I give up;   Why is this the most interesting verse in a book of bad poetry; further to that what the hell does it mean.  Humans can die only once,   believe it or not -  like it or not.  And why art thou  promoting this on a website full of rational people ?

So hell is a person and not a place? And apparently not the place where the lake of fire is?

Whatever you're smokin' Revelations Guy, pass some over here.

That'd be funny if the Bible had "Grim Reaper" in it. Chalk it right up with wizards, dragons, unicorns, and ghosts.

that part where it talks about the 4 horsemen I thought one of them was death i.e. grim reaper

I was taught that this verse is a poetic way of saying that after such and such End-Time event, death as a mortal event will no longer exist, so the second death is the death of death... poetically.

 

What makes you think the KJV is the most well established translation? 

 I wouldn't say the KJV is the most well-established, unless you refer to popularity instead of accuracy. In terms of popularity, yes. In terms of accuracy, most assuredly not. The KJV translation of Revelations 20.14 is inaccurate, which shatters the well-established accuracy myth.

The KJV translates the verse as "Death and Hell." A more appropriate translation would be "Death and Hades." If you search the NT, the fire and brimstone verses generally use Gehenna. Hades and Gehenna are not one and the same. Hades is the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word Sheol. In Hebrew mythology, all the dead (good and bad) went to Sheol (and thus Hades). Hades is a temporary residence for spirits of all kinds. It's not the fire and brimstone Hell that the KJV would have you believe.

Remember when it said Jesus descended into "Hell"? He went into Hades, not the fire and brimstone Hell. Jesus went into Hades to preach to those who had not been saved and of those who had been saved, such as the Saints, followed him out of Hades. This is why, following Jesus' resurrection, you hear about the Saints rising from the dead. The Saints were not burning in fire and brimstone, contrary to much of the retarded theology often parroted by the thoughtless.

Anyhow, Jesus took the repentant out of Hades, leaving only the unrepentant. Later, those people are resurrected. They are thrown into the Lake of Fire. The good are now immortal in Heaven and there are no longer bad people that can experience death; therefore, Death itself has been abolished, which is stated in a poetic form by saying Death was cast into the Lake of Fire.

If the repenant have left Hades to Heaven, and the unrepentant have left Hades to the Lake of Fire, who is left in Hades? Nobody. Thus, Hades no longer serves a purpose and it is subsequently abolished. Again, the abolishment is spoken of poetically by saying Hades was cast into the Lake of Fire.

Thus, "Death and Hades were cast into the Lake of Fire."
 

 

Cool posting friends. For the most part, I read the ancient bible and similar writings, as early "Twilight Zone" scripts, revealing basic simple wisdom of our human tendencies. Those that were, or now religious, I reject. Religion is obviously dogma poison. Get rid of all religious preachers, and keep the sci fi messengers of AWE ..... dream weavers.

    An atheistic interpretation of everything is to know all is ONE, all is connected.

                       Atheist Moses and Jesus were turned into religion

                             Moses - I am what I am, no god before me

                                          Jesus - I am god, as you

                                        Paul/Saul?, ahhh,  fuck you

              [ Summary: Moses - Jesus atheistic pantheists / Paul-Saul Xain ]

   Lot2  I'm still waiting for the answer to my first question, and waiting, and waiting..........

I forgot to ask, what do you want us to acknowledge? I don't see your point. If it is an implicit threat of Hell, you should find a better conversion tactic because the Christian Hell scares us just as much as the Hindu's Nark—not at all.

 

 In case anyone is wondering, Visual_Paradox accurately answered the question as to the meaning of Revelation 20:14. The KJV is incorrect in it's use of the word "Hell" here.

The idea of "Sheol" or "the Grave" was a kind of holding tank where souls went when they died. It is my understanding that the faithful went to "Abraham's Bosom" and the rest went to sheol, but they could be the same thing. The truth is, that ancient Judaism actually dealt very little with the afterlife, to the degree that 2 sects arose, the Pharisees and Saduccess over the disagreement about whether their was an afterlife at all.

In my opinion, the Christian idea of afterlife and hell was taken directly from Egyptian religion, specifically the Papyrus of Ani and like burial texts. It certainly didn't come from Judaism as the O.T. is largely silent on the issue. In egyptian religion, the individual stands before the judgement seat of the resurrected Osiris and is judged whereupon he/she is sent to a paradise, or to a pit of fire where he is tortured by a large serpent. This can be verified by visiting your local library and picking up a copy of "the book of the dead", which is the same as the Papyrus of Ani.

If you get a chance check out my blog site: www.Angelwire.net

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMOeBTHbTUs

 

The writer of that verse (Rev 20:14) could only be a guy knocked out with a strong intake of hashish. It is absurdity in high doses! You believe such nonsense at your own peril!

I have seen it claimed on here that this place is full of rational people.  I am wondering to myself; "rational by whose standards?"  I am wondering which of you can declare with absolute certainty what you consider to be rational!  Are we talking about intellectual rationality?  Opinionated rationality?  Human rationality?  Humanistic rationality?  Where is your beginning and end to all this rationality?  Who made you the expert on what is rational and what is not?

To be honest with you I find the greatest minds on this planet to be fallible in many ways.  Whether you hold to atheism or religion it is easy to find flaws in your arguments on various issues.  As a matter of fact, I find that when some of your are challenged to think subjectively about something that goes against what you want to believe you behave in ways that are anything but rational; at least according to what we think is rational behavior.

I believe strongly that there is a shortage of "lovers of truth" in this world, and that shortage has created an incredible vacuum of rational thinkers.  Rational thinkers examine things from every perspective without pre-conceived prejudices and opinions, and are always open to the possibility that they could be wrong about something.  A very wise man made the following statement:  "No man has ALL the knowledge on ANY subject at ANY time."  I added to that statement; "So then we could all stand to learn more about what we know or what we THINK WE KNOW." 

I find it patently offensive that so many so-called "seekers of truth" refuse to deal with truth when it runs against their long-held belief systems.  The most frequent occurence of this is in the realm of dealing with the realm of spiritual things.  People who have never had a spiritual experience blast those who say they have, and people who have had spiritual experiences blast those who say they have not.  Truth is, that we are all having a spiritual experience either by acknowledging one or by rejecting one or more of them.  The reason I know this is true is because I know that the real person you think you are is not the person you really are.  Your body is merely a shell that you live in.  The true being that you are is spiritual in nature and will long outlive your body.  You are free to accept or deny this very real truth, but if you are wise you will be careful to examine it fully from all points of view before your body dies.  It will be the greatest tragedy for anyone who reads this to just push it off, and then find out after it is too late that preparing for eternity is the greatest need for anyone who is given life on earth.  Imagine stepping out of this shell we call our body, and finding yourself face to face with other spiritual beings who you denied could possibly be there.  Imagine if one of them was the Christian God!  Imagine him to be all-powerful, absolutely pure and holy, and the judge of all who stop living on earth and begin eternity without his forgiveness.

Where will your rational thinking be then?  What will all your arguments that implied God didn't really exist take you?  I am sure you know!  Shouldn't you take a very real and rational assessment of spiritual life and find out if I am right in my knowledge that it is more real than the physical life you perceive now?  Consider my words carefully!  I pray they will not come to you in vain!  Too much depends on it!

 

I have examined the issue from many points of view, and none of them have pointed to the conclusion that a ghost lives in the machine.

The content or information of near-death experiences and out-of-body experiences gives evidence not of an external phenomena but of an internal subjective one, and we can often trigger such brain states with drugs or by delivering electric current to particular brain regions. Other brain states make it very difficult to see how the notion of a spirit or soul could possibly apply to human beings, such as alien hand syndrome—a condition in which one hand uncontrollably tries to strangle you, stab you, or undress you, while the other hand tries to prevent the strangulation, stabbing, or undressing; the physicalist conception of consciousness can easily account for this, while I have yet to see a dualist conception that could even come close to explaining this.

Of the numerous ghost sighting reports I have read and considered, none of them offer any compelling evidence. I have yet to see anyone offer a positive ontology for immaterial beings, and you need that to realistically claim that the immaterial can have a causal influence on photons, as required by the reports that describe photons bouncing off of immaterial beings to then strike the retina and produce the sighting. Any positive ontology would also have an epistemological justification, without which it will exist as mere speculation, presumptuousness, wishful thinking, or a combination thereof. Without both a positive ontology and epistemological foundation, you lack the epistemic right to describe "ghosts", "spirits", "souls", and the like as existing entities, let alone possibly entities.

The historical evidence points toward the conclusion that the notion of a soul or spirit gradually developed from a very dubious foundation. In the Old Testament, for example, the word spirit only means breath or wind. The ancient Hebrews thought of breath or wind as a divine substance, as something that caused the lungs to expand and contract and therefore bring life to human beings. This explains Adam's original breath, the method of Yahweh's hovering in Genesis 1, and the creation of Pharisees and Saduccees. The platonists and likeminded individuals produced a new notion involving platonism. The New Testament writers and likeminded individuals took the platonic notions and enveloped them in mysticism and ascribed many more qualities to it, based purely on wishful thinking, as all appearances tell. The foundation of the modern notion of spirit is breath, and our language belies this fact. The etymological dictionary tells us, "c.1250, 'animating or vital principle in man and animals,' from O.Fr. espirit, from L. spiritus 'soul, courage, vigor, breath,' related to spirare 'to breathe,' from PIE *(s)peis- 'to blow' (cf. O.C.S. pisto 'to play on the flute'). Original usage in Eng. mainly from passages in Vulgate, where the L. word translates Gk. pneuma and Heb. ruah. Distinction between 'soul' and 'spirit' (as 'seat of emotions') became current in Christian terminology (e.g. Gk. psykhe vs. pneuma, L. anima vs. spiritus) but 'is without significance for earlier periods' [Buck]. L. spiritus, usually in classical L. 'breath,' replaces animus in the sense 'spirit' in the imperial period and appears in Christian writings as the usual equivalent of Gk. pneuma." Don't you find it suspicious that the words spirit and respirator share the same origin?

Historically, the evidence points to the notion of the spirit or soul being made up by superstitious individuals without even a decent understanding of the world around them. Physically, what appears made-up historically does not accord with modern physics. Philosophically, what appears made-up historically and doesn't accord with modern physics also lacks an epistemologically justified positive ontology. No rational reason exists to consider ghosts, spirits, souls, and the like as anything more than pipedreams and references without referents.



If the Christian God were absolutely pure in moral character, he would not make me begin eternity without forgiveness, regardless of what position I take on this matter. If I am wrong on this matter, it is only because I have not been furnished with satisfactory evidence, and the lack of satisfactory evidence can only result from criminal—nay, spiritual—negligence on the part of he who does the judging, and an omnipotent and morally pure being would not be guilty of such negligence. An omnipotent and morally pure being would recognize the absence of satisfactory evidence and grant forgiveness to the people who did not reach the correct conclusion on this matter.



I expected that you—who started with a lengthy statement on the nature of rationality—to avoid such obviously nonsensical statements as describing something as "more real".



I find it irresponsibly absurd and absolutely ludicrous that you would try to rebut someone's argument by attacking their character instead of their argument and that you would insult the person without mentioning their name or using a concise statement that appropriately covers your meaning ('shut up, ignoramus') but would instead beat around the bush like a spineless coward.



Some well-versed scholars say otherwise; do a little more research before you opine. You make successful rebuttals too easy.



Almost 10 years ago, I did the same. After an hour of crying, I realized I was talking to a wall.



Whether someone believes or disbelieves has no bearing on the efficacy of an argument. Also, you live on the side that most nonbelievers have joyously left behind.
 

 

 

actually, evidence from Patmos, where that book was written, shows that the hallucinations John the Prophet had were probably due to ergot poisoning; the same thing that sparked the Salem, Massachusetts "witch" trials.

So you say. I see it the other way as I once lead a life deluded by Biblical lies to finally learn the truth and cross over to reality.

I lived 30 some years of my life in fantasy and delusion as a Christian and have now lived over 25 years in the real world. I can attest that the worst year I had as an atheist was far better than any I had as a deluded believer. 

Delusion and schizophrenia will do that for you as well as hallucinogens.

Though human minds have not a problem at all in the creation of fantasy.

It is not as difficult a task to actually look at the real world in the harsh light of reality as you might think. You apparently don't consider Thor or Zeus to be God, look at your delusion of the god of thunder Yahweh in the same way and you too can be on the road to rational thought.

Seems a long-winded way to get to that point. I actually like your summary better. Could we just put that in instead? "Okay, people, it's all one word," is actually better.

Weren't you the one just talking about offense? It's pretty offensive to threaten people, isn't it? Maybe not where you come from, I don't know, but eternal torment is a pretty solid threat.

So ... as long as you're found written in the book of life, you are not cast into the lake of fire. Well it's a good thing I'm in the book of life. Are you?

"Santa has a red suit."

Where's the lie in that statement? Santa may very well have a red suit. 

So if I'm right and there is no afterlife I stop existing. If I'm wrong and that verse is right then after my death god will destroy my soul. The end result of the two seems the same to me. This makes me cautiously optimistic that I will face annihilation upon death.

I'll bet it will be hard for my Christian mom to bear watching her faithless family members destroyed by god. Oh well, I'm sure that is just some form of divine justice I just don't understand.

Yes, but you do get to suffer the torments of Hell in the meantime. See the parable of the rich man in Luke 16:19-26, where the rich man after his death tells Abraham I am tormented in this flame.

Jesus told us, He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.  Matthew 10:37  She's either with us or against us.

Yes, but that's what the Bible says, so I don't think it is novel at all.  Paul, in Romans 6:23, instructed, For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.  By death, he obviously didn't mean the end of Earthly existence, since that happens to all of us, except for those who are raptured and the few who survive the Tribulation.

You're welcome.  Unfortunately, there is a lot of misinformation about the Bible floating around because most people attended Sunday school in lieu of actually reading God's Word. 

No, and you haven't been difficult at all.

If God wanted you to have a copy, I'm sure He would have arranged it.  Anyway, there is an actual book:

And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.  Daniel 12:1

I'll leave it to you to decide whether it's literally made of paper or is some Heavenly equivalent of an e-book.  As for who is in it, since those who accept Jesus are given eternal life, and since those who are not in the Book earn death (Revelation 20:3), I'm confident that my name has been entered.

Good.  The Devil is the father of lies, so it is wise to keep your eyes open.

Prophecies are quite helpful if you believe in them (for independent reasons).  I'll give you an Earthly example:  the existence of a particle known as the Higgs boson is predicted by electroweak theory, one element of the standard model of physics.  Nobody has seen it yet, though most physicists think the LHC will demonstrate its existence.  This is like a prophecy.  People have done some first rate physics based on the assumption that the Higgs particle does exist (or so my theorist colleagues tell me, I'm not so familiar with particle physics that I can be a competent judge).  At some point, I'm confident that science will have proved the existence of the Higgs boson or disproved it, but the hypothesis still has value even now, when we do not yet know whether it is true.  The prediction is also useful as a test of electroweak theory, just as prophecies in the Bible are useful as tests of the truthfulness of the Bible.

I wish I could point you to sources on this stuff, but I spend my time reading the Bible, not Biblical commentaries.  Skepticsannotatedbible is good (I hope you're not too shocked that I said that), though you need to read them with a grain of salt.  For example, in their zeal to show Jesus to be cruel, they read Mark 7:10 as Jesus saying that disobedient children should be stoned, when Jesus was obviously saying that people should not be stoned for every offense that merited a stoning under Old Testament law.  Unfortunately, too, many of the Christian responses to their accusations of inconsistencies in the Bible leave much to be desired.  But, if read with active critical faculties, their annotations point you to the areas of the Bible that need the most explaining.  I'll be glad to do that explaining if you have specific questions.

The Rapture is when the Saved fly up to Heaven with Jesus.  I don't think that Saved=good person and unsaved=bad person, so I wouldn't use those terms.  The Tribulation is the seven year period of plagues and wars that will follow the Rapture, as described in Revelation.

The Devil was not involved, except as a historical (and future) figure. 

Maybe not.  Maybe there is a particle missing.

My point is that we don't know for sure yet whether electroweak theory is correct, but people use it (and the supposition of the Higgs boson) to do theoretical work.  It's useful because we think it is true, but, right now, it is not useful as a test of electroweak theory.  Once we have the technology, it will become useful for confirming or falsifying electroweak theory.  I find Biblical prophecy that hasn't happened yet useful because I believe it gives me insight.  I know that you disagree, just as there are some theorists who don't think the postulated existence of the Higgs boson is true, so they don't find it useful.  That's the useful in its own right arm.

Similarly, I think you and I would both agree that if Biblical prophecies are sufficiently specific and their predictions are sufficiently unlikely, they can be used to judge the Bible.  Similarly, pretty much all physicists agree that the hypothesis that the Higgs boson is useful as a test of electroweak theory, once the technology is available.  That's the confirmation arm.

Dear God, no.  There's way more politics regarding what goes into a physics journal than there ever was over what should go into the Bibile.

If Jesus did something just to fulfill the prophecies, that isn't very substantial evidence for the truth of those prophecies.  However, if Jesus failed to do something prophesied, that would certainly prove that He was not the Messiah.

The thing is, Matthew told us straight up that Jesus was making sure he fulfilled those prophecies.  Physicists who fudge their numbers don't advertise that fact in their papers.

Nobody has ever demonstrated, to the best of my knowledge, that the Higgs boson is necessary for physics.  It's just necessary for electroweak theory, which has been confirmed spectacularly in many other particulars.  Personally, I put the probability of Higgs existing at around 98%, but I hope it doesn't exist, because that would lead to some really interesting new science. 

My brother is a lawyer, he tells me that the law of evidence bears approximately the same relation to truth finding as whoring does to monogamous marriage--there are a few important overlaps, but the means and goals are very different.   I'm not sure this is the right forum to go into the proof that the Bible is correct, but there are some things that are very hard to explain if you deny it.  For example, consider   Matthew 27:50-54:

 ⁵⁰Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

 ⁵¹And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

 ⁵²And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

 ⁵³And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

If that never occurred, then how was Christianity able to survive as a sect in Jerusalem?  Surely people would have told the early Christians that the march of the zombies through Jerusalem never happened, and that would have been the end of Christianity.

Still, since this is the Biblical Errancy forum, I suggest that it's your job to prove the Bible wrong, not mine to prove that it is right.  Can you?

That's string theory in a nutshell.