Really? Care to bring up the verses? Most versions of Christian hell arose from a little blood soaked book of Revelations, where it says things like: [...]
Allegorical, as I said in the previous post.
So why does your god kill babies with a huge infant mortality rate? I mean, if this took way babies freedom, then why does your god kill babies on a massive scale? Good thing we have medical science...
Medical science is great, no doubt! Anyway, I think you are right on this point (or, at least, I don't have an answer). Anyway, the infant mortality doesn't mean that a parent should kill his/her baby in order to prevent his/her loss of innocence.
So all those miscarried babies go to hell then?
Why should they? The haven't done anything bad. Well, they haven't done anything at all... Seriously, talking about miscarried baby is hard. In some religions, it is said that a baby receives a soul on a certain moment (after the conception, but before the birth) and honestly I don't remember what Christian theology says about it. I'm sorry. Anyway, if the baby doesn't have a soul...nothing happens to him/her. If he/she has one, I think it would be an innocent, so... paradise? I'm not sure.
Actually, only if you felt sorry for your "crimes", and not to just anybody, but you have to believe and say it to Jebuz.
You're right.
Since everyone was apparently born from an apple woman, we are all apparently born with some "Original Sin" according to many Christians around these forums. So it would be impossible to "Do the right things" by your religion unless we where actually believing in your religion...
If it's impossible to do the right thing, it's still possible to ask for sorry. By the way, I don't know a lot about the Original Sin thing... not yet at least.
Really? So all those bloody murders in the OT where examples of how to act good then?
Good argument. I don't know what theology says about this (yes, I need to study more). If I am not wrong there were many stories of bloody murders in the Bible, and everyone of them has a different meaning. For instance, the Flood: god killed every single man. Pretty bad, isn't it? Well, the Flood actually was something like an overflow, which surely did a lot of damage, but didn't kill the whole mankind. The ones who wrote about the Flood... exaggerated a bit. Why? The wanted to convey a particular idea, or the wanted to show "how powerful and revengeful god is". Those thing were common in ancient literature and theology. Note that things changed in the NT. And changed even more in modern religion. (luckily!)
So you are saying "The parts I don't like are just metaphors and stories or poems. They are not meant to be taken literally. I know a lot better than the people who actually wrote the book!"
Yes and no. More no. I think that everything written there has an allegorical meaning (not only the things I don't like). I think fire-blast hell to be a metaphor... but I also think light and cloudy paradise to be a metaphor as well. I don't think that the paradise is a place that stands upon the clouds, up in the skies.
In my opinion, I consider the Bible a mix of literature and theology. It is supposed to be written by men inspirited by god... but still men. The use of metaphors and images is common in ancient literature. For instance... Adam and Eva had 2 male sons. Later one the mankind multiplied, but... how?! If the were just two males how could they have sons?! Or did they...with Eva...?
Oh well, there are 2 answers... mankind is based on incest or the 2 boys are a metaphor to indicate something else (like 2 folks or something like that). It was just an example of the use of metaphors.
I don't think to "know a lot better than the people who actually wrote the book", in fact I'm just telling both my opinions, both what has been taught me by people who were more intelligent than me.
Well, Jesus disagrees.
[...]
Jebuz was pretty clear here. If you think your better than the scribes and Pharisees, then you are going to hell.
The verses you quoted say "... shall", "...will", not "have to" or "can't". Is this just a matter about grammar? Maybe. We are talking about a text which has been translated many time over 2000 years. We are talking about a text which wasn't written by god, but by men inspirited by god. Even if it was a perfect translation, I don't think we are talking about a formal law (like a civil law: "if you commit crime x you will get the y penalty), but a moral law. It is dialectic in a way... like the difference between civil honour and the moral honour ("
ointe d'honneur"
Do more studies. You are off.
Please, don't be so rude. I know that I'm still at the beginning and I have to study more and more. I never meant to be "the one who bring the Revelation Truth", as I tried to point, but "someone who studied something and got the chance to discuss about it".
I tried to use arguments better that "I believe, and you don't, so you will burn in hell".