There is a lot of argument regarding hell and the idea of some god which can put large groups of individuals there.
Q: Where did heaven and hell teaching originate?
(Two answers Linked below)
http://ift.tt/1l2Tkgz
http://ift.tt/Nfe2vm
Words have been attributed to Jesus which speak about this place.
Some believe hell is a real place. Hell exists and consists of Eternal Fire and Punishment. Some also think of "The Bottomless Pit" as being hell. "The Place of Torment" as part of the display of "Wrath of [a particular idea of] God" and is also seen as something called "Second Death" "Eternal Destruction" "Unquenchable Fire" "Eternal Worms" "Lake of Fire and Brimstone" and " a place Prepared for the Devil and his angels"
On a purely human mind level where vengeance is pursued within such minds and on occasion enacted out into the world, hell can be seen to be an invention of such minded folk. So too then can their idea of god.
The problem with the whole concept of hell as a real place were a real god places real individuals is that it places human beings at the mercy of what can only be understood as 'something completely bonkers'.
This is no new argument of course.
It also reflects the attitudes of those who believe such a thing of a god and can be assumed to some degree that even if the nature of that individual promoting such belief is outwardly 'good' the inner workings of that personality must be corrupted and the outward 'good' is no more or less than pretense, no matter how loving the smile is.
Such a personality should not be trusted.
One problem with this is that since Jesus is attributed with being the one who said the bulk of things about 'hell' in the bible, then his personality cannot be trusted, thus anything else he had to say also cannot be trusted.
The weakness in that argument is that the words 'love one another' are not in themselves evil or necessarily untrustworthy. When Jesus speaks [is attributed with having said the words] about love and forgiveness but also speaks [is attributed with having said the words] of hell and damnation, the words 'Love one another' do not become a redundant thing of themselves. The are still relevant.
What is also relevant is that the character Jesus becomes suspect.
But then this is only based on the way the concept of Hell has evolved. It seems Jesus was not the inventor of the concept. It seems that the concept itself originally did not have anything to do with eternal torment.
Thus, even if Jesus was a real individual, and did speak of hell because people knew what hell meant, he would have been speaking within the terms of that general understanding of what hell meant at the time.
The "eternal torment" bits could just as easily have been added later on as more and more of those kind of folk with minds which loved to contemplate the suffering of those they believed deserved such (wishful thinking) and notably the atrocities of Christendom over history which confirm such folk not only enjoyed such concepts but equally enjoyed those pockets of times through history when they could actually apply such conceptualization into their world and practice tormenting the helpless for real.
All in the name of their god idea.
One problem I see here is also that one does not have to be religious to have such attitudes as those who believe in hell as some fiery eternal damnation.
It seems to me that a just idea of god would be something which gives individuals a number of chances to get it right in relation to their personal existence and if it is inevitable that those individuals simply don;t like existence and act out that dislike in the many ways this is possible, then *delete* seems the most merciful way to put them out of their projected misery.
The existence of hell as a reality makes no particular worthwhile sense except in relation to those types of human beings and their types of ideas of god.
Q: Where did heaven and hell teaching originate?
(Two answers Linked below)
http://ift.tt/1l2Tkgz
http://ift.tt/Nfe2vm
Words have been attributed to Jesus which speak about this place.
Some believe hell is a real place. Hell exists and consists of Eternal Fire and Punishment. Some also think of "The Bottomless Pit" as being hell. "The Place of Torment" as part of the display of "Wrath of [a particular idea of] God" and is also seen as something called "Second Death" "Eternal Destruction" "Unquenchable Fire" "Eternal Worms" "Lake of Fire and Brimstone" and " a place Prepared for the Devil and his angels"
On a purely human mind level where vengeance is pursued within such minds and on occasion enacted out into the world, hell can be seen to be an invention of such minded folk. So too then can their idea of god.
The problem with the whole concept of hell as a real place were a real god places real individuals is that it places human beings at the mercy of what can only be understood as 'something completely bonkers'.
This is no new argument of course.
It also reflects the attitudes of those who believe such a thing of a god and can be assumed to some degree that even if the nature of that individual promoting such belief is outwardly 'good' the inner workings of that personality must be corrupted and the outward 'good' is no more or less than pretense, no matter how loving the smile is.
Such a personality should not be trusted.
One problem with this is that since Jesus is attributed with being the one who said the bulk of things about 'hell' in the bible, then his personality cannot be trusted, thus anything else he had to say also cannot be trusted.
The weakness in that argument is that the words 'love one another' are not in themselves evil or necessarily untrustworthy. When Jesus speaks [is attributed with having said the words] about love and forgiveness but also speaks [is attributed with having said the words] of hell and damnation, the words 'Love one another' do not become a redundant thing of themselves. The are still relevant.
What is also relevant is that the character Jesus becomes suspect.
But then this is only based on the way the concept of Hell has evolved. It seems Jesus was not the inventor of the concept. It seems that the concept itself originally did not have anything to do with eternal torment.
Thus, even if Jesus was a real individual, and did speak of hell because people knew what hell meant, he would have been speaking within the terms of that general understanding of what hell meant at the time.
The "eternal torment" bits could just as easily have been added later on as more and more of those kind of folk with minds which loved to contemplate the suffering of those they believed deserved such (wishful thinking) and notably the atrocities of Christendom over history which confirm such folk not only enjoyed such concepts but equally enjoyed those pockets of times through history when they could actually apply such conceptualization into their world and practice tormenting the helpless for real.
All in the name of their god idea.
One problem I see here is also that one does not have to be religious to have such attitudes as those who believe in hell as some fiery eternal damnation.
It seems to me that a just idea of god would be something which gives individuals a number of chances to get it right in relation to their personal existence and if it is inevitable that those individuals simply don;t like existence and act out that dislike in the many ways this is possible, then *delete* seems the most merciful way to put them out of their projected misery.
The existence of hell as a reality makes no particular worthwhile sense except in relation to those types of human beings and their types of ideas of god.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1l2TkgB
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire