Did God Create hell?

[dogmatically_challenged]

So perfect really means something that is perfect in comparison to its class it belongs to.

 

Like a perfect cat, is a cat (that can be an imperfect animal) but perfect of its kind. Which means that this cat is compared to all the other cats, and is the top of the line version of cat. (Purr-fect )

 

So a Perfect God is a god that is perfect in the class or family of gods, and this can only be determined if you have other gods to compare to. Doesn't it? So God can not be the only god if he is the perfect god!!! So the statement Perfect God implies a family of gods, and confirms polytheism... Damn! The Bible does support Polytheism!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Here also: Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation

 

Psalm 1830 As for God, his way is perfect;

the word of the LORD is flawless.

If god is perfect then it can not make a mistake.

 

 

So the statement Perfect God implies a family of gods, and confirms polytheism... Damn! The Bible does support Polytheism!

 

 

That explains yhwh's jealousy! His lackeys are so scared they kiss his ass and use hyperbole to describe him in thier writings. They are like a battered wife of a jealous husband!

[crazy-tiger]

So perfect really means something that is perfect in comparison to its class it belongs to.

 

Like a perfect cat, is a cat (that can be an imperfect animal) but perfect of its kind. Which means that this cat is compared to all the other cats, and is the top of the line version of cat. (Purr-fect )

 

So a Perfect God is a god that is perfect in the class or family of gods, and this can only be determined if you have other gods to compare to. Doesn't it? So God can not be the only god if he is the perfect god!!! So the statement Perfect God implies a family of gods, and confirms polytheism... Damn! The Bible does support Polytheism!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And lo! It came to pass that the Bible proved that Christianity was a crock of shit and God saw that it was good.

[shy1680]

To Simonpeter

 

Wow! Mohammed praised Jesus as being a great prophet and teacher. However, he developed Islam to correct some of the "errors" Jesus (in his opinion) made. He disagreed the equalization of women and worship. He disagreed with Jesus destroying the old laws and the simplification of salvation (righteousness before God). Does the use of the word infidels in the Quran have any indication that their way is right and all others wrong?

 

You missed the whole point of my previous post.

 

I included Islam in this because their holy book addresses that prior to God picking Islam as the final corrected religion, other religions, nations, tribes of the world had been given the truth by God. Now can you say that is true for Judaism and then Christianity? No, you cant, they feel God only provided them with the truth.

 

And yes, Muslims feel they are now the only group with the truth because their religious book tells them God combined all the "truths" from around the world that he sent through many prophets and put it into one book and perfected it. There is the belief that through the years the original religion was corrupted and had to be brought back to its natural state. Do Christians feel other holy books not included in the bible have any truth in them, or that other religions prophets provided truth from God? No, according to Christian teachings, other books and Prophets are from Satan.

 

Taoism doesn't hold claim to any deity.

 

Now what does this have to do with the fact that the religion of Taoism does not try to hold claim to having the only way and that everyone not following their way is wrong and doomed to hell like Christianity? Also in Taoism there are many deities that are a manifestation of the Tao, the ultimate spiritual reality.

 

 

Their religions are regional and not universal. They remain tolerable of other religions but have countless number of hells.

 

You still did not prove that these religions doom everyone who is a non-believer to hell like yours. The religions mentioned have a belief in hell for those who do wrong, not for those who do not believe in their particular brand of religion or denomination, like your Christian faith. Also Islam since I see you will be quick to throw that up.

 

Not quite right. No other than a Japanese can be a Shinto. Also, their story of creation (which is interesting) centers around the earth being created in Japan and the Japanese the first humans of their creators. All other "humans" on earth are not explained and viewed (originally) as sub-human.

 

This has nothing to do with the fact that followers of the Shinto religion believe it’s perfectly OK to participate in other religious organizations. Many Japanese practice both Shinto and Buddhist traditions at the same time and are called a dual Shinto. Also your incorrect about no one can be a Shinto if they aren’t Japanese. Anyone can practice the Shinto way of life, there is no set creed so there is no conversion needed, you just basically follow the traditions. But that’s a whole discussion for another day.

 

If you ever pay attention, most religions have a creation story centered on their particular area being the first and their people being the first. Scientist have helped us out with that one finally. Your holy bible kind of forgot to include lands and people that were not "discovered" yet so does that mean they did not exist prior to your holy book being written?

 

BTW, there are many (I want to say "most") buddhist sects that believe in a hell, of eternal damnation. Buddhism can be divided into two major groups: Teravada and Mahayana. Teravada, commonly known as Orthodox Buddhism, believe in 6 levels of heaven and 7 or 8 levels of hell, hell described as beings in torment. Mahayana does not have a hell but believe that in the next life "you reap what you sow." In other words, if you do evil in this life evil will pursue you in the next one. Sokki Gakkai, a popular Japanese form, believes in eight levels or balls of fire. Tibetan Buddhism has a hell described is endless suffering.

 

What does other religions having the doctrine of hell have to do with the Christian faith wanting to hold sole claim to God and the one true religion, denying all others faith's relationship with God or the Ultimate Reality, and condemning non-believers to hell? Go ask some Sikh's, Hindu's, Buddhist if you’re going to burn in their hells for being Christian. Do you think fellow Hindu’s of Ghandi’s time felt he was going to hell for believing in Jesus Christ and reading the bible along side his regular Hindu text?

[dogmatically_challenged]

shy1680

What does other religions having the doctrine of hell have to do with the Christian faith wanting to hold sole claim to God and the one true religion, denying all others faith's relationship with God or the Ultimate Reality, and condemning non-believers to hell? Go ask some Sikh's, Hindu's, Buddhist if you’re going to burn in their hells for being Christian. Do you think fellow Hindu’s of Ghandi’s time felt he was going to hell for believing in Jesus Christ and reading the bible along side his regular Hindu text?

ER....Bigotry? Chauvinism?

 

No wonder Islam and Christianity are persecuted. They are bigots if they hold to all scripture in thier holybooks.

 

And either Gandhi never read all of jesus or he kept what he liked of jesus knowing full well that xians really are mostly bible illiterate. He even complained at how unchristian some are.

 

Gandhi just wanted the bloodshed to stop.

[Skankboy]

Go ask some Sikh's, Hindu's, Buddhist if you’re going to burn in their hells for being Christian.

 

Actually, my answer to that would be that he already is...

 

[dogmatically_challenged]

Is it not true? Most religions say you will be punnished for what you do, one way or another. Karma, hell, underworld, direct punnishment by the gods...

 

But for Islam and Christianity it is what you believe that will get you fried for ever.

[Skankboy]

But for Islam and Christianity it is what you believe that will get you fried for ever.

 

Or don't believe for that matter.

 

I don't know, he must be studying a different version of Theravada than I do...

[dogmatically_challenged]

Or don't believe for that matter.

 

I don't know, he must be studying a different version of Theravada than I do...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yea. I'm just as guilty kinda when it comes to buddha. What little I know so far is probably watered down by western peoples.

 

There is so much to know out there and so little time.

[dogmatically_challenged]

I won't even touch hinduism. Too much to learn.

[simonpeter]

There is a difference between the fundamentalist claim that the bible is inerrant, than God being infallible. 

 

Bible inerrancy is a claim that is not scriptural. 

 

However, the bible says in numerous scriptures that God is perfect.

 

Deuteronomy 32 4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect,

      and all his ways are just.

      A faithful God who does no wrong,

      upright and just is he.

 

Psalm 1830 As for God, his way is perfect;

      the word of the LORD is flawless.

      He is a shield

      for all who take refuge in him

 

Matthew 547And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect

 

More?

 

If the bible is full of errors, which it is, then it is not a trustworthy source to speak for "god".  We can't even trust the verses above.

 

You'll have to forgive me if this isn't what you were referring to.  The way you are using the quotes makes it hard for me to separate what you wrote and what someone wrote to you

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for the references. We have established that infallibility is non scriptural but not we are left with words like perfect and flawless and debating these descriptions could take forever. My wife is perfect for me and yet I know she's not a perfect person, and so on. I recently completed remodeling my kitchen and now it is perfect for our needs. Look closer and you'll see that some of the grouting on the countertops is not uniform. But, somehow I have allowed myself to get roped into an argument trying to prove something I don't believe. Forgive me.

 

I said before: I don't believe the bible to be inerrant. "Christians" before me promoted this falsehood. I believe in a God who has made mistakes. Jesus clearly expressed the old covenant didn't work and he has brought a new one.

 

I have no problem trying to pattern my life with a book that has errors and a God who has made mistakes. The bible is like a roadmap. I use it to better understand the road. I have found errors in roadmaps but I keep using them. With the belief of God being a Father, I deal better with a father who has made some mistakes than I could with one who is unbending and "perfect." You have required perfection in all things and I think that to be a tougher road to follow. Me opinion.

[Ouroboros]

You're right, it's your opinion.  Yet you claim a literal hell. Oh well.

I choose the roadmap inside me, my given intuition and inner ability to know right from wrong, my conscience is my guide.  I don't need a book filled with contradictions, evils and errors, nor the myth within it's pages to lead a full and happy life.  I love life now more than ever before as a Christian.  I have no condemnation, no sin, I am a decent human being, I need no savior.

Which means that You are Perfect!

[simonpeter]

You're right, it's your opinion.  Yet you claim a literal hell. Oh well.

I choose the roadmap inside me, my given intuition and inner ability to know right from wrong, my conscience is my guide.  I don't need a book filled with contradictions, evils and errors, nor the myth within it's pages to lead a full and happy life.  I love life now more than ever before as a Christian.  I have no condemnation, no sin, I am a decent human being, I need no savior.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I appreciate your comments. Throughout this discussion I have never claimed a literal hell. I was asking the question as was stated. I selected this topic because when I entered this site and read the articles,comments, etc., there appeared to be a central theme of criticizing Christians for loving a God who would throw innocients into eternal damnation. I bought into this belief in my first go-around with the faith. I left Chritianity for 35 years.

 

As I began re-examining the Bible 8 years ago I came to the conclusion that hell does not fit Jewish or the character of Jesus. Through a friend who is an avid student of early Christian theology I discovered I was an Annihilist. Annihilists believe, as did the ancient Jews, that when you die the soul goes to a holding area "land of the dead" perhaps a place void of God. It is not a place of eternal punishment.

 

Annihilists believe that Jesus decended into Sheol, opened the gates and anyone who wanted out could leave and receive eternal life. Peter, in his text referred to Jesus decending into Hades. This is an obvious translation from Aramaic "sheol" to Greek "Hades" which are two different concepts.

 

Annihilists are a minority in Christanity. The early Catholic church learned early on the fear of hell was a good avenue to raise money. I believe most of Christiandom has been wrong to use hell (a pagan concept) as a motivator to join the faith.

 

I realize this won't change your concept of the Bible. Your life is better without Christianity and mine is better with it.

[simonpeter]

Thanks thankful. I feel pretty dumb about now. Maybe I should give the koffee time to kick in before I do any "thinking". hehe!

 

Since simon seems so knowlegeable I let myself doubt my own intuition of the bible.

 

I hope I don't come across all knowledgable. I remain an active student searching and praying for wisdom. It took me awhile but about 10 years ago -- when I was 44 -45 years old, I discovered that the world is filled with a lot more people more knowledgable and smarter than I. I'm just trying to catch up.

 

I forgot about cognitive dissonence in the xian animal. hehe!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[John]

simonpeter, then why didn’t you tell us? Of course, you have nothing to substantiate your claims, but I do:

 

21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

I came to the conclusion that hell does not fit Jewish or the character of Jesus.

 

Nor does the Old Testament laws otherwise justify them.

[Checkmate]

I bought into this belief in my first go-around with the faith. I left Chritianity for 35 years.

 

 

Your life is better without Christianity and mine is better with it.

 

 

I'm curious...During the 35 year hiatus, what was your life like? Was it a mess "without" Christ/god? Was it good? Or was it basically the same? Just...life.

 

Can you HONESTLY say that your life has improved with your belief in Jesus as opposed to without?

 

This is not a challenge. I'm truly curious. And please...be honest in your appraisal. (i.e Try not to give "God" credit for random chance and the good things that happen to everyone, no matter WHAT their beliefs.)

[dogmatically_challenged]

simonpeter

I hope I don't come across all knowledgable. I remain an active student searching and praying for wisdom. It took me awhile but about 10 years ago -- when I was 44 -45 years old, I discovered that the world is filled with a lot more people more knowledgable and smarter than I. I'm just trying to catch up.

 

I'd be wiiling to bet that your reasoning abilities and memory are pretty damn decent. I recon your pretty sharp for anyone of any age.

[simonpeter]

I'm curious...During the 35 year hiatus, what was your life like?  Was it a mess "without" Christ/god?  Was it good?  Or was it basically the same?  Just...life.

You'll get a kick out of this. My earlier life as a pretend Christian was more miserable than those 35 years! I didn't come back to the faith because I had reached bottom or anything like that. Had no problems with booze or drugs. I've never been arrested, paid my taxes, etc. Raised three wonderful kids. I don't believe that all 35 years was wasted but they were self-serving.

 

Can you HONESTLY say that your life has improved with your belief in Jesus as opposed to without?

Definately better. I am certainly more at peace. When I returned to my faith I didn't make a big deal of it with my kids. Two live in nearby states and the other in Australia. Over time, each one of them has said that they have seen a change in me for the better.

 

This is not a challenge.  I'm truly curious.  And please...be honest in your appraisal.  (i.e Try not to give "God" credit for random chance and the good things that happen to everyone, no matter WHAT their beliefs.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good and bad things happen to everyone. Both of my parents were faithful, practicing Christians. I watched my father slowly fade away from Lou Gehrig's disease and my mother of Alheimer's. My best friend, my oldest brother, a musician who sought God through music, died in a rafting accident in Utah. Fact of life: shit happens. Of the trophies I've gathered in life I worked hard to earn them. Did God assist? I have no clue. However, I have found that these things to be not a valuable as I thought they were. (big house, new cars, motorcycles, boat, etc.)

[simonpeter]

simonpeter, then why didn’t you tell us? Of course, you have nothing to substantiate your claims, but I do:

 

21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Nor does the Old Testament laws otherwise justify them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The good ol' fire and brimstone passage from Revelations written by your namesake, John (Bar Zebedee). John was clearly a devoted disciple of Jesus but also a mystic. It is the most controversial book and least understood by Christians. I don't understand it. It is too often misused at the pulpet. Many believe John was using metaphors throughout this text describing what already has occured. John's "lake which burneth ..." is obviously a description of Hades, a Greek myth. I think he used it because this belief of Hades was common in the area, among some Jews but prominent with the Gentiles. I believe he used it metaphorically. My take is the first death is physical and the second death separation from God -- the land of the dead, Sheol. Mixed in this John's belief of a final battle between God and Satan (The Rapture) in which many humans will get caught into.

 

My take on the second coming of Jesus is that it has already occured. The first coming was his birth, life and ministry. The second one was his resurrection. Fundamentalists would disagree.

[Vixentrox]

A mystic? Like a witch? Shouldn't he have been put to death for witchcraft then?

[simonpeter]

A mystic?  Like a witch?  Shouldn't he have been put to death for witchcraft then?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Now I know you're pulling a funny cause witches have nothing to do with mysticism. Of course, a mystic is a person who believe they have intimate knowledge of God (usually through visions).

[SOIL]

The whole piece is worth reading, but this parapraph seems of special interest to me :

 

from Hell (an excerpt from the book Fundamentals of the Faith by Peter Kreeft from Ignatius Press :

...

Jesus says the way to hell is broad and many find it and that the way to heaven is narrow and few find it. And he means it: you don't get to heaven simply by being born, by being nice, or by oozing into an eternal growth experience. But "few" here does not mean that less than half of mankind will be saved. For God speaks as our Father, not our statistician. Even one child lost is too many, and the rest saved are too few. The good shepherd who left his ninety-nine sheep safe at home to rescue his one lost sheep found even 99 percent salvation too "few". The most important question about hell, as about heaven, is the practical one: What roads lead there? They are interior, of course. In fact, heaven and hell may be the very same objective place—namely God's love, experienced oppositely by opposite souls, just as the same opera or rock concert can be heavenly for you and hellish for the reluctant guest at your side. The fires of hell may be made of the very love of God, experienced as torture by those who hate him: the very light of God's truth, hated and fled from in vain by those who love darkness. Imagine a man in hell—no, a ghost—endlessly chasing his own shadow, as the light of God shines endlessly behind him. If he would only turn and face the light, he would be saved. But he refuses to—forever. Just as we can attain heaven by implicit as well as explicit faith ("Saint Socrates, pray for us," says Erasmus), so hell too can be reached without explicit rebellion. This is the terrible—and terribly needed—truth taught by C. S. Lewis in The Great Divorce and Charles Williams in Descent into Hell. We can drift, slide, even snooze comfortably into hell. All God's messengers, the prophets, say so.

(I added the bold for emphasis).

 

-Dennis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dennis,

 

You seem a sincere Christian, but all I see here is someone's hermeneutics. These sorts of interpretations and explanations say more about the person who accepts them then it does about any sort of real truth. Other Christians may reject this interpretation in favor of an entirely different one. Are they not as smart as someone who likes this spin, or is it pretty open-ended and really about the individual rather than some god?

 

Have you ever found yourself even the least bit shaken in your understandings of "truth" by how many different takes on these sorts of verses there have been throughout history? It's not a trite thing when I say there is a vast number of ways to interpret these things. I have heard and read so many takes on these ideas, that in the end all you have is a picture of people struggling to make sense of their faith. The Bible is not a true revelation about a god, it's a look at people who believe in one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Antlerman,

 

(First off - I need to apologize for not having read most of the posts in this thread).

 

Since I have been so time-challenged recently - in the case of this thread - I only looked to see if anyone had referred back to the post I made - one where I thought I was introducing an interesting "alternate view" concerning a possible alternate understanding related to the subject of hell - in fact both created and not created by a loving God.

 

I agree with some of what you have said Antlerman (concerning how worthy of note is the fact there are so many different views about various important subjects dealt with in the pages of the Bible).

 

However, I would think some of the people here, who are obviously more intelligent than "the masses", might wish to give special attention to some of the particular views which have been held by the supposedly comparatively few self proclaiming Christians who are generally considered to have similarly high levels of intelligence at their disposal. For instance, in the case of the view I brought to your attention -- C.S. Lewis discusses this view, and also Peter Kreeft - and I think each of these people's views may be more worthy of discussion (in this esteemed forum, by these esteemed contributors) in comparison perhaps to some of the views you folks often spend more of your time discussing and/or bashing?

 

-Dennis

[NotBlinded]

However, I would think some of the people here,  who are obviously more intelligent than "the masses", might wish to to give special attention to some of the particular views which have been held by the supposedly comparatively few self proclaiming Christians who are generally considered to have similarly high levels of intelligence at their disposal.  For instance, in the case of the view I brought to your attention  -- C.S. Lewis discusses this view, and also Peter Kreeft - and I think each of these people's views may be more worthy of discussion (in this esteemed forum, by these esteemed contributors) in comparison perhaps to some of the views you folks often spend more of your time discussing and/or bashing?

 

-Dennis

 

Stop suckin' up will ya!

[SOIL]

Stop suckin' up will ya! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I render my respect where I think it is due!

 

-Dennis

[John]

I believe he used it metaphorically. My take is the first death is physical and the second death separation from God -- the land of the dead, Sheol. Mixed in this John's belief of a final battle between God and Satan (The Rapture) in which many humans will get caught into.

 

Uh, this verse isn’t a metaphor. Your interpretation isn’t even similar, i.e., it’s your gibberish mumbo jumbo!

 

and the second death separation from God

 

Uh, where is the similarity between what you said and this:

 

“have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone”

 

or here:

 

5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

 

What is the metaphor for “hell fire”?

 

13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

What is the metaphor for “furnace of fire” and “wailing and gnashing of teeth”?

 

or these two:

 

20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 

20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

 

And why did you skirt the Old Testament laws? How does this fit with the character of Jesus?

[Kryten]

Suppose you discover that hell is not a creation of God; that, it is a creation of a being, an evil who is only concerned with torturing and murdering mankind. Would your opinion of God change?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow! 16 pages and 7(?) different topics in one thread!

 

I have thoughts on some of the tangents, but I have about 40 seconds and want to address the original question...

 

Does it matter WHO created hell? Let's say a judge finds a person guilty and SENTENCES them to soak in an acid bath made by some commercial manufacturer for doing engine overhauls. It is IRRELIVANT who made the device-- the important part is that someone decided to punish another using that device. Who cares who made hell (although it was God if they both actually existed), the evil part is that God would actually send people there.

 

(Okay, that took longer than I hoped)