A little help?

[TeaDidikai]

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

Heilsan Otherus, Tea ok Allir,

Thankyou my dear for the compliment... unfortunately my procreating days are over, unless you have a syringe handy... smile (For those whom are wondering of the need for a syringe, I will only say the word *snip* - if you need further explanation, you're obviously too young [no matter how old you are lol ] for the subject matter...)

Ver thu heil

That's okay. I think my husband would object anyway. blaugh

Orthrus>> There are at least three Baptist traditions that baptize infants. I know of one group based out of the southern US, one in Cali and one in British Columbia.

While they are the minority (some go so far as to say Heretical rolleyes ) I wanted to be sure.


I am curious- what have your Godparents said about you leaving the Church?  

[Dervenin]

TeaDidikai

Ulfrikr inn Hrafn

Heilsan Otherus, Tea ok Allir,

Thankyou my dear for the compliment... unfortunately my procreating days are over, unless you have a syringe handy... smile (For those whom are wondering of the need for a syringe, I will only say the word *snip* - if you need further explanation, you're obviously too young [no matter how old you are lol ] for the subject matter...)

Ver thu heil

That's okay. I think my husband would object anyway. blaugh

Orthrus>> There are at least three Baptist traditions that baptize infants. I know of one group based out of the southern US, one in Cali and one in British Columbia.

While they are the minority (some go so far as to say Heretical rolleyes ) I wanted to be sure.


I am curious- what have your Godparents said about you leaving the Church?

I'm afraid my Godparent passed away about 3 years ago. Before I even started thinking about leaving the church.  

[TeaDidikai]

Orthrus

I'm afraid my Godparent passed away about 3 years ago. Before I even started thinking about leaving the church.

Sorry to hear that.

Well, within the RCC there is grace established at baptism, but no oaths without confirmation.

~shrugs~ My advice to most folks is to re-examine the theology of their youth. Most people become disenfranchised with the religion of their youth at some point.

What changed at age 17 for you?  

[Dervenin]

TeaDidikai

Orthrus

I'm afraid my Godparent passed away about 3 years ago. Before I even started thinking about leaving the church.

Sorry to hear that.

Well, within the RCC there is grace established at baptism, but no oaths without confirmation.

~shrugs~ My advice to most folks is to re-examine the theology of their youth. Most people become disenfranchised with the religion of their youth at some point.

What changed at age 17 for you?

I started caring more about what I believed in. I started reading the bible and thinking more heavily about Christian concepts. Before, I had just gone with whatever my Hardcore Christian friends said. I exposed myself to other types of religions and many different interpretations of the bible. As I put more thought into my beliefs and read more of the bible. Christianity began to sour for me. My friends had always told me Christianity was a religion of peace and love. When I read the bible and examined the values of Christianity, all I saw was injustice, jealousy, and immorality. The concept of Hell was really what I just couldn't tolerate.  

[TeaDidikai]

Orthrus

I started caring more about what I believed in. I started reading the bible and thinking more heavily about Christian concepts. Before, I had just gone with whatever my Hardcore Christian friends said. I exposed myself to other types of religions and many different interpretations of the bible. As I put more thought into my beliefs and read more of the bible. Christianity began to sour for me. My friends had always told me Christianity was a religion of peace and love. When I read the bible and examined the values of Christianity, all I saw was injustice, jealousy, and immorality. The concept of Hell was really what I just couldn't tolerate.

Hmmmmm....

Well, to be honest- Christendom is all about Love. The Law of Agape is the foundation of Christendom.

As for Hell, hell is often misrepresented by popular Christendom.

Boxy

Hell- Do You Know What the Hell It Is?
"Hell" is the stuff of nightmares: burning in sulfur, pitchforks and demons, the whole "eternal damnation" deal. However, such symbology is conspicuously absent from actual reference in the original text - except the "lake of fire", which I'll touch on briefly.

Three words have been translated as "Hell" in most English Bibles - Gehenna, Tartarus, and Hades - all of which are specific theological constructs rather than euphuisms for a Christ-run prison-house.

Now, to get down to the nitty-gritty: what were Gehenna, Tartarus, and Hades, respectively?

Gehenna is an actual place located in Israel, once used for burning garbage. It's also called the Valley of Hinnom, an actually lovely place nowadays. The valley was also used as a locale for offering sacrifices to the idolatrous god Moloch, whose practice is strictly forbidden in the grand ol' chapters of Leviticus 18 and 20, alongside prohibitions against homosexuality, incest, bestiality, and sexual relations whilst the female is menstruating.

Wikipedia, ever-so-lovely Wikipedia, has this to say:

Wikipedia

New Testament observations and matters of translation
It is often mentioned in the New Testament of the Christian Bible as the place of condemnation of unrepentant sinners.

In the Book of Matthew, 23:33, Jesus observes,

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?�
Jesus used the word gehenna, not hell, and his audience understood quite well that gehenna meant a place of condemnation, where Jews had previously cast aside the worship of the true God to defile themselves by committing abominations. Human garbage, sinners, would be consumed and destroyed forever.

We note, the King James Bible (and other translations as well) speak of �hellfire� and of being �cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched." The original Greek scriptures of the New Testament actually used the word gehenna, which tended to become hell in English translation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

In instances of "hellfire" and "Gehenna" in the New Testament, it refers symbolically to apostasy, or in other words forsaking God, rather than simmering in Hades.

Which brings me to my next point: Hades was, in many religions, the generalized usage of "the world of the dead". The Hebrew texts have a very similar concept - Sheol, which means quite literally "Hidden". Hades is connected with the concept of "soul-sleep", or that the individual goes "asleep" and is "hidden" from view.

It seems strange that, if indeed the condemnation of Hades is "eternal" and "interminable", that Christ would be "thrust down" into it and then return (Acts 2:31). Hades is then, in that instance, the concept of a pre-resurrection afterlife rather than for punishment.

Tartarus is in the Greek sense the source of existence: it represents the primordial essence that the Earth sprang from. However, it's not an entirely happy place - generally it's considered "darkness", a void, et cetera. One could connect this with the "void" that the earth was before the Creation; thus, being sent back to Tartarus is regressing to a former state of being.

It should note that Tartarus was used only once, and only in reference to the abode of sinning angels (2 Peter 2:4).

As for the lake of fire, one must examine it thoroughly: a "water" element is present (lake) as well as a "burning" element (element). Water in most texts could be interpreted as spirit - a symbol inseparably connected to water. Burning was a practice used under the Mosaic law to cleanse a sacrifice and to atone - the "unclean" parts of the sacrifice would be burnt, and the smoke (considered the purest part) would rise to heaven.

The symbology of being "thrust into the lake of fire" is then more of a forceful baptism and cleansing rather than the peaceful "baptism of fire" promised to the righteous by John the Baptist.

The concept of "Hell" is horribly confused and befuddled by many conflicting sources. By understanding the subtle difference between the usage of Tartarus, Hades, and Gehenna, one can learn to appreciate and better comprehend the text.

 

[Dervenin]

TeaDidikai

Hmmmmm....

Well, to be honest- Christendom is all about Love. The Law of Agape is the foundation of Christendom.

What makes you say that exactly?

TeaDidikai

As for Hell, hell is often misrepresented by popular Christendom.

Boxy

Hell- Do You Know What the Hell It Is?
"Hell" is the stuff of nightmares: burning in sulfur, pitchforks and demons, the whole "eternal damnation" deal. However, such symbology is conspicuously absent from actual reference in the original text - except the "lake of fire", which I'll touch on briefly.

Three words have been translated as "Hell" in most English Bibles - Gehenna, Tartarus, and Hades - all of which are specific theological constructs rather than euphuisms for a Christ-run prison-house.

Now, to get down to the nitty-gritty: what were Gehenna, Tartarus, and Hades, respectively?

Gehenna is an actual place located in Israel, once used for burning garbage. It's also called the Valley of Hinnom, an actually lovely place nowadays. The valley was also used as a locale for offering sacrifices to the idolatrous god Moloch, whose practice is strictly forbidden in the grand ol' chapters of Leviticus 18 and 20, alongside prohibitions against homosexuality, incest, bestiality, and sexual relations whilst the female is menstruating.

Wikipedia, ever-so-lovely Wikipedia, has this to say:

Wikipedia

New Testament observations and matters of translation
It is often mentioned in the New Testament of the Christian Bible as the place of condemnation of unrepentant sinners.

In the Book of Matthew, 23:33, Jesus observes,

"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?�
Jesus used the word gehenna, not hell, and his audience understood quite well that gehenna meant a place of condemnation, where Jews had previously cast aside the worship of the true God to defile themselves by committing abominations. Human garbage, sinners, would be consumed and destroyed forever.

We note, the King James Bible (and other translations as well) speak of �hellfire� and of being �cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched." The original Greek scriptures of the New Testament actually used the word gehenna, which tended to become hell in English translation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

In instances of "hellfire" and "Gehenna" in the New Testament, it refers symbolically to apostasy, or in other words forsaking God, rather than simmering in Hades.

Which brings me to my next point: Hades was, in many religions, the generalized usage of "the world of the dead". The Hebrew texts have a very similar concept - Sheol, which means quite literally "Hidden". Hades is connected with the concept of "soul-sleep", or that the individual goes "asleep" and is "hidden" from view.

It seems strange that, if indeed the condemnation of Hades is "eternal" and "interminable", that Christ would be "thrust down" into it and then return (Acts 2:31). Hades is then, in that instance, the concept of a pre-resurrection afterlife rather than for punishment.

Tartarus is in the Greek sense the source of existence: it represents the primordial essence that the Earth sprang from. However, it's not an entirely happy place - generally it's considered "darkness", a void, et cetera. One could connect this with the "void" that the earth was before the Creation; thus, being sent back to Tartarus is regressing to a former state of being.

It should note that Tartarus was used only once, and only in reference to the abode of sinning angels (2 Peter 2:4).

As for the lake of fire, one must examine it thoroughly: a "water" element is present (lake) as well as a "burning" element (element). Water in most texts could be interpreted as spirit - a symbol inseparably connected to water. Burning was a practice used under the Mosaic law to cleanse a sacrifice and to atone - the "unclean" parts of the sacrifice would be burnt, and the smoke (considered the purest part) would rise to heaven.

The symbology of being "thrust into the lake of fire" is then more of a forceful baptism and cleansing rather than the peaceful "baptism of fire" promised to the righteous by John the Baptist.

The concept of "Hell" is horribly confused and befuddled by many conflicting sources. By understanding the subtle difference between the usage of Tartarus, Hades, and Gehenna, one can learn to appreciate and better comprehend the text.

I'm well aware that Hell is not even likely to be a place of literal fire. Still, I don't think I'm willing to accept Boxy's interpretation of "thrust into a lake of fire" just yet. I see no reason to think it's a type of forceful baptism. When you starting factoring in symbolism and metaphor it could mean almost anything. In the end it still seems to me to be a place where one exists for eternity. Whether or not you literal burn doesn't matter. We are given no indication that it's even a remotely pleasant place.

Even if that interpretation is correct, it's not my only quarrel. My contemplation of hell is only what started and fueled my questioning of Christianity. My personal experience(or I should say, lack of) with YHWH is what really separated me from Christianity during the end of my 'downward spiral' so to speak.  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

You really do sound quite a bit like me. Personally, I was baptized when I was six - I didn't really understand it, but I thought you were 'supposed to' and I had no objections I was aware of. I was baptized into the Episcopal church, which I attended regularly through the beginning of college and still attend infrequently. The particular parish I associate with is quite loving, on the whole, and gives back to the community more (considering their means) than most of the other churches in the area. The Sunday school classes and youth group meetings I attended there provided actual discussion of moral issues as well, rather than just telling us that "God Said So" - another thing I like. I no longer find a place for myself within their dogma or most of their religion-specific teachings, but I still go now and then to visit old friends and to appease my mother on holidays.

Unfortunately, I did get confirmed as a member of the Episcopal church, sometime in early high school. Looking back on it, I truly believe I made the decision out of immaturity and ignorance. It was just something that teenagers at our church were kind of expected to do - one of my peers chose not to be confirmed and it was positively scandalous. I thought that I believed what I had been taught by the religion, but that was because I had never been exposed to real information about other religions. A cursory glance had been given to them in school, but given that I live in the Bible Belt, they were taught in a light of being fictional, so I really wasn't aware that it was okay to believe in other deities or follow other traditions. They were presented as quaint, eccentric people who were just a little confused, but would come around after the Christian missionaries got to them.

I came to college and finally started to think for myself - when, in high school, I'd actually been encouraged by some Christian friends I had at school to remain purposefully ignorant (thinking would "hurt my faith," you see). My whole life, I'd understood the reasons behind most of the morals I held, but I didn't understand the finer points of belief. I was too afraid to think about it because I had been warned not to turn my mind from God. I'm sure I said it before, but looking back on it, I thought I had a relationship with God, but I really just had fuzzy feelings that I got when I knew I was "doing good" for other people.

Whenever I would pray or meditate on God, something was just missing... there was no communication from God to me when I would, for example, study and pray about parts of scripture that I had trouble with. I'd open my mind and my heart to receive some kind of clarification but all I ever got was irritated that I was supposed to accept whatever it was. When I read the parts that seemed to fit for me, I felt encouraged. I have always felt the same way when reading parts of other religions' scriptures. I just feel that whatever god might have been speaking to me during those times could not have been the Christians' God, if He provided me no inspiration to understand and accept their entire scripture, in my most earnest moments.

Oops.... sorry to rant in your thread... sweatdrop  

[TeaDidikai]

Orthrus

TeaDidikai

Hmmmmm....

Well, to be honest- Christendom is all about Love. The Law of Agape is the foundation of Christendom.

What makes you say that exactly?

1 John 4:7-8 and Matt 22:37-40, Mar 12:30-31, Luk 10:27 and Mat 5:43-44. If you wish I could continue.

Quote:

I'm well aware that Hell is not even likely to be a place of literal fire. Still, I don't think I'm willing to accept Boxy's interpretation of "thrust into a lake of fire" just yet. I see no reason to think it's a type of forceful baptism.

Largely due to a lack of study.
It's understandable. The bulk of Christians seem to be under the impression that Dante is canon.

However- the Roman Catholic Church points out that Hell is not torture in the classical sense of the word, but separation from YHVH.


In the Catechism, Part One, Section Two, Chapter Three, Article Twelve, Number 4:
This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

Quote:

When you starting factoring in symbolism and metaphor it could mean almost anything. In the end it still seems to me to be a place where one exists for eternity. Whether or not you literal burn doesn't matter. We are given no indication that it's even a remotely pleasant place.

It may not be our idea of pleasant, but it is completely self inflicted. Myself personally- I don't intend to share an afterlife with the likes of Hitler. ~shrugs~

Quote:

Even if that interpretation is correct, it's not my only quarrel. My contemplation of hell is only what started and fueled my questioning of Christianity. My personal experience(or I should say, lack of) with YHWH is what really separated me from Christianity during the end of my 'downward spiral' so to speak.

The Jewish language doesn't really have a W.

Also- have you asked YHVH or Yeshua or perhaps Mary why you are not filled?  

[Dervenin]

TeaDidikai

1 John 4:7-8 and Matt 22:37-40, Mar 12:30-31, Luk 10:27 and Mat 5:43-44. If you wish I could continue.

The bible can talk about love all it wants, but I still don't see it. Certainly there are some nice things in the bible, but I see no shortage of nasty things as well. That's just the way I see it anyway.

TeaDidikai

Largely due to a lack of study.
It's understandable. The bulk of Christians seem to be under the impression that Dante is canon.

However- the Roman Catholic Church points out that Hell is not torture in the classical sense of the word, but separation from YHVH.


In the Catechism, Part One, Section Two, Chapter Three, Article Twelve, Number 4:
This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

I understand what the RCC says about hell.

TeaDidikai

The Jewish language doesn't really have a W.

I know, but the way I've always pronounced "Yahweh" is with a 'w' sound. So I've never bothered to change the way I spell it.

TeaDidikai

Also- have you asked YHVH or Yeshua or perhaps Mary why you are not filled?

Have to admit, I've never asked Mary. I didn't get any kind of response from YHVH or Jesus.  

[TeaDidikai]

Orthrus

The bible can talk about love all it wants, but I still don't see it. Certainly there are some nice things in the bible, but I see no shortage of nasty things as well. That's just the way I see it anyway.

And which nasty things are you talking about?

Quote:

I know, but the way I've always pronounced "Yahweh" is with a 'w' sound. So I've never bothered to change the way I spell it.

Ummm... you're not supposed to be saying his name at all. confused

Perhaps you might use the term Adonai?

Quote:

Have to admit, I've never asked Mary. I didn't get any kind of response from YHVH or Jesus.

I'd also wonder how much time you spent asking YHVH and Yeshua. I mean, have you taken any of these concerns to your priest?  

[Dervenin]

TeaDidikai

And which nasty things are you talking about?

The Flood, story of Job, story of Sodom and Gomorrah, man who is killed for gathering sticks, the plagues sent to Egypt, Exodus 32:27 - 32:35, God kills 14,700 people with a plague in Numbers, Numbers 12:1 - 12:14, Pretty much all of Numbers 31, to name some from a few books.

TeaDidikai

Ummm... you're not supposed to be saying his name at all. confused

Perhaps you might use the term Adonai?

Hmmm, didn't know that.

TeaDidikai

I'd also wonder how much time you spent asking YHVH and Yeshua.

Lets see...about 9 months I would guess. I haven't kept a record so I'm not exactly sure for how long.

TeaDidikai

I mean, have you taken any of these concerns to your priest?

I don't have a priest. I haven't been to a church since I was 11. Like I said, my family isn't very religious.  

[TeaDidikai]

Orthrus

The Flood, story of Job, story of Sodom and Gomorrah, man who is killed for gathering sticks, the plagues sent to Egypt, Exodus 32:27 - 32:35, God kills 14,700 people with a plague in Numbers, Numbers 12:1 - 12:14, Pretty much all of Numbers 31, to name some from a few books.

ALl good reasons not to look to the Jewish Faith to find the Law of Agape.

That is to say, the god of the OT didn't hold the Law of Agape.

That's what Yeshua's sacrifice was for. It transformed the wrath of YHVH into his love and forgiveness through empathy imparted by suffering and exploration of the 613 Commands.

Quote:

Hmmm, didn't know that.

It's actually really cool. On the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see that they wrote YHVH's name in a different script in order to prevent them from accidentally saying it out loud.

Neat stuff!

Quote:

Lets see...about 9 months I would guess. I haven't kept a record so I'm not exactly sure for how long.

That's not very long at all. I wish my dark night of the soul was that short. sweatdrop

Have you tried again?

Quote:

I don't have a priest. I haven't been to a church since I was 11. Like I said, my family isn't very religious.

They aren't hard to get actually. You've been baptized. Walk in and explain the situation. I am sure one of the priests at the local Roman Catholic Church would be more than happy to sit and talk with you.  

[Dervenin]

TeaDidikai

ALl good reasons not to look to the Jewish Faith to find the Law of Agape.

That is to say, the god of the OT didn't hold the Law of Agape.

That's what Yeshua's sacrifice was for. It transformed the wrath of YHVH into his love and forgiveness through empathy imparted by suffering and exploration of the 613 Commands.

It's just hard for me to get over what was done in the OT. I just don't understand why an all powerful God would need to go through that in order to change.

TeaDidikai

That's not very long at all. I wish my dark night of the soul was that short. sweatdrop

Have you tried again?

I continue to.

TeaDidikai

They aren't hard to get actually. You've been baptized. Walk in and explain the situation. I am sure one of the priests at the local Roman Catholic Church would be more than happy to sit and talk with you.

I'll take your advice and go talk to one. Nearest one is 15 miles away...I can't drive 5 miles away from my house without getting lost. This should be fun. >.<  

[TeaDidikai]

Orthrus

It's just hard for me to get over what was done in the OT. I just don't understand why an all powerful God would need to go through that in order to change.

Understand that what I am about to say is not Catholic Canon- but it is something I have always thought interesting.

YHVH is all powerful and all knowing in the OT.
In the beginning, YHVH forms everything from himself. This is shown in the Kabalistic decent from beyond Ain to Malkuth.

Essentially, everything is directly made up of "god stuff" and nothing else.

By eating from the Tree in the garden, mankind gains individuality. They are separated from YHVH. Often this is titled Sin. Whatever you call it, the humans of YHVH's creation now have independent will. They do things that displeases YHVH as it directly conflicts with how YHVH designed them to be.

He knows that the separation from his will is causing them to desire to do things against his design. But while he may understand on an intellectual level why they are disobeying, he has no gnosis (no internal empathy in this case) as to what it is like to feel the desire to disobey.

Thus, the incarnation of Yeshua. Through living as a complete mortal, he gains this understanding. He knows in his heart and his head why humans fall short of the 613 Laws.

He gives them two commands that take hold once his sacrifice fulfills the 613 Laws in total:

Love YHVH, and Love Man.

And knowing that love is difficult, and knowing that they'll rest in Sheol instead of being unified with YHVH, YHVH as Yeshua goes down into Sheol, rescues the Fathers of the Faith and reunites them with himself. Then he says that all who desire so shall not stay in Sheol, but shall be united like the Jewish Patriarchs if they do two things: Love YHVH, and Love their fellow man, and should they fall short- they try again.

Because it is loving to ask for forgiveness from their god and from those they harmed.

All expressions of faith then become expressions of love.

Quote:

I'll take your advice and go talk to one. Nearest one is 15 miles away...I can't drive 5 miles away from my house without getting lost. This should be fun. >.<

Call ahead and let them know you are coming and why you need their help.  

[Autumnal Light]

TeaDidikai

Orthrus

It's just hard for me to get over what was done in the OT. I just don't understand why an all powerful God would need to go through that in order to change.

Understand that what I am about to say is not Catholic Canon- but it is something I have always thought interesting.

YHVH is all powerful and all knowing in the OT.
In the beginning, YHVH forms everything from himself. This is shown in the Kabalistic decent from beyond Ain to Malkuth.

Essentially, everything is directly made up of "god stuff" and nothing else.

By eating from the Tree in the garden, mankind gains individuality. They are separated from YHVH. Often this is titled Sin. Whatever you call it, the humans of YHVH's creation now have independent will. They do things that displeases YHVH as it directly conflicts with how YHVH designed them to be.

He knows that the separation from his will is causing them to desire to do things against his design. But while he may understand on an intellectual level why they are disobeying, he has no gnosis (no internal empathy in this case) as to what it is like to feel the desire to disobey.

Thus, the incarnation of Yeshua. Through living as a complete mortal, he gains this understanding. He knows in his heart and his head why humans fall short of the 613 Laws.

He gives them two commands that take hold once his sacrifice fulfills the 613 Laws in total:

Love YHVH, and Love Man.

And knowing that love is difficult, and knowing that they'll rest in Sheol instead of being unified with YHVH, YHVH as Yeshua goes down into Sheol, rescues the Fathers of the Faith and reunites them with himself. Then he says that all who desire so shall not stay in Sheol, but shall be united like the Jewish Patriarchs if they do two things: Love YHVH, and Love their fellow man, and should they fall short- they try again.

Because it is loving to ask for forgiveness from their god and from those they harmed.

All expressions of faith then become expressions of love.

I think a lot of people struggle with YHVH's personality change from the Old Testament to the New Testament, but this "empathy explanation" makes it seem a lot more sensible. A lot of your explanation seems to derive from Kabalistic concepts. Where's the best place to find this information? While I'm on the subject, is there any particular translation of the Bible you prefer? I've heard that some are more accurate than others. If I'm going to take the time to read the whole thing (a personal goal of mine), I'd like it to be as close to the original as possible.