Hell: Eternal Torment Or Annihilation?

[radiation7740]

I found this link a little over a year ago. It really inspiried me to do my own investigation into what the bible teaches about hell. This is a long study but it's very compelling. It talks about the 4 different views on hell. I personally believe that the bible teaches the metaphorical view & annihilation view of hell.

 

I use to hold to the eternal torment view until about November 2003 when I began to really question things. This study really confirmed that eternal torment is not scriptural.

 

Most of the old testament and new testament writings refer to hell as destruction or death. Paul never uses the word "hell" in any of his epistles.

[burning 4 revenge]

I think Jesus uses the word Gehenna, which at one point was a location of child sacrifice. By Jesus' time Gehenna was a section of the city where the people of Jerusalem would burn their waste.

[radiation7740]

There's actually 3 hells in the bible. From what I have read hell/sheol/hades is the grave. Hell/gehena= the lake of fire (2nd death). hell/tarturus= bottomless pit for the demons where they are chained up.

 

Also God is a consuming fire not a tormenting fire. The fire consumes the wicked and they are nothing but smoke & ashes afterwards. Unquenchable eternal fire consumed sodom and gomorrah and the sourrounding cities but the fire is not burning there today.

 

Mathew 10:28 "do not fear those who can kill the body they cannot kill the soul but fear God who is able to DESTROY both BODY & SOUL in hell."

 

The context here is referring to gehena which is the lake of fire. The body & soul are destroyed in hell. The bible teaches a conditional immortaility of the soul. This means the righteous are the only ones granted immortality. The wicked have the anthesis of immortality which is destruction.

[crazy_grl]

There's actually 3 hells in the bible. From what I have read hell/sheol/hades is the grave. Hell/gehena= the lake of fire (2nd death). hell/tarturus= bottomless pit for the demons where they are chained up.

 

IIRC, that's pretty much what Jehovahs' Witnesses teach in their bible study classes.

[radiation7740]

IIRC, that's pretty much what Jehovahs' Witnesses teach in their bible study classes.

 

What does IIRC mean? I'm not a jehovah's witness but I know that they believe in conditional immortaility of the soul. On that point I agree with them but I don't agree with them on most other points. They deny the trinity. I believe in the trinity. I'm not a 7th day adventist either.

[crazy_grl]

What does IIRC mean?

 

If I recall correctly

[quankanne]

I use to hold to the eternal torment view until about November 2003 when I began to really question things. This study really confirmed that eternal torment is not scriptural.

 

Most of the old testament and new testament writings refer to hell as destruction or death. Paul never uses the word "hell" in any of his epistles.

 

following Jewish practice, Paul and the early Christians upheld "Tradition," passing along oral history and upholding practices. Because it is not specifically mentioned in either Testament doesn't mean that it is not so – remember, you've had how many centuries of people hand-copying what we know of as the Bible? Sixteen? I imagine that it will have been streamlined, with the understanding that as the Christian faith was passed down, so was Tradition. At least this is the Catholic take on it.

 

Re: eternal torment. I believe it exists. Simply because if I accept that if my immortal soul is worthy of meriting heaven in its eternity, the flip side is that unrepentent, hardcore sinners have hell. Forever. Just like those folks who have merited heaven forever.

 

I think the argument that a loving Jesus really didn't mean what he said about Hell being a permanent destination all boils down to man's sense of entitlement: If I am good, then I truly deserve to go to heaven, but if I'm a sinner, I don't want to merit it hell, and besides, if God really loves me, then he wouldn't do that to me, therefore there is no real consequence to sin. Which is exactly what the devil wants us to believe as we backslide to his hidey-hole.

[crazy_grl]

I think the argument that a loving Jesus really didn't mean what he said about Hell being a permanent destination all boils down to man's sense of entitlement: If I am good, then I truly deserve to go to heaven, but if I'm a sinner, I don't want to merit it hell, and besides, if God really loves me, then he wouldn't do that to me, therefore there is no real consequence to sin. Which is exactly what the devil wants us to believe as we backslide to his hidey-hole.

 

I wouldn't say that becoming non-existance isn't a consequence. It's more merciful than eternal torment, but it's still a little frightening to think about.

 

Another concept I've heard discussed by biblical scholars is that hell is a place where people are allowed to do whatever they want, basically similar to life on earth. If that interpretation is correct, I still think that's pretty consequential when you could be living in complete happiness instead.

 

I don't personally think that God would torment people eternally for not following his word. There was a preacher on saw on the History (or maybe Discovery) channel that worded the reasoning behind that pretty well. He said (paraphrased), "Forced love is like rape. God doesn't force people to love Him." IF He were allowing Satan to torment people for eternity, that would be forcing people to love Him and would make Him pretty horrific in my eyes, and He would not be someone I would want to worship.

 

But that is only my opinion and everyone is free to form their own.

[quankanne]

I suppose it all boils down to the definition of torment: my personal thought of eternal torment is being cut off from God. And hell is where that takes place. However, for someone else who doesn't believe in God, the point is moot: Hell could be that party place where he could do whatever he wants, and it doesn't matter because he doesn't believe in God.

 

I don't personally think that God would torment people eternally for not following his word.

 

interesting thought, crzy: I think this is what's being addressed in the Harrowing of Hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrowing_of_Hell), when Jesus busts those (for lack of a better word,) lightweight sinners out of hell.

[radiation7740]

The consequence of not believeing the gospel is not inheriting eternal life. The gospel is good news. If one rejects the good news they are condemned already. I believe in Jesus because I want a relationship with Him not because I'm scared of the horrors of the afterlife. Death is the wages of sin. If the wages of sin were eternal torment then Jesus would be burning in hell for all eternity in order to pay for our sins. But Jesus died for our sins becuz the penalty for sin is death.

 

Ceasing to exist is a consequence I believe becuz one misses out on the awesome glory of the kingdom of God. The world to come is going to be exciting & it will never end. It's a shame for anyone to turn down God's offer of salvation. But God gives us all a choice. Jesus is the cure for death. Nobody has to accept the cure. We can die in our sins if we want to.

[burning 4 revenge]

There's actually 3 hells in the bible. From what I have read hell/sheol/hades is the grave. Hell/gehena= the lake of fire (2nd death). hell/tarturus= bottomless pit for the demons where they are chained up.

 

Also God is a consuming fire not a tormenting fire. The fire consumes the wicked and they are nothing but smoke & ashes afterwards. Unquenchable eternal fire consumed sodom and gomorrah and the sourrounding cities but the fire is not burning there today.

 

Mathew 10:28 "do not fear those who can kill the body they cannot kill the soul but fear God who is able to DESTROY both BODY & SOUL in hell."

 

The context here is referring to gehena which is the lake of fire. The body & soul are destroyed in hell. The bible teaches a conditional immortaility of the soul. This means the righteous are the only ones granted immortality. The wicked have the anthesis of immortality which is destruction.

 

That was great, I actually learned something. It makes more sense that they would believe that most would simply cease to exist, rather than suffer eternal torture.

[ButtonPusher]

Why worry about what hell is or isnt? Fear of going to jail or even the death penalty doesn't stop people from commiting crimes, so fear of what hell might be is hardly going to inspire faith. From memory Jesus does not specifically say that non-believers will burn in hell, just that the way to heaven is through him.

[burning 4 revenge]

there is no difference between heaven, hell, and having never been born. it's all the exact same thing

[a4a]

Are there Walmarts in heaven?

 

If not so many people are going to be so so disappointed when they get there!

[quankanne]

Are there Walmarts in heaven?

 

If not so many people are going to be so so disappointed when they get there!

 

I have no idea, but I did hear a rumor of cheap beer and cornydogs!! :laugh:

[flavius]

I have put in many years in fundamentalist-evangelical circles, and I still live among them. Denying eternal hell-fire in their eyes is tantamount to spitting on Jesus.

 

I have also been questioning this, and I have begun re-reading the scriptures. Turns out there is darned little to indicate eternal blistering, unless you really bias your reading of the texts. I would love to lay the issue to rest. But there is the matter of Matthew 25:46 which characterizes "the fire prepared for the devil and his angels" as a place of "kolasin aiwnion", penalty everlasting. I am curious about the meaning of "aiwnion", whether it refers to something that never stops or something outside of the temporal dimension. I would like to know if the word appears in any ancient non-religious usage, but I am an amateur. I'd never know where to look.

 

Your POV makes more sense for a variety of reasons.

 

First, if hell is really "HELL" it seems that Jesus would have expounded it a bit, particularly since the Old Testament (which WAS the bible Jesus read) does not teach its existence.

 

Second, Jesus did us the term Gehenna, the location of Jerusalem's smouldering town dump -- a moniker which is necessarily metaphoric. Well, the metaphor would certainly connote a messy, painful, and dishonorable end, but does not suggest an eternal blow-torch.

 

Third, the Greek word Hades literally means, more or less, non-existence. However, Jesus relates a post-mortem dialog of Lazarus and a rich man who has landed in Hades, not Gehenna. It is hot and dry, and the rich man is in agony yet still talking. Is that hell? Hard to say. The "hot hell" was a Roman notion, and Jesus may easily have been using it to dramatize a point. (And the main point of that dialog is NOT hell.)

 

Fourth, although I grant that God has the RIGHT to do absolutely anything, it seems out of character for God to deliberately create man with innate corruptibility, then punish him when he self-destructed. Indeed, to punish him with an eternal, imeasurable penalty for sins which by any reckoning must be finite. And that for a man who never asked to be created, let alone created corruptible. Nowhere else in scripture do I see a sadistic potrait of God. (All punishment and/or misfortune in the flesh is finite.)

 

I haven't settled my understanding of it yet.

[radiation7740]

Our God is a consuming fire not a tormenting fire. The lake of fire is good. It is not a torture chamber. The lake of fire will burn up all elements of the old creation. Unless one is born again they cannot enter the kingdom of God. They are still part of the old creation that will be exterminated. Even satan & the demons will burn to ashes. Now I don't know if the fire is literal or metaphorical. I don't see how a literal fire can torment or consume spirit beings like satan & the demons.

[Admiral Thrawn]

I believe the Bible view of eternal torment.

 

Basically, in the Criminal Justice system, people are arrested, charged, go to jail for a bail hearing, if they aren't granted bail, they are in jail awaiting trial, where they are sentenced if found guilty. Similarly, someone going to hell is like someone being arrested by virtue of not being saved, shacked up, and sent to Hades-hell, where they await Trial at the Great White Thrown Judgement. On that Trial, they are sentenced for an eternity on the lake of fire in varying degrees of damnation.

 

Some books, where people claim to have had supernatural experiences of hell, such as "Visions Beyond the Veil", and a few other books that I can remember the title of, will claim that some places of hell, or the nice places, have no fire, but is just people in a state of misery just rotting out, other places may have fire depending on the sentence. They will say there is a fun house, where demons pick people up and hack souls up in some torture chamber and the monsters and demons are constantly tormenting the people what are in hell with slave labour or in fiendish delight.

 

The monsters want to torment humans souls because we are in the image of God, and by hurting us, they feel they are attacking God because they are angry with their punishment.

 

While these books would make for some of the most gross Horror movies imaginable, there is come credence to this belief. If you look in Revelation 9 for example it talks about monsters that sting people for six months that go through walls coming out of hell and on to the earth to torment people as one of the judgements. Well, if those are some of the creatures that inhabit hell, or bottomless pit, then it looks like fire is just one of the torment. Also a bottom-less pit would imply a perpetual free fall on top of fire.

 

The Bible rationalizes the existance of hell as being a place created for the original angel rebellion of Lucifer when it tried to usurp God's throne in the heavens in an angellic coup-d-etat. Having failed - obviously so, it was cast down to earth, where Genesis 2 says - darkness was upon the face of the earth and the earth was without form and void.

 

There are many different scriptural references that say that hell is created really for the devil and his angels. But, since Adam sinned by eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it has boiled down to a simple paradigm. People who follow satan go where he's going, to hell, and satan wants everyone to go there. People who receive Jesus, is going to heaven, and Jesus wants everyone to go there, and it's God's will that everyone is saved.

 

So, to sum up everything, we have a major spiritual war where souls are hanging in the balance between heaven and hell, and since Adam ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, there has been a great legal mess on humanity as a whole, where Jesus had to come in a form of a human and die for our sins for any hope of legally recovering us.

 

That means, hell is an independent type of legal entity, where people can fall through the cracks if they do not receive Jesus, or are otherwise deceived by false teachers or preachers. Ultimately, God can only rescue people from going there to the extent they allow Him to, and to the extent people are praying for people, and the enemy will do the opposite. Since it is a war, and spiritual legal issues are involved, it can not be concluded that God does not love people or hell would not be made, because He never created it for people, it's just unfortunate that it happened to be that way I suppose.

 

This is going like a run-away train, I hope another poster can anchor this or rebut this because it leads to a perception of anarchy about hell, where people can literally fall through the cracks and end up there, if it is a war and legal mess implicated with its existance.

 

If it were created for the devil and it's rebellious angels, then it's obviously unfit for people to go there - so was this some legal loophole the devil exploited to get people there, - this goes on the belief that God creations include legal constructs that He is forced to honour, and these legal constructs restrict what God can do.

 

Examples of legal constructs:

- humanity has dominion over the earth - God can not legally intervene in the affairs of man, even if man is going to destroy itself.

 

- God had to legally redeem humanity by the death and ressurection of Jesus Christ. He could not wave a magic wand and reverse what Adam did by eating the fruit.

 

- Jesus is not reigning now currently as a King in Jerusalem because He has legally appointed a fixed time letting the devil run world systems, and that time can not be lengthed or abridged - and even if it could, since God can see things in the future, He knows the time is fixed, and therefore that time becomes a legal construct.

 

So, due to the legal constructs, even if God did not want anyone to go to hell (which of course HE does not), His hands are tied to the legal process, that is people have to go through Christ in order to legally go to heaven, and there is nothing even God can to do save someone apart from that.

[flavius]

I like the way you've drawn out the juristic view of the cosmos (by cosmos I mean God's created order, not Carl Sagan's.) I think you have summed up a Modernist/Legalist view of God quite handily.

 

While you clearly see this "juristic" view of God, Creation, and Scripture as being self-evident, I see it as a lens that superimposes a whole different shape and texture onto the revelation of God. One begins with a biblical metaphor (one among dozens), makes it a mold, then casts God into it as though He were subject to it.

 

According to this way of thinking, God casts Satan to Earth (for lack of any more conclusive way to deal with his not-quite-vanquished archenemy). Now God's good earth-creation is evil, in the image of Satan. So God rehabs it, gives it a fresh coat of paint, and plants a garden there, the homeplace of Man. Oops! God must have forgotten that his wily archenemy (one so mighty that even He had not quite vanquished him) was on the prowl there. Frail Man falls, so now God is really in a fix. "Gee, if only I had not planted that tree in the midst of the garden! If only I'd imprisoned Satan on the moon instead! If only I had done a better job creating Man..." After poring over the cosmic Law Books, he devises a legal strategy to extricate man and Himself from Satan's trap. Sadly, he will be forced to sacrifice his One and Only Son...

 

Admiral, I affirm your faith and worship God by the same Spirit, but this is NOT a biblical cosmology. This suggests all sorts of weakenesses and failures on God's part. It elevates Satan to an absurd level, even subjecting the will and acts of God himself to Satan's wiles as he is forced to react to Satan's exploitation of "legal loopholes" (which amount to nothing more or less than God's inadequacies.) It builds a grand edifice of assumptions about Satan upon the most fragmentary shreds of biblical texts.

 

The Bible does not tell the story of a cosmic struggle betwween God and Satan. Nor a stuggle between Sin and Righteousness, nor Heaven and Hell. The theme throughout is Man's tendency to elevate Law above the living and loving God, of whom the Law is a mere shadow. This theme becomes explicit doctrine in the New Testament.

 

Let's not crawl over boulders of grace looking for pebbles of "legal constructs" which we might hurl at Satan. This is about Jesus! He calls us into the Kingdom of God, we hear and follow and find life, overflowing and everlasting. The Kingdom emerges, and "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." In this case Hades (translated as hell, who knows why) speaks of the Roman's god of the underworld and/or his 'domain'. The name Hades itself means "the unseeing one", and it encompasses death, ignorance, darkness, and futility. Jesus did not proclaim the gospel of a loophole, but the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

 

It grieves me when the Church wanders from the central message of the scriptures by stringing textual beads into doctrinal necklaces, then forcing God's head into them. In this respect, 20th century evangelico-fundamentalism is no different that the midieval catholicism that debated how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

The Bible? It doesn't even explain who or what Satan is, why he exists, or exactly what it is he has to do with Man. We know he's there/here, and we don't know why, but we do know that he is God's problem, not ours to deal with.

 

Our part is to hear the proclamation that the Kingdom of God is come in Christ Jesus, to be filled with and led by the Holy Spirit he endows us with, and to lead our people out of bondage to the Earthly Order.

 

By the way, Admiral, I do not reject you -- I embrace you here and greet you with the proverbial holy kiss. You and I are one in Christ's name and spirit. I appreciate your labor of love here on Love Shack! God sees and knows!!

[Admiral Thrawn]

Admiral, I affirm your faith and worship God by the same Spirit, but this is NOT a biblical cosmology. This suggests all sorts of weakenesses and failures on God's part.

 

Possibly, but that would be Blasphemy, and Blasphemy is sinful. This theology does not Blaspheme God. However, God is bound by certain attributes of consistency, such as love, justice, holiness and acts according to those boundaries. Hell would be a consequence of a justice attribute. Sending Jesus to die for our sins and rise from the dead so we can go to heaven is a love attribute.

 

This does not show weakness on God's part but strength. We can only know about His loving character in light of the fall of man and redemption of Jesus Christ.

 

It elevates Satan to an absurd level, even subjecting the will and acts of God himself to Satan's wiles as he is forced to react to Satan's exploitation of "legal loopholes" (which amount to nothing more or less than God's inadequacies.) It builds a grand edifice of assumptions about Satan upon the most fragmentary shreds of biblical texts.

 

According to the Bible, Satan will be locked up for 1000 years, sent on a parole where it causes further havok, and then put into prison indefinately.

 

However, you are right, but the again, a King who makes laws is himself subject to those laws. A King who constantly changes laws to suits his own whims would be crazy, right? If the spiritual-universe has a constitution, then it has a constitution. However, the point is that right now, the devil has been defeated and judged by Jesus Christ, 2000 years ago.

 

The remainder of the war is simply to those who have not received Jesus or heard the Gospel, and once Jesus is received into their hearts, then they too are saved. The devil is fighting to ensure people do not hear or receive Jesus Christ.

 

Anyway, God sets the parameters of the Universe, after all, He created everything, right? There is no name that is higher than the name of Jesus. So, based on the legal-construct theology, victory to the Kingdom of God through Jesus Christ, whatever loophole may have existed is fixed up with only one loose end - every single human being on this planet has to receive Jesus Christ as their personal savior, and people are really doing the best they can to reach everyone and spread the Gospel out. Hopefully, everyone will be reached in this generation, repent and receive Christ, and thereby go to heaven. That is the will of God.

 

 

The Bible does not tell the story of a cosmic struggle betwween God and Satan. Nor a stuggle between Sin and Righteousness, nor Heaven and Hell. The theme throughout is Man's tendency to elevate Law above the living and loving God, of whom the Law is a mere shadow. This theme becomes explicit doctrine in the New Testament.

 

Read Ephesians 6. This is proably the most explicit chapter about it. But you are right, the Bible gives allusions or insights into the spiritual conflict, but it's usually like a 'side-bar' or 'side-note'.

 

However, the New Testament, portrays a war that continues to be going on, in Ephesians 6, and other in Peter, and other chapters will portray the devil as a formidable enemy - but also a defeated one that can be overcome through the power of Christ. Again, it goes without saying that one should focus on Jesus Christ, because HE is the victory of everything, and not worry about the devil too much except if you are spiritually letting your guard down, which you should not do in the first place.

 

Let's not crawl over boulders of grace looking for pebbles of "legal constructs" which we might hurl at Satan. This is about Jesus! He calls us into the Kingdom of God, we hear and follow and find life, overflowing and everlasting. The Kingdom emerges, and "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." In this case Hades (translated as hell, who knows why) speaks of the Roman's god of the underworld and/or his 'domain'. The name Hades itself means "the unseeing one", and it encompasses death, ignorance, darkness, and futility. Jesus did not proclaim the gospel of a loophole, but the Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

 

Jesus talked about hell in many different references, and the concept of hell and lake of fire as being an eternal place of torment with fire is something that is consistently talked about.

 

In Old Testament times, hell was divided into two places, the fiery hell for the wicked dead, and the paradise hell for the righteous dead. Nobody could go to heaven since Jesus did not pay for the sins of people yet, but they were protected in the paradise part of hell known as Abraham's Bosom, in lieu of the fact that Jesus would come and pay for their sins.

 

It grieves me when the Church wanders from the central message of the scriptures by stringing textual beads into doctrinal necklaces, then forcing God's head into them. In this respect, 20th century evangelico-fundamentalism is no different that the midieval catholicism that debated how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

The Roman Catholic church has some unfounded theological doctrines. It's not a matter of Medeival or other times - the Catholic church repressed and suppressed other Christian theological views through intimidation and inquisitions.

 

The Bible? It doesn't even explain who or what Satan is, why he exists, or exactly what it is he has to do with Man. We know he's there/here, and we don't know why, but we do know that he is God's problem, not ours to deal with.

 

Sure it does. I'll look for the specific verses later. This is not theology pulled out of the hat, but it has come from specific verses. But, I'll tell you it's on Genesis, Isaiah and NT.

 

 

Our part is to hear the proclamation that the Kingdom of God is come in Christ Jesus, to be filled with and led by the Holy Spirit he endows us with, and to lead our people out of bondage to the Earthly Order.

 

No contest there - that's right.

 

By the way, Admiral, I do not reject you -- I embrace you here and greet you with the proverbial holy kiss. You and I are one in Christ's name and spirit. I appreciate your labor of love here on Love Shack! God sees and knows!!

 

ok.

[flavius]

I believe you will go back to the scriptures on those points. I do not expect that you will necessarily "change your lens", but I'll bet you will see my points more distinctly once you review what the Bible texts actually say and do not say about Satan and Hell. This has been the focus of by studies all this month, and it is fascinating indeed.

 

Much of what has been discussed on this board circles around what Jesus meant, and did not mean, when he pointed at the smoke rising from the local dump (Ge'enna) and used it as a metaphor of the state of the unredeemed. Generations have taken the liberty of translating it as Hell, and equating it with the Roman's firey underworld ruled by Hades/Pluto, the Unseeing One. It is an unHebraic construct, and I believe not the construct affirmed by Christ.

 

A note re: the Gates of Hell

Gates are defensive emplacements. The gates, metaphorically the blindness with which "Satan, the god of this world, hath blinded their eyes", cannot stand against the simple proclamation that "God, in Christ, is no longer holding men's sins against them." (2 Cor 5:19) Whether you are a Flavianite or an Thrawnite, this is The Day of the Lord's Favor, and we are his ambassadors.

 

It is a good day to be alive!

[flavius]

By the way, the problem with Medieval catholicism was not that they were stupid nor licentious in their theology. In fact they were brilliant, diligent, and scrupulous. The problem was that they, just as we all tend to do today, got into a single track of "correct interpretation", a single interpretive perspective, and continued on that track for centuries. Two degrees of error became a hundred miles of heresy.

 

Believe me, if either your interpretive prism or mine were employed unchallenged for a thousand years, just as great a mess would accrue. The Church of the year 3006 would be killing reformers in the name of Flavius, no doubt!

[Admiral Thrawn]

The rich man and Lazarus parable, you know the one on LUke 16 or 19, I believe it went something like this: the rich man was SO tormented in a flame that he asked Lazarus to dip his finger in cool water and touch his tongue just to have a morsel of relief of his torment, but Lazarus could not do that because of a chasm between him and the rich man.

 

Jesus also warned people to avoid hell at all cost, saying it's better to enter heaven with one arm than two arms in hell - if an arm is preventing you to go to heaven and is causing you to go to hell, then cut it off.

 

Why would Jesus talk about hell in this manner if it really meant nothing serious?

[bluetuesday]

By the way, the problem with Medieval catholicism was not that they were stupid nor licentious in their theology. In fact they were brilliant, diligent, and scrupulous. The problem was that they, just as we all tend to do today, got into a single track of "correct interpretation", a single interpretive perspective, and continued on that track for centuries. Two degrees of error became a hundred miles of heresy.

 

Believe me, if either your interpretive prism or mine were employed unchallenged for a thousand years, just as great a mess would accrue. The Church of the year 3006 would be killing reformers in the name of Flavius, no doubt!

 

this is one of the most profound teachings i have ever read on the shack.

 

flavius, my utmost respect for understanding that it is fervent and well-intentioned adherence without question to a particular single track of belief that causes religious hatred and division.

 

the fact is there is no 'right track' that is unwilling to question and grow and transcend itself. growth and change are not weaknesses, they are only seen as such by those who are too fearful or too prideful to look beyond what they think they know.

 

the jews who killed jesus were fundamentalists, unwilling to have their beliefs questioned by jesus the blasphemer. jesus spoke out against their rigidity and was killed for it. yet until people cast off the cloak of fundamentalism today, be it islamic, jewish or christian, god will continue to be misinterpreted and division will abound.

 

jesus fought against a particular state of mind, not a particular religion. sadly that state of mind is fundamentalism and so many christians display it today while believing they are on the right path.

[Admiral Thrawn]

this is one of the most profound teachings i have ever read on the shack.

 

flavius, my utmost respect for understanding that it is fervent and well-intentioned adherence without question to a particular single track of belief that causes religious hatred and division.

 

If the single tract of belief is a wrong belief.

 

the fact is there is no 'right track' that is unwilling to question and grow and transcend itself. growth and change are not weaknesses, they are only seen as such by those who are too fearful or too prideful to look beyond what they think they know.

 

2 + 2 = 4. You cant say it equals 5. That's also a single tract belief. But it's a right belief.

 

the jews who killed jesus were fundamentalists, unwilling to have their beliefs questioned by jesus the blasphemer. jesus spoke out against their rigidity and was killed for it. yet until people cast off the cloak of fundamentalism today, be it islamic, jewish or christian, god will continue to be misinterpreted and division will abound.

 

the jews to killed Jesus were fools who didn't know how to read their own bible, because if they simply 'read' the law and the prophets they would have recognized Jesus as the Messiah. You paint too much of a rosey picture of people who used their religion just for their own selfish ends and didn't care about the things of God. Has nothing to do with fundamentalism - it has to do with power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

jesus fought against a particular state of mind, not a particular religion. sadly that state of mind is fundamentalism and so many christians display it today while believing they are on the right path.

 

Jesus fought and defeated the devil 2000 years ago, and as He said, His purpose is to destroy the works of the devil and redeem humanity back to God. What are the works of the devil? Sickness, poverty, and all list of sins and pain people have inflicted on one another - not how people are thinking.

 

The heart of humans are too evil to be reformed by changing thinking habits.

Humanity can not even govern itself properly without people always falling through the cracks in any society - which is why Jesus has to come back again and rule the earth directly under His authority and power and administer this planet properly the way it should be administered. No human government, even the most liberal of governments has done an acceptable job of ensuring absolute justice and fairness or equality in any society.