Ask500

| Login

I don't believe there is any place called "hell" because nobody deserves to suffer that much forever. Ask a Question

I don't believe there is any place called "hell" because nobody deserves to suffer that much forever.
Click to vote
8 Answers

Well, Hel isn't even a Christian concept; it is one they stole--and got wrong!! from the Norse peoples. Hel is the name of the ruler of the same name, and a female.

That pretty much speaks against it being real, right off the bat.

44 Replies to dauguy's answer

Why do 19 people disagree without using any logic whatsoever?

This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)

By agreeing you are ALSO stating that Catholics with one mortal sin on their souls because they missed mass a single time and were unable to get to confession before they got hit by a car and died instantly ARE BAD ENOUGH to burn forever, because that is precisely what Catholics believe... the pains of hell for eternity because God would condemn them forever for just having a single mortal sin on their soul.

That is unless the nuns were lying to their catechism class just because they wanted to give us nightmares. ;)

If a human being makes a mistake and kills someone is he/she more hell-deserving than a military person that has killed even more people? Does God check sides on judgment day to see if the ones killed were "the enemy"?

Or are "government sanctioned" murders okay if they are "the enemy" at the time of the murder? But what if both sides were praying to the same God? And does God think it was less of a crime to kill a Vietnamese person in Da Nang in 1969 than to kill one in San Francisco in 2009?

If a man receives a $2 fine for a crime, you can be sure that the crime he committed was trivial. However, if you hear of a criminal getting multiple life-sentences without parole, you can surmise that the crime he committed was very serious. The penalty given, gives us understanding of the nature of the crime.

The penalty for sin is death and damnation--life without parole. The sentence is eternal. This is harsh by any human standard, however, God’s standard is infinitely higher than ours. He is perfect and holy, and the best of us is desperately wicked in His sight. If we sinned a mere ten times a day through lustful thoughts, greed, ingratitude, bad actions, etc.,--over a 70 year life that comes to 255,500 sins that God must punish.

If Hell doesn’t exist, then Hitler murdered six million mothers, fathers, children, brothers and sisters, and got away with it. 100,000 people committed murder in the 1990's in the US and were not brought to justice. Human reason demands Hell's existence, but as to its eternality, I leave such thoughts in God’s hands. In the meanwhile, I say with the Apostle Paul, "Wherefore knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men." ~ copied from Ray Comfort ~ http://www.thegoodtest.net

Oh, so the reason you don't agree is because you can't think for yourself and need people like Ray Comfort to tell you what to think.

NO, why "re-invent the wheel" when there are such good reasonable answers to these kind of questions already given. The human spirit demands justice and God has promised He will provide it...His delay is out of mercy in the hope than man will repent of sins and come to the Savior, Jesus Christ!

"NO, why "re-invent the wheel" when there are such good reasonable answers to these kind of questions already given."

You and I have a very different opinion on what makes a good reasonable answer. Just because Hitler "gets away with it" if there was no Hell doesn't make it suddenly appear. No matter how much you wish for something, it won't just appear because of your wishing.

"The human spirit demands justice and God has promised He will provide it..."

Is this the same god who endorsed:

> Rape (Gen 19:6, 33-34)

> Human sacrifice (Judges 11:30-39)

> Slavery (Exodus 21:20-21)

> Kidnapping (God rewards the plunder to the Israelites, Numbers 31:35 & god explains how to capture plunder for yourselves including women, Deut 20:10-13)

> Animal Abuse (Joshua 11:6)

> Murder & Child murder (All of Jericho is killed including babies, Joshua 6:21-27, and more killing in 1 Samuel 15:2)

> Killing for innocent mistakes (2 Samuel 6:6-7)

> ...and just general killing (Exodus 12:29, Exodus 32:27, Numbers 16:35, Numbers 16:49, Numbers 21:3, Numbers 31:17-18, Deut 2:33-34, Joshua 10:10-24, Joshua 10:28-37, Judges 1:4, Judges 3:29, Judges 7:19-25, Judges 20:43-48, 2 Kings 19:35, Revelation 6:8)?

If so, then it sounds like the one who needs Justice, is god himself!

AND, no matter how much you wish for it (Hell) Not to be True, doesn't change that it IS REAL...

I don't WISH it didn't exist. I'm SURE it doesn't exist, just like Valhalla, Norse Hel, and any other non-places religion has come up with. Do you wish the Norse Hel isn't real?

I don't give Norse gods the time of day, nor the Greek gods, nor the Egyptian gods, nor the Roman gods, primarily because none of those gods speak English. Now had their religious texts been translated into English wouldn't we be in a world of hurt then? Wow. People would become convinced they were all real, and real they were of course to the properly brainwashed. I wonder if TKent has considered this point of view?

Why did you fail to address the irony of the passages quoted?

If he has seen this site before, I and greeneyedgirl have addressed every single one of these and he is smart enough to ignore the same questions from the same people.

This comment was deleted.

This comment was deleted.

The Bible is quite enough proof for me, but you're free to not believe. Biblical Truth is spiritually discerned, and unless the Spirit moves yet at some point in your life by God's mercy and grace, you will remain "Blind". Please do not harden your heart more...

This comment was deleted.

The Bible is proof a plenty to me because my eyes have been opened to spiritual things. The Bible explains all we need to know at this point to understand creation, "In the beginning God." The "Origin of species" proves nothing to me nor to anyone else who is really thinking. Darwin could not explain the beginning of life on this planet and could not provide any examples of species to species transitions because there are none. His theory is just that, a theory.

This comment was deleted.

I believe we're just going to have to disagree on both counts, and that's OK by me.

This comment was deleted.

This comment was deleted by TKent .

This comment was deleted by TKent .

So are you ALSO agreeing Catholics with one mortal sin on their souls because they missed mass a single time and were unable to get to confession before they got hit by a car and died instantly ARE BAD ENOUGH to burn forever, because that is precisely what Catholics believe... the pains of hell for eternity because God would condemn them forever for just having a single mortal sin on their soul.

That is unless the nuns were lying to their catechism class just because they wanted to give them nightmares.

But if one branch of Christianity has it wrong how do you know any of them have it right?

The same way you know if one American is wrong, it doesn't mean all Americans are wrong.

But weren't the Catholics the ones who decided on about 90% of the canons accepted as official today. And a person (Martin Luther) who said of Jews that their synagogues and schools should be be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, their rabbis forbidden to preach, their homes razed, their property and money confiscated, etc., should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time (http://bit.ly/d62dho) was also the man responsible for determining the other 10% of canons in use today?

So how can any practitioners of mainstream Christianity be sure their yardsticks for determining God's laws are any closer to being right than if I say I feel it in my bones that my personal interpretation is the right one? Who can say, for example, that my personal interpretation is any more or any less correct than John Smith Jr.'s, (Mormon), John Calvin's, or Martin Luther's interpretation?

This question is by far the most important one to me... "...how can any practitioners of mainstream Christianity be sure their yardsticks for determining God's laws are any closer to being right than if I say I feel it in my bones that my personal interpretation is the right one?"

This is exactly the question a Christian asks himself when he decides what church to attend. For myself, I studied for years while exploring the available options. You know what I found out? None of them agree 100% with my thinking and experience. But I learned that about 20% of all churches produce about 80% of those really dedicated to living a Christian life. That's really a much better yardstick than feelings. For me, it has the added advantage of being biblical. "By their fruit you will recognize (know) them."

Rational Christianity is much more important to me than most people, so I needed a church that is challenging. But most that practice go where they are spiritually fed or where they feel loved. Different churches meet different needs.

It might sound like I'd be critical of Catholics or Mormons or Coptic Christians. But I'm not. Paul said that we have all fallen short of perfection. I take that to mean that no one has all the answers. The fact that I can point out their errors does not mean I'm more righteous in God's sight. Again, the Bible emphasizes that. The fact that no one is perfect does provide evidence that God doesn't demand that we be perfect. We won't go to Hell for missing church or questioning the meanings in the Bible or not washing our hands after going to the bathroom.

And BTW/ Jesus was the only person not a product of his times, including Luther, Calvin or Paul, Luther was an anti-Semite, Calvin wouldn't tolerate descent and Paul was worried that woman's freedom as believers would give Christians a bad name. This is also why I believe the Catholics have it wrong about Mary, the Mother of Jesus being perfect and where they got it wrong about Papal infallibility.

Great response.

In the early 1980's... I think 1982.. when I had an experience probably something like James expressed in his "Varieties of Religious Experience" when I felt particularly in tune with the moment.. I prayed that I wouldn't die until I was able to make up for all the evil I had done (none of which was as bad as rape or murder -- I never did anything physically violent) ...and during the nearly thirty years after that during which I experienced a number of close calls with death -- and were I a cat I'd probably be on my 7th or 8th life by now.. but, continuing, part of my 1982 prayerful "connection" was that in addition to making up for the evil I had done I also asked to feel as close at the moment of my death as I felt on that one occasion.

Now, many years later, I feel like I'm getting further and further away from that goal.. in part because people like Ehrman, who studied the Old and New Testaments more in any one year of his adult life than every religious person I have personally ever met.. so when he talks about things like how, in the first twenty years after Jesus died, absolutely nothing about Jesus had been written yet and all knowledge about Christ was up to that point just passed down orally -- and even after the first gospels actually were written, even then copies of the "Word" were all made by hand by people who might have occasionally introduced some personal agenda each time a new copy was made.. there was much room for doubts as decade after decade passed, then century after century. Ehrman's interpretation is that even Jesus believed the "end times" would come during his apostles lifetimes.

One thing I would like to know is this.. when there are so many ways to interpret "the Word" as is evidenced over and over again simply by all the varieties of Christianity that there are.. how is it possible to find one variety to believe and then continue to believe year after year, decade after decade?

Just talking about this seems kind of juvenile like a kid old enough to have some self-control over wetting his pants, but then doing so anyway, and then noting that everyone that sees the wetness is going to know what happened. :)

Why have I been asking so many very related questions? I think it's mainly because some people like yourself have answers like yours that make a lot of sense to me.. and I wonder a great deal how it is that many people just accept what they are told without ever wondering why they accept it. I ask to try to find out what some people know that I don't know. Does that make any sense?

This comment was deleted.

[ack] o.O

To answer the simpler question first; "...how is it possible to find one variety to believe and then continue to believe year after year, decade after decade?"

It's not. You will find yourself going through spiritual changes as your understanding of the world and God changes.

When I was in my 20's and single, I was happy with a large Methodist church that emphasized community building. I really wanted to be part of a like minded group with similar interests. I didn't mind going out and having a drink or three, but the bar scene was not good for actually getting to know people and there were too many alcoholics around. At the church, there were activities available seven days a week if you wanted that much and most cost very little or nothing. In athletics, we had 6 volleyball teams, 3 softball teams, 3 basketball teams, 2 aerobics groups, a liturgical dance group and a running crew. You'd be amazed how many talented musicians there are that have to make a living doing something else. We had 3 choirs, an orchestra, a rock band and 2 country/gospel bands and various soloists. There were three major study groups that split into small groups for prayer and personal accountability. There was a lot more, but you get the idea. Church was the place you went to make life richer and better. Religion was how you lived, not just what you weren't supposed to do.

As I got to 30, I started asking some of the harder questions and explored what made Baptists so successful and ran around with a bunch of Charismatics to find out if they knew something I didn't. They didn't.

I ran across an unusual church that had about 400 active members. The unusual thing was that the average church with 400 active members has 1600 members on the rolls. This church had 450. I wanted to know what kind of church was 4 times as effective as average. It turned out to be the only Reformed church in Oklahoma (at that time). Reformed churches emphasize the "sovereignty of God." This has a huge number of implications that most people never think about. I found out that God blessed me to be a blessing. I have a purpose I was created for. I was given all the tools and resources I needed to be the blessing God intended me to be. That means that nobody... nobody can stop my being a blessing unless I allow it. That knowledge gave me the courage to go back to school so that I could be a financial success. It gave me the courage to ask the beautiful woman I loved to marry me. It gave me the strength to hold my family together when my wife spent 4 years dying. It gave me the authority to go to the other side of the world to adopt my daughter. It made me comfortable in my own skin.

With that kind of strength and authority, we never felt threatened by other beliefs. The church had one 16 week course on the Old Testament taught by a well known local Rabbi. We had a 4 week course on Islam taught by a local Muslim Doctor. We thought nothing about comparing and contrasting with other Christian traditions.

One of our members was a Coptic Christian pop star in Egypt that fled a Muslim kill squad. Another was my Bible instructor for 2 years. His day job was as the chief scientist perfecting laser surgery on the eyes. Another owned 1200 fast food franchises and invented real estate franchising. I could name 50 others that were ultra-successful in their chosen fields. These are not people that are entertained by myths or roped in by cults. They taught me how functional Christianity is. The scientist/Bible teacher got me started working out the apparent differences between science and Christianity. He showed us that the differences are nearly always caused by either misunderstanding God or science. The rest, the science is flat wrong or what we "know" about God is wrong.

We ONLY know to correct a wrong if someone disagrees with conventional wisdom. Scientists do that all the time. That is also how to correct a mistake in understanding in Christianity. Do we dismiss science because scientists disagree? Of course not. Do we dismiss Christianity because Christians disagree? Many do, but it makes no sense to me.

So, no. I would not expect to find one variety of Christianity to believe and then continue to believe year after year, decade after decade.

This comment was deleted.

If a human being makes a mistake and kills someone is he/she more hell-deserving than a military person that has killed even more people? Does God check sides on judgment day to see if the ones killed were "the enemy"?

Or are "government sanctioned" murders okay if they are "the enemy" at the time of the murder? But what if both sides were praying to the same God? And does God think it was less of a crime to kill a Vietnamese person in Da Nang in 1969 than to kill one in San Francisco in 2009?

Odd that no mere mortals here know the answer? :)

I can give you an answer that makes sense, but I'm trying to pick my battles because my time is more limited than it used to be. If you want to look it up, it involves the definition of murder and killing.

Killing in a war for money and power and or social ideology isn't murder? Killing a nobody for a wallet is murder?

God condones killing for money and power and/or social ideology only if a person is in uniform or ordered by any Caesar-equivalent?

Methinks someone in power must have wrote the definitions, no? Did God write the definitions?

The US has not started a war like that since the 1870s Indian wars. Even the Spanish-American war and the 2nd Gulf war were based on faulty Intelligence.

The Bible says that hating people is the sin and killing people is the result. In Hebrew, law and religion were the same thing. The Hebrew word for "Thou shall not KILL" is the word used in Hebraic law for Murder. In Latin, there is no separate word for a legal and illegal death. So, when you translate from Latin, it is kill; from Hebrew, it's murder.

Some thought Vietnam was for the offshore oil and rubber plantations. Others thought Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism. Would killing be justifiable regardless of either reason? The outcome of the war proved the USA mainland was never in danger at any time. So what's the difference in thousands of USA soldiers killing thousands of Vietnamese on their own land, or a serial killer in San Francisco killing a few dozen Vietnamese because he seeks monetary gain (analogous to offshore oil or rubber plantations) or maybe for partisan reasons (analogous to stopping the spread of communism)?

I only use Vietnamese as an example because I think murders in Vietnam were just as unholy as murders in California would be. Would any sane person disagree?

Evidence is that Kennedy believed he was stopping the spread of communism, a group that nearly started a nuclear war with us on Kennedy's watch. If that had turned out to be true, it would have been the only course to save our country.

As it was, hundreds more lives were lost than was strictly necessary because politicians wouldn't play to win. By 1967, people had lost faith in the government's ability to fight a war and Nixon had to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

God was not on anyone's side. He's made it pretty clear that killing is only allowed for self defense. And even then, you had better be right.

But your question is like; Which one is worse, using a sward to cut off someone's toes or cutting your wife's ears off with a butcher knife.

"The US has not started a war like that since the 1870's Indian wars."

Okay. Then whose side was God on? The white man's (the attackers)? Or the Native Americans (the attacked)?

Norse Hel was also an icy place, not a fiery one.

Yes, but the god of the bible is pretty parochial. It never occurred to him, being created by a desert people, that to people who lived in a cold climate, punishment consists of being too cold, not too hot.

That makes sense. +

Hell, California, U.S

Hell, Michigan, U.S.

Hell, Grand Cayman, the Cayman Islands

Hell, Norway, a village in Stjørdal

Hell Station, a railway station at Hell, Norway

Hell Creek, a place in Montana notable for Cretaceous dinosaur fossils.

Clearly Chipmonk's reasoning is flawed.

1 Replies to elwyatt's answer

LOL

This comment was deleted by elwyatt .

Well, in case that you are a believer, the explanation to the existence of heaven is that God respects our freedom, so He wouldn't do anything to force us to follow him if we -using our freedom- decide no to do it.

22 Replies to beasilvaa's answer

That explanation doesn't work, for a number of reasons. Here's three:

1. "Respecting someone's freedom" to the degree that you'd let them condemn themselves to eternal torture is just absurd.

2. Who decided that non-believers go to Hell anyway? Yes, that's right.

3. There's no such thing as "freedom" to an omnipotent god anyway: He'd know how everything would play out before creating us, but chose to do it a certain way. If you believe in an omnipotent god, you believe everything happens because he wants it that way.

Good points. If he created us and knows beforehand what we are going to do it really doesn't make any sense. How could people be so brainwashed as to not seeing the absurdity of it?

This comment was deleted.

This comment was deleted by Chipmonk .

This comment was deleted.

Comment below... didn't want to clutter the comments space with the same answer in both places.

1. No veo el absurdo, de hecho, lo veo como algo básico en el supuesto de la fe. No tendría sentido el que tuvieramos que encontrar a Dios si es que no tuvieramos libertad para hacerlo.

2. Nadie dijo que los no creyentes no fueran al cielo, que te apartes de Él no quiere decir que no vayas a la Iglesia o cosas así.

2. Creemos que todo pasa porque Dios lo quiere así, pero existen distintas formas de aprobación divina, por un lado la voluntad aprobativa (y por tanto sustentativa) y la sustentativa, pero reprobativa. El que algo pase porque Dios así lo quiera no quiere decir que sea lo que Él quiera para nosotros, sino que lo aprueba por una regla muy importante que sirve para entender todo esto: "Dios no puede contradecirse", si nos da la libertad, no va a ir contra ella.

Perdón por escribir en español, en verdad se me hizo muy difícil hacerlo en inglés, pero puedo tratar usando un traductor si te complica mucho.

Thank you for comments. Especially, ""Dios no puede contradecirse", si nos da la libertad, no va a ir contra ella."

It does make it a little difficult, yes. Babelfish doesn't seem to be able to translate this into anything coherent.

Spanish to English translationShow romanization

1. I see the absurd, in fact, what I see as basic to the course of faith. It would not make sense that we had to find God if we did not have freedom to do so.

2. Nobody said that non-believers went to heaven, that thou depart from him does not mean they do not go to church or something.

2. We believe that everything happens because God wills it, but there are different ways of divine approval, first approved will (and therefore sustainable) and sustainability, but failed. Just because something happens because God wants it does not mean it is what He wants for us, but it adopted a very important rule that helps you to understand all this: "God can not contradict, if you give us freedom, not going against it.

Sorry to write in Spanish, it really made me very difficult to do in English, but I can try using a translator if you are very complicated.

Still not very coherent... I'll choose to believe it makes more sense in Spanish.

thank you for the try, but you changed what i said.. i will try to transalate it by my self, but it will take a little..

*more little earthquakes here!! =/ just a 7,3 in Rancagua (thats not little)

Yes, I was using google translate totry and help. Sorry about the continuing earthquakes...

1. I dont see the absurd, in fact, I see it as something basic in the postulation of faith. It would not have sense that we had to find God if we didnt have the freedom to do it.

2. No one said that non believers dont go to heaven, that you dont follow Him does not mean that you dont go to church or thing like that, its that you have distanced your way from good.

3. We believe that everything happens because God wants it to happen, but there are different ways of divine approval. By one hand the approved will (and therefore supported will), and by the other hand, the supported, but reprobate will. That something happens because God does want it doesnt mean that its what He wants for us, he approves it because of a very important rule that is very useful to understand this: "God can not contradict itself", if He gives us freedom, He wont go against it.

*I had problems in the transaltion with some words like approved and supported will. It would be better to translate it as approvative and supportative will, or something like that, but in the translator it didnt exist.

1. It doesn't make sense anyway as long as we're threatened with torture.

2. Jesus says everyone except the "rightous" go to hell (Matt 25:46), other verses say that as long as no one's actually rightous anyway (Romans 3:10), so the only way to get to heaven is by believing in Jesus (John 3:16).

3. Yes, it does. Omniscience does mean that everything happens exactly the way God planned it, in every sense. That's omniscience.

RE: Your belief in Hell as eternal torture is taken from Dante's beliefs. That is most likely not correct. Hell is more often compared to a garbage dump. That means that once garbage is thrown into the garbage dump, the garbage is reduced to ash and no longer exists. The soul, then, no longer exists, just as the garbage no longer exists. So, as a non-believer, when you die, you are dead. Most non-believers are OK with that.

See Matthew 25:46 - "everlasting punishment".

That could just as easily be translated as, "the natural consequences (separation from God) will last forever."

Sources?

Rabbi David Packman.

That's tellin' him! ;)

This comment was deleted.

I disagree. I do not believe the concept of hell, but the fact that "nobody deserves it" is not the reason why.

12 Replies to pollewop's answer

I disagree too. I do believe the concept of hell, but the fact that "nobody deserves it" is an opinion not related to the concept.

Have you ever read anything about the history of Christianity? 'Some real eye-opening stuff.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268243126&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268243126&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Christianities-Battles-Scripture-Faiths/dp/0195182499/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268243126&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-Historical-Introduction-Christian/dp/0199740305/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268243126&sr=8-5

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic-Prophet-New-Millennium/dp/019512474X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268243126&sr=8-6

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Problem-Answer-Important-Question-Why/dp/B001FOR5CG/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268243126&sr=8-7

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Scriptures-Books-that-Testament/dp/0195182502/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268243126&sr=8-8

http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Corruption-Scripture-Christological-Controversies/dp/0195102797/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268243126&sr=8-9

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Introduction-New-Testament/dp/0195369343/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268243126&sr=8-10

http://www.amazon.com/Peter-Paul-Mary-Magdalene-Followers/dp/0195343506/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268243126&sr=8-11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Trt1ZWR5PqQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cK3Ry_icJo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3N4ymHO-eA

And many many more YouTubes

I am thoroughly convinced now that "the truth" is much more understandable now than ever before.

Have you ever read any of the answers to those 13 critiques? A critique without a good answer is just bitching and moaning. Its knowledge of no value.

I read other accounts of early Christian history that corroborated these accounts. If a reviewer only uses the bible as a guideline then it seems much more subjective than sources which also depend on histories written at the time. In addition I didn't see any answers to those 13 books -- I saw reviews and reviews are more likely to be bitching and moaning than documented research by a person whose lifetime of research is more likely to contain more facts than any reviews.

I did listen to some of the YouTube attacks on Ehrman's work and I came away with the opinion the attackers did not spend a fraction of Ehrman's time reaching their conclusions. The problem, in my opinion, is that his attackers approach the subject with so many preconceived biases they are unable to fashion a believable response.

That can and does happen. One of the major problem confronting religion is that most Christians have not learned to talk about the substance of Atheists concerns because, in most cases, they don't share them.

Another problem is that many of those authors (I've read 8 of the ones you mentioned.) assume that belief systems don't exist in reality. (a common tenant of Atheism.) Or they ignore belief systems as unimportant, thus ignoring the motivations of 2/3 of humanity. Between these two things, it is very difficult to take them seriously. When I get some extra time, I'll look up some answers that might make sense to a non-believer.

Well, the thing that impressed me about Ehrman is he was in the seminary and he was as devout a believer as anyone could possibly be. He studied the bible in Greek and Aramaic and arrived at his conclusions as the result of a lifetime of study. He discusses at length the difficulty he had finding authentic manuscripts and he says that many of the understandings of the earliest Christians (those most likely to have talked to Jesus and listened to his teachings) were not accepted by the Church elders later on because they didn't fashion Jesus to be the same character the Church wanted him to appear to manifest. What this means to someone seeking TRUTH is, according to Ehrman, your guess is as good as mine ... and certainly as good as the Church elders (read "Roman Catholics").

With room for such a wide interpretation of "the Word" who is right, who is wrong, and wouldn't a thinking person come to believe how it is all interpreted is really more up to the individual than anyone else?

In the final analysis, it is. Like marraige, you come into it with a great deal of preconceptions and many turn out to be wrong. Many really good experts can help you become a better marraige partner, but in the end, it is your decision what to do and how to act and how to react to your wife. There are principles that work well with almost everyone, but you decide what to do and which experts to take advice from.

Then it follows, doesn't it, that a person who likes the idea of God but doesn't "get" the "pomp" of church invented rituals that are repeated year after year, decade after decade, century after century, should not really be faulted simply because such repetition seems silly and pointless to him?

Now you are talking about a dysfunctional idea. The rituals are always important in building any social institution. Ever hear a good Kwanzaa carol?

No, I never heard a good Kwanzaa carol, but I haven't heard a bad one either. :)

me 2

I third that. It's mainly because it's a fairy tale.

This comment was deleted.

This comment was deleted.

I don't believe in Hell because I'm not a child.