Hell created for the Devil and his angels - Fundi-Christian Hell doctrine.

gillyflower wrote:There is a mountain group of Christians who believe that this life is hell and when we die we all go to heaven. They are called the "no-hellers."

So, do they think the same thing happens to people of other faiths?

I think so, there being only one god and all and their belief that Jesus atoned for all humanity.

And, of course, this "one god" would be seen as "male". At least they aren't of those who preach "Hell for the unsaved". You know, . . . I've come to the place where I cannot hold to the idea that "a god man would come down to atone for our sins", because it is kinda absurd, . . . but IF it were the case, it would make sense that this one act "saved" everyone, and "the good news to be preached" is just that.

But to hold the finite accountable infinitely is not just and may be immoral.

Ah, so your point is that if a man's place of work is burned to the ground, he will suffer loss...

Which hopefully the insurance companies will cover so he doesn't lose much, if any.

He might be saved from the fire but only if he runs through it?

Yes, sometimes people have to run through a fire to get out of a burning business. Sometimes the firemen and women save them by putting out the fire. Sometimes they go out the back door before the fire is there and they get out just fine.

This must be one of those things I just don't get.

Malachi 3:2-3



Whoops! I had said Micah 3:3 in haste, but it is Malachi. We can see that the concept of cleansing, refining, purgation, a renewal of sorts, was central to the theology of the Hebrews and the Jewish sect called "Christians".

I have seen those verses before. They seem to be overlooked when the preaching of "the doctrine of Hell" comes up, in favor of the "more scary belief", that the unsaved burn for all eternity in Hell.

Who would want to believe in, or more importantly SERVE, such a deity that is shown in some versions of Christianity?

)O(

Chokmah wrote:Malachi 3:2-3

"But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears?
"For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap;
he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify.....
and refine them like gold and silver.."

Whoops! I had said Micah 3:3 in haste, but it is Malachi. We can see that the concept of cleansing, refining, purgation, a renewal of sorts, was central to the theology of the Hebrews and the Jewish sect called "Christians".

That's just not my experience with Yahweh. I think that sounds like a man's idea of a judging god who is going to punish the people that the man doesn't like and is going to reward the man with lots of worldly goods and make them handsome and valuable so that all can see how wonderful they really are, not like now when they aren't valued as they should be. Whine, whine, whine.

I could stand it very well when Yahweh appeared and he wasn't like fire nor did he try purifying me into something other than I am now. Don't you really think what is central to Christianity is that humans are not good enough? That the god who created them doesn't really like them very much?

As with most bible passages, I think we need to look at the context to understand this one.

It's not about punishing anyone or God's regarding people as unworthy. As is common in the OT, the book of Malachi is berating people for skimping on the quality of what is brought to the Temple as sacrifices. It's an echo of the story of Cain and Abel where Cain brings inferior crops whereas Abel brings the best lamb of his flock.

Chokmah omitted the portions that clarify the context. It concludes like this: "For he is like refiner's fire and like fullers' soap, he will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi [for this is a diatribe against corruption among the priesthood, the Levites] and refine them like gold and silver until they present right offerings to the Lord."

As is the case with so many biblical passages, this one needs to be understood relative to its context.

Consequently, I don't see any obvious correlation between this passage from Malachi and the one from I Corinthians that Chokmah quoted initially which clearly is talking about spiritual purification in the sense that one may lose the worldly things deemed most important, but the things of the spirit are where the real value lies.

Now you see that makes more sense! Rather than anything at all about their god, this is about politics and housekeeping. This is a historical record of division within the church. When it is put in context, then it can resonate with today's church members who also have division within the church and some are bitterly angry towards people who don't do or give their fair share.

After posting my comment on the Malachi passage, I went to Corinthians and read through the context of that passage.

Having done so, I don't think Paul was talking about personal cleansing in that one. Rather as was so often the case with Paul's letters, he was writing to a specific group of Christians who were experiencing dissent and conflict among themselves.

There is a bit of a commonality with the Malachi passage in that Paul says that what some men contribute to the church is like gold or precious gems whereas others' contributions are like wood or paper. I think when he likens God's judgment of their respective efforts to a fire, he is implying that people ought to leave it to God's ability to purify and sanctify no matter our opinion of someone else's role within the church.

In short, mind your own business and make sure you're doing the best you can to support your fellow Christians and to strengthen your church. Leave the assessments of others to God.

Sorry but I disagree. The passage simply illustrates that God does purify and refine... ie. 'makes more pure' more clean. The ancient Hebrews were obsessed with 'clean' v. 'unclean' and had divers sacrifices and rituals to insure cleanliness (Purity Laws).

Jesus taught, " But nothing unclean shall enter it (Heaven)..." Revelation 21:27

Here is that quote from the King James bible:

And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

There is nothing there about unclean although honestly if Yahweh doesn't want dirty stinky people in his afterlife, I don't blame him. We don't like people like that in our library either. What it seems to be saying is that Jesus/Yahweh is going to choose who gets into their particular afterlife. As it should be.

King James Bible is deficient and its translations are antiquated. When the KJV says, "defileth", it is basically talking about something impure or unclean.

You place koinon for koinoun, eh? Well, just goes to show no one knows what anyone really meant all those years ago.

Do you think that Yahweh would let a dirty person into his afterlife?

Why not? He doesn't appear to be spotless himself.

I think that it typifies one of the problems that crops up with a religion that revolves around the written words in a book rather than a personal relationship with a god. Men make up rules for their god, put them in a book and this is what they "sell" to people who have never met the god and perhaps will never meet the god that they worship. They interpret words in a book that no one unclean or undefiled (and they are the ones judging who is unclean, not their god) will get into the afterlife of their god.

If pressed, they will say that's what their god said to that person who wrote it, how convenient! No way to check that one out is there? Not if you don't have a personal relationship with the god and no one has come back with any proof that A) heaven exits and B) the god does or does not pick "unclean" people to hang with there.

(I do realize that "unclean" can have various meanings, some leading one to believe that Yahweh (or the men who put words in his mouth) does not like his creations. No "God loves me" there!)

I object the reducing the religion to an intellectual pursuit of arguing about words in a book. I think if you want to know what your god is like, talk to him or her directly. If the god doesn't answer, maybe s/he isn't the god for you.

Continued....

Which is not to say I think that the words in a bible are useless or worthless. They are a wonderful history of a people and a historical view of what was happening, and various people's UPGs with their god. When taught in context, it's riveting. So interesting to see what factions were at odds and the outcome, who won all the power struggles for what was included, why something was written a certain way, who the audience was supposed to be, why things changed, who helped it change, etc. It is also a marvelous collection of myths that teach so much about a culture and time.

There is good advice in there too, just as there is good advice in Shakespeare or any of the great literary works. Otherwise they wouldn't be considered "great" or have lasted the test of time. But like with Shakespeare, it is a commentary on the time, using the language and mores of that time frame. Taking something - a sentence or two - out of context does the audience today no favors IMO.

And that's where I'm at. . . . . . trying to find the god(dess) that's right for me, because I haven't heard the Hebrew god, myself. Some people say that "I just need to have faith", . . . but then "faith" is a tricky matter. If it WAS just the words of men, who thought up the laws, rules, and made their attacks based upon their belief that the "promised land" was given to them by their god, . . . would my "faith" be completely misplaced? Regardless of how pious my "faith" would be, . . . would it still not be completely wrong? I think the answer could only be "yes". Yet, that's christianity. You must believe this, . . . you must come to Jesus, or face the consequences in your afterlife. Okay, . . . show me your evidence!

I think Deavon, and this is only my view for myself and why I left Christianity, that you have to be honest, with the gods and yourself, about what you personally need from a god. You hear a lot about, in Christianity, what the god needs from you, but they don't talk so much about it being a two way street. And I think it is.

A whole lot of the Christian world view didn't make sense to me, and still doesn't, but I just drew pictures on the church program instead of doing the eye roll when I was in the pew supposedly listening to a sermon that had a lot of logic faults in it. I liked the people: I was a social Christian. I was there for the donuts and gossip. They were good, fun people, in the churches I went to. If I didn't like the people, I went to another church.

The thing that I wanted and needed was an active god in my life and I didn't have that. That was my Bottom Line. It finally came down to me wanting something from the god that he either couldn't or wouldn't give to me. I squared it with Yahweh, was honest about my needs and he was okay with that - my UPG, of course - and I went off to find what I needed elsewhere. If a religion/god doesn't meet your needs, you owe it to yourself to find ones that do. It may be that you come back to Christianity later, too, if that search brings you back to that god.

Not sure if I'll be able to . . . . at least, christianity that believes all the crap from the old testament. Not even [any more] the "blood sacrifices which culminated in the final sacrifice of Jesus". It is barbarric to my mind and a logical inconsistency.

I really DO want to find the real god(dess) for me. I feel myself spiriling down into atheism, and that's not where I want to be. I consider myself agnostic, maybe deist, . . . but WOULD love to have something personal. . . .to commune with. . . gain insight from. . . . whatever comes about. But unless I find that the true christian god was mostly misunderstood, abhorently maligned, and not what was believed, . . . then I'm afraid that christianity will no longer fit who I am.

Chokmah wrote:Sorry but I disagree.

You disagree with exactly what that I said? Explain, please.

The passage simply illustrates that God does purify and refine... ie. 'makes more pure' more clean.

No disagreement with the idea that God purifies and refines. There was no contention over that.

I maintain, however, that God's purifying and refining in the passage from I Corinthians refers to a specific context and thus means something relative to that context rather than the more general meaning you attribute to it.

Show me, then, how my interpretation of the context of this passage is incorrect if you would, please.

The ancient Hebrews were obsessed with 'clean' v. 'unclean' and had divers sacrifices and rituals to insure cleanliness (Purity Laws).

Yes, they did. I question your characterization of their belief in the importance of the law as "obsession." Would you call someone in our society who carefully follows all federal, state and local laws obsessive?

This meant cleanliness or uncleanliness more in the sense of conforming or not conforming to the dictates of Jewish law. If you behaved in a manner deemed contrary to the law of God, you were not conforming and were obliged to make amends or to perform a particular ritual which signified your awareness of your transgression and desire to behave according to the dictates of the law again.

This is one reason why even today it is entirely possible for a Jew to be an avowed atheist but still be an observant Jew as long as the person performs what is required by Jewish law.

Purification rituals and sacrifices don't "insure" anything. They are public statements that the person is behaving consistent with the law's requirements or is atoning for behavior contrary to the law.

Perhaps my "bible" might be of benefit and interest to you, Deavon. I refer to my collection of Ralph Waldo Emerson's essays.

From his essay "The Over-Soul":

...We live in succession, in division, in parts, in particles. Meantime within man is the soul of the whole; the wise silence; the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related; the eternal ONE. And this deep power in which we exist, and whose beatitude is all accessible to us, is not only self-sufficing and perfect in every hour, but the act of seeing and the thing seen, the seer and the spectacle, the subject and the object are one. We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are the shining parts, is the soul....

[p. 184, Cuneo Press edition, ca. 1930's.]

(I range from extravagant to cheap when it comes to buying books. Fifty cents for this volume at a church rummage sale is by far the best value I've ever gotten for my money.)