Jesus on the Gospel, not any Christian Church, and the Afterlife

[KerimF]

Hi,
 
This topic is for the atheists and the formal Christians (followers of a certain Christian Church/Denomination) who didn’t have the chance to read Jesus saying on the today’s Gospel seriously (as we read a scientific book).
 
Jesus used to refer to what is known (in the far past till now) as Hell by using the expression ‘The Everlasting Fire’. But the real practical meaning of this expression opposes, since always, the main interests of the powerful rich Elite (religious or political) anywhere in the world.
 
First, let us revise what the common point could be in Jesus' sayings (below) that describe the ‘Hell Fire’:
[1] “And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”
[2] “Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.”
[3] “As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.”
[4] “Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.”
[5] “If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”

I personally don’t see any sign of torture in these clear sayings above... right? They are just about burning things that are no more useful.
 
On the other hand, one can also find sayings in which Jesus refers to hell as a place of torture. But Jesus didn’t give any real example of this torture as he did for the 'Everlasting Fire’ (which burns non-useful things in order to return them back to their raw state).
Unfortunately, these sayings had to be added on the Gospel because they go with the interests of all powerful rich masters in order for them to better control their multitudes. And only some of these masters had an interest and the means to print and distribute the Gospel from one generation to another.
After all, most adults, as most kids, are used to believe (based on their instincts of applying justice, not love, towards others) that they also deserve being punished, in one way or another (including torture), if they work against the will of their masters, also against the will of their Creator who is presented to them officially as being a supernatural ruling king. In other words, the Creator (known by theists in general) has to also limit himself by his own law which he has to apply on his subjects (a law which differs from one religion to another).
 
Conclusion:
As revealed by Jesus on the Gospel, whoever couldn’t live, anytime in his life, the Unconditional Love towards all others (no matter if they are good or evil), he will simply return back, after the death of his living body, to his state of ‘nothing’ (his state before birth).
 
Isn’t it good news for everyone?
 
Cheers,
Kerim

[The Valkyrie]

ExceptJesus is a fictional character.

[KerimF]

ExceptJesus is a fictional character.

You are right because any person who is mentioned on a history book could be seen by some people as being a fictional character (partially or fully).

It happens, being a rational independent observer, I simply agree with what Jesus (a fictional character or not) who is mentioned on the historical book, called the Gospel', says about Hell which simply means returning back to the raw state (the state before one's birth).

[The Valkyrie]

Non existence, you mean.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

ExceptJesus is a fictional character.

You are right because any person who is mentioned on a history book could be seen by some people as being a fictional character (partially or fully).

It happens, being a rational independent observer, I simply agree with what Jesus (a fictional character or not) who is mentioned on the historical book, called the Gospel', says about Hell which simply means returning back to the raw state (the state before one's birth).

The Gospels are not history.

The above, as well as your earlier post, are simply one more way for theists to claim that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Luke could have included a passage reading something like, 'And the Lord did go among the reeds and rushes by the roadside. There did He squatteth and take Him a huge dump, and it stinketh', and your ilk would insist that it was a chaste and holy allegory referring to the rewards of heaven or how to deal with false prophets or price controls on flummery pie.

The Jesus Editorial Board invented the Hell Christians are so concerned with. They didn't invent nothingness as a consequence of sin.

Boru

[KerimF]

Non existence, you mean.

If you mean Jesus didn't exist, his existence being real or not doesn't make any difference of what I discovered and know. I simply mentioned Jesus here because what I know about 'Hell' of the afterlife, it was mentioned already on the Gospel by the character which was called Jesus by certain writers.

I also keep believing whatever I personally discovered and know of scientific theories, even if their first authors will be proved being not real.
For instance, I even discovered and applied certain scientific ideas (when I was much younger) that, in all today's universities, are supposed non-existent.

In fact, any discovery starts with one person only (which is usually useful to him in the least) while the entire human population ignores it.

Anyway, you don't have to be worried because you will never hear what I said here about 'hell' from any source approved by the powerful rich World's Elite, theists or atheists.

[KerimF]

You are right because any person who is mentioned on a history book could be seen by some people as being a fictional character (partially or fully).

It happens, being a rational independent observer, I simply agree with what Jesus (a fictional character or not) who is mentioned on the historical book, called the Gospel', says about Hell which simply means returning back to the raw state (the state before one's birth).

The Gospels are not history.

The above, as well as your earlier post, are simply one more way for theists to claim that the Bible doesn't mean what it says. Luke could have included a passage reading something like, 'And the Lord did go among the reeds and rushes by the roadside. There did He squatteth and take Him a huge dump, and it stinketh', and your ilk would insist that it was a chaste and holy allegory referring to the rewards of heaven or how to deal with false prophets or price controls on flummery pie.

The Jesus Editorial Board invented the Hell Christians are so concerned with. They didn't invent nothingness as a consequence of sin.

Boru

Sorry, I couldn't get well your point.

Anyway, do you mean you heard what I said about 'hell' from another source, mainly a Christian one?!

[Kingpin]

I may be completely obtuse, but Kerim I'm not following your point. Your subsequent posts are not adding to the clarity either. Others have claimed Jesus is a fictional person, which you accept and still stick to using Him and this good news. It would be no different than quoting what Gandalf said in Lord of the Rings.

If you want to make an argument about something, you need to build a base that can withstand some scrutiny. I of course would argue against Jesus being fictional as there are non-biblical references to Christ, like Tacitus, Mara Bar-Serapion and Phlegon (quoted by Julius Africanus).

[Mister Agenda]

I may be completely obtuse, but Kerim I'm not following your point.  Your subsequent posts are not adding to the clarity either.  Others have claimed Jesus is a fictional person, which you accept and still stick to using Him and this good news.  It would be no different than quoting what Gandalf said in Lord of the Rings.  

If you want to make an argument about something, you need to build a base that can withstand some scrutiny.  I of course would argue against Jesus being fictional as there are non-biblical references to Christ, like Tacitus, Mara Bar-Serapion and Phlegon (quoted by Julius Africanus).

If they were contemporaries of Jesus in a position to know about him first hand, I would find them much more convincing. I'm not committed to mythicism, but I guess the odds of a real, singular, historical Jesus on who's teachings Christianity was based, is around 3 in 7. The historical Jesus, the composite Jesus, and the mythical Jesus all seem about equally plausible to me.

[KerimF]

I may be completely obtuse, but Kerim I'm not following your point.  Your subsequent posts are not adding to the clarity either.  Others have claimed Jesus is a fictional person, which you accept and still stick to using Him and this good news.  It would be no different than quoting what Gandalf said in Lord of the Rings.  

If you want to make an argument about something, you need to build a base that can withstand some scrutiny.  I of course would argue against Jesus being fictional as there are non-biblical references to Christ, like Tacitus, Mara Bar-Serapion and Phlegon (quoted by Julius Africanus).

Okay, let me try again

I believe what I said about ‘hell’ not because Jesus used to refer to it by the expression ‘Everlasting Fire’.
I simply cannot claim that I discovered somehow a novel idea while Jesus said it already about 2000 years ago.

To please your curiosity, here is more about myself:
When I was about 17 (now I am 73), I decided to read attentively what Jesus says on my Arabic Gospel (printed by the Catholic Church many decades ago) to prove once for all (to myself in the least) that his sayings are somehow not related to my life (as it is the case with almost all teachings I heard from the Churches, Catholic and else). But, to my big surprise, I discovered that Jesus sayings are different clearly from the Church’s teachings if not opposing them in crucial points.
Later, I discovered with time that many Jesus teachings are not supposed being heard openly because they oppose the interests of the men in charge of any Church or Denomination around the world.

Here is another example:
Who dares telling the believers of any religion (including Christianity) that a prayer made in public has no value other than being a good occasion to honor some others and, therefore, to be honored in return?
Even an atheist follows sometimes, though without his knowledge, Jesus’ advice about praying in private (actually talking to oneself), every time he says “Let me be alone” then enters a room for a while after he closes its door behind him. In fact, an effective prayer in one’s life doesn’t need any special words to be memorized and repeated as Pagans are supposed to do. It is completely a personal matter; therefore, it likely differs from one person to another.
But please forget this example too if you used to pray in certain public ceremonies