Despite My Fundie Psychopath Bro, Why 'Hell' and 'Satan' Can Be Dismissed

I admit to having a laugh attack that had me ROTFL to the googolplex power, after seeing my image inserted several times in the former Pastor Mike's recent blogs. He has me there with flames shooting all around, as well as his usual 'tick, tick. tick' bullshit, as if that is supposed to scare me or anyone with a grain of sense or gray matter. (Especially as his display of HATE, including racial, cannot possibly be reconciled with a spiritual person of any kind! So we must conclude he's a hypocrite).

Well, I return the favor, of showing the squallering brat that he is, in demanding so many take his codswallop seriously. But why should they? In the end 'Satan' is a mythical confection, actually one invented originally by the Mithraists, but stolen by Christians in order to account for apparent sin in the world....oh, and also to run 'Hell'.

"Hell" is likewise a fantasy creation of deformed minds. Sadly, its assorted promoters and Elmer Gantrys aren't even able to see the very possession of such a vile doctrine puts them in league with blasphemers, assuming a God actually exists as they describe It ('infinite, all loving, omniscient, omnipotent etc.)

Philosopher Alan Watts ('Behold The Spirit') has aptly noted that any true belief in 'Hell' would amount to the grossest blasphemy against any divinity alleged to be infinite or omnipotent. As Watts puts it (op. cit., p. 244):


Taken literally as a doctrine of everlasting torture, 'Hell' amounts to blasphemy itself- for if it were in the power of human freedom-choice to produce a consequence of this kind there must be something radically diabolical in the order created by God, and in God himself. Such an interpretation may vindicate human freedom but at the cost of demonizing God.

Watts’ words are important to understanding the mind of the fundagelical Hell monger. He's telling us that this person is so unsure of his own beliefs that he requires a place of eternal torment to vindicate them, i.e. in order to burn up those that don’t share them. But he doesn’t grasp that he ends up demonizing his own deity as a beast, mass torturing maniac no better than an omnipotent Jeffrey Dahmer!  In the process he blasphemes his own deity in other words, but is too blinded by his hate, fear and paranoia to see it.

IF "God as infinite"  is taken literally, this can only mean there is no place where he isn't. Either he is infinite or not infinite. If he is infinite, and HELL also exists, then Hell must be part of the same infinity. It cannot be isolated from it or else we have a condition where Hell is apart from God's being. In other words, the Xtian Hell mongers are identifying God with HELL! Hence, they are identifying all "Evil doers" in the cosmos with God and putatively "Satan". In a word, this is insanity!   So, we have these ineffable logical conclusions:

1) EITHER - Hell exists but GOD is not infinite.

OR

2) GOD is infinite, and Hell must exist WITHIN God, so literally GOD IS HELL

Up to now, no fundie or evangelical has been clever enough to resolve the Hell-God=infinite paradox. There could be two reasons: 1) none of them is smart enough to do it, or 2) they know deep down in their little atavistic pea -brains that the paradox is logically insoluble because their assumptions are in error. (Or, just as bad, they allow the blatherings in an ancient book to trump the importance of examining the assumptions.)

Thus, if they want to preserve their "Hell" they will have to admit their God isn't infinite. If they demand God to be infinite, they will have to jettison their "Hell'. If one grants that "infinite" means extended to or pervading all of Being then there is literally no place left where - whatever it is- doesn't exist.

Hence, if applied to "God" it means all inclusive of reality. However, IF Hell is inserted, it contradicts the proposition by adding a separate entity which limits that which is already claimed "infinite". Thus, if Hell is asserted to exist and is claimed to be "eternal" then God cannot be infinite. If God is maintained to be infinite - meaning all inclusive of Being- the only conclusion is that Hell must be a part of God's Being!

Now, let me grant that the odds are none of these idiots, despite their hellfire screeching, have the necessary IQs to deal with the preceding ...so let's go more into their "territory": i.e. their bible-punching and quoting.

In truth and fact only Matthew 25:46 makes any mention of eternal punishment: (“And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal".(KJV)) This is the only place in the entire Bible where we find these two words (everlasting and punishment) together AND only in some Bibles.

For example, the Weymouth New Testament has:

"And these shall go away into the Punishment of the Ages, but the righteous into the Life of the Ages."

But my point is that the entire concept of eternal or everlasting punishment hinges primarily on the single verse of Matthew 25:46. Now let's look at it more closely! Again, this is where an acquaintance with Greek comes in handy!


The Greek for "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46 is "kolasin aionion."  Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, singular voice, feminine gender and means "punishment, chastening, correction, to cut-off as in pruning a tree to bear more fruit." Meanwhile, "Aionion" is the adjective form of "aion," in the singular form and means "pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time." (Note: the two words in many, not all translations become reversed changing the Greek into English.)

Many people unfamiliar with Greek, as they are with Latin (i.e. Sippy cup hell monger Mike) don't realize (as with the preceding case of "Aionion" vs."aion," that the endings of the same word change, i.e. inflection) to indicate its mood, case, gender, etc. Therefore, "aionion" may appear with different endings. "Aionion, aioniou, aionios," for example, are all different inflections of the adjective form of the noun "aion."

Ditto, in the case of Latin, one might see: fructus (nominative case), fructui (dative), fructum (accusative) and fructu (ablative) and for which meanings can range including for 'fruit', 'profit', 'enjoyment' and 'benefit'. Once again, when one has no acquaintance with the underlying language, one will tread dangerously close to self-deception and this is the case here for Matthew's hellfire verse!


Now, further background: The noun "aion" in Greek literature (e.g. Iliad, Odyssey) has always meant "an indeterminate period of time. " It could be as short as the time Jonah spent in the belly of a whale (three days or nights), or the length of a man's life, or as long as a very long age - say the "age of Socrates".Critical examination discloses the Bible speaks of at least five "aions" and perhaps many more. If there were "aions" in the past, it must logically mean that each one of them have ended! When one uses terms such as "past", "present" or "future" he's no longer referring to anything that's everlasting because the latter concept admits of no temporal distinctions! The New Testament writers spoke of "the present wicked aion" which ended during that very generation. Obviously then it was followed by another "aion"-e.g. the "aion" in which we presently live, which will be followed by a future aion.

The point? If there are "aions"past, present and to come, it must mean that aions don't last and the one we live in will also end. Thus, these "aions" are in no way never-ending or everlasting.
There are also verses describing "the consummation of the aions" (from which eons is derived) showing that each "aion" (nee, eon) ends, hence again can't be eternal! Why is it the hardheaded, blustering fundies don't get this? That they can't or won't distinguish a finite from non-finite amount of time? Well, maybe because they never took Greek or Latin!


Other notable examples:

"the coming eon" (Matt.10:30, Luke 18:30)
"the present wicked eon" (Gal.1:4)
"the oncoming eons" (future) (Eph.2:7)
"the conclusion of the eon " (present) (Mt.13:39,40)
"the secret concealed from the eons" (past) (Eph.3:9)


Obviously, the Greek word "aion" transliterated "eon" cannot mean "eternal." A study into the Greek of the Biblical period and before will bear this out. Thus, Matthew 25:46 which embodies the Greek, "kolasin aionion", cannot mean "eternal punishment" but rather a "temporary punishment" or "temporary chastening". (Which would be more akin to a punitive 'timeout' like the old Catholic purgatory concept).

More to the point, and this is critical since I pointed it out to do with Bart Ehrman's studies of later additions by assorted scribes (link on the blog above), if we find that the translations show "eternal punishment" when the authors or copyists likely had to be familiar with these Greek forms (disclosing that "aion" is NOT eternal) then we have prima facie evidence for a deliberate copyist insertion to alter the meaning. In other words, a FRAUD!

Since "Aionion" is the adjective of the noun "aion", then this argument applies to ALL forms, passages, words that contain these words, no exception. Are the fundies bright enough to grasp this? Doubt it, if they can't even solve the Hell-God-Infinite paradox.  But then, these morons were never the sharpest knives in the drawer anyway, if they really believe everyone that doesn't believe a specific piece of mistranslated hokum is forever doomed to the "lake of fire" (term stolen by early Xtian scribes, copyists from the Mithraists in Ized 4, of their Zendavesta).

And finally, since grammar rules mandate an adjective CANNOT take on a greater force than its noun form, it is evident that "aionion" in any of its adjective forms (ios, ou, on) CANNOT possibly mean "everlasting" or anything remotely indicating eternity or unending time.  Hence, we must conclude that either: a) Matthew 25:46 is a bogus later addition, or b) Matthew 25:46 represents the deliberate, fraudulent alteration of an original text in which the Greek forms were changed to reflect an "eternal" as opposed to non-eternal duress or punishment.

Underlying all such salvation-coveting greediness (as exemplified in Mike's blogs) is an embedded religious fanaticism, and a cultish tendency to embrace an unquestioning submission to a god that's caricatured in their own minds, which is largely a magnified version of their own mean-spirited, covetous selves. To question their cartoon god is "arrogant" and so they regard anyone who dares to do so as a "spoiled baby" trying to get his own way as opposed to an adult striving to rise beyond anthropomorphic creations of stupid humans. Thus, even the most innocuous intellectual challenges are seen as "human arrogance" and the elevation of our finite intellects in opposition to the infinite wisdom of the divine. But shrouded in the cloak of their own humility these fanatics fail to notice the arrogance that undergirds their conviction.

Ultimately, as we see time and again with these infantile people, they refuse to recognize that their beliefs about "God’s word" could be wrong, as well as their very deity conceptions. The fanatic treats any questioning of his own beliefs as if it were a challenge to the word of God. But in fact, this is a god created by him in his own image, conceived from his own mental delimitations and prejudices, though he quotes chapter and verse of a bible he doesn't really understand (since he never parses for the underlying Greek meanings, for instance.)

Fanatics in this sense needn’t be violent, nor do they necessarily express the kind of extremes hateful (“God hate fags”) vitriol spewing from such idiots as Fred Phelps. But there is, in this insular faith fanaticism, a dangerous combination of humility and arrogance that hermetically seals blind believer fanatics from reason and evidence. Point of fact then, it's impossible to reason with them because they don't trust reason (though they claim to have a boner for logic). They are instead hostage to their own preconceptions and assumptions, including an arrogance to fit the putative deity into the mental thimble they believe is all they need to conceptualize it.

This is why as many times as I've patiently explained how and why they are wrong (including the basis for their false beliefs), they will never, ever get it. I could present a one hour web video complete with entertaining Geisha girls and assorted props and these bozos would never grasp it, so wedded are they to their singular reality, or rather unreality! Probably no one has put the central issue better than Alan Watts, in his 'The Wisdom Of Uncertainty' (p. 143):

"The misunderstanding of religious ideas is vividly illustrated in what men have made of the doctrine of immortality, heaven and hell. But now it should be clear that eternal life is the realization that the present is the only reality, and that past and future can be distinguished from it in a conventional sense alone. THIS moment is the "door of heaven" the "straight and narrow" because there is no room for a separate "I" or ego"

Doubtless, the crazies,  including infantile, fundie psychos like my brother (and I use that term very loosely)  will never grasp that, just as they'll never ever figure out the infinite-Hell-God paradox, or see why Matthew 25:46's "eternal punishment" is totally bogus!

What the Fundagelical Hell Mongers Still Don't Get

Well, it wasn't long at all before several fundie blogs reacted to my recent blog on "Hell",

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/10/even-if-hell-did-exist-its-nothing-to.html

in which I pointed out that even if it does exist there can't be any "fires" such as depicted in attached image above from a fundie's blog, nor can it be "everlasting" or "eternal". This is based upon the actual Greek translation for "everlasting punishment" in Matthew 25:46 which is "kolasin aionion" - meaning temporary chastening. I then provided examples of what this might mean.

So in this light, let us look at some recent "clarifications" by the fundies in the wake of my blog:

"What these hellbound unbelievers are really embracing is annihilationism. That is the doctrine that the souls of the wicked will be snuffed out of existence rather than be sent to an EVERLASTING , CONSCIOUS HELL! When examined carefully in context , the Scriptures nowhere prove annihilationism. In context and comparison with other Scriptures , the concept must be rejected in every case. "

Actually, this is emphatically not so! We are conceding a putative "Hell" can exist, based on our own studies of theology, as well as the use of exegesis, which must include the correct translations of the original texts. As one Loyola Theology professor recently blogged at http://www.loyolamaroon.com/ the greatest frequency of biblical interpretation errors tend to occur with evangelicals who don't believe it's incumbent on them to use the original Greek translations in which the New Testament was mainly written. They believe they are 'good to go' once they just have a rough English version. But this isn't good enough.

So, as opposed to this blogger's claim of "annihilationism" - by which he really means rigorous physicalist materialism, no! What I mean is conditionally accepting the Hell doctrine, but as rigorously defined within the actual legitimate Greek translations of the New Testament.

So what he does is interject a straw man, asserting an artifact of his own invention that he insists we are trying to "prove" - but which we are not. He goes on:

"When we die , there is separation , NOT extinction. The first death is simply the separation of the soul from the body ( James 2:26 ) , not the annihilation of the soul. "

Again, we are not claiming extinction but are already assuming the basis of: 1) an ongoing energy or individuated consciousness, and 2) a possible abode that may exist to chastise this energy if it is somehow degraded or deficient. So again, he's assigning claims and arguments we aren't making.

He goes on, untempered:

"There is also destruction , NOT nonexistence. "Everlasting" destruction would not be annihilation , which only takes an instant and is over. If someone undergoes everlasting destruction , then they have to have everlasting existence"

Here he goes off the rails, in making a claim ("destruction") which he's not supported by the actual Greek translations! We only concede, based on rigorous use of the Greek "kolasin aionion" a temporary chastisement, NOT destruction. Also "everlasting" is misused by him since the faithful Greek for the NT equivalents do not translate into permament but temporary.

Kolasin is a noun in the accusative form, singular voice, feminine gender and means "punishment, chastening, correction, to cut-off as in pruning a tree to bear more fruit." Meanwhile, "Aionion" is the adjective form of "aion," in the singular form and means "pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time..

On the other hand, I am not questioning the claim of "enduring existence" such as if we presume human consciousness to be an individuated energy essence - possibly at the sub-quantal level - which can't be destroyed.

Once more his errors get the better of him:

"The cars in a junkyard have been destroyed , but they are not annihilated. They are simply beyond repair or unredeemable. Hence , so are the people in HELL!! "

But here he falls into the trap of false analogy with predictable results! Since cars, unlike humans, are insensate, i.e. feel no pain. So whether or not a car isn't annihilated in a junkyard is irrelevant to what happens to human consciousness in an afterlife. The point is that if that (sub-quantal) based consciousness persists, it cannot be "re-destroyed" (as I will subsequently show) over and over for any permanent period - so there can be no "Hell" as orthodox believers accept it.

Obviously, the Greek word "aion" transliterated "eon" cannot mean "eternal." A study into the Greek of the Biblical period and before will bear this out. Thus, Matthew 25:46 which embodies the Greek, "kolasin aionion", cannot mean "eternal punishment" but rather a "temporary punishment" or "temporary chastening. Thus, even IF Matthew 25:46 does refer to a real, putatively active "Hell" it can't be "eternal", only temporary only. (And as I shall show everlasting and eternal are not the same!) Since "Aionion" is the adjective of the noun "aion", then this argument applies to ALL forms, passages, words that contain these words, no exception.

He veers off further:

", Jesus repeatedly said the people in hell are in continual agony! He declared that there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth" ( Matt. 8:12 ; cf. 22:13 ; 24:51 ; 25:30 ). "

Again, he errs, this time in conflating "continual" with "eternal". While it is certainly feasible that in a punishment one can experience "continual agony" this doesn't itself identify the longevity as eternal. It could also be temporary, say as human experience in a place of horrors like Evin Prison in Iran, where prisoners are "continually" raped, brutalized, tortured etc. The Greek translation in that passage also bears out conformance with the use of "aionion" in Mt. 25:46.

As for the colorful "weeping and gnashing of teeth" - yes, but one can have that for a temporary punishment as well!

He moves on:

"Jesus also called hell a place where "the fire is not quenched" ( Mark 9:43-48 ) , where the very bodies of the wicked will never die ( cf. Luke 12:4-5 ). But it would make no sense to have everlasting flames and bodies without any souls in them to experience the torment."

Again, these passages cited are taken by most serious theologians as not being literate modern translations but rather later insertions. Indeed, the only NT citation that most literate theologians (in ancient Greek) accept for stating anything about "everlasting" punishment, is Matt. 25:46, but as we saw, when the Greek is faithfully translated then it comes out as temporary punishment.

Here a further point may also be introduced, one first made by the late Philosopher Joseph Campbell of Sarah Lawrence College. He made this point in his remarkable book "The Power of Myth" based on his own translations of NT texts. These disclosed a distinct difference between "everlasting" and "eternal". In his translation, "everlasting" wasn't a synonymn for eternal but for temporary. "Everlasting" meant "lasting until the prolonged epoch or eon ended". "Ever" emerges here as little different from saying something like "continous for the time being- no interruptions" and thus ending up with essentially the same meaning as the Greek for "Aionion" or the adjective form by which the epoch "pertains to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time"..

Campbell suggested that at some point, no one knows when, "everlasting" became mistaken for being the same as "eternal". When in fact, technically, "eternal" can only refer to an entity that pre-exists the condition of other (e.g. biological) entities that may emerge within it. However, so far as Christian orthodoxy frames it, their "souls" are not pre-existing but only come into existence at conception. In other words, the soul entity doesn't or can't pre-exist the biological matrix which demands a human egg become fertilized by a sperm cell.

Our author moves on:

"In a clear example of beings who were still CONSCIOUS after a thousand years of CONSCIOUS TORMENT in hell , the Bible says of the beast and the false prophets that "These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone" ( Rev. 19:20 ) before the "thousand years" ( Rev. 20:2 ). Also , the fact that the wicked are "punished with everlasting destruction" ( 2 Thess. 1:9 ) strongly implies that they must be conscious. One cannot suffer punishment without existence. It's no punishment to beat a dead corpse"

Again, my objection isn't to consciousness existing, I already indicated the presumption of a consciousness after death, for the sake of argument. Where I object is the conflation of "everlasting" with "eternal". I also query the use of word "destruction" as associated with a rational form of punishment presumed (by him). But in terms of usage, destruction contains the seminal meaning of no longer being available for ....whatever. Hence, one can have a ferocious punishment but not one which yields destruction that can then be reversed and commenced again. Once a thing is "destroyed", by proper English usage, it no longer exists, so his usage is contradictory.

This is why in physics the first principle of conservation (for mass-energy) reads:

"Mass-energy can neither be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another".

Now, if one presumes consciousness to be a form of energy, then it also would be subject to the above, and hence, not able to be destroyed - meaning permanently expunged. Now, if it is asserted that it CAN be "destroyed" or subject to destruction, that automatically means permanently expunged so it cannot be re-done. One cannot therefore have "re-destruction" - which emerges as an oxymoron! Either something is "destroyed" or not destroyed, but it can never be re-destroyed!

What hyper fundie Christians need to do is make their minds up as to the meanings of their words, we can't be continually (get that!) spoon feed them or "forever" be assisting them in basic word logic.

More propagation of error:

"Hell is also said to be of the same duration as heaven , "EVERLASTING" ( Matt. 25:41 ). "

But again, by the Greek translation, this is not the same as eternal, but rather from the Greek "Aionion" "pertaining to an eon or age, an indeterminate period of time.. In effect, just as "Hell" so translated refers to a temporary period, so also does "Heaven". This leads us to conclude both are transitory states of consciousness.

Critical examination discloses the Bible speaks of five "aions"(minimum) and perhaps many more. If there were "aions" in the past, it must logically mean that each one of them has ended! When one uses terms such as "past", "present" or "future" he's no longer referring to anything that's everlasting because the latter concept admits of no temporal distinctions!

All of this leads to one conclusion, and one only: While an after death human consciousness may (temporarily) experience an "eon" in "Hell" or "Heaven" its ultimate destination is what the Buddhists call "nirvana" or nothingness. Or as the Buddha once said, "all will become nothing".

Humanity's problem is that it is incapable of grasping nothingness, though it would help us to understand this had to have been the original state of things- e.g. before a putative Energy Being or "deity" sought to create anything. Hence, it would not seem that nirvana is the same as "annihilation" as these fundie bloggers appear to suggest.

Once more, nothing to fret over. Eventually we shall all end up in nirvana ....or nothingness.