gjm comments on Is Spirituality Irrational? - Less Wrong

5 Post author: lisper 09 February 2016 01:42AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (429)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Brillyant 21 March 2016 09:17:16PM *  0 points [-]

Hm. Not worth getting into a line-by-line breakdown, but I'd argue anything said about hell in the Gospels (or the NT) could be read purely metaphorically without much strain.

A couple of the examples you've mentioned:

Jesus tells his listeners on one occasion: don't fear men who can throw your body into prison; rather fear God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Seems to me he could just be saying something like: "They can take our lives and destroy our flesh, but we must not betray the Spirit of the movement; the Truth of God's kingdom."

This is a pretty common sentiment among revolutionaries.

And that stuff in Revelation about a lake of burning sulphur, which again seems clearly to be for destruction and/or punishment. And so on.

I think it's a fairly common view that the author of Revelation was writing about recent events in Jerusalem (Roman/Jewish wars) using apocalyptic, highly figurative language. I'm no expert, but this is my understanding.

The Greek for hell used often in the NT is "gehenna" and (from my recall) refers to a garbage dump that was kept outside the walls of the city. Jesus might have been using this as a literal direct comparison to the hell that awaited sinners... but it seems more likely to me he just meant it as symbolic.

Anyway, tough to know what original authors/speakers believed. It is admittedly my pet theory that a lot of western religion is the erection of concrete literal dogmas from what was only intended as metaphors, teaching fables, etc. Low probability I'm right.

Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego

This was just a joke funny to only former fundamentalists like me. :)

Comment author: gjm 21 March 2016 09:52:37PM 0 points [-]

the author of Revelation was writing about recent events

Yes, but more precisely I think he was writing about recent events and prophesying doom to the Bad Guys in that narrative. I'm pretty sure that lake of burning sulphur was intended as part of the latter, not the former.

gehenna

Yes, that's one reason why I favour "final destruction" over "eternal torture" as a description of what he was warning of. In an age before non-biodegradable plastics, if you threw something into the town dump, with its fire and its worms, you weren't expecting it to last for ever.

a lot of western religion is the erection of concrete literal dogmas from what was only intended as metaphors, teaching fables, etc.

It's an interesting idea. I'm not sure how plausible I find it.

a joke

For the avoidance of doubt, I did understand that it was a joke. (Former moderate evangelical here. I managed to avoid outright fundamentalism.)

Comment author: Brillyant 22 March 2016 03:28:33PM *  0 points [-]

Yes, that's one reason why I favour "final destruction" over "eternal torture" as a description of what he was warning of. In an age before non-biodegradable plastics, if you threw something into the town dump, with its fire and its worms, you weren't expecting it to last for ever.

The Biblical text as a whole seems very inconsistent to me if you are looking to choose either annihilationism or eternal conscious torment. The OT seems to treat death as final; then you have the rich man and Lazarus and "lake of fire" talk on the other side of the spectrum.

It is my sense that the Bible is actually very inconsistent on the issue because it is an amalgamation of lots of different, sometimes contradictory, views and ideas about the afterlife. You can find a common thread if you'd like...but you have to glaze over lots of inconsistencies.

Comment author: gjm 22 March 2016 04:10:15PM 0 points [-]

For sure the Bible as a whole is far from consistent about this stuff. Even the NT specifically doesn't speak with one voice. My only claim is that the answer to the question "what is intended by the teachings about hell ascribed to Jesus in the NT?" is nearer to "final destruction" than to "eternal torture". I agree that the "rich man & Lazarus" story leans the other way but that one seems particularly clearly not intended to have its incidental details treated as doctrine.