Dooug, just be honest with yourself and stop labeling yourself as a FOLLOWER OF CHRIST. First of all, you don't think he's valid if you've not experienced him. So, just worship your experience and call your religion what it is. HUMANISM
There is no scriptural foundation for what this guy is preaching whatsoever. Who cares about Christian "tradition." The Bible rarely speaks highly of "tradition." He needs to trash his opinions and stick with the Bible.
Doug, it seems like you're suggesting that the use of "borrowed language" and "nonspecific generalities" negates the conversation altogether. To me it seems like it merely requires more careful thought and humble reflection. I would think metaphors and generalities are designed to communicate *something*, and though our arguments are often fruitless, do you not think there is value in trying to determine what it is that the biblical authors were really trying to communicate?
Wow! He talked for quite a while and did not say one sentence with any kind of coherence. now clearly the bible uses anthropomorphic language, but God through His word, has given us words which are understandable to our minds. What Doug is proposing is that God was not able to convey to us His desired message.
@2:18, "Even an idea, that is a theoretical idea..."
"is a speculation of your imagination,"
"and your imagination is limited to what your physicality and your presence right now has experienced before."
First off, I don't even buy that premise. But secondly, heaven and hell IS something that someone has experienced, specifically Jesus, the creator of all things, the God-Man himself. He rules over heaven and hell, and he can speak on it with authority. And he does. More than anyone else.
Excellent. Also the metaphoric language keep changing with descriptions and ideas. It's hard to put it all together. So we may need philosophy to discuss it.
It seems that it's ingrained in humanity to want to feel better than other people. The "righteous" want the "sinners" to be punished. In a way, they feel that they are owed God's favor. I think this goes way back to the ideas of polytheism, and national patron gods. The "righteous" expect their patron to treat them favorably, to the detriment of others, as part of their reciprocal covenant. They feel that they have done things, sacrificed, on behalf of their god; why shouldn't he do the same?
(3) I'm writing as one who is uncomfortable with the idea of eternal punishment. But as someone, like Doug (I assume), who takes Scripture seriously, I think more care needs to be taken when speaking on this subject. I agree that contemporary evangelicals carry a lot of (medieval) baggage when thinking about heaven and hell, but that doesn't invalidate what scripture seems to be clear on--namely judgment and the fact that heaven and hell will be populated.
(2) What is at stake is judgment and particularly, whether one will be judged righteous or unrighteous. Judgment, certainly in its human varieties and for some, through spiritual experience, is something almost everyone has experienced. Scripture might not be clear on the finer details of the judgment-day event or the details of after-life locations themselves, but that a judgment will take place seems absolutely clear. Doug's argument seems to be a hasty generalization.
(1) The argument that humans are handicapped when speaking of heaven and hell because it is outside of their realm of experience seems to be misleading. It is one thing to say that we are limited in our abilities to speak of the finer details about the experience of heaven or hell, especially where Scripture employs (what could reasonably be assumed as) metaphors like "streets of gold" and a "lake of fire." But those aren't what is primarily at stake.
Dooug, just be honest with yourself and stop labeling yourself as a FOLLOWER OF CHRIST. First of all, you don't think he's valid if you've not experienced him. So, just worship your experience and call your religion what it is. HUMANISM
TheAnnamism 1 month ago
There is no scriptural foundation for what this guy is preaching whatsoever. Who cares about Christian "tradition." The Bible rarely speaks highly of "tradition." He needs to trash his opinions and stick with the Bible.
astherrien 1 month ago
Doug, it seems like you're suggesting that the use of "borrowed language" and "nonspecific generalities" negates the conversation altogether. To me it seems like it merely requires more careful thought and humble reflection. I would think metaphors and generalities are designed to communicate *something*, and though our arguments are often fruitless, do you not think there is value in trying to determine what it is that the biblical authors were really trying to communicate?
-Jake Ulasich
Onefistjel 10 months ago
Wow! He talked for quite a while and did not say one sentence with any kind of coherence. now clearly the bible uses anthropomorphic language, but God through His word, has given us words which are understandable to our minds. What Doug is proposing is that God was not able to convey to us His desired message.
ctu74211 11 months ago
@2:18, "Even an idea, that is a theoretical idea..."
"is a speculation of your imagination,"
"and your imagination is limited to what your physicality and your presence right now has experienced before."
First off, I don't even buy that premise. But secondly, heaven and hell IS something that someone has experienced, specifically Jesus, the creator of all things, the God-Man himself. He rules over heaven and hell, and he can speak on it with authority. And he does. More than anyone else.
LouisianaJones1 11 months ago
Excellent. Also the metaphoric language keep changing with descriptions and ideas. It's hard to put it all together. So we may need philosophy to discuss it.
wayman29 11 months ago
It seems that it's ingrained in humanity to want to feel better than other people. The "righteous" want the "sinners" to be punished. In a way, they feel that they are owed God's favor. I think this goes way back to the ideas of polytheism, and national patron gods. The "righteous" expect their patron to treat them favorably, to the detriment of others, as part of their reciprocal covenant. They feel that they have done things, sacrificed, on behalf of their god; why shouldn't he do the same?
violentlygraceful 11 months ago
Wchester (please provide your real name), thanks for the comments.
Let's go down that road for a bit.
What are the clear parts of judgement narrative that scripture provides that is not borrowed language of nonspecific generalities?
DougPagitt 11 months ago
(3) I'm writing as one who is uncomfortable with the idea of eternal punishment. But as someone, like Doug (I assume), who takes Scripture seriously, I think more care needs to be taken when speaking on this subject. I agree that contemporary evangelicals carry a lot of (medieval) baggage when thinking about heaven and hell, but that doesn't invalidate what scripture seems to be clear on--namely judgment and the fact that heaven and hell will be populated.
wchester7 1 year ago
(2) What is at stake is judgment and particularly, whether one will be judged righteous or unrighteous. Judgment, certainly in its human varieties and for some, through spiritual experience, is something almost everyone has experienced. Scripture might not be clear on the finer details of the judgment-day event or the details of after-life locations themselves, but that a judgment will take place seems absolutely clear. Doug's argument seems to be a hasty generalization.
wchester7 1 year ago
(1) The argument that humans are handicapped when speaking of heaven and hell because it is outside of their realm of experience seems to be misleading. It is one thing to say that we are limited in our abilities to speak of the finer details about the experience of heaven or hell, especially where Scripture employs (what could reasonably be assumed as) metaphors like "streets of gold" and a "lake of fire." But those aren't what is primarily at stake.
wchester7 1 year ago