The Fort Worth newspaper had this article in the Sunday edition. Remember this is the heart of the Bible Belt! Please take the time to read this one. Others are discovering what many of us have known for some time now.
http://www.star-telegram.com/242/story/837232.html
*I am posting this wonderful message from Neale Donald Walsch for you today.
"Why is this happening?" is the most useless
question in the Universe.
The only really profitable question is, "What?" As in,
"What do I choose now?" This question empowers.
The "why" question simply perplexes, and rarely
satisfies even when it gets a good answer.
So don’t try to "figure it out." Stop it. Just focus on
what you now wish to create. Keep moving forward.
There’s nothing behind you that can possibly serve
you better than your highest thoughts about tomorrow.
What does that mean? How do we interpret that phrase? What are the implications of these words? The reason I ask is because I believe the implications reach beyond our "religious" beliefs about the deity. Love is a human emotion as well as an emotion which we have ascribed to deity. Therefore, I believe that all human beings express love in the way they have been taught, the way they view love in the world, consciously or unconsciously. So, the phrase "God is love" becomes very important to our own interpersonal relationships. What were we told about God’s love? I was basically told that God is love, God loves us and accepts us, IF………………You know what that does, don’t you? That makes God’s love CONDITIONAL. So, God is love if, or God is love, but.. The ultimate outcome is in doubt. What comes after the IF? What comes after the BUT? Well, That all depends. It depends on what we do. God loves us but will retreat or withdraw from us depending on whether we do the right things. And, believe me, it is plural, things! Most of us have at least one good friend who we can depend on, but, ever so infrequently, that friend may disappoint us. But, we’re talking God here. If we can’t depend on God, who can we depend on?
Can you remember the first time when you decided to tell another special human being, "I love you"? I can. That reminds me of a "Seinfeld" episode where George decides to tell a girlfriend that he loves her. Jerry tries to discourage him unless he is very, very sure that he’ll get the return, "I love you too." When we humans do tell another that we love them, we immediately begin to worry whether or not we will hear it back. Even if we do hear it back, we worry that someday we might lose that love. And, why is this the case? It is because of the implication that God may withdraw love from us if we don’t perform correctly.
As you can see, the religious implications reach deep into our interpersonal relations. We base our love relationships, of all kinds, based on what we see of love in the world and the love of God as we see it. It seems that our ideas of God’s love have come from our experience of love in the world and vice-versa. Since our ideas of love in the world are primarily fear-based, why would our ideas of God’s love be any different. It seems to me that when religious ideas about God were being developed eons ago, man looked to worldly love as his model. Not a good idea! Once these religious concepts of what God is like became doctrine, then, the reverse began to be the rule. We as human beings began to say, "if God is like this (withdraws his love based on our doings), then everyone is like this. If we fear God will withdraw his love, we will fear another human will do the same thing.
This fear-based reality dominates our experience of love. In fact, it creates it. We not only receive love that is conditional, we also view ourselves giving love in the same way. Deep within us we know this is not the way it should be. This cannot be the way God really is. What does "God is love" mean to you?
Satan is a.k.a. as The Devil, Beelzebub, Lucifer, Mephistopheles, Prince of Darkness, Accursed Dragon, Foul Spirit, Satanic Power, Master of Deceit, etc.
There is no consensus in North America about the nature of Satan. A 2002-AUG poll by Barna Research showed that:
 |
Most American adults (59%) consider that Satan is simply a symbol or concept or principle of evil, not an actual personality. Three in four Roman Catholics believe this; 55% of Protestants agree. |
|
A minority of adults (34%) believe Satan to be a living being with supernatural powers. 1 |
Some of the concepts that people hold about the devil are:
|
Most conservative Christian churches teach beliefs that are grounded in the 1st century CE - that Satan is a profoundly evil, fallen angel who is totally dedicated to the destruction of everyone’s lives. He is a supernatural being who "walketh about, seeking whom he may devour," and is aided by countless demons. He and his demons are all pervasive. They engage in world-wide "spiritual warfare," and are a continual threat to all. They can dwell within people, as in demon possession. |
|
Liberal/progressive Christian churches tend to view Satan as a principle or concept of evil, without any physical existence or personality. They acknowledge that Jesus and his disciples believed in the presence of a living entity called Satan. They realize that the gospel writers wrote of exorcisms which drove indwelling demons from within people. But they attribute these beliefs to the pre-scientific level of knowledge at the time. |
|
Archaeologists and anthropologists, religious historians and other researchers have traced the development of the concept of Satan from its origin in the Zoroastrian religion, via the ancient Babylonian Empire, to ancient Judaism, and finally into Christianity and Islam. |
|
Most present-day Satanists belong to religious groups such as the Church of Satan or the Temple of Set. Most of the former are Agnostics; they do not believe in Satan as a living entity or as a God; they view Satan as a basic force or principle of nature. Members of the Temple of Set recognize the ancient Egyptian god Set as a deity. Both groups’ beliefs about Satan have little in common with Christian beliefs. *an article on Religious Tolerance.org What would you like to add to this article? |
In this post, I will attempt to give a review of the National Geographic program presented about the Qur’an. For many of you, this may be an introduction to the sacred book of Islam. For others, it will be nothing more than a review. My purpose here is not to specifically inform you about the Koran itself. However, that may well happen. My real purpose here is to show those who have lived their lives in a culture dominated by another sacred book, the Bible, a way to compare the two revered texts. Most of the people who navigate their way to this and similar blogs, are looking for alternate ways of thinking about the sacred, the divine, the spiritual. If you are one of these people, what I am asking you to do is to read this well-crafted account by Nat Geo, and compare what you find here with what you have found in your own journey and experience with religion, specifically Christianity. I believe you will be astounded by the similarities between histories of the two texts. I know I was. Look specifically at the beliefs about the text itself, the establishment of a clergy and its role, the divisions which arose in the faith, the faithful’s view of the rest of the world, and the role of women. Do not be judgmental, be observant and make mental notes of similarities and differences.This post is longer than the usual, but please "stick it out". I hope that this post gives you a new viewpoint from which to see the people of a religion which numbers at least one billion souls.
This story is about a cross section of Muslims living according to their varied interpretation of the complex and seemingly contradictory spiritual guide, the Qur’an. According to tradition, the guide was revealed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel, first in a cave in the desert of Arabia, then, over a period of 23 years, until Muhammad’s death in 632 CE. It was an oral revelation, since Muhammad was illiterate. After each session with the angel, he would repeat the message to literate members of his family who would write it down. It was not until 20 years after his death that all the various messages were brought together for the first time in one book. It is generally believed that by 650 CE, the "final" Qur’an was "set in stone". Orthodox Muslims believe that in the original classical Arabic, the Qur’an is the perfect, unchanging, word of God.
The Qur’an is made up of just over 6,000 verses, about 1/5th of those in the Bible, with no obvious chronology. It is a series of revelations within a complex narrative structure. It is not a moralizing book, not sermons, not a science book, but a book of parameters, guidelines for the Muslim follower.
With well over one billion followers all over the world, there is a unity but at the same time a profound difference of opinion on various topics including: the status of women, attitudes toward peace and violence, and punishment and forgiveness. As an example, some Muslim countries deny an education to girls, deny women the right to vote, and segregate women from men. In other Muslim countries women lead political parties and are heads of state. In some Islamic states, executions are carried out in public, in others, the death penalty has been done away with completely.
There are striking differences in forms of worship and belief. Shi’a Muslims pray to specific persons (saints), including Alli, the murdered son-in-law of Muhammad. Some Shi’a communities in Turkey emphasize a message of peace and harmony between Christians, Jews, and Muslims. Here men and women worship together, some sing, some dance in worship. Other Muslims (Sunnis) consider this form of worship, including the image of Alli, as sacrilege. Sunnis primarily believe worship to be the establishment of a personal relationship to Allah (God). Probably the most striking contrast within Islam is the treatment of women.
The Qur’an tells the believer to consult his/her heart on controversial issues within the faith. It constantly is enjoining the believer to reflect, to question, to understand, to use the mental faculties, and to use the heart.
Jesus is mentioned frequently in the Qur’an, actually, more times than Muhammad. He is, of course, not seen as the "son of God", but a prophet on an equal with Abraham, Moses, and Muhammad. The Qur’an describes Muslims, Jews, and Christians as "People of the Book" (the Bible), saying there is no "compulsion" in religion. At the same time, Muslims are warned not to follow the "errant" views of Christians and Jews and do not make them your friends. There appears to be tolerance and intolerance in equal measure.
Many believers see the Qur’an as a "supermarket" of verses from which to "pick and choose" what serves your purpose best. You can work for peace or declare war on an enemy using particular verses from the Qur’an. Moderate Muslims have verses which support them and radicals can find other verses which support their goals. There appears to be a Qur’an for peace and a Qur’an for war. This is well illustrated by Islamic history.
Muslim societies were known to be open and tolerant toward dissident Christians and Jews who fled persecution in their own lands, when the Muslims were in a position of dominance. But when threatened by external enemies or internal disruption, the impulse was to close in and take a very different message from the Qur’an. For many modern-day Muslims, they are now living in such a time.
Today, there are peacemakers and terrorists within Islam. Both go to the Qur’an for support for each one’s causes. In verse after verse, the Qur’an specifically forbids suicide for any reason, but many extremist Muslims feel they are so "outgunned" that suicide is their only available weapon. Today, the message of peace is being drowned out by the message of years of exploitation by western imperial powers (Britain, France, US, and of course Israel). The extremist Muslim clerics have the stage today. This is a message that is well received in many Islamic countries where there is a perception of lost Muslim glories of years gone by, and of lost lives at the hands of western imperialists.
Compare to the Catholic vs Protestant Divide
One awkward fact stands starkly apparent. In many periods of history, more Muslims died at the hands of other Muslims than at the hands of Christians and Jews. Since the death of the Prophet, 1500 years ago, the two main factions, the Sunnis and the Shi’as have been sharply divided as to who should lead the faith. Sunnis make up around 85% of the Muslim total while the Shi’as, about 10-15% The most prominent of the Shi’as was Alli, son-in-law of the Prophet. This group believes that Alli and the Imams who followed him, were chosen by God to lead the Muslim communities. Down through history, Imam after Imam from this minority group, were murdered. These murdered Imams have achieved what Roman Catholics would perceive as sainthood status in the Shi’a world. One of these "saints", Al-Rizah is prayed to like a Christian saint would be. The Shi’as believe that to reach God, they must go through the saintly Imams first. They are their intermediaries. Qom, in Iran, is like a Muslim Vatican City.
Most Sunnis agree that the Qur’an is against a formal clergy. In fact, that was one of the main complaints against Christians and Jews. They had too formal a clergy that had basically highjacked the two religions. The Sunnis say there are no intermediaries required, no need for an intercessor. Man has the absolute right to pray to and connect to the divine.
One important movement in Islam rises above these divisions in the faith, embracing followers of both traditions; The Sufis. Hundreds of millions of Muslims are Sufis, who believe that the Qur’an speaks directly to their hearts. they are the "mystics" of Islam, the metaphysical Muslims. They believe the Qur’an is simple, the daily life stories of man. They believe their relationship with God is direct, without need of clergy. But above all, it is a relationship of all-consuming love. Theirs is a meditation-like desire to repeat the name of God to achieve the relationship with God. One of the most recognized subgroups of the Sufis are the Mevlevy of Turkey, better known in the West as the Whirling Dervishes, who express their love to God in a meditation-like state achieved by dancing in circles (whirling) accompanied by music.
Saudi Arabia and Iran
The Muslims of Saudi Arabia have their own clergy known as the Wahabi. The dominant message here is a form of very conservative Wahabi Islam, which represents a very, very small percentage of Islam. The Wahabis believe in a strict, narrow, sectarian, divisive, rigid, extremist interpretation of the Qur’an, based on control of the most holy sites (Mecca & Medina) and petroleum dollars. They, unfortunately have been able to exert control over much of international Islam. This is often seen as a tremendous tragedy for all Muslims. The Wahabis have given rise to the Taliban. Osama Bin Laden was raised in the Wahabist faith. 15 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11 were of Saudi origin. Over the last twenty or so years, US dollars used to purchase Saudi oil have been used by the Wahabis to propagate their version of Islam all over the world. Development of Islamic states over the world have tremendously influenced the Wahabist agenda. Wealthy Saudi Arabia has been instrumental in pushing the Muslim world toward fundamentalism and an intolerant reading of the Qur’an.
The only two Islamic states who are concerned enough to use their resources to promote a vision of Islam, internationally, are Saudi Arabia and Iran, neither of which represents a mainstream, classical, inclusive version of Islam with which most Muslims are familar. While being on opposite ends of the faith, both nations have one thing in common. Both have a priestly caste contrary to the Qur’anic principle of forging a direct relationship to God. This priestly caste has adopted religion as a profession, unlike the early years of Islam, and has a vested interest in obtaining a large following of believers. They will use every tool, the media of every kind to monopolize the religion of the Muslim people. This is contrary to the essence of Islam.The extremist regimes in Iran and in Saudi Arabia stray far from the teachings of the Qur’an when it comes to punishment for crimes against religion (the state). The Qur’an calls for mercy and forgiveness for the "criminal" who is repentant. The Qur’an is clear that no one should be convicted of a particular crime without conclusive proof of guilt. This is certainly not the practice of those regimes. Sharia Law, personal and family law, is a merciful and forgiving system if applied as the Qur’an intended it to be. If the Qur’an is so clear about the principles of justice, how are any differences possible?
The Word of God
The Qur’an is written in a form of classical Arabic which is often difficult for even highly educated speakers of Arabic to understand. For most Muslims, Arabic is not their first language, and no translation, it is said, can capture the full meaning of the original. As a result, the Imam or preacher becomes the intermediary between the Qur’an and the message his followers receive. The message can be tailored to fit the time and place. Over the centuries, interpretations and additions have filled thousands of volumes. These are the scholarly commentaries and the Hadith, the collected sayings and deeds of the Prophet. Some of the harshest punishments in Sharia Law are found in these collections, not in the Qur’an. These volumes were written and collected 250-350 years after the death of Muhammad. Many of the volumes are said by some Muslim scholars to be forged or fabricated and are therefore called into question. Unfortunately, many Muslims consider the Hadith to be co-equal with the Qur’an. The Qur’an itself clearly states that it is the pinnacle, that nothing else can be at its level. The Qur’an is subject to change and distortion if not in its original Arabic, then certainly when it is translated into other languages. The largest printing press for the production of Arabic Qur’ans and translations into all other languages, is located in Saudi Arabia. Here they are printed at a low cost or free. Need I say more? It is clearly evident that the text has been altered, and augmented by the religious establishment there. The insertions and alterations which the Saudi press has made is clearly an attempt to justify warfare against the infidel, saying that the Qur’an is the perfect model for warfare. To suggest to a Muslim that things have been added or that the text has been altered is especially contentious. Unlike Christians and Jews who believe their sacred texts were written by men inspired by God, Muslims believe the Qur’an to be the exact word of God as dictated to the Prophet. This distinction means that critical analysis of the sacred Qur’an becomes an extremely sensitive issue when applied to the Qur’an and compounded when some of those scholars making the attempt are western, often non-Muslims. The question Muslims ask is, are they really in a position to shed new light on the sacred text and its origins?
The "Nag Hammadi" of Islam
A cache of parchments was discovered in 1972 in a roof area of the Great Mosque of Sana’a, in Yemen, when it was undergoing a major restoration. These parchments are now at the center of a great debate which centers on the accuracy of the currently accepted Cairo version of the Qur’an. A German Qur’an scholar immediately recognized the importance of these documents and began a in-depth study of them. He then brought the results to the attention of the rest of the world. These documents are dated to the 7th or 8th century, possibly, only 70 years after the death of the Prophet. Many of the parchments differ widely from the accepted Cairo version. This seems to suggest that the text is not as stable and unchanging as it is claimed to be. Muslim scholars today argue that every word of the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved through the "oral" tradition. The written Qur’an, however, shows variation. The parchments of Sana’a appear to be the "Nag Hammadi" documents of the Islamic world. Forensic examination of the parchments revealed earlier text underneath the visible text. The earlier text had been washed off and new text written over it. Although the hidden text revealed no contradictory meanings, the words had been changed and the verses and whole chapters rearranged. This seems to suggest that the Qur’an was and is not a single entity, a single document fixed in time by 650 CE as is generally believed by Muslims. It well may have been developed much, much later.
Hidden Meanings
Any variations in the Qur’an, whether they be word meanings or chapter arrangements are very controversial in the Muslim world. Another Qur’an scholar from Germany, says the 1/4th to 1/5th of the Qur’an contains words which have been misunderstood or words which don’t make sense. This is because Arabic was in its infancy when the Qur’an was first written down. The common language, both written and cultural, of the people of the area where it was first written down was Syrio-Aramaic. There were, however, many other languages spoken by those native to the area. In the 10th century, the most respected commentator of the Qur’an openly acknowledged the presence of foreign words in the text. At least seven different languages are represented in the Qur’an. These foreign words are open to debate as to their clear, concise meanings. Many have several meanings, depending on how they are used. These discrepancies have resulted in a lot of ill feelings. This research is, of course, very controversial in the Islamic world, even in part of the western world. There is support among some Islamic scholars who now make their homes in the West. They call upon Muslims to heed the call of the Qur’an to examine everything to see if it meets the test. They believe that Muslims should not fear this kind of research since it does not threaten the basic tenets and beliefs of the faith.
In Conclusion
Concerning the true meaning of the text of the Qur’an, it is not just a matter of who is intrpreting the text, sometimes, there is a selective reading of it, ignoring, for instance, the firm injunction to forgive any wrongdoer who repents. There are also those countries or areas who claim approval for ancient, pre-Islamic, cultural practices which have no basis in the Qur’an. But there are verses, particularly those referring to women, which are controversial at best. Yet for every reference which seems to suggest their inferior status, there are others calling for mutual respect and equality. That is the paradox and the challenge of the Qur’an. It has two audiences, the immediate, 7th century patriarchal, tribal audience and then it has the ultimate audience; the Muslim of this generation, the 21st century and any Muslim in the future. It, therefore, speaks two languges to two sets of believers. How Muslims interpret the message contained in the Qur’an will affect all Muslims and in turn all mankind.
I hope you "stuck it out" and read the entire post. If you did, I thank you with all my heart. This post has touched me deeply and I feel it needs to BE……..
I caught part of a program on National Geographic Channel last night on the history of the Koran (Qur’an). I only got to see about 45 minutes of the two hour program, but was immediately caught up by the similarities to the history of the Christian Bible. I have recorded it and will watch it tonight. If you have an interest in how the Bible was created (the canon) and the problems associated with having no original autographs, you will want to see this program. I am sure it will be available on Nat Geo again.
Revelations from the Source have come to man at various times in our history and seem to have always resulted in problems for us as human beings, because we ARE human. The item in the program which immediately caught my attention was a segment which discussed the discovery of a wealth of parchments from the 8th century that contained various parts of the Koran. The texts of these parchments were quite different from the "official" Koran used in the Muslim world today. These texts are dated to about 70 years after the death of Muhammed. I was struck by the similarities between the quest for the "real" New Testament and the impending research that hopefully will be done on these parchments, in the search for what the Koran truly says.
I have always been impressed by the fact that westerners really have little concept of what Islam is all about. As an educator, I learned quite early that originally Islam was intended to be another, and the latest revelation, of the one true God. Early in the history of Islam, Mulims were taught to respect Christians and Jews, "the People of the Book" (The Bible). But, like Christianity, Islam was hijacked by clerics who sought to control and benefit from telling the faithful what to believe and how to be a good follower of God. According to this program, the earliest accounts of Islam did not call for a clergy, but for the individual to create a relationship with his/her God. What a different picture we see today, not unlike the picture of Christianity today compared with the Christianity of the 1st century. The resemblance does not escape the critical eye.
The overwhelming feeling I had after seeing just a part of this presentation is that man has and continues to receive revelations from the Source, and has and continues to misinterpret that which he has received.
I will continue this informal review of this Nat Geo program after I have seen the entire program.
I thank God, my Source, that in all circumstances, I can choose to be happy and content with whatever comes my way, because I know it is a part of the perfection designed to bring me where I need to be at this moment in time.
This is post #2 from The Hell Test, By Gary Amirault. Gary and I agree about some things, this is one of those things!
• If Hell was real, how is it that the most prominent universalists of the early church were born into Christian families and were most highly revered by their peers while those who advocated Hell came from paganism and confessed they were among the vilest? (Tertullian and Augustine)
• If Hell was real and found in the original Greek manuscripts of the Bible, why is it that it was primarily those church leaders who either couldn’t read Greek (Minucius Felix, Tertullian), or hated Greek as in the case of Augustine, that the doctrine of Hell was advocated? Those early church leaders familiar with the Greek and Hebrew (the original languages of the Bible) saw universal salvation in those texts. Those who advocated Hell got it from the Latin, NOT from the original Greek and Hebrew. Who would more likely be correct–those who could read the original languages of the Bible or those who read a Latin translation made by one man (Jerome)?
• If Hell was real why do most leading historians acknowledge that the early church was dominated by universalism?
• If Hell was real then why did four out of six theological schools from 170 AD to 430 AD teach universal salvation while the only one that taught Hell was in Carthage, Africa, again where Latin was the teaching language, not Greek?
• If Hell was real why didn’t Epiphanius (c. 315-403) the "hammer of heretics" who listed 80 heresies of his time not list universalism among those heresies?
• If Hell was real, since most historians would acknowledge today that Origen was perhaps the most outstanding example of early universalism in the church, when Methodius, Eusibius, Pamphilus, Marcellus, Eustathius, and Jerome made their lists of Origen’s heresies, why wasn’t universalism among them? Could it be perhaps that it wasn’t a heresy in the original church?
• If Hell was real and a serious heresy, why was it not until the sixth century when Justinian, a half-pagan emperor, tried to make universalism a heresy? Interestingly, most historians will acknowledge that Justinian’s reign was among the most cruel and ruthless.
• If Hell was real, since the early church was closest to the apostles and since they were closest to the original manuscripts of the Bible, why did the vast majority of the early Christian believers NOT believe in Hell as a place of everlasting burnings?
• If Hell was real and all died NOT because of their transgressions but because of Adam’s transgression (Rom 5:18), why do many Christians not see what is plainly written, that "even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to ALL MEN, resulting in JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE!" (Rom. 5:18) This Scripture declares the FACT that all are justified due to Christ’s righteous act. No one "decided" to die in Adam, it was "reckoned" to us. Equally no one "decided" to "receive eternal life," it is also "reckoned" to us. (A thorough understanding of Romans Chapter five carefully comparing several English translations would be a very good exercise. The omission of the definite article "the" in Rom. 5:15 before the word "many" in some translations has caused some great misunderstanding of this most important chapter of the Bible.)
• If Hell is real, in Romans 5:19, the "many" who were made sinners were actually "all" of the human race. Why is the "many" who were made "righteous" not equally be "all" of the human race? "For as by one man’s disobedience MANY were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience MANY will be made righteous."
• If Hell is real and everlasting, why does Psalm 30:5 say His anger is but for a moment?
• If Hell is real one would never know it by the actions of most Christians. They go through life pretty much like atheists, pagans, etc. If they really believed in Hell, they would spend their entire life trying to snatch their friends and relatives from the burning flames. If Hell is real, why don’t they do this?
• If Hell is a real place of merciless endless torture, since God knows the beginning from the end, why didn’t God just kill Adam and Eve and end the long terrible chain of misery that passed to their offspring before it began? After all, the Scriptures say that all died BECAUSE of Adam. (Rom. 5:18)
• If Hell is real, why is it not mentioned in most leading English Bible translations until Matthew? (Most Bible translations now acknowledge Sheol should NOT ever be translated Hell as the King James Bible incorrectly did.)
*from an article on Tentmaker. I don’t agree with everything, but it makes you think and hopefully do a little research.
To read the rest of this article, follow this link
On this and the next post, I will be taking information on a "very hot" subject today (sorry, I couldn’t resist the pun), taken from an article found at tentmaker.org, called The Hell Test , by Gary Amirault . Hope you enjoy them.
If Hell is real and describes a real place, why does the English word "Hell" come from a pagan source instead of the ancient Hebrew writings of the Bible? Why is the word "Hell" not found in the Jew’s Bible which is the Christian’s Old Testament? Furthermore, the word "Hell" has completely disappeared from the Old Testament Scriptures in most leading Bibles. Why? Because the best scholarship demands it. (The word "Hell" comes from the Teutonic "Hele" goddess of the underworld "Hell" of northern Europe . The description of this ancient mythological place has very little resemblance anymore to the modern Christian image of Hell. See any Encyclopedia or dictionary for the origin of the word.) Seeing that the Bible is supposed to be "Holy," why have pagan religious words been added to our modern English Bibles? Please understand, the English word "Hell" and its concepts are NOT in the Hebrew nor Greek. They come into the English through Northern European mythologies, NOT from the roots of Christianity.
• If Hell as a place of everlasting tortures was the real fate of all mankind unless they did something here on earth to prevent it, why didn’t God make that warning plain right at the beginning of the Bible? God said the penalty for eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was DEATH. He did NOT define death as eternal life being forever tortured in burning fire and brimstone.
• If Hell was real why didn’t Moses warn about this fate in the Ten Commandments or the Mosaic Covenant consisting of over 600 laws, ordinances, and warnings? The Mosaic Law simply stated blessings and cursings IN THIS LIFETIME for failure to keep the Mosaic Law.
• If Hell is real and it is a place of eternally being separated from God, why does David say in the King James Bible, "Though I make my bed in Hell (Sheol) lo, Thou art there? (Again please note, most Christian Bibles NO LONGER have the word "Hell" in the Old Testament. The KJV written over 350 years ago is an exception. The Jews do NOT put the word "Hell" in their English translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, that is, the Old Testament and the leading English Christian Bibles have removed it because it is NOT in the originals. Most Christian scholars now acknowledge it should never have been placed there in the first place.)
• If Hell is real and if good people go to heaven and bad people go to Hell, why does EVERYONE, good or bad, go to the same place in the Old Testament? They ALL go to Sheol which the King James Version translated "Hell" thirty-0ne times, "grave" thirty-one times and "pit" three times? Are we all destined to go to Hell or did the King’s translators make some gross translation errors?
• If Hell is real, why don’t the Jews, many who know the Old Testament better than most Christians, not believe in the modern Christian concept of Hell? They say they don’t believe it because it is not in their Scriptures. Most scholars today can not find Hell in the Old Testament. Most leading Bible translations no longer contain the word Hell in the entire Old Testament. (Genesis through Malachi.)
• If Hell doesn’t exist in the Old Testament, how could Jesus and his disciples teach that salvation was deliverance from a place that is not even found in their Scriptures? (There was only the Old Testament at that time.) Would that not make Him appear like a false teacher? Or could it be that Jesus never taught such a concept in the first place? Could it be that this concept has been added to the church and SOME Bibles through "traditions of men?"
• If Hell is real, since SOME English translations use the word Hell for the Greek word "Gehenna," in the New Testament, why didn’t this same place (Gehenna) get translated Hell in the many places where it appears in the Hebrew form "ga ben Hinnom" in the Old Testament? If the Jews did not understand this valley as a symbol of everlasting torture, why do SOME English translations give this word such a meaning? And who burned who in this valley? And what was God’s response for Israel doing such a horrible thing to their children? (Jer. 32:33-35) And how could God say "such a thing never entered His mind" if in fact He is going to do the very same thing to most of His own children?
• If Hell was real, why did the early church appoint an avowed universalist as the President of the second council of the church in Constantinople in the fourth century? (Gregory Nazianzen, 325-381)
• If Hell was real, why did Church leaders as late as the fourth century AD acknowledge that the majority of Christians believed in the salvation of all mankind?
• If Hell was real and a place of no escape, why did the early church teach Jesus went to Hell (Hades), preached to them and led captivity captive? (Eph. 4:8,9; Psalm 68:18; 1 Peter 3:18-20)
• If Hell was real and the grave settled the matter forever, why did the early Christians offer up prayers for the dead?
• If Hell was real, why did the first comparatively complete systematic statement of Christian doctrine ever given to the world by Clement of Alexandria, A.D. 180, contain the tenet of universal salvation?
• If Hell was real, why did the first complete presentation of Christianity (Origen, 220 A.D.) contain the doctrine of universal salvation?
• If Hell was real, why didn’t the church teach it until AFTER the church departed from reading the Bible in Greek and Hebrew, substituting Latin in its stead several centuries after Christ’s death?
• If Hell was real, why did not a single Christian writer of the first 3 centuries declare universalism as a heresy?
• If Hell was real why didn’t a single one of the early creeds express any idea contrary to universal restoration, or in favor of everlasting punishment in Hell?
• If Hell was real why did not a single Church council for the first five hundred years condemn Universalism as heresy considering the fact that they made many declarations of heresy on other teachings?
• If Hell was real, why did most of the early church’s leading scholars and most revered saints advocate universal salvation?
*I don’t agree with everything found on Tentmaker, but it makes you think and hopefully do a little researchon your own.
I take a strong stand against the idea of biblical inerrancy, for several reasons. First, I simply don’t find any of the arguments for the doctrine convincing. Second, inerrancy places a needless burden on Christians, many thinking Christians struggle daily to try and square it with their own examinations. Third, it keeps some reflective, critical thinking minds from even considering a Christian spiritual path.
Here are some of the classic fallacies of inerrantists, with possible responses to them.
"So, you’re saying that the Bible is full of lies."
I never said the Bible contains "lies" (deliberate falsehoods) nor did I say that it is "full" of erroneous information. You’re adding the word "full" to discredit my argument. If your position is so solid, why must you parody my viewpoints?
"Why should we even consider your views on inerrancy? You also deny the Trinity, so you’re an apostate."
Of course, it’s possible that my denial of the Trinity is wrong and that my denial of inerrancy is right. How does being wrong about one thing guarantee my being wrong about everything?
"Once you deny inerrancy, you end up denying one thing after another until you abandon the faith altogether."
There’s no reason to assume that to be the case. In fact, there are many people who gave up inerrancy and still are followers of Jesus.
"Inerrancy is true. After all, creationists have good arguments for a young earth and a six-day creation."
Even if creationism could be fully proven, this still would not demonstrate inerrancy.
"The Bible is the inerrant Word because it says it is. God wrote or inspired every word of the Bible supernaturally, so any claims it makes about itself must be accurate."
Your argument depends on inerrancy being true, which is the very thing you’re trying to prove. How can that work?
"You either believe all of the Bible or none of it. You accept its authority completely or not at all."
Why are those the only options available to me? I find lots of things I accept there.
"The majority of Christians throughout church history would totally disagree with you."
Since when does majority vote determine whether something is true? Haven’t there been times in history when the majority — even the majority of Christians — was wrong about something?
"You’re trying to lead people astray with your false teaching."
The question of my motives, whether sinister or not, has no bearing on whether inerrancy is true. It’s possible that I could have the worst of motives and your view of inerrancy still be wrong.
"If inerrancy isn’t true, then we have no absolute, objective standard of faith and practice."
I don’t know. That could well be true. However, it makes no sense to assert that a thing must be true because it would be undesirable to have it not be.
"You’re a heretic, no doubt about it."
Whatever I am, it has no bearing on your argument. I could be all of those things and inerrancy could still be incorrect. Calling me a heretic doesn’t establish your doctrine.
"You deny inerrancy, just like the infidel and atheist."
That, too, doesn’t disprove my point. I might turn it around and say, "You believe in inerrancy, just like the FLDS." But that would be a false — not to mention idiotic — argument.
Ever had a similar experience?
*Thanks to Steve Jones for this post
Stumble it!