Is altruism the key to a morally absolute afterlife?

[Rader]

What evidence is there that Jesus ever talked about hell, for instance?

Then what did He mean when He spoke to the two thieves hanging on the cross next to him on his right and left? Is there another interpretation that mabybe I have missed?

 

[selfAdjoint]

In addition to the saying Rader cited there is also "Do not fear the earthly judges who can take life, but fear the one who can assign the soul to gehenna". And what about the "Lake of undying fire reserved for the devil and his followers".

The idea that Jesus was all sweetness and light does not survive serious contact with the gospels.

 

[neophysique]

Of course, the problem with these types of discussions is that we must divorce ourselves from reality to discuss issues intellectually. No one is questioning all the assumptions we need to have in order to talk about things. Above you say the "Christian God," and I understand you are talking about Christian religious theology, but Jesus is the guy who everyone has claimed they are representing with their religion. Are they? What evidence is there that Jesus ever talked about hell, for instance? If we include Jewish doctrine, then Moses was the man. Where does he talk about hell?

In every case I know of where "religion" has followed the inner realization of someone, it isn't long before everyone has tacked on tons of spiritual, moral, theocratic, judgmental, supernatural (you name it) concepts that have absolutely nothing to do with the originator's realization. Religion is one thing, and that original realization is something altogether different.

So I suppose to give our intellects a little exercise we can assume a God capable of creation is so petty he punishes people and even tortures them in hell, but there is no realized person I've ever studied who claimed that. It's nasty-minded Renaissance authors, popes, imams, patriarchal mindsets, etc. who dream up these horrors out of their own fears, arrogance, and hatred.

Jesus may not have talked much if at all about hell but he did
talk sometimes about angels demons and a lot about salvation and
heaven. So, the concept of rewards and punishments in the
afterlife seems central to Christianity. I kind of get the impression
the relationship of this God is like a parent with his children.
One common tactic to control children (without taking
away their free will) is thru rewards and punishments.
Rewards seem to be more effective means of control (so
I think Islam has a better salespitch). Punishment might be necessary
to control the wilder kids. Wouldn't there be more crime, at least
on Earth now, if there were no threats and eventual realization of punishment?

 

[Les Sleeth]

Jesus may not have talked much if at all about hell . . .

He said nothing definitive at all about it.

. . . but he did talk sometimes about angels demons and a lot about salvation and heaven.

He said nothing that can't be realisitically interpreted (i.e., without the slightest stretch) as someone speaking in the language and colloquialisms of the day. I was reading a Richard Dawkins paper yesterday, a devout athiest, explaining how he and others like Hawking, Einstein, et al might refer to the mind of God but it didn't mean they believed in God; it is merely a way to refer to the laws/nature of reality. In Socrates time, people who knew there were no "gods" still expressed things using the gods concept. Similarly, one way to speak about the insane in Jesus' time was to say they were possessed by devils, or one might attribute something to angels. To extrapolate from that to saying Jesus believed in the devil or angels is a huge leap indeed (though Christians make that sort of leap all the time too . . . of course, evolutionists leap from simple adaptive microevolution processes to the development of all life forms, same unwarranted induction if you ask me).

Also, keep in mind we have no witnesses reporting Jesus' words (unless we allow Thomas into the Bible); all of it is passed down by word of mouth by people who were already adjusting the story to impress the superstitious populace with miracles and the like. Terms like "son of God" also are more realistically interpreted as metaphor rather than literally as, again, the superstitious and mostly uneducated people interpreted it.

So, the concept of rewards and punishments in the afterlife seems central to Christianity. I kind of get the impression
the relationship of this God is like a parent with his children. One common tactic to control children (without taking away their free will) is thru rewards and punishments. Rewards seem to be more effective means of control (so I think Islam has a better salespitch). Punishment might be necessary to control the wilder kids.

It is central to Old Testament Christianity (i.e., fundamentalist), but not because it has anything to do with Jesus (remember, that is my main point here). If you study the history of the development of Judaic culture, and their claimed relationship with God as his "chosen people," you will see it stems from their concept of a God who is like a father, and as you know, fathers, especially in that culture, were the disciplinarians. Much of this attribute can be seen as anthropomorphic because Judaic culture was patriarchal, and VERY strongly so.

The original culture was tribal, and like other pagan tribes in the area, they had their own god. When tribes fought, which they often did, each tribe would call on their god to help them in battle. If you won, your god was more powerful than the other god, etc. The Jews came to believe that their god was all powerful, but that the reason things went bad was because he was displeased with them. So they made a contract, a testament, to obey his rules. If they did, then they reasoned an all-powerful god would make things perfect for them; of course, when things went bad, they figured they were messing up somehow. (On the other hand, the story of Job illustrates their frustration with behaving what they believed was "perfect" and bad things still happening to one.)

That's why from Moses' simple realization and ten commandments, priests over the centuries added more and more rules; because things kept going wrong, so they figured they needed to do more. By the time of Solomon, there were 633 precepts the good Jew needed to obey to keep God happy.

Now all of this was fully ingrained into the culture when Jesus came around. It was enforced by law and threat of death through the theocracy because nobody wanted to piss off God. The first Christians were Jews, and many of them, including Peter, wanted Jewish law to be required for anyone to be a follower of Jesus. As you likely know, Paul was the one who successful lobbied against that idea. Nonetheless, the Old Testatement eventually became part of the Christian theology, and along with it the old patriarchal, God as displinarian and judger with it.

The question I raise is, was that anything Jesus taught? I say, absolutely not because you can see him purposely disobeying the Law; in fact, that is why, ostensibly, he was crucified. So back to my point, which is that much of the stuff we attribute to Christ just isn't true, it is added by later generations of theologians just like people added stuff to what Moses taught. Yet the religious often accept it all blindly without understanding where it comes from, why it is part of the religion, etc.

Wouldn't there be more crime, at least on Earth now, if there were no threats and eventual realization of punishment?

Sure, but would be true even without Christianity or any other religion. We have a legal system that serves in that capacity rather effectively, so of course those who develop a religion might build legal stuff into it.

But at the risk of boring you with repetition, that still doesn't mean it derives from Jesus. Everybody talks about the evils/ignorance etc. of Christianity (or some other religion), and that is fine as long as we realize that because a belief system attaches somebody's name to it doesn't mean it represents that person.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Then what did He mean when He spoke to the two thieves hanging on the cross next to him on his right and left? Is there another interpretation that mabybe I have missed?

He spoke of heaven there, not hell.

 

[Les Sleeth]

In addition to the saying Rader cited there is also "Do not fear the earthly judges who can take life, but fear the one who can assign the soul to gehenna". And what about the "Lake of undying fire reserved for the devil and his followers".

Well, have you ever said hell, or "for heaven's sake" or "she's an angel," or any of the other of dozens of phrases common to our language that have religious or supernatural implications? It is downright silly to take every word Jesus said, or without taking into account what later redactors added, as literal truth. What if Jesus was trying to reveal an experience, and not a theology? That experience won't be found by literally translating every phrase he (supposedly) uttered.

The idea that Jesus was all sweetness and light does not survive serious contact with the gospels.

Well, I have never said he was all sweetness at least (light maybe). Why can't an enlightened person get mad at jerks? I don't see a problem with righteous anger.

 

[arildno]

As for moving finger's much vaunted statement that theists are "forced" to believe in free will, at the very most it amounts to saying that anyone (divine or not) who instructs somebody else to live in some particular manner, thereby presumes some form of free will in the recipient.

That is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with theism, but has to do with whether or not normative statements are seen as meaningful statements.

And, it is certainly wholly irrelevant (because it is a truism applying to every normative system you might encounter) when gauging whether prescriptive religions has the morality based on ideas like individual agency/responsibility as a central concern or a peripheral concern.

Now, as to a less "simplistic" view concerning the motivations of the god-creature:

1. Either the God is morally fair in a human sense of the word, or it isn't.
If it isn't, then we certainly can't go on about it as if it were.
If it is, then a few requirements has to have been met:
a) Any divine ordinance as to what is right behaviour should be understood by humans to be just and fair, norms, that is, they themselves would agree to. The very least one must require, is that a divine edict has an explanatory note attached to it where the deity or prophet explains why the sanctioned behaviour ought to be sanctioned, on rational grounds.

b) As for the ultimate fates of souls, no action or attitude of theirs that cannot be regarded as ethically relevant can be a criterion for whether they are punished or not.

If either of these requirements is not met, then the God is to regarded as unfair.

2. So, is, for example, the Christian God fair or unfair?
Answer: Decidedly unfair!
As a prime criterion of whether or not an individual is to be punished or not, is whether that individual BELIEVES that Jesus is his saviour.
If he doesn't believe that, he is consigned to eternal punishment, irrespective of his actual BEHAVIOUR in life towards other humans (and living things).

That is, to hold some BELIEF, an "action" with ZERO MORAL CONTENT is made into the most important criterion to decide the fate of the individual!

Any fairminded god would be forced to concede that when it comes to moral judgments, it is totally irrelevant whether or not a human worships him or, indeed, believes in him.

Thus, since the Christian God doesn't concede this, then, if we are to believe in the Christian God, we are forced to conclude that he IS unfair and beyond (beneath?) human comprehension.

3. Lastly, how can we then try to explain this "necessary belief"-element in Christianity?
As I've suggested, it is closely connected to the "inherited sin" concept, which again is closely related to the primitive idea of evil-as-filth, evil-as-a-stain, a concept of evil that is NOT related to issues like free will.

 

[Les Sleeth]

As for moving finger's much vaunted statement that theists are "forced" to believe in free will, at the very most it amounts to saying that anyone (divine or not) who instructs somebody else to live in some particular manner, thereby presumes some form of free will in the recipient.

That is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with theism, but has to do with whether or not normative statements are seen as meaningful statements.

And, it is certainly wholly irrelevant (because it is a truism applying to every normative system you might encounter) when gauging whether prescriptive religions has the morality based on ideas like individual agency/responsibility as a central concern or a peripheral concern.

Now, as to a less "simplistic" view concerning the motivations of the god-creature:

1. Either the God is morally fair in a human sense of the word, or it isn't.
If it isn't, then we certainly can't go on about it as if it were.
If it is, then a few requirements has to have been met:
a) Any divine ordinance as to what is right behaviour should be understood by humans to be just and fair, norms, that is, they themselves would agree to. The very least one must require, is that a divine edict has an explanatory note attached to it where the deity or prophet explains why the sanctioned behaviour ought to be sanctioned, on rational grounds.

b) As for the ultimate fates of souls, no action or attitude of theirs that cannot be regarded as ethically relevant can be a criterion for whether they are punished or not.

If either of these requirements is not met, then the God is to regarded as unfair.

2. So, is, for example, the Christian God fair or unfair?
Answer: Decidedly unfair!
As a prime criterion of whether or not an individual is to be punished or not, is whether that individual BELIEVES that Jesus is his saviour.
If he doesn't believe that, he is consigned off to eternal punishment, irrespective of his actual BEHAVIOUR in life towards other humans (and living things).

That is, to hold some BELIEF, an "action" with ZERO MORAL CONTENT is made into the most important criterion to decide the fate of the individual!

Any fairminded god would be forced to concede that when it comes to moral judgments, it is totally irrelevant whether or not a human worships him or, indeed, believes in him.

Thus, since the Christian God doesn't concede this, then, if we are to believe in the Christian God, we are forced to conclude that he IS unfair and beyond (beneath?) human comprehension.

3. Lastly, how can we then try to explain this "necessary belief"-element in Christianity?
As I've suggested, it is closely connected to the "inherited sin" concept, which again is closely related to the primitive idea of evil-as-filth, evil-as-a-stain, a concept of evil that is NOT related to issues like free will.

I don't understand you at all. Who cares what the "Christian God" is or isn't? You openly criticize religion (and that is putting it mildly), and then stoop to arguing about its nonsensical concepts.

Why bother? Religion is pieced together, with pieces here trying to fit with aspects of reality, and pieces there trying to fit with other aspects. It isn't a study of reality and then an objective report. It is a priori beliefs that determine how things are interpreted for everyday situations that involve morality, etc. All of it is lacking any sort of true foundation.

See, the problem is, IMHO, you can't distinguish the God question from religion. To you they are the same thing.

But some thinking people wonder why the universe can't be conscious as a whole. Why not? Consciousness developed didn't it? So we know it is possible. What is wrong with the idea that it developed before the universe and then assisted in its evolution? There needn't be anything "supernatural" about all this, and one needn't accept religion to consider it.

 

[arildno]

True enough.
But what you would have then is not a PRESCRIPTIVE religion, you might call it a contemplative religion.

That's perfectly fine by me, but such contemplative religions haven't shown themselves to be stable social phenomena, have they?
They seem to flourish among a few individuals from time to time, but die out with these individuals, or get warped into something unrecognizable very soon.


And, by the way, it is precisely because the foundations of Christianity (and of Islam and..) are nonsensical that their proponents should be criticized. Unremittingly so.

 

[Rader]

He spoke of heaven there, not hell.

What do you think he had in mind for what he did not speak, did he need any words? The message has endured 20 centuries, believe or not humans have followed it.

As I have said before interpretations of words do not express meanings of anything more than what you think you know and that is an interpretation of something totally different from what you will ever know but sometimes we get awful close to maybe what might have been intended to be understood.

In effect we are all an invention of our own experience.

If we assume that the divinity and humanity was commonly shared by Jesus Christ the message to be understood when He said to the thief on the cross that this day you will be with me in Paradise, compiles the whole meaning of what it is to be human. Humans know what ought to be. They have a choice.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, have you ever said hell, or "for heaven's sake" or "she's an angel," or any of the other of dozens of phrases common to our language that have religious or supernatural implications? It is downright silly to take every word Jesus said, or without taking into account what later redactors added, as literal truth. What if Jesus was trying to reveal an experience, and not a theology? That experience won't be found by literally translating every phrase he (supposedly) uttered.

In other words to hell with the documents, I am going to make up the Jesus that fits my preconceptions and talk a blue streak to try to bully people into not objecting.

The gospels, and maybe some of the papyruses that have been found, are the only evidence we have about what Jesus said. To play games with their text in this way is to abandon any legitimate scholarship for sheer fantasy.

Well, I have never said he was all sweetness at least (light maybe). Why can't an enlightened person get mad at jerks? I don't see a problem with righteous anger.

Well the problem is, the god of the old testament (one other saying that I suppose you will obfuscate away is that not a jot nor tittle of it will be abandoned) is every bit as much a jerk as any villain in the new testament.

 

[neophysique]

As for moving finger's much vaunted statement that theists are "forced" to believe in free will, at the very most it amounts to saying that anyone (divine or not) who instructs somebody else to live in some particular manner, thereby presumes some form of free will in the recipient.

That is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with theism, but has to do with whether or not normative statements are seen as meaningful statements.

And, it is certainly wholly irrelevant (because it is a truism applying to every normative system you might encounter) when gauging whether prescriptive religions has the morality based on ideas like individual agency/responsibility as a central concern or a peripheral concern.

Now, as to a less "simplistic" view concerning the motivations of the god-creature:

1. Either the God is morally fair in a human sense of the word, or it isn't.
If it isn't, then we certainly can't go on about it as if it were.
If it is, then a few requirements has to have been met:
a) Any divine ordinance as to what is right behaviour should be understood by humans to be just and fair, norms, that is, they themselves would agree to. The very least one must require, is that a divine edict has an explanatory note attached to it where the deity or prophet explains why the sanctioned behaviour ought to be sanctioned, on rational grounds.

b) As for the ultimate fates of souls, no action or attitude of theirs that cannot be regarded as ethically relevant can be a criterion for whether they are punished or not.

If either of these requirements is not met, then the God is to regarded as unfair.

2. So, is, for example, the Christian God fair or unfair?
Answer: Decidedly unfair!
As a prime criterion of whether or not an individual is to be punished or not, is whether that individual BELIEVES that Jesus is his saviour.
If he doesn't believe that, he is consigned to eternal punishment, irrespective of his actual BEHAVIOUR in life towards other humans (and living things).

That is, to hold some BELIEF, an "action" with ZERO MORAL CONTENT is made into the most important criterion to decide the fate of the individual!

Any fairminded god would be forced to concede that when it comes to moral judgments, it is totally irrelevant whether or not a human worships him or, indeed, believes in him.

Thus, since the Christian God doesn't concede this, then, if we are to believe in the Christian God, we are forced to conclude that he IS unfair and beyond (beneath?) human comprehension.

3. Lastly, how can we then try to explain this "necessary belief"-element in Christianity?
As I've suggested, it is closely connected to the "inherited sin" concept, which again is closely related to the primitive idea of evil-as-filth, evil-as-a-stain, a concept of evil that is NOT related to issues like free will.

I think moving finger's point was that theism without free will would
be irrational. So when you write "That is, it has nothing whatsoever to do with theism, but has to do with whether or not normative statements are seen as meaningful statements", you seem to be agreeing to his
conclusion.

How many religions can you think of that is not prescriptive. I can't think of any. Every one
of them have books that write down what their God wants its followers to do. If
the followers have no free will, those words were a waste of paper.

I think the deal with Jesus Christ being our saviour was borrowed from the concept of
sacrificing cows and the like to atone for a sin committed from the Old Testament (like
Moses in Leviticus). Jesus Christ was like the ultimate beef. If he already sacrificed
for our sins, why do we need to be cleansed again? This line of theologian interpretation
then seems like a dead end.

 

[loseyourname]

This is starting to border on a specifically doctrinal discussion, guys. Try to keep with rational theology and away from scripture and revelation.

 

[arildno]

How many religions can you think of that is not prescriptive. I can't think of any. Every one
of them have books that write down what their God wants its followers to do. If
the followers have no free will, those words were a waste of paper.

The important matter is whether issues related to free will/responsibility and so on can be considered a CENTRAL concern in the religion. It decidedly is not, IMO.

 

[neophysique]

The important matter is whether issues related to free will/responsibility and so on can be considered a CENTRAL concern in the religion. It decidedly is not, IMO.

What are the major concerns in religion then? It seems to
me that, at least in the three major religions, a major
concern is in the afterlife. In Christianity and Islam,
this is heaven and hell. In Hinduism it is reincarnation.
The Gods in these religions give man a set of rules
to follow to decide their fate in the afterlife. If the afterlife
was not a major concern, a major selling point, why should
people care what God tells them to do? The fact that a majority
of the people who believe in these three religions live probably
average lives at best and probably more likely to be suffering
in poverty and poor health should have made them atheists a
long time ago if God was supposed to help their lives out
now and not later by living a life prescribed by their Gods, their religions.

So, is free will a main concerin in religions? I think so because without
free will, the rules of behavior given by Gods in religions would become
irrelevant. A robot that is programmed to only say No cannot
be coerced, even by pointing a gun at its head, to say Yes.

I guess God could turn out to be unjust and change his mind
about what he revealed to his seers ( seeing how
man has edited and altered his words so many times anyways) so that free will would
become irrelevant to his judgment, but since God cannot be proven
guilty until one is dead, free will will always be central to religions.

 

[moving finger]

The important matter is whether issues related to free will/responsibility and so on can be considered a CENTRAL concern in the religion. It decidedly is not, IMO.

How can anyone rationally defend a belief in God and at the same time claim that humans do not have free will?
That God gave humans free will is absolutely central to most monotheistic beliefs.

Check the entries under Judaism, Mormonism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, Methodism in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will - Free Will is central to all.

Best Regards

 

[neophysique]

How can anyone rationally defend a belief in God and at the same time claim that humans do not have free will?
That God gave humans free will is absolutely central to most monotheistic beliefs.

Best Regards

Well, religious extremists and fundamentalists seem incapable
of choice and yet they believe fervently in God.

 

[moving finger]

Well, religious extremists and fundamentalists seem incapable
of choice and yet they believe fervently in God.

Good one - but I assume this was "tongue in cheek"?

Best Regards

 

[neophysique]

Good one - but I assume this was "tongue in cheek"?

Best Regards

Maybe a test of free will would be to try to convert an Islamic
terrorist to Christianity or a Christian Fundamentalist to Islam.

I think theism without free will sounds oxymoronic
and yet our consciousness and our belief in God
seems to be a product of the seemingly deterministic
biological mechanisms in our brain. If you surgically
removed the parts of our brain involved in
consciousness, a human would become a
robot or less and could hardly contemplate
about God. So in the end, this oxymoron
might actually be right unless one can
explain how apparently deterministic parts can be assembled
into a freely choosing whole.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Well, religious extremists and fundamentalists seem incapable of choice and yet they believe fervently in God.

That is funny, but it has a serious side to it as well. Let's assume we have free will, which most people believe they do whether they are theistic or atheistic. But . . .

We are also subject to conditioning (whether from repetitive behaviour, brain washing, one's biology, or whatever). There is no reason I know of why consciousness can't have both free will and be susceptible to conditioning. Yet between the two, free can win if one desires enough to be free of some undesirable conditioning.

 

[arildno]

When the primary concept of evil in Christianity is that of "INHERITED sin"* , a concept that is not at all related to a particular individual's actions (and hence, with his free will), then it is simply incorrect to say that free will is anything else than a peripheral concern in that religion.






*And the primary objective how to escape the consequences of "inherited sin", i.e, eternal punishment for not stealing some apple.

 

[Les Sleeth]

In other words to hell with the documents, I am going to make up the Jesus that fits my preconceptions and talk a blue streak to try to bully people into not objecting.

Yes, that’s right sA, you are the one making up Jesus and bullying, not me. I can tell from what you say you don’t know squat about the documents, so why are you acting like you do know. If somebody comes here talking about God being energy, that quantum mechanics proves free will, or some other scientific nonsense, would you sit still for it? So, what am I supposed to do, pretend I don’t know this subject?

The gospels, and maybe some of the papyruses that have been found, are the only evidence we have about what Jesus said. To play games with their text in this way is to abandon any legitimate scholarship for sheer fantasy.

In the past I’ve stuck up for you (not that you need it) when you were accused of ignorance. But here sir you are uncharacteristically talking out of your grumpy old backside.

First of all, my undergrad degree in religious studies and the many years of study afterwards qualifies me as more of a scholar on this subject than most. Further, I’ve studied NOT as a Christian, but as an agnostic hoping to find out what really was known about Jesus (and I am still not religious in any way). In the process I came to understand historical processes (as you know, history is document based). It is impossible to understand anything that was included in the Bible (or why it was included) without also understanding the way language was used, and what the cultural conditions were when things were written. Also necessary to understand are the Bible’s authors, which is why scholarship on the history of the Bible is crucial to study.

I tell you that the overwhelmingly strongest reason why any Christian believes in hell is because their religion insists on it. It is not because the evidence supports the idea even slightly, as a number of my professors made very clear. Also, read modern objective scholarship from religious studies departments at top universities like Harvard or Princeton (Elaine Pagals, for instance, and her book “The Origin of Satan”), and you won’t find any objective thinker who agrees with the modern religious theory that claims hell is supported by Jesus or anyone, even the nut who wrote Revelations.

Are you really going to make me do your homework for you? You could Google and find all this out for yourself if you were more interested in scholarship than maintaining hell so you can continue to insist Jesus and gang were deluded fear mongers. But okay, I’ll help a little. The following is excerpted from an essay on the history of hell, written by a Christian, but his thinking is close to what is best supported by evidence:

Gehenna, the word hell is given for in the New Testament, is rooted in an Old Testament location. It is generally regarded as derived from a valley nearby Jerusalem that originally belonged to a man named Hinnom. Scholars say the word is a transliteration of the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, a valley that had a long history in the Old Testament, all of it bad. Hence, Gehenna is a proper name like the Rio Grande Valley of Texas and New Mexico. This being true, the word should never have been translated “hell,” for as we'll see, the two words have nothing in common.

We first find Hinnom in Josh. 1.8 and 18.16, where he is mentioned in Joshua's layout of the lands of Judah and Benjamin. In II K. 23.10, we find that righteous King Josiah “defiled Topheth in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.”

Josiah, in his purification of the land of Judah, violated the idolatrous worship to the idol Molech by tearing down the shrines. Topheth (also spelled Tophet) was a word meaning literally, “a place of burning.” In II Chron. 28.3, idolatrous King Ahaz burnt incense and his children in the fire there, as did idolatrous King Manasseh in II Chron. 33.6. In Neh. 11.30, we find some settling in Topheth after the restoration of the Jewish captives from Babylon.

In Jer. 19.2, 6, Jeremiah prophesied calamity coming upon the idolatrous Jews there, calling it the valley of slaughter, because God was going to slaughter the Jews there, using Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. In Jer. 7.32, Jeremiah prophesied destruction coming upon the idolatrous Jews of his day with these words:

“Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter; for they shall burn in Tophet, till there be no peace.”

Notice the mention of Topheth, “the place of burning,” again. Isaiah also spoke of Topheth this way in Isa. 30.33, when he warned the pro-Egypt party among the Jews (i.e., those trusting in Egypt for their salvation from Babylon rather than God) of a fiery judgment coming on them.

In Jer. 19.11-14, Jeremiah gave this pronouncement of judgment by Babylon on Jerusalem at the valley of Hinnom:

And the houses of Jerusalem, and the houses of the kings of Judah, shall be defiled as the place of Tophet, because of all the houses upon whose roofs they have burned incense unto all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink offerings unto other gods.

From these passages we can see that, to the Jews, the valley of Hinnom, or Topheth, from which the New Testament concept of Gehenna arose, came to mean a place of burning, a valley of slaughter, and a place of calamitous fiery judgment.

Thus, Thayer in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, said, concerning Gehenna:

"Gehenna, the name of a valley on the S. and E. of Jerusalem...which was so called from the cries of the little children who were thrown into the fiery arms of Moloch, i.e., of an idol having the form of a bull. The Jews so abhorred the place after these horrible sacrifices had been abolished by king Josiah (2 Kings xxiii.10), that they cast into it not only all manner of refuse, but even the dead bodies of animals and of unburied criminals who had been executed. And since fires were always needed to consume the dead bodies, that the air might not become tainted by the putrefaction, it came to pass that the place was called Gehenna."

Actually, since Gehenna was a proper name of a valley, it would have been called Gehenna whether or not any idolatry, burning, or dumping of garbage had ever occurred there, and it did, as we now see. Fudge said concerning the history of the valley of Hinnom:

"The valley bore this name at least as early as the writing of Joshua (Josh. 15:8; 18:16), though nothing is known of its origin. It was the site of child-sacrifices to Moloch in the days of Ahaz and Manasseh (apparently in 2 Kings 16:3; 21:6). This earned it the name “Topheth,” a place to be spit on or abhorred. This “Topheth” may have become a gigantic pyre for burning corpses in the days of Hezekiah after God slew 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in a night and saved Jerusalem (Isa. 30:31-33; 37:26)."

Jeremiah predicted that it would be filled to overflowing with Israelite corpses when God judged them for their sins (Jer. 7:31-33; 19:2-13). Josephus indicates that the same valley was heaped with dead bodies of the Jews following the Roman siege of Jerusalem about A.D. 69-70...Josiah desecrated the repugnant valley as part of his godly reform (2 Kings 23:10). Long before the time of Jesus, the Valley of Hinnom had become crusted over with connotations of whatever is “condemned, useless, corrupt, and forever discarded.” (Edward William Fudge, The Fire That Consumes [Houston: Providential Press, 1982], p. 160.)

We need to keep this place in mind as we read Jesus' teaching using a word referring back to this location in the new Testament. Now here’s only a brief explanation of when Jesus picks up the term (you can read the exegesis of all Jesus’ use of the term here -- http://gospelthemes.com/hell.htm ):

In Mt. 5.21-22, Jesus used Gehenna for the first time in inspired speech:

“Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: but I say unto you, that every one who is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment, and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of the hell of fire (Gehenna--SGD).”

As we mentioned earlier in this study, Jesus actually used the Greek word Gehenna for the first time in inspired writing. The word had never occurred in the Greek Old Testament, the Septuagint. When we read the word hell, all kinds of sermon outlines, illustrations, and ideas come to the fore of our minds. None of these came to the minds of Jesus' listeners, for they had never heard the word before in inspired speech. It is very significant that the word did not occur even once in the Septuagint, quoted by Jesus and his apostles.

I suggest that to the Jews in Jesus' audience, Jesus' words referred merely to the valley southeast of Jerusalem. In their Old Testament background, Gehenna meant a place of burning, a valley where rebellious Jews had been slaughtered before and would be again if they didn't repent, as Malachi, John the Baptist, and Jesus urged them to do. Jesus didn't have to say what Gehenna was, as it was a well-known place to the people of that area, but his teaching was at least consistent with the national judgment announced by Malachi and John the Baptist. The closest fire in the context is Mt. 3.10-12, where John announced imminent fiery judgment on the nation of Israel.

Let's notice the other Gehenna passages to ascertain more about Jesus' use of Gehenna. As we do so, let's analyze each passage thus: Does the passage teach things we don't believe about an unending fiery hell, but which fit national judgment in Gehenna? The author’s interpretation of a “national judgement” is right on target in my opinion. You didn’t have to be seer to recognize what the Jewish state was headed for with Rome. Rome simply did not tolerate rebellion, and Jeruselem was a constant pain in the neck to Rome.

It doesn’t matter whether or not you believe Jesus had come to show the faithful a way to experience “heaven,” and to show them how to face death without worry they could survive death. What we do know is that within forty years of Jesus’ death Jeruselem was no more. It and the temple were destroyed, 3 million Jews were killed or taken into slavery.

Is that hell (not to mention apocalyptic) enough for you?

 

[Les Sleeth]

And, by the way, it is precisely because the foundations of Christianity (and of Islam and..) are nonsensical that their proponents should be criticized. Unremittingly so.

I wouldn't disagree (though I don't like to join in).

However, all I have said is that it is a mistake to confuse religious belief with the possbility that the universe is conscious overall, and that some successful introspectionists have developed a way (through union/meditation) to experience that consciousness; and, that the experience-based reports of "God" stem from these inner practitioners. Religion is something different all together.

 

[Les Sleeth]

What do you think he had in mind for what he did not speak, did he need any words? The message has endured 20 centuries, believe or not humans have followed it.

There is no evidence, and it is utterly illogical to assume, that hell is what he didn't speak.

In effect we are all an invention of our own experience.

And what should we substitute for our own experience? Religious dogma passed down from . . . who knows?

If we assume that the divinity and humanity was commonly shared by Jesus Christ the message to be understood when He said to the thief on the cross that this day you will be with me in Paradise, compiles the whole meaning of what it is to be human. Humans know what ought to be. They have a choice.

I haven't disputed choice, I have disputed that saying the thief could be in heaven has absolutely no implications about hell.

 

[arildno]

However, all I have said is that it is a mistake to confuse religious belief with the possbility that the universe is conscious overall,

Agreed.

and that some successful introspectionists have developed a way (through union/meditation) to experience that consciousness; and, that the experience-based reports of "God" stem from these inner practitioners.

Very probably.

Religion is something different all together.

In fact, I would say mostly unrelated.
While on occasion some of your mystics may inadvertently have started a religion, or brought their own peculiar fervour into it, I think most mystics like the sufis have had little missionary zeal or, indeed, interest of participating in "ordinary society" (if that is to be regarded as something worthwhile").

 

[Rader]

There is no evidence, and it is utterly illogical to assume, that hell is what he didn't speak.

The evidence is that, that is exactly the interpretation of the message passed down through the centuries. Catholic doctrine interpreted those words to mean that the thief who understood what ought to be went to paradise and the bad thief who did not understand what ought to be, did not. His words are a human interpretation of an unknowable thought, in this case Jesus. There is other evidence but again it is human interpretation of words. At the last supper the words this bread and wine which is my body and blood will be shed “for many” is an interpretation from Hebrew to Latin to English. Later after Vatican II changed the words to “ for all” only then was the full meaning of his words understood. Not all but many will understand what there humanity is all about. If you have another explanation for what he did not speak I would be interested to know what that is. There is no other human interpretation for allowing the repentant thief into paradise, if you do not send the other wherever. At any rate my imho theological interpretation of hell is not a lake of fire with all its devils but an absence from the light of divine concepts of knowing.

And what should we substitute for our own experience? Religious dogma passed down from . . . who knows?

That’s not my meaning of what I am tying to tell you. We could not exchange our experience for anyone elses, its personal; it’s what we build our database of what we think we know of the world. Have you ever asked anyone what a heaven or hell might be like? There answers would be nonsensical, who has ever experienced anything of the like, except in there own heads? What I meant is that neither you or I or anyone else is going know what He meant, we can only try to come close to knowing.

I haven't disputed choice, I have disputed that saying the thief could be in heaven has absolutely no implications about hell.

Les there was two thieves on the cross; one understood his humanity and the other failed to see it. Jesus only said to one, this day you will be with me in paradise, where does that leave the other? Humans can not categorize anything except in opposites. Maybe a Divine Being could, maybe that is why he said nothing of the other. The choice was made by Jesus based on whatever He knew that we could not. Then what are the implications in your opinion?

 

[neophysique]

When the primary concept of evil in Christianity is that of "INHERITED sin"* , a concept that is not at all related to a particular individual's actions (and hence, with his free will), then it is simply incorrect to say that free will is anything else than a peripheral concern in that religion.






*And the primary objective how to escape the consequences of "inherited sin", i.e, eternal punishment for not stealing some apple.

And the instructions given by Jesus Christ to escape the consequences
involves making a choice - to follow his words or to deny them. This
act requires some degree of free will. If man could not make a choice,
Jesus's words were unnecessary so wouldn't you say that the relevance
of Jesus's words to the Bible a main concern in Christianity?

 

[Les Sleeth]

The evidence is that, that is exactly the interpretation of the message passed down through the centuries. Catholic doctrine interpreted those words to mean that the thief who understood what ought to be went to paradise and the bad thief who did not understand what ought to be, did not.

Fine so far. I didn’t say both thieves went to paradise; I said there is nothing Jesus is recorded as saying that clearly indicates because one doesn’t end up in paradise means one ends up burning in hell for eternity. I am not arguing the truth of falsity of hell or heaven, only what we can safely assume from Jesus’ words.

If you have another explanation for what he did not speak I would be interested to know what that is. There is no other human interpretation for allowing the repentant thief into paradise, if you do not send the other wherever.

It doesn’t matter “what he did not speak.” You can’t assume anything from what he didn’t say, you can only be sure of what he did speak (or what biblical authors say he spoke). He didn’t say the non-repentant thief was going to Los Angeles, so should we assume he might have been sent there?

Les there was two thieves on the cross; one understood his humanity and the other failed to see it. Jesus only said to one, this day you will be with me in paradise, where does that leave the other? Humans can not categorize anything except in opposites. Maybe a Divine Being could, maybe that is why he said nothing of the other. The choice was made by Jesus based on whatever He knew that we could not. Then what are the implications in your opinion?

But that isn’t true. We can and do think in plenty of ways other than opposites. Only blockheads think only black or white. The discriminating thinker forms his concepts from the way reality is, and reality is more than one extreme or the other.

At any rate my imho theological interpretation of hell is not a lake of fire with all its devils but an absence from the light of divine concepts of knowing.

Now you’re talking. Logically, if paradise is to be in the presence of, or one with God, then the absence of God might be interpreted as hell (at least for lovers of God – those who don’t love God might not consider not being unified with God a problem). All I said (or meant to say) was that the mainstream conception of hell as burning in agony for eternity is not supported by Jesus’ references to Gehenna.

 

[neophysique]

That is funny, but it has a serious side to it as well. Let's assume we have free will, which most people believe they do whether they are theistic or atheistic. But . . .

We are also subject to conditioning (whether from repetitive behaviour, brain washing, one's biology, or whatever). There is no reason I know of why consciousness can't have both free will and be susceptible to conditioning. Yet between the two, free can win if one desires enough to be free of some undesirable conditioning.

I think our free will is limited by conditioning, obviously. Like,
no matter how hard I will myself, I wouldn't be able to
deliver a speech right now in Japanese , French, or Portuguese,
as I was never conditioned (learned) these languages. But
conditioning is a deterministic action so free will is not a logical
consequence from it.

 

[neophysique]

Of course, the problem with these types of discussions is that we must divorce ourselves from reality to discuss issues intellectually. No one is questioning all the assumptions we need to have in order to talk about things. Above you say the "Christian God," and I understand you are talking about Christian religious theology, but Jesus is the guy who everyone has claimed they are representing with their religion. Are they? What evidence is there that Jesus ever talked about hell, for instance? If we include Jewish doctrine, then Moses was the man. Where does he talk about hell?

In every case I know of where "religion" has followed the inner realization of someone, it isn't long before everyone has tacked on tons of spiritual, moral, theocratic, judgmental, supernatural (you name it) concepts that have absolutely nothing to do with the originator's realization. Religion is one thing, and that original realization is something altogether different.

So I suppose to give our intellects a little exercise we can assume a God capable of creation is so petty he punishes people and even tortures them in hell, but there is no realized person I've ever studied who claimed that. It's nasty-minded Renaissance authors, popes, imams, patriarchal mindsets, etc. who dream up these horrors out of their own fears, arrogance, and hatred.

The Old Testament God punished his creations, whether
they sinned or not, through horrible natural
disasters. He used a flood to drown most of the human race for
example. The Jesus ministry might have offered a more optimistic
picture of God but it hasn't stopped major earthquakes, floods,
plagues, famine, etc from wiping out whole populations. So
the Christian theologists seem to have a logical argument, especially given the historical behaviour of their God as recorded in the Old Testament, when they make up hell as a possible punishment for
sinners in the afterlife analogous to the hell the living sinners
experience.

I think it's out of character though , like you, for a loving God
to resort to such punishments. Would be like a parent who
would cook a great dinner and read a favourite book to
their kid to bed for them getting a good grade on a test
to go buy a rifle and blow the kids brains out because
he refused to take out the trash when told. Yea, out of
character.

So maybe there is a devil?

 

[arildno]

And the instructions given by Jesus Christ to escape the consequences
involves making a choice - to follow his words or to deny them. This
act requires some degree of free will. If man could not make a choice,
Jesus's words were unnecessary so wouldn't you say that the relevance
of Jesus's words to the Bible a main concern in Christianity?

Again, you blithely ignore the main point!
While it is trivial that any type of normative statement needs to presume some sort of free will in order for the statement as normative to have any meaning, it by no means follow that the peculiar moral issues (like individual moral agency/ responsibility for your own, but not others, actions and so on) flowing from the concept of free will are the central concern within that normative statement.

The "inherited sin" concept (and its automatic punishment) is, in fact, a totally nonsensical idea from the viewpoint of free will; it belongs to a quite different tradition of representing evil.

 

[moving finger]

any type of normative statement needs to presume some sort of free will in order for the statement as normative to have any meaning

Could you explain why you believe this to be the case?

Best Regards

 

[arildno]

If you form a statement in the shape "You ought/should do.(specific action).." (i.e a normative statement), then the possibility that the recipient COULD ACT OTHERWISE (than the action described in the statement) is contained within it.

As for regarding the statement AS normative, that condition must be regarded as possible.

Otherwise, the statement is merely a descriptive statement in an awkward fashion.

Better representations would then be:
"I hope it will turn out that you do..(specific action)"
"I wish you would have done..(specific action)"
and so on.

These are roughly the original statement as a DESCRIPTIVE statement, rather than as a normative statement.

 

[moving finger]

If you form a statement in the shape "You ought/should do.(specific action).." (i.e a normative statement), then the possibility that the recipient COULD ACT OTHERWISE (than the action described in the statement) is contained within it.

Why does this entail free will? (I assume here that we are talking of libertarian free will).

If the premise of libertarian free will is false and the world is completely causally deterministic, I can still say "you ought/should do...", meaning "this is my advice to you about what I think you should do, based upon my beliefs" (and my advice then becomes part of the causally deterministic chain of events). I see absolutely no reason why such a state of affairs entails free will.

Best Regards

 

[arildno]

Well, but it isn't any longer a normative statement.