Hell, part 1

Over the next few weeks, I thought we could take a look at Heaven and Hell. My personal, in depth study of hell some years ago was one of the main factors in my deconversion. I looked through my old posts and could not find a comprehensive examination of those subjects, so that's what I want to do now. We will start with Hell, since that is a fear introduced to believers as the only alternative to Heaven, where everyone woul prefer to end up, of course.

The general, cultural idea of Hell, in Christian North America, is either a place of eternal torment with fire, pain, and anguish, or a dark void of eternal separation from god and all that is good. Does the Bible support either of these ideas? Is there reason to believe either version of Hell exists? Let's find out.

Today, we will start with the old testament. I looked up the word Hell in my Strong's concordance. For the old testament there appeared to be only one Hebrew word translated into the English word Hell: Sheol. Sheol is also translated into the English words "death" and "grave" in multiple scriptures. Read about  Sheol here: (link)

Sheol of the old testament was not the hell of eternal punishment found christianity. It was an underground world where ALL the dead resided. It has its equivalent in the Greek Hades. Obviously, no such world actually exists. It is pure mythology.

However, it is important to recognize that Jews do not follow the doctrine of "sola scriptura" that many protestant christian groups do, including the church of christ, of which I was a member.  Jews also have a long tradition of rabbinical writings which include laws, commentary and additional stories. These are found in the Talmud and other books. They are often given as much weight, or more, as what christians would call the old testament, which Jews call the bible.

We are not going to cover what Jewish extrabiblical writings say about hell, because I'm not all that concerned with them. Jews are not going around trying to convince anyone they will go to hell if they do not believe what is taught by Judaism. Many christians, however, are doing just that.

I will give you a few links with Jewish discussions of what they believe about hell and or an afterlife.

Here
Here
Here
Here
and
Here

As you can see there is great variation in the Jewish faith and tradition. Each of the above links shows a unique perspective, with some pertinent history. However, they all seem similar in that they do not take a stance of condemnation or eternal punishment/torture. They don't see a need to evangelize to save souls. Most do not think what you believe matters as much as what you do. If christianity had not happened, would the world have been a kinder gentler place? Who knows.

Ephesians 6 wrap up

After reading Ephesians, I have noticed that, as I mentioned before, it contains very little information that is concrete. It mentions "spiritual" blessings but not material ones. It talks of faith in Jesus, but gives us little to no information about Jesus, his life, and his teachings. It talks of how the gentiles and the jews are no longer separated, but are now fellow citizens of god's household, sharing in the promise of christ.  This was supposedly once a great mystery that has now been revealed through Paul. It is also a direct contradiction of Paul's statements concerning the Jews in the letter to the Galatians, chapter 4.

Saints are mentioned and are presumably referring to believers. Unity of all believers is stressed in a kind of creedal statement."There is one body, and one spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called, one lord, one god and father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

Another famous passage is found in 6:10-18, referring to the "armor of god." This invisible armor is to be used to fight against an invisible enemy.

There is mention of the devil/Satan, but not hell or specifics about any punishments for disobedience. There are vague references to heaven as the place where Jesus and god live, but no specifics. Forces of evil are also said to reside in the heavenly realms. (6:12) I don't remember any mention of angels.
A day of evil is coming (6:13), but again no specifics. There is no mention of any old testament characters, places,  or events, not even Moses or Abraham, just the phrase "men in other generations." (3:5) The law with its commandments and regulations is said to have been abolished. (2:15)

The submission/obedience of women to husbands and slaves to masters is actively promoted and encouraged.

There are two old testament passages supposedly quoted, but when we look back at the Old Testa,ent, the passages read differently and mean something else in their particular context. The first is Eph. 4:8- "When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men." This is different in Psalm 68:18, which reads-"When you ascended on high, you led captives in your train and you recieved gifts from men." The second is found in Eph. 5:14- "Wake up o sleeper, rise from the dead, and christ will shine on you." The closest scripture to that is found in Isaiah 60:1-"Arise, shine, for your light has come, and the glory of the lord rises upon you." These are obviously not the same, but no other passage is either. Theses passages don't appear to actually have anything to do with Jesus.

There is also no mention of any other New Testament characters, places, and events, except Jesus's death and resurrection. One exception is the mention of Tychicus at the closing of the letter. Tychicus is mentioned in almost exactly similar wording at the closing of Colossians. His name is also found in Titus 3:12 and Acts 20:4.

All in all, this is an extraordinarily ambiguous and generic letter. It could have been written to anyone at any time in the first century church. It is assumed to be written near the end of Paul's life when he was supposedly in prison. This is assumed from the passages where the author calls himself an "ambassador in chains" (6:20) and a "prisoner for the lord" (4:1), a "prisoner for Jesus christ" (3:1). However, these could all be metaphors, because they do not come right out and say he is actually imprisoned.

Ephesians chapter 6, part 3

Starting in verse 10, this section is subtitled "the armor of god " in my bible. It is the beginning of the end of the chapter and the letter. The christians addressed in this letter are told to be strong in the lord and in his mighty power. But what is his mighty power? So far it seems to be only abstract ideas. There are no concrete acts that this god does, that I can recall being mentioned in this letter. Instead, all the real action is to be done by the readers/hearers. Everything else is couched in metaphors and the language of "spiritual" philosophy. We have been told about grace, redemption, salvation, etc.. All words that have ambiguous meanings and purpose. What good is this god in the present tense, here on earth, besides making sure his commands are followed correctly? To what earthly end?

This armor that the readers are to put on is another metaphor and it is supposed to be for protection against the schemes of the devil. Is he also a metaphor? The passage tells us he is not flesh and blood, but he has something to do with rulers, authorities, and powers in this dark world, and spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. He is a Sith Lord? Now that humans have actually explored the heavens with spacecraft and telescopes, it is quite obvious there are no spiritual forces of evil messing around up there. Where are these heavenly realms any way?

This armor of god is for fighting a spiritual battle on an evil day that is supposedly coming. When? Is the battle just as imaginary as the armor? The armor consists of 1. The belt of truth. 2. The breastplate of righteousness. 3. Shoes of readiness 4. A shield of faith. (To extinguish the devil's flaming darts) 5. The helmet of salvation 6. The sword of the spirit, aka the word of god. Add all kinds of prayers and requests. What practical good is any of that? The armor sounds a bit like it belongs on Wonder Woman. At least you can see hers. The christian's armor is invisible and just about as powerful as any other invisible armor.

Lastly, Paul asks the readers to pray for him that he can continue to propagate this drivel fearlessly. Why does he need prayers? Isn't he wearing his armor? I am impressed with how much a waste Paul's life was, earnestly suffering and toiling for nothing, not to mention teaching others to do the same.

*Today many christians interpret the fiery darts to be the persecution and opposition of nonbelievers, which they see in the most innocuous places. The sword of the spirit is interpreted to be the bible, even though the bible did not exist in its present form then, and the only New Testament writings that existed were possibly a few of Paul's letters. Even the author of Ephesians has not been bold enough to call his own writings the word of god.

Ephesians chapter 6, part 2

We are at verse 5. In my bible, this next section has a subtitle of "Slaves and Masters." Verse five says, "Slaves obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey christ." We are going to go through this word by word, so it is clear what the author intends to convey.

The word translated slave here is also translated as servant or bond-servant in other translations. If you think servant in this context could mean someone who chose to serve someone else as a paying job, like a servant in Downton Abbey, you would be wrong. The greek word clearly refers to someone who is legally bound to another person and has no personal freedom or rights. (Link)  The word obey in this passage clearly means to do what the master says. (Link) The phrase "respect and fear"  in this passage is literally "fear (link) and trembling (link)" in the greek. It seems the authors of the NIV tried to soften the meaning. Not only must the slaves obey with fear, they must obey sincerely. What good is sincerity, if you are afraid? Isn't sincerity of more value if it is under no compulsion? What are they to be afraid of? The consequences of disobedience?

The next verse says,"Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of christ, doing the will of god from your heart." Here is a common refrain in christianity, "hearts" will be judged. It is not enough to obey, you must do it from the heart. An insincere heart nullifies obedience. How does one person tell if another is sincere or not? How do you measure sincerity?

Verse 7, "Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the lord, not men,(But they are serving men.) because you know that the lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free." No, we don't know that. When do slaves get this nebulous reward and what exactly is it? Paul has not told us in this letter. He has mentioned slavation, inheritance, redemption, and power for those who believe. But what does that actually mean? And why must our hearts be sincere as long as we are doing  "good"?

Verse 8, "And masters treat your slaves in the same way." Yeah, right. Masters are to serve their slaves wholeheartedly as though they were obeying christ? Since when? Why aren't they just told to give the slaves their freedom and hire them for reasonable wages? Why aren't they told it is wrong to own another person? Why does god not promote personal autonomy? Could it be because the god of the bible is a product of that era and had the same values that the people of that time held?

Last, masters are told not to threaten their slaves, because he who is in heaven is the master of them both and he shows no favoritism. So, all christians are Jesus's slaves. They are to sincerely obey him with fear and trembling. But what has he commanded that must be obeyed? Back in Ephesians 2:15, the author says Jesus abolished in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. So far, all the commands in this letter have come from the author. None have been claimed to come from Jesus or god. Does one obey Jesus by doing what Paul says? Why should anyone do what Paul says? Again, what is the consequence of disobedience? Why must they fear and tremble? Also, how can god have no favoritism and still allow the inequity of the master/slave relationship to exist?

Refutation of Deism, Book Review

Today I read Refutation of Deism by Percy Bysshe Shelley, found here: (link) it is Shelley's argument against William Paley's Watchmaker/intelligent design hypothesis. It seemed to me that Shelley was trying to use the style of argument found in Plato's dialogues, with two fictional Greek characters having the discussion.

One character, Theosophus, is the deist, the other, Eusebes, argues against deism. However, at first I was confused, because Eusebes starts off rebuking Theosophus for his need for evidence and his rejection of the christianity of faith in miracles and revelation. I think Shelley must have been trying to be ironic or sarcastic. Most of Eusebes's replies to Theosophus's deistic intelligent design argument consisted in dismantling the material necessity for a creator.

The dialog ends with Theosophus conceding that Eusebes gives a good argument for atheism, but since he can not give up his belief in god, he will resort to whatever form and practice of traditional Christianity that he can stomach.

I found the arguments against intelligent design very reasonable and well thought out. They comprised the main body of the dialog. There were many quotable portions, including "To suppose some existence above and beyond (the natural laws) is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what has already been accounted for by the laws of motion and properties of matter. "

This essay is only 30 pages long, but does take some time to decode and digest.

Ephesians chapter 6, part 1

We have reached the last chapter of Ephesians. This begins with a command to children to obey their parents in the lord. The readers are told to "honor their mother and father." It was commanded in the Old Testament as part of the 10 commandments. It is supposedly the first command with a promise. The promise claims that if you do this it will go well with you and you will enjoy a long life. What it doesn't say is that you will enjoy a long life because you won't be stoned to death, which was the penalty for disobedient children. (Deuteronomy  21:18-21) The penalty for dishonoring parents was to be cursed, as opposed to blessed. (Deut. 27:16) So, this is not just a sweet promise that obedience brings good things.  This is a veiled threat. As we see from the Deuteronomy passages, even adult children are considered to be under their parents' authority.

Also, is this a universal command? There have been some pretty despicable parents throughout history, asking children to do despicable things. Should those parents also be obeyed? This question is usually side stepped by saying the phrase "in the lord" covers that. For some christians, it is only necessary to obey in god approved ways. Plus, also leaves a loophole for  christian children of atheist parents to refuse to obey even benign requests.

Verse 4 command fathers to not exasperate their children. What exactly does that mean? Other translations say do not make them angry, provoke them to wrath, or irritate them. Any one who has had children could tell you that it practically impossible to not exasperate a child at some point in its life. Children are not famous for their reasoning abilities. In place of the exasperation, the parent is to provide the training and instruction of the lord. This will keep the child from being exasperated? I have yet to hear anyone explain this passage in a clear way, and I have seen plenty of children irritated by the church's teachings.

 A reminder here: Paul was not a parent, but he is giving advice to parents? He also was never a husband or a wife, yet he gave advice to them, as we saw in the last chapter. He set himself up as an authority on how to properly do life. Did no one question his authority? If he actually went around the middle east telling people how to live and telling them he was sent from god, he had some hubris. (He may not have even written this letter.)  It seems to have been convincing enough to thousands of people because some form of Pauline inspired christianity has lasted almost 2,000 years. If it is true that he landed in jail for what he taught, it's not hard to see why he was considered disruptive.

Robert Ingersoll

I recently finished reading volume 1 of the collected works of Robert Ingersoll.   I had read that Ingersoll influenced Mark Twain and I had seen Matt Dilahunty talk about reading Ingersoll when he was deconverting from Christianity. This made me curious because I respect the work of both Dilahunty and Twain. Mark Twain has long been one of my favorite authors. You can find the collected works of Ingersoll for free at multiple spots on the web: Gutenberg, the University of Adelaide, and Amazon Kindle.

After reading the first volume, I can definitely see how Ingersoll influenced Twain. The soft sarcasm and deep caring for humanity are shared by both men. While Twain preferred to give his lectures and lessons under the cover of fictional satire. Ingersoll is straightforward and factual about his atheism and disdain for religious prejudice. Ingersoll goes further than Twain in spelling out injustice against women, children, and minorities. He speaks candidly about the science and history scholarship of the day and how it does not agree with the Bible. Of course it is somewhat outdated now, because he wrote and spoke over 100 years ago. However, the main ideas remain valid across time. There were a couple of passages which  revealed that in spite of his forward thinking, Ingersoll retained a few prejudices of his time.

I found Robert Ingersoll fairly easy to read and understand. However, by the last lecture in the book, the repetition of themes began to be a little tiring. All in all, I highly recommend reading at least the first volume of his lectures. Especially for any one interested in the history of free thought in America.

Submission, respect, and the study of theology part 2

Last time, I talked about how when we do a bible word study, the average person does not have a masters degree in theology, nor a working knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek. Therefore, unless they want to rely on what someone else tells them a text means, they must take the translated text at face value, or use the tools available to the general public. Since I do not want to place my eternal fate in another person's hands, I prefer to use the latter methods of bible study. That is what most protestant christians do and what I, as an atheist, do in my writings here on this blog.

Thankfully, the internet gives us many bible study tools that were not always readily available to the masses in the past.  I do not accept that there are people who have more authority when it comes to bible interpretation than I do. Mostly because I believe that the bible is a human product, not divine in any way. It only matters what you believe it says, if you think you have an interest in it being truly the work of a god with some kind of power over your life. Even when that is the case, how do so many different versions of christianity have different answers to the same questions?

The person with whom  I was discussing Ephesians 5 not only said I was committing "root fallacy" when it came to the translation of phobetai as a cousin to fear. They also said that submission in this passage did not mean obedience or subjection as to a king or god.

According to this person:
"And from my study of the Greek text regarding "submission" it s not about rote obedience, but "to lovingly yield ones own interest in behalf of another" - and is implied from the mutual submission in 5:20. . . it's more about not seeking one's own way to the detriment of the other person than anything else, and not a complete abdication of will."

My response:
"How do you know what the usage and meaning of the time were? Source that supports this assertion, without biased interpretation? And how do you explain the clear statement for the wife to submit to the husband in Everything, if not a complete abdication of the will? Those words submit/submission are translated as obedience in other passages. Frankly, to me, you are reading the passage through rose colored glasses."

Lets look at the Greek interlinear for Ephesians 5 (link). Go to the end of the chapter and read from about verse 20. In the Greek there appears to be only two places with a word that actually means submission (verse 21) or subjection (verse 24). My NIV uses the English word submit four times. Verse 21 has the Greek "hypotassomenoi." Here is the Strong's concordance entry for that word. (Link) When I click on the word itself (link), I find that this form of the word only appears in the NT twice. The other time refers to servants being in subjection to masters. 

The word in verse 24, "hypotassetai." has the same Strong's entry as the previous word.  When I click on the word itself (link), I  find a total of five occurances. Not one appears to have a connotation of "lovingly yielding ones interests on behalf of another." I maintain that the person with whom I was discussing this passage was looking at it with rose colored glasses--they saw what they wanted to see. 

Both of the words appear to mean subjection with an implication of obedience, as to a higher authority. I am convinced that this passage means exactly what it appears to mean: Paul is telling wives to obey their husbands in everything. Christian wives do not have personal autonomy. That is unacceptable.

More on Ephesians 5, submission, respect, and the study of theology.

Yesterday, in an online discussion, I mentioned my study of the submission passage in Ephesians 5. I told how I had done word study of "submit" and "respect" and how they appeared to actually mean, obey and fear. One person, who had a masters degree in theology and had studied Greek and Hebrew, said that I had committed a fallacy called "root fallacy" by assuming that the Greek words had a strong connection to their roots.

Let's take a look at root fallacies here and here. Basically, the idea of a root fallacy is in the assumption that a person studying scriptures can look up a Greek or Hebrew word in a book like Strong's Concordance and determine the original meaning of a word by learning its roots. This can be problematic because word usage changes over time and there are idioms, nuances, and plays on words that make interpretation more difficult. I can see how that might apply to my conclusions on the words submit and respect. But I am not convinced that it does.

What I found interesting when looking into the phrase "root fallacy" is that it is used, as far as I can tell, almost exclusively within the context of christianity and the study of the bible. It is said to be a kind of etymological fallacy. The etymological fallacy says that the present meaning of a word should rely on its historical meaning. It's a fallacy because present meaning has often changed so much from the historical that there is little correlation.  The problem in bible word study is we are not looking for present usage and meaning, we are looking for historical meaning and connotation to begin with. We are not living in those times or speaking those languages any more. So, we must use the tools we have on hand.

The online bible study tool I use the most is Bible Hub. It has multiple bible versions, interlinear texts, concordances, and dictionaries. When I want to find the meaning  of a NT word  I click on the passage and first view the interlinear text. Then I click on the specific word in the text. Then I will see word roots, definitions, and how often the word is used in the bible, etc. when I click on the interlinear Ephesians 5:33, this is what I get (link). It says "she might respect" under the Greek word phobetai. If I click on the number above the Greek word, I get Strong's concordance reference for the word (link). That page gives me word origins, and definitions. Phobetai has a close word cognate of phobeo which means to fear, withraw from, avoid. The root of phobeo is phobos, which is given three definitions/usages. 1. To flee 2. To fear or be afraid 3. To reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience.

 On the side of the page is a list of 95 times the root phobos appears in a NT word. Every single one of those words that I looked up has been translated across versions to mean some form of fear or fright.  The word phobetai occurs only once in the entire New Testament. In my NIV it has been translated into the English word respect. What does it look like in other versions?  (Link)  On the left side of the page we see that some versions translate the word as respect, others translate it as reverence, others as fear. How are we, ordinary people, to know which is the correct approximation to the modern meaning of the historical word?

Let's say that this word uses the third meaning of the root phobos, so it has been translated "respect." Does that first century respect look the same as our 21st century respect? Are there any 21st century Christian women in the western world who venerate their husbands and treat them with deference or reverential obedience? These are words that have been applied to gods and kings, are modern women to apply them to their husbands? Are they truly following the scriptures if they don't? Doesn't reverential obedience come from a position of subjection and possibly fear?

Ephesians chapter 5, part 2

*We start at verse 21: "Submit to one another out of reverence to christ." What does that mean exactly? Constant submission to others is not  healthy. It opens the avenue for abuse by those who are willing to use the command to submit to manipulate those around them. Paul is going to get specific.

*Verse 22: "Wives submit to your husbands as to the lord." In other words, pretend your husband is your personal savior. If you don't think that is what it means, just wait. Why should you act like your husband is your savior? "For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is The Savior." Told you. Paul is going to continue in this vein with the analogy of the husband being like christ, the wife being like the church, christ being like the groom, the church being like the bride. It's kind of wierd, with sexual undertones in the relationship of christ to the church.

*I find it interesting to note that there are no Old Testament scriptures that are addressed to women about how they should submit to their spouses. There are many scriptures in some of the books of prophecy that equate the relationship of god to Israel as one of husband and wife, but I don't recall submission being an issue, just adultery. That analogy was used to describe Israel's supposed unfaithfulness to Yahweh when it followed after other gods. Not that a command for submission was necessary.  What options did a wife have, when she was literally owned by her husband? I wonder if first century women in the Roman empire had more freedom? Perhaps that was why Paul felt the necessity to say "Now as the church submits to christ, so also should wives submit to their husbands in everything." (Verse 24) In Everything. That doesn't leave any wiggle room, does it?

*I have looked up this section in the Greek interlinear version and "submission" in these verses of Ephesians clearly means to obey or be subject to, as a person would be subject to a ruler or deity.

*Verse 25: Husbands are not told to submit to their wives, but to love them as christ loved the church.  It is christ's loving self sacrifice that made the church holy, so he could give himself a radiant, unwrinkled, and unblemished church. By inference wives are also made holy by a husband's love. What were they before they were wives, before their husbands "loved" them? Unholy? Verse 28: "In this way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies, feeding and caring for them, as christ does the church."  This appears to be an oblique reference to the story of Adam and Eve, where Eve is created from Adam's rib and he calls her " bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh." However, the man is the head, the part with all the brains and all the control over the body.

*The body analogy is carried further to say that not only is the wife part of the husband's body, the church is part of the christ's body. Now we have proof the author was thinking of Genesis and the creation story when he quotes "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24) Not only are male and female one body because of the way women were supposedly created, but they are also united in sexual union as husband and wife. How does this apply to the church? Paul says that is a profound mystery. (He doesn't know.) Then he says this whole analogy was a an object lesson about Christ and the church, but all husbands should still love their wives as they love themselves,  and women should respect their husbands. (Verse 33)

*See that word "respect" in that last verse? A quick look up of that word in the greek shows that its root is phobeo- a verb that mean to frighten or terrify. It is from where we get our word phobia. Almost every verse in the new testament that has a word with that root is translated as some form of fear or fright, except this one. Here the translators decided "respect"  would be a better fit. Why do you suppose that is?