|
Rule -> RE: god and bsdm (8/21/2012 9:09:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kalikshama
I'm just now reading about Gehenna being mistranslated as Hell; does anyone have any comments?
http://forum.greaterreality.com/messages/9.html
Misinterpreted. Translators, being ordinary humans, ought not to interpret their source texts.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kalikshama
...None of the hell thing was in Jesus' teachings. First, Jesus and others such as James spoke of Gehenna, a place where human sacrifices occurred in fire and later garbage was burned. Jesus warned that if Israel didn't turn to God, it would be destroyed in flames, and he used Gehenna as an analogy. But he never suggested people would be judged and thrown into a place where there is fire.
That is so interesting. If only we had the GPS coordinates.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kalikshama
The translators of the Bible took out the name of the place, Gehenna, and inserted an ancient English word, "hell," which originally meant to cover something.
Hm. I can tell that it is a very ancient word.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kalikshama
They should have left the name Gehenna there and the problem wouldn't have arisen. Jesus never spoke of a hell because there was no such thing until the translators inserted the word.
Quite. They were different places.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kalikshama
And the idea of torment and people burning was made up by two prominent writers, Dante and Milton. There's nothing like that anywhere in the Bible.
There is in the Aneid.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kalikshama
...The Roman Church began using the idea of a hell to convert people through fear and keep people in line.
That was a good idea. Those who lack a conscience, as so many of our ancestors did, must be kept in line by threat of force.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kalikshama
The conception grew and was embellished by Dante in the fourteenth century and Milton in the seventeenth century until today preachers are really convinced there is such a thing.
It was and is a useful concept, though based on erroneous interpretations.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kalikshama
It's simply a fiction; it has no basis in reality, and certainly not in the teachings of any religion, including the teachings of Jesus.
On the contrary, it did - and presumably still does - have a basis in reality. However, it is being misinterpreted.
quote:
ORIGINAL: kalikshama
Here's what we know from Jesus' teachings. He would never condemn anyone. Read the story of the adulteress about to be stoned. And read his words that we should not tell others they have faults (specks in their eyes) because we all have a beam of wood in our own eyes (our own faults). The Jesus of the New Testament was unconditionally loving, would never condemn someone, and certainly wouldn't stand on a mountaintop throwing little Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist children into hell. It's simply preposterous.
I agree. Yet nevertheless, if this is what it takes for circumcised populations to stop the abomination of circumcision, then by all means let those who circumcise their progeny burn in Hell!
|
|
|
|
