@ President Eden

Are you a self-aware supercomputer?

Yes.

42

^
+1 for the reference...

"42" is a Fallout reference?

nope.avi

The purpose of religion is to obfuscate the truth and terrorize people into giving religious organizations money by threatening eternal spiritual punishment for non-belief.

42 is a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference, Gunfighter, if I'm not mistaken?

That's what I took it as, as the title is "What's the point of it all," so it's similar to "The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything," to which the answer is, as we all know 42.

But only becasue we didn't know the proper QUESTION...hmmm... :p

''The purpose of religion is to obfuscate the truth and terrorize people into giving religious organizations money by threatening eternal spiritual punishment for non-belief. ''

Well one can believe and not give a fig about eternity (taken as meaning eternal life). I am sure that you have met people who hold this view.

On the purpose of religion I like this quote:

"Why act morally?" cannot be given an answer that will provide everyone with overwhelming reasons for acting morally. Ethically indefensible behaviour is not always irrational. We will probably always need the sanctions of the law and social pressure to provide additional reasons against serious violations of ethical standards."

"The purpose of religion is to obfuscate the truth and terrorize people into giving religious organizations money by threatening eternal spiritual punishment for non-belief."

Sounds like you've been spending too much time with Catholics =P

Did Protestants manage to abolish heaven and hell when I wasn't looking? Why not just abolish the whole Bible?

""Why act morally?"

Because through evolution we adapted instincts of sympathy so we could better survive. Killing the members of our own tribe ended up undermining our chances of survival in a difficult physical environment.

Why questions are irrelevant. The real questions are how questions.

But religion doesn't provide a guideline to acting morally. The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. The Bible is a salvation system, concerned with the fate of souls.

"Did Protestants manage to abolish heaven and hell when I wasn't looking? Why not just abolish the whole Bible? "

Would make sense because there is no Heaven and Hell in the old bible, its something that christians made up.

"But religion doesn't provide a guideline to acting morally. The Bible says eating shellfish is an abomination. The Bible is a salvation system, concerned with the fate of souls."

and along with shellfish you have the majority passages about how to act morally, not necessarily the morals we have today though

@Putin - Jesus tore open the gates of hell and freed all. You don't have to abolish heaven to say hell has no power. They are two distinct, separate places. Like the West Coast and the Midwest. Just because the Midwest is dealing with tornados right now doesn't mean the West Coast is being destroyed by earthquakes.

But we covered this a few weeks back in another thread. There will be no eternal damnation/torture. Instead, those who are welcomed into the kingdom will have life everlasting and those who aren't will just cease to be - suffering a spiritual and final death. The weeping and gnashing of teeth? That is for those who are forced to sit outside the inner city because, while they believed and earned ever lasting life, they did not earn their way to enjoy that life in the presence of our Lord and Savior.

And, no, I don't believe in the adage "there can be no good without evil" because there is plenty in the world that is neither good nor evil, it just is. Therefore we can recognize good as being something other than the status quo without having to have evil for the comparison

"Would make sense because there is no Heaven and Hell in the old bible, its something that christians made up."

What is Sheol then?


"And, no, I don't believe in the adage "there can be no good without evil" because there is plenty in the world that is neither good nor evil, it just is. Therefore we can recognize good as being something other than the status quo without having to have evil for the comparison"


This doesn't make any sense. Can you have hot without cold? How is 'good' "something other than the status quo"? From where do you get this definition? Good and evil are simply designations given to conduct that leads to more or less beneficial consequences for human beings. Good is by definition comparative, as is evil. You can't know what leads to good results if you have no idea what a bad result is. Much like hot and cold are designations given to greater or lesser temperatures. They are by definition comparative.

"What is Sheol then? "

Something of such obvious importance it was mentioned twice (both times in which it was translated "the grave" by religious scholars) in the Torah.

So there is no mention of souls either? Or do these souls just die when the body dies, they don't go anywhere?

It is left very unclear in the old testament. Orthodox nowadays believe in a hell called Gehenna (sp.) in which the unrighteous are shamed before their entrance into gods presence. This is a product of kabalah and rabbinic Judaism. There are also doctrines of messianic resurrection and eastern style resurrection. There is definitely a soul, but it is very complicated what happens to it

Jews didn't have the same interest in standardizing a canon like the Christians did, which is why a sizable population of jews devote their whole lives to study, and why debates over significant issues continue today, in order to get a good enough answer you would need a scholar (and probably several)

Clearly I know nothing about Judaism. It seems odd that Christianity evolved from such a religion.

@Putin - By extending your anaolgy of hot and cold, there are such temperatures as room temperature or luke warm. Likewise, there are actions which are neither good nor evil. These actions are what I refer to as the status quo. Maybe that is the wrong term, but most actions are neutral in that there is no evil or good intent behind them. They just happen. So you *can* have good without evil because the two, while opposites, are not polarizing in their effect on the world. In short, actions are not black and white in their result or intent any more than hot and cold are the only comparators for temperature.

I guess I should clarify one thing... Evil infers intent. Good and bad are opposites based on end result alone, but evil requires the negative outcome to be by design, which is why I say there can be good without evil.

In my studies awhile back, I came across a reference to the closest thing in Hebrew to hell, which was literally a bruning pit where the dead were dumped, but nothing about torture and the reference generally referred to hanging out by the place in life, not in an afterlife. I wish I could remember where I saw that. Butit was only superficially related to the Christian hell or even the Catholic purgatory in that there were dead bodies and fire.

"Clearly I know nothing about Judaism. It seems odd that Christianity evolved from such a religion. "

Judaism had Eastern (Assyrian and Persian) and Western (Greek and Egyptian) influences. Christianity, in a sense, evolved out of the original desire to convert the greeks, romans, and Gauls who were familiar with western religious philosophy. As a result you have a religion that is more of an heir of western religions than a mish mash of several different philosophies as seen in Judaism

"In my studies awhile back, I came across a reference to the closest thing in Hebrew to hell, which was literally a bruning pit where the dead were dumped, but nothing about torture and the reference generally referred to hanging out by the place in life, not in an afterlife. I wish I could remember where I saw that. Butit was only superficially related to the Christian hell or even the Catholic purgatory in that there were dead bodies and fire."

You are probably speaking of the goat that is brought to "the adversary" during the high holidays sacrifice ritual. Though Sheol means pit as well. Jews do not burn the bodies of their dead though.

Deuteronomy 32:22. Don't ask me where in the Torah to find it. I only know it by the "Christian" Old Testament Book:Chapter:Verse reference.

"For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains."

Here, hell is Sheol in Hebrew. This is where I got the fire part from. But clearly the reference places the fire as coming from Yahweh's anger and not inheret to Sheol.

Deut: 32:22

"My anger has kindled a fire, burning to the lowest depths. It shall consume the land and its crops, setting fire to the foundations of mountains. "

What christians need to understand is that your bibles are a veritable game of telephone. It was translated from aramaic to hebrew to greek to latin to german to english, somewhere the word hell was picked up along the way, it does not mean it is what is said in the torah.

The fire here is a metaphor for gods anger, sheol is translated as "depths" not hell. But when a greek translater, who knew all about hades translated it to greek it became "hell"

I'm quite confused. Even with lukewarm temperature, it's still a comparative term. Lukewarm only makes sense if there is a hot and a cold, so therefore you know that the temperature is between hot and cold. I still don't get how you abolish evil but maintain good. Good compared to what? How do you tell if something is good?
You can say that actions are neither black nor white in the result but white is not comprehensible without some reference to what isn't white. White/good/hot makes no sense without any reference to black/bad/cold.

"I wish I could remember where I saw that. Butit was only superficially related to the Christian hell or even the Catholic purgatory in that there were dead bodies and fire."

Yes, although I'm no theologian, the constant refrain that one hears about purgatory being "unbiblical" seems to be wholly untrue. There seems to be a Judaic foundation for that concept, even if it is not a point of emphasis.

http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=5&chapter=32&verse=22&portion=53

that is my source for my translation