Can bible really be interpreted as if there is no torment but you cease to exist

[Aardverk]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'd just like to agree with those who have said that it's senseless to try to make sense of ancient nonsense.
Do you still sit around trying to justify Greek Mythology?
If not, then why sit around trying to justify Hebrew Mythology?

Why even bother?

I don't think your question was directed at me but the reason I bother is that I am scared of them! The start of Muslim nuclear terrorism is getting close. As well as dangerous Muslims, Christians are dangerous again and the day is nigh when we all get caught in the crossfire/fallout.

If you look at Christian forums you will quickly see that many of them are really looking forward to a new Crusade. They WANT to have a war with Muslims. They hate Muslims and want to kill them and batter them back into the iron age. Even if you explain in words of one syllable that Muslim terrorists kill only a tiny fraction of the number that Christian terrorists kill, they just don't accept that most Muslims are harmless and peace loving. They just want to kill them and, co-incidentally, take their oil as well.

America is obviously the worst problem with a culture that would never elect a senior politician who was not a Christian (or possibly a Jew). What little we can do to educate these misguided/misled people we should do. Preachers have had it all their way for hundreds of years. Most other educated countries have gradually tamed or emasculated their fundamentalists but Americans resist education and extreme ignorance is the rule in many states.

There are of course many thousands of Christians who would very happily kill you for being a witch. That's why I bother.

[Undeceived]

Mark 10:17 "And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

Jesus just denied the divinity of christ, which is.....as far as I'm aware...sinful blasphemy..lol.

In that quote Jesus is challenging the man to think directly about whether he thought Jesus was God or not. It's like saying, "Why do you call me one who raises people from the dead? Only God raises from the dead." And all the while we know Jesus did raise people from the dead. The Jews culturally spoke this way in Jesus' day--it was their way of equating themselves to something. Historians actually consider this line a claim of the divinity, because by all accounts Jesus was good, and therefore he is God.

If you want an even clearer declaration, read John 10:24-38.

[downbeatplumb]

Peace. You know how Jehovas witnesses and a few others(can someone who knows post who are the others) believe that the interpretation of eternal torment and the eternal fire means that you burn up and there fore you cease to exist.

I kind of believe that that's what God would do as a punishment and it makes sense. I mean He doesnt have to torment someone for eternity.

Now, my question To those who believe in hell same as Jehovah's Witnesses that is that you cease to exist, how does eternally tormented mean cessation of existence?

And to those who believe in eternal torment: Why would God do something like that?

Also, are Jehovah's witnesses honest with them selves in their interpretation? I suppose they really believe in it because they would not refuse blood transfusion that can otherwise save their lives at times if they where not sinciere!

Thoughts

Thanks

The bible can be read any way people want o read it.
Its that ambiguous.

[Abracadabra]

If you have any knowledge of what my misconceptions are or what are the erroneous teachings that I've bought into, then by all means, present them.

I just did that in a post in this thread: Freedom of Religion

You aren't concerned about your own lack of knowledge?

What lack of knowledge is that?
Do I confess to not know the true nature of existence?
Sure? But I also believe that this is innate to all humans.
I'm quite confident that you don't have complete and divine knowledge either.
Unless you are some sort of divine being?
Are you concerned about your own lack of knowledge?
I hope you aren't too concerned about it because it will always be the state of affairs.
There will never be a time when you will become omniscient.
Unless of course there is a spiritual essence to reality.
That's the only hope you can ever have of becoming omniscient.
Otherwise you will forever have a lack of complete knowledge.
Just like the rest of us.

[genkaus]

I just did that in a post in this thread: Freedom of Religion

All I saw was evidence that you lack the capacity to even understand what I'm talking about. But I guess that's to be expected.

What lack of knowledge is that?

The knowledge of what concepts you must hold to be true in order to believe what you do.

Do I confess to not know the true nature of existence?
Sure? But I also believe that this is innate to all humans.

The lack of knowledge about reality? Obviously, it has to be discovered rather than innately known. It would be innately known only if existence was dependent upon consciousness.

Besides, I've told you before that "true nature of existence" is redundant. The nature of existence is what the truth is measured by. There cannot be a "false nature of existence".

I'm quite confident that you don't have complete and divine knowledge either.

Nope.

Unless you are some sort of divine being?

Nope.

Are you concerned about your own lack of knowledge?

Yup.

I hope you aren't too concerned about it because it will always be the state of affairs.

Only to the extent it affects my life and my actions.

There will never be a time when you will become omniscient.
Unless of course there is a spiritual essence to reality.
That's the only hope you can ever have of becoming omniscient.
Otherwise you will forever have a lack of complete knowledge.
Just like the rest of us.

Let me get this straight. You believe that omniscience is impossible (you will forever have lack of complete knowledge, just like the res of us). You also believe that if there is a spiritual essence to reality, omniscience is possible.

These two statements together imply that you do not believe that there is a spiritual essence to reality. That is not what you were saying before. Which is it?





[/quote]

[The Grand Nudger]

In that quote Jesus is challenging the man to think directly about whether he thought Jesus was God or not. It's like saying, "Why do you call me one who raises people from the dead? Only God raises from the dead." And all the while we know Jesus did raise people from the dead. The Jews culturally spoke this way in Jesus' day--it was their way of equating themselves to something. Historians actually consider this line a claim of the divinity, because by all accounts Jesus was good, and therefore he is God.

If you want an even clearer declaration, read John 10:24-38.

Hey, look at that, you've reinterpreted that quote to say what you want it to, surprise surprise. This is supposed to be an argument against my statement? Seems like pretty solid support to me.

Would you like to present some evidence that Jesus existed, before you go blathering on about what we know he did? Historians? You must have meant Apologists.

Butterscotch is good, therefore candy is God.

[Abracadabra]

---

I don't think your question was directed at me but the reason I bother is that I am scared of them! The start of Muslim nuclear terrorism is getting close. As well as dangerous Muslims, Christians are dangerous again and the day is nigh when we all get caught in the crossfire/fallout.

If you look at Christian forums you will quickly see that many of them are really looking forward to a new Crusade. They WANT to have a war with Muslims. They hate Muslims and want to kill them and batter them back into the iron age. Even if you explain in words of one syllable that Muslim terrorists kill only a tiny fraction of the number that Christian terrorists kill, they just don't accept that most Muslims are harmless and peace loving. They just want to kill them and, co-incidentally, take their oil as well.

America is obviously the worst problem with a culture that would never elect a senior politician who was not a Christian (or possibly a Jew). What little we can do to educate these misguided/misled people we should do. Preachers have had it all their way for hundreds of years. Most other educated countries have gradually tamed or emasculated their fundamentalists but Americans resist education and extreme ignorance is the rule in many states.

There are of course many thousands of Christians who would very happily kill you for being a witch. That's why I bother.

---

I agree. These Abrahamic religions are without a doubt the cause of political unrest and they are a threat to the safety and well-being of everyone, not just the religious zealots who use them to stir up that trouble. You make a very good point.

This is precisely why I won't hesitate point out how utterly absurd their foundational doctrines are.

[tackattack]

---

2Chr.34
[24] Thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will bring evil upon this place, and upon the inhabitants thereof, even all the curses that are written in the book which they have read before the king of Judah:
[25] Because they have forsaken me, and have burned incense unto other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the works of their hands; therefore my wrath shall be poured out upon this place, and shall not be quenched.

God bringing evil upon people?
Surely sounds like an evil God to me.
His wrath shall be poured out and shall not be quenched?
Sounds like he really lost his temper on that day.
Open to interpretation anyone?

---

I didn't say evil, judgement, wrath weren't useful tools for good. Job is a great example. However whether God brings judgement or he allows evil to happen, is irrelevant, as it doesn't prove He is evil inheritly. I said "is" not "does". I define someone (or something) as evil if they do something morally wrong or bad.
To quote your verse "Because they have forsaken me" is a reason that justifies punishment. To use a recent analogy on evil; as a father I love my son. My son understands that there are consequences for his actions. I hold him accountable for his actions. The fact he doesn't "like" his punishment or whether he thinks it unjust is irrelevant as the expectation was established prior to his offence.

---

I'll see the OP and raise him this:

What can't the bible be interpreted to say

God is evil
Jesus chose to sin
any basis for scientific discovery

The bible can absolutely be interpreted to make god evil...I do it all the time, as do most of us here, next.

Mark 10:17 "And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."

Jesus just denied the divinity of christ, which is.....as far as I'm aware...sinful blasphemy..lol. Next.

Believe Stat and Ryft would tell you that the god described in the bible (our only source of information about this god) is the only god which meets the "neccessarry preconditions of knowledge"..and so..the bible, and the abrahamic god, are the only basis for scientific discovery of any kind. Got any more of these? Because I enjoy whittling down things like this.

---

It has been a while since I tossed some meat out to the fishies to bite on, glad I could oblige. So because Jesus said that God is good it proves God is evil... you'll have to enlighten me on your logic there. Oh I see you're using that to counter my second statement that Jesus chose to sin. It does not devide the trinity. It tacitly points the man (who believes Jesus to be a human teacher) to the source of all good and for His coming which is God the father. That isn't a sin, nor is it blasphemy.

I'll await SW or Ryft to come and speak for themselves. As far as God being the only possible knowledge owner, that 's preposterous. I may not have objective absolute knowledge capability. I certainly colloquially "know" things, though. There are plenty of scientific studies that are able to reliably prove something to be consistant. That, in your book, may not be knowledge, but I don't hold the conception that absolute objective knowledge is necessary for usefullness.

---

I agree. These Abrahamic religions are without a doubt the cause of political unrest and they are a threat to the safety and well-being of everyone, not just the religious zealots who use them to stir up that trouble. You make a very good point.

This is precisely why I won't hesitate point out how utterly absurd their foundational doctrines are.

---

Zealots being idiots is what causes people to have unrest. Without religion, people would just find something else to fight about.

[The Grand Nudger]

Tack, that's entirely the point. You can interpret that single quote one way, another christian another way, Ryft or SW nother, myself another (a large amount of people could agree with each of us independently and collectively). I stated that the bible can be (and has been) interpreted any way, that there's nothing it can't (or hasn't, or couldn't) be made to say. The longer our discussion drags on the more support there will be for this statement. This is the heart of the "true interpretation" issue.

I'm not trying to point out that Jesus denied the trinity as evidence or anything like that, as I feel that this would be a pointless endeavor. "One magical being denies the existence of another magical being (or some claimed attribute of their own magical being) ergo it doesn't exist" isn't exactly my style, now is it?

If that position is preposterous then why await the sage wisdom of Ryft, who has made that claim (alongside Stat) in this very forum. You're seriously waiting for a loon to come illuminate a concept you are unsure of?
(it's not about knowledge "owner", but knowledge "enabler" btw)

[Abracadabra]

---

I didn't say evil, judgement, wrath weren't useful tools for good. Job is a great example. However whether God brings judgement or he allows evil to happen, is irrelevant, as it doesn't prove He is evil inheritly. I said "is" not "does". I define someone (or something) as evil if they do something morally wrong or bad.

---

But are these verses describing a calm collected all-wise entity who is simply passing out judgements and consequences? No, not at all.

Face it, the actual text clearly state that this God has been provoked into an emotional state of anger and he's going to pour out his wrath upon people. And evidently this God has been driven into this state of frantic madness simply because he's jealous that people are burning incense for other Gods.

It may not exactly be a display of "evil" per say. But it most certainly is a display of a God who doesn't even have the maturity to control his own jealous rage.

---

To quote your verse "Because they have forsaken me" is a reason that justifies punishment. To use a recent analogy on evil; as a father I love my son. My son understands that there are consequences for his actions. I hold him accountable for his actions. The fact he doesn't "like" his punishment or whether he thinks it unjust is irrelevant as the expectation was established prior to his offence.

---

These kinds of analogies with mortal parents are extremely weak apologies for a lame God. All you're doing here is suggesting that I should accept that a supposedly "all-wise" and "all-mature" God should be as lame as mortal men.

I personally feel that, if you as a mere mortal man, become angry and take out your wrath on your son because he failed to live up to your expectations, not only are you a pathetic parent, but you should even be taken to court and judged as being an unfit parent.

These kinds of arguments, that just because mortal men are ignorant, stupid and lose their temper, that a supposedly All-Perfect God should be just as stupid, are nonsense.

Anytime anyone uses the "parent analogy" trying to proclaim that God is at least as justified as an undisciplined mortal parent, they lose me. Making excuses for a supposedly "all-wise" God by comparing his actions with those of mortal morons doesn't say much for the God.

I personally don't support physical beatings, or physical punishments of any kind, as being an intelligent way to try to solve a problem. And this is especially true if they are being delivered in a fit of anger and wrath.

In fact, I argue that because these biblical stories suggest that God actually behaves this way, these stories cause people to think that this is an intelligent solution, and that punishments make divine sense.

So that's just yet another reason why these utterly ignorant and stupid stories should be exposed to be the ignorant unethical myths they truly are.

---

[hide]
I agree. These Abrahamic religions are without a doubt the cause of political unrest and they are a threat to the safety and well-being of everyone, not just the religious zealots who use them to stir up that trouble. You make a very good point.

This is precisely why I won't hesitate point out how utterly absurd their foundational doctrines are.

Zealots being idiots is what causes people to have unrest. Without religion, people would just find something else to fight about.

---

I'm quite sure that people would fight about other things. But at least in those cases they'd have to confess that it's their own ideas they are fighting about.

The problem with Christian zealots is they delude themselves that they are standing up for some supreme being. And they can become extremely arrogant about this having convinced themselves that they "must be right" because they are standing up for "God".

Not only does this cause them to become overly arrogant about their own righteousness, but it also allows them to suck in other people to support their arrogance in the name of their God.

It's easy to use Christianity to quickly gain support from other Christians in the name of Christ, even though the leader of the movement may have a totally hateful agenda.

Just look at what happened in the case of Witch Burnings. How many people do you think could be convinced to go along with that if they didn't already believe in Satan and an idea that "Witches sell their souls to Satan".

It would be a superstition that would truly be hard to get people to support in general if it wasn't connected with religion.

Even Adolf Hilter used Christianity to support his genocide against the Jews. Many Christians claim that Jesus cannot be used to support this. But that's simply not true.

Here's a very easy argument to support killing Jews.

1. The God of Abraham instructed us to kill heathens and blasphemers.
2. Jesus taught that not one jot nor one tittle shall pass from law.
3. Jesus also claimed that he did not come to change the laws.

So there you go. If the God of Abraham has instructed us to kill heathens and Jesus said that he did not come to change the laws, not one jot nor one tittle, well, you better get out there and start killing heathens then!

I'm not personally suggesting that you should do this. I'm just pointing out how these fables can support that kind of madness.

Jealous-God religions are what I feel should be out-lawed.

The Christians have Jesus hating everyone who refuses to convert to Christianity. So jealous-God religions are truly suck.

Spirituality in general isn't so bad.

It's religions based on jealous-gods that ultimately preach hate toward non-believers in the pretense of "LOVE" that is so disgusting.

What could possibly be more despicable than that?

---

I'm not trying to point out that Jesus denied the trinity as evidence or anything like that, as I feel that this would be a pointless endeavor. "One magical being denies the existence of another magical being (or some claimed attribute of their own magical being) ergo it doesn't exist" isn't exactly my style, now is it?

The thing is that Jesus wouldn't be a 'magical being' in that case.

If Jesus denied the trinity then he wasn't claiming to be the son of God, or anything other than a mortal man.

I personally believe that was indeed his position.

I believe that Jesus as a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

I truly do. A mere mortal man like the rest of us.

He wasn't born of a virgin, he didn't raise from the dead.

And he most certainly wasn't the sacrificial lamb of a fictitious God in fables that he didn't even agree with.

If Jesus denied the trinity he simply wouldn't be "The Christ".

And that's my position. Jesus was a mortal sage. Nothing more.

That's exactly what I believe.