Shannow said:
Aothan said:
oh, and, the conventional interpretation of hell is not actually founded on a unified depiction of the Bible's account, hell has always meant 'destruction of being', not 'suffer eternally'.
Only that Mathew has Jesus talking about a lake of fire, eternal damnation, etc.
And Christian churches and sects are in eternal argument over there being a Hell, if there is how it is manifested (eternal torture, non-existence, no love from God, etc) and who goes there (non-believers, sinners, both...). Not to mention that the bible was revised several times and who knows what was cut, added or changed.
Your confusion is quite understandable given the confusing nature of the bible and religion in general.
hey Shannow, sorry for the slightly delayed response.
well to briefly respond, the point I put forward is one that has no actual reference to personal belief, historical antecedent, 'Sola Scripture' and such. I am not sure what the history of the subject is, but I would generally assume that once the powers that be had brought about the concept of eternal suffering, they would not be inclined to let go. In other words, working with that assumption, a few dissident (and soon to be silenced) voices would not represent ongoing divergence of interpretation.
it is only in the most recent period, where dogma is no longer self-evident justification and information is now accessible at large that a radical terminology shift has taken place across all major Bible formats. Moreover once rectification of solipsism occurred the proverbial floodgates were opened.
it is in this frame of assessment that I think anyone, regardless of personal beliefs or sentiment on the subject, can objectively evaluate the subject with a more detailed account of the ideas and themes involved.
although mainstream attitudes persist on what Hell/Hel means, I would forward that anyone who considers the material in the light of open information will discern the extent of misinformation. Really the influence such solipsism has had for world history and contemporary attitudes (on all sides) is unparalleled.
all said though I am not sure if this is the right forum for such a discussion to take place, even though I am happy to involve myself with others on this type of subject. To very briefly address one of the core points mentioned, the "Lake of Fire" is one of the more apparent thematic red flags for those who can keep track of themes. Most, myself included, just kind of go numb after reading through a dated text such as the Bible. A lot of the content references ideas, internal assumptions, culture and idioms that are largely lost on readers from different places and times. Not to mention translations issues, contradictions and so on. So anyway the Lake of Fire which is often understood to be Hell, leaves us with this oddity: And Death and Hell were cast into the Lake of Fire. This is the Second Death. Revelation 20:14
the level of contradiction is more or less evident, in short my point has been that an overview comparing the ideas and terminology involved for concluding what Hell means in the belief system would objectively favour a conclusion that means destruction of being.
this link will detail terminology use and misuse, possible historical origins of external influence and clarify phrase usage and references relating to the same ideas. I am not sure if goes on to conclude as I do what Hell rightly means, but it is very useful resource for any inclined to investigate the matter.
