Biblical Universalist Discussion Forum
Welcome to my forum. Feel free to post a message.
|
||
| Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Forum |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 15) |
| Author | Comment |
Eystein
Sep 17, 06 - 10:08 AM |
Should we use the term hell?
If someone asked me (strangely enough, nobody has) if I believed in hell, I would say: I believe in remedial judgment, even after death for many, and I believe that God sometimes uses hard mercy to make us realize the truth, but no, I do not believe in hell. The Bible speaks of suffering, gnashing of teeth and darkness, but even atheists believe in these things. And Jews believe in Gods judgment, but they don’t believe in hell. Is it profitable to use a word that has lost all meaning? Should we not use other terms to avoid confusions for the same reason we don’t use the term purgatory, a word some translators use to translate Gehenna? I don’t know. I just don’t feel right using the word hell. |
Mike Burke
 Sep 17th, 2006 - 10:57 AM |
Re: Should we use the term hell?
I think it depends on how we define it. I would define "hell" as a place/time of judgment. I believe the term "purgatory," if not confined to baptised believers (or associated with our intermediatory efforts here on earth), could be rightly used in the same way. God Bless. |
|
Eystein
Sep 17th, 2006 - 11:49 AM |
Re: Should we use the term hell?
I know that the word hell in itself does not convey the meaning of eternal retributive punishment. In most religions (especially eastern), it is a temporary place of retribution and/or cleansing prior to reincarnation or access to heaven. I don’t speak against Universalists who find the term useful. But I still believe there are other and perhaps better terms or phrases to convey the meaning we are trying to convey with hell. The important thing is that we communicate. Pax |
|
Mike Burke
Sep 17th, 2006 - 11:50 AM |
Re: Should we use the term hell?
[quote] The important thing is that we communicate. [unquote] I agree. I find it easier to communicate my thoughts (to most people) if I use the word "hell," and then explain what I believe about it's purpose and duration. God Bless. |
|
Caroline
Sep 17th, 2006 - 6:56 PM |
Re: Should we use the term hell?
It would be interesting to find out what unchurched people think hell means. I was explaining Universalism to my aunt who is not affiliated with any religion and she didn't like the idea that bad people get to disturb her in heaven. I think Jesus had to use harsh imagery because his listeners were complacent and believed they would all get to heaven eventually because they were Abraham's descendants, the chosen ones, the covenantal people. I think the Pharisees would even be smug about it because they probably feel they deserve heaven and God's praise because they kept the Law so well. Jesus was trying to get them to see that's not how it works. Meanwhile, we're here 2000 years later with a great deal of Catholic and Medieval imageries and metaphors stuck in our brains. People who heard hell and brimstone sermons probably also have the feelings of guilty and fear to go along with those images. We can do nothing except tell the truth to as many people as often as we can. Blessings, Caroline |
|
Matt
Sep 18th, 2006 - 3:00 PM |
Re: Should we use the term hell?
What I do is actually say "Lake of Fire" when talking about God's judgment. If I'm answered by "you mean Hell" or something like that, then I explain further. "Hell" is not accurate. It is a Germanic adjective which means "covered" or "underside." It came to be translated as a noun for 3 very separate places (Sheol and Hades are the same thing.) I hate to sound cynical, but in my experience there is a lot of resistance to Universalism out there. A lot. People who have been taught false doctrine their whole lives and believe it blindly are not easily reprogrammed, so to speak. Getting them to see "Hell" as anything but a place of eternal torment for most of God's Creation is a tall order. |
|
Mike Burke
Sep 18th, 2006 - 6:38 PM |
Re: Should we use the term hell?
[quote] It is a Germanic adjective which means "covered" or "underside." It came to be translated as a noun for 3 very separate places (Sheol and Hades are the same thing.) [unquote] "Sheol and Hades are the same thing," and I believe they both refer to something that is covered, or unseen--so "Hell" isn't that bad a translation of these two words. That leaves two words (Gehenna and Tartaroo) to consider. According to James D. Strong, Tartaroo is: 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. I don't see that "Hell" is all that bad a translation. God Bless. |
|
Matt
Sep 21st, 2006 - 4:25 PM |
Re: Should we use the term hell?
Mike; While I agree that hell is a good adjective to describe those places, hell is still an adjective. The names of the places are proper nouns. It'd be like attributing "warm" as a name for Miami. Also, I think the context of the word "hell" has been destroyed by what it has come to mean. It's like the word gay. You can't use that word to describe someone as happy these days, because of the other meaning it has taken on. No one today would take "go to Hell" to mean "go to your grave." That's my opinion...it isn't worth much, I know. |
|
Mike Burke
Sep 21st, 2006 - 4:38 PM |
Re: Should we use the term hell?
[quote] While I agree that hell is a good adjective to describe those places, hell is still an adjective. [unquote] Correction, "Hell" is a noun according to the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Hell) [quote] Also, I think the context of the word "hell" has been destroyed by what it has come to mean. [unquote] I disagree--and if you can go back to it's original function (as an adjective), I can go back to the original meaning. In addition, Webster's Dictionary gives this as one definition of how the word is still used in modern English: 2 a : a place or state of misery, torment, or wickedness If you preffer to use some other word, you have no argument with me; but (as I already said) I find it easier to convey my thoughts (to most people) by using the word "Hell," and then explaining what I believe about it's purpose and duration. God Bless. |
|
Maribel
Jul 18th, 2007 - 10:40 AM |
Re: Should we use the term hell?
I believe that hell is rather a state of mind than a place. I mean the unjust suffer too, remember Mike on beast of revelation, you said that they later suffered simply due to the results of their actions. |
|
Mike Burke
Jul 18th, 2007 - 1:13 PM |
Re: Should we use the term hell?
[Quote] I believe that hell is rather a state of mind than a place...remember Mike on beast of revelation, you said that they later suffered simply due to the results of their actions. [unquote] The fall of Samaria, the fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and Noah's flood were all the results of sin (of human actions), but in no case were these judgments simply states of mind. I do not believe that hell is merely a state of mind, and I have never meant to imply that. |
|
pam
Aug 9th, 2007 - 3:58 PM |
Re: Should we use the term hell?
I am like, Matt. I use the descriptive terms as much a possible and since the popular concept of 'hell' is really of Zoraster and not YHWH, no, I don't believe in hell. However, the English originally kept their potatoes in 'hell' as what it truly means is to conceal. I think it best to unearth the concepts that are concealed in the Bible beneath this KJV word. As for the concept, well that is something man would dream up and it isn't of God. Pam |
|
Mike Burke
Aug 9th, 2007 - 6:52 PM |
Re: Should we use the term hell?
[Quote] I think it best to unearth the concepts that are concealed in the Bible beneath this KJV word. [unquote] But one can do that without trying to change the vocabulary of the English speaking world. And I would again point out that Sheol and Hades both refer to something that is covered, or unseen--and in fairness to the KJV translators (and as you yourself admit), this is what the English word "hell" meant in 1611 A.D. It should also be remembered that hades and tarteroo were not unrelated, and were not without the negative connotations we associate with hell. [The Free Dictionary: by Farlex] Tartarus: In Greek mythology, a part of Hades, the underworld, where the wicked were punished. http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Tartarus This is where Peter borrowed the image of Tartaroo (2 Peter 2:4.) I believe that if the word "hell" is mis-applied at all, it's in reference to the lake of fire (which is a judgment that actually occurs after hades is emptied, Rev. 20:13.) I find it more helpful to deal with concepts than debate words, and the concept of judgment for unrepented sin is biblical. IMO, the concept that God's judgments are vindictive (and His punishment unending) is unbiblical, and I believe it can be shown that God's purpose is always corrective--so I find it more helpful to discuss the purpose and duration of "hell," than argue about the word. ...strive not about words to no profit...(2 Tim. 2:14.) G-d Bless. |
|
pam
Aug 9th, 2007 - 7:52 PM |
Re: Should we use the term hell?
I have read that Tartaus was for the demons only. Anyway, that is a side note but I still prefer to talk about the concept when I speaking to someone who only has the common concept of hell which has nothing to do with the actual word that the KJV translators chose. It was a good word then but not so good now. Language changes constantly and we don't have to work at doing it! I think the word hell as it means now, is an incorrect translation. I think it complicates things and masks what scripture is truly teaching to all but those who are willing to mine for deeper meaning. I too believe that God punishes but it certainly is not in the way that most attribute to Him and that is a travesty. Pam |
|
Mike Burke
Aug 10th, 2007 - 3:50 PM |
Re: Should we use the term hell?
[Quote] I have read that Tartaus was for the demons only. Anyway, that is a side note [unquote] Peter wrote of fallen angels being imprisoned in Tartarus (2 Peter 2:4), but the word comes from Plato, and the Greeks regarded it as a part of hades where rebels (both human and nonhuman) were punished. In his dialogue with Gorgias, Plato said that human souls were judged after death, and that those who received punishment were sent to Tartarus (as a side note, that was over three centuries before Peter used the word.) If we're to avoid using the word "hell" because of some of it's connotations, why didn't Peter avoid using the word "tartaroo"? [Quote] I too believe that God punishes but it certainly is not in the way that most attribute to Him and that is a travesty. [unquote] I believe it's wrong to attribute vindictiveness to God, and the teaching of eternal torment certainly does that, but it seems to me that the travesty has more to do with the purpose and duration of "hell" than the word itself. [Quote] I think the word hell as it means now, is an incorrect translation. I think it complicates things and masks what scripture is truly teaching to all but those who are willing to mine for deeper meaning. [unquote] I think trying to replace the word "hell" with more obscure words only complicates things further (and can re-enforce the perception that we don't believe in any postmortem punishment for unrepented sin.) IMO, that only masks what scripture is truly teaching to all but those who are willing to mine for deeper meaning. G-d Bless. |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Forum |
Next |
Last |
powered by
bravenet.com