[General Battuta]

helpful flowchart

A. I don't like Christians

B. I will look for some reasons to not like Christians

C. Christians are terrible for these reasons I have discovered and their beliefs are morally wrong

D. Pretend this flowchart goes in reverse

[Mustang19]

"Lake of fire" in the Book of Revelation

The Book of Revelation, written some time in the last half of the first century, has five verses that mention a "lake of fire":

    Revelation 19:20: And the beast[5] was taken, and with him the false prophet[6] that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.
    Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
    Revelation 20:14-15 Then Death and Hades[7] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. [NKJV]
    Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.[8]

A commonly accepted and traditional interpretation is that the "lake of fire" and the "second death" are symbolic of eternal pain, pain of loss and perhaps pain of the senses, as punishment for wickedness.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

Jehovah's Witnesses interpret the "lake of fire" and "second death" of the Book of Revelation as referring to a complete and definitive annihilation of those cast into it.[16]

Christian Universalists interpret the "lake of fire" as an instrument of purification/refinement that will bring all people into a relationship with God. The word for "torment" in Revelation 14:10 is the Greek "basanizo" which has a primary meaning of testing with a touchstone. The lake of fire is not only for torment but for "testing": the analogy is in testing metal with a touchstone to make sure it is pure.

There is no eternal damnation in the bible. That is something that people came up with later. gb2 sunday school.

[MP-Ryan]

Out of sheer morbid curiosity I pulled up Revelations courtesy of the New International Version, and while I'm seeing a lot of references to second death and being cast into a fiery lake, I'm not seeing anything describing people who don't follow Christ going to Hell.  In point of fact, Revelations 21:14 seems to indicate that "hell" ends up being cast into said fiery lake too.

Herein lies the point I was making from page 5:  generalizations that all of Christianity says that "Don't follow Jesus -> Go to Hell" really aren't supported by the Biblical text.  Or at least, none of the text quoted thus far.  It's ironic how even atheists and agnostics carry all sorts of baggage concerning the term "Hell."

EDIT:  Damnit, Ninja'd by Mustang.

[Sushi]

You show that you are not here to actually exchange knowledge, merely to stupidify the discussion, so whatever.

Now that I've got that out of my system, some actual facts:
- Christian mythology is not monolithic. Just about every point of doctrine you can think of is contested by somebody, and most of them will cite scripture to back up their point of view.
- Biblical language is often highly metaphorical, making it inherently subject to interpretation (and leading to the situation mentioned above).

[Luis Dias]

There's nothing in the passages you've quoted to suggest eternal torment. This seems to be your own idiosyncratic belief.

The devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented forever and ever. The rest of them just die (again): second death.

I happen to think it is a fair inference, given that you are cast into the same lake that the devil was cast upon to be tormented forever.

But I get your point.

[Marcov]

Wasn't there this rich man who didn't care to feed or help the poor man named "Lazarus" who ate from the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table, and that rich man was cast into hell for being bad?

And that rich man was pleading the poor man to get him out of hell, but the poor man said he couldn't, because there was this "abyss" that separated them, which couldn't be crossed, so the rich man had to suffer forever?

This is from the Old Testament, and unless Jesus changed it, I think we should expect going to hell means suffering forever.

[Dilmah G]

...fairly sure Lazarus was the bloke the New Testament says Jesus raised from the dead.

[NGTM-1R]

Anything from the Old Testament as an argument for hell is pretty suspect; that's all in Jewish traditions as well, and they never had the concept of eternal torment. More like a waiting room, if that.

[Scotty]

Somewhere in Purgatory, Beeman sighs loudly (at this thread).

[NGTM-1R]

Somewhere in Purgatory, Beeman sighs loudly (at this thread).

Even Purgatory is pretty extra-Biblical.

[Luis Dias]

The Bible describes everyone as being resurrected for judgment, so I suppose souls is a bit of a misnomer - but yeah, you're judged, if you don't deserve immortal life you go into the lake of fire and are extinguished. No eternal torment, no eternal life, it just ends. Exactly what the atheist expects anyway!

Just noticed this dissonance by now. Look, even if I take your words for granted (which I don't), this means that god has created a universe where if you aren't gullible enough to believe a bronze age myth and/or a bronze age excentric preacher, you are effectively anihilated forever. And if you are, then you get eternal life.

How is this moral? This is anything but moral! Yeah, I expect anihilation, but that doesn't mean I happen to like it.

So no, even if hell wasn't the place where the mythology condemned you, this discrimination that results in an eternal consequence is always immoral and unbalanced. So someone covets their neighbour's wife. Doesn't repent it. BANG, dead forever. So someone doesn't believe in these shenanigans, it happens to be true despite being ridiculous, BANG, dead forever.

Sorry, even if this mild version of "condemnation" was the mainstream version of christian death (which it isn't), it would still be immoral.

[Marcov]

It's kinda entertaining to see how Luis Dias pours all his hatred on the Bible's "immorality" by summarizing it in that kind of language.

[Luis Dias]

If I don't use the language of the bible, I'll be trolled by semantical issues (no the bible doesn't say you can't look at babes, it says you shouldn't covet the neighbour's wife, you're such a fool, etc.)

And look, I don't "hate" the bible. Battuta even goes so far to say that I hate christians. What a load of bollocks. Of course he'll say this nonsense, it's his favorite tactic.

Why is it that if I say that X is "immoral", if "X" is somehow unrelated to religion, it's all fine and dandy, so he thinks it is immoral, great. But if it is related to religion, then I'm "hating" X.

No. Not at all. The bible is an incredible product of its time, and it shows. Do I hate Jefferson for having slaves? No, of course not. What I won't have, and this is an analogy okay?, is someone say that Jefferson was above everything else and should be followed absolutely for moral guidance on all affairs. No, that's nonsense. Likewise, if someone says that the bible offers them moral guidance, I'll say look out, be very careful because that book is also filled with immoral stuff. Bad stuff. It harms you. It's harmful.

If however you are aware of these caveats, go ahead. It's a good read after all.


EDIT2: What I especially won't have it said is that this book is somehow above all the rest of books, that it is "Sacred". No it isn't.

[Marcov]

It's just great watching you post entire essays on how things in the Bible are immoral, put things like "you're dead FOREVAH if you do this, see? That's BAD! That passage is just BADDE!!!" in an awfully hilarious kind of voice (simplifying it TVTropes-like style), and then post another several paragraphs trying to refute a member's one-phrase reaction to your previous posts.

It literally made me go "lawlz" all the way .

[Luis Dias]

I'm happy you feel entertained!

[watsisname]

Actually, Marcov, I thought his last post was very clear and I agree with most of the sentiments he expressed there.  Your criticism certainly doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.

While I'm here, I'll say that I don't agree that you can look at a single line of text and come to a conclusion about its morality.  Its the context within the rest of the book that matters, as does how people actually respond to it which if I recall correctly was Battuta's point all along.

[Marcov]

Actually, Marcov, I thought his last post was very clear and I agree with most of the sentiments he expressed there.  Your criticism certainly doesn't add anything useful to the discussion.

Criticism? You might be mistaking me being entertained at Luis Dias' repeated irritation against the Bible's "immoral" passages as part of an agenda of mine in arguing against Luis. No.

As I clearly stated, I'm not into a debate, because I kind of have no side here.

I'm happy you feel entertained!

Yeah, and other members are probably (hopefully) entertained too as well!

[Luis Dias]

Again, I'm not really irritated at the bible quotes. More to the discussion that ensued......

[Sushi]

Wasn't there this rich man who didn't care to feed or help the poor man named "Lazarus" who ate from the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table, and that rich man was cast into hell for being bad?

And that rich man was pleading the poor man to get him out of hell, but the poor man said he couldn't, because there was this "abyss" that separated them, which couldn't be crossed, so the rich man had to suffer forever?

This is from the Old Testament, and unless Jesus changed it, I think we should expect going to hell means suffering forever.

Actually, that's a New Testament passage.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke%2016:19-16:31&version=KJV

It's a different Lazarus than the one raised from the dead. It's not entirely clear (IMO, at least) whether this passage is Jesus recounting an actual event or simply a parable.

In some theologies, including my own, the purpose of Jesus' "visit to hell" between his death and resurrection was to remove the dividing gulf mentioned in the passage. I doubt this is the right thread to dive deep into that idea, though.

[Luis Dias]

I'd like to hear about it, Sushi.