet, you do not call Lane or WK arrogant for strongly holding their opinions, only me for holding my opinions.
IF I had to guess (and you can tell me if I'm mistaken), you do not object to people holding their opinions on these kinds of topics. You object to me stating my opinions decisively and in a certain way (even while I acknowledge that none of us can prove these matters), AND you object to me noting the reality that THEY/YOU also can't prove these matters in any authoritative and objective sense.
I suspect you want me to REALLY downplay my opinion because it is my opinion, but you want me to be quiet about their opinions, because it's not merely their opinions, it's... something more. A fact? Proven?
I don't know. You tell me: What makes my opinion arrogant and theirs/yours not?
Dan conflates the literal words used with the teaching those words are intended to convey, just so he can continue pretending Christ didn't teach about heaven and hell.
Dan conflates many things. Most of the time there doesn't appear to be any reason for doing so beyond Dan's desire to dictate what scripture really means.
You're right, you haven't "said" that, you just don't. You simply announce that your hunches are "reality" or "obvious" or whatever other synonym you choose and therefore exempt from proof.
You literally made a fact claim, didn't prove your fact claim, and are choosing to either ignore it or move the goal posts and pretend like your fact claim isn't.
Actually Jesus didn't really teach that as a universal principle. He was using the example of a farmer who chose to place his faith somewhere other than in YHWH. Strangely enough, Dan doesn't have a problem with YHWH killing this farmer for his actions. Killing someone for preparing for a possible future event seems extreme and unjust.
What, you don't think calling YHWH a "grubby little pissant" is treating scripture with respect?
For someone like Dan who so often hides behind "hyperbole", it's amusing when he treats hyperbole as if it's not.
I'm noting the reality that you keep insisting that you know what Jesus was really teaching. To place yourself in the position to pass judgement on what Jesus was really teaching, and to conflate your biased, subjective, unproven, flawed, imperfect, hunches for Jesus' teaching shows an astounding degree of hubris and arrogance.
No, I'm done answering your irrelevant, off topic, questions again and again. I will not answer them again, simply because you demand that I do.
Your ability to take something so simple and make is so convoluted as to be nonsensical is impressive.
The key word in my first sentence being "eternal". The notion that we're so amazingly good that everyone, no matter what they've done, deserve some sort of eternal "heaven", yet that "hell" (no matter how one defines "hell") comes with a metaphorical "get out of jail free" card based on (who knows) but presumably our good works or actions.
Look, if you want to man up and deny the existence of "hell" (some form of punishment after death, without getting bogged down in details) great, feel free. All you need to do is explain what Jesus was talking about when He referenced "hell" (or any of His other terms to describe it).
No.
You finally make an on topic comment and act as if the multitude of off topic comments don't exist.
Yes, I do have opinions about what the topics of my posts on my blog are. Given the wild abandon you delete people's comments claiming that they're off topic, it seems strange that you'd criticize me for trying to force you to stay close to the topic. Maybe I should start acting like you , deleting your off toic comments, and lying about their content.
If you can't see the difference what they are doing and your demands that we accept your hunches are what Jesus really meant, no matter how far your hunches stray from the plain meaning of the text, I can't help you.
Although, given the high value you place on credentials, it seems strange that you would place yourself on the same level as an acknowledged expert in his field like Craig.
Yes, I object to you asserting that you know what Jesus really meant when you can't prove your claims and lack the education or expertise to make your claims with authority.
OH, Dan will indeed sometimes provide "data". Unfortunately, he chooses data by title, not by digesting the text to see if it actually supports his premise. Far, far more often than not, it doesn't come close to doing that.
Dan,
I'm going to treat you like you're stupid for a minute and try to explain what this post is about.
1. If,as you seem to believe, there is no afterlife at all then why would you waste so much time arguing about the nature of something you claim doesn't exist?
2. If you believe that "heaven" exists, but "hell" doesn't then it's is completely insane for you to bitch about the theoretical conditions in a place you insist is fictional.
You are obsessed with imposing your hunches about justice on YHWH that you can't conceive of the possibility that you could possibly be wrong in your insistence that "hell doesn't exist", yet your argument isn't even about the existence of some sort of "hell", but it's about your anger at how "hell" is depicted in extrabiblical/fictional works.
Last time, I am only using the terms "heaven/hell" because they are common and convenient.
For the purpose of this very basic post, I'm simply trying to discuss the existence of two realms after death.
What those realm look like, what the details are, is irrelevant.
One is with YHWH.
One is without YHWH.
One is more pleasant.
One is less.
If you want to bitch about the temperature of the flames in "hell", I'm not interested.
On the rare occasions Dan deigns to provide "data" it tends to not say what he claims it says (because he just reads the titles as you note), and it's often from an advocacy group. It's another example of his demanding that we provide "data" (what standards he wants are undefined) for everything, while he hides behind "It's my opinion." yet acts as if his opinion is fact.
Craig...
"1. If,as you seem to believe, there is no afterlife at all then why would you waste so much time arguing about the nature of something you claim doesn't exist?"
A. As I have said, I personally believe in some kind of heavenish afterlife.
B. At the same time, I acknowledge the fact that I/we can't prove it in any objective manner.
C. And, if there. IS a heavenly afterlife, we can't objectively verify any specifics of it.
Why talk about it then?
Because along with theories of a heavenly afterlife, many religion issues promote a theory of a hellish afterlife, one that many religion issues describe as a fact and that most people will be tortured there for an eternity.
This human theory/tradition is promoted by many as a fact and presume to speak for God and that tradition causes harm and anguish for many and has long been used as a club to keep people in submission to these theories.
Because it causes harm, I speak out.
I hope that makes sense to you, but am doubtful.
Dan
Craig...
"For the purpose of this very basic post, I'm simply trying to discuss the existence of two realms after death.
What those realm look like, what the details are, is irrelevant."
I disagree. I'm convinced the topic of hell and related "sinners in the hands of an angry god" theories and traditions have been horribly harmful and abusive. If we don't begin with that, AND the reality that we can prove none of our opinions on theoretical afterlife scenarios, we are missing an important human rights and logical stepping stone.
Dan
That is quite the rousing assertion.
Good question, why do you talk about things you claim lack any proof and have no idea about specifics?
When you say "human tradition" speaks of a "hell", you'd have to explain away Jesus Himself speaking of a "hall", and being very clear that "many" would end up there.
What an absurd notion. That is "human theory/tradition", which can't be proven (according to you), about which we have virtually zero details, which absolutely ZERO people are forced to believe in, can somehow magically cause harm. What an absolutely nonsensical human theory. It's like claiming that ghosts cause harm or big foot causes harm. Of course this harm can't quantified, objectively measured or proven, and isn't physical but you're fighting the good fight against this imaginary scourge.
This notion that somehow people are forced to accept and kept in "submission" could be the stupidest thing you've ever said.
I wonder if it's possible that your actions and theology could actually be the opposite of the Truth, and that you personally could be causing harm to people who believe (because of you) that they'll be welcomed into YHWH's presence only to be told "Go away, I never knew you.".
No, wasting time arguing against something that doesn't exist because you believe that it magically causes "harm', makes absolutely no sense.
I'd ask you for objective. measurable, quantifiable proof of this "harm", but I know you don't have any and wouldn't provide it if you did.
I don't care what you think or what bizarre human hunches you hold. Because I'm not concerned about defining the precise nature of either option, before some consensus that both options exist.
That you've convinced yourself that the 100% optional belief in the traditional Christina view of the afterlife, is irrelevant. As you can't prove that you are correct, and no one is being forced against their will to convert.
Now, if forced conversion and forced belief in an actual religious system that actually causes quantifiable, measurable, verifiable, physical harm to actual people is really something that concerns you you could absolutely fight against that scourge right now. But it's easier to fight against made up threats, than real ones.
"24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life. 25 Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man."
Interesting notion. Jesus starts his explanation affirming that what He says is "Very" True. Why would Jesus start be assuring His listeners that He was telling them the Truth, only to tell them something that was not the Truth?
"Whoever hears My words and believes Me...". He seems definitive that good deeds are NOT what gets someone out of judgement. Yet Dan would assert that works are literally the most important aspect of the gospel. He's also clear that "those who hear will live.". Why would He mislead people about this?
28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned. 30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
Why would Jesus, after assuring His listeners that He was telling them the Truth, then tell them that some people will be "condemned"? Was this some sort of "human tradition" that Jesus used to con or pressure people into following Him?
This is one small passage that calls into question Dan's human tradition and Dan's claims that there's no "data" (aren't the words of Jesus "data"?) in multiple ways.
Post a Comment