How can Hell be torture, painful and scary?

[Ssel]

Not only was I NOT the one who brought up racism, but I was talking about the causes of HELL.

 

When racism was brought up, I explained how that is EXACTLY related to ETERNAL HELL.

 

And that is also exactly what was meant by it in the Bible - racism and all other limited over emotional concerns.

 

I WAS ON TOPIC.

 

 

..not to mention that this IS the Lion's Den.

[Mike D]

And where does it say hell is run by Satan to punish sinners? If that's the case, isn't Satan really just doing god's dirty work? What would happen if Satan decided to reward sinners instead of torturing them?

This is a good point. And to take this a bit further......what makes Satan evil is not that he does "bad" (because we all know how relative "bad" is in the Bible), it's because he disobeys God. Right? So if it is good and moral for God to torture us, then wouldn't it also be good and moral for Satan to carry it out? Seems if Satan wants to continue being evil, he'll have no choice but to not torture us and make it fun for us. Why would Satan suddenly start being "good" and "moral" and obeying God just because he's in hell?

[Ssel]

And where does it say hell is run by Satan to punish sinners? If that's the case, isn't Satan really just doing god's dirty work? What would happen if Satan decided to reward sinners instead of torturing them?

This is a good point. And to take this a bit further......what makes Satan evil is not that he does "bad" (because we all know how relative "bad" is in the Bible), it's because he disobeys God. Right? So if it is good and moral for God to torture us, then wouldn't it also be good and moral for Satan to carry it out? Seems if Satan wants to continue being evil, he'll have no choice but to not torture us and make it fun for us. Why would Satan suddenly start being "good" and "moral" and obeying God just because he's in hell?

If you read the Bible as merely a literal thing, then most of this would be right.

 

The problem is only that you miss the point until you understand that Hell is not some ghostly, mystical place where you go after you die. Satan is not a person. And the entire issue is not about punishments, but natural consequences of allowing your behavior to cause a troubled future for the things that you care about.

 

It is exactly the same as saying "Don't vote for this law or behave too criminally because your children will end up suffering from it. And if you allow the goverance to gain the wrong kind of control, then they will never be able to escape."

[Ssel]

Um, you need to go back to YOUR post #48, you most certainly did too.

So to you mentioning a word in proper context directly related to the topic at hand is what you call "making an issue" or "raising the new topic" or distracting the topic".

 

All because you didn't like that it might imply something so you don't like.

 

Fine, so noted.

 

Please let me know about all other words that can't be said on this site regardless of the topic so we can all get along. Censorships can't work if you don't let people know what words you are censoring.

 

And how about just PM your hate card to me so that YOU don't distract the thread - again.

[Taphophilia]

Is it just me, or does Levi's sig look like a couple of lovers after having some hot and heavy sex?

 

 

[Mike D]

If you read the Bible as merely a literal thing, then most of this would be right.

 

The problem is only that you miss the point until you understand that Hell is not some ghostly, mystical place where you go after you die. Satan is not a person. And the entire issue is not about punishments, but natural consequences of allowing your behavior to cause a troubled future for the things that you care about.

It's almost impossible to "miss the point" in the Bible or misunderstand it, because the Bible can be interepreted just about any old way you like. Some people take it literally, some people take it figuratively. Some people do neither, but "let the spirit guide them". Since AGF made his statement in a literal context I just added to that.

 

At the end of the day though this is really all a moot point unless you believe the Bible is anything other than bronze-age mythology, which I do not.

[SkepticOfBible]

Yet you so gleefully bash the white male when he is using that same doctrine with the addition of a "Prince of Peace" addendum?

 

Show me where did I "bash the white male about his doctine"

 

Or are you merely emotionally blinded hell raising puppets of the wealthiest, most manipulative, racists on the planet?

 

gee, I thought the Muslims were the wealthist ones on the earth, with all that oil. And as far for my understanding goes, non arabs are denied citizenship in their country, even if one is born there.

 

even while they build the 4th largest military might

 

i am pretty sure you'll a need good army to defend oneself in hostile environment

 

The real reason that the US ended up declaring war on Iraq, was because Israel wanted it. Iraq HAD the 4th largest military.

Which war would that be the first one(where Saddam invaded Kuwait) or the second one (when Iraq had no army)?

 

 

It seems you would be more interested in attacking ALL false doctrines, and most especially the ones who attached their genetic race to them. These would mostly be Jews, the Muslims, and SOME of the protestants.

Yes, I am skeptical about Doctrines which claim to be infallible and claim to come from a divine being.

 

And frankly I don't care about the genetic race part

 

I conceded that some Jews are racist, but I also pointed that this sort of racism is not necessirily limited to just Jews.

 

Whereas you are making a extraordinary claim that all Jews are racist?

 

And if you want to label OT as racist, well I have shown to you that NT isn't immune from that either.

 

Btw, doesn't over defending one genetic race over another make you a racist?

yes, and anybody who does that is stupid, including the fundie jew

[Ssel]

It's almost impossible to "miss the point" in the Bible or misunderstand it, because the Bible can be interepreted just about any old way you like.

I don't see how you can say that something can be interpreted anyway you like and also say that no one is going to miss the point.

 

The fact that many Chinese misunderstand English means that English has no proper understanding to it??

 

What does the fact that many people misunderstand something have to do with whether it actually has an understanding? And, btw, the Catholics would disagree with very little of what I understand of the Bible. But they would strongly dislike me saying it.

 

-----

 

So has anyone figured out the hell conundrum yet? How many hells, outer darkness, lake of fire, who runs it, etc? Hell is still confusing - ..

 

Darkness = blind ignorance

Fire = impassioned conflict

 

Who runs it = Anyone who can keep it eternally going. Keep the outer people swimming with blind passionate issues which conflict with the others (somewhat of a burning bush kind of thing).

 

But the question is, now that you have it, how are you going to FIX IT?

[Ssel]

Whereas you are making a extraordinary claim that all Jews are racist?

The Jews claim the OT as their GENETIC rite. THEY are the ones who said their genetic race was the favored one.

 

The OT really wasn't talking in terms of genetic races. The Jews chose to make it that way. Jesus tried to point out to love ALL, even your enemy.

 

The issue of Heaven or Hell after you die is related to your "soul"

 

The Jews chose to accept that the soul was merely a family linage and wealth thing.

 

Jesus was trying to point out that your soul was far more than that.

[Asimov]

Whereas you are making a extraordinary claim that all Jews are racist?

The Jews claim the OT as their GENETIC rite. THEY are the ones who said their genetic race was the favored one.

 

The OT really wasn't talking in terms of genetic races. The Jews chose to make it that way. Jesus tried to point out to love ALL, even your enemy.

 

The issue of Heaven or Hell after you die is related to your "soul"

 

The Jews chose to accept that the soul was merely a family linage and wealth thing.

 

Jesus was trying to point out that your soul was far more than that.

 

Yea, but Jesus was stupid, so there you go.

[Mike D]

I don't see how you can say that something can be interpreted anyway you like and also say that no one is going to miss the point.

 

The fact that many Chinese misunderstand English means that English has no proper understanding to it??

 

What does the fact that many people misunderstand something have to do with whether it actually has an understanding? And, btw, the Catholics would disagree with very little of what I understand of the Bible. But they would strongly dislike me saying it.

I can say that because that's what I said. When Jesus says to hate your family if you want to be one of his disciples, I can interpret that to mean I should hate my family, and if I hate my family then I haven't missed the point. Likewise I can also intepret that to mean I should love Jesus more than I love my family and if I love Jesus more than my family than I haven't missed the point. Then again I can also interpret it to mean it doesn't apply to us today as he was only talking to his disciples at that time and place when he was alive, and so I haven't missed the point. Who are you to tell me (or anyone else for that matter) that i've misunderstood something in the Bible and therefore have missed the point?

 

You do realize that one of the reasons there are so many different denominations of Christianity all claiming different "truths" from the same source document is the result of interpreting things how they like and then claiming that all the others have missed the point, don't you? Gee, if there's only one correct meaning and only one point to be derived, then maybe you can tell us which ones have the correct "truth" and then educate the others on what they are doing wrong? I am sure the Pentecostals would love for you to demonstrate to them how the holy spirit is giving them incorrect interpretations of the truth, then you can show them how to correctly do this

 

By the way, this discussion really isn't necessary. I responded to AGF's original post, and whether his understanding of hell or my understanding of hell complies with your understanding of hell really doesn't matter. We all know there isn't a real place called hell or a dude called Satan, so for anyone to want to start a heated debate over what I said seems rather pointless.

[Ouroboros]

Ssel, you are the worst kind of idiot. I'm getting tired of you constantly derailing threads with your irrelevant postings. We're talking about the impossibility of hell, and now you're going off on the 'Jewry' - again.

 

Mods, can we get a warning here? Seriously, every time he posts Ssel tries to completely derail the thread to one of his pet obsessions.

 

So back to the thread - how can hell be torture, painful and scary?

Since it is the Lion's Den I'm letting this sidetracking slide.

 

Regarding the racial statements I think Ssel is a bit out of line.

 

We have had this discussion before, and this is where the problem is:

 

To be a Jew is two fold. First, you are a Jew, in genetically and biological term, from birth, and secondly you are a person of the Jewish faith.

 

Being born a Jew (I'm not a Jewish descent, but I know many Jews, and have many Jewish friends) doesn't mean you automatically would be a believer of the Jewish faith. There has been and are in our world many agnostic, atheist and even *shudder* Christian Jews. Which with Ssel's illustration would make the inference that Jewish Christians is a racist religion too. The same would go for a Swedish family being Christian and their kids would become Christian, that would make the Swedish Christians a race issue, because they believe that only Swedish Christians can go to heaven. I mean, it's a stupid association. Jews don't go to Heaven because they're Jewish by birth, they don't even go to Heaven. Many don't believe in Heaven or Hell. If they did believe in Heaven, it would be (according to their faith) because of what they believe and which religion they belong to, not because of what blood type they have.

 

The Jewish faith is about to bring the Word of God to the world. The OT describes Israel be selected to be the voice of God in the world, not being the only salvable people.

 

Secondly, anyone can become a Jew by converting to the religion. Does that change the genetic code? So now all of a sudden, your genetic structure have been modified to be a Jewish DNA because you converted to Judaism?

 

Btw, there are no "Jewish race" anyway. The Jewish blood has been mixed up with other "races" in the world and every single one of them look like any America white boy and girl. They have blue, green or brown eyes. Blond, red or dark hair. They are short, tall, fat and slim. Just like everyone else. Maybe the only true difference I have noticed with the "Jews" is that a huge majority of them are extremely intelligent. And just to be proactive here, if the question about Jews running the world and being the richest in the world and being untrustworthy in business and stuff, I can tell from facts and experience that it is extremely far from the truth. They don't run the world, they are not the richest in the world, and make huge mistakes in business and some of them can't handle money and 99 of 100 I have met have been the best people I've met in my life.

 

And also, the Jewish faith follows the "Jewish" families of the same reasons why the Christian faith follows the Christian families. The Parents give the faith through culture and environmental pressure to the kids. Heritage and blood has nothing to do with it.

 

The question about different "Human races" bugs me a lot, since Christians love to dwell in differences of black, Jewish, white races, when with the same breath they claim evolution can't have happened, but God created all races. So the question would be (but not in this thread), when and where did God create new human races? The Bible doesn't tell that.

 

So if Jews are a different race, then evolution must have happened, or the human race was created, but then Jews are not a different race! You! Christian of the Christian race! Make up your mind!

 

To sum it up:

1. You can become a Jew by converting, which doesn't change you blood type

2. And there are Jews by birth that don't believe in the Jewish religion, and not going to be saved to Heaven

3. Many people of the Jewish faith don't believe in Heaven or Hell anyway, so they don't see they will be saved to Heaven because they're "Jews by birth"

4. And there are really no "Jewish" race. And there is no Black race, or white race. But there is a Human race.

 

With this, I seriously want everyone to drop the discussion about the racial issues of the Jewish religion. If you discuss the Jewish faith, say so, and talk only about that, but don't bring in race into it.

[Ssel]

Much of what you have stated there, is logically and technically not accurate, but as you said...let it slide.

 

What I see as a far more serious problem is not the racist issue, but rather the hyper-reactive response to someone merely mentioning something as a fact in the midst of a proper on topic issue.

 

The person hyper-reacting then "derails" the topic into nothing but an irrational emotional exchange with acusation of hatred and efforts to create a "stoning".

 

If you disallow something to be said simply because someone might get offended, then in the long run, nothing can be said and the same arguing continues anyway. This has been proven in America over the last 35 years.

 

Censoring words, censors information. Censoring information, censors truth. Censoring truth causes ignorance and wars that had no need to be.

 

I mentioned a thought, the hyper-reaction came from specific others. The hyper-reaction is not being corrected in your post. You have supported, instead, mere censoring of certain thoughts.

[Asimov]

I see no censorship, only the request that you talk about things on topic in your own thread.

[Ouroboros]

Ssel, you completely mix up what an actions of censorship would be compared to that me (and others) express opinions. Now it happens that our opinions are contrary to yours. But that is not censorship.

 

If I had censored you, I would have removed your post. You would have noticed it, far more than you did. You would have gotten warnings, removed posts and maybe banning from the site. Which I'm not going to do.

 

Instead, I took the correct way according to free speech, I expressed my opinions.

 

Doesn't free speech mean that both sides express what they want to say? Or does it mean that only you have the right to express racial ideas, and no one can refute you?

 

FYI, I hate racism. ... so tread lightly...

[SkepticOfBible]

Much of what you have stated there, is logically and technically not accurate, but as you said...let it slide.

You are most welcome to your opinions, no matter how extreme they are.

 

But in all the post you have neither presented any technical data for your assertions, if you want to be considered to be true. Untill then they are unproven opinions.

 

It is in my opinion that you have also resorted to many logical fallacies in your debate such as sweeping generalization and wrong correlation.

 

I do however apologise to you and the thread started for diverting the issue

 

Peace

 

Pritish

[Ssel]

Doesn't free speech mean that both sides express what they want to say? Or does it mean that only you have the right to express racial ideas, and no one can refute you?

 

FYI, I hate racism. ... so tread lightly...

I have already explained that I seriously don't like racism either. I explained why.

 

But I also explained how it is that it gets caused - by over defending one race over another. This is what you do when you hyper=react to the defense of one particular race despite their doctrines.

 

Hans, you said the "Thou shalt not speak of.." part. How is that free speech??

 

 

The race is being over defended despite their doctrines.

Certain thoughts are being forbidden from being even mentioned.

 

THESE are the cause of social oppression, dictatorships, mind control efforts, everything that Freedom tries to fight against.

 

Yet these are the things that you are doing, not me.

 

I spoke of the doctrines involved and made mere mention in one line that the "all sacred, shall not be spoken of" race mistook a word and caused themselves to become a that "dirty word".

 

And then look what followed from merely the mention of a thought.

- instant derailing of the topic by those who responded to merely that one line, totally forgetting everything else being said.

- accusations of hatred against that race. Nothing even slightly negative can be said against that one race without being instantly accused of being a "hater".

- I am then told that "Ssel, you are out of line" and the subject may not spoken of.

- I am accused of the one doing the derailing, not the hyper-reactive defense team.

 

These are exactly what defines extremism and oppression. YOU are being the cause of the very thing that you say you hate so much.

 

The race is being over defended despite their doctrines.

Certain thoughts are being forbidden from being even mentioned.

 

Just how does that constitute freedom for anybody unless they obey the required thought? Where does that leave the truth but hidden behind a defense of hyper emotionalism and forbidden thoughts.

 

The magic of the burning bush is about how to cause burning hell all about, while you remain feigning innocence, protected in the center by the burning passions of all others.

[MQTA]

and I thought racists were into Nascar

[crazy-tiger]

Doesn't free speech mean that both sides express what they want to say? Or does it mean that only you have the right to express racial ideas, and no one can refute you?

 

FYI, I hate racism. ... so tread lightly...

I have already explained that I seriously don't like racism either. I explained why.

 

But I also explained how it is that it gets caused - by over defending one race over another. This is what you do when you hyper=react to the defense of one particular race despite their doctrines.

 

Hans, you said the "Thou shalt not speak of.." part. How is that free speech??

 

 

The race is being over defended despite their doctrines.

Stop there, and understand that race does not equal religion.

Certain thoughts are being forbidden from being even mentioned.

 

THESE are the cause of social oppression, dictatorships, mind control efforts, everything that Freedom tries to fight against.

 

Yet these are the things that you are doing, not me.

 

I spoke of the doctrines involved and made mere mention in one line that the "all sacred, shall not be spoken of" race mistook a word and caused themselves to become a that "dirty word".

 

And then look what followed from merely the mention of a thought.

- instant derailing of the topic by those who responded to merely that one line, totally forgetting everything else being said.

- accusations of hatred against that race. Nothing even slightly negative can be said against that one race without being instantly accused of being a "hater".

- I am then told that "Ssel, you are out of line" and the subject may not spoken of.

- I am accused of the one doing the derailing, not the hyper-reactive defense team.

 

These are exactly what defines extremism and oppression. YOU are being the cause of the very thing that you say you hate so much.

 

The race is being over defended despite their doctrines.

Certain thoughts are being forbidden from being even mentioned.

 

Just how does that constitute freedom for anybody unless they obey the required thought? Where does that leave the truth but hidden behind a defense of hyper emotionalism and forbidden thoughts.

Where is the truth when you cannot distinguish between someone's race and their religion? The Jewish religion is racist, true... but the Jewish race is not, no more than any other race.

 

 

Kindly get it through your skull... RELIGION IS NOT RACE!

[Ouroboros]

Ssel, let me explain why racism and expression of differences of races are a very touchy subject on this site. We have members of different "races" here, and we have had similar discussion before, and we had members leave because of this. I'm not going to let history repeat itself, so just be careful, because if the subject of racial issues become too heated, then I do have to censor what is said and posted.

[Ouroboros]

Hans, you said the "Thou shalt not speak of.." part. How is that free speech??

And you telling me not to tell you not to, how is that free speech?

 

Or me telling you not to tell me not to tell you not to say anything racial?

 

Or you telling me telling you telling me...

 

How is this not free speech?

 

We are both talking, and saying what we want, isn't that speech?

 

In my mind, censorship is the day when I would go in and delete your post and edit your posts, without confronting you about it, or telling you why.

 

You are extremely touchy too, since I can't tell you to stop the racial angle on the subject without you being upset and calling it censorship.

 

But okay, let's call it censorship, and hereby I'm censoring you by telling you to shut up about racial differences. M'kay? By the way, no one promised you that we would not do any censoring here on the site. We do when we need to.

 

When it comes to sensitive subjects, like sexism, racism, political opinion, etc, you have to be very smooth and extremely cautious how you say things. And so far, you have been as limber as a refridgerator when talking about some of these subjects, even if you might be right people still can't understand it, because "how" things are said are just as important as "what" is being said.

[All Gods Fail]

So anyway, now that Ssel's managed to derail the thread YET AGAIN with his ridiculous obsessions about Jews, let me restate the OP:

 

How can Hell be torture, painful and scary? And who is this "Me" that's going to get punished?

 

And before you get all pissy again about this, Ssel, let me explain the topic: Xtianity implies hell is a literal place, as well as 'the outer darkness', and the lake of fire. It is this the topic refers too.

 

If your opinion is that that these places are all supposed to be metaphorical, fine. Noted. We get it.

 

Also, what exactly is the part of us that's supposed to be suffering this eternal torment? Obviously not our bodies, because we'll be dead spirits or souls or whatever. So what exactly will be burning/suffering/weeping?

 

And let's leave the Jews out of it - this is a completely Xtian doctrine.

[Ssel]

And you telling me not to tell you not to, how is that free speech?

It is an issue of which is the authority. If a common man starts a fight and then tries to blame another, ti's one thing. When a policeman starts a fight and tries to blame another, it a very different and far more dangerous thing.

 

When it comes to sensitive subjects, like sexism, racism, political opinion, etc, you have to be very smooth and extremely cautious how you say things.

Did you look at that post #48? Notblinded and I had to reread it, looking for where the word was even used at all.

 

But who singled it out and made it into the subject of discussion? Who really derailed the topic with multiple cases of returning to that one subject rather ignoring the attempts made to get back on track by several people.

 

Very few people read past one or 2 sentences of what I say and certainly not with any grand concern over it. If one line had not been singled out so as to make that one word the subject of discussion, then hardly anyone would have even noticed at all and it wouldn't be an issue now.

 

The "heat" was generated by the defense team by dropping the topic and focusing on the one obscure use. When the use was calmly explained, it still wasn't dropped. The heat was fanned by the defense team. This same defense team does the same thing over and over building a fire, then blaming the other.

 

pritishd had the honor to appologize to you. I hope it was sincere.

 

Your blaming the wrong party. Using the threat of authority is what makes it different than mere free speech.

[crazy-tiger]

When it comes to sensitive subjects, like sexism, racism, political opinion, etc, you have to be very smooth and extremely cautious how you say things.

Did you look at that post #48? Notblinded and I had to reread it, looking for where the word was even used at all.

 

But who singled it out and made it into the subject of discussion? Who really derailed the topic with multiple cases of returning to that one subject rather ignoring the attempts made to get back on track by several people.

 

Very few people read past one or 2 sentences of what I say and certainly not with any grand concern over it. If one line had not been singled out so as to make that one word the subject of discussion, then hardly anyone would have even noticed at all and it wouldn't be an issue now.

 

The "heat" was generated by the defense team by dropping the topic and focusing on the one obscure use. When the use was calmly explained, it still wasn't dropped. The heat was fanned by the defense team. This same defense team does the same thing over and over building a fire, then blaming the other.

The explaination relied on the use of the Jewish religion to paint the Jewish race as racist... As I stated before, the religion is not the race. Jews who are other religions is enough to prove that one, yet you persist in equating the Jewish race with the Jewish religion.

 

What did you state?

The race is being over defended despite their doctrines.

Note that... note the use of "race" (encompassing ALL people of Jewish descent no matter what their religion) and "doctrine"... (the Jewish religion... which doesn't include all those of Jewish descent)

You've swapped between 2 different groups and proclaiming one racist on the basis of what the other does.

 

What you have done is as correct as me saying that since males are in the KKK, you must be in the KKK... and it's just as offensive.

pritishd had the honor to appologize to you. I hope it was sincere.

 

Your blaming the wrong party. Using the threat of authority is what makes it different than mere free speech.

If someone persists in being offensive, what should we do? Let them carry on, or take a stand?

 

 

 

By the way... why did you bring up the Jewish religion when it's got sweet f.a. to do with hell?

[Ssel]

There is something called “the peace of death”. This is referring to the peace found by dying.

 

There is something else called “the death of peace”. This is referring to the death caused by too much peace.

 

When something is totally ignored, it fades into the obscure past and has no life. Everyone knows that if you don’t want something to be thought about, then you ignore it.

 

If Darwin had been totally ignored, then the thought of evolution would have disappeared into the forgotten past. But reality has a way of not caring how often you ignore it, it returns eventually anyway. If Darwin had been ignored, eventually someone else would have raised the subject again.

 

The foundation concern of science is to reveal every aspect of reality to the most minute detail. In this, the pursuit is to become Holy in the technical sense, not the worshipful sense. For this, I admire science greatly.

 

Science, Darwin, and very many others have fought great battles for the right to speak of what others didn’t want to hear. They fought against the very same “thou shall not speak of” rules that are being imposed. They fought against the emotionalism and hysteria.

 

Thinking is destroyed by emotionalism. I have been told time and time again that the people on this site are, or at least wish to be, thinkers. But in the environment of emotionalism, thinking can not progress.

 

If you want the real truth to be revealed, the then emotionalism must be fought, not the proposed facts. Reality will always kick anyone ass when it is ignored very long.

 

Support science and reality, correct the emotionalist. Not the ones who merely speak of what others do not want to hear.

 

If Darwin had been oppressed in the manner that you have proposed, then evolution theories would not exist today. You’re supporting the very thing that you’re fighting.

 

Back on TOPIC.. (again) (and thank you, Serenity)

The bible also speaks of god destroying both body and soul so I'm not sure what would be getting eternally tortured if those two things are destroyed.

This is correct. The idea of an eternal hell does NOT apply to all people. Those Christians who claim that it does have simply been incorrect.

 

The Jewish use of "abyss", "the outer darkness" and such are more easily related to modern understandings. The "Hell" is still referring to a real thing. It is merely misrepresented by many SCC.