Neville, Thank you for trying to clarify things. I do have one question. You say, "4. I will, under no circumstances, allow remarks or postings that are anti-Jewish." Are you to be so tolerant of Jews and not so of other religions? Why just Jews?? You say, "I will allow the discussion of doctrine on the forum, as long as it is tolerant and as long as all contributors are fully and constantly aware that they are not here to convert anyone. (Please do not, for example, attack anyone just because they are Catholic. If you disagree with a Catholic doctrine - as, indeed, I do - then feel free to politely say so and give your reasons." Does this mean I am not free to make comments on Jews as Jews, but that if the situation warrants it, in my mind, I may quote what I consider wrong in Jews teaching from their Talmud as long as I am fully and constantly aware that I am not here to convert anyone and politely say so, such as: Gittin 57a. Says Jesus is in hell, being boiled in "hot excrement.", or Sanhedrin 90a. Those who read the New Testament ("uncanonical books") will have no portion in the world to come., or Sanhedrin 54b. A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old., or Kethuboth 11b. "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing.", or Minor Tractates. Soferim 15, Rule 10. This is the saying of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: Tob shebe goyyim harog ("Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed")? Now nothing could be more polite. I would be only quoting from their own high holy book. I am not ashamed for anyone to quote from any official Catholic Document. If the discussion is not to be strictly held to Geocentrizm I think I should be as free to comment on Jew's religious teaching as others are to comment on the teachings of the Catholic Church, don't you? I'm not angry or irate, just asking. Ronald Knarr ----- Original Message ----- From: Dr. Neville Jones To: creation@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 7:09 PM Subject: [creation] Guidelines This is very interesting indeed. One minute we are all sailing along quite merrily, the next minute all hell breaks loose, if you'll excuse the pun. Philip (Snow)'s posting, entitled "HELL!!," covered a number of fundamental, doctrinal issues. Should we here discuss our disagreements, just as Peter and Paul had to reason out theirs? Well, we could do, as long as we realize that we are not going to reach a concensus. You see, on this forum, we have unitarians and trinitarians, Catholics and non-Catholics, Jews and Gentiles. There is only one thing that unites us all - we all accept that the cosmos was created by God. In addition to this, I am under an obligation to maintain, as our main priority, a technical slant to this forum. This is because freelists.org provide the service I use, specifically with this proviso. I therefore have to decree the following: 1. Our discussions are to be primarily concerning the scientific, technical and logical aspects of the Creation/evolution debate. 2. I will allow the discussion of doctrine on the forum, as long as it is tolerant and as long as all contributors are fully and constantly aware that they are not here to convert anyone. (Please do not, for example, attack anyone just because they are Catholic. If you disagree with a Catholic doctrine - as, indeed, I do - then feel free to politely say so and give your reasons. Once the point has been made, and defended, then we need to move on again with those matters that unite us.) 3. It is up to the individual as to whether they choose to inform the group of their position on Scriptural teachings. 4. I will, under no circumstances, allow remarks or postings that are anti-Jewish. Within the context of the above, I am prepared to instigate a discussion of the word, "hell," based upon my understanding of Scripture: The word "hell," used in the King James version of the Bible to represent three original Hebrew and Greek words, conjures up images of a big, horned, tailed, red bloke with something like a pitch fork, tormenting people. This is a popular depiction and should, of course, be kept separate from any meaning that the word itself, which dates from before 1150 AD (or CE), has. The Hebrew word translated as 'hell' is sheol, which, as far as I understand it (we do have a native Hebrew speaker on this forum who could correct me), means the common grave of mankind, that is always reaching out for more. The two Greek words are hades, which means a grave, and gehenna, which means a dump where rubbish is burnt. Hell, then, is simply the grave. It can be a memorial grave, in which case the occupier will be resurrected back into a physical body at the last day; or not, in which case the spirit tossed into it is destroyed, never to return. There is no torture chamber (much to Rumsfeld's disgust, no doubt). That it is eternal, simply means that the fire is never quenched, not that spirits are forever punished. Jesus' spirit was in a memorial grave for three days, and his first physical body was (temporarily, until God removed it) placed in a physical grave. He was never dominated and tormented for three days, nor even for three nanoseconds, in a fiery "hell" by some sort of "devil." Indeed, such an idea is unthinkable to me. I hope that this mail is received by all in the spirit in which it was written. Neville. --------------------------------- ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!