DOES HELL EXIST?

The Bible speaks more of Hell than of Heaven. Jesus said it and that settles it!

What think ye?
Bobbye

DOES HELL EXIST?

The Bible speaks more of Hell than of Heaven. Jesus said it and that settles it!

What think ye?
Bobbye


"Hell" makes its first appearance in the bible in Dt 32.22. In Hebrew, it is sh'owl {sheh-ole'} or shol {sheh-ole'}

Like all Hebrew nouns it has a wide semantic range and the exact meaning is determined by the context.

Variously, it is used to refer to, sheol, the underworld, the grave, the pit, the underworld.

Sheol in the OT is the designation for the abode of the dead,referred also as, "place of no return" (after the babylonians), The wicked are said to be sent there as a punishment after judgement, and the righteous are promised that they will not be abandoned to it.

What the OT does not say, apart from the 'underworld' hint, is precisely where or exactly what it is.

It is spoken of as a place of sorrow: (2 Samuel 22:6)
The sorrows of hell compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me;

It was spoken of as being in the opposite direction to heaven: (Job 11:8)
It is as high as heaven; what canst thou do? deeper than hell; what canst thou know?

The 'wicked' will be sent there, as well as 'the nations' that forget God. (Psalms 9:17)
The wicked shall be turned into hell, [and] all the nations that forget God.

Hell is considered a place of temporary punishment or distress, for David exclaims: (Psalms 16:10) For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; (Psalms 116:3-4) The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow. Then called I upon the name of the LORD; O LORD, I beseech thee, deliver my soul.

Jonah uses the idea of hell as an analogy for his ordeal inide the belly of the great fish: (Jonah 2:2) And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the LORD, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, [and] thou heardest my voice.

Jesus uses the word 'geennn' or 'gehenna,' which is the Valley of the Hinnom, a wide vale that runs down the western edge of the holy city and then sweeps around the south side, outside the city walls. It was an ideal simile for an unpleasant place, because it was the city dump, and animal corpses, dung, and trash fires made the smell permanently offensive. (Matthew 5:22) But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus uses a different term - Hades. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Hades, or Pluto, was the god of the lower regions in Greek mythology, and was adopted by Jews as part of the Hellenization that swept the Near East after Alexander's conquest. It also referred to Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead, and eventually came to mean the grave, and death itself.

In 2 Peter 2:4, a different word is used to convey a similar meaning: tartaroo {tar-tar-o'-o}, which, although a verb, meant the name of the subterranean region, doleful and dark, regarded by the ancient Greeks as the abode of the wicked dead, where they suffer punishment for their evil deeds. It answers to Gehenna of the Jews, the verb serving in its meanings: to thrust down to Tartarus, or to hold captive in Tartarus.

There is a developmentevident in the idea of what hell was, owing more to the Greek influence than to biblical doctrine, which is not very forthcoming about hell.

Jesus came into the world to ransom it. Through his atonement we were bought from death and hell. Death and hell were paid—paid in full—and Christ was the only one who could pay that debt.

What did Paul mean when he said we were "bought with a price?" What does Jesus mean when he calls himself our "Redeemer?" If we were not bought, if we were not ransomed by Jesus Christ, then we would be still in our sins, still subject to death and hell.

Quite generally the idea has been taught that man is either to be saved in the kingdom of God or cast into hell. He is either in the presence of God, or else in the presence of the devil.

No other place is provided where a man could go who is unworthy of the presence of the Lord and yet not worthy of the condemnation with Lucifer.

Is such a thought consistent? With serious reflection, can we believe that our Almighty God who is all-wise and just, has arranged salvation and damnation on any such foundation as this?

In his Divine Comedy, Dante depicts the doctrine of damnation for unfortunate souls who died without a knowledge of Christ, as that doctrine was taught in the 13th century. According to the story, Dante is lost in the woods where he is met by the Roman poet, Virgil, who promises to show him the punishment of hell and purgatory, and later, he is to have a view of paradise.

He follows the Roman poet through hell and later into Limbo, which (according to the story) is the first circle of hell. Here are confined the souls of those who lived virtuous and honorable lives, but because they were not baptized, these souls merit punishment and are denied forever the blessings of salvation.

As Dante looks upon these miserable souls in the upper stratum of hell, and sees, as the story says, "Many and vast, Of men, women and infants," he marvels. His guide asks the question, "Inquirest thou not what spirits Are those which thou beholdest?"

Dante, showing a desire to know, the guide continues: "I would thou know, that these of sin Were blameless; and if aught they merited, It profits not, since baptism was not theirs, The portal of thy faith. If they before The Gospel lived, they served not God aright; And among them such am I. For these defects, And for no other evil, we are lost; Only so far afflicted that we live Desiring without hope."

In answer to the earnest inquiry of his mortal guest, who desires to know if any thus punished ever had the privilege of coming forth from this sad condition of torment, that is, escaping from Hell, the spirit-poet declares that the righteous, who had known God from our first parents down to the time of Christ, have been "to bliss exalted," but of these unfortunates who never heard of Christ, he says, "Be thou assured, no spirit of human kind was ever saved."

Dante was not the author of this unfortunate doctrine. What a shame it is that this same awful doctrine has come resounding down from that distant day, and has been made to repeat its terrible threat of torment in the ears of earnest souls who have sought the salvation of loved ones who have gone before.

I do not believe that hell is a place where the wicked are being burned forever, and from which there is no escape, and, taken all in all, I do not believe that the Bile teaches otherwise.



MORGANITE

:)

My belief of which I garnered from the Word of God is that "hell" is a place of "eternal" punishment and sorrow, it is real.

In the OT, Psalm 49:10-15 hints of hell.

Matthew 5:21-30 and Romans 8:1-16 tells us to avoid it.

Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43 relates it is for evildoers

2 Thessalonians !:3-12, Jude 5-13, and revelation 20:11-14 speaks of punishment in hell.

Jude 17-23 speaks of keeping others away from hell.

Hell is real!!

Bless you,
MaggieB

Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43 relates it is for evildoers
This view is certainly understandable if one reads the King James Version (KJV). Yet this position is not supported by the account in Acts 2:27-31 which tells us Jesus was in hell at one point, and he was certainly not an evildoer!

Have you noticed that the KJV uses "hell" in these and other scriptures but many modern translations (including, oddly enough, the New King James Version) use "hades" or "the grave" instead? It is not surprising since many churches have moved away from the hellfire doctrine in the years since the KJV was produced, although many others still teach it.

I agree with Genesis 3:19, which tells us that death is a consequence of Adam's sin and it means a return to the earth from which we were made. Where were we before we had life? Nowhere. We simply did not exist--no consciousness, no thought, no being. That is also the condition of the dead and that is what the Bible means by "hades" in the NT and "sheol" in the OT. It is described at Ecclesiastes 9:5,10 and also by Jesus at John 11:11-14. Individuals in hades are unconscious, or "sleeping" as Jesus so lovingly explained, and their future hope is the resurrection, as Jesus demonstrated in the case of Lazarus.

Gehenna, which is also translated as "hell" in the KJV and other Bibles, is different. It represents the condition of death without hope of a resurrection. In effect, it is a judgment and condemnation. Readers should use discernment (and a good lexicon or concordance) when considering how "hades", "gehenna", "tartarus" and "sheol" are rendered in their Bibles. The differences are significant.

Revelation 20:14 is interesting because it shows that hell/hades itself will eventually "die" (ie, be destroyed forever) in "the second death" represented by the lake of fire. That shows that hell/hades and the lake of fire are not the same. It also means that death due to the sin of Adam will eventually cease. (Compare 1 Corinthians 15:26.)

That's good news!

Chris

If you're interested in what Jehovah's Witnesses believe about this topic, you may want to take a look at the series of articles on hell (http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2002/7/15/article_01.htm) in the 15 July 2002 Watchtower magazine.

Chris

If you're interested in what Jehovah's Witnesses believe about this topic, you may want to take a look at the series of articles on hell (http://www.watchtower.org/library/w/2002/7/15/article_01.htm) in the 15 July 2002 Watchtower magazine.

Chris

Why is it that Jehovah's Witness' all believe the same thing on all doctrine? It seems to me that in order to be a Jehovah's Witness you must be willing to have your mind made up for you. That has been my experience when talking to them. They are told what they do and do not believe and they do not deviate from that (if they do they are disfellowshipped). Odd behavior for those who claim to be seeking biblical truth.

Just my thoughts...

Phil

Why is it that Jehovah's Witness' all believe the same thing on all doctrine? It seems to me that in order to be a Jehovah's Witness you must be willing to have your mind made up for you. That has been my experience when talking to them. They are told what they do and do not believe and they do not deviate from that

Isn't that the way with every religion? You are told what to believe , if not in the Bible then from the pulpit. To question is to commit heresy and if you don't believe and follow the doctrine of your particular sect ,then you're just not a "good Christian".
Tell me what religion allows you to question it and to place their tenets under skeptical analysis? To me ALL RELIGIONS practice some sort of mind control.
I don't know who said it but I certainly agree, "Religion began when the first priest met the first fool. Just a few thoughts from a free thinker.

Why is it that Jehovah's Witness' all believe the same thing on all doctrine? It seems to me that in order to be a Jehovah's Witness you must be willing to have your mind made up for you. That has been my experience when talking to them. They are told what they do and do not believe and they do not deviate from that

Isn't that the way with every religion? You are told what to believe , if not in the Bible then from the pulpit. To question is to commit heresy and if you don't believe and follow the doctrine of your particular sect ,then you're just not a "good Christian".
Tell me what religion allows you to question it and to place their tenets under skeptical analysis? To me ALL RELIGIONS practice some sort of mind control.
I dunno who said it but I certainly agree, "Religion began when the first priest met the first fool. Just a few thoughts from a free thinker.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Well said.

Why is it that Jehovah's Witness' all believe the same thing on all doctrine? It seems to me that in order to be a Jehovah's Witness you must be willing to have your mind made up for you. That has been my experience when talking to them. They are told what they do and do not believe and they do not deviate from that (if they do they are disfellowshipped). Odd behavior for those who claim to be seeking biblical truth.

Just my thoughts........

Phil

I thought about this for a moment or two before asking how anyone can possily know what all of anything believes. Do Jehovah's and Baptists, and Whatevers have machines that can read their minds? If a guy is sitting in a pew singing along with the hymnsheet how is it possible to know what reservations or innovations he holds in his mind?

On the other hand, what did Paul say? (Philippians 2:5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. Unless there were many different ands differing minds in Christ, to follow Him is to have the one mind whoever you are.

What else did he say? Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions amongst you: but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment, for it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions amongst you.

The Holy Word of God approves, nay, demands, of believers that they "all believe the same thing on all doctrine" Who can find fault with that?




MORGANITE


:)

Isn't that the way with every religion? You are told what to believe , if not in the Bible then from the pulpit. To question is to commit heresy and if you don't believe and follow the doctrine of your particular sect ,then you're just not a "good Christian".
Tell me what religion allows you to question it and to place their tenets under skeptical analysis? To me ALL RELIGIONS practice some sort of mind control.
I dunno who said it but I certainly agree, "Religion began when the first priest met the first fool. Just a few thoughts from a free thinker.

Christianity, not a denomination or a sect, but Christianity itself, requires you to question what you are taught. When Paul taught the Bareans they were commended for searching the scriptures to see if the things Paul taught were true. The only "mind control" in true, biblical, Christianity, is the sincere seeking to have the "mind of Christ" in all matters. This, in itself, shows the need to be open to the teaching of the Word of God regardless of what one hears from teachers and preachers whoever they be. Skeptical analysis is exactly what the Bareans were commended for.

Many so-called "christian" groups do attempt control the beliefs of their adherants to the degree that adheants are not "allowed" to deviate from the groups teachings no matter what. Frank Sandford's "Holy Ghost and Us bible school" and "Shiloh" in Durham, Maine from the late 1800's to early 1900's is an outstanding example of this type of group (see "Fair, Clear, and Terrible" by Shirley Nelson.) Argueably the most prevelent group extant today to practice this type of "mind control" is the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses), but there are many such groups ("The House of Yahweh" in Abilene, Tx. For example) that are equally and even more controlling.

This is not how the Church of God ought to be, nor is it what the bible teaches. This type of controlling abuse occurs not only in psuedo-biblical cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the House of Yahweh, but also in some more doctrinally sound churches as well. A good book on this subject is "Churches that Abuse" by Ronald M. Enroth (and it's sequel "Recovering from Churches that Abuse").

Now, you have stated also that we are told what to believe from the bible, and you are correct, we are. On the major tenents of Christianity the bible is very clear and we are taught, as Christians, to be of the same mind concerning these, and not to be mislead by those who teach contrary to the sound doctrine of the Word of God. I fail to see, however, that this is mind control. Christians, like myself, believe that God has given us His word through the bible. It is not mind control that we search it for truth and even test it to see whether it is true. Christianity is not meant to be a religion of blind faith. Indeed, we are called to come to Christ with our eyes wide open! We are called to study the scriptures and question our beliefs as well as the beliefs of others. Christianity does not tell us to believe blindly, but to know what we believe and why.

Phil Debenham

I thought about this for a moment or two before asking how anyone can possily know what all of anything believes. Do Jehovah's and Baptists, and Whatevers have machines that can read their minds? If a guy is sitting in a pew singing along with the hymnsheet how is it possible to know what reservations or innovations he holds in his mind?


Neither Baptists nor Jehovah's Witnesses possess machines that can read minds. However, Jehovah's Witnesses (and many other pseudo-christian, non-christian, and even some christian groups) do, through their organizations, have the machinery to control what goes into the minds of its adherants. That is why ChrisL could answer this thread with "this is what Jehovah's Witnesses believe."


On the other hand, what did Paul say? (Philippians 2:5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus. Unless there were many different ands differing minds in Christ, to follow Him is to have the one mind whoever you are.

Paul did indeed tell the Philippians "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." However, in the context of the passage we find that Paul was telling the Phillipians to have a humble attitude, as did Christ who "emptied Himself, taking the form of bond servant, being made in the likeness of men." You have taken the verse out of context.


What else did he say? Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions amongst you: but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment, for it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions amongst you.

Here you quote 1 Cor. 1:10-11, but again you quote out of context. This passage speaks of spiritual pride, not individual understanding of scriptual doctrine. The divisions Paul speaks about regard those who claimed; "I am of Paul," and "I of Apollos," and "I of Cephas," and I of Christ." There ought not to be spiritual pride within the body of Christ. This, however, does not address the question at hand; that is does a specific group (in this instance the Jehovah's Witnesses) tell their adherants what they must believe regardless of scriptual teaching? Are their adherants allowed to challenge the groups stated beliefs? Are they allowed to think for themselves?

[QOUTE=Morganite]The Holy Word of God approves, nay, demands, of believers that they "all believe the same thing on all doctrine" Who can find fault with that?[/QUOTE]

I have no idea where your quotation above comes from. Many doctrines, indeed all of the major ones, are clear in scripture, and "christians" are not Christians if they do not hold to them. Other doctrines are not nearly as clear and we find a diversity in doctrinal belief within Christianity. An example might be the doctrine of Eternal Security. My good friend Tony Kroah believes that it is a doctrine "straight from hell." I, on the other hand, believe that it is an important truth of biblical soteriology. I do not find that our difference in doctrinal viewpoint on this issue caused division or contention between Tony and me. We both, as Christians, open-mindedly seek and study to show ourselves approved.

Be blessed,

Phil Debenham

[QOUTE=Morganite]The Holy Word of God approves, nay, demands, of believers that they "all believe the same thing on all doctrine" Who can find fault with that?[/QUOTE]

I have no idea where your quotation above comes from. Many doctrines, indeed all of the major ones, are clear in scripture, and "christians" are not Christians if they do not hold to them. Other doctrines are not nearly as clear and we find a diversity in doctrinal belief within Christianity. An example might be the doctrine of Eternal Security. My good friend Tony Kroah believes that it is a doctrine "straight from hell." I, on the other hand, believe that it is an important truth of biblical soteriology. I do not find that our difference in doctrinal viewpoint on this issue caused division or contention between Tony and me. We both, as Christians, open-mindedly seek and study to show ourselves approved.

Be blessed,

Phil Debenham[/QUOTE]


For your further consideration on internal unity in the Church of Christ.

1 Corinthians 11:1-2
1 ¶ BE ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ.
2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you.

Room for change? Maneuver? Write your own version?

When Paul said, 'let there be NO divisions among you,' he did not qualify it. "No divisions" gives no elbow room for shuffling around until we find a comfortable place. No divisions.

The quote you cannot find is MORGANITE 1.1. :)

Here is what Jesus promised ~ John 14:26
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

The all things that the Spirit of God will teach us, will he teach us all different things about the same gospel? Is God the author of confusion?

Ephesians 4:5 ~ One Lord, one faith, one baptism, Plain words. No room for elbow shuffling.

There is more ~ Ephesians 4:11-13 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

Unity of the faith?

Jesus again ~ John 17:20-23 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Jesus prays that the believers will become one as he and hs father are one. Are we to believe that God and Jesus differ in doctrine in the slightest degree? Is one in Tony's corner and the other in yours, or do they agree firmly?

I repeat Paul's words. If we take them at face value, what do they signify?

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Out of context? Misunderstood?

Acts 2:42 And [the newly baptized] continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

You might have good reason to write as you do, but I cannot see them. I will take the Word of God as my instructor in what God expects from those who follow him.

What Jeus identified as the "Holy Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth from the Father," teaches all things; and brings to the remembrance of the Saints all the instructions of the Master. He guides into all truth, and as in all truth there is unity or harmony, so, it is not comprehensible that those filled by this "Spirit of Truth" will be directed, one towards one door, and another towards a different one.

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar.





MORGANITE

Morganite,

You and I do not disagree unless you consider the example that I gave concerning Tony's and my differing understandings of the doctrine of Eternal Security as a "division." My point is simply this: When Paul used the term division he was not speaking of such things as Tony and my disagreement. He was speaking of real division. The "I am better than you because..." divisions. As for our unity, we (Christians) are all in unity as part of the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), and Paul wants us to know that we should act like it.

That doesn't in any way take away the individuality of the believer. We are not asked to leave our brain behind when we become believers. Consequently we will come to different conclusions about the more obscure doctrines. Some will believe in a pre-tribulational rapture. Others will believe it to be mid-tribulational, or post-tribulational. Still others will believe that no rapture will occur at all. These are not divisions, but just differences in understanding which the Lord will correct in due time. If you believe differently concerning the rapture (and I use this as an example, not as a digretion from the topic), that does not divide us, does it? Are we not still brothers or sisters in Christ?

You have pointed out a bunch of scriptures which I will not comment upon (unless you wish me to). Yes, you took the previous ones out of context and that is never adviseable even if it makes a valid point. A text without the context is a proof-text. By using proof-texts we can make the bible teach anything we want it to teach. Consequently I will challenge anyone who answers me with scripture out of context (and I welcome anyone correcting me in like manner.)

You quoted; "Let God be true and every man a liar," and I couldn't agree more (even though you directed that at me.) I would remind you that when you use God's word out of context you change God's truth to fit yours.

Interestingly, my original question concerning the control of the WTBTS over its adherants was never answered. "Let God be true and every man a liar" strongly fits this situation, for if the bible says one thing and the WTBTS teaches another, Jehovah's Witnesses will believe the WTBTS every time. If they don't, they will find themselves in danger of disfellowship.

May the Logos guide your study,

Phil Debenham

I would just like to add that the bible speaks of man made churches and the doctrine of man. There are some churches or institutions that indoctrinate (synonym of brainwash) their congregation. However, there are also those that, as the apostles did, learned by the spirit, for through the spirit we shall learn the Gospel of Christ.

Thanks speedball1, You said everything that I have been trying to say in a nut shell! :D

I would just like to add that the bible speaks of man made churches and the doctrine of man. There are some churches or institutions that indoctrinate (synonym of brainwash) their congregation. However, there are also those that, as the apostles did, learned by the spirit, for through the spirit we shall learn the Gospel of Christ.


There is a difference between brainwashing and indoctrinating.

Brainwashing is psychological mnaipulation to change a person;s mindset.

Indoctrination means teaching the doctrine of any church, sect, political party, etc.

Indoctrination is not sinister or harmful.

Brainwashing can be so, depending upon the circumstances.




MORGANITE



:)

I would just like to add that the bible speaks of man made churches and the doctrine of man. There are some churches or institutions that indoctrinate (synonym of brainwash) their congregation. However, there are also those that, as the apostles did, learned by the spirit, for through the spirit we shall learn the Gospel of Christ.

Since you do not mention who the "churches or institutions" are, I cannot comment. However, Morganite is correct that "indoctrinate" and "brainwash" are not synonymous.

I'll admit, indoctrination can be good, but if it is excessive it is brainwashing:

Brainwash

V 1: persuade completely, often through coercion; "The propaganda brainwashed many people" 2: submit to brainwashing; indoctrinate forcibly

It depends on how it's done. There is a church in the Philippines, which I will not name because I have no right to create biases for anyone else on the issue, who manipulates and coerces many of their members through fear and humiliation. I also wouldn't name who these institutions specifically are because you can't typically point to one group as a whole. It could be a minister or pastor or bishop that does it in one location. It's not always in mass.

I'll admit, indoctrination can be good, but if it is excessive it is brainwashing:

brainwash

v 1: persuade completely, often through coercion; "The propaganda brainwashed many people" 2: submit to brainwashing; indoctrinate forcibly

It depends on how it's done. There is a church in the Philippines, which i will not name b/c i have no right to create biases for anyone else on the issue, who manipulates and coerces many of their members through fear and humiliation. I also wouldn't name who these institutions specifically are because you can't typically point to one group as a whole. It could be a minister or pastor or bishop that does it in one location. It's not always in mass.


Your example is too vague to be useful. If you can give further and better particulars so that it can be researched..

Dictionary definitions are always basic, even in a very good dictionary, but there are many other qualifying factors that need to be taken into account.




MORGANITE



:)

I'll admit, indoctrination can be good, but if it is excessive it is brainwashing:

brainwash

v 1: persuade completely, often through coercion; "The propaganda brainwashed many people" 2: submit to brainwashing; indoctrinate forcibly

It depends on how it's done. There is a church in the Philippines, which i will not name b/c i have no right to create biases for anyone else on the issue, who manipulates and coerces many of their members through fear and humiliation. I also wouldn't name who these institutions specifically are because you can't typically point to one group as a whole. It could be a minister or pastor or bishop that does it in one location. It's not always in mass.

Indoctrinate forcibly is far different that just indoctrinate. It is the word "forcibly" that makes it brainwashing. Without that word it is merely teaching.

As stated in my previous post, manipulation and coercion are forms of forcing propaganda. I'm not saying everyone does it, I'm just saying that there are some. It talks about man-made-doctrine being taught. This is the indoctination/brainwashing I'm talking about. I'm not saying the Witnesses, catholics, baptists, mormons, prodistants or any one else does this, I simply say that it does happen.

In reply to Morganite's request of a specific example here's this: This nameless church I referred and the end of each year will announce who has not donated money too the church, and the people are asked (on the spot) to explain themselves. This sounds pretty stupid to us, but you need to understand the culture of the Philippines. I'm fluent in their language and am extremely familiar with their culture, and this manipulates them and causes them to give money they don't have to the church. If they don't pay up they are excommunicated. This church was founded in the Philippines, and has very few congregations outside their country. In the mind of a Filipino, to admit your poor is beyond utter humiliation, and they would do anything to not leave that impression, like give away the little money they need to their church. Further if a member misses one week of church they are visited by their evangelical leader. Whichis good. Except that if they miss continuesly they ask for even more money, and will kick them out of the church.

Sorry, but what you are speaking of is most definitely not a Christ-centered church. A Christ-centered church has the love of Christ within it and follows the teachings of Christ. Of what you speak is most certainly not one of His teachings.

You are speaking of a forceable-business trying to maneuver as a church.
Everyone should immediately leave and never darken its doors again. Find a church that teaches and preachers the Word of God.

MaggieB

Amen, Maggie, Amen!

In reply to Morganite's request of a specific example here's this: This nameless church i referred and the end of each year will announce who has not donated money too the church, and the people are asked (on the spot) to explain themselves. This sounds pretty stupid to us, but you need to understand the culture of the Philippines. I'm fluent in their language and am extremely familiar with their culture, and this manipulates them and causes them to give money they don't have to the church. If they don't pay up they are excommunicated. This church was founded in the Philippines, and has very few congregations outside their country. In the mind of a Filipino, to admit your poor is beyond utter humiliation, and they would do anything to not leave that impression, like give away the little money they need to their church. Further if a member misses one week of church they are visited by their evangelical leader. Whichis good. Except that if they miss continuesly they ask for even more money, and will kick them out of the church.


You could be telling the truth, but unless you are specific and give the name and location of the church, how can anyone find out for themselves?

Why are you reluctant to name a church that you criticize? Are you the pastor?

Tell all!



MORGANITE

The Holy Word of God approves, nay, demands, of believers that they "all believe the same thing on all doctrine" Who can find fault with that?
MORGANITE

I can! I resent ANYONE or ANYTHING telling me how to think or what to believe.
There are some of us who are not "sheep" and don't feel the need to be "led" by a "shepherd". This doesn't make us "bad people" or "evil". This just makes us poor followers.
We make our own minds up as to what or what not to believe without any outside help from religion, a preacher, or a televangelist that wants your money to guarantee your salvation .

Hell is real!!
MaggieB

You're right Maggie and I found it right here on earth in my first marriage.

Sometimes it does seem to be hell here on earth, sorry that you went through a time such as this. However, I have to disagree with your words
Concerning paying preachers, TV evangelists, etc for salvation. That is an untrue statement. You pay no one for salvation, it is a free gift from God and available to all. You make a choice of accepting the GIFT or rejecting it. Our salvation was paid in full by the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our sins were nailed to the cross with Jesus. The battle has been won, the victory is ours for the taking, no strings attached, no money involved.

In Acts chapter 16 we read that when Paul and Silas were in jail the jailer asked them "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" (Receive salvation). They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house and they were filled with joy, he and his whole house, because they had come to believe (chosen to believe) in God.

God is the same yesterday, today and forever and is waiting for all to come to Him.

MaggieB

Why is it that Jehovah's Witness' all believe the same thing on all doctrine?
Because JWs honestly try to obey and apply what the Bible teaches. And since the Bible truly is God's word, the resulting unity of thought and action should not be a surprise. In fact, I would argue that a lack of unity is a red flag for any group that professes Christianity and adherence to the Bible.

As long as I live, I'll never understand the criticism that JWs are just too unified...

Chris

Because JWs honestly try to obey and apply what the Bible teaches. And since the Bible truly is God's word, the resulting unity of thought and action should not be a surprise. In fact, I would argue that a lack of unity is a red flag for any group that professes Christianity and adherence to the Bible.

As long as I live, I'll never understand the criticism that JWs are just too unified...

Chris

I am not speaking of what the bible teaches, Chris, I am speaking of what the leaders teach. If the leadership of the WTBTS tells you that Jesus will return in the flesh on January 30th, 2007 you will all believe it. When that day comes and goes and the WTBTS tells you the date is now February 3, 2010, you will believe that. Why?? Why do JW's believe everything their leaders say without so much as a question as to whether they just might be wrong? Let me give you a good example. The WTBTS says that God's name is Jehovah. However the tetragammaton, transliterated into english sounds, is YHWH, not JHVH. JHVH is the German pronunciation to which the vowels from adonai were added to created the name Jehovah. So, why, now that you know the truth, will you continue to call God Jehovah? Not because it is His name, but because the WTBTS says it is. JW's won't question it because to do so would be to go against the WTBTS, and that is a big no-no. Those who do question end up leaving the faith.

JW's won't question it because to do so would be to go against the WTBTS, and that is a big no-no. Those who do question end up leaving the faith.
It's a good thing the apostles didn't feel as you do, that loyalty and obedience are shortcomings. Imagine the damage such a permissive attitude would have caused the early Christian congregations. And as Morganite rightly pointed out, Paul's letters are filled with admonition to avoid divisive opinions and disunity.

But eventually most did compromise their unity to follow their own ways, and the great apostasy and falling away foretold in the Bible and the absurd number of sects and denominations we see in Christendom today are the result. (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thess. 2:3)


Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion. -- Jude 1:11
Study and learn from the example of Korah. (See Numbers 16 and 26)

Chris

It's a good thing the apostles didn't feel as you do, that loyalty and obedience are shortcomings. Imagine the damage such a permissive attitude would have caused the early Christian congregations. And as Morganite rightly pointed out, Paul's letters are filled with admonition to avoid divisive opinions and disunity.

But eventually most did compromise their unity to follow their own ways, and the great apostasy and falling away foretold in the Bible and the absurd number of sects and denominations we see in Christendom today are the result. (1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Thess. 2:3)


Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam's error; they have been destroyed in Korah's rebellion. -- Jude 1:11
Study and learn from the example of Korah. (See Numbers 16 and 26)

Chris

Chris,

The Apostles did believe as I do. That is why they challenged (as did Jesus Himself) the teachings of the religious leadership (the Pharisees) of their day. There are places in the Word that teach us not to sew discord and disunity, but none of those tell us to become unified under teachings that are contrary to the bible. None of those tell us to accept blindly the teachings of those in an organization who are positionally above us. Indeed, we are to be like the Bareans who searched the scriptures to see if these things were true. As for the obscene number of denominations and sects, Jehovah's Witnesses are but another of those. My humble opinion is that Jehovah's Witnesses, by and large, follow blindly (they are not alone in this by any means) and thus are lead into error willingly. Going back to the example I gave: Jehovah's Witnesses teach that knowing God's name is an extreemely important part of true worship. However, you now know that Jehovah is not His name... still you will use it. It is an example of the blind leading the blind in the name of unity. Lemmings are unified as well... they all jump off the cliffs to their deaths together. Better to be unified in the faith of the Savior of the Scripture than the faith of an organization.

Phil

The Holy Word of God approves, nay, demands, of believers that they "all believe the same thing on all doctrine" Who can find fault with that?
MORGANITE

I can!! I resent ANYONE or ANYTHING telling me how to think or what to believe.
There are some of us who are not "sheep" and don't feel the need to be "led" by a "shepherd". This doesn't make us "bad people" or "evil". This just makes us poor followers.


Hi Maggie, I notice you didn't disagree with that. Since time began priests, shamans and so called "holy men" have used religion and the fear of the unknown to control minds. Not only in the Christian Religion but in ALL religions. Just look at Jim Jones, David Korish and who could ever forget Oral Roberts when he said over his TV show. "God's gonna call me home unless ya send me six million dollars." And the idiots that watched his show sent it to him. Doesn't the phases "con man, flim flam artist and crook" just bubble right up? Regards, Tom

Chris,

The Apostles did believe as I do. That is why they challenged (as did Jesus Himself) the teachings of the religious leadership (the Pharisees) of their day. There are places in the Word that teach us not to sew discord and disunity, but none of those tell us to become unified under teachings that are contrary to the bible. None of those tell us to accept blindly the teachings of those in an organization who are positionally above us. Indeed, we are to be like the Bareans who searched the scriptures to see if these things were true. As for the obscene number of denominations and sects, Jehovah's Witnesses are but another of those. My humble opinion is that Jehovah's Witnesses, by and large, follow blindly (they are not alone in this by any means) and thus are lead into error willingly. Going back to the example I gave: Jehovah's Witnesses teach that knowing God's name is an extreemely important part of true worship. However, you now know that Jehovah is not His name......still you will use it. It is an example of the blind leading the blind in the name of unity. Lemmings are unified as well....they all jump off the cliffs to their deaths together. Better to be unified in the faith of the the Savior of the Scripture than the faith of an organization.

Phil


Do you imagine [no on can be sure] that after searching the scriptures, the Bereans dissembled in what they believed?




MORGANITE



:)

Hi Maggie, I notice you didn't disagree with that. Since time began priests, shamans and so called "holy men" have used religion and the fear of the unknown to control minds. Not only in the Christian Religion but in ALL religions. Just look at Jim Jones, David Korish and who could ever forget Oral Roberts when he said over his TV show. "God's gonna call me home unless ya send me six million dollars." And the idiots that watched his show sent it to him. Doesn't the phases "con man, flim flam artist and crook" just bubble right up? regards, Tom


Speedball, about your line-up, that is one that the majority of Chrisitans will also find distasteful. But can't you find in two thousand years any Christians who have done any good? Why focus on those whose erratic behavior is obvious?

Who is controlling my mind?






MORGANITE


:)

Chris,

Jehovah's Witnesses teach that knowing God's name is an extremely important part of true worship. However, you now know that Jehovah is not His name......still you will use it.

Phil


What is God's name?





MORGANITE


:)

What is God's name?





MORGANITE


:)

Morganite,

Don't know. The translation into English is YHWH, which, without vowels, in not pronouncable. Could be Yahweh (which I use even though I am not sure of how accurate it is). Could be Yahoweh. I really don't know. However, I know it's not Jehovah for the Hebrew letters do not have the sounds of JHVH, they have the sounds of YHWH. Beyond that no one is certain.

Now, so that my question to Chris might not be taken wrongly, I have no problem with people using the name "Jehovah" to refer to the one true God. I understand Who they mean. Personally, I use Yahweh because it is, by virtue of the sounds we know are in the Name, closer to the true name than Jehovah. My point wasn't concerning the name of God, but rather that JW's accept forced indoctrination without so much as a question. If they do question they keep it to themselves for fear of being labeled unfaithful.

Phil

Do you imagine [no on can be sure] that after searching the scriptures, the Bereans dissembled in what they believed?




MORGANITE



:)
Morganite,

Dissembled? Did they make a false show of what they believed? Did they disguise it? If this is what you meant to ask, the answer is no, I do not believe the Bereans dissembled in what they believed. I think they searched the scriptures and found Paul's teaching to be true. They did not accept blindly. I believe that once they searched the scriptures and found it to be true that they were forthright in their beliefs. Of course no one can be sure, but it seems highly likely since they are praised for their deligence in searching the scriptures in Acts 17.

Phil

Morganite,

Dunno. The translation into English is YHWH, which, without vowels, in not pronouncable. Could be Yahweh (which I use even though I am not sure of how accurate it is). Could be Yahoweh. I really don't know. However, I know it's not Jehovah for the Hebrew letters do not have the sounds of JHVH, they have the sounds of YHWH. Beyond that no one is certain.

Now, so that my question to Chris might not be taken wrongly, I have no problem with people using the name "Jehovah" to refer to the one true God. I understand Who they mean. Personally, I use Yahweh because it is, by virtue of the sounds we know are in the Name, closer to the true name than Jehovah. My point wasn't concerning the name of God, but rather that JW's accept forced indoctrination without so much as a question. If they do question they keep it to themselves for fear of being labled unfaithful.

Phil

Phil, I thought you were going to tell me something exciting :).

Saying Yahoweh or Yahoveh (Shephardic and Askenazi pronounce differently), is no better or different in essence than saying Jehovah, since all three are possibly wrong.

Jehovah has been accepted among English speaking Christians for a very long time.

I have a Hebrew lexicon attached to my scriptures disc, and it reads OT renderings of Jehovah (AV) as: Yhovah, suggesting that it is vocalised as 'yeh-ho-vaw.'

It might be more accurate, if accuracy is the point, simply to express the consonants as they appear in the texts without any vowel pointing. 'yod he vav hey', or 'yod hey waw hey' depending on whether you follow the Shephardic or Ashkenazi rules of pronunciation?

I don't know either.


MORGANITE




:)

Phil, I thought you were going to tell me something exciting :).

Saying Yahoweh or Yahoveh (Shephardic and Askenazi pronounce differently), is no better or different in essence than saying Jehovah, since all three are possibly wrong.

Jehovah has been accepted among English speaking Christians fo a very long time.

I have a Hebrew lexicon attached to my scriptures disc, and it reads OT renderings of Jehovah (AV) as: Yhovah, suggesting that it is vocalised as 'yeh-ho-vaw.'

It might be more accurate, if accuracy is the point, simply to express the consonants as they appear in the texts without any vowel pointing. 'yod he vav hey', or 'yod hey waw hey' depending on whether you follow the Shephardic or Ashkenazi rules of pronounciation?

I dunno either.


MORGANITE




:)

I believe you have a valid point. Using the tetragammaton would certainly be more honest. Turning the tetragammaton into a word which might be right and saying "this is the name of God" (ever so emphatically in the case of the WTBTS) is just plain wrong. I would be akin to deciding my name is Pihola because you know the consonants PHL, but don't know the vowels. Personally, I'd rather not be called Pihola. I wonder if God feels the same way?

Phil

Speedball, can't you find in two thousand years any Christians who have done any good? Why focus on those whose erratic behavior is obvious?
Who is controlling my mind?
MORGANITE :)

I'd love to extol the virtues. But the evil and death and destruction that Christianity has done over the ages far and away overshadow th good that was done. There have been more wars fought over religion then were ever fought over territory. The crusades, the inquisition, The Children's Crusade, led by a mad monk in which 150,000 children perished before they even reached the coast to name a few. Hell! Bush has us in the middle of a religious war over in Iraq even as we speak.
In case you forgot, there was once a time when Christianity ruled the world.
History will forever call that time, "The Dark Ages".
As for who's controlling your mind? If you believe the Bible's the Word of God and can't be questioned and that the "miracles" can't be brought under skeptical analysis and discredited then your faith /religion's controlling your mind. When you lose the ability to question you have lost the ability to control your own mind. "God said it! I believe it! And that settles it!!
Why do you think the words, "Freethinker" or "Rationalist",(of which I count myself as one) are such dirty words in the Christian lexicon? It's because we question, we analyze using logic and rational thought rather accept on faith and belief. And I'm sorry Sport! But faith and belief are not, and can never be, knowledge. Just a few observations from a Freethinker.

Turning the tetragammaton into a word which might be right and saying "this is the name of God" (ever so emphatically in the case of the WTBTS) is just plain wrong.

That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth. -- Psalm 83:18 (ASV)

And in that day shall ye say, Give thanks unto Jehovah, call upon his name, declare his doings among the peoples, make mention that his name is exalted. -- Isaiah 12:4 (ASV)

And I will magnify myself, and sanctify myself, and I will make myself known in the eyes of many nations; and they shall know that I am Jehovah. -- Ezekiel 28:23 (ASV)

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call. -- Joel 2:32 (ASV)

After this manner therefore pray ye. Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. -- Matthew 6:9 (ASV)

and I [Jesus] made known unto them thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them. -- John 17:26 (ASV)
Bah. Your whole line of reasoning is fallacious. In effect, you are saying that we should ignore God's command to make his name known because we can't pronounce it as it was originally pronounced. If that is your position, what ground do you have for using any name or word in the Bible? Or for making translations from the original languages of the Bible?

No, that line of reasoning abandons the Bible by ignoring the teachings of Jesus and God's plain commands. It asks us to believe that God told his worshippers to use his name and make it known--and then made it impossible by hiding it from them! Absurd.

The Bible is clear: we must use God's personal name, however it is said in our native tongue, and Jehovah is a valid English translation.


I wonder if God feels the same way?
:rolleyes:

Well, I wonder how God feels when he asks us to use his name, but some who profess to worship him instead remove it from their Bibles and openly ridicule and persecute those who refuse to do the same?

Chris

I'd love to extol the virtues. .

You would have to know what they were first, but you do not. Ah, ignorance will reveal itself every time, though you hide it in a torrent of words.

I hardly know where to begin, and from experience I am not sure that you will read or understand what I say. But it is only fair that I give you the opportunity.


But the evil and death and destruction that Christianity has done over the ages far and away overshadow th good that was done.

That is not correct. Evil is evil and good is good, and it is not a balancing of account. Each stand on its own. But an acknowledgement that much good has resulted does not require a confession of faith, only simple honesty.

There have been more wars fought over religion then were ever fought over territory.

Please prove your statement.

The crusades, the inquisition The Inquisition, wicked as it was, was NOT a WAR,

The Children's Crusade, led by a mad monk in which 150,000 children perished before they even reached the coast to name a few.

They were acts of madness. Were they led by a monk?

In this year (1212) occurred an outstanding thing --- About the time of Easter and Pentecost, without anyone having preached or called for it and prompted by I know not what spirit, many thousands of boys, ranging in age from six years to full maturity, left the plows or carts which they were driving, the flocks which they were pasturing, --- This they did despite the wishes of their parents, relatives, and friends who sought to make them draw back. --- and began to journey to Jerusalem.

As to them being led by a "mad monk," you have forgotten your history.

Also known as Cucu Peter, Little Peter or Peter of Amiens, Peter the Hermit is considered one of the main instigators of the First Crusade.

Peter the Hermit may have visited the Holy Land in 1093, but it wasn't until after Pope Urban II made his speech in 1095 that he began a tour of France and Germany, preaching the merits of crusade as he went. Peter's speeches appealed not only to trained knights, not to children, who usually followed their princes and kings on crusade, but to laborers, tradesmen and peasants. It became known as "The People's Crusade" or "The Crusade of the Poor People." He had nothing to do with the Children's Crusade.



Hell! Bush has us in the middle of a religious war over in Iraq even as we speak.

That is your opinion, but critical analysis of the situation shows that religion is of no importance.


In case you forgot, there was once a time when Christianity ruled the world.

I have not forgotten, becaiuse it never happened. The world is much larger than Europe, and there are vast tracts of sub-Saharan Africa, all of Asia, and the Indian sub-continent that Christianity did not rule, and over which it had no control.


History will forever call that time, "The Dark Ages".

The "Dark Ages" is a pejorative title that has been applied backwards to the Middle Ages by men of the Renaissance. It has to do only with the Roman Church's attitude towards learning and the sciences. It has nothing to do with Christians ruling the world, nor could it because they never have.

As for who's controlling your mind? Yes?


If you believe the Bible's the Word of God and can't be questioned

STOP! You are setting up a straw man so that you can demolish him. You can only say what I believe from what I have said about any thing. You must not invent things that are not true. That is not freedom of thought, it is feckless knavery.

And that the "miracles" can't be brought under skeptical analysis

There you go again! What have I said that brings you to that point? Are you a mind

And discredited then your faith /religion's controlling your mind.

There you go again! Don't you ever tired of putting words into the mouths of others? Are you just a little bit afeared that someone will bite your fingers?

When you lose the ability to question

There you go again! You don't know me, You don't now what I beleve and what I don't believe. Get real. That's not thinking. That is assuming, and assumption has no place in science nor in rational thought.

You have lost the ability to control your own mind.

Oh, have I? You have a brazen cheek and deserve to have your mouth rinsed out with lye soap. Does that sound like someone not controlling their own mind?

Where you went wrong in your thinking is when you made your first assumption, namely that all Christians think alike. THEY DO NOT!

Your second asumption is that you know anything about the history of Christianity. The holes in your understanding of a fascinating history are glaring.

Your third assumption, and I will make this the last one to avoid causing you further embarrassment, is that you have any kind of grasp ion the psychology of religion or the mental processes that are concerned with religious faith.

Having made those three gross errors, you waded in to lecture me about what I thought, about what Christian history has been, and how I have lost my mind, and how your thinking is superior to mine. I don't ususally get into this kind of quarrell, but I am forced to say that if, as tou suggest, my thinking is worse than yours, then God help me!

"God said it! I believe it! And that settles it!!

Ah, the impudence of the unbeliever.

Follow your own logic, speedball. If, as you say, "God said it," then you admit there is a God, even if only for the pourposes of the example you have supplied . And, if there is a God, and if he is interested in human history and happiness, thenonly a fool would not take his advice.

I do not know which God it is that you do not believe in, and you do not say which one it is. I dare say that we could go through a list of gods and find several that neither of us believes in. So what? I know which God I believe in, and I do not need anyone telling me that I am a cretin because I do.


Why do you think the words, "Freethinker" or "Rationalist",(of which I count myself as one) are such dirty words in the Christian lexicon?

I have several Christian lexica, and in none of them are Freethinker and Rationalist described in any disrespectful way. What is your problem? You are jumping at your own shadow. Fighting ghosts.


It's because we question, STOP - I said they are not used as dirty words. Christians question. Christians question. Christians question. Got it?


we analyze using logic and rational thought

If the twaddle you have written here is either analytical, logical, or rational, then I am Whittington's cat!

What "we" have done here is to present prejuidice, which is never rational, assumption, which is never logical, and a very poor attempt at history which can not be described as analytical. If you think you are any of these then you are wrong at the top of your voice.

rather accept on faith and belief.

If you are saying that there is nothing in the whole wide world that you accept on the basis of faith and belief alone without concrete proof, then you must live a miserable existence.

For example, you can never be sure that anyone loves you or that you love anyone, because it cannot be mathematically demonstrated or re-created in the laboratory

Yopu can never believe anything anyone says, whether they make you a promise or tell you something that is outside your experience, because you have not experienced it yourself. What a miserable life. Unable to trust anyone, and not expecting anyone to trust you. Perhaps that is where your bitterness comes from.

And I'm sorry Sport! But faith and belief are not, and can never be, knowledge.

You do not know that for certain.

Yet you say it so emphatically that one might think that you really knew your statement to be true knowledge. I will analyze your words so that you can see what you have said.

"Faith and belief are not, and be never can be, knowledge." Who is arguing with that?

Faith is a hope, an expectation of a promise to be fulfilled. Belief is an attitude or an opinion firmly held that something not proven is so. Do we differ on that? I do not think we do.

But you overlooked something of vital importance. You left out knowledge, except to say what it was not. You cannot define something by its negative and call yourself analytical, logical, or reasonable. That is downright dishonest, screamingly illogical, laughably unreasonable, and mendacioulsy irrational, and it does not pass the litmus test of reasoned thought.

Knowledge is what comes into the believer's experience, from which experience he knows what he knows. And because you have not experienced what he has experienced, and have no knowledge ot the knowledge it has provided to him, you are ill-placed and unqualified to make any comment on its reality, place, quality, structure, purpose or function. All, that you can do is feebly disagree, as you have done.

There is nothing you can say that will persuade a believer who has had direct spiritual experiences of the presence of God that his experience was not real, nor can you dislodge his knowledge from his heart and mind, no, not even with your barge pole.

You see, he has gone where you have not gone.
He has seen what you have not seen.
He has felt what you have not felt.
And he knows what you do not know! Sport!

Just a few observations from a Freethinker

Iif your observations had been served to me in a restaurant, I would have sent them straight back into the kitchen with a complaint about their quality I asked for steak, not the sweepings fro the butchery floor, Sport!



MORGANITE


:)

That they may know that thou alone, whose name is Jehovah, Art the Most High over all the earth. -- Psalm 83:18 (ASV)

And in that day shall ye say, Give thanks unto Jehovah, call upon his name, declare his doings among the peoples, make mention that his name is exalted. -- Isaiah 12:4 (ASV)

And I will magnify myself, and sanctify myself, and I will make myself known in the eyes of many nations; and they shall know that I am Jehovah. -- Ezekiel 28:23 (ASV)

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as Jehovah hath said, and among the remnant those whom Jehovah doth call. -- Joel 2:32 (ASV)

After this manner therefore pray ye. Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. -- Matthew 6:9 (ASV)

and I [Jesus] made known unto them thy name, and will make it known; that the love wherewith thou lovedst me may be in them, and I in them. -- John 17:26 (ASV)
Bah. Your whole line of reasoning is fallacious. In effect, you are saying that we should ignore God's command to make his name known because we can't pronounce it as it was originally pronounced. If that is your position, what ground do you have for using any name or word in the Bible? Or for making translations from the original languages of the Bible?

No, that line of reasoning abandons the Bible by ignoring the teachings of Jesus and God's plain commands. It asks us to believe that God told his worshippers to use his name and make it known--and then made it impossible by hiding it from them! Absurd.

The Bible is clear: we must use God's personal name, however it is said in our native tongue, and Jehovah is a valid English translation.


:rolleyes:

Well, I wonder how God feels when he asks us to use his name, but some who profess to worship him instead remove it from their Bibles and openly ridicule and persecute those who refuse to do the same?

Chris

I have stated, Chris, that I use the name Yahweh because it is as close as were going to get. "Jehovah is a valid English translation" only because you have been told by the WTBTS that it is. The only valid translation is YHWH. That is a translation... inserting the vowels is an educated guess. My point to you was not that you misuse God's name, but rather that you choose "Jehovah" over "Yahweh" not because it is more likely correct, but because the WTBTS tells you to. That is; thinking for yourself is discouraged by the WTBTS. That is where I have a problem, not with your use of "Jehovah." That was merely an example, and was expressed as such. In the bible God has a number of different names and is called by them all. Each one expresses a part of His character, His attributes. Not the least of those names is Jesus.

Be blessed,

Phil

"Jehovah is a valid English translation" only because you have been told by the WTBTS that it is.
That's just ignoring the facts, and really just shows that you are unreasonable and want to argue and attack.

I'm not going to rehash the history of translating the divine name with you. It's easy to research in just about any public library in the world--if you really want to know. But you don't care about that, anyway. As soon as that point got settled, you'd just switch to another attack, as you've already done.

I've wasted enough time answering the same old tired accusations, PD. Your actions reveal what is in your heart. Unless you have anything constructive to add, I will ignore you from here on out. (2 Tim 3:5)

Chris

I have stated, Chris, that I use the name Yahweh because it is as close as were going to get. "Jehovah is a valid English translation" only because you have been told by the WTBTS that it is. The only valid translation is YHWH. That is a translation....inserting the vowels is an educated guess. My point to you was not that you misuse God's name, but rather that you choose "Jehovah" over "Yahweh" not because it is more likely correct, but because the WTBTS tells you to. That is; thinking for yourself is discouraged by the WTBTS. That is where I have a problem, not with your use of "Jehovah." That was merely an example, and was expressed as such. In the bible God has a number of different names and is called by them all. Each one expresses a part of His character, His attributes. Not the least of those names is Jesus.


I don't want to get in between you two good buddies, but the use of Jehovah is widespread throughout the Catholic and Protestant communities. It has been so since the AV was published, and owes the J to a best effort by those who translated from the Greek of LXX. The Greeks like the Hebrews have no such consonant.

Do we continue to call John John? Or do we call him Iohannes after the Greek form of the Hebrew? Then we have to decide what to do with James, Joseph, Jambres, and Jerusalem, and all the other names that English speaking people start with the non-existent J.

If, as you say, "it is the best we can do," then Jehovah, YHVW,mYHWH, Yaweh, Yahoweh (as Hebrew scholars suggest, tentatively), or Yahovah are equally "the best we can do" because if we face the head face on, no one really knows, and one man's educated guess is the same as another man's educated guess, and the particular religion he holds is a smokescreen if that is held up the be the cause of him choosing one form of the divine name over another.

My guess would be that God does not mind what he is called, especially as people of different tongues around his world speak and pronounce the same words differently.

That the believer has in his mind the Divine Personage in whom they believe is, I aver, of far greater importance than how his name is pronounced in their mouths.

If you want to pick holes in the WTBTS there are much better things to find fault with that using Jehovah, as the majority of English speaking Christians do who are not Jehovah's Witnesses.

I would like to see a discussion with more substance than educated guesses as the basis for complaint.





MORGANITE



:)

Hi Bobbye,
I Think Just As There Are Differing Rewards In Heaven That There Are Also Different Levels Of Damnation In Hell. I Do Not Believe The Man Who Robs Banks For A Living Will Receive The Same Punishment As A Man Who Rapes Children. Can You See My Point Of View On This Matter?

That's just ignoring the facts, and really just shows that you are unreasonable and want to argue and attack.

I'm not going to rehash the history of translating the divine name with you. It's easy to research in just about any public library in the world--if you really want to know. But you don't care about that, anyway. As soon as that point got settled, you'd just switch to another attack, as you've already done.

I've wasted enough time answering the same old tired accusations, PD. Your actions reveal what is in your heart. Unless you have anything constructive to add, I will ignore you from here on out. (2 Tim 3:5)

Chris

Once again I am sorry that you feel "attacked." I am not attacking you, Chris. I am truly confused by what Jehovah's Witnesses believe, and more importantly, why they believe it. If you choose not to discuss this I fully understand, but please understand that discussion is what I am after. Clearly I disagree with your position, but just as clearly you disagree with mine. That is ground for fruitful discusion I'd say.

I have not once attacked you Chris. I have endeaverd to be kind in challenging your position. I have not called you names, neither will I.

I feel that to follow any, and I mean any, group without challenging the beliefs of the group individually and personally is intellectually dishonest (to onesself) and destructive (also to onesself). To challenge that position is not an attack on a person, Chris, nor is it unreasonable.

As for my statement you quoted above, I told you how the name "Jehovah" came into being earlier. I have explained why it is not as close to correct as "Yahweh." Obviously I have reasearched it, so how is it that you say I don't care about that? I use the name of God, Chris. I use the New American Standard Bible. In the place of YHWH the NASB renders it LORD. However I don't read it as LORD, I read it as Yahweh. I have done so since 1973. I don't think that is the action of someone who does not care.

Again, I have no problem with your use of "Jehovah." That was never the issue, only an example of the issue: Following blinding the teachings of man as if they were the teaching of Yahweh without challenge. That is the issue.

Peace to you and yours,

Phil Debenham

We are called to study the scriptures and question our beliefs as well as the beliefs of others. Christianity does not tell us to believe blindly, but to know what we believe and why.

Phil Debenham


Is it possible that Jehovah's Witnesses also study the sciptures and question all kinds of beliefs, and that when they arrive at what they accept, they know what they believe and why?

If after their studies they all arrive at the same conclusions, is that somehow evil or unworthy?

The New Testament is constantly calling for unity among the saints, and it does not say they can believe different things if they want. Paul writes of a unity of the faith, and about them not being carried about like a rudderless boat by every little breeze of doctrine that wafts into their ears.




MORGANITE

:)

Is it possible that Jehovah's Witnesses also study the sciptures and question all kinds of beliefs, and that when they arrive at what they accept, they know what they believe and why?

If after their studies they all arrive at the same conclusions, is that somehow evil or unworthy?

The New Testament is constantly calling for unity among the saints, and it does not say they can believe different things if they want. Paul writes of a unity of the faith, and about them not being carried about like a rudderless boat by every little breeze of doctrine that wafts into their ears.




MORGANITE

:)

Morganite,

I believe you must know something of Jehovah's Witness doctrine, and I have to say that much of it is like a "rudderless boat" upon which JW's are set adrift. Doctrine which is unbiblical and non-Christian. Certainly they study the scripture, but only in the manner they are told to. They read, nearly exclusively, the Watchtower and Awake magazines, and WTBTS literature. Their quotes of Christians scholars come from those sources and not from the original sources themselves. They are followers, Morganite, of their leadership rather than the Bible. Followers of the WTBTS rather than Jehovah. That is why when the WTBTS changes its teachings and its prophecies they follow along blindly, accepting because they were told to. This is why I challenge JW doctrine (though none of them seem to want to discuss it). Not to challenge the individual, but the WTBTS itself.

Be blessed,

Phil

Morganite,

I believe you must know something of Jehovah's Witness doctrine, and I have to say that much of it is like a "rudderless boat" upon which JW's are set adrift. Doctrine which is unbiblical and non-Christian. Certainly they study the scripture, but only in the manner they are told to. They read, nearly exclusively, the Watchtower and Awake magazines, and WTBTS literature. Their quotes of Christians scholars come from those sources and not from the original sources themselves. They are followers, Morganite, of their leadership rather than the Bible. Followers of the WTBTS rather than Jehovah. That is why when the WTBTS changes its teachings and its prophecies they follow along blindly, accepting because they were told to. This is why I challenge JW doctrine (though none of them seem to want to discuss it). Not to challenge the individual, but the WTBTS itself.

Be blessed,

Phil


Phil,

Thanks for your reply. I know something about the JW's and their beliefs, although I am not of their number and do not imagine becoming one.

I think my question suggests that most Christians who belong to a church, denomination, sect, or whatever, stay close to what their teachers and interpreters have handed down. You see this as a problem. I will put it no stronger. It has been my experience that followers of other paths are no different. When a person identifies with a particular denomination, it becomes an 'all or nothing' thing.

As a minister you will understand that in any Sunday morning congregation there are very few 'Bereans' who check things out with the Bible. They are most likely to be infuenced by a book they bought from a Christian bookshop, or by their pastor.

I don't want to make hard work of this, but what I am saying is that there that is different? Perhaps there are different sources of information, but if we were left with only the Bible and no one to explain to us what it meant, there would be, IMO, no recognizable denominations, sects, or groups, etc.

Religious teachers have to take a point of view, that not all will agree with, so another little splinter here, and another little splinter there, but I really do not think that that is what Jesus expects from us.

I hope I have not complicated what is a simple thought.




MORGANITE



:)

Phil,

Thanks for your reply. I know something about the JW's and their beliefs, although I am not of their number and do not imagine becoming one.

I think my question suggests that most Christians who belong to a church, denomination, sect, or whatever, stay close to what their teachers and interpreters have handed down. You see this as a problem. I will put it no stronger. It has been my experience that followers of other paths are no different. When a person identifies with a particular denomination, it becomes an 'all or nothing' thing.

As a minister you will understand that in any Sunday morning congregation there are very few 'Bereans' who check things out with the Bible. They are most likely to be infuenced by a book they bought from a Christian bookshop, or by their pastor.

I don't want to make hard work of this, but what I am saying is that there that is different? Perhaps there are different sources of information, but if we were left with only the Bible and no one to explain to us what it meant, there would be, IMO, no recognizable denominations, sects, or groups, etc.

Religious teachers have to take a point of view, that not all will agree with, so another little splinter here, and another little splinter there, but I really do not think that that is what Jesus expects from us.

I hope I have not complicated what is a simple thought.




MORGANITE



:)

Personally I do not think God has designed denominational Christianity either, but, on the other hand, I do not see how it can be avoided. Chuck Smith started Calvary Chapel in the 60's partly to avoid the restrictions and problems of denominationalism, but now Calvary Chapel is a denomination in itself. The same could be said about Kenn Gullicksen and the Vineyard. I don't think that denominationalsim is a huge problem. The problems with Christianity, in any form, is the individuals that call themselves Christian. That is the problem you have noticed that there really aren't too many "Bereans" in today's churches. People want to be told what to believe and how to act, not by God, but by men. They want to believe that they are following God so they take what "Christian" books, their pastors, their teachers, etc. say as the word of God. They make little or no attempt to listen to God, or to speak to Him. They give Him an hour or two a week and think they are OK. They are not OK. God wants more than Sundays and Wednesday nights! He wants to be Lord of all of our lives, not just parts of it.

That is where the problems lie, Morganite, not in denominations or even cults, but in individuals who want their ears tickled. That's why "Christians" will pay to hear some famous ear ticklers speak and won't spend an hour in prayer of worship apart from their schedualed meetings.

May you truly know Him,

Phil

My belief of which I garnered from the Word of God is that "hell" is a place of "eternal" punishment and sorrow, it is real.

In the OT, Psalm 49:10-15 hints of hell.

Matthew 5:21-30 and Romans 8:1-16 tells us to avoid it.

Matthew 13:24-30 and 36-43 relates it is for evildoers

2 Thessalonians !:3-12, Jude 5-13, and revelation 20:11-14 speaks of punishment in hell.

Jude 17-23 speaks of keeping others away from hell.

Hell is real!!!

Bless you,
MaggieB


"Hell" was not used to mean the hot place until 1590-1600. The Hebrew word, sheol has no such meaning. It means only the abode of the dead or of departed spirits.

Hades, in Greek, or Sheol in Hebrew, signify a world of spirits. Hades, Sheol, paradise, spirits in prison, are all one: it is a world of spirits.

Before the resurrection of Christ, the wicked were shut up in darkness and were not visited. In this awful state they suffered the torment of their consciences not knowing what their fate would be. It is the gloomy abode of departed spirits; it is the place the wicked go to await the day of their eventual resurrection. The connotation surrounding its usage is one of evil, sorrow, and anguish. In some instances the Authorized Version of the Bible translates sheol as grave (Gen. 44:29, 31; Job 7:9; Ps. 30:3), or pit. (Num. 16:30, 33; Job 17:16.)

In Greek the word for hell is hades. It is a place of outer darkness where the spirits of the wicked go at death to await the day of their eventual resurrection. Sorrow, anguish, and "the fiery indignation of the wrath of God" attend those cast down to this fate. (Luke 16:23.)

Outside Jerusalem, to the south and west, lies the Valley of Hinnom or Gehenna. In the days of Isaiah and Jeremiah, infants were sacrificed to Molech at a Topheth or high place built in this valley, causing it to take on a sinister significance and be called "the valley of slaughter." (2 Kings 23:5, 10; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6; Isa. 30:33; Jer. 7:31-34; 19:6, 11-15.)

Thereafter Gehenna was further desecrated as a garbage and rubbish heap and as a place where bodies of criminals were thrown out; to help prevent pestilence, overburning fires were kept smoldering in this infested refuse.

Under these conditions, it was natural for the prophetic mind to use the term gehenna to signify the burnings, torment, anguish, and unspeakable horrors of hell. Jesus Christ himself made frequent use of gehenna to signify hell and its attendant horrors. (Matt. 5:22; 29:30; Mark 9:43-47; Luke 12:5; Jas. 3:6.)

His statement, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48), becomes even more expressive when viewed in the light of the numerous crawling things and perpetual burnings of that Gehenna of which his hearers had personal knowledge.

Hell will have an end. Viewing future events, John saw that "death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." (Rev. 20:13.)

David received the promise: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell." (Ps 16:10; Acts 2:27.)

Christ descended into hell to preach the gospel or good news to the spirits languishing there that he might draw them to himself and save them.

1 Peter 3:18 - 20

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.


Peter knew what Jesus was doing and had already affirmed that:

1 Peter 4:6

For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Mediaeval theologians made somehting of Hell that the bIble never intended, except for the final destination for Satan and his angels.



MORGANITE

I would have to say I completely agree with Morganite. Hell is a world of spirits where they await resurrection. That's not to say however they will all enter heaven after their resurrection. This spirit world is also considered to some to be a place of "two." There is a paradise, and prison. One for the righteous, and one for the "departed sprits" or those who suffered from spiritual death, or in other words, through sin, distanced themselves from God. Christ did preach, as Morgantie stated, to those in prison. I must ask morganite, what religion are you if you don't mind answering. Though I understand if you prefer not to.

IF HELL DID NOT EXIST, THEN WHY BOTHER MENTIONING IT AT ALL?
Romans 8:28
[ More Than Conquerors ] And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

MAYBE THE PROPHESY IS THE CHOICE AND THAT IS THE PURPOSE.

IF HELL DID NOT EXIST, THEN WHY BOTHER MENTIONING IT AT ALL?
.


It is a simile. The Bible uses many genres of literature and literary devices.

The 'hell' in AV translated from Deut 32:22 is sh'owl or shol a Hebrew noun that has a wide range of possible meanings, including:

Sheol
Underworld
Grave
Hell
Pit (prison)
The underworld
The OT designation for the abode of the dead with no reference to good or evil
Place of no return
Without praise of God
Wicked sent there for punishment
Righteous not abandoned to it
Of the place of exile (figurative)
Of extreme degradation in sin.

Trying to make it mean only one of these possibilities run counter to the spirit of Biblical writings and the meanings assigned to its original words.

Isaiah uses sheol as he uses maveth (death or th eplace of the dead wihtout reference to goodness or evil of the dead) to restate the idea he first uses, and not as a separate place.

Isaiah 28:18
18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.

Note that 'disanulled and 'shall not stand' mean the same thing. The restatemenbt of the same thought in different words is a Hebrew literary genre that is found all though the Old Testament. It is not saying two different things, but saying the same thing, expressing the same thought, in two different ways, but conveying only one idea.


In the New Testament, the trsndlations that are preserved in English as Hell are even more interesting.

Hell in Revelation, is hades, which is Greek with several possible menaings, including:

The personal name of Hades or Pluto, who is, according to the pagans the god of the lower regions, or

Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead, with no reference to their moral or spiritual condition.

In later use of this word it was used to signify the grave or death, with no reference to the condition of its inhabitants.



In 2 Peter 2.:4 'hell' is translated from 'tartaroo' which is a Greek verb having the following poissible meanings:

The name of the subterranean region, doleful and dark, regarded by the ancient Greeks as the abode of the wicked dead, where they suffer punishment for their evil deeds;

It is drawn from the Babylonian version of the underworld where unjust souls transformed into birds are kept in a dark and miserable place forever.

It also can mean, to thrust a should down to Tartarus, or to hold a soul captive in Tartarus.


Mark 9:47 refers to 'hell fire.' This is the English interpretation by the AV translators of the Greek 'geenna' Anglicised as 'gheh'-en-nah,' with whose possible meanings include:

The place of the future punishment called "Gehenna" or

"Gehenna of fire".

This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the dung and other filth, and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned, so became a symbol of the wicked and their future destruction, which was called to Gehenna of the Jews

Does the Bible insist that hell is a place of evrlasting torment, or does it speak of the redemption and freeing of the unfortunate souls consigned to it?

In the earliest versions of what eventually became the medieval Easter drama, the Harrowing of Hell, Satan and Death appear as rulers of different spheres. In the dialogue between them Death begs Satan to retain Christ in his realm, which is the earth, so that he might not descend and cause havoc in the underworld.

This idea also appears in the very old pseudo-gospel of Nicodemus, wherein Satan, boasting that he has overcome Christ on earth, asks Death to make sure that the Lord's mission is likewise frustrated in his kingdom below.

The parallel between the Lord's earthly and post resurrection missions is preserved even to the extent of having his coming in the spirit world heralded by John the Baptist.

Origen says John "died before him, so that he might descend to the lower regions and announce [preach] his coming." And again: "For everywhere the witness and forerunner of Jesus is John, being born before and dying shortly before the Son of God, so that not only to those of his generation but likewise to those who lived before Christ should liberation from death be preached, and that he might everywhere prepare a people trained to receive the Lord."

"John the Baptist died first," wrote Hippolytus, "being dispatched by Herod, that he might prepare those in hades for the gospel; he became the forerunner there, announcing even as he did on this earth, that the Savior was about to come to ransom the spirits of the saints from the hand of death."

Even in the medieval Easter drama, the "Harrowing of Hell," the arrival of Christ in hell is heralded by John the Baptist.

The question must be asked, what is the purpose of Christ's descent into hell? The preaching of the Lord and the apostles while in the world was to prepare their hearers for baptism. What purpose did his preaching to the souls in prison serve?

It is not surprising then to read in the Pastor of Hermas, one of the most trustworthy guides to the established beliefs of the early church, that not only Christ and John but also "these Apostles, and the teachers who had proclaimed the name of the Son of God, after they had fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God preached likewise to the dead; and they gave them the seal of the preaching.

They accordingly went down with them into the water and came out again. But although they went down while they were alive and came up alive, those who had fallen asleep before them (prokekoimemenoi) went down dead, but came out again living; for it was through these that they were made alive, and learned the name of the Son of God."

The Latin version reads: "These Apostles and teachers who had preached the name of the Son of God, when they died in possession of his faith and power, preached to those who had died before, and themselves gave them this seal. Hence they went down into the water with them; but they who had died before went down dead, of course, but ascended living, since it was through them that they received life and knew the Son of God."

Needless to say, this text has caused a great deal of embarrassment to interpreters, ancient and modern. The source of the trouble is obvious: there are two classes of living persons referred to, those who enjoy eternal life, and those who have not yet died on this earth.


The Biblical words translated into English as 'hell', the concepts behind them and their derivations, and the ancient beliefs of the early church, now uncovered, must make us question our long standing view of where and what hell is, who will enter it, and how long they will stay there, The traditional one-dimensional view of hell is shown to be flawed, and needs to be re-examined.




MORGANITE


:)

Setting New Parameters Does In No Way Nullify The Fact That Hell Still Exists, And I Think That Was The Original Question. I Look At It In These Terms, I Know How Hard Life Is When I Can Call On God Every Day. I Cannot Imagine What Existence Would Be If You Could Never Again Call On God. See My Point Here?

Why is it that Jehovah's Witness' all believe the same thing on all doctrine? It seems to me that in order to be a Jehovah's Witness you must be willing to have your mind made up for you. That has been my experience when talking to them. They are told what they do and do not believe and they do not deviate from that (if they do they are disfellowshipped). Odd behavior for those who claim to be seeking biblical truth.

Just my thoughts........

Phil


Truth doesn't contradict itself. If it did, then it wouldn't be real truth but only a subjective truth. The Bible doesn't teach subjective truth. If each person believed what he thought was right, there would be confusion. In fact, there wouldn't even be a need for a Bible since each one could simply make up his own rules as he went along which would lead to confusion and lack of unity.

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Romans 14:4-6 (in Context) Romans 14 (Whole Chapter) Romans 15:6
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

KJV

Phil, I thought you were going to tell me something exciting :).

Saying Yahoweh or Yahoveh (Shephardic and Askenazi pronounce differently), is no better or different in essence than saying Jehovah, since all three are possibly wrong.

Jehovah has been accepted among English speaking Christians fo a very long time.

I have a Hebrew lexicon attached to my scriptures disc, and it reads OT renderings of Jehovah (AV) as: Yhovah, suggesting that it is vocalised as 'yeh-ho-vaw.'

It might be more accurate, if accuracy is the point, simply to express the consonants as they appear in the texts without any vowel pointing. 'yod he vav hey', or 'yod hey waw hey' depending on whether you follow the Shephardic or Ashkenazi rules of pronounciation?

I dunno either.


MORGANITE




:)

I also prefer the spelling Y-a-h-w-e-h as transliterated into the English language and pronounced [Yah' weh] over the supposed transliteration Jehovah.

I believe the name Jehovah to be an "impossible", "erroneous", "a hybrid name" and "a blunder" just to quote a few scholars.

I also believe that it is erroneous to refer to the letters of the so called "tetragrammaton" (Gr. Meaning 'four lettered word or name') as consonants. According to the Jewish historian Flavious Josepheus, they are vowels. They are also referred to as consonant-vowels or semi-vowels by a number of scholars of the Hebrew language.

For proof of this, please see my web pages on these subjects.

Consonants Or Vowels
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/YAHWEHFrank/ConsonantsOrVowels.html

The Name Yahweh
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/YAHWEHFrank/Yahweh.html

As to the original topic of this thread, please see my web page:

Oh Hell!
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/YAHWEHFrank/OhHell.html

Setting New Parameters Does In No Way Nullify The Fact That Hell Still Exists, And I Think That Was The Original Question. I Look At It In These Terms, I Know How Hard Life Is When I Can Call On God Every Day. I Cannot Imagine What Existence Would Be If You Could Never Again Call On God. See My Point Here?

That's because you are a Godly person who values a close relationship with God. In contrast, most people enjoy their distance from God by living ungodly lives and generally feel quite content in being a law unto themselves. They feel that the requirements of God are an imposition on their free will--as a burden which they need to cast off just as Adam and Eve did. These become unhappy and agitated if they are told to get near God via prayer and good conduct. So the distance from God per se is not necessarily something which humans avoid at all costs. As a matter of fact, the majority seek it in one way or another via doing as they please and when they please.


i would have to say i completely agree with Morganite. Hell is a world of spirits where they await ressurection. That's not to say however they will all enter heaven after their ressurection. This spirit world is also considered to some to be a place of "two." There is a paradise, and prison. One for the righteous, and one for the "departed sprits" or those who suffered from spiritual death, or in other words, through sin, distanced themselves from God. Christ did preach, as Morgantie stated, to those in prison. I must ask morganite, what religion are you if you don't mind answering. Though i understand if you prefer not to.


At least I don't think he does! LOL

The Holy Word of God approves, nay, demands, of believers that they "all believe the same thing on all doctrine" Who can find fault with that?
MORGANITE

I can!! I resent ANYONE or ANYTHING telling me how to think or what to believe.
There are some of us who are not "sheep" and don't feel the need to be "led" by a "shepherd". This doesn't make us "bad people" or "evil". This just makes us poor followers.
We make our own minds up as to what or what not to believe without any outside help from religion, a preacher, or a televangelist that wants your money to guarantee your salvation .



"One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism" not, "Any Lord you want, any faith you like, and any baptism that suits you"

That is Christianity. Anything other is something other.




M:)RGANITE

The first job of the "holyman" (shaman, con-man = same thing) is to put into the schmucks head that you don't just die - but your "spirit" lives on.

Then that this living on is ruled over by a god who is all benificent - as long as you worship him and keep his priests, preachers, bishops, archbishops, rabbis, gurus,. (please add more at your pleasure) in a comfortable living.

Next, the now convinced dullard is told the if he doesn't worship this god and pay his "tithes" ( I love that word - got it off a certain site ) - his "spirit" will go to "hell" and suffer burning and all manner of ills so he must now go and tell his friends of the danger they are in and the shaman will pray for them and save them.

As discussed in another thread 103% can do a lot of convincing.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Any replies to this post containing biblical or other such quotes as the proof that the above is false will - naturally - be ignored.

may your god go with you

Jonegy - A Christian doesn't have to pay tithes. It is an old testament rule. That doesn't stop members of a Church from tithing just as some churchgoers give an "offering" or "pledge" as an act of faith and worship. Giving cheerfully.


I think there's first HELL after death for the condemned, then (as in Revelation)
Then DEATH & HADES... Hades: meaning HELL - gave up their dead & death & "hell" were thrown into the LAKE OF FIRE. So it looks like 2 different hells for the condemned. :mad:

Christianity, not a denomination or a sect, but Christianity itself, requires you to question what you are taught. When Paul taught the Bareans they were commended for searching the scriptures to see if the things Paul taught were true. The only "mind control" in true, biblical, Christianity, is the sincere seeking to have the "mind of Christ" in all matters. This, in itself, shows the need to be open to the teaching of the Word of God regardless of what one hears from teachers and preachers whoever they be. Skeptical analysis is exactly what the Bareans were commended for.

Many so-called "christian" groups do attempt control the beliefs of their adherents to the degree that adherents are not "allowed" to deviate from the groups teachings no matter what. Frank Sandford's "Holy Ghost and Us bible school" and "Shiloh" in Durham, Maine from the late 1800's to early 1900's is an outstanding example of this type of group (see "Fair, Clear, and Terrible" by Shirley Nelson.) Arguably the most prevalent group extant today to practice this type of "mind control" is the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah's Witnesses), but there are many such groups ("The House of Yahweh" in Abilene, Tx. for example) that are equally and even more controlling.

This is not how the Church of God ought to be, nor is it what the bible teaches. This type of controlling abuse occurs not only in psuedo-biblical cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the House of Yahweh, but also in some more doctrinally sound churches as well. A good book on this subject is "Churches that Abuse" by Ronald M. Enroth (and it's sequel "Recovering from Churches that Abuse").

Now, you have stated also that we are told what to believe from the bible, and you are correct, we are. On the major tenets of Christianity the bible is very clear and we are taught, as Christians, to be of the same mind concerning these, and not to be mislead by those who teach contrary to the sound doctrine of the Word of God. I fail to see, however, that this is mind control. Christians, like myself, believe that God has given us His word through the bible. It is not mind control that we search it for truth and even test it to see whether it is true. Christianity is not meant to be a religion of blind faith. Indeed, we are called to come to Christ with our eyes wide open! We are called to study the scriptures and question our beliefs as well as the beliefs of others. Christianity does not tell us to believe blindly, but to know what we believe and why.

Phil Debenham

"No matter what" is the operative expression here and needs clarification.
I understand it to mean no matter what I want to do when I want to do it they still say I can't. Which brings us back to the question of what it is you are wanting to do and why.
If it involves adultery, fornication, theft, blasphemy, unjustified physical violence, rape, child abuse, wife beating, abuse of human rights, then they will say you can't no matter what. Or if you want to teach your own version of the Bible while claiming to represent Jehovah's Witnesses, that too is not acceptable no matter what you say in order to convince them that they should accept it-such as that they are trying to control your mind by not approving that you do these things.


All meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses are Bible oriented and all things taught are supported with scripture. In fact, the Bereans you mention are taken as a model of exemplary conduct in reference to any claim or idea put forth as truth. Only someone unfamiliar with this organization would claim they don't study the Bible.

BTW
I find your name-calling condemnation and general attitude of superiority over others who have also voluntarily accepted the Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus for their sins offensive. There's much more to being a Christian than mere doctrinal accuracy.

"One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism" not, "Any Lord you want, any faith you like, and any baptism that suits you"

That is Christianity. Anything other is something other.




M:)RGANITE

Does that include one hell also?:rolleyes:

A Christian doesn't have to pay tithes. It is an old testament rule. That doesn't stop members of a Church from tithing just as some churchgoers give an "offering" or "pledge" as an act of faith and worship. Giving cheerfully.


Not everything in the OT was 'fulfilled' by Jesus. Only the Coda Mosaica. Tithing was not part of that, having been divinely insituted much earlier.



M:)

Hi Morganite --

I think that if you check - the quote you use above actually came from Pumpkin.;)

Frank4yahweh -

What is Yahweh, other than it means God? Why does Yahweh depict a "Three-headed God" in a picture? Is that your version of a Trinity?

Bobbye,
Hell Is A Certainty But Death Before Hell I Can Question. Just Ask Any Heroin Addict If There Is A Hell On Earth. I Think You Will Find The Answer Is Yes. But, Then In Our Limited Mind That Is The Closest Thing We Can Relate To... I Have No Doubt That Hell
Is Far More Severe Than Anything We Can Imagine. Just My Observations... stony