The Non-Existence of Hell (Religion)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, October 01, 2010, 06:40 (5168 days ago) @ David Turell


> The discrepancy between Matt's interest and my declaration is obvious to me. b-m and Matt are rasied on an NT persepective. I'm totally Masoretic text. I frankly don't care what the NT scholars have said about the word Sheol. Christians have a vested interest in Hell, and have to push the concept, since the religion seems to me to be based on an adolescent concept of reward and punishment. Judaism, as presented to me, as a child, downplays that approach. You are to be good for goodness sake alone, and I have always tried to be. For me,there is NO HELL.
> -
Thank you for the research, it made for some interesting reading. My view has always been that there was no 'hell' such as described by the RCC. I am not sure if I have ever mentioned it here, but I have always thought that there should be a dividing line between the bible, spirituality, Christianity, and religion, particularly in educated debate. The reason is that one is a text, or group of texts, one is a state of awareness, one is a belief system, and one is an organization. They are not even in the same category, much less the same thing. Consequently, you can have one or two of these things together, in different combination, without the requirement of having the third or fourth. However, it seems that in average debate, the distinction between the four is often times lost completely, much to the detriment of the understanding of the debaters. -Likewise, I also feel that 'religious' people tend to make the mistake of trying to make the scientific world fit their beliefs. I know George probably thinks that is what I was attempting to do with the flood, by I look at it as trying to reconcile evidence with written history, regardless of any metaphysical connotation. Science, likewise, either tries to make religion fit the science, or ignores it completely as 'religidiot' mythical juju. (Phrase coined on R Dawkin's forums). Though generally I would say science actively tries to disprove spirituality because it is an affront to their weighed and measured view of the universe.-In the case of hell, as has been the case of many things that issued out of the RCC, it is a case of control, as DHW pointed out. Be good or be punished forever and ever. This, of course, runs counter to several of the themes of the bible, but as we all take from it what we will, I can see how some people would get the impression, even after the bible was translated into a language they could read. However, I also recognize the fact that many texts that should have been in the bible, like the apocryphal texts and the gnostic gospels were not included because they would have been extremely damaging to any form of Church. I mean, where would the RCC have been if it had come out that Jesus wasn't immaculately conceived or that he was married to the woman the labeled as a whore, or that he was resurrected before he died (a spiritual resurrection instead of a physical one)? Ultimately religion is not 'based' on the bible anymore than it is 'based' on the Talmud, Koran, Bagavhad-Gita, or any other manuscript. It is based on money, control, and power. -However, spirituality, even Christianity, if taken from the full range of sources instead of those voted in, is something different. It is based knowing yourself, much like Buddhism, and on the knowledge that the punishment we get in our lifetime is generally self-inflicted, and not the direct action of any maligned spirit. In all things in nature there is a balance, even if we do not understand it. Why should God be any different? If he is all things how could he not also be evil, which would mean that evil is good, or more likely a neutral illusion that only holds relevance in the material world. Mainstream Christianity is much like mainstream evolutionary theory, or the main BBT, in my humble opinion. It sees precisely what it wants to see, 'proves' itself with the tiniest of evidences while completely ignoring the glaring ineptitude of its standard, and maintains its hold on otherwise rational thinkers, not by the value or merit of its foundation, but by alternately raising its voice louder or simply gagging any opposing thought or disproving idea. -
sorry if I got off on a tangent there.