Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have to say, Robbie, that you must be an idiot of the highest caliber. Generally, sex is not degrading to women unless the man makes it so. By using that word, you are making it so. Why would a woman not want to be called that, you ask? Because that word is crass and degrading. Would you call your wife that? I mean to her face? I'm gonna guess no. But hear me on this. It's not because the act is degrading, it's because the word is degrading.
no you have cited the benefits of sex generally. I would dispute your claims of course, oral sex is degrading to women. Ever heard of a women that likes to be called a c*ck sucker, why not? if its as healthy as you say it is they should be enthralled by the idea.
Originally posted by sonshipI am asking if the adoption by the Lateran Council of 1215 of the doctrine of eternal torment means that the notion that spending an eternity in hell being molested by demons is a human notion rather than a biblical notion. You would think that it would not take the church twelve hundred years to notice the hellfire and damnation bits of the bible.
I am not sure what you are asking.
I understand eternal damnation as something the Bible also teaches if that is what you are asking.
I wrote before the Holy Bible is a book of polar ultimates.
I mean the extremity of God's love, mercy, kindness is revealed on one pole. And also His justice, ultimate judgment, undiluted wrath against His enemies on the opposite pole.
It puzzles me why some people cannot seem to see this.
Just ignore the squabbling over female body bits and answer this one if you can.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes, meaningless drivel, to which you have contributed your fair share. Why not just ignore those who annoy you and try to address the question in the OP? I know it is no good asking the other sex obsessed loons because they don't even believe in the tormentor let alone the torment.
more meaningless drivel. dear oh dear i gotta have something better to read than this. yes the ingredients for my wotsits.
Oh, and talking about wotsits in the context of this thread is likely very dangerous!
Originally posted by KeplerThe doctrine of eternal torment is incompatible with the idea of a just and loving God, another man made idea imposed upon the sacred text, like the trinity, borrowed from the ancient Greeks. It relies for its existence upon the interpretation of one or two texts, which when examined, do not fare very well under scrutiny and in some instances border upon the absurd.
Yes, meaningless drivel, to which you have contributed your fair share. Why not just ignore those who annoy you and try to address the question in the OP? I know it is no good asking the other sex obsessed loons because they don't even believe in the tormentor let alone the torment.
Oh, and talking about wotsits in the context of this thread is likely very dangerous!
The parable of the Rich man an Lazarus is one, never of course meant to be taken literally, its an attempt to impose an exegesis on scripture where none was intended by the author. Does the author really think that a literal drop of water on the tip of ones finger will quench the thirst of someone undergoing torment in a fiery hell? Hardly, its purely allegorical.
There are other instances where the term Hell is used but the Gospel writer refers to the Valley of Hinnom (translated as Gehenna in the better translations but as Hell in the least accurate) outside of Jerusalem, where the dead carcasses of animals were burnt and sometimes the bodies of notorious criminals thrown. It was kept burning by adding sulphur I think. Now anyone can discern that this is not a place of literal unending torment, but a place of destruction.
So what has transpired is inaccuracy in translation and sometimes a bias, and the poor unfortunate evangelical Christian, unaccustomed to examining the scared text in the original language, is none the wiser.
Other instances of poor translation are translating Hebrew sheol ,as Hell and the Greek, Hades as Hell, which may have given arise to the idea that its a place of torment rather than the abode of the dead, but let it be noted there is only one instance in the entire Greek text where hades is described as a place of torment and thats at the aforementioned Lazarus and the Rich man, which as we have seen, is purely allegorical.
So yes you are correct, R J Hinds is advocating a purely man made doctrine.
HELL
A word used in the King James Version (as well as in the Catholic Douay Version and most older translations) to translate the Hebrew she’ohl; and the Greek haides. In the King James Version the word “hell” is rendered from she’ohl; 31 times and from haides 10 times. This version is not consistent, however, since she’ohl; is also translated 31 times “grave” and 3 times “pit.” In the Douay Version she’ohl; is rendered “hell” 64 times, “pit” once, and “death” once.
In 1885, with the publication of the complete English Revised Version, the original word she’ohl; was in many places transliterated into the English text of the Hebrew Scriptures, though, in most occurrences, “grave” and “pit” were used, and “hell” is found some 14 times. This was a point on which the American committee disagreed with the British revisers, and so, when producing the American Standard Version (1901) they transliterated she’ohl; in all 65 of its appearances. Both versions transliterated haides in the Christian Greek Scriptures in all ten of its occurrences, though the Greek word Ge'en·na (English, “Gehenna&rdquo😉 is rendered “hell” throughout, as is true of many other modern translations.
Concerning this use of “hell” to translate these original words from the Hebrew and Greek, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 2, p. 187) says: “HADES . . . It corresponds to ‘Sheol’ in the O.T. [Old Testament]. In the A.V. of the O.T. [Old Testament] and N.T. [New Testament], it has been unhappily rendered ‘Hell.’”
Collier’s Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) says concerning “Hell”: “First it stands for the Hebrew Sheol of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament. Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word ‘hell,’ as understood today, is not a happy translation.”
It is, in fact, because of the way that the word “hell” is understood today that it is such an unsatisfactory translation of these original Bible words. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, under “Hell” says: “fr[om] . . . helan to conceal.” The word “hell” thus originally conveyed no thought of heat or torment but simply of a ‘covered over or concealed place.’ In the old English dialect the expression “helling potatoes” meant, not to roast them, but simply to place the potatoes in the ground or in a cellar.
The meaning given today to the word “hell” is that portrayed in Dante’s Divine Comedy and Milton’s Paradise Lost, which meaning is completely foreign to the original definition of the word. The idea of a “hell” of fiery torment, however, dates back long before Dante or Milton. The Grolier Universal Encyclopedia (1971, Vol. 9, p. 205) under “Hell” says: “Hindus and Buddhists regard hell as a place of spiritual cleansing and final restoration. Islamic tradition considers it as a place of everlasting punishment.” The idea of suffering after death is found among the pagan religious teachings of ancient peoples in Babylon and Egypt. Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs depicted the “nether world . . . as a place full of horrors, . . . presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness.” Although ancient Egyptian religious texts do not teach that the burning of any individual victim would go on forever, they do portray the “Other World” as featuring “pits of fire” for “the damned.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, by Morris Jastrow, Jr., 1898, p. 581; The Book of the Dead, with introduction by E. Wallis Budge, 1960, pp. 135, 144, 149, 151, 153, 161, 200.
“Hellfire” has been a basic teaching in Christendom for many centuries. It is understandable why The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Vol. XIV, p. 81) said: “Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.” Nevertheless, such transliteration and consistent rendering does enable the Bible student to make an accurate comparison of the texts in which these original words appear and, with open mind, thereby to arrive at a correct understanding of their true significance.
source: Jehovahs Witnesses
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe whole Bible is a 'purely man made doctrine'.
The doctrine of eternal torment is incompatible with the idea of a just and loving God, another man made idea imposed upon the sacred text, like the trinity, borrowed from the ancient Greeks. It relies for its existence upon the interpretation of one or two texts, which when examined, do not fare very well under scrutiny and in some instances border ...[text shortened]... rely allegorical.
So yes you are correct, R J Hinds is advocating a purely man made doctrine.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
I am asking if the adoption by the Lateran Council of 1215 of the doctrine of eternal torment means that the notion that spending an eternity in hell being molested by demons is a human notion rather than a biblical notion. You would think that it would not take the church twelve hundred years to notice the hellfire and damnation bits of the bible.
I don't know anything about the Lateran Council of 1215. Sometime I'll go study that. I get my understandings of this from the Scriptures.
The idea of being molested by demons sounds to me like a fanciful human concept based upon nothing that comes to mind to me from the word of God.
My opinion at present is that God will have everyone so occupied with their own suffering that it will restrict what beings are able to do with one another. That is an opinion that I cannot strongly back up and it could be wrong.
But I do not derive my beliefs on this from Dante or Milton or this 13th century council of Lateran or Medieval art work, prose, etc.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by sonshiprobbies j.w. explanations regarding hell seem to be pretty solid dont you think?
[quote] I am asking if the adoption by the Lateran Council of 1215 of the doctrine of eternal torment means that the notion that spending an eternity in hell being molested by demons is a human notion rather than a biblical notion. You would think that it would not take the church twelve hundred years to notice the hellfire and damnation bits of the bible. ...[text shortened]... from Dante or Milton or this 13th century council of Lateran or Medieval art work, prose, etc.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by stellspalfie
robbies j.w. explanations regarding hell seem to be pretty solid dont you think?
robbies j.w. explanations regarding hell seem to be pretty solid dont you think?
No. It's a mixture - probably some valid observations along with some invalid.
( I haven't read it really. Going on what I know of JW doctrine)
I do not jump to respond to every Robbie post. Maybe if someone else like checkbaiter or Suzzanne asks me why I hold a certain view, I feel obliged to respond.
I cannot play perpetual whack-a-mole for every Jehovah's Witness post (or Atheist one for that matter).
If you have a serious question about, say, one or two particular things Robbie wrote, you can ask me.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by sonshipim interested in the word the use of the word 'sheol' robbie seems to be saying that it means 'abode of the dead' and is translated to the word 'hell' many times in the bible. is this something you agree with?robbies j.w. explanations regarding hell seem to be pretty solid dont you think?
No. It's a mixture - probably some valid observations along with some invalid.
( I haven't read it really. Going on what I know of JW doctrine)
I do not jump to respond to every Robbie post. Maybe if someone else like checkbaiter or Suzzanne asks me wh ...[text shortened]... ave a serious question about, say, one or two particular things Robbie wrote, you can ask me.
Originally posted by sonshipNo. It's a mixture - probably some valid observations along with some invalid.robbies j.w. explanations regarding hell seem to be pretty solid dont you think?
No. It's a mixture - probably some valid observations along with some invalid.
( I haven't read it really. Going on what I know of JW doctrine)
I do not jump to respond to every Robbie post. Maybe if someone else like checkbaiter or Suzzanne asks me wh ...[text shortened]... ave a serious question about, say, one or two particular things Robbie wrote, you can ask me.
evidence please.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by stellspalfieI will have to write something latter.
im interested in the word the use of the word 'sheol' robbie seems to be saying that it means 'abode of the dead' and is translated to the word 'hell' many times in the bible. is this something you agree with?
However, I have been participating on this Forum for about (I think) maybe six years.
It is a matter of coming round and round and round again to many of the same subjects. I know new people come aboard and see debates and explanations for the first time.
For me, this is maybe the third iteration of discussion on this matter. This is repetition of discussion.
When it occurs with the same person as in this case, I may not even read the other person's repeated points which have already been addressed.
Now the discussion I am having with checkbaiter is a first timer, so I am more vigilant to address objections usually.
I'll respond latter for your sake.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by sonshipno worries, totally understand. im just looking for anything mildly interesting so i can avoid doing a maths paper. im down to two options now. do the paper or hassle robbie about vagina's.......mmnnn decisions,decisions.
I will have to write something latter.
However, I have been participating on this Forum for about (I think) maybe six years.
It is a matter of coming round and round and round again to many of the same subjects. I know new people come aboard and see debates and explanations for the first time.
For me, this is maybe the third iteration of discussi ...[text shortened]... r, so I am more vigilant to address objections usually.
I'll respond latter for your sake.