Why would other religions go to hell?

[revnkev]

Ah, okay, I understand and agree. I think what Christianity is really supposed to be about is transforming human beings into ethical creatures who naturally do good for good's sake alone.

Yes but I believe it's the base of most religions and I don't necessary believe one particular religion is correct. I am more spiritual I guess and believe the laws of reaping and sewing work through faith no matter what religion you choose. If an atheist chooses to place faith in a rabbit's foot and it in some way alters his actions then he will still reap from that choice of action even if it's just the ability to be more confident.

[naz]

Dec 10, 2009 16:38:44 GMT revnkev said:

Ah, okay, I understand and agree. I think what Christianity is really supposed to be about is transforming human beings into ethical creatures who naturally do good for good's sake alone.

Yes but I believe it's the base of most religions and I don't necessary believe one particular religion is correct. I am more spiritual I guess and believe the laws of reaping and sewing work through faith no matter what religion you choose. If an atheist chooses to place faith in a rabbit's foot and it in some way alters his actions then he will still reap from that choice of action even if it's just the ability to be more confident.

Don't disagree with any of that. Karma is a very real thing in the here and now.

[revnkev]

Sorry I misread yours!

[dahduh]

We could put a very different construction on all of this. Just about every major religion has supported the concept, from the Egyptians who flung their miscreants to a 'devourer', to the Greeks (Tartarus), to the Abrahamic religions. Even the Buddhists flirt with it in the concept of hell in the form of avici, the lowest level of rebirth.

And why? Well, the Buddhists are a good example; how do you get to be demoted to the avici level? Easy: kill your parents, kill a priest, shed Buddha's blood, or create a religious schism. Does that suggest anything to you?

It does to me. The easiest way of ending up in hell it to defy authority and be naughty to the priesthood. Hell is a great tool to terrify the suspicious folk into submission, and every primitive religion has wielded it with glee. Now that the plebs are a little more sophisticated in both their science and ethics, it's not so effective a tool any more, and the liberal apologists arrive to smooth it all away.

Not that I disapprove; go for it. But if you really want to address this question I don't think examining scripture is the way to go about it.

[tripolation]

Dec 12, 2009 19:54:53 GMT dahduh said:

Not that I disapprove; go for it. But if you really want to address this question I don't think examining scripture is the way to go about it.

dahduh, I think the fact that some scripture supports this as being infinitely more important than me just speculating that that's what a just and loving God would do. It shows that God was trying to convey such messages, and some of them got through even in spite of man's attempts to use fear as control.

Thanks to naz for all the excellent quotes.

[AdrenalinTim]

Dec 12, 2009 19:54:53 GMT dahduh said:

Does that suggest anything to you?

It does to me. The easiest way of ending up in hell it to defy authority and be naughty to the priesthood. Hell is a great tool to terrify the suspicious folk into submission, and every primitive religion has wielded it with glee.

I agree that the threat of post-mortem punishment has been historically used to keep the masses in line.

Now that the plebs are a little more sophisticated in both their science and ethics, it's not so effective a tool any more, and the liberal apologists arrive to smooth it all away.

Not that I disapprove; go for it. But if you really want to address this question I don't think examining scripture is the way to go about it.

I understand the perspective, but I think that in order to make inroads into the commonly-held view, a sober look at what the scriptures actually say is exactly what is needed.

I have found that the Hebrew and Christian scriptures say almost exactly the opposite of what they have been used for by the establishment.

The Hebrew Scriptures ("Old" Testament) are almost entirely agnostic about the afterlife.

My understanding is that the concept of resurrection (not disembodied reward, but re-embodiment) of the righteous came in the intertestamental period (c. 200-100 BCE), essentially when the Jews were trying to figure out "if God is with us, then why are we being slaughtered in battle?" From there, some streams of thought developed into punishment for the wicked. The question then became determination of what was the badge of membership into the group that would be vindicated by God.

- Zealots believed that God wanted them to physically rise up against the oppressive tyrant of Roman occupation.
- The Pharisees tended to support the Zealots, but quietly, and also with an emphasis on moral purity through strict adherence to the Mosaic Law.
- Herodians/Sadduccees, believed that God had sided with Rome, or that amassing political power within the Roman system was the way forward.
- Essenes who advocated complete withdrawal from society.

Doubtless there were others, but these were the main ones.

The interesting thing to me is that when Jesus comes along he subverts them all. The new way of proving oneself to be part of "true Israel" rejects violence ("Turn the other cheek"), assimilation ("seek first the kingdom of God and his justice”), withdrawal (”give to Caesar what is Caesar’s"), and scapegoating ("let he who is without sin cast the first stone"), in favor of generosity, selflessness, embrace of "the other" (indeed even "the sinner"!) and care for the poor.

It is my opinion that the use of hell-imagery by Jesus and the New Testament authors was designed to subvert and supplant the common usage by C1 Jews.

[naz]

I understand the perspective, but I think that in order to make inroads into the commonly-held view, a sober look at what the scriptures actually say is exactly what is needed.

I have found that the Hebrew and Christian scriptures say almost exactly the opposite of what they have been used for by the establishment.

I quite agree.

The Hebrew Scriptures ("Old" Testament) are almost entirely agnostic about the afterlife.

True.

My understanding is that the concept of resurrection (not disembodied reward, but re-embodiment) of the righteous came in the intertestamental period (c. 200-100 BCE), essentially when the Jews were trying to figure out "if God is with us, then why are we being slaughtered in battle?" From there, some streams of thought developed into punishment for the wicked. The question then became determination of what was the badge of membership into the group that would be vindicated by God.

Also true. Quite probably these ideas were originally adopted during the exile in Babylon under the influence of Zoroastrianism.

- Zealots believed that God wanted them to physically rise up against the oppressive tyrant of Roman occupation.
- The Pharisees tended to support the Zealots, but quietly, and also with an emphasis on moral purity through strict adherence to the Mosaic Law.
- Herodians/Sadduccees, believed that God had sided with Rome, or that amassing political power within the Roman system was the way forward.
- Essenes who advocated complete withdrawal from society.

Doubtless there were others, but these were the main ones.

The interesting thing to me is that when Jesus comes along he subverts them all. The new way of proving oneself to be part of "true Israel" rejects violence ("Turn the other cheek"), assimilation ("seek first the kingdom of God and his justice”), withdrawal (”give to Caesar what is Caesar’s"), and scapegoating ("let he who is without sin cast the first stone"), in favor of generosity, selflessness, embrace of "the other" (indeed even "the sinner"!) and care for the poor.

It is my opinion that the use of hell-imagery by Jesus and the New Testament authors was designed to subvert and supplant the common usage by C1 Jews.

Interesting perspective. I like it.

[soms]

Dec 14, 2009 0:52:11 GMT AdrenalinTim said:

Dec 12, 2009 19:54:53 GMT dahduh said:

Does that suggest anything to you?

It does to me. The easiest way of ending up in hell it to defy authority and be naughty to the priesthood. Hell is a great tool to terrify the suspicious folk into submission, and every primitive religion has wielded it with glee.

I agree that the threat of post-mortem punishment has been historically used to keep the masses in line.

Now that the plebs are a little more sophisticated in both their science and ethics, it's not so effective a tool any more, and the liberal apologists arrive to smooth it all away.

Not that I disapprove; go for it. But if you really want to address this question I don't think examining scripture is the way to go about it.

I understand the perspective, but I think that in order to make inroads into the commonly-held view, a sober look at what the scriptures actually say is exactly what is needed.

I have found that the Hebrew and Christian scriptures say almost exactly the opposite of what they have been used for by the establishment.

The Hebrew Scriptures ("Old" Testament) are almost entirely agnostic about the afterlife.

My understanding is that the concept of resurrection (not disembodied reward, but re-embodiment) of the righteous came in the intertestamental period (c. 200-100 BCE), essentially when the Jews were trying to figure out "if God is with us, then why are we being slaughtered in battle?" From there, some streams of thought developed into punishment for the wicked. The question then became determination of what was the badge of membership into the group that would be vindicated by God.

- Zealots believed that God wanted them to physically rise up against the oppressive tyrant of Roman occupation.
- The Pharisees tended to support the Zealots, but quietly, and also with an emphasis on moral purity through strict adherence to the Mosaic Law.
- Herodians/Sadduccees, believed that God had sided with Rome, or that amassing political power within the Roman system was the way forward.
- Essenes who advocated complete withdrawal from society.

Doubtless there were others, but these were the main ones.

The interesting thing to me is that when Jesus comes along he subverts them all. The new way of proving oneself to be part of "true Israel" rejects violence ("Turn the other cheek"), assimilation ("seek first the kingdom of God and his justice”), withdrawal (”give to Caesar what is Caesar’s"), and scapegoating ("let he who is without sin cast the first stone"), in favor of generosity, selflessness, embrace of "the other" (indeed even "the sinner"!) and care for the poor.

It is my opinion that the use of hell-imagery by Jesus and the New Testament authors was designed to subvert and supplant the common usage by C1 Jews.

loved your thoughts here!!!!

why not use what will be related to, (whether in parable or by what is commonly understood) to make such a point?

[AdrenalinTim]

Dec 15, 2009 16:36:22 GMT soms said:

why not use what will be related to, (whether in parable or by what is commonly understood) to make such a point?

Sorry, don't understand what you're asking. Can you clarify?

(So happy to see you here, somsy! Are your computer woes all better, or are you still posting from your phone?)

[soms]

Dec 15, 2009 16:38:04 GMT AdrenalinTim said:

Dec 15, 2009 16:36:22 GMT soms said:

why not use what will be related to, (whether in parable or by what is commonly understood) to make such a point?

Sorry, don't understand what you're asking. Can you clarify?

(So happy to see you here, somsy! Are your computer woes all better, or are you still posting from your phone?)

i am at library with one minute remaining! i was just saying it makes sense for Jesus to use what those around him understood, and i was agreeing with you wholeheartedly... miss you guys!!!

[AdrenalinTim]

Ah, thanks for clarifying! Miss you too!

[slamminsam]

Just butting in here:
The OT isn't entirely agnostic about an afterlife.
David said he would got to where his dead son was.
Samuel told Saul that the king and his sons would be with him soon.
(Now THAT is an interesting story-seems to support the existence of ghosts!)
Also, Job declared that he would live again and see God with his own eyes.

[AdrenalinTim]

Dec 17, 2009 2:33:53 GMT slamminsam said:

Just butting in here:
The OT isn't entirely agnostic about an afterlife.

I said almost entirely agnostic.

David said he would got to where his dead son was.

The grave.

Samuel told Saul that the king and his sons would be with him soon.

The grave.

(Now THAT is an interesting story-seems to support the existence of ghosts!)

Yeah, weird stuff there. The objection against divination/communication with the dead is that it's forbidden, not that it doesn't work.

Also, Job declared that he would live again and see God with his own eyes.

This one may be a legitimate exception. Do you have the citation handy?

Nevertheless, Job is tricky. He talks out of both sides of his mouth. Check this out, in which he seems to both affirm and deny the judgment of God w/r/t the wicked:

You say, 'God stores away a man's iniquity for his sons.'
Let God repay him [the wicked]so that he may know it.
Let his own eyes see his decay,
And let him drink of the wrath of the Almighty.
For what does he care for his household after him,
When the number of his months is cut off?
Can anyone teach God knowledge,
In that He judges those on high?
One dies in his full strength,
Being wholly at ease and satisfied;
His sides are filled out with fat,
And the marrow of his bones is moist,
While another dies with a bitter soul,
Never even tasting anything good.
Together they lie down in the dust,
And worms cover them.
(...)
For the wicked is reserved for the day of calamity;
They will be led forth at the day of fury.
Who will confront him with his actions,
And who will repay him for what he has done?
While he is carried to the grave,
Men will keep watch over his tomb.
The clods of the valley will gently cover him;
Moreover, all men will follow after him,
While countless ones go before him.
How then will you vainly comfort me,
For your answers remain full of falsehood?
- Job 21.19-26,30-34

Even granting the occasional statement of knowledge about a post-mortem state, throughout the OT, it is the exception rather than the rule.

Remember that my life is but breath;
My eye will not again see good.
The eye of him who sees me will behold me no longer;
Your eyes will be on me, but I will not be.
When a cloud vanishes, it is gone,
So he who goes down to Sheol does not come up.
He will not return again to his house,
Nor will his place know him anymore.
- Job 7.7-10

For there is no mention of You in death;
In Sheol who will give You thanks?
-Ps 6.5

Like the slain who lie in the grave,
Whom You [YHWH]remember no more (...)
Will You perform wonders for the dead?
Will the departed spirits rise and praise You? Selah.
Will Your lovingkindness be declared in the grave,
Your faithfulness in Abaddon?
Will Your wonders be made known in the darkness?
And Your righteousness in the land of forgetfulness?
- Ps 88.5,10-12 (Note the rhetorical questions. It seems to me that it was considered obvious that the answer was "no".)

Remember what my span of life is;
For what vanity you have created all the sons of men!
What man can live and not see death?
Can he deliver his soul from the power of Sheol? Selah.
- Ps 89.47-48

The dead do not praise the Lord,
Nor do any who go down into silence
- Ps 115.17

It is the same for all There is one fate for the righteous and for the wicked; for the good, for the clean and for the unclean; for the man who offers a sacrifice and for the one who does not sacrifice. As the good man is, so is the sinner; as the swearer is, so is the one who is afraid to swear. This is an evil in all that is done under the sun, that there is one fate for all men.

Furthermore, the hearts of the sons of men are full of evil and insanity is in their hearts throughout their lives. Afterwards they go to the dead. For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything

[/b], nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten. Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun. (...)

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might; for there is no activity or planning or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol where you are going.
- Ec 9.2-6,10[/blockquote]

Here's a another "exception" I ran into:

For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol;
Nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.
-Ps 16.10