h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Wrong! Magog = Russia.

And where in the bible does it say that Magog = Russia?

The name used in the bible is Magog. The name Russia is not used. It is merely your interpretation, with no biblical basis whatsoever.

Noggin

I'll have to defend Sam here that you can be rich and a Christian (although I certianly am not rich!). When talking about money, people usually quote Matthew 19:24 which talks about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven. What they miss out is the rest of the passage. It says the disciples were amazed at this and wondered who could actually get into Heaven. But Jesus said that with God, all things are possible. It is possible for a rich man to enter Heaven if he is born-again. Besides, if we gave up all our money in this country then we would not be able to help the poor and would in fact become a burden on other people. We should help the poor, yes, but not the point of having to rely on others to help us.

And Sam, I do agree with you that God probably prefers honest atheists to lying Christians. I cannot stand liberal Christians who do more damage to the faith than the most active atheist. But as for christians who believe in evolution, not all are liberal. Some are very Conservative but just believe that science has proved Genesis wrong. But these people will be so happy when they realise that Creation is true and the theory of evolution is false-and that is why we must bring Creationism to the UK.

And by the way-how much would one of those cars set you back? Quite a lot I imagine...

'The name used in the bible is Magog. The name Russia is not used. It is merely your interpretation, with no biblical basis whatsoever.'

It is just an interpretation but there is Biblical evidence for it, especially when viewed with other prophecies. I won't get into it all but the following link gives a very short piece of info about them:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Gog-Magog.html

<>

Again, what does this mean? (I asked Sam before - he ignored me).

What would be the practical difference if we all end up in Hell anyway?


az

;Again, what does this mean?'

What I mean is that God probably prefers atheists who call themselves atheists and are not ashamed of it to 'Christians' who call themselves Christians but don't believe in anything about Christianity (i.e. deny the Virgin birth, deny miracles, deny the Bible is the Word of of God and even deny that God exists).


'What would be the practical difference if we all end up in Hell anyway?'

Well to the people in Hell it would be miserable and painful. That is opposed to Heaven were it is bliss for eternity.

;Again, what does this mean?'

What I mean is that God probably prefers atheists who call themselves atheists and are not ashamed of it to 'Christians' who call themselves Christians but don't believe in anything about Christianity (i.e. deny the Virgin birth, deny miracles, deny the Bible is the Word of of God and even deny that God exists).


'What would be the practical difference if we all end up in Hell anyway?'

Well to the people in Hell it would be miserable and painful. That is opposed to Heaven were it is bliss for eternity. Were would YOU like to go?

"Well to the people in Hell it would be miserable and painful. That is opposed to Heaven were it is bliss for eternity. Were would YOU like to go?"

You've entirely missed the point of the question, GN - the question was what is the practical difference between your God's treatment of hypocritical Christians and atheists, since we're all destined for the same place?

And in answer to your question, since by your philosophy every person I have ever loved will be in Hell, whereas heaven will be full of your ilk, I should prefer Hell, eternal torment notwithstanding.

SoRB

'the question was what is the practical difference between your God's treatment of hypocritical Christians and atheists, since we're all destined for the same place?'

None at all I would imagine. Except the punishment for some people will be worse than others.

'And in answer to your question, since by your philosophy every person I have ever loved will be in Hell, whereas heaven will be full of your ilk, I should prefer Hell, eternal torment notwithstanding.'

It is not philosophy but theology-and Biblical theology at that. And you have a very charming attitute. Did you not learn to be polite as a child?

Wrong! Magog = Russia.
I've done a little research and I can see how you might equate Magog with what is now Russia. Fortunately, that means we've got a long time before the end of days since hell will freeze over before Russia comes to the aid of any Arabic state to invade anybody even Israel.

<>

This is the point I don't understand. A punishment worse than going to Hell?

If there is no worse punishment, then why say God prefers one sort of Sinner to another? What would be the point of this 'preference'?


az

'What would be the point of this 'preference'?'


You do like to make a mountain out a mole hill don't you? It was just an expression to say that God probably does not like liberal 'Christians' much. And in Hell, there are different punishments. You are judged by how you acted in life (the unsaved that is). So Hitler will get a worse punishment than somebody whom we would consider 'good'.

Magog was companion to Gog, one of the traditional giant guardians of London.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gog#Gog_and_Magog_in_England

http://www.lordmayorsshow.org/hist/gogmagog.shtml

And a version based firmly in your kind of reality:

http://www.stargods.org/GogMagog.html

"in Hell, there are different punishments. You are judged by how you acted in life (the unsaved that is). So Hitler will get a worse punishment than somebody whom we would consider 'good'."

Excellent! This very much reinforces my feeling that I would much, much rather be consigned to your Hell than be sentenced to an eternity in your idea of Heaven. If my "punishment" in your Hell is commensurate with how good I've been in life, I can surely expect nothing more than minor inconvenience for the rest of time, in the presence of my family and most of the people I have known and loved. The alternative, were I to be "saved" - an eternity spent separated from those I have loved and in the company of people like you - is too awful to contemplate.

Are you sure you're doing this evangelism thing right? I thought the idea was to give the impression that being saved is a *good* thing, a desirable thing, rather than the worst thing that could happen to a person. Possibly I have misunderstood...

SoRB

Just so we're clear, you guys know you're nuts, right?

I have a funny feeling that Americans will be met at the Pearly Gates by Sitting Bull!

alji

Hi Good-news

Let me introduce myself. I am Matholwch, a practicing druid priest of the old religion of these isles.

I do wonder at the theological education of most reborn christians who come here. Could you please point me to the place in the Bible where it says that the unsaved shall go to hell? A tip: I suggest that you read Revelations.

There you will find that we are destined for the Lake of Fire with Death and Sin. No punishment appropriate to our sin, just eternal fire. This is why SoRB, others and myself formed the Sulphur Outfall No4 club. This charitable organisation is for those who will, by choice, go to the Lake of Fire. there we will meet and spend eternity holding up all the unbaptised babies that were not saved out of the flames.

Your concept of only the unsaved going to 'hell' doesn't take into account that you 'real' christians have singularly failed to bring the message of your God to all people on the planet. Your Saviour doesn't care about these as their names will not be found in the Book of Life as they did not have the chance to be reborn. Don't try to weasel out of this, it's in your inerrant scripture.

Thus all those who the Bible never reached, no matter how virtuous, the mentally-ill and handicapped, the children too young to understand, and those you failed to convince shall be condemned to eternal torment. And this is the response of a merciful and loving God to His creation huh?

If so you are welcome to Him. I, for one, shall have no truck with such an evil force.

Blessings,
matholwch /|\

<>

Which other prophecies?

The primary reason for interpreting it as a prophecy about the end days is that that is how fundamentalist christians *choose* to interpret scriptural prophecies in general. While there is evidence that some of the NT authors were interpreting OT prophecies that way, it is nowhere explicit in the Bible that they *should* be interpreted this way.

The prophecy under discussion mentions Gog, Magog, Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. The last three of these are mentioned elsewhere in the OT, Meshech and Tubal as trading partners of Tyre, and the phrase rosh, meshech and tubal also appears in a list of nations (I think at the end of Jeremiah), immediately following Lydia. Gog is probably Gyges, king of Lydia. The Northern Barbarians (Magog) are probably the Cimmerians and Scythians, nomads from Southern Russia who participated in the overthrow of Assyria before moving into Northern Anatolia. Meshech are mentioned as one of the "Peoples of the Sea" by Rameses III, and in a Ptolemaic inscription.

The entire prophecy was probably written in Persian times and probably refers to the war between Lydia and Persia under Cyrus the Great, since almost all of it refers to peoples/places of the time. And of course it's not a prophecy, being written after the event, but a political tract telling subject peoples that the Persian Monarchy had "God on their side."

Noggin

"Well to the people in Hell it would be miserable and painful. That is opposed to Heaven were it is bliss for eternity. Were would YOU like to go?"

Well, I think I'd probably prefer to go to Hel, which is where the christians pinched the English translation for the New Testament term "Gehenna".

Hell itself is not a concept of the Old Testament, but was devleoped during the inter-testamental period, and is associated with the Pharisees, a sect which grew during that period and were associated with meeting in syngogues (meeting places) rather than the temple based ritual of the more conservative Sadduccees, who did not believe in the afterlife concept referred to by the term "Gehenna" (Gehenna itself was not an otherworld place but the rubbish tip on one side of Jerusalem where the rubbish was burned, hence the fires).

The original Hel of the pre-christian Anglo Saxon peoples was the home of Hel, the goddess who lived there. She took in those who did not die at sea (who went to Ran's Hall), or in battle (who went to the Halls of Freyja or Odhinn). There were no fires, punishment etc, it was just a place you went to. Alternatively, an older faith had it that you lived on in your burial mound, feasting and making merry. Given that, I have no doubt that those who lived in Hel's kingdom did the same.

So, if Christians are insisting on pinching a term from my own, pre-Chrisitian faith, it's a wee bit offenisve that it is for a very different concept and, worse, many would wish to confine me to their hell rather than the one propoer to my own faith. Methinks I'll stick with mine.

"And in Hell, there are different punishments. You are judged by how you acted in life (the unsaved that is). So Hitler will get a worse punishment than somebody whom we would consider 'good'."

that's certainly Dante's version of hell, but is it biblical?

<> (Good News)

Just an expression? No, it wasn't. It was a statement made that God appreciates honest atheists more than hypocritical Christians. I've asked both you and Sam to explain this further and you cannot. I wanted to know what sort of different punishments God would hand out in these circumstances. You obviously have no idea.

It's curious that you seem to KNOW the mind and will of your God so well yet you constantly back down from any serious questioning with the excuse that YOU KNOW and we don't. But you refuse to enlighten us any further.

What sort of argument is that?

Of course what Justin used to say was that the Word of God was not meant for Sinners such as us - it was specially for those that God had chosen to be reborn.

Let's see, a very closed and secretive group that thinks they have been specially chosen by God . . . do you mind me asking what the heck this has to do with Christ's teachings? As in - why do you call yourselves Christians? As you should well know, Jesus spoke to all people, he welcomed everyone into the house of his Father. Jesus loved all people, even so-called sinners who refused to acknowledge him as the Son of God. He even embraced Judas at the end. And he continued to love Peter who denied him three times.

To my knowledge, Jesus never said to anyone - 'boy, my Dad is going to be really mad at you for not believing in me and you will suffer immeasurable pain as a result'.

Jesus loved all people. I think he would probably still love the likes of you and Sam, even though you have blasphemed against his teachings so flagrantly. Corrupting them for your own purposes.

Well, that's the sort of person Jesus was.

I am no longer a Christian, but I have no fear of Jesus. As for his Father, well, you can believe all you want that you have him on YOUR side. But from where I sit you are noticably lacking in basic Christian charity. Shame on you.


az