Damnation

[MultipleTentacles]

I think I have a coherent theory of damnation. But I don't want to talk about it, because frankly, the Christian religion still labors under the tired and worn idea that it must be used as an oppressive device, to make ugly people powerful, and keep the weak in their place.

I scorn the Christian religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVRPEDOVJzk) for this reason. Christians do not deserve my ideas. Yet the mustard seed has infected my garden, and alas, I keep thinking in Christian terms. Somewhere along the line they conveniently forgot to mention that it is impossible to be the good Samaritan without relieving oppression. They rather dwell on the doctrines of subservience and patient forbearance, while the hypocrites hold the whip!

Christians, I pity you. But keep the faith, because I think your teacher was right--your pastors be damned. I, however, remain a Buddhist.

[scameter]

:dancing: Damn right! I despise the popes, Mother Theresa, saints, and all the good people that are and have been Catholic because of the abuses of some. Down with the entire religion!

[kris]

Quote:
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)


Here Jesus is telling us the following: (1) soul is destructible, (2) it is destroyed in hell, (3) it is destroyed by him (devil) and (4) we should fear the devil.

If this is not damnation, what is it?

[MultipleTentacles]

Scameter, you make a good point, and I am also a big fan of Martin Luther King Jr. and others.

However, I still say "down with the entire religion" because the entire religion was created by the Roman government to oppress people. Protestant Christianity was created by the British government to oppress people. Evangelical Christianity was created by Republicans to oppress people. Christianity is time after time after time shown to be simply a mode of oppression. Why do the popes somehow have the authority to say whom God will save or damn? Why do they have the authority to say whom God will communicate with or not? That sounds like pure hubris to me. And what about this persistent idea that whoever is in power (in the case of Evangelicals, whoever is Republican) is a viceroy of God sent directly to save the world? This is just pure insanity. It's destructive and useless. And it is not just "abuses of some", it is a consistent pattern of abuse from generation to generation.

But a still more serious problem is this: in my experience, Christianity has absolutely no positive transformative power. Good Christians tend to be people who would have been good Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, or Jews. And jerks who convert to Christianity or are "born again" tend to become far worse jerks. If Christ is a savior, why is he not saving anyone? I'll tell you why: because the entire institution of Christianity is bullshit. Christ is just fine, and "Christians" are as understandable and deserving of compassion as anybody else, but there is no Christ in modern Christianity.

Kris, you quote the Bible well. But how can the soul be destroyed when it is immortal? And what about the last day? Didn't Christ say there would be no more pain? Then why is damnation permanent? I don't think Christ contradicted himself. But the problem is modern Christians use whatever rhetoric they choose from the Bible to effect whatever purpose they choose. They think, "eventually, me and all my friends will go to heaven, but all those other people I hate will go to hell." They say "you will go to hell unless you join my church." Nonsense. I take refuge in Christ, but frankly I have to ask myself, what exactly am I taking refuge in? The entire institution of Christianity is no less corrupt than the world itself. It is much safer to take refuge in Buddha.

[John]

I think I have a coherent theory of damnation. But I don't want to talk about it, because frankly, the Christian religion still labors under the tired and worn idea that it must be used as an oppressive device, to make ugly people powerful, and keep the weak in their place.

I scorn the Christian religion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVRPEDOVJzk) for this reason. Christians do not deserve my ideas. Yet the mustard seed has infected my garden, and alas, I keep thinking in Christian terms. Somewhere along the line they conveniently forgot to mention that it is impossible to be the good Samaritan without relieving oppression. They rather dwell on the doctrines of subservience and patient forbearance, while the hypocrites hold the whip!

Christians, I pity you. But keep the faith, because I think your teacher was right--your pastors be damned. I, however, remain a Buddhist.And I thought that Buddhist's believe in Karma.

In regard to Jesus there is little real evidence that he existed as a real person (or at least not as depicted in the bible) but I take it as a metaphor of which Buddha was one, whether Buddha was real person or not.

[kris]

Kris, you quote the Bible well. But how can the soul be destroyed when it is immortal?Don't ask me; I was just quoting Jesus.
And what about the last day?Is there going to be one?
Didn't Christ say there would be no more pain?When would that happen?
Then why is damnation permanent?I don't believe in damnation, permanent or temporary.

[MultipleTentacles]

And I thought that Buddhist's believe in Karma.

I'm not sure what you mean by this... I do believe in Karma.

I don't believe in damnation, permanent or temporary.

Lol, good! I think anything that can be called "damnation" can be experienced right now, in this human body.

Allow me to quote from the Bible:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives his life for the sheep. / But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them. / The hireling flees because he is a hireling and does not care about the sheep. / I am the good shepherd; and I know My sheep, and am known by My own. / As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. / And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. / Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. / No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself, I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.
-- John 10:10-18.

This, to me, clearly signifies that Jesus' path is not the only way, that there are other flocks who are able to come to Jesus. There are other legitimate shepherds. This to me is abundantly clear.

Furthermore, it seems absolutely the case that right now, Christianity is infested by hirelings, and the flock has been scattered by the wolves of aggression, hatred, a judging mind, exclusionism, etc. It is based on Christ's words themselves that I avoid Christianity.

[kris]

This, to me, clearly signifies that Jesus' path is not the only way, that there are other flocks who are able to come to Jesus. There are other legitimate shepherds. This to me is abundantly clear.

I will quote John again:And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd. This suggests that Jesus wanted to bring the sheep of other folds to his fold and make all one flock of which he wanted to be the one and only shepherd. Obviously, my interpretation is totally at odds with yours and in agreement with the common Christian interpretation. I think this is why Christians feel the need to convert others to "his fold".

[MultipleTentacles]

This suggests that Jesus wanted to bring the sheep of other folds to his fold and make all one flock of which he wanted to be the one and only shepherd.

Good point. And Buddhism also has the idea that the only good teacher in the world is Buddha. But I suspect that since from the very beginning Christianity was designed to oppress, the successive governments that used it (beginning of course with the Romans, who created the Biblical Canon) made extra sure to propound the idea that they were the sole authority on God and Christ. They wanted power, so they wanted to scare everybody out of their wits who even considered following another religion. I suspect Christ's words were chosen very carefully by the committee that formed the Biblical Canon.

Also, I think it's significant that he said "I am the good shepherd" instead of "I am the only shepherd." There are other places where He says that He's the only way to God, but it is significant that there are places where He doesn't say exactly this. Another place is when He says something along the lines of that He is God, and the Jews around Him started grumbling, and He told them to stop grumbling because those who already know The Father need not worry about salvation--implying that there were people who were already saved, before He came along.

However, I also think that it is perfectly valid to say that only a legitimate savior (i.e. a fully enlightened Buddha) has the power to save you. That was probably what Christ wanted to say. We have to remember that He lived in an extremely violent and oppressive society, so He had to say some dramatic stuff if He wanted to get anything done. He had to get everything done right away, before the Roman government caught on to what He was doing. Jesus was a sort of revolutionary, as far as I understand. Buddha had some revolutionary aspects, but his society was more tolerant of him because he was of royal blood, among other reasons.

I think when we act, there is definitely a balance to be drawn between passive acceptance and active reform. But for one thing, by reform I don't mean power-mongering, divisiveness, or fanaticism, which are what Evangelicals push for. And for another thing, I don't think reform has to wait until after death, which is what the Anglican church pushed for for a long time. We need to take responsibility of our situation right now, and make things better here on this earth.

[kris]

Good point. And Buddhism also has the idea that the only good teacher in the world is Buddha. But I suspect that since from the very beginning Christianity was designed to oppress, the successive governments that used it (beginning of course with the Romans, who created the Biblical Canon) made extra sure to propound the idea that they were the sole authority on God and Christ. They wanted power, so they wanted to scare everybody out of their wits who even considered following another religion. I suspect Christ's words were chosen very carefully by the committee that formed the Biblical Canon.
Since you brought God into this discussion, let us take a look at him.To the woman he said,

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing: in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

Genesis 3.16 The above illuminating dailogue appears on page 3 of my Bible which has 1296 pages in all. (Revised Standard Version)

Here God himself appears to damn half of humanity. I think these words are beneath contempt and the sentiments they express are despicable to say the least. The meanness of spirit exhibited therein is beyond contemplation, since they apply to half of humanity. As such, I no longer believe in God. I don't consider God worthy of my time or attention. What then would you expect me to make of his so-called prophets, messiahs and messengers?

Also, I think it's significant that he said "I am the good shepherd" instead of "I am the only shepherd." There are other places where He says that He's the only way to God, but it is significant that there are places where He doesn't say exactly this. Another place is when He says something along the lines of that He is God, and the Jews around Him started grumbling, and He told them to stop grumbling because those who already know The Father need not worry about salvation--implying that there were people who were already saved, before He came along.Why does anyone want to go to God? He seems to be a horrible guy.

However, I also think that it is perfectly valid to say that only a legitimate savior (i.e. a fully enlightened Buddha) has the power to save you. That was probably what Christ wanted to say. We have to remember that He lived in an extremely violent and oppressive society, so He had to say some dramatic stuff if He wanted to get anything done. He had to get everything done right away, before the Roman government caught on to what He was doing. Jesus was a sort of revolutionary, as far as I understand. Buddha had some revolutionary aspects, but his society was more tolerant of him because he was of royal blood, among other reasons.Now here is what I like.uddhared AtmanA AtmAnaM, n'AtmAnam avasAdayet;
Atm'aiva hy Atmano badhur, Atm'aiva ripur AtmanaH
(Bhagavad Gita 6-5)Uplift yourself by yourself, do not allow yourself to fall/sink low;
You can be (lit. are) your own friend (lit. brother) or you can be (lit. are) your own enemy.



....... We need to take responsibility of our situation right now, and make things better here on this earth.Aren't savior's enough?

[MultipleTentacles]

Why does anyone want to go to God? He seems to be a horrible guy.

Well, the Old Testament was written before Christ. Therefore, it doesn't have the authority of a savior. Myself, I prefer the New Testament.

Now here is what I like. ... Uplift yourself by yourself, do not allow yourself to fall/sink low;
You can be (lit. are) your own friend (lit. brother) or you can be (lit. are) your own enemy.

This could mean that you should merely feel good about yourself, or it could mean to avoid temptation, or it could mean to keep "pure" by not associating with "untouchables" or things like that. I don't know much about Hinduism.

Aren't savior's enough?

I don't think so: I think saviors can only give you reason to have faith in them. But salvation requires that you do what they say is best.

[Ryker]

165 By oneself the evil is done, by oneself one suffers; by oneself evil is left undone, by oneself one is purified. Purity and impurity belong to oneself, no one can purify another.

166 Let no one forget his own duty for the sake of another's, however great; let a man, after he has discerned his own duty, be always attentive to his duty.
The Dhammapada

But clearly, there are exemplars of greatness - those who can show you a path. The streams we travel and the boats we ride are many, but they are all a part of the same sea.

[Flux]

I'm rather confused as to what it is that multipletenticals is arguing, other than that it is more than apparent that he does not like Chrisitianity.

While I believe Christianity to be incorrect in a vast number of metaphysical and ethical beliefs, and although I think it's undeniable that Christianity has inflicted its share of ills upon society, I think that hyperbolies of spite and malice towards Christianity and Christian preachers is quite unnecessary, and not always deserved. After all, didn't Buddha and Christ teach that sitting around hating people (pastors, in your case), is a silly and ineffectual waste of time at best and harmful to oneself and others at worst? It's best to change what you can, and accept what you can't. To work with situations rather than rejecting them.

Protestant Christianity was created by the British government to oppress people

Blanket statements are unattractive, and usually false. If I recall correctly, the protestant reformation began with Martin Luther in Germany, not in Great Britton. Thus, it's quite incorrect to say that the British government simply made the thing up to opress people. Religions are not made--they are grown. They have their antecedents in historical and cultural circumstances which give rise to them. The protestant reformation is something that happened all over Europe.

You need to take the good with the bad in religions, for the two are often inextricably bound together. The bad in the protestant reformation was, of course, the wars that raged back and forth between protestants and Catholics. The good, however, was that the stranglehold that the Catholic Church had on the Western World finally began to weaken.

your pastors be damned

I think that this is an exageration. First of all, I don't think that one should confuse unsavory giants such as Jerry Falwell with the average Pastor. I knew quite a few pastors when I was a Christian, and all of them were kind, moderate people, certainly not the monsters you seem to be portraying the ordained to be.

My only point is that an excess of venom can often give rise to more problems that it solves. Christianity has gone very, very wrong in many ways, but this does not mean that it is all bad, or that all preachers have failed to be decent human beings.

[MultipleTentacles]

Good points, Flux. I probably didn't get my facts 100% straight. Here's what I'm trying to say:

Every time I read the New Testament, I agree with it. But I also find how it can be terribly misinterpreted, and does not seem to be a complete view of reality. I believe this is not because Jesus had a skewed view of reality. Rather, the Romans who formed the Biblical Canon probably had ulterior motives, and left out important teachings. Thus, the institutionalized religion of Christianity was corrupt from very early on. It emphasized the spiritual sovereignty of the Pope, who, if I remember my history correctly, had very deep ties with the Roman Government.

Then, after the fall of Rome, Christianity was used by European governments to justify wage slavery and keep the lower class quiet.

Then, in the United States, the Republican Party has used Christianity to promote subservience to the Republican Party.

My point is simply this: unless you're a Buddhist, or unless you have made a personal relationship with a Buddha or Bodhisattva, when you take refuge in (worship, strive for the protection of, seek inspiration from) Christ, what exactly are you taking refuge in? Because it seems highly likely you are simply submitting yourself blindly to some self-important jerk's self-proclaimed authority.

This is why, as I tried to indicate in the first post, I have decided not to seek inspiration from Christian sources without putting the Buddha first. Similarly, I have decided not to try to inspire others using Christ, without putting the Buddha first. It is for the benefit of others and my own spiritual protection.

[kris]

Well, the Old Testament was written before Christ. Therefore, it doesn't have the authority of a savior. Myself, I prefer the New Testament.Sorry for the late reply, but I was out of town and out of country and had limited access to the web.

I am not sure I understand what authority of a savior is and who determines it, but does OT have any value? I am asking this because it deifies someone I find repugnant.

This could mean that you should merely feel good about yourself, or it could mean to avoid temptation, or it could mean to keep "pure" by not associating with "untouchables" or things like that. I don't know much about Hinduism.
I was not talking about Hinduism. You may read what I think about religion here (last post on the page). (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3409&page=4)


I don't think so: I think saviors can only give you reason to have faith in them. But salvation requires that you do what they say is best.Why are they so important, especially the ones who sing praises of God?

[MultipleTentacles]

I am not sure I understand what authority of a savior is and who determines it, but does OT have any value? I am asking this because it deifies someone I find repugnant.

Old Testament might have some value, because it does seem to have a more wise view of an Ultimate Creator than some other views. I like the fact that they insist on having no images of God, and that you aren't supposed to get drunk with the spirit of wayward gods--that sort of thing. I also like the 10 commandments. Of course, I'm not too well versed in Jewish tradition, so I'm not sure what all the positives and negatives are.

As for the authority of saviors--the question really is whether you've seen one in the flesh or not. If you can recognize a savior, and recognize them AS a savior, then you are on the path to happiness. But they are quite rare. And what with so many bad things that have been done and are being done in Christ's name, it's really difficult, for me at least, to see a savior in the Christian tradition. It's hard to separate the gold from the dirt.

I was not talking about Hinduism. You may read what I think about religion here (last post on the page). (http://www.thebigview.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3409&page=4)

I'm somewhat confused, because you quoted the Bhagavad Gita, which is a Hindu script. But anyway, I think I see what you meant. And I agree. To deal with reality and find pure happiness, you yourself have to take responsibility. However, "happiness" is a meaningless word until someone finds a savior.

Why are they so important, especially the ones who sing praises of God?

This question is answered by the last paragraph.

[kris]

Who is a savior? What does he save us from?

[MultipleTentacles]

Well, not everybody really wants a savior. But they can help, because they either don't suffer or have a clear idea how to end suffering.

[kris]

Well, not everybody really wants a savior. But they can help, because they either don't suffer or have a clear idea how to end suffering.

How does a savior help?

I will repeat my previous question since it was not answered - what does a savior save us from?

[MultipleTentacles]

How does a savior help?

I will repeat my previous question since it was not answered - what does a savior save us from?

Suffering.

[kris]

Suffering.

So how does a savior save us from suffering?

[MultipleTentacles]

So how does a savior save us from suffering?

That seems pretty obvious... a savior saves us from suffering by teaching us not to suffer. It can be as simple a thing as remembering to brush your teeth every day, or it could be psychological, such as making sure we don't constantly get angry at people, etc.

[kris]

That seems pretty obvious... a savior saves us from suffering by teaching us not to suffer. It can be as simple a thing as remembering to brush your teeth every day, or it could be psychological, such as making sure we don't constantly get angry at people, etc.

It may be obvious to you, but this whole idea of savior does not jive with karma which you profess to believe.

I can receive advice to brush my teeth everyday from a dentist A or a dentist B. If I follow either dentist's advice, I will get same results. Things have been a bit different when people talk of a savior. For the last 2000 years, folks have been telling the world that only one savior can save us. Who the savior is seems to be all that matters, not what the advice is. Quite naturally, I find the notion of a savior to be utterly ludicrous and pernicious.

[Jastle]

Scameter, you make a good point, and I am also a big fan of Martin Luther King Jr. and others.

However, I still say "down with the entire religion" because the entire religion was created by the Roman government to oppress people. Protestant Christianity was created by the British government to oppress people. Evangelical Christianity was created by Republicans to oppress people. Christianity is time after time after time shown to be simply a mode of oppression. Why do the popes somehow have the authority to say whom God will save or damn? Why do they have the authority to say whom God will communicate with or not? That sounds like pure hubris to me. And what about this persistent idea that whoever is in power (in the case of Evangelicals, whoever is Republican) is a viceroy of God sent directly to save the world? This is just pure insanity. It's destructive and useless. And it is not just "abuses of some", it is a consistent pattern of abuse from generation to generation.

But a still more serious problem is this: in my experience, Christianity has absolutely no positive transformative power. Good Christians tend to be people who would have been good Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, or Jews. And jerks who convert to Christianity or are "born again" tend to become far worse jerks. If Christ is a savior, why is he not saving anyone? I'll tell you why: because the entire institution of Christianity is bullshit. Christ is just fine, and "Christians" are as understandable and deserving of compassion as anybody else, but there is no Christ in modern Christianity.

Kris, you quote the Bible well. But how can the soul be destroyed when it is immortal? And what about the last day? Didn't Christ say there would be no more pain? Then why is damnation permanent? I don't think Christ contradicted himself. But the problem is modern Christians use whatever rhetoric they choose from the Bible to effect whatever purpose they choose. They think, "eventually, me and all my friends will go to heaven, but all those other people I hate will go to hell." They say "you will go to hell unless you join my church." Nonsense. I take refuge in Christ, but frankly I have to ask myself, what exactly am I taking refuge in? The entire institution of Christianity is no less corrupt than the world itself. It is much safer to take refuge in Buddha.

Just as a suggestion try the eastern Christian church. A little history: in the early days of Christianity there were five centers of the faith; One in the west, (Rome) and four in the east (Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, I think Alexandria). To make a long story short the church in Rome did things differently. They were more hierarchical and they had a defiant leader, the Pope. One day the church in Rome was having a difficult time trying to prove that Jesus was divine, so they said the Holy Spirit comes from the Father and the Son. The east was not happy about this, the Son and the Spirit come from the Father, so they asked the church in Rome to change it back. They did not change it and eventually that lead to the Great Schism. If you want more information you can watch this video. :thumbsup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kMhvqwbx_M

[MultipleTentacles]

Interesting. I shouldn't think you would need to prove that Jesus was divine. His fruits should prove it.

[brother alan]

Quote:
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)

Here Jesus is telling us the following: (1) soul is destructible, (2) it is destroyed in hell, (3) it is destroyed by him (devil) and (4) we should fear the devil.

If this is not damnation, what is it?

Well, actually, what it amounts to is you're reading a pretty poor translation. Here's the best literal translation I've located in the public domain:

'And be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna. Young's Literal Translation on BibleGateway.com (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2010;&version=15;)

Young's Literal is super old-fashioned 19th century English, but if you can get past that, it is also astoundingly literal, which can be quite helpful.

- Jesus didn't use the word hell. Gehenna means 'Valley of Hinnom', and it was a physical place most of his listeners had seen. Photographs of Hell (http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellPhotos/) Why, then, do most translators find it necessary to stick 'hell' in there instead of 'gehenna'? That's another thread.
- The "Him" in "Him who is able" is God, the same loving Father who sees the sparrow fall in the next verse. Note that "able" does not have to mean "willing". He is "able" to destroy the sparrow, or to catch and save it, but he does neither.
- In the Bible, Satan is seldom depicted doing anything he has not been given explicit permission, by God, to do. He is just another angel/messenger/avatar, barring a few very strange and (imo) debatable exceptions. Why is the general perception of the text so different from what it says? For the same reason that pile-ups make the news and smooth traffic does not.
- The tense of the entire statement is present and ongoing, although that comes across poorly, even in the literal.
- Jesus never preached christianity. He preached the full meaning of the Jewish Law in order to shock his Jewish listeners out of their complacency. They thought they were cool with God as long as they observed the outward form of the law: Jesus taught them that having a sexual response to your neighbor's wife is the same thing as screwing her, as far as God is concerned.
- Back when he was walking around Palestine teaching, religious people always hated Jesus on sight.

Even in middle age I still can't get to the parking lot after church without noticing some teenage girl's rear end, so if it comes to keeping a law, or 'being good' or 'acting right'-- I'm in gehenna. I assert, on the contrary, that there is truly wonderful news for everyone hidden away behind all the crap we have been taught to think about these old scraps of greek text we call the New Testament.

[kris]

Well, actually, what it amounts to is you're reading a pretty poor translation.
Alan, my quote came from an Ukrainian scholar of the Bible who knows several ancient languages such as Hebrew, Greek, Latin and I believe, even Aramaic. And he is theoretical physicist to boot. I have not met anyone who is as devoted student and a follower of the Bible as him. But since as you said elsewhere, that smart people make you tired and you are quite willing to disagree with even Cicero's scholarship in Latin, this guy perhaps will not faze you.

Be that as it may, since you told me its a poor translation, I looked up in my copy of the Bible and this is what it says:

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

I think this translation is not far off from the one I quoted earlier. I took it from the Revised Standard Version, perhaps one of the most widely read versions in America. Since I do not know any of the Biblical languages noted above, I have to go by commonly accepted translations.

What is curious though is that after reading what you describe as "a pretty poor translation", I found the passage to be pretty vacuous and indicative of disturbing level of ignorance on the part of the speaker. But millions of people read that same "pretty poor translation" and accept it as something very profound. What is the reason behind this phenomenon? Is it that the Bible takes away people's ability to reason?

[brother alan]

Alan, my quote came from an Ukrainian scholar of the Bible who knows several ancient languages such as Hebrew, Greek, Latin and I believe, even Aramaic. And he is theoretical physicist to boot. I have not met anyone who is as devoted student and a follower of the Bible as him.
Well, kris, your original quote actually came, word for word, from the King James Authorized version, which will celebrate its 400th anniversary in 2011. It is an anglicization of the Latin Vulgate; I don't think King James' translators had access to any greek texts at all. They were wonderful scholars for their day, but they were working with secondhand texts that had been copied from copies for at least a thousand years. In spite of any help they may have received from time-travelling Ukranian super-linguists, it actually is a pretty poor translation.

Yes, it's true that the Revised Standard Version is widely read, and if you're uninterested in understanding the text you quote, the RSV will do. I thought you might be intrigued by the ambiguity surrounding the term we usually translate as "hell", since the thread was supposed to be :uhoh: about Damnation.

What is curious though is that after reading what you describe as "a pretty poor translation", I found the passage to be pretty vacuous and indicative of disturbing level of ignorance on the part of the speaker. But millions of people read that same "pretty poor translation" and accept it as something very profound. What is the reason behind this phenomenon? Is it that the Bible takes away people's ability to reason?

Gee, kris, your original post mistook God for the devil as the person to be feared in the passage. I'm no judge of profundity, but I know vacuity and ignorance from 'way back. <ahem!> :rolleyes: and I'm gonna have to guess your Ukranian buddy sucks as a theoretical physicist if the Bible has removed his ability to reason.
Maybe we forego reason when we pick our opinions like we pick our favorite flavors of ice cream and defend them vituperatively in an utter vacuum of self-observance. Ya think?

[kris]

This is how I interpreted the quote in my original post:
Here Jesus is telling us the following: (1) soul is destructible, (2) it is destroyed in hell, (3) it is destroyed by him (devil) and (4) we should fear the devil.Are you saying Jesus wants us to fear God?Gee, kris, your original post mistook God for the devil as the person to be feared in the passage.

[brother alan]

Are you saying Jesus wants us to fear God?

That is exactly what Jesus is saying in Matthew 10:28, yes, but there is a more pertinent question to be asked at this point, brother:
Why reply to a post before reading it?

[kris]

That is exactly what Jesus is saying in Matthew 10:28, yes, but there is a more pertinent question to be asked at this point, brother:
Why reply to a post before reading it?Is this more pertinent than what Jesus has to say? :)

By the way, why do you think I reply to a post before reading it?

Getting back to the Jesus quote, I believe that between them, KJV and RSV versions of the Bible are the most widely read versions in at least English speaking world. I was not impressed by their "pretty poor translation" of the quote. And this may surprise you, but I find your interpretation of the passage shows Jesus in worse light than the KJV and RSV Bibles.

Perhaps you can tell me why we should fear God?

[brother alan]

Is this more pertinent than what Jesus has to say? :)

By the way, why do you think I reply to a post before reading it?

Getting back to the Jesus quote, I believe that between them, KJV and RSV versions of the Bible are the most widely read versions in at least English speaking world. I was not impressed by their "pretty poor translation" of the quote. And this may surprise you, but I find your interpretation of the passage shows Jesus in worse light than the KJV and RSV Bibles.

Perhaps you can tell me why we should fear God?

Jesus can cast his own light, for better or worse. I'm just trying to understand the text. "Fear" in the 17th century world of this translation had less to do with an immediate fear of violence, and more to do with respect and awe. A Great Dane may love a Chihuahua, but the Chihuahua will always be aware of those enormous and capable jaws.
My beef with the KJV and the RSV and all the other "christian" translations is that they go far out of their way to make God sound like a bloodthirsty jerk. Both versions never hesitate to trample ten more moderate or nuanced meanings to get to the hell and damnation christianity wants to preach. In another post I recently wrote something like, "There is no teaching so sacred that some jackass won't make a religion out of it." As a follower of Jesus, I will always be at odds with religion and religiousness in general, and with christianity in particular.
There is a great deal more to this that I would love to discuss, kris, but today we are dropping our oldest off for her first day at college, and I really have to go. Thanks for the thoughtful question.

[schrodinger]

There is a great deal more to this that I would love to discuss, kris, but today we are dropping our oldest off for her first day at college, and I really have to go. Thanks for the thoughtful question.


Congrats to you and your young lady, Brother Alan. You gotta be feeling proud today, and deservedly so!

[Thomas Knierim]

As a follower of Jesus, I will always be at odds with religion and religiousness in general, and with christianity in particular.

Interesting point of view. The gospels and the figure of Jesus were the main reason I agreed to go to confirmation classes and become confirmed at age 14, as it was tradition in my town. All the other stuff about Christianity wasn't really my cup of tea - ever. Probably I mentioned it in another place, but I still think of Jesus as a fully enlightened master and his direct teachings are very likely equivalent to that of the Buddha. Unfortunately, the Western oral tradition, probable editing of the gospels, and several hundred years of church doctrine haven't left much the original teachings.

Cheers, Thomas

[kris]

Jesus can cast his own light, for better or worse.I am sorry to say that I see a lot of darkness cast by him on billions of people for over 2,ooo years now. Perhaps it may all be because of "pretty poor translations" you point to.
I'm just trying to understand the text.
Brother Alan, it is my understanding that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Since he lived in Israel, it is quite likey that he may also have spoken Hebrew. Due to the political landscape of the time, many in that region at that time, probably had some knowledge of Greek and Latin. I think one should know those languages well to be able to understand what was written in those languages. Do you know any of these languages?


My beef with the KJV and the RSV and all the other "christian" translations is that they go far out of their way to make God sound like a bloodthirsty jerk. Both versions never hesitate to trample ten more moderate or nuanced meanings to get to the hell and damnation christianity wants to preach. Again, only good scholarship can shed light of these matters. Ironically, you seem to pooh pooh scholarship and tell me that smart people make you tired. I see a disconnect between your attitude towards scholarship and your desire to understand ancient texts.

In another post I recently wrote something like, "There is no teaching so sacred that some jackass won't make a religion out of it." As a follower of Jesus, I will always be at odds with religion and religiousness in general, and with christianity in particular. I agree with you here and as I told you in another thread, I consider religion to be a form of insanity.

Congrats on your daughter's progress. Mine graduated this year and has moved on to grad school.

[sonrisa]

Interesting point of view. The gospels and the figure of Jesus were the main reason I agreed to go to confirmation classes and become confirmed at age 14, as it was tradition in my town.

-- at least you had some religious reasons! The main reason I agreed to get confirmed was becuz my Mom would of kicked my sorry butt if I hadn't. That, & I got to pick out my name & my sponsor. The Aunt who was my godmother was always to preachy & pedantic for my tastes, but my sponsor-Aunt is cool....

ps, to Kris & Alan-- congrats on both of your daughters' progress :)

[kris]

Thanks, Sonrisa.

[brother alan]

Congrats to you and your young lady, Brother Alan. You gotta be feeling proud today, and deservedly so!

Thank you, schrodinger, I am @awe.org of my daughter. Wish I'd had a tenth of her self-possession and wit at 18. sadly, no.