So you're going to Heaven...

I was reading a short biography of Darwin today when I came across a statement that got to me:

Well supposedly from my understanding of it, we won't care, since marriage is a mortal hangup.

Secondly some religious sects believe hell has a time-limit of only 2 lifetimes. So that would mean in 200 years they'd be out of there. 200 Years seems like a long time, but if your in for eternity, it's not so bad.

Personally rather then diminish the hopes of heaven, I'd like to believe there is some sort of ascension following this life. Not necessarly clouds, and angels... but an evolution of the person into something for greater then our comprehention. That sits well with my agnostic/atheist viewpoint, and does not require a hell, nor a deity. And yes I know... I watch to much damn Stargate...

I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear from someone, saying that they'd be just cool with their Mom (assuming she was the one loved the most) being eternally burned in Hell. Honestly, anyone who thinks like that is one I would consider both inhuman and frightening.

So Christianity can't be true because you personally dislike the doctrine of Hell? If you're going to argue in such a manner, then I can too by saying that atheists can't exist because I personally dislike the concept of atheism.

Dusman
_________________
Antitheism presupposes theism - Cornelius Van Til

Anybody know the dating of the book of Job? Or is this not the point of this thread?

Cool

_________________
Beat the Reaper

Firesign Theatre

With all due respect, this is a much better rationale for the VERY EARLY DATE OF JOB:
"III. DATE:
A. Date of the Events: Probably pre-Mosaic, even
patriarchal from the second Millennium B.C.
1. Job is lacking references to historical events and
reflects a non-Hebraic cultural background which
little is known about
2. Location:
a. Uz was located in northern Arabia3
b. Job's friend, Eliphaz, came from Teman, a
city in Edom
c. Elihu came from the Buzites who lived next to
the Chaldeans in northeast Arabia4
3. Support for a pre-Mosaic date:
a. The patriarchal family-clan organization
reflects the time of Abraham rather than
after the Exodus
b. The offering of sacrifice by the head of the
family rather than a priest reflects a time
before the Exodus
c. The mention of a qesitah as a type of money
(Job 42:11) suggests a date which is at least
during the time of Joshua (cf. Jos. 24:32),
if not during the patriarchal period (cf. Gen
33:19)5
4. Support for an early second millennium date of Job
as a contemporary with the patriarchs:
a. The reference in Ezekiel 14:14 to Job and
Daniel may be a reference to the ancient
Canaanite hero Dan'el who was a prominent
figure in the Ugaritic epics rather than to
the contemporary prophet, Daniel6
b. Other names in Job are authentic for the
second millennium B.C.:
1) Bildad was short for Yabil Dadum, a name
found in cuneiform sources of the second
millennium B.C.
2) Job is found in the "Babylonian Job", a
cuneiform composition7
B. Date of Composition: Possibly during the time of the
Patriarchs (Second Millennium B.C.)
1. The Patriarchal Age:
a. This was the view of the Talmud
b. This helps support the accuracy of the
conversations between Job and his friends;
but this is not necessary since portions of
Genesis were accurately transmitted by mouth
until Moses wrote them down
c. The addition of 42:16-17 could have been
added shortly after Job's death
d. The lifestyle and longevity of Job are
similar to that of the patriarchs found in
Genesis
e. The moving bands of Sabaeans and Chaldeans
(Job 1:15, 17) matches the early second
millennium B.C.
f. The literary genre of Job (below) matches
that of the patriarchal era
g. The name of Job is found in the Amarna
letters (c. 1350 B.C.) and the Egyptian
Execration texts (c. 2000 B.C.)8
h. Although the evidence does not demand a
second millennium B.C. date, it certainly
allows for it. "9
2. The Reign of Solomon:
a. This was the view of Gregory Nazianzen
(fourth century A.D.), Martin Luther,
Haevernick, Keil and Delitzsch, Raven, Young,
and Unger10
b. Solomon's age was a peaceful one and thus
particularly interested in wisdom's approach
to the deepest, practical problems of life
(e.g., Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon,
Proverbs)
c. The wisdom of Proverbs 8 and Job 28 is
similar
d. While the above arguments are plausible, they
are not determinative; as Archer writes,
"most of the ... features above mentioned are
reconcilable with an earlier date as well,
particularly if the account was composed by a
non-Israelite author on non-Israelite soil"11
e. In addition a delay of four centuries from
the actual experience to the writing down of
the experience raises the question of
accuracy12
3. The Reign of Manasseh:
a. This was the view of Ewald and Hitzig.
b. Since this was a time of injustice, the
thought is that Job fits the social setting
well (cf. Job 9:24)
c. But Job does not present trouble that is any
greater than could be found at any time in
human history, and here the hardship is
individual and private rather than national
4. The Reign of Jeremiah:
a. This was the view of J. E. Steinmueller
b. Similarity in language with Job and the
writings of Jeremiah are cited as the basis
for this time of composition (cf. Jer. 12:1-3
& Job 21:7; Jer. 20:14-18 & Job 3:3; the land
of Uz is only mentioned outside of Job in
Jeremiah 25:20 and Lamentations 4:21)
c. But the comparisons and language are not
determinative since they can be found in
other writings (cf. Ps 37), and it is also
possible that Jeremiah borrowed from Job to
express his themes of suffering and, "the
fact that Uz is mentioned in Jeremiah 25:20
is hardly of pivotal significance unless it
can be proved by other evidence that the name
had not arisen until the age of Jeremiah or
else was unknown to the Hebrews before his
time"13
5. During or after the Exile (sixth century B.C.):
a. This was the view of Genung in ISBE, Driver,
Budde, Cheyne
b. Arguments and Solutions are as follows:14
1) The book is understood to be legend and
a depiction of the imprisonment and
eventual release of king JehoiachinBut
Jehoiachin was not a righteous men and
was not ever restored to his kingdom
prior to his death
2) Although the problems of suffering was
severe for the nation at the time of the
exile, the exile was not the only time
the nation suffered, and again the
suffering in the book is personal rather
than national15
3) The identification of the tempter as
"Satan" was Persian, but it was also an
identification under David (1 Chron
21:1; Ps 109:6)
4) The Aramaisms in the book suggest a late
date, but Aramaic was used for hundreds
of years before the Exile
5) Although several passages seems to refer
to a national tragedy (9:24; 12:6, 13-
25; 24:12) they are not clear enough,
nor particular enough to demand an
exilic interpretation
6. Conclusion: Although it is not possible to be
certain, a patriarchal date is reasonable and
perhaps best explains the material as we have it"

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=903

I guess I could dealwith the foundational assertion of *evolution* expressed in bIBLE tHEOLOGY, but remember, in the Bible, the End is covered very early (Gen 3:15b). Here's a little blurb that people may want to pay a little more attention to:

Deuteronomy 32:32-36 (New American Standard Bible)

32"For their vine is from the vine of Sodom,
And from the fields of Gomorrah;
Their grapes are grapes of poison,
Their clusters, bitter.
33"Their wine is the venom of serpents,
And the deadly poison of cobras.
34'Is it not laid up in store with Me,
Sealed up in My treasuries?
35'Vengeance is Mine, and retribution,
In due time their foot will slip;
For the day of their calamity is near,
And the impending things are hastening upon them.'
36"For the LORD will vindicate His people,
(G)And will have compassion on His servants,
When He sees that their strength is gone,
And there is none remaining, bond or free.

Copyright © 1960, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation

For more follow this link (It's Great Reading!):
http://www.bible-researcher.com/sinners.html

The GOOD NEWS: Romans 3:21-26
But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Repent and by Faith receive the Good News of redemption in Jesus Christ!

925

I'm saying that the doctrine of Hell, viewed logically, leads to unspeakably cruel conclusions if it is true.

Cruel based upon who's standard of cruelty?

Discussing the actual truth of the whole religion is beside the point of this thread, IMO.

Then why argue against one of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian worldview if the truthfulness of any belief system is beside the point?

There's no real need to get bent out of shape by this, is there? Did I really say something that offensive to you personally?

How do you infer that I was "personally offended" when I merely set up a counter argument to the tune of your own to demonstrate the logically fallacy you were committing?

Dusman

I don't want to beLIEve. I want to know. I have no use for religious faith. I want knowledge, not myths.

Thanks for sharing your BELIEFS!

Dusman