Hell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

The great thing about non-literal interpretations of the bible is you can interpret it any way you please. For instance, I interpret the scriptures to mean that only those who use rational thinking an evidence to back up their claims will go to heaven. I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem for me to skew verses into supporting this claim.

As soon as we go the route of figurative interpretation for everything (I stress everything since some things are obviously figurative, such as Jesus' parables) then we are no longer talking about Christianity based off the bible, but a Christianity based off what the person wants it to be and interprets it to be.

---

And the problem with literal interpretations is that it's completely ridiculous. So no matter how you put it, the Bible is full of bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

But you can drug somebody or brainwash him to kill people, or not believe in a god. You can argue that it's the souls fault, but I don't see how. The simple fact that you can play around with the human mind in such a way makes the good/evil person discussion really difficult. If you raise a kid to kill people, he'll most likely do it, if you raise him to believe in god... I'm not going to say that he'll definitely stay a believer for ever, but the fact is that we live in a universe of rules. Saying that it's my fault that I'm going to hell is stupid. I didn't ask for this brain and I can't mold it.

---

Depends mainly on karma, level of consciousness, intention, awareness, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

The great thing about non-literal interpretations of the bible is you can interpret it any way you please. For instance, I interpret the scriptures to mean that only those who use rational thinking an evidence to back up their claims will go to heaven. I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem for me to skew verses into supporting this claim.

---

I agree with you that it is possible to interpret the Bible any way you want. I would even extend it to include literal interpretations, since a translation into another language is already an interpretation. This can be clearly seen in horrible translations like the KJV where subtle meanings in the original text are completely missing through what is basically a paraphrase of the original. Some examples of simplification are the use of 'Lord' or 'God' throughout the whole Bible instead of the different names used in Hebrew - or the use of the word 'Hell' which appears no where in the Hebrew or Greek texts. Even in a better translation, one is still missing the multiple meanings or numerical values of words, for instance.

So this asks the question: how does one interpret a religious text? Most people do this passively, leaving it to their temple/church leaders, or do not even think about it by accepting, what over time, has solidified into a common understanding (often completely missing or changing the original meaning). I do not promote this, as I think it is contrary to the true purpose of religion -- to re-unite oneself with God through a strict praxis of selflessness and meditation. This active process does not mean, however, that one should just "make up" whatever they want; we can see how absurd that gets with the video you first posted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Needcatscan

As soon as we go the route of figurative interpretation for everything (I stress everything since some things are obviously figurative, such as Jesus' parables) then we are no longer talking about Christianity based off the bible, but a Christianity based off what the person wants it to be and interprets it to be.

---

I am not talking about figurative interpretation. There is a term in Shi'ite Islam for this hermenuetic practice - ta'wil - meaning to bring something back to its source. This has nothing to do with allegory or metaphor - it is symbology leading to an epistemology which is ontology. Figurative interpretation does not lead to a new plane of being or new depth of consciousness - it is the same consciousness known in a different way. Symbols, on the other hand, point towards a plane of consiousness that is distinct from rational evidence; it is a cipher for a mystery that cannot be 'explained' once and for all, but must be deciphered over and over again within each individual.

It's amazing how DV is about 2 things Learning to Lucid and trying to prove that they know the truth, or that

' your truth '

is fake/illogical/or just straight bullshit!

Lol I love it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jorge

It's amazing how DV is about 2 things Learning to Lucid and trying to prove that they know the truth, or that

' your truth '

is fake/illogical/or just straight bullshit!

Lol I love it.

---

Well that really depends on the section you post in. It's also a great source for senseless banter and many other topics.

perfect example lol