Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's not a picture of heaven, in any way shape or form. A picture of redemption or salvation, perhaps, but are you really saying that heaven will consist of all the Saved nailed to crosses?
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:But it is outrageous, isn't it?
Originally posted by Orlando098:
Is there a way to be intellectually honest about the meaning and function of hell in Christian doctrine, and also not think it's outrageous?
quote:I can offer an answer from outside of mainstream Christianity that works for me, but you'll have to decide how good an answer it seems to be to you.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
Do you have any good answers to problem it poses for the idea of a loving God?
quote:+1 there. Universalist "theology" is an inconsistent heresy.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think hell is an inevitability in a universe where God has chosen to give creatures free will. Unless we're all extremely lucky (ha), some of them are bound to use that free will to refuse blessedness.
At that point God can do one of two things. He can arbitrarily snatch away their free will and FORCE them to accept blessing--in which case free will was only ever a sham anyway, and human choice and freedom has no dignity at all, being only a lie. Or God can call the refusers, woo them, beg them, even lay down his life for them--but ultimately admit he has to let them have their own way. Very painful and difficult.
I just don't see a way around it. If you leave blessedness optional, you make un-blessedness possible. If you force it on everybody, so much for free will.
Apparently God values free will very, very highly. I wonder why.
I do think the door to hell is unlocked--or if locked, it's on the inside. It's worth noting that Scripture describes hell as a place made "for the devil and his angels," not a place that was ever intended for humankind at all. Paradise was made for people, not hell.
quote:Might as well as put my Classical education to good use - extractus ex ano.
extractus ex anum
quote:I can only assume that you regard non-universalist theology as consistent heresy then, burger boy.
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
Universalist "theology" is an inconsistent heresy.
quote:Impressive first post
Originally posted by Nooj:
quote:Might as well as put my Classical education to good use - extractus ex ano.
extractus ex anum
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:This is a bit of a tangent but I've always assumed that eternal damnation was for eternal sins - i.e. that people keep sinning in hell. In fact that is kind of the point, isn't it? Those who choose to be shut out from God's presence forever will get their wish and experience the consequences of their choice.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Eternal damnation for what are ultimately temporal sins seems to be in open defiance of the more helpful read of "eye for an eye."
quote:This is likely a tangent, too, but why do we still sin while we are earth-bound yet believe in Christ and try to repent? Yeah, yeah, free will and all. I unfortunately sometimes will to sin even now. You say that those who go to Hell continue to will it- eternally. But does that mean we lose free-will in Heaven? If God's will is the only will he wants for us, and we say we want it, too, but don't manage to follow it here, why are we only healed of our hard hearts in Heaven?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:This is a bit of a tangent but I've always assumed that eternal damnation was for eternal sins - i.e. that people keep sinning in hell. In fact that is kind of the point, isn't it? Those who choose to be shut out from God's presence forever will get their wish and experience the consequences of their choice.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Eternal damnation for what are ultimately temporal sins seems to be in open defiance of the more helpful read of "eye for an eye."
Indeed your premise seems to be a medieval view of sins - i.e. a list of naughty things that we do. Instead Jesus (e.g. in Mark 7) thought that these actions were merely an outworking of our hearts. Sin is a not a temporary action but a potentially eternal state of being?
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
quote:Interestingly, total non-being is, roughly speaking, buddhist heaven.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
The C of E 's Doctrine Commission said in 1995 (The Mystery of Salvation) : "Christians have professed appalling theologies which made God into a sadistic monster. ... Hell is not eternal torment, but it is the final and irrevocable choosing of that which is opposed to God so completely and so absolutely that the only end is total non-being."
quote:Haven't you just answered your own question?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
This is likely a tangent, too, but why do we still sin while we are earth-bound yet believe in Christ and try to repent? Yeah, yeah, free will and all. I unfortunately sometimes will to sin even now. You say that those who go to Hell continue to will it- eternally. But does that mean we lose free-will in Heaven? If God's will is the only will he wants for us, and we say we want it, too, but don't manage to follow it here, why are we only healed of our hard hearts in Heaven?
quote:You have little experience of the real world then. I regularly meet people who willingly choose hell on a daily basis.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Worse, though, is this stupid idea that anyone would actually choose by their god-cherished Free Will to go to hell. Give me a break. I’m a total write-off atheist, and if I actually had a proper choice of heaven or hell, do you think for one second I’d choose hell?
quote:Uh, no, I don't think so. Unless you are saying life in heaven isn't perfect from the get-go; perhaps without a Purgatory but at least a purgatorial process to form our wills with God's. If there is no process, and all is changed in a flash, why not the flash here and now?
Haven't you just answered your own question?
quote:Sorry. I left a step out.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
If there is no process, and all is changed in a flash, why not the flash here and now?
quote:I'd be grateful if you'd explain what you mean by this statement, but only if you promise not to write total and utter bollocks.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I regularly meet people who willingly choose hell on a daily basis.
Step 1 - go to any inner-city.
Step 2 - open your eyes.
quote:That hardly seems fair when it is not a reciprocal agreement.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I'd be grateful if you'd explain what you mean by this statement, but only if you promise not to write total and utter bollocks.
quote:I regularly meet people who are trapped in harmful cycles involving drugs, alcohol, gambling, relational issues ... I could go on.
Originally posted by Yorick:
You said you regularly meet people who willingly choose hell on a daily basis. I’d like you to come up with one single example of what you mean by this.
quote:That's not hell. Read your City of God. Hell is every square inch of your flesh burning forever without ever being consumed, with no hope whatsoever of respite. The two scenarios really don't compare/
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:I regularly meet people who are trapped in harmful cycles involving drugs, alcohol, gambling, relational issues ... I could go on.
Originally posted by Yorick:
You said you regularly meet people who willingly choose hell on a daily basis. I’d like you to come up with one single example of what you mean by this.
Some of them (not all) have freely chosen this. The consequences of their actions have been clearly explained to them, they often just don't believe what they are told.
quote:Yeah, I had a feeling your definition of hell might look something like that. Which of the following statements fairly include descriptions of ‘hell’, in your view?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I regularly meet people who are trapped in harmful cycles ...
quote:Right. So now the only definition of hell that is even allowed to be discussed is strict Augustinian?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
That's not hell. Read your City of God. Hell is every square inch of your flesh burning forever without ever being consumed, with no hope whatsoever of respite. The two scenarios really don't compare.
quote:Thanks for making my point Yorick. Other people's experience of life is very different to yours.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yeah, I had a feeling your definition of hell might look something like that. Which of the following statements fairly include descriptions of ‘hell’, in your view?
a) I drove back home from the supermarket yesterday; the traffic was hell.
b) I’m going through hell because my beloved goldfish died.
c) England played hellish bad to lose that test match.
d) I stubbed my toe this morning. It hurt like hell.
e) I haven't got any money for my next fix, and I'm withdrawing. I'll have to give a couple of blow-jobs to raise the money. Oh, hell.
f) What's that sweet-sick smell coming from those chimneys? This isn't resettlement- it's a death camp. I've arrived in hell.
g) When I said it would be thirty-six holes, my wife gave me hell.
What does any of these living human experiences have to do with a biblically described afterlife hell?
quote:Sometimes I swear all the atheists on the internet are the same person. This is hardly the first time Christians have been expected to either be horrible people, or absurd ones. In this case, we are horrible if we keep the Dantesque version of hell, or absurd ones if we try to say some people don't choose God.
Worse, though, is this stupid idea that anyone would actually choose by their god-cherished Free Will to go to hell. Give me a break. I’m a total write-off atheist, and if I actually had a proper choice of heaven or hell, do you think for one second I’d choose hell? Of course I wouldn’t, and nor would any other atheist. It’s not a free choice at all, because NOBODY would choose it. The idea that God offers people the choice of heaven or hell is bullshit wallpaper theology*.
quote:Mr Aquinas said that the blessed in Heaven rejoice at the suffering of the damned in Hell because it's the result of God's justice, and God's justice is praise-worthy.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There are all sorts of problems with various traditional formulations of hell. For instance, if the joy of the blessed in heaven is perfect (as it must be, or it wouldn't be heaven) then, as Augustine pointed out, the fact that there are people in hell must logically be one of the many causes of their great joy.
Speaking for myself, to rejoice that there are people crying out in pain for ever and ever and ever strikes me as so monstrously inhuman that I could never submit myself to the will of a God who required me to do it. He might as well therefore condemn me to hell too, since the cries of the damned would make a hell of heaven anyway.
quote:I doubt this very much. I doubt anyone - ever - knowing the outcome, has made a decision to live in a way that would be described as hellish.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Some of them (not all) have freely chosen this.
quote:In this world, sure. In the next? Not so much. for a start, how exactly does one get martyred in the next life?
Originally posted by Zach82:
God involves a heck of a lot of kneeling and cross carrying and martyrdom.
quote:That's not a picture of heaven, in any way shape or form. A picture of redemption or salvation, perhaps, but are you really saying that heaven will consist of all the Saved nailed to crosses?
Our very best picture of heaven is a man nailed to a cross!
quote:Assuming I am granted the dignity of at least a little literary complexity when I say "the Cross," I most certainly am. Though it all looks very different through the eyes of Faith. Without Faith, though, it is a pretty basic choice between the Cross on one hand the Life's schedules and little comforts on the other. And it is so astounding to local atheists that people don't choose the Cross! "Wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat."
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
That's not a picture of heaven, in any way shape or form. A picture of redemption or salvation, perhaps, but are you really saying that heaven will consist of all the Saved nailed to crosses?
quote:Well whoop-de-doo for God's justice. I'm sure Mr Aquinas will excuse me if the flag I wave is a very, very small one.
Originally posted by Nooj:
quote:Mr Aquinas said that the blessed in Heaven rejoice at the suffering of the damned in Hell because it's the result of God's justice, and God's justice is praise-worthy.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
There are all sorts of problems with various traditional formulations of hell. For instance, if the joy of the blessed in heaven is perfect (as it must be, or it wouldn't be heaven) then, as Augustine pointed out, the fact that there are people in hell must logically be one of the many causes of their great joy.
Speaking for myself, to rejoice that there are people crying out in pain for ever and ever and ever strikes me as so monstrously inhuman that I could never submit myself to the will of a God who required me to do it. He might as well therefore condemn me to hell too, since the cries of the damned would make a hell of heaven anyway.
quote:So we move from hell being eternal torment to hell being eternal unconditional love. And there are people who wouldn't like that.
Originally posted by leo:
I believe that ...some people won't like the unconditional love and it will be like hell for them.
quote:Yes, I'm sure that's how it was sold to you in Sunday School. That infinitely sustainable energy will be marvellous, won't it? But enough of this silly chit chat- you should be practicing your harp, not talking to 'really bad people'.
Originally posted by sanc:
What about a hell where God destroys really bad people and the junks and pollution we all make to maintain our unsustainable way of life to make way for a better world where you and I and everybody who want to live happily ever after have opportunities to do so?
quote:Because they're absurd. And they're only conceptions. Oh, and they're totally fucking contradictory with all the other conceptions.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Why is it, Yorick, that every conception of hell besides the one you find most repugnant and easiest to denounce are instantly rejected by you as absurd?
quote:You can't see how silly that is? The other ideas are absurd simply because they don't agree with the one you hate the most? Of course they are contradictory! That is why they are different definitions.
Because they're absurd. And they're only conceptions. Oh, and they're totally fucking contradictory with all the other conceptions.
quote:And the ones you find most repugnant aren't?
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Because they're absurd. And they're only conceptions. Oh, and they're totally fucking contradictory with all the other conceptions.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Why is it, Yorick, that every conception of hell besides the one you find most repugnant and easiest to denounce are instantly rejected by you as absurd?
quote:Let me be tenacious this time around. How can the idea of hell I've mentioned above be absurd? The communists have their utopias, Castro has his Greater Cuba and I think atheists have theirs: A religion-free world where humans solve their animosity against each other living in peace and prosperity.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Yes, I'm sure that's how it was sold to you in Sunday School. That infinitely sustainable energy will be marvellous, won't it? But enough of this silly chit chat- you should be practicing your harp, not talking to 'really bad people'.
Originally posted by sanc:
What about a hell where God destroys really bad people and the junks and pollution we all make to maintain our unsustainable way of life to make way for a better world where you and I and everybody who want to live happily ever after have opportunities to do so?
quote:Depends whether you think the person talking to you is lying or not. I've certainly had plenty of conversations with men and women who would for their own reasons, quite seriously apparently, choose the Biblical notion of hell over heaven. No doubt some were being hyperbolic, or making a point that when coming to the crunch they could not live out. But I'm not in a position to say that all of them don't know their own minds and were liars. It's more probable that some of these people actually meant what they said.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Worse, though, is this stupid idea that anyone would actually choose by their god-cherished Free Will to go to hell.
quote:It is a very peculiar argument you have. "I find hell absurd no matter how you define it!" Since the meaning of the word makes no difference, is it the arrangement of letters in the word you hate so much then?
I’ve never encountered a ‘version’ of hell I didn’t find absurd, so it’s nothing to do with repugnance. I don’t hate any one version more than any other, and I have no fear whatsoever of going to hell, so that has no bearing on it either. My opinion is simply that the whole concept of hell is daft, in all its silly versions, and, to answer the OP, it is therefore an embarassment to Christianity.
quote:Maybe, if, as you say, they're quite incapable of making a sane decision about it. And so the mad, the bad and the sad go to hell.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...it really doesn't seem impossble that someone might similarly choose an eternity of suffering over the alternative.
quote:Yes, Zach, that's it. They're all the wrong way round. If only you'd call it Lhel instead, then I wouldn't hate it.
Originally posted by Zach82:
...is it the arrangement of letters in the word you hate so much then?
quote:Yes, there are people like that - so closed in on themselves. Love would be very threatening to their sense of autonomy.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:So we move from hell being eternal torment to hell being eternal unconditional love. And there are people who wouldn't like that.
Originally posted by leo:
I believe that ...some people won't like the unconditional love and it will be like hell for them.
Riiight.
quote:I once made a list of personalities I knew that would not enjoy heaven. I've met people in the corporate world who sure seem to value power or money over love, from how little their wives (husbands) and children see of them.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:Yes, there are people like that - so closed in on themselves. Love would be very threatening to their sense of autonomy.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:So we move from hell being eternal torment to hell being eternal unconditional love. And there are people who wouldn't like that.
Originally posted by leo:
I believe that ...some people won't like the unconditional love and it will be like hell for them.
Riiight.
To change the analogy - imagine heaven to be a place of beautiful music. A tone deaf person would experience a cacophany - that would be hell to them.
quote:Well that's not Perfect Love then.
Originally posted by leo:
Love would be very threatening to their sense of autonomy.
quote:I gather you put no stock in those who believe that God has predestined some to Hell?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think hell is an inevitability in a universe where God has chosen to give creatures free will. Unless we're all extremely lucky (ha), some of them are bound to use that free will to refuse blessedness.
At that point God can do one of two things. He can arbitrarily snatch away their free will and FORCE them to accept blessing--in which case free will was only ever a sham anyway, and human choice and freedom has no dignity at all, being only a lie. Or God can call the refusers, woo them, beg them, even lay down his life for them--but ultimately admit he has to let them have their own way. Very painful and difficult.
quote:If everyone you know values and seeks love more than anything else, I want to meet your friends! I seem to be surrounded by people who so value status or money or power or feeling superior to others that they gladly diss others solely to gain what they value more than the love and friendship that was offered.
Originally posted by Yorick:
If heaven is being in God's Perfect Love, there isn't anyone who would sanely and freely choose against it- by absolute definition.
quote:How does anyone know what 'perfect love' is?
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Well that's not Perfect Love then.
Originally posted by leo:
Love would be very threatening to their sense of autonomy.
Perfect Love, as touted about by Christianity, isn't like what these people can imagine. God's love is absolute, and altogether different from our feeble human version. By very definition, it is precisely unthreatening to their sense of autonomy, because it's Perfect.
Nah, I don't buy it. If heaven is being in God's Perfect Love, there isn't anyone who would sanely and freely choose against it- by absolute definition.
quote:I wouldn't know, as it's clear from my first post, I - unlike you - make no connection with someone deciding for themselves they'd prefer to go to hell (however they imagine that place) and actually ending up there (should it exist). I've clearly stated that I am agnostic about a 'locational' hell, and equally I've clearly stated that I leave it to God to decide the eternal destinies of human beings.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Maybe, if, as you say, they're quite incapable of making a sane decision about it. And so the mad, the bad and the sad go to hell.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...it really doesn't seem impossble that someone might similarly choose an eternity of suffering over the alternative.
Reminiscent of Himmler's Final Solution, isn't it?
quote:I'm not sure it's possible to love without experiencing pain.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:How does anyone know what 'perfect love' is?
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Well that's not Perfect Love then.
Originally posted by leo:
Love would be very threatening to their sense of autonomy.
Perfect Love, as touted about by Christianity, isn't like what these people can imagine. God's love is absolute, and altogether different from our feeble human version. By very definition, it is precisely unthreatening to their sense of autonomy, because it's Perfect.
Nah, I don't buy it. If heaven is being in God's Perfect Love, there isn't anyone who would sanely and freely choose against it- by absolute definition.
We all fall short of being able to accept it, which is why the doctrine of purgatory is so insightful.
I didn't say that anyone would 'refuse' it - just that it would take some people longer than others to grow spiritually enough to be able to receive it without pain.
quote:Blame Dante.
Originally Posted by Orlando098:
Interesting viewpoints, and it seems like no one much belives in the old-fashioned eternal actual tortures scenario (I saw an image from an Italian church on the net recently, showing sinners having hot pokers put up them by devils , which is not too charming. And in any case, I am not sure why in these Medieval hells devils were assigned jobs like this... surely they ought to be suffering too? Or maybe their suffering comes at the final lake of fire bit, and these pictures just depict the interrim after-death scenario?!).
quote:Aren't we all evil? The curse of original sin affects each and every human being who has ever and will ever live and so we all deserve Hell.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
As for the idea that hell is where people go who have rejected God, I am unsure as to what this rejection consists of, eg. whether it applies to a kind humanist, unconvinced about religion, or just evil people, but then how evil and what if they are that way because they suffered a lot, or were mentally ill?
quote:It seems like Jesus sometimes compared the final Lake of Fire in an everlasting resurrected body to rubbish and probably animal carcasses etc, burning in this valley - maybe it was just a familiar and unpleasant sight? Though that doesn't mean he necessarily meant it so literally of course, though he might have done.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
More to the point, I sometimes wonder what to make of the fact that most of the references to "hell" In the NT are using a word for a particular physical place, the Valley of Hinnom.
quote:Good point
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
.Blame Dante.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Nooj:
Aren't we all evil? The curse of original sin affects each and every human being who has ever and will ever live and so we all deserve Hell.
quote:I would think it greater delight to see one of those "proud monarchs" etc in heaven and know "he got it! He finally caught on! Yes!" instead of "I don't care if he ever discovered God and changed his ways or not, he deserves to suffer for what he did to me." But then, I'm not a church father, nor am I an intentional follower of church fathers, I'm a follower of Jesus who took the forgiveness approach instead of the "she deserves to suffer for what she did to me" approach.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
Tertullian's comments about hell are among the less charitable I have read (though fortunately not typical these days...): Tertullian
"How shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many
proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; ...
quote:Well maybe deserve Hell is too strong. But what I was taught was that everyone would go there, unless God gave you the grace that allowed you to choose salvation. Because the sinful nature of humanity is otherwise fatal, and that sin is what Jesus died to save us from.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Nooj:
Aren't we all evil? The curse of original sin affects each and every human being who has ever and will ever live and so we all deserve Hell.
quote:But I don't understand why all the talk of punishment and fire etc and not just annihilation in that case? It seems like Christianity uses words like death or "fatal" as euphemisms when it seems to mean something even worse.
Originally posted by Nooj:
quote:Well maybe deserve Hell is too strong. But what I was taught was that everyone would go there, unless God gave you the grace that allowed you to choose salvation. Because the sinful nature of humanity is otherwise fatal, and that sin is what Jesus died to save us from.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Nooj:
Aren't we all evil? The curse of original sin affects each and every human being who has ever and will ever live and so we all deserve Hell.
quote:In Revelation there is talk of a "second death."
Originally posted by Orlando098:
quote:But I don't understand why all the talk of punishment and fire etc and not just annihilation in that case? It seems like Christianity uses words like death or "fatal" as euphemisms when it seems to mean something even worse.
Originally posted by Nooj:
quote:Well maybe deserve Hell is too strong. But what I was taught was that everyone would go there, unless God gave you the grace that allowed you to choose salvation. Because the sinful nature of humanity is otherwise fatal, and that sin is what Jesus died to save us from.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Nooj:
Aren't we all evil? The curse of original sin affects each and every human being who has ever and will ever live and so we all deserve Hell.
quote:OK, thanks for the illustration. I suppose though at the end of the day, to some extent people go with the version they are most comfortable with. I mean from the basic references in the Bible, it is hard to know what exactly is meant, though it doesn't sound much fun. It is also worrying that is says the stuff about the broad road and narrow gate, suggesting most people will in fact not make it to heaven.
Originally posted by HoosierNan:
The angel replied, "In heaven, they know how to feed one another."
Confer Matthew 25: 31-46. [/QB]
quote:Well, true, but that's the lake of fire isn't it? Though I guess some people take the view that that refers to destruction not ongoing suffering.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:In Revelation there is talk of a "second death." [/QB]
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:I'm not sure it's possible to love without experiencing pain.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:How does anyone know what 'perfect love' is?
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Well that's not Perfect Love then.
Originally posted by leo:
Love would be very threatening to their sense of autonomy.
Perfect Love, as touted about by Christianity, isn't like what these people can imagine. God's love is absolute, and altogether different from our feeble human version. By very definition, it is precisely unthreatening to their sense of autonomy, because it's Perfect.
Nah, I don't buy it. If heaven is being in God's Perfect Love, there isn't anyone who would sanely and freely choose against it- by absolute definition.
We all fall short of being able to accept it, which is why the doctrine of purgatory is so insightful.
I didn't say that anyone would 'refuse' it - just that it would take some people longer than others to grow spiritually enough to be able to receive it without pain.
quote:True, it's not the most Jesus-like of comments on his part.. though I guess he could get quite grumpy about his enemies at times, like when he or the apostles visited towns that weren't impressed by their teachings, as in this bit: "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shall be brought down to hell; for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained unto this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee."
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I'm not a church father, nor am I an intentional follower of church fathers, I'm a follower of Jesus who took the forgiveness approach instead of the "she deserves to suffer for what she did to me" approach. [/QB]
quote:But most of those people don't choose it, they just don't feel like they have good reason enough to hope for something else, so think they have to put up with the likelihood of it; I am sure they would be happy to choose an alternative if they thought there was one
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Bearing in mind that many people, believing only in annihilation, choose annihilation over life,
quote:
Originally posted by Nooj:
quote:Might as well as put my Classical education to good use - extractus ex ano.
extractus ex anum
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
thank you for the clarificaiton; I wasn't sure
quote:You could go in all kinds of directions with that kind of imagery.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
quote:Well, true, but that's the lake of fire isn't it? Though I guess some people take the view that that refers to destruction not ongoing suffering. [/QB]
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:In Revelation there is talk of a "second death."
quote:Indeed, and Aquinas wasn't making that up out of nowhere - that's exactly what we see in Revelation 19:1-5, where God's people rejoices in the justice of his judgements. We will celebrate God's goodness and justice in putting the universe to rights and in finally liberating it from all evil.
Originally posted by Nooj:
]Mr Aquinas said that the blessed in Heaven rejoice at the suffering of the damned in Hell because it's the result of God's justice, and God's justice is praise-worthy.
quote:I didn't mean that nihilists all want to kill themselves. I meant that even for people who don't believe in an afterlife, and who wish to commit suicide, choose annihilation to life. Otherwise they wouldn't kill themselves.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
quote:But most of those people don't choose it, they just don't feel like they have good reason enough to hope for something else, so think they have to put up with the likelihood of it; I am sure they would be happy to choose an alternative if they thought there was one
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Bearing in mind that many people, believing only in annihilation, choose annihilation over life,
quote:I'm very sorry for being too coy for you. When I referred to drugs and relational issues I was talking about the tip of the iceberg. If you want me to talk about the actual living hell that some people experience (involving daily physical and sexual abuse) I could do.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Yeah, you decide what living in hell is like, and define it as people getting trapped in self-harming cycles, for example, 'relational issues').
quote:I'm talking about people who understand better than I do the consequences of their actions. They understand fully, they just don't believe / want to believe that it will happen to them. They will be different.
Originally posted by PhilA:
I doubt anyone - ever - knowing the outcome, has made a decision to live in a way that would be described as hellish.
If you knew that doing X caused intense pain and no good would come from it, or doing Y would cause great pleasure and no harm would come from it, anyone with the mental capacity to make an informed choice, and no other mental or emotional problems would choose Y.
The only way someone would choose X is if they didn't understand the choice, have some form of mental health issue or didn't know the outcome. Why would God allow people in these categories to 'choose' an eternal option they didn't fully grasp? That isn't loving, that's sick.
quote:I find this viewpoint just bizarre, TR. Why should knowing that we do not deserve God's grace be required to make us think hell (as imagined in the terms you use) is a horrible concept. It makes no sense at all. Is not the alternative explanation, that eternal torment (or even temporary torment) cannot be justified, indeed, is just plain wrong, and to suggest that such an idea comes from the conscious decision of God is a foul blasphemy on His nature, and it would remain so even if only the likes of Pol Pot would be the ones to suffer it.
originally posted by The Revolutionist
I think the reason is very simple: we don't have a high enough understanding of the heights of God's honour, goodness and glory, and we don't have a deep enough understanding of the horror of sin.
We like to think that we find Hell horrible because we are nice, good people - we don't want our friends to suffer like that. And there's some truth in that; we are rightly moved to compassion, just as God had compassion on us and sent his son to offer forgiveness.
But what makes Hell particularly hard for us to accept it is how horrible we must be if we all deserve God's judgement, as the Bible teaches (see Paul's argument in Romans 1-3, for example). We find Hell horrible because we are rotten sinners, and we don't like to be faced with the reality of what we all deserve.
quote:I'm not sure what hell is like - I don't take Jesus' images literally, but I assume that it is not nice.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
have you an alternative to Augustine's vision of hell?
quote:I don't know where you get this 'middle-class' hell from. My point has been precisely the opposite. The place I frequently find this objection to hell is in 'nice' places where the intelligentsia sip chardonney and check their share options. As writers like Miroslav Volf point out - in really unjust parts of the world belief in hell is actually quite common.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It was certainly the one I was brought up not believing in, and it seems - if you'll pardon the expression - very popular. And my more general point, really, is that I get the impression that those who joyfully consign untold billions to hell haven't really thought about it very much, and what's more would probably yell and cry at what an unjust place the world is if they burnt their hand on a stove.
quote:Quite right. I believe God has predestined NOBODY to hell. Heck, he's even told us it wasn't made for people at all. Anyone who goes there does so against God's desire and against proper human nature.
Originally posted by Nooj:
quote:I gather you put no stock in those who believe that God has predestined some to Hell?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think hell is an inevitability in a universe where God has chosen to give creatures free will. Unless we're all extremely lucky (ha), some of them are bound to use that free will to refuse blessedness.
At that point God can do one of two things. He can arbitrarily snatch away their free will and FORCE them to accept blessing--in which case free will was only ever a sham anyway, and human choice and freedom has no dignity at all, being only a lie. Or God can call the refusers, woo them, beg them, even lay down his life for them--but ultimately admit he has to let them have their own way. Very painful and difficult.
quote:Yorick, here's where your logic falls down. First of all, God's perfect love cannot be "altogether different" from human love. It can be better--like a perfect circle compared to our feeble off-kilter attempts to draw a circle. But it can't be a square (that is, something totally different). If it were, it would no longer be love.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Well that's not Perfect Love then.
Originally posted by leo:
Love would be very threatening to their sense of autonomy.
Perfect Love, as touted about by Christianity, isn't like what these people can imagine. God's love is absolute, and altogether different from our feeble human version. By very definition, it is precisely unthreatening to their sense of autonomy, because it's Perfect.
Nah, I don't buy it. If heaven is being in God's Perfect Love, there isn't anyone who would sanely and freely choose against it- by absolute definition.
quote:Actually, that only works if the people doing the choosing are ALSO perfect. Or perfectly 'sane'.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Well that's not Perfect Love then.
Originally posted by leo:
Love would be very threatening to their sense of autonomy.
Perfect Love, as touted about by Christianity, isn't like what these people can imagine. God's love is absolute, and altogether different from our feeble human version. By very definition, it is precisely unthreatening to their sense of autonomy, because it's Perfect.
Nah, I don't buy it. If heaven is being in God's Perfect Love, there isn't anyone who would sanely and freely choose against it- by absolute definition.
quote:No, this fails to counter my point. A rational person (who disbelieves in heaven and hell) choosing annihilation in preference to life is NOT analogous to a rational person (who believes in heaven and hell) choosing hell in preference to heaven*.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:I didn't mean that nihilists all want to kill themselves. I meant that even for people who don't believe in an afterlife, and who wish to commit suicide, choose annihilation to life. Otherwise they wouldn't kill themselves.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
quote:But most of those people don't choose it, they just don't feel like they have good reason enough to hope for something else, so think they have to put up with the likelihood of it; I am sure they would be happy to choose an alternative if they thought there was one
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Bearing in mind that many people, believing only in annihilation, choose annihilation over life,
After all, there is always an alternative to choosing self-annihiliation, isn't there. There is not choosing it.
That the choice may be in reality better or worse than they imagine it, doesn't detract from the fact that they made that choice; and to cover Yorick's point, it doesn't necessarily follow that they were sectionable when they did make that decision. They may have been mistaken, genuinelly deluded or perfectly cognizant of what they were doing all along and willing to part with life on those terms. Unlikely, one hopes, but not impossible given the depth of human complexities.
This was to counter Yorick's assertion that anyone - obviously religious - preferring or choosing hell over heaven must be not sane. The decision may appear to be insane to a beholder, but that doesn't necessarily mean the person making the decision is insane.
quote:Yes, I'm assuming Perfect Love is by definition a comfortable thing, in which God may magically force us to have our teeth drilled without inflicting fear or discomfort. I assume that's the Special thing about Perfect Love as opposed to human love- it's perfect. I certainly don't see why God's Perfect Love should be limited anthropically like you suggest. Is there some theological reason for this unfortunate necessity?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
you are assuming that love is a comfortable thing.
quote:With children - absolutely - and even then, there are far preferable ways to bring about reform.
Originally posted by catthefat:
Lamb Chopped, punishing a spouse or child, in order to correct the error of their ways, is hardly in the same category as eternally torturing someone for a short life time of sin.
The only possible acceptable reason for punishment is to bring about reform. Otherwise it's truly a very nasty thing. It's just revenge.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Sometimes I swear all the atheists on the internet are the same person.
quote:But hold on a minute. Although I certainly don’t retract my apology, I see this isn’t entirely fair of you, on re-reading it.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I think it actually sustains a position on your side, of scorn for your fellow debaters and therefore a crucial lack of respect for what they might be sharing with you.
quote:I was very careful to describe the latter person as rational.
Originally posted by Yorick:
A rational person (who disbelieves in heaven and hell) choosing annihilation in preference to life is NOT analogous to a rational person (who believes in heaven and hell) choosing hell in preference to heaven.
quote:Sweet hypocrisy. I'm sure you're quick to complain when atheists unfairly generalise about all Christians being the same. But whatever.
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Sometimes I swear all the atheists on the internet are the same person.
quote:Oops, I seem to have handed you the wrong end of the stick. Hell is not the dentist's chair (though any number of people would swap that sentence around!). Hell is not productive or useful in any way, and a proper dentist is.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Then how can you love God with your whole heart and mind if you believe he is prepared to put you in the Marathon Man's dental chair for eternity?
quote:Again, the dentist chair was not intended to be analogous to hell (see post above). If you force me to expand the analogy, I'd say the dentist chair is similar to what God occasionally puts us through in this life as followers of his--an unpleasant situation, but necessary to our good.
Originally posted by catthefat:
Lamb Chopped, punishing a spouse or child, in order to correct the error of their ways, is hardly in the same category as eternally torturing someone for a short life time of sin.
The only possible acceptable reason for punishment is to bring about reform. Otherwise it's truly a very nasty thing. It's just revenge.
quote:So, pain is necessary, but in no way a punishment?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'd say the dentist chair is similar to what God occasionally puts us through in this life as followers of his--an unpleasant situation, but necessary to our good.
quote:Sorry to push the point, but this doesn’t seem right.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Rejecting God's love and running away from him (and the dentist!) is possible and even attractive, given the thought of those drills. But that path leads to major periodontal disease with all its correlatives (heart disease, blood infection and possibly even death). In this analogy, that would be the true parallel to hell. Something horrible and useless to be avoided at all costs.
Are there people who would do this? Of course.
quote:Some pain is necessary. It depends on what shape your teeth are in, and what particular treatment you need to undergo. Some people get lucky.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:So, pain is necessary, but in no way a punishment?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'd say the dentist chair is similar to what God occasionally puts us through in this life as followers of his--an unpleasant situation, but necessary to our good.
What about hell - is that necessary?
quote:Both. Nobody chooses hell as the result of a rational decision. (Nobody chooses stinky, rotting teeth and the risk of heart disease rationally either.)
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Sorry to push the point, but this doesn’t seem right.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Rejecting God's love and running away from him (and the dentist!) is possible and even attractive, given the thought of those drills. But that path leads to major periodontal disease with all its correlatives (heart disease, blood infection and possibly even death). In this analogy, that would be the true parallel to hell. Something horrible and useless to be avoided at all costs.
Are there people who would do this? Of course.
Think of a person you know who has deliberately rejected God’s love (I assume you must know these people). Now, try to get into their head. Do you suppose they’re entirely rational in their rejection of God? Do you think they’ve weighed up the pros and cons of his tough love and decided it’s actually better to face hell?
Either they’re NOT being rational about it, or they’re not assessing the pros and cons correctly. Right?
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:That seems at odds with this:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Nobody chooses hell as the result of a rational decision. ...I doubt anybody chooses hell after weighing up all the pros and cons in a rational, unpressured situation.
quote:And what leo and Belle Ringer and others have said upthread.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:Depends whether you think the person talking to you is lying or not. I've certainly had plenty of conversations with men and women who would for their own reasons, quite seriously apparently, choose the Biblical notion of hell over heaven.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Worse, though, is this stupid idea that anyone would actually choose by their god-cherished Free Will to go to hell.
quote:Who says that the purpose of hell is reform?
Originally posted by catthefat:
Lamb Chopped, punishing a spouse or child, in order to correct the error of their ways, is hardly in the same category as eternally torturing someone for a short life time of sin.
The only possible acceptable reason for punishment is to bring about reform. Otherwise it's truly a very nasty thing. It's just revenge.
quote:You've misunderstood this part, I think. Hell isn't like toothache, it's like having your teeth rot and fall out, while the heart disease that resulted from the blood infection caused by your periodontal disease slowly kills you.
Originally posted by Yorick:
LC: Hell is like toothache, and God is like a dentist. He has to hurt you to cure you- that’s Perfect Love. People who reject it are scared of dentists and prefer to have toothache for eternity. Nobody in their right mind would choose to go to hell.
quote:WTF?! [Aside]: Yup. Embarrassing.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Hell may be what happens when you decide you're not reformable.
quote:This. I get the impression from Yorick's comments that (s)he views the choice between heaven and hell as a "press button A and be transported to paradise, press button B and a trapdoor opens to deposit you in a lake of burning sulphur." Only an insane person would chose button B, but in real life choices never come at us that starkly. If they did, who would chose to smoke or gamble? (note that I carefully chose vices I'm not prone to
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
No, it's not rational. But then, no human being in the history of existence has been purely rational either.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
)quote:That's exactly what I am pointing out. The only possible just and morally acceptable purpose of punishment is to bring about reform, and even then it's dodgy.
Who says that the purpose of hell is reform?
I'm not into eternal damnation, but I don't get the impression that the purpose of hell is "reform." That's for purgatory. Hell may be what happens when you decide you're not reformable.
quote:Thanks LC. If Hell is for demons and Satan, do you think it's just that they too are tormented for all eternity?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Quite right. I believe God has predestined NOBODY to hell. Heck, he's even told us it wasn't made for people at all. Anyone who goes there does so against God's desire and against proper human nature.
quote:Quite. Yorick's position is equivalent to saying "no rational person would ever freely choose to die of lung cancer", yet plenty of perfectly rational people do indeed freely choose that, by virtue of choosing to smoke. And I've been one of them for far too long...
Originally posted by sanityman:
I get the impression from Yorick's comments that (s)he views the choice between heaven and hell as a "press button A and be transported to paradise, press button B and a trapdoor opens to deposit you in a lake of burning sulphur." Only an insane person would chose button B, but in real life choices never come at us that starkly. If they did, who would chose to smoke or gamble?
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:Whatever makes you think that? of course I love the Lord, but I also fear him.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
So you follow Jesus because you fear him, not because you love him, barrea?
quote:"Whatever makes you think that?"
Originally posted by barrea:
quote:Whatever makes you think that? of course I love the Lord, but I also fear him.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
So you follow Jesus because you fear him, not because you love him, barrea?
A child may love their earthly father to bits, but they may aso fear him if they knew that they were deliberately doing wrong and that he may find out about it.
Dosn't the book of Proverbs tell us that 'The fear of the lord is the begining of Wisdom'?
quote:You do not appear to believe in Hell, so why do you think that Jesus came to earth and went through all that pain and suffering if it was not to save us from it?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:"Whatever makes you think that?"
Originally posted by barrea:
quote:Whatever makes you think that? of course I love the Lord, but I also fear him.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
So you follow Jesus because you fear him, not because you love him, barrea?
A child may love their earthly father to bits, but they may aso fear him if they knew that they were deliberately doing wrong and that he may find out about it.
Dosn't the book of Proverbs tell us that 'The fear of the lord is the begining of Wisdom'?
The way you described your conversion. There was no mention of your love for God in your entire post.
To me it's one thing to love a father who might ground you, take away privileges, or even spank you for misdeeds so you might improve over time. It's another to love someone whose default position is to hand you over to eternal torture. "Love me or burn, sucker, burn!" Experiencing Hell eternally will cause no improvement; it's literally a dead end.
quote:To save us from fear that God doesn't love us. To demonstrate to us a better way to live. To save us from who we have descended to being so we can become fully the people God made us to be. To show us the reality of resurrection. To show us who God really is. To free us from legalism and turn our attention to love.
Originally posted by barrea:
You do not appear to believe in Hell, so why do you think that Jesus came to earth and went through all that pain and suffering if it was not to save us from it?
quote:But if someone is irredeemable why are they just not anihilated as opposed to being left to suffer for ever? Or is the soul indestructible in your view, even for God?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Is hell necessary? I would say no. Nothing would please God more than to have it totally empty. But then there's that darn free will thing again.... [/QB]
quote:How about to save us fro our bondage to sin and death which would make it impossible for us to experience eternal life, to destroy death, to undo the work of the evil one, to enable the renewal of the whole creation? All those things are actualised by the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Originally posted by barrea:
quote:You do not appear to believe in Hell, so why do you think that Jesus came to earth and went through all that pain and suffering if it was not to save us from it?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:"Whatever makes you think that?"
Originally posted by barrea:
quote:Whatever makes you think that? of course I love the Lord, but I also fear him.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
So you follow Jesus because you fear him, not because you love him, barrea?
A child may love their earthly father to bits, but they may aso fear him if they knew that they were deliberately doing wrong and that he may find out about it.
Dosn't the book of Proverbs tell us that 'The fear of the lord is the begining of Wisdom'?
The way you described your conversion. There was no mention of your love for God in your entire post.
To me it's one thing to love a father who might ground you, take away privileges, or even spank you for misdeeds so you might improve over time. It's another to love someone whose default position is to hand you over to eternal torture. "Love me or burn, sucker, burn!" Experiencing Hell eternally will cause no improvement; it's literally a dead end.
quote:I agree, I don't see why life is like a test and everything is decided definitively after it ends, one way or another. If people can learn/change/repent/improve etc during life then why not after death and why would God abandon them? This sort of stark fate based on one life is what makes some people adopt ideas like reincarnation instead, or, for example, new age or Spiritualist-type ideas of different levels of spirit worlds where one can continue to learn and progress.
Originally posted by sanityman:
the thing that bothers me (and possibly most other people) about hell is not that it exists, but that God has eternally given up on those in it.
- Chris.
quote:I'm not sure how that logically follows on from what you said before in this post - sounds like if the incentive was basically an easy way to get rid of an enemy and/or steal someone's property then that would still be there for the unscrupulous whether the hellfire doctrines were there or not?
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
But I wonder if the teaching that hell is eternal torturing fire caused the inquisition and the witchcraft persecutions. If the church back then had emphasized God's love and forgiveness instead of emphasizing God's anger, would there have been no violent inquisition and no witchcraft persecutions? Did the image of hell as eternal torment badly damage the historical church? [/QB]
quote:You did indeed make the point of the latter person as rational, and I didn't take that into account into my reply. I had noticed it, too, but forgot it, so I wasn't fair, and very careless, in accusing you of labelling people of faith as irrational. So I'm sorry about that.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:But hold on a minute. Although I certainly don’t retract my apology, I see this isn’t entirely fair of you, on re-reading it.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I think it actually sustains a position on your side, of scorn for your fellow debaters and therefore a crucial lack of respect for what they might be sharing with you.
I did say:
quote:I was very careful to describe the latter person as rational.
Originally posted by Yorick:
A rational person (who disbelieves in heaven and hell) choosing annihilation in preference to life is NOT analogous to a rational person (who believes in heaven and hell) choosing hell in preference to heaven.
Although I do take your general point about my scornful manner, I wonder if you’ll forgive it enough to answer that critical point, which I hope you’ll agree I made fairly. It would be a shame if you felt my bad manners excused you from answering it equally fairly.
quote:I wasn't saying this statement was true; merely funny. And of course an atheist could have made it about Christians just as easily...
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Sweet hypocrisy. I'm sure you're quick to complain when atheists unfairly generalise about all Christians being the same. But whatever.
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Sometimes I swear all the atheists on the internet are the same person.
quote:I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on hell and universalism (I'm for the latter!) and while Wright's position (which is broadly the same as CS Lewis's) is, in some ways, the most reasonable view of hell (as opposed to eternal torment or annihilation) the reality is that it is pretty hard to reconcile with the same passages of scripture that defenders of hell/opponents of universalism also quote as evidence that universalism can't be true. I'm thinking of the Rich Man and Lazarus and the sheep and the goats in particular.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
NT Wright[...] says that it just means in the final scheme of things there will be some people who, because of their rejection of God end up less than fully human in some way
quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Now to any hell apologists still here: the thing that bothers me (and possibly most other people) about hell is not that it exists, but that God has eternally given up on those in it. I posed what I still think is a good question here, and no-one has answered it yet.
quote:I find it hard to understand how the idea persists that God would give up on anyone. The only thing that makes any sense to me at all is that God literally does everything possible for every individual (from all times in history) and that he continues doing so for eternity. It also makes sense to me only if he can do it with infinitely more love, wisdom, ingenuity, and patience than any of us can possibly imagine.
Are the beings in Hell capable of ceasing to sin? If so, we have a semi-universalist "open prison" model of hell, where they can chose to leave and accept God's love. If not - how can this then still be considered either morally blameworthy or an exercise of free will? Like a drug addict, what may have started as free will becomes dependency - a medical condition. Can the Good Physician not heal those he claims to love?
quote:Oh really? Then why the
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
quote:I wasn't saying this statement was true; merely funny.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Sweet hypocrisy. I'm sure you're quick to complain when atheists unfairly generalise about all Christians being the same. But whatever.
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Sometimes I swear all the atheists on the internet are the same person.
smilie (as opposed to, say, the ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
one)? It can give the wrong message when you use inappropriate smilies.
quote:Amen
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I find it hard to understand how the idea persists that God would give up on anyone. The only thing that makes any sense to me at all is that God literally does everything possible for every individual (from all times in history) and that he continues doing so for eternity. It also makes sense to me only if he can do it with infinitely more love, wisdom, ingenuity, and patience than any of us can possibly imagine.
quote:Because I don't feel 'given up on' by God. I have tried (hard) to become atheist - and failed. In the deepest, darkest places I find God is still there.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Why? Because you so desperately want it to be true, or because you're persuaded of its truth by rational scrutiny?
I don't believe you. Why should you find it so 'hard to understand how the idea persists that God would give up on anyone'? People feel given up on by God every single day, whenever shit happens, as it invariably does. Why would you the only thing that 'makes any sense to you at all' be that 'God literally does everything possible for every individual (from all times in history) and that he continues doing so for eternity', when it is such a massively common experience that He does totally fuck all to intervene in our miserable existences?
quote:Neither are necessary.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:So, pain is necessary, but in no way a punishment?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I'd say the dentist chair is similar to what God occasionally puts us through in this life as followers of his--an unpleasant situation, but necessary to our good.
What about hell - is that necessary?
quote:You are quite right in your assessment, except of course on the final conclusion. Both Lewis/Wright and the universalist conceptions are excluded by the plain sense of scripture. And, as Yorick has successfully argued, also by the application of elementary logic to a situation where one is faced with a choice between eternal torment and eternal bliss.
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
Well, istm that if those passages ARE about hell, they rule out Lewis and Wright's chosen hell just as much as they do mine and Jurgen Moltnmann's universalist vision (although of course I don't think they do rule it out. But my point is that our theology is no less 'biblical' than theirs).
quote:But you're only faced with those problems if you assume humans are immortal beings to start with. In fact, God "annihilates" all kinds of things, unless we assume every plant and animal ever created is going to be resurrected in the earth made new. Things that are mortal die in their natural time. If you believe that God alone has immortality, and that the gift of God is eternal life to those he wishes to live forever, it makes perfect sense that those mortal beings who don't receive that gift would die in their time.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
As for the annihilationist thing--
I'm going to go out on a purely speculative limb here and suggest that perhaps God CAN'T annihilate anyone. That may not be one of the options on the table.
Yes, I know he's omnipotent and all that, but even an omnipotent God still can't do two things:
1. anything that is a logical contradiction, that is, nonsense; and
2. anything that is contrary to his own nature ("If we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself").
I suspect the problem with annihilating people has to do with 2, though on some level there may be 1 mixed in with it. God is creator; we have no examples of him as annihilator. Even things that are "destroyed" (such as a log that is burned in the fireplace) still exist in a transformed state (heat, light, gas and ashes).
Hell may be the best that God can do for people who refuse any help, forever. A kind of holding tank.
quote:Fire is often a symbol of the presence of the holy spirit. The fires of hell could be an image of God never giving up.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Amen
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I find it hard to understand how the idea persists that God would give up on anyone. The only thing that makes any sense to me at all is that God literally does everything possible for every individual (from all times in history) and that he continues doing so for eternity. It also makes sense to me only if he can do it with infinitely more love, wisdom, ingenuity, and patience than any of us can possibly imagine.
This says it all for me.
quote:God doesn't give up on people, in my experience. People give up on God.
Originally posted by Yorick:
But none of that answer why you should find it so 'hard to understand how the idea persists that God would give up on anyone'? Why should the only thing that 'makes any sense to you at all' be that 'God literally does everything possible for every individual (from all times in history) and that he continues doing so for eternity', when it's such a massively common experience that He does totally fuck all to intervene in our miserable existences?
quote:You make a good point that makes me realize that I should have explicitly qualified what I posted to make it clear that the scope was limited to concepts about hell. I should have written something like:
Originally posted by Yorick:
But none of that answer why you should find it so 'hard to understand how the idea persists that God would give up on anyone'? Why should the only thing that 'makes any sense to you at all' be that 'God literally does everything possible for every individual (from all times in history) and that he continues doing so for eternity', when it's such a massively common experience that He does totally fuck all to intervene in our miserable existences?
quote:I have no problem understanding why people extrapolate from their personal experience and conclude that God does give up on people. What I don't understand is how someone who believes in God and in hell, with no direct personal experience of either and with only a few vague Bible passages to go on, believes that God would condemn anyone to an eternity of punishment (let alone agonizing punishment) for what they did in this life. Or especially that he would do so for what they failed to think or believe in this life.
I find it hard to understand how the idea persists that God would give up on anyone for eternity in hell. The only thing that makes any sense to me at all as a concept of hell is that God literally does everything possible for every individual ....
quote:I don't think the kind of scenario you described preserves the identity and continuity of a living being. We don't get to continue as a person after we die when some of our molecules get to be part of another person.
by Lamb Chopped:
No, no. What I meant was that he can change / alter / destroy a thing (we can too) but that doesn't make it gone. It merely transforms it. And that goes for blades of grass as well. In my yard those usually get transformed into compost, which eventually winds up as a combo of new plants and basic soil (probably some water vapor too).
quote:The hypothesis on which that premise is based is rather debatable. I would rather believe a God who can and chooses to annihilate both spiritual and physical entities if justice demands than believe in a God who refuses to annihilate wicked spiritual entities because his nature make it contradictory to destroy them.
by Lamb Chopped:
But if God creates a creature which DOES have a spiritual component, that too can be altered, but not annihilated (on my hypothesis, that is). And not always for the better.
quote:This the kind of hell which fuels Yoric's prejudice of Christianity. A hell with a purpose among others, of just making sinners have a hell of an eternal time without the possibility of anything other than gnashing of teeth ever happening.
by Lamb Chopped:
But simple immortality is a far cry from eternal life. Perhaps hell could be defined as immortality (everlastingness) WITHOUT all the things that would make that worthwhile (=eternal life). Which have been firmly and forever refused by the hellbound idiot.
quote:And by accident I bumped into near death experience reports on Youtube by Ian McCormick, who says he saw both hell and heaven. Not a nice hell!
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Who'da thunk it?!
Almost by accident the other night, I came across a sound recording on Youtube of the 'Real Sound of Hell' sent into a radio station by someone who said this was the genuine sound of Hell (recorded somewhere deep in Russia!) by his father.
quote:Where does he do this?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It also encourages liberalism and rationalism. Jesus Himself PROMSIED the most depraved unevangelized a more bearable judgement.
quote:OK.. if I have the energy to read a whole thesis on this I'll check it out... (though I take it there are shorter things on there too).
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
quote:I wrote my undergraduate dissertation on hell and universalism (I'm for the latter!) and while Wright's position (which is broadly the same as CS Lewis's) is, in some ways, the most reasonable view of hell (as opposed to eternal torment or annihilation) the reality is that it is pretty hard to reconcile with the same passages of scripture that defenders of hell/opponents of universalism also quote as evidence that universalism can't be true. I'm thinking of the Rich Man and Lazarus and the sheep and the goats in particular.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
NT Wright[...] says that it just means in the final scheme of things there will be some people who, because of their rejection of God end up less than fully human in some way
Now to be fair to NTW (of whom I'm a big fan) he has acknowledged elsewhere that passages such as those are warnings to Israel about the Romans not to 'us' about God. However, I have come across people whose case against universalism involves quoting those passages (as if they are about hell) one minute and claiming that 'God doesn't send people to hell, they send themselves' or even 'hell is only hell from the perspectibve of the redeemed not the damned' (another Lewisian idea) the next.
Well, istm that if those passages ARE about hell, they rule out Lewis and Wright's chosen hell just as much as they do mine and Jurgen Moltnmann's universalist vision (although of course I don't think they do rule it out. But my point is that our theology is no less 'biblical' than theirs). If otoh they are not about hell, when then two of the main sciptural pillars that are supposed to support the doctrine of hell are removed leaving a couple of obscure statements in parables and the book of revelation to make the case...
FWIW, my dissertation can be found on the website of the Christian Universalist Assocation and people may find the site interesting in general...
quote:I've never heard anyone try to put such a positive spin on it..! Not that it's impossible that this is what is meant, but still... it certainly contradicts the "hell is the absence of God" school of thought
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Fire is often a symbol of the presence of the holy spirit. The fires of hell could be an image of God never giving up.
quote:er, that was supposed to say "before", not "being", sorry. Also before anyone was expecting such a thing, so it should be describing the kind of thing at least some of his listeners would think is what usually happens to you after you die.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
told during Jesus's life, therefore being any atoning sacrifice etc, [/QB]
quote:is that old one still going round?
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Who'da thunk it?!
Almost by accident the other night, I came across a sound recording on Youtube of the 'Real Sound of Hell' sent into a radio station by someone who said this was the genuine sound of Hell (recorded somewhere deep in Russia!) by his father.
quote:You mean it wasn't genuine!
Originally posted by sanityman:
quote:is that old one still going round?
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Who'da thunk it?!
Almost by accident the other night, I came across a sound recording on Youtube of the 'Real Sound of Hell' sent into a radio station by someone who said this was the genuine sound of Hell (recorded somewhere deep in Russia!) by his father.
- Chris.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I'm shocked. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:That's a strange response. It is not at all the case that you have no information about hell. At whatever level you take the descriptions given by scripture (including Jesus' own words), the Church fathers and the traditions of the Church - from literalistic to metaphorical - it is abundantly clear that whatever hell may precisely be, it will be exceedingly unpleasant and last forever with no accommodation. That should be enough information to avoid hell at all costs. And certainly if you could observe such a hell right now, or perhaps have a trial experience of it, your life priorities would be updated instantaneously.
Originally posted by sanityman:
However, the way you put it makes it easy to accuse God of effectively tricking people into making an uninformed decision and then sticking them with the consequences for all eternity. If I'm given a picture of two brown substances to chose for dessert, I don't feel my choice is freer because there's no description, and I wouldn't feel coerced by the restaurant for giving me better information and allowing me to chose chocolate ice cream rather than a dog turd.
quote:"Not compelling" can be taken one of two ways - imagine if an fellow academic remarked that a new paper was "not compelling." That was my point: incomplete, non-compelling information makes it difficult to make a good decision. Not because my free will is corrupted, but because I am put in the position of being able to discount the "facts" as non-credible.
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is not at all the case that you have no information about hell... And you are free to either believe it or not, because the information is not compelling.
quote:More to the point, are you saying that it's to your (eternal) credit if you do? Again, this sounds like a legalism that demands that unbelievers be damned for failing to behave in the correct way, and makes a mockery of salvation by grace. Conditional grace is no grace at all.
If you do not believe what God is telling you and ignore His offer of forgiveness, is that His fault?
quote:Yes, and I made a counter-point, which you continue to ignore - that compelling information suppresses choice. Actually in this case it's more coercive information, which makes all but one course of action utterly insane. If you want to give someone such information, but not at the same time force them to act in accordance with that information, the only way is to make that information doubtable: non-compelling. God values you making the right choice much more than you making the right deductions. In fact, God appears genuinely disinterested in your deductions. He's just about as impressed with your cognitive processing abilities as He is with your bodily strength - not at all.
Originally posted by sanityman:
That was my point: incomplete, non-compelling information makes it difficult to make a good decision.
quote:Of course it is your actions and inactions which determine whether you will be saved. What do you think God will judge you by? Is he going to throw a coin, or what? This question is quite apart from whether one can earn salvation by ones actions or inactions, whether one can gain by work a just title that would compel God. The answer to that is that nothing you can do would earn you such a title.
Originally posted by sanityman:
The apologist for hell then has two choices. Either say that it was their action in refusing to believe that damned them - in which cased salvation is up to us doing something, which is indistinguishable from salvation by works - or fall back onto double-predestination, and become a Calvinist.
quote:Where did you get all that nonsense? I don't have the time to make all the careful distinctions that need to be made here. Read The Council of Trent on Justification if you are interested.
Originally posted by sanityman:
More to the point, are you saying that it's to your (eternal) credit if you do? Again, this sounds like a legalism that demands that unbelievers be damned for failing to behave in the correct way, and makes a mockery of salvation by grace. Conditional grace is no grace at all.
quote:Because I believe he loves us and wants us to walk with him for the love and joy of it- forever. He came to earth to live and die as one of us in order to rise as one of us, too, and join his nature to ours.
Originally posted by barrea:
quote:You do not appear to believe in Hell, so why do you think that Jesus came to earth and went through all that pain and suffering if it was not to save us from it?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:"Whatever makes you think that?"
Originally posted by barrea:
quote:Whatever makes you think that? of course I love the Lord, but I also fear him.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
So you follow Jesus because you fear him, not because you love him, barrea?
A child may love their earthly father to bits, but they may aso fear him if they knew that they were deliberately doing wrong and that he may find out about it.
Dosn't the book of Proverbs tell us that 'The fear of the lord is the begining of Wisdom'?
The way you described your conversion. There was no mention of your love for God in your entire post.
To me it's one thing to love a father who might ground you, take away privileges, or even spank you for misdeeds so you might improve over time. It's another to love someone whose default position is to hand you over to eternal torture. "Love me or burn, sucker, burn!" Experiencing Hell eternally will cause no improvement; it's literally a dead end.
quote:Hmm. That’s interesting. I’ve always understood it was about intention. I thought any old Hitler could do hell-deserving actions all his life, only to avail himself of salvation on his deathbed by asking forgiveness and having good intent in repentance. And plenty of people do heavenly things in their lives, but without the Jesus key this fails to unlock the gates of heaven, I’d thought. Doesn’t final judgement depend on our hearts, not our acts?
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course it is your actions and inactions which determine whether you will be saved. What do you think God will judge you by? Is he going to throw a coin, or what?
quote:
Bullfrog:quote:Yes, and God looks completely different depending upon which view you take.
So, blending IngoB with catthefat, it goes back to whether you think the purpose of punishment is to bring about reform or to coerce others into not pursuing evil. If punishment is only justified if it brings about reform (i.e. penance,) then hell is a travesty. If punishment is meant for some other purpose (retribution for the victims as in Revelation, or coercive violence as in Matthew 25,) then hell starts looking different.
Coercing anyone by using fear is a bad idea, fear is a very poor motivator in the long run.
Retribution for victims is the justice of "an eye for and eye." It restores nothing and ultimately does nothing for those hurt.
Forgiveness is a much higher value.
Besides which, why should I be expected to love my enemies, and forgive seventy times seven, if God apparently doesn't?
quote:The problem is, it's not God telling me. It's other people.
Originally posted by IngoB:
God gave you fair warning that you will be judged at the end of your life, and things could go horribly wrong with you. And He gives you ample chances to escape this fate. What is there to complain about then? If you do not believe what God is telling you and ignore His offer of forgiveness, is that His fault?
quote:Precisely.
The problem is, it's not God telling me. It's other people.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
) I would say that the judgement will be seen and acknowledged to be perfectly just, so that all consideration of "what about people who were only told about Jesus by someone who then raped their daughter" is totally irrelevant and stupid. You then have to add a belief that non-existence is not a choice, and bingo . . sort of.quote:Actually, the same is true for every moment of your here-and-now life. The molecules that form your hands, for example, are constantly being changed out for new ones as the body goes about its normal business of growth and repair. Your jawbone, for example, may now contain not a single molecule that was there when you were three. New ones have been brought in to replace the ones before. And the old ones--well, after you excrete them, why shouldn't they end up as part of another living creature?
Originally posted by sanc:
I don't think the kind of scenario you described preserves the identity and continuity of a living being. We don't get to continue as a person after we die when some of our molecules get to be part of another person.
quote:Well, frankly, so would I. But we don't get to choose which reality we want. Belief has to fit the facts, whatever they may be, or it is useless.
Originally posted by sanc:
I would rather believe a God who can and chooses to annihilate both spiritual and physical entities if justice demands than believe in a God who refuses to annihilate wicked spiritual entities because his nature make it contradictory to destroy them.
quote:No, this is not the purpose of hell. If hell has a purpose, it is as a containment field, keeping a very dangerous infection (evil) safely away from the rest of creation. But I'm not convinced that it's correct to say hell has a purpose. As well say that famine has a purpose, or the negative shape left behind when I cut shapes out of colored paper. Hell is privation--it's what you get when all the blessed things (love, joy, forgiveness, the felt and enjoyed presence of God) are rejected and thrown away. It's a negative.
Originally posted by sanc:
This the kind of hell which fuels Yoric's prejudice of Christianity. A hell with a purpose among others, of just making sinners have a hell of an eternal time without the possibility of anything other than gnashing of teeth ever happening.
quote:What if immortality is not inherent to the human nature? That way, God would be choosing to resurrect the good and leave dead the evil without ever contradicting His nature.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And I think you've got hold of the wrong end of the stick by saying God "refuses" to annihilate evil beings because of his nature. Say rather God CANNOT annihilate. No being, including God, can act in a way which is really and truly contradictory to its true nature. Fire cannot freeze without ceasing to be fire.
quote:Sounds very similar to the SoF version of Hell!
If hell has a purpose, it is as a containment field, keeping a very dangerous infection (evil) safely away from the rest of creation.
quote:In that case he has failed if anyone is in hell.
Jesus' words about weeping and gnashing of teeth in no way imply that he WANTS that to happen, or is taking steps to make it happen. They are purely descriptive of what DOES (could? might?) happen, and what he suffered and died to prevent.
quote:If he could not fail, then why did he spend so much time warning people of the consequences of failure? Why didn't he just say "oh, it'll be ok"* and leave it at that?
Originally posted by catthefat:
quote:In that case he has failed if anyone is in hell.
Jesus' words about weeping and gnashing of teeth in no way imply that he WANTS that to happen, or is taking steps to make it happen. They are purely descriptive of what DOES (could? might?) happen, and what he suffered and died to prevent.
quote:If that's to me (or because I feel inclined to answer) I don't think a person could eternally thwart God anymore than they could stop the process of evolution.
Originally posted by sanityman:
As for salvation by works: I was forgetting that I was not arguing with my sola fide evangelical brethren, and that the RCC has a different take on this. My apologies. I also take Bullfrog's point that grace was never meant to mean "anything goes." I think we both agree that salvation is unmerited or "unearned." I also accept that the last judgement will be on the basis of works, as illustrated in 1 Corinthians 3:12-14 - however, I notice that that passage separates judgement and salvation, at least for believers. For someone who believes in salvation by grace through faith alone, having salvation contingent on an action (and belief is an act - what else is it?), is a real problem - but I accept that it's not your problem. Just to clarify: do you think that we can eternally thwart God's grace and purposes by our temporal actions?- Chris.
quote:Chris, possibly my thinking has changed since I wrote that (5 years ago). I am still a universalist but at that time I guess I still thought in terms of the spirit going straight to heaven/judgement after death and since then I've been influenced by Tom Wright's theology of a renewed earth etc...
Originally posted by sanityman:
My one question was: you seem to implicitly accept a very conventional view of hell, judgement and salvation whilst arguing for an unconventional application. Is the gospel all about what happens to us individually when we die?
quote:Looks like it is sin 101 time again... In order to commit a mortal sin (one that will send you to hell if you die before repenting), three things are required: grave matter, full knowledge, deliberate consent. "Grave matter" means that the sinning has to be serious. "Deliberate consent" means that you sin out of your own free will having thought this through sufficiently. "Full knowledge" means that you in fact understand that what you are doing is a sin. It is unclear to me whether Hitler was even capable of committing a mortal sin: he might have just been too batshit insane for "deliberate consent" and "full knowledge". But if so, then certainly he could have turned it all around with a sincere repentance on his deathbed. (To be more precise: since Hitler did not seek out the sacrament of confession, he would have required perfect contrition, i.e., contrition because of having wronged God not out of fear for himself.) However, it is very difficult indeed to sincerely repent after years of unabashed, grave sinning. And of course, Hitler actually committed suicide with a gun. So if that act was deliberate and knowing, it would be on its own enough for hell. So I think it is pretty clear in Hitler's case that insanity is the only serious chance he has for attaining heaven.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Hmm. That’s interesting. I’ve always understood it was about intention. I thought any old Hitler could do hell-deserving actions all his life, only to avail himself of salvation on his deathbed by asking forgiveness and having good intent in repentance. And plenty of people do heavenly things in their lives, but without the Jesus key this fails to unlock the gates of heaven, I’d thought. Doesn’t final judgement depend on our hearts, not our acts?
quote:If someone holds a knife to your fingers and says that he will cut them off unless you give him all your money, then I consider you not to be free when you hand over your wallet.
Originally posted by sanityman:
My point was that most people are "coerced" like this every day not to jump under busses or cut their fingers off with a kitchen knife.
quote:That's not a problem, that's necessary. Otherwise, how could you doubt? That's my point here after all, that you need to be able to doubt hell. (And you can ask Jeremiah about the problem of getting God's word from God directly.)
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The problem is, it's not God telling me. It's other people.
quote:Just like Marvin, you apparently have paid no attention to my actual argument. Anyhow, yes, you can toss a coin - as long as you can believe in the result. Problem is, you (likely) can't.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Yeah. Other people are telling me to declare that I believe in Allah and that Mohammad is his prophet. And if I don't, I'll be Hell bound. How am I to determine who has it right, or should I just toss a coin?
quote:That's very true. I'm working backward from the statements in Scripture (which are not annihilationist, alas) and speculating on causes. Since I expect God is far more merciful than I am, I figure he WOULD annihilate the evil--if it were logically possible for him. Therefore I conclude that it is not. Human immortality is a corollary of that conclusion.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What if immortality is not inherent to the human nature? That way, God would be choosing to resurrect the good and leave dead the evil without ever contradicting His nature.
quote:
If hell has a purpose, it is as a containment field, keeping a very dangerous infection (evil) safely away from the rest of creation.
quote:Exactly! And exists for much the same reasons...
Sounds very similar to the SoF version of Hell!
quote:Yes, of course.
Originally posted by catthefat:
quote:In that case he has failed if anyone is in hell.
Jesus' words about weeping and gnashing of teeth in no way imply that he WANTS that to happen, or is taking steps to make it happen. They are purely descriptive of what DOES (could? might?) happen, and what he suffered and died to prevent.
quote:I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but it looks like you've turned God into a godlet / demiurge in order to avoid giving Him responsibility for hell. Of course God can annihilate the evil - or rather, stop keeping them in existence. Of course human immortality is not a given without God. Like all things created, we disappear at the very instant when God stops existing us. You can perhaps argue that God would be changing our nature if He were not to guarantee our immortality, and that he values our nature being as it is higher than the eternal suffering of some of us. I'm not sure if you can spin that one to your satisfaction.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Since I expect God is far more merciful than I am, I figure he WOULD annihilate the evil--if it were logically possible for him. Therefore I conclude that it is not. Human immortality is a corollary of that conclusion.
quote:Thanks IngoB, that's a lot more helpful. I would agree that the mugger who threatens to cut off my fingers is coercing me. However, don't you think that the act of coercion is in the imposition of the choice? Losing one's fingers is not a natural consequence of keeping my wallet in the same way that it may be the natural consequence of dipping them in a jar of aqua regia.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:If someone holds a knife to your fingers and says that he will cut them off unless you give him all your money, then I consider you not to be free when you hand over your wallet.
Originally posted by sanityman:
My point was that most people are "coerced" like this every day not to jump under busses or cut their fingers off with a kitchen knife.
quote:That's not a problem, that's necessary. Otherwise, how could you doubt? That's my point here after all, that you need to be able to doubt hell. (And you can ask Jeremiah about the problem of getting God's word from God directly.)
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The problem is, it's not God telling me. It's other people.
quote:Just like Marvin, you apparently have paid no attention to my actual argument. Anyhow, yes, you can toss a coin - as long as you can believe in the result. Problem is, you (likely) can't.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Yeah. Other people are telling me to declare that I believe in Allah and that Mohammad is his prophet. And if I don't, I'll be Hell bound. How am I to determine who has it right, or should I just toss a coin?
quote:Uh no. I'm not trying to let God off the responsibility of hell, God can get along perfectly well without my help. He doesn't need spin doctors.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but it looks like you've turned God into a godlet / demiurge in order to avoid giving Him responsibility for hell. Of course God can annihilate the evil - or rather, stop keeping them in existence. Of course human immortality is not a given without God. Like all things created, we disappear at the very instant when God stops existing us. You can perhaps argue that God would be changing our nature if He were not to guarantee our immortality, and that he values our nature being as it is higher than the eternal suffering of some of us. I'm not sure if you can spin that one to your satisfaction.
quote:But that's just abusive in the extreme.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:That's not a problem, that's necessary. Otherwise, how could you doubt? That's my point here after all, that you need to be able to doubt hell. (And you can ask Jeremiah about the problem of getting God's word from God directly.)
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The problem is, it's not God telling me. It's other people.
quote:Who gives a shit about doubt? Fuck doubt. We're talking about the fate of our eternal souls here. God needs to show up NOW and prove it to the billions of people who will be heading to Hell otherwise.
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's not a problem, that's necessary. Otherwise, how could you doubt? That's my point here after all, that you need to be able to doubt hell. (And you can ask Jeremiah about the problem of getting God's word from God directly.)
quote:And the character of this Christian God is by no means obvious - as this thread shows.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
It seemed more "obvious" in Paul's day that there was a creating and sustaining God (or gods) behind everything, before Darwin, the Big Bang theory, modern geology and astronomy etc. But even then it wasn't necessarily obvious that this God was the Christian one.
quote:Examples?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'd argue, as indeed so does the Apostle Paul in Romans 1, that there is enough evidence for God - we just don't like the implications of that.
quote:Is that meant to be ironic?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, definite, confirmed, unarguable evidence? Evidence on a par with, say, that for evolution?
quote:That's an interesting thought as such. I think it would need some fine distinctions to work (when an electron and a positron annihilate, is God not involved? upset?). But of course this does't help at all with the "moral" critique of hell. If God should be incapable of annihilation, this does not imply that He has to punish eternally. You'll need quite some further assumptions, I reckon, and not only about God, but also about our state in the afterlife.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Read my former posts more carefully. I am suggesting that there may be something in God's very nature that prevents him from doing what you suggest, that is, choosing to stop supporting the existence of something/one he has created. It may be that "to annihilate" and "to be God" are at some level strictly incompatible. At any rate, we have no examples of him annihilating anything. Destruction yes; but even the devil gets off with being cast into the lake of fire.
quote:Well, some people see the scriptural evidence pointing exactly the other way. Not that I disagree with you, just saying.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It is the failure to find a single example or promise of annihilation in the Scriptures that leads me to doubt it is possible for God-as-he-is.
quote:Hell isn't just a prison. And as I've said above, plenty would need to be said about why eternal punishment really is the only option left. For example, why not a Hindu style reincarnation for the wicked, until they get God-compatible?
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If annihilation is off the table as an option, we are forced to consider what other options God might have for dealing with the wicked. Sadly, eternal confinement in hell seems to be the other option.
quote:Your imagined scenario is, but since it has little to do with my argument, that's irrelevant. The situation is more like approaching the coffee kitchen in a normal office building, and a co-worker yells at you: "No, don't go in there. A tiger is waiting there and will eat you alive." No more evidence is produced for this, you hear no sound from the kitchen and the guy stands there and asks you to trust him, to have faith in what he says. If instead the kitchen had a glass door, then the co-worker could just point at the tiger lying there quietly, and you would not need any faith to slowly back away. So God has set up a situation where faith in His word is decisive. That's what's happening, and I think it is very much "in character".
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But that's just abusive in the extreme.
quote:Sentimental, pseudo-pious, incredibly unjust and very Protestant twaddle.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Hitler's 'chance' at Heaven is the same as the rest of the sixty billion unevangelized, in the arms of Jesus on Judgement day.
quote:For detailed advice on how to avoid hell, please contact your nearest salvation service center - we call them "churches", by the way. However, I'm afraid God expects more of you than to kowtow before the imminent threat of eternal torture, or to rush after the imminent promise of eternal bliss. Facing you with the infinitely good or bad ultimate end of existence directly would make it impossible for you to choose God, to love Him for his sake. You can hate cold turkey and lust after the next high, but you cannot love heroin. God doesn't want to be your infinite, eternal heroin fix, He wants to be your Beloved.
Originally posted by Nooj:
We're talking about the fate of our eternal souls here. God needs to show up NOW and prove it to the billions of people who will be heading to Hell otherwise.
quote:Some people? I'll make extensive use of the ignorance excuse at my judgment time. It will be interesting to see you face the supremely just God without it. Perhaps it was supremely merciful of Him to allow us some plausible deniability?
Originally posted by Orlando098:
Some people might still not want to follow his wishes, but then that would be up to them.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Some people? I'll make extensive use of the ignorance excuse at my judgment time. It will be interesting to see you face the supremely just God without it. Perhaps it was supremely merciful of Him to allow us some plausible deniability? [/QB]
Originally posted by Orlando098:
Some people might still not want to follow his wishes, but then that would be up to them.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I didn't mean me, by "some people" and anyway I certainly feel like I don't have any certainty about God and would have an "ignorance excuse" if it came to that and he was displeased and me not having committed enough, I would say well it would have been nice for him to have made things less vague
quote:Thanks. I'll get to the churches after I'm done checking out the lamaseries, synagogues and masjids.
For detailed advice on how to avoid hell, please contact your nearest salvation service center - we call them "churches", by the way.
quote:If God made himself known to everyone in the same way he made himself known to Paul or Adam and Eve, that doesn't defeat our free will or our ability to choose to love him or not. Dispelling doubts by showing himself will only remove the stupid barriers that stop us from really knowing.
However, I'm afraid God expects more of you than to kowtow before the imminent threat of eternal torture, or to rush after the imminent promise of eternal bliss. Facing you with the infinitely good or bad ultimate end of existence directly would make it impossible for you to choose God, to love Him for his sake.
quote:Would no one worship God if he had never created Heaven and Hell in the first place?
You can hate cold turkey and lust after the next high, but you cannot love heroin. God doesn't want to be your infinite, eternal heroin fix, He wants to be your Beloved.
quote:I think you overdo your interpretation of those two verses about how things will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for other places that rejected Jesus and the disciples. I don't know exactly what was meant (whether there is a real suggestion of different degrees of punishment and what these might consist of), but I think the main purpose of the saying was a kind of figure of speech, to stress his anger against those places - God would be even less merciful to them than to the inhabitants of a place that was renowned for its sinfulness. A bit like if you were to say to someone who had done something terribly wrong against you or your family "you bastard, I bet God would sooner forgive Hitler than you, for doing that."
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Grace is unfair IngoB.
Thank God.
What have YOU done that makes you any more worthy of eternal life than Hitler ?
Any less worthy of annihilation ?
Are you saying that Jesus can't save ?
Do YOU condemn Hitler before the bearable Judgement of Sodom ?
Should Hitler bow his head and hold out his hands you would deny him in Christ ?
Fascist.
quote:Okay, since Marvin seems to have disappeared I better elucidate ...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Examples?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'd argue, as indeed so does the Apostle Paul in Romans 1, that there is enough evidence for God - we just don't like the implications of that.
I mean, definite, confirmed, unarguable evidence? Evidence on a par with, say, that for evolution?
quote:FWIW, I accept your point, but was assuming Marvin meant that there exists evidence which is amenable to scientific analysis for evolution, and there isn't for God. I don't think you have to go as far as "strong rationalism" to say that one is a scientific question and the other isn't. That there is a "controversy" about evolution only implies... ah. Just passed a sign to the glue factory, think I made a wrong turn there
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Okay, since Marvin seems to have disappeared I better elucidate ...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Examples?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'd argue, as indeed so does the Apostle Paul in Romans 1, that there is enough evidence for God - we just don't like the implications of that.
I mean, definite, confirmed, unarguable evidence? Evidence on a par with, say, that for evolution?
ISTM that Marvin is assuming a form of 'strong rationalism' here.
If we set the definition of what counts as proof / unarguable evidence it is hardly surprising when our side 'wins'.
.quote:You're claiming that there is evidence for God. I'm asking you to show it to me.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:Is that meant to be ironic?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I mean, definite, confirmed, unarguable evidence? Evidence on a par with, say, that for evolution?
I'd never put you down as a YEC Marvin but it turns out you speak their language.
quote:It's in character for a sociopath who likes to play games with people.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The situation is more like approaching the coffee kitchen in a normal office building, and a co-worker yells at you: "No, don't go in there. A tiger is waiting there and will eat you alive." No more evidence is produced for this, you hear no sound from the kitchen and the guy stands there and asks you to trust him, to have faith in what he says. If instead the kitchen had a glass door, then the co-worker could just point at the tiger lying there quietly, and you would not need any faith to slowly back away. So God has set up a situation where faith in His word is decisive. That's what's happening, and I think it is very much "in character".
quote:That's why I specifically gave evoultion as the benchmark - the evidence for it strongly points in one direction, but it is still just about possible to honestly disagree. I think that's not too bad a standard of evidence to be requesting.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If we set the definition of what counts as proof / unarguable evidence it is hardly surprising when our side 'wins'.
quote:Well, you at least know that the person you're marrying or the job you're signing up for actually exists. That's one little bit of evidence that I find quite important...
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What about all sorts of really important decisions that everybody makes that don't fit into this kind of category? (e.g. deciding to marry someone or what job you want to do.)
quote:I just want any kind of evidence that I can believe. This is an important issue - I don't want to leave it down to nothing more than my own emotions and preferences. I don't trust them enough.
Why does the fact that it is a really important decision (deciding about God) mean that the evidence has to come in a certain form that you prefer?
quote:The vows I made on my wedding day were the same. But I knew that my wife existed - I could see her and touch her and everything. I knew that I wanted to be with her based on years of us being together. I had believable evidence that she felt the same way about me, based on years of us being together.
I'd say that the vows I made on my wedding day were far more important than my beliefs about evolution and yet I had very little of the type of evidence you are talking about.
quote:Unfortunately this isn't what the Church has taught through the ages. It's refusing to believe the doctrines of the Church which lands one in hell! After all, one can be as mean a bastard as is humaly possible, but be "saved" through their "belief." While someone full of love of God and neighbour can be damned for not believing the standard Christian teaching, according to whichever tradition that person belongs to. I see this as a loathsome religion, focussed on temporal power, not on the salvation of souls.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Someone who stubbornly refuses to love God and love their neighbour will find the love of God stinging and offensive, while someone full of love will find divine charity to be eternal bliss.
quote:I know lots of people exist, I don't want to marry them all though.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The vows I made on my wedding day were the same. But I knew that my wife existed - I could see her and touch her and everything. I knew that I wanted to be with her based on years of us being together. I had believable evidence that she felt the same way about me, based on years of us being together.
quote:Well, yes. Starting from the knowledge that people exist and then choosing one of them to marry is very much a step that isn't based on empirical evidence.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I know lots of people exist, I don't want to marry them all though.
That is the important decision and that is the one that was based on non-empirical evidence (i.e. not at all like evolution). It's still evidence, but it is not empirical evidence.
quote:I'd be happy to hear it.
If you are conceding that then I'm happy to give you some of the evidence for God that convinces me.
quote:I've not claimed any such thing so far. I've merely reacted to your comment "I'd argue, as indeed so does the Apostle Paul in Romans 1, that there is enough evidence for God - we just don't like the implications of that".
But if you are still pretending that you really do live according to 'strong rationalism' then there's no point in continuing.
quote:If Aquinas expected the heavenly hosts to rejoice over the hellish hosts, then I guess a Catholic priest I heard on TV years ago forgot his Aquinas. He pointed out that to rejoice over the presence of anyone in hell is to rejoice that Christ's redemptive work has failed. Can a Christian do that?
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
that those who joyfully consign untold billions to hell haven't really thought about it very much, and what's more would probably yell and cry at what an unjust place the world is if they burnt their hand on a stove.
quote:I'm not saying it's all down to me, it's just how I read those passages (which as far as I am concerned Jesus might or might not have said; I don't consider the Bible infallible, but then I am not sure I consider Jesus to have been infallible either - he admitted there were things he did not know, he sometimes seemed to have doubts or be sad or lonely or angry - he was after all human, whether or not he was also God). Personally I hope no one gets sent off to some eternal punishment. I would like for everyone to eventually have a chance to be eternally fulfilled and happy and to get rid of their negative and unloving, fearful or hating or ignorant aspects. If that's not possible then if certain people for whom there is no hope are anihilated but others get some form of (good) eternal life, then that would be better than some people being eternally miserable. I don't see how one short life, even a very evil one, deserves that, or how it would benefit anyone, and I certainly don't see why it would be fitting just for not having believed strongly enough in the right things.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ask Jesus mate. DARE to ask Him. What could He have meant ? What would you LIKE Him to mean ?
It's ALL down to YOUR disposition. How narrow is that ? How graceless ? How hopeless ?
quote:I think this is quite a convincing view - I mean is it reasonable to assume all the references to death are really just euphemisms for hell (in the sense of eternal suffering), or do they just mean what they sound like?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Unfortunately this isn't what the Church has taught through the ages. It's refusing to believe the doctrines of the Church which lands one in hell! After all, one can be as mean a bastard as is humaly possible, but be "saved" through their "belief." While someone full of love of God and neighbour can be damned for not believing the standard Christian teaching, according to whichever tradition that person belongs to. I see this as a loathsome religion, focussed on temporal power, not on the salvation of souls.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Someone who stubbornly refuses to love God and love their neighbour will find the love of God stinging and offensive, while someone full of love will find divine charity to be eternal bliss.
I don't believe in any form of eternal damnation. Sure we must suffer for our sins both in this world and the next, but all human sin, even that of a Hitler or a Stalin is finite. There can be no justification, even citing that oft used term "God's justice" for an infinite punishment for finite sin. The immortality of the soul was a Greek idea. The Hebrews, only had the vaguest idea of life after death. Around the time of the Maccabees,the idea of resurrection for a life of righteousness or profound faith began to take shape. If we live a life in obedience to God's will, He MAY reward us with a place in the world to come.
That God has the power to raise us from the dead, I don't doubt. That He may raise us all, I believe is quite possible. That He will raise anyone to allow them to be tormented I will never accept. The wages of sin is DEATH. The GIFT of God is eternal life.
quote:I would be interested in hearing it, though maybe it should be another thread? I am concerned that I don't have that much real evidence, other than that I feel better about things if I think there's a God (as long as he's not the kind that makes people suffer eternally).
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you are conceding that then I'm happy to give you some of the evidence for God that convinces me.
[/QB]
quote:God is Justice. And Mercy, but also Justice. He did not write the natural moral on everyone's heart to increase our entertainment value.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Grace is unfair IngoB.
quote:It's more what I have not done. Like being directly responsible for killing tens of millions of people in a war, destroying much of Europe's infrastructure and culture, and torturing hundreds of thousands to miserable deaths in concentration camps. And for that matter, I have not shot myself at the time of writing.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What have YOU done that makes you any more worthy of eternal life than Hitler ?
quote:Won't. The gate is narrow.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Are you saying that Jesus can't save ?
quote:Of course I condemn Hitler. Given what I know, I must. Anything else would be failing my God-given moral duties. Whether God has condemned Hitler by what He knows remains to be seen.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Do YOU condemn Hitler before the bearable Judgement of Sodom ?
quote:Hitler either has bowed his head to Christ in this life, or he hasn't. He had no further opportunity after death to change from the path of the wicked to that of the righteous. His eternal fate was decided at the very time of his death. What I know about his life makes it unlikely that he bowed to Christ. I have no problem with saying that, no matter how much that may irk you. However, that's all. You try to spin this into me actively denying Hitler anything. I have no idea why.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Should Hitler bow his head and hold out his hands you would deny him in Christ ?
quote:You be very careful. I like your shock & confuse routine, but there are limits to the insults I will take.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Fascist.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:I guess this is an advanced form of proof-texting, where one omits the text to protect one's eisegesis?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What, limits to love ?
quote:Quelle surprise, more vague assertion and emotional appeal without definition, argument and support.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Love TRUMPS justice with mercy and grace even though there is justice in love, justice is an attribute of love.
quote:You are over-stretching my analogy. That said, think about it: There is no way a Creator can avoid "playing games" with His creation. God is taking us incredibly seriously, really, but nevertheless - there is a necessary arbitrariness in our relationship. I think we are overestimating ourselves.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's in character for a sociopath who likes to play games with people.
quote:Well, a good exercise is to think about what sort of "evidence" would in fact convince you.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I just want any kind of evidence that I can believe. This is an important issue - I don't want to leave it down to nothing more than my own emotions and preferences. I don't trust them enough.
quote:I don't know what scriptures you accord authority to. Apparently not the bible, which I was quoting from.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Is it REALLY Dr. B. ? Not my scriptures matey.
quote:Maybe Fr. Gregory has time and interest in your riddles. I have neither. Either deliver the punchline, or fuck off already.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Father Gregory worked out my proof texts which somewhat modify - TRUMP - yours.
quote:Well, no, I'd push it even further. Starting from the knowledge that something exists.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, yes. Starting from the knowledge that people exist and then choosing one of them to marry is very much a step that isn't based on empirical evidence.
quote:The major evidence (for me) that God exists is the resurrection of Jesus. Or rather it points to me that there is evidence of the supernatural which then leads on to my second evidence for God.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd be happy to hear it.
quote:Heresy.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I guess this is an advanced form of proof-texting, where one omits the text to protect one's eisegesis?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What, limits to love ?
Except for Origen, and in his wake Gregor of Nyssa and Didymus, who took their saintly brain fart allowance on this particular issue, the Church fathers are univocal that eternal life is won or lost in this life, that one's eternal fate cannot be changed after death.
quote:The Orthodox are confused about what precisely happens after death, but not as far as I know, about limiting the time of repentance to the earthly pilgrimage.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Heresy. There is no eternal judgment after death. Judgment is at end times, until then it's all up for grabs.
quote:I could dig up more, but that is tiresome, in particular since it will be to no avail. I sure wish the Orthodox would manage to write a widely accepted Catechism, that would simply things. By the way, does anyone know where the text of Peter Mogila's "Orthodox Confessions" can be found on the web (in translation)?
St John Chrysostom, "Homily 14 on Matthew":
Let us now, I pray you, take courage at His love to man, and let us show forth an anxious repentance, before the day come on, which permits us not to profit thereby. For as yet all depends on us, but then He that judges has alone control over the sentence. "Let us therefore come before His face with confession;" let us bewail, let us mourn. For if we should be able to prevail upon the Judge before the appointed day to forgive us our sins, then we need not so much as enter into the court; as on the other hand, if this be not done, He will hear us publicly in the presence of the world, and we shall no longer have any hope of pardon. For no one of those who have not done away with their sins here, when he has departed there shall be able to escape his account for them; but as they who are taken out of these earthly prisons are brought in their chains to the place of judgment, even so all souls, when they have gone away hence bound with the manifold chains of their sins, are led to the awful judgment-seat.
St Cyprian, "To Demeterian":
[W]e urge, while the opportunity is at hand, while there still remains something of this life, to make satisfaction to God, and to come forth from the depth of dark superstition into the bright light of true religion. ... When there has been a withdrawal hence, then there is no opportunity for repentance, no accomplishment of satisfaction. Here life is either lost or kept; here by the worship of God, and by the fruit of faith provision is made for eternal salvation. Let no one either by sins or by years be retarded from coming to the acquiring of salvation. To him who still remains in this world no repentance is too late. The approach to God's forgiveness is open, and for those who seek and understand the truth the access is easy. Although you entreat for your sins at the very end and sunset of temporal life and you implore God who is one and true by the confession and faith of the acknowledgment of Him, pardon is granted to him who confesses, and to him who believes saving forgiveness is conceded out of God's goodness, and there is a crossing into immortality at the very moment of death.
Origen, "The Fundamental Doctrines":
After these points, also, the apostolic teaching is that the soul, having a substance and life of its own, shall, after its departure from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this: and also, that there is to be a time of resurrection from the dead, when this body, which now "is sown in corruption, shall rise in incorruption," and that which "is sown in dishonour will rise in glory."
St Hilary of Poitiers, "On Psalm 2" (transl. W.A. Jurgens):
[God's] anger, through which they shall perish from the just path, is not capricious. Let no one, because judgment is delayed, tickle himself with flattery in respect to deserved punishment; for His wrath is kindled suddenly. For the avenger of hell captures us straightway; and if so we have lived, we shall fall away from the body and perish suddenly from the right path. Our witness to this are are the rich man and the poor one of the Gospel, one of whom the angels placed among the seats of the blessed and in the folds of Abraham's toga, while the other was received straightway into the region of punishment. And there the punishment of the dead overtook him immediately, even while his brothers remained in the land of the living. There is nothing here about delay or postponement. The day of judgment betokens an eternal measuring out either of happiness or punishment. A time of death is set eventually for every man, and at judgment each man is relegated to Abraham or punishment.
St Basil the Great, "On Psalm 7" (transl. W.A. Jurgens):
I think that the noble athletes of God, who have wrestled all their lives with the invisible enemies, after they have escaped all of their persecutions and have come to the end of life, are examined by the prince of this world; and if they are found to have any wounds from their wrestling, any stains or effects of sin, they are detained. If, however, they are found unwounded and without stain, they are, as unconquered, brought by Christ into their rest.
quote:And you're positing a God who knows with absolute certainty that Hell exists for those who fail to believe, but who also refuses to make belief easy, likely, or even possible in the majority of cases.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:You are over-stretching my analogy.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's in character for a sociopath who likes to play games with people.
quote:Of course He can - He can make His existence blatant, leaving us to decide only whether to obey or resist.
That said, think about it: There is no way a Creator can avoid "playing games" with His creation.
quote:Overestimating indeed, if we believe we have the ability to find enough evidence for God in this life to be fully morally culpable (and eternally damnable) should we fail to do so.
God is taking us incredibly seriously, really, but nevertheless - there is a necessary arbitrariness in our relationship. I think we are overestimating ourselves.
quote:A fascinating challenge. I guess it's one where I'm far more towards the Doubting Thomas side of things...
Well, a good exercise is to think about what sort of "evidence" would in fact convince you.
quote:Rubbish. You're merely talking about an individual of the species homo sapiens. Nothing subjective about that (unless you want to start arguing the toss about how all names are just labels and so on).
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Well, no, I'd push it even further. Starting from the knowledge that something exists.
Once you start talking about a person you are describing more than just atoms but importing all sorts of subjective data.
quote:If your salvation depended on you believing that my wife exists, I'd take her to meet you. Replete with our passports, marriage certificate, wedding pictures/video and any other evidence you want. I certainly wouldn't leave you sitting there with only my word for it.
Bearing in mind that passports can be forged etc. you would have a hard time proving to me (in this watertight sense you keep talking about) that your wife exists.
quote:How do you know the resurrection happened? Are you just taking that on faith?
The major evidence (for me) that God exists is the resurrection of Jesus. Or rather it points to me that there is evidence of the supernatural which then leads on to my second evidence for God.
quote:It depends on what you mean by that. If the odds indicate that life will spontaneously occur only once in a billion trillion years, that one occurrence could still be in the very first year of the billion trillion. Or it could be somewhere in the middle. It doesn't mean that it actually takes a billion trillion years for life to come about...
Hume may have debunked Palley's Watchmaker argument in the past but, if you do the maths, current estimates for the age of the universe do not nearly allow enough time for life to evolve.
quote:All it suggests to me is that we don't have the level of scientific knowledge to reconcile them yet. The greatest minds of a millenium ago were unaware of electricity, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Likewise Stephen Hawking's inability to reconcile macro and micro physics also strongly suggests that something outside of the box is needed for it all to work.
quote:Fair enough. I was hoping for something a little more convincing, given the potential consequences of a wrong decision...
I'd say there is evidence that something exists and then we are into the non-empirical stuff.
quote:I like that, Myrrh. Of course I still have to reconcile that with the Christ who said:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Extrapolate based on the God Christ teaches, that loves friends and enemies equally, that does not do evil but good even to those who hate him.
That is, not on any god other than Christ taught, like the murderer from the beginning who damned his creation to death and eternal hell etc. of the RCC and spin offs.
quote:Unless we want to assert that it wasn't Christ who said these things.
Matthew 5:22 But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
Matthew 18:9 And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire.
Mark 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched—
Matthew 23:33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell?
Matthew 11:23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades
Luke 10:15 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades.
Luke 16:23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom….28 for I have five brothers, that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’
Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 7:13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
Matthew 8:12 But the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Matthew 22:13 Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
Matthew 25:30 And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
Luke 13:28 There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves thrust out.
Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.
Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
Matthew 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
John 15:6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
quote:What I'm saying is that Orthodox teaching is based on the actual doctrine of God that Christ teaches '"God is": 'be perfect as', 'difference between good and evil', 'not condemn', 'not judge', 'forgive forgive' etc., and everything else which follows can't be read out of this context. So extrapolation from that is as I've said, bearing in mind we teach free will, rational, and a synergistic relationship with God who is Love, i.e. who is actually Love in and through every minutest part of creation, then hell can never be something ordered by God as against something against our will. Judgement needs to be read in this context.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:I like that, Myrrh. Of course I still have to reconcile that with the Christ who said:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Extrapolate based on the God Christ teaches, that loves friends and enemies equally, that does not do evil but good even to those who hate him.
That is, not on any god other than Christ taught, like the murderer from the beginning who damned his creation to death and eternal hell etc. of the RCC and spin offs.
quote:Unless we want to assert that it wasn't Christ who said these things.
Matthew 5:22 But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.
....
Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:
Matthew 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
John 15:6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned.
Matthew 25:46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
My thought is that it is right to extrapolate from what Christ said. However it is also undeniable that unhappiness and suffering really exist. These two need to be reconciled.
The fly in the ointment in my opinion is that people's understanding of "hell" is skewed by the hyperbolic immagery of Scripture. If, by contrast, you think of it as a real existence, where people live normal lives - but not happy ones - the idea is not so preposterous.
quote:Marvin you keep on moving the goal posts. I never said that salvation depends on believing that God exists.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If your salvation depended on you believing that my wife exists, I'd take her to meet you. Replete with our passports, marriage certificate, wedding pictures/video and any other evidence you want. I certainly wouldn't leave you sitting there with only my word for it.
The same cannot be said for belief in God. A similar level of evidence does not exist.
quote:The gospel resurrection accounts pass the legal-historical tests ISTM. Faith is involved; not in the 'blind' sense, but in the sense of trust based on sufficient, compelling evidence.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
How do you know the resurrection happened? Are you just taking that on faith?
quote:Actually I meant it in the way Sir Fred Hoyle's mathematics conference estimated it in the 1960s. Probability = 1 / 1 x 10^40,000 Time = 1 x 10^17 S.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It depends on what you mean by that. If the odds indicate that life will spontaneously occur only once in a billion trillion years, that one occurrence could still be in the very first year of the billion trillion. Or it could be somewhere in the middle. It doesn't mean that it actually takes a billion trillion years for life to come about...
Hume may have debunked Palley's Watchmaker argument in the past but, if you do the maths, current estimates for the age of the universe do not nearly allow enough time for life to evolve.
quote:Or rather, to quote the man himself:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
All it suggests to me is that we don't have the level of scientific knowledge to reconcile them yet. The greatest minds of a millenium ago were unaware of electricity, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist.
quote:
The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.
quote:Funny that. I recently had a similar conversation with someone about smoking. He said it was all about the government raising taxes and that there should be more evidence that it really was that harmful. Apparently he gets to decide how convincing is enough. Bit like you.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was hoping for something a little more convincing, given the potential consequences of a wrong decision...
quote:Oops!
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Or rather, to quote the man himself:
quote:
The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe.
quote:No, you said "I'd argue, as indeed so does the Apostle Paul in Romans 1, that there is enough evidence for God - we just don't like the implications of that."
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Marvin you keep on moving the goal posts. I never said that salvation depends on believing that God exists.
quote:...which first require belief in God's existence. For example, it would be pretty meaningless to believe Jesus was the Son of God if you don't believe God exists.
Salvation depends on believing things about Jesus.
quote:Really? Even though one of them specifically states that it was written with an ulterior, evangelistic, motive rather than as a true historical account of what happened? Do you really think that doesn't cast even the slightest doubt on their legal-historical accuracy?
The gospel resurrection accounts pass the legal-historical tests ISTM.
quote:You have low standards for the sufficiency of evidence, clearly.
Faith is involved; not in the 'blind' sense, but in the sense of trust based on sufficient, compelling evidence.
quote:Let's look at rolling a (6-sided) die. The probability of any one number coming up is 1/6, so to guarantee rolling a 2 one would, mathematically, need to roll the die six times.
Actually I meant it in the way Sir Fred Hoyle's mathematics conference estimated it in the 1960s. Probability = 1 / 1 x 10^40,000 Time = 1 x 10^17 S.
The conference concluded that the numbers were too big.
quote:Aaaaand, we're back to the old "you're just ignoring the evidence because you don't like the implications" line.
quote:Funny that. I recently had a similar conversation with someone about smoking. He said it was all about the government raising taxes and that there should be more evidence that it really was that harmful. Apparently he gets to decide how convincing is enough. Bit like you.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was hoping for something a little more convincing, given the potential consequences of a wrong decision...
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Beautifully put. I agree with that completely. I hadn't understood that this is what you were saying.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
What I'm saying is that Orthodox teaching is based on the actual doctrine of God that Christ teaches '"God is": 'be perfect as', 'difference between good and evil', 'not condemn', 'not judge', 'forgive forgive' etc., and everything else which follows can't be read out of this context. So extrapolation from that is as I've said, bearing in mind we teach free will, rational, and a synergistic relationship with God who is Love, i.e. who is actually Love in and through every minutest part of creation, then hell can never be something ordered by God as against something against our will. Judgement needs to be read in this context.
quote:This is one of those statement which is rationally true, but totally unconvincing. which is, to me, a weakness of hard rationalism.
The very same principle applies to the probability of life arising. It doesn't matter how large the odds are, it's still possible that it could happen straight away.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:All you are doing here is demonstrating the general truth that biologists (like Dawkins) are not very good at Maths.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Let's look at rolling a (6-sided) die. The probability of any one number coming up is 1/6, so to guarantee rolling a 2 one would, mathematically, need to roll the die six times.
But it is, of course, perfectly possible that the very first roll produces a 2. The conference to which you refer may well conclude that a single roll is far too few for a 2 to be likely, but that doesn't make it impossible.
For less probable events, look at the lottery. the probability of any one number coming out is 1/14,000,000 - yet a number comes out twice a week. the odds against that number coming out were astronomical, yet it happened.
The very same principle applies to the probability of life arising. It doesn't matter how large the odds are, it's still possible that it could happen straight away.
quote:I know, anyone would think I was a follower of Christ ...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Aaaaand, we're back to the old "you're just ignoring the evidence because you don't like the implications" line.
quote:Luke 16: 31
He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'
quote:As did the conference you initially appealed to to support your side of the argument. Are you now saying they were wrong?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
All you are doing here is demonstrating the general truth that biologists (like Dawkins) are not very good at Maths.
You are assuming that there is a chance of it happening.
quote:I have no idea. But the probability of life spontaneously appearing out of a soup of organic molecules is above zero.
What is the probability of something spontaneously appearing out of nothing?
quote:Depends what the "this" is. If it's the creation of the universe, I'll agree. If it's the creation of life from non-alive matter, there are theories out there.
'Chance' is just a smoke screen. What you mean to say at this point is - we have no idea how this happens, no theory or explanation we have currently comes anywhere close to giving us even a hint of how or why.
quote:He also refused to condemn Thomas even though he was unable to believe unless he'd seen it for himself (read: unless he had believable evidence). 1-1 on the proof texting...
I know, anyone would think I was a follower of Christ ...
quote:Luke 16: 31
He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'
(Note the context - Jesus was talking about hell.)
quote:AFAIK they were calculating the probability of sentient life evolving from a self- replicating single cell. That is all.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As did the conference you initially appealed to to support your side of the argument. Are you now saying they were wrong?
quote:Says who?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But the probability of life spontaneously appearing out of a soup of organic molecules is above zero.
quote:Do you mean theories as in - derived from solid evidence - or as in flights of imagination? I'm sorry, but I find it really hard to believe anything without hard evidence.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Depends what the "this" is. If it's the creation of the universe, I'll agree. If it's the creation of life from non-alive matter, there are theories out there.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
He also refused to condemn Thomas even though he was unable to believe unless he'd seen it for himself (read: unless he had believable evidence). 1-1 on the proof texting...
What, as in the story at the end of John 20? The one that ends with Jesus commending people for believing without seeing? The one that John comments on himself by saying that this book was written so that his readers would believe in Jesus? (i.e. believe because of the evidence of what was written not just what they see with their eyes?)quote:The theories I've seen all state that the bulk of the atmospheric oxygen we have now came about due to many many years of photosynthesis by the first basic life forms to evolve - before life there was no oxygen. In other words, when the very first life came about it was a reducing environment.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Stanley Miller did get small qualities of amino acids (Glycine & Alanine) using sparks of lightening and refluxing gases, but it needed a reducing environment (no oxygen). AFAIK all current assumptions are that it was an oxidising atmosphere. (i.e. not possible).
quote:Yes, that is how it ends. But Thomas is blessed too, even though he has not believed without seeing.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
He also refused to condemn Thomas even though he was unable to believe unless he'd seen it for himself (read: unless he had believable evidence). 1-1 on the proof texting...
quote:You have a very odd scoring system.
I think you'll find that was an own-goal. So we're left at 2-0 with the referee glancing at his watch, 3 minutes of injury time at the end of the second half already played, and the away fans have started drifting home dejectedly.
quote:Rather it works the other way round. It is agreed that the original conditions were reducing. Photosynthesis (as we know it) normally needs oxygen to work (e.g. C02 + H2O) but since that would be impossible we have to 'imagine' another form of photosynthesis that somehow created oxygen in the first place from hydrogen and sulphur.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The theories I've seen all state that the bulk of the atmospheric oxygen we have now came about due to many many years of photosynthesis by the first basic life forms to evolve - before life there was no oxygen. In other words, when the very first life came about it was a reducing environment.
quote:So the people who believe are blessed and the people who don't aren't. Thomas is criticized for needing the extra evidence of sight.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, that is how it ends. But Thomas is blessed too, even though he has not believed without seeing.
quote:Ah - a misunderstanding. I was under the impression that you were talking about the presence of molecular oxygen (O2), rather than the presence of oxygen atoms in other molecules.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Rather it works the other way round. It is agreed that the original conditions were reducing. Photosynthesis (as we know it) normally needs oxygen to work (e.g. C02 + H2O) but since that would be impossible we have to 'imagine' another form of photosynthesis that somehow created oxygen in the first place from hydrogen and sulphur.
quote:I don't believe Thomas was criticized. Jesus was perfectly happy to show him the marks. And after all, the other disciples had believed upon seeing Jesus earlier -- it's not like they had some special different belief that Thomas didn't have. The comment about blessing I believe is meant to apply to all the rest of us, who are going to have to believe without seeing. It's not meant to take away from the disciples, including Thomas.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:So the people who believe are blessed and the people who don't aren't. Thomas is criticized for needing the extra evidence of sight.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, that is how it ends. But Thomas is blessed too, even though he has not believed without seeing.
I'm still not getting how this helps your argument in any way shape or form.
quote:I'm in the position Thomas was in prior to Christ's reappearance before him - no matter what the others say and how sincerely they appear to believe it I have a real hard time believing it myself. Hearsay isn't good enough for me. Until I put my fingers into the holes in His hands and my hand into His side, I cannot believe. Not fully. Not enough.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So the people who believe are blessed and the people who don't aren't. Thomas is criticized for needing the extra evidence of sight.
I'm still not getting how this helps your argument in any way shape or form.
quote:Okay, you're right, criticise is probably the wrong word. What I was trying to say is what you concluded with - the whole point of the story is how it applies to the rest of us (John's readers) who have to believe without seeing.
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
I don't believe Thomas was criticized. Jesus was perfectly happy to show him the marks. And after all, the other disciples had believed upon seeing Jesus earlier -- it's not like they had some special different belief that Thomas didn't have. The comment about blessing I believe is meant to apply to all the rest of us, who are going to have to believe without seeing. It's not meant to take away from the disciples, including Thomas.
quote:But you are not in that position. The cold, hard, objective, provable facts are that you are in the position of the readers of John's gospel. The ones the ending of John 20 was written for.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm in the position Thomas was in prior to Christ's reappearance before him - no matter what the others say and how sincerely they appear to believe it I have a real hard time believing it myself.
quote:At the time the gospels were written the fact that something was written in a book was much more impressive to people, I should think. We don't automatically believe something is accurate just because it is in print today.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:But you are not in that position. The cold, hard, objective, provable facts are that you are in the position of the readers of John's gospel. The ones the ending of John 20 was written for.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm in the position Thomas was in prior to Christ's reappearance before him - no matter what the others say and how sincerely they appear to believe it I have a real hard time believing it myself.
quote:And who are, apparently, held to a higher standard in terms of belief that the freakin' apostles.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
the whole point of the story is how it applies to the rest of us (John's readers) who have to believe without seeing.
quote:And I'm supposed to just believe it because it's been written - and by someone who even admits that he's writing for the purpose of conversion rather than historical accuracy?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But you are not in that position. The cold, hard, objective, provable facts are that you are in the position of the readers of John's gospel. The ones the ending of John 20 was written for.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
And I'm supposed to just believe it because it's been written - and by someone who even admits that he's writing for the purpose of conversion rather than historical accuracy?
quote:The chance that there is no 2 in the first throw is 5/6th. In the 2nd throw as well, etc. Hence the chance that there was no 2 in all six throws is (5/6)^6=33.5%. You have to throw the die 26 times to have a better than 99% chance of seeing a 2.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Let's look at rolling a (6-sided) die. The probability of any one number coming up is 1/6, so to guarantee rolling a 2 one would, mathematically, need to roll the die six times.
quote:That's a wrong way of looking at it. The chance that some set of lottery numbers will be drawn is very close to 100%. Basically unless the drawing machine breaks down, the TV station blows up or the lottery company goes broke, some winning number will be drawn. The chance that your lottery ticket has the same number, that chance is low. Consequently, only one or two people win the main price in spite of millions playing - and sometimes nobody wins the big one.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
For less probable events, look at the lottery. the probability of any one number coming out is 1/14,000,000 - yet a number comes out twice a week. the odds against that number coming out were astronomical, yet it happened.
quote:Sure it's possible, just very unlikely. It is also possible that all molecules of the air in the room you are in will bounce off each other in such a way as to gather tightly packed in one corner of the room, leaving you dying in the resulting vacuum. It's just very unlikely. If you were to die in this manner, then probably a good many atheists would wonder if there isn't a God after all (and why He was so angry at you). Because if something gets that incredibly unlikely, it becomes a lot more likely that it was brought about somehow on purpose, even if the means are mysterious. It is of course not really possible to give any kind of objective odds that God exists. Nevertheless, if the odds against life arising were to be astronomically high, then for many people it would be more probable to assume that life was brought about by God.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The very same principle applies to the probability of life arising. It doesn't matter how large the odds are, it's still possible that it could happen straight away.
quote:In my defence, it's been a while since I studied maths!
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:The chance that there is no 2 in the first throw is 5/6th. In the 2nd throw as well, etc. Hence the chance that there was no 2 in all six throws is (5/6)^6=33.5%. You have to throw the die 26 times to have a better than 99% chance of seeing a 2.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Let's look at rolling a (6-sided) die. The probability of any one number coming up is 1/6, so to guarantee rolling a 2 one would, mathematically, need to roll the die six times.
quote:I guess the upshot of that in relation to life on earth is that the chances of humanity coming about are like the chances of a specific set of numbers, and the chances of life in any form coming about are more similar to the chances of someone winning...
That's a wrong way of looking at it. The chance that some set of lottery numbers will be drawn is very close to 100%. Basically unless the drawing machine breaks down, the TV station blows up or the lottery company goes broke, some winning number will be drawn. The chance that your lottery ticket has the same number, that chance is low. Consequently, only one or two people win the main price in spite of millions playing - and sometimes nobody wins the big one.
quote:That I will grant you.
quote:Sure it's possible, just very unlikely.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The very same principle applies to the probability of life arising. It doesn't matter how large the odds are, it's still possible that it could happen straight away.
quote:Again, I will agree. But the fact that many people see it as more probable does not actually make it so.
Nevertheless, if the odds against life arising were to be astronomically high, then for many people it would be more probable to assume that life was brought about by God.
quote:So people will believe what they want to believe, and use exactly the same facts to 'prove' that their belief is 'true'?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Those who want to believe in materialism and somehow believe the 'chances' of life are attoscopic will still say, like Marvin, 'See: it's POSSIBLE, so here we are.' and those that similarly start with the wrong premiss but on the other side of the coin: 'The chances of life are attoscopic by fag packet calculation: God done it.'.
quote:In your English translation it refers to 'eternal punishment', but in the Greek, it's not so clear cut. The word for 'eternal' is 'aeon', or 'age', and the word for punishment is a horticultural word - essentially 'pruning' (but with a broader range of definition). ISTM that there's a world of difference between 'eternal punishment' and 'a time of chastation/discipline'.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
I can't on the face of it see how the sheep and goats is not about hell, it is about final destinations of judged people after the second coming, and it refers to eternal punishment for the goats... I certainly find universalism more appealing than eternal hell for some people, but I don't see how this verse can fit into this.
quote:Since hell is however revealed to be neither, that amounts to a reductio ad absurdum argument contra your stated view. Unless your deductions were faulty. So what is it going to be? Absurd point of view or deficient reasoning? Choices, choices, ...
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
My view is that God never punishes for the sake of punishment, but that discipline is always for the opportunity of growth and repentance. This leaves only two options regarding Hell for me (and FWIW I think that the English word 'Hell' is so overloaded with preconception that it's use alone is problematic). Either that it's annihilation, or that Hell itself is more like our understanding of Purgatory, where souls are prepared for paradise.
quote:^ or that the problem lies here ^
Originally posted by IngoB:
Since hell is however revealed to be neither
quote:Precisely. Hence the discussion is largely futile. It is not that we make different deductions from the same beliefs, we actually do not have the same beliefs. And it is essentially not possible to argue someone into belief.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:^ or that the problem lies here ^
Originally posted by IngoB:
Since hell is however revealed to be neither
quote:How can you state as a fact that is has been revealed to be neither, when the NT is not very clear on its exact nature and some verses seem to mean something like Purgatory, some annihilation, some eternal punishment etc? Where has it been revealed exactly what it is?
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Since hell is however revealed to be neither, that amounts to a reductio ad absurdum argument contra your stated view. Unless your deductions were faulty. So what is it going to be? Absurd point of view or deficient reasoning? Choices, choices, ...
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
My view is that God never punishes for the sake of punishment, but that discipline is always for the opportunity of growth and repentance. This leaves only two options regarding Hell for me (and FWIW I think that the English word 'Hell' is so overloaded with preconception that it's use alone is problematic). Either that it's annihilation, or that Hell itself is more like our understanding of Purgatory, where souls are prepared for paradise.
quote:All that seems clear and consistent enough to me.
Matt 25:41,46
Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels ... And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mk 9:47-48
And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.
2 Thess 1:9
They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might
Apoc 14:9-10
And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If any one worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also shall drink the wine of God's wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his anger, and he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
Apoc 20:10
and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Is 33:14
The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless: "Who among us can dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?"
Jdt 16:17
Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; fire and worms he will give to their flesh; they shall weep in pain for ever.
quote:Is there an assumption there that annihilation is morally unproblematic? You ask if "God could just destroy the unsaved" - as if that would be a simple and uncontroversial solution to the problem of sin.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
In any case, how do you explain the logic of eternal suffering if God could just destroy the unsaved (or, depending on your idea of what happens just after death) just leave them dead? How can it make any sense to give people new bodies just to suffer in, as a traditional church teaching would have it? Or do you just take the view that he's God so he can do what he likes and ours not to reason why?
quote:I find the idea of being annihilated (or of never being resurrected, which is a subtly different and far less morally problematic angle on the concept) far more appealing than the idea of being tortured forever in Hell, thank you very much.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't get that. The idea of God destroying me or someone I love is horrible. It would mean that he treats us a rubbish, as disposable creatures that can be incinerated without a qualm. It doesn't remotely solve any of the moral questions raised by the doctrine of Hell - it merely substitutes one repulsive idea for another.
quote:That's not really the point I was making. If you start from the position that we are creatures made for, and capable of, an unending and supremely existence as living images and children of an infinitely good God, then it is a repulsive idea that God should deny any of us that fulfilment and simply put an end to us. It is also a repulsive idea that he should torture us forever. That one of those fates is preferable to the other doesn't signify. Both represent eternal failure and frustration, experienced as agony in one case, and not experienced as oblivion in the other, but both highly problematic. A 'nice' God would surely do neither if he had any alternative.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I find the idea of being annihilated [...] far more appealing than the idea of being tortured forever in Hell
quote:Then perhaps that starting position is erroneous, as my comment in the parentheses referred to.
Originally posted by Eliab:
That's not really the point I was making. If you start from the position that we are creatures made for, and capable of, an unending and supremely existence as living images and children of an infinitely good God, then it is a repulsive idea that God should deny any of us that fulfilment and simply put an end to us.
quote:It does to me, as a prospective sufferer! It signifies a heckuva lot!
That one of those fates is preferable to the other doesn't signify.
quote:But if they are the only two options, annihilation is far kinder to the individual concerned than Hell.
Both represent eternal failure and frustration, experienced as agony in one case, and not experienced as oblivion in the other, but both highly problematic. A 'nice' God would surely do neither if he had any alternative.
quote:It resolves the moral problem of Hell, because the moral problem of Hell relates entirely to pain and suffering. Annihilation = no torment = no moral problem.
What I'm responding to is what appeared to be the unexamined assumption that annihilation resolves the moral issue of Hell - that if we twist scripture so that eternal suffering really means absolute destruction, then God's hands are clean. It's that which I don't understand.
quote:It's not great, no , just better than eternal suffering. But as the Bible frequently says things like the wages of sin is death and so on, one possible interpretation is that there isn't an (automatically) immortal soul, and that God just lets the unsaved stay dead (as it not existing, like atheists think happens after death; or alternatively, I suppose, wafting around in some spirit world or whatever "Sheol" was supposed to be?). After all the biggest emphasis in the early Christian community was eventual resurrection, not just your spirit going to heaven. But I know there are verses in the Bible, and plenty of church teaching that does support the immortal soul, so I dunno..
Originally posted by Eliab:
Is there an assumption there that annihilation is morally unproblematic? You ask if "God could just destroy the unsaved" - as if that would be a simple and uncontroversial solution to the problem of sin.
I don't get that. The idea of God destroying me or someone I love is horrible.
quote:Nope. It's always shoddy exegesis to consider verses in isolation. My verses make clear what is meant by "eternal destruction". Not "you get destroyed once and therefore are destroyed in eternity", which frankly is a bit of a verbal stretch anyhow. What is meant is that you get destroyed over and over and over again, in all eternity. It's a bit like Prometheus' punishment.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
I suppose so, but then there are verses (including one of yours) that refer to death or destruction, which could mean anihilation.
quote:Again, it is impossible. Let's take Martin's two magic sayings of Jesus, which he will not name for fear that they will vanish in a cloud of smoke under scrutiny. Can they establish universalism? No, they cannot. Why not? Because other verses (including those reporting Jesus' teaching) most clearly state that not everyone is saved (e.g., Matt 7:13-14), and that punishment in hell is eternal (see above). Scripture does not contradict itself. Any interpretation must accommodate all of scripture, and I see no conceivable way of accommodating the mentioned verses with universalism.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
Then some people (including in this thread) point to verses that suggest to them universalism.
quote:That's not being literal, that's being literalistic. Not that one cannot find literalistic interpretations if one wants to, but I see no need for that. The intended sense of "outer darkness" is likely the separation from all warmth, light and company in the afterlife, i.e., from God. The intended sense of "burning in the fire" and "eaten by worms" is likely a sensation of being consumed painfully. There's no particular problem with combining these.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
And then if one is to be literal about it, while some verses talk about fire, some talk about outer darkness - I don't see how hell can be both firey and dark.
quote:I think people have things backward on this one. They first state categorically what God can or cannot do in their opinion ("a loving God would never... yadda, yadda"), and then they bend scripture and Church teaching until it fits their prejudice. I consider scripture and (de fide) Church teaching as basically given, and then I try to work out what this may mean concerning God. Thus I am not shaken in my beliefs if I cannot comprehend something about God. Because it is not my own understanding of how things should be which I consider as axiomatic.
Originally posted by Orlando098:
In any case, how do you explain the logic of eternal suffering if God could just destroy the unsaved (or, depending on your idea of what happens just after death) just leave them dead? How can it make any sense to give people new bodies just to suffer in, as a traditional church teaching would have it? Or do you just take the view that he's God so he can do what he likes and ours not to reason why?
quote:You know, if He didn't want us to eat from it, He could have just not put the fucking tree there in the first place. But no, it's not enough that we simply not do something - we have to not do it because He says so. What an egotist! If this God was a person, He'd be a complete jerk!
Originally posted by IngoB:
In particular I'm thinking now of the concept of challenge. Human life started with a challenge: God challenged us to not eat the forbidden fruit on His mere say so, but we did.
quote:Sounds to me like your God has a lot in common with Jigsaw...
As consequence of failing this challenge, we started to suffer and die. Clearly Genesis provides a type for salvation history. Thus it seems not absurd to say that our earthly pilgrimage is a challenge, indeed the ultimate challenge. For the outcome is either eternal life or eternal suffering. Yet it would be wrong to declare this eternal suffering - hell - as the goal. Rather, it is a means to set up an all decisive challenge.
quote:If God truly loved us, that wouldn't matter.
But why would God challenge us? One reason I can think of is love. Yes, love, that argument most used against hell. Because we always talk about how God loves us and hence cannot do this or that. But what about us loving God? Do we actually love God?
quote:Sounds very dodgy to me. Like a cross between a needy, abusive partner and Big Brother - the whole "you will truly love me, or you will die" thing, except with a worse consequence than death.
Of course, God can read our hearts. But he cannot read what is not there. And if there is no challenge, then there's not much to look at in terms of practical love. If God grants you a comfortable, trouble-free life with a direct transit to heaven afterwards - how to make sure that you actually care about God other than in his role as giver of stuff? I think one could flesh this out by considering Job, in particular the first two chapters.
quote:Or you agree with John Hick that actually God intended humans to eat of the tree, the prohibition is there to create a situation where this happens. Or perhaps take from C.S. Lewis that it was a prohibition for a time not a permanent one, something to direct humans to a greater end.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:You know, if He didn't want us to eat from it, He could have just not put the fucking tree there in the first place. But no, it's not enough that we simply not do something - we have to not do it because He says so. What an egotist! If this God was a person, He'd be a complete jerk!.
Originally posted by IngoB:
In particular I'm thinking now of the concept of challenge. Human life started with a challenge: God challenged us to not eat the forbidden fruit on His mere say so, but we did.
quote:This is nonsense to me. If something doesn't ring true for you how on earth can you accept it?
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think people have things backward on this one. They first state categorically what God can or cannot do in their opinion ("a loving God would never... yadda, yadda"), and then they bend scripture and Church teaching until it fits their prejudice. I consider scripture and (de fide) Church teaching as basically given, and then I try to work out what this may mean concerning God. Thus I am not shaken in my beliefs if I cannot comprehend something about God. Because it is not my own understanding of how things should be which I consider as axiomatic.
quote:I think this is the core of the disagreement. Firstly, I disagree that Scripture does not contradict itself. Even in this matter it contradicts itself! You say that some verses say that not everyone is saved, and you're right. Yet Romans 11:32 and 1Tim4:10 say exactly that! Scripture contradicts itself!
Originally posted by IngoB:
Because other verses (including those reporting Jesus' teaching) most clearly state that not everyone is saved (e.g., Matt 7:13-14), and that punishment in hell is eternal (see above). Scripture does not contradict itself. Any interpretation must accommodate all of scripture, and I see no conceivable way of accommodating the mentioned verses with universalism.
quote:No, IngoB was quite clear that it was a deliberate challenge to humanity. What can that possibly mean if not that God put the tree there specifically so that He could prohibit us from eating of it, in the same way that a bad parent (or a behavioural researcher) might leave their child alone with a chocolate bar for hours just to see if the child will eat it or not.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Or you agree with John Hick that actually God intended humans to eat of the tree, the prohibition is there to create a situation where this happens. Or perhaps take from C.S. Lewis that it was a prohibition for a time not a permanent one, something to direct humans to a greater end.
quote:That's obviously the case anyhow. He is the Creator, remember? Even whether you get to have any sort of choice is absolutely and perfectly up to Him. The parts where He left you no choice whatsoever you call "natural law", like gravity. The parts where He left you a choice but there is a clear best answer you should be calling the "natural moral law" (though likely you don't). The parts where He left you a choice but no guidance you call arbitrary, according to taste, etc.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But no, it's not enough that we simply not do something - we have to not do it because He says so.
quote:You keep saying such things as if they mattered. To me the first question to answer is what is the case, not what I feel ought to be the case.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What an egotist! If this God was a person, He'd be a complete jerk!
quote:Hmm, no, I don't think so. The Trinity is a comm-unity of love to which we are invited. That doesn't really work without mutual love, as between the Divine Persons. Another way of saying the same thing is that sex is a type of the heavenly union. Does it matter whether people having sex love each other? Sure does...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If God truly loved us, that wouldn't matter.
quote:What does ring true to me is that God exists, that He is both Yahweh of the Jews and the Trinity of Christians, that Christ was the Messiah and Son of God, that Jesus founded a Church to perpetuate His teaching, and that it continues in apostolic succession till His second coming. Based on all that I can accept a lot of things without really understanding them. Which is not the same as saying that I will just swallow whole everything I get told. But I approach scripture and Church teaching with a consciously maintained attitude of trust rather than suspicion.
Originally posted by Boogie:
This is nonsense to me. If something doesn't ring true for you how on earth can you accept it?
quote:No, scripture does not contradict itself. Rom 11:32 merely says that God had mercy on all, which He did, by the Incarnation and Crucifixion. Salvation is since then available to all through His mercy, which means not that all will be saved. 1 Tim 4:10 does not even make sense in universalist interpretation, since in what sense would Christ be the savior "especially" of believers if He indeed saves all? The point here is twofold: Firstly, for all men there is only one savior, i.e., only Christ can save anyone. Again this does not mean that everyone in fact will be saved. Secondly, for those who believe in Christ He is savior in a special sense. This could mean many things: that believers know who is saving them, that by believing they are in fact saved, that believers have a special relationship to the savior, etc.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You say that some verses say that not everyone is saved, and you're right. Yet Romans 11:32 and 1Tim4:10 say exactly that! Scripture contradicts itself!
quote:Well, no. What is true is that if one claims that "scripture alone" determines the Christian faith, and that furthermore all individual themselves can extract the Divine teachings on faith and morals viably from scripture, then Christian faith and morals are fucked beyond repair by the arbitrariness of interpretation. We call this phenomenon "Protestantism". Of course in practice Protestants do not actually follows this idiotic ideology, but maintain their own rather clear "magisteria". It's just that whenever someone feels sufficiently annoyed with their standard teachings, a new church with a new magisterium will form. And so Protestant denominations multiply endlessly. The only alternative is what the Anglicans are doing, i.e., declaring arbitrariness to be a good.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The point is, if you believe in a literal hell, if you're an annihilationist, if your're a universalist - whatever - there are parts of scripture that back up your belief, and there are parts of scripture that refute it. To claim that scripture has one consistent voice is, to me, wishful thinking. Let alone to claim that scripture AND church testimony together have one consistent voice. It's simply not the case.
quote:That's not what the verse says, it's your interpretation of it. It says 'all men', and 'have mercy on them all', not 'have mercy on all'. It's talking about each individual, not humanity as a whole. If you can correlate having mercy on someone with throwing them into an everlasting hell, then great. To me, that's a shoddy interpretation.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:No, scripture does not contradict itself. Rom 11:32 merely says that God had mercy on all, which He did, by the Incarnation and Crucifixion. Salvation is since then available to all through His mercy, which means not that all will be saved.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You say that some verses say that not everyone is saved, and you're right. Yet Romans 11:32 and 1Tim4:10 say exactly that! Scripture contradicts itself!
quote:Because it makes a great deal of difference whether you accept Christ now, or in the time to come. I believe that ultimately we will all be made perfect. For someone who undertakes that process now it will be a lot peachier than for those that don't. I take Jesus' words seriously when he says that the goats go to the time of discipline.
Originally posted by IngoB:
1 Tim 4:10 does not even make sense in universalist interpretation, since in what sense would Christ be the savior "especially" of believers if He indeed saves all?
quote:And there are about a dozen verses that are quoted to support a literal hell, and there is a variety of ways of interpreting all of them in a universalist manner. You can find all that on the web by a simple google.
Originally posted by IngoB:
OK, there are about a dozen verses that are quoted to support universalism, and there is a variety of ways of interpreting all of them in a non-universalist manner. You can find all that on the web by a simple google.
quote:Here's your problem though. You're coming to the bible with a pre-conceived paradigm (that it does not contradict itself on matters of faith and morals, and that the current teachings of the Catholic Church are correct). And then you're trying to argue as a Protestant, by picking out the verses that back up your view and dismissing the others. You're not looking at the verses objectively, because you're pre-disposed to interpret them in a certain way.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The question is rather this: why should you believe one or the other non-universalist interpretation over and against the universalist one? The answer is simple: because the bible elsewhere speaks clearly against universalism, and it does not contradict itself (on matters of faith and morals).
quote:You've recognised the great flaw of Protestantism, one of which I'm very aware. But you've failed to recognise the great flaws inherent in Catholicism and Orthodoxy as well. This is my great quandary as a Christian, that each of the three great Christian 'ways' - Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy each have a different massive flaw underlying their worldview. So I try to be aware of these flaws, and discern truth without being restricted by one or another of the world views. So I don't believe that scripture alone determines the Christian faith, largely for the reasons you gave above. But you're unlikely to persuade me that the alternative offered by the Catholic Church is any better.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Well, no. What is true is that if one claims that "scripture alone" determines the Christian faith, and that furthermore all individual themselves can extract the Divine teachings on faith and morals viably from scripture, then Christian faith and morals are fucked beyond repair by the arbitrariness of interpretation. We call this phenomenon "Protestantism". Of course in practice Protestants do not actually follows this idiotic ideology, but maintain their own rather clear "magisteria".
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The point is, if you believe in a literal hell, if you're an annihilationist, if your're a universalist - whatever - there are parts of scripture that back up your belief, and there are parts of scripture that refute it. To claim that scripture has one consistent voice is, to me, wishful thinking. Let alone to claim that scripture AND church testimony together have one consistent voice. It's simply not the case.
quote:I don't like that voice because I don't agree with the precursor. It's not that I find anything amazingly repugnant in the teachings of the RCC, it's that to claim that "scripture and the Church sure speak with one consistent and coherent voice" to me is chucking out not only the history books, but scripture itself. As for what Christ actually did in founding a Church, that's a question I've pondered for most of my life.
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, scripture and Church teaching sure speak with one consistent and coherent voice in the RCC, and to some extent also among the Orthodox. You may not like that voice, or you may just consider it to be another one like the arbitrary Protestant ones. That's a matter of faith then: what you believe Christ actually did in founding a Church.
quote:Of course they matter! They wouldn't matter if Christianity was Deist, or said that whatever God does is absolutely fine because He's God and He can do what He damn well pleases and we just have to keep Him happy.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:You keep saying such things as if they mattered. To me the first question to answer is what is the case, not what I feel ought to be the case.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What an egotist! If this God was a person, He'd be a complete jerk!
quote:I'd say that it's better if the two people love each other, but that you can have damn good sex with a total stranger. It's not quite as satisfying or emotionally sustaining, sure, but it's still good.
Another way of saying the same thing is that sex is a type of the heavenly union. Does it matter whether people having sex love each other? Sure does...
quote:If we are called to love Him, I think it's an important factor in whether we can answer that call.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
THIS is the crux - for modern minds - is God lovable?
quote:Don't get confused by taking things I've said out of context, if that's what you're doing here..?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Not that modern, impotent God helps in our meaningless suffering at all of course. He can't. He just has to watch universes come and go and hope we make it without too many metempsychoses. I mean let's take the Hinduization of Christianity to its ultimate conclusion, eh ?
That one is NEVER addressed by the 'nice'. And I ain't talkin' Keith Emerson here.
quote:We have no title whatsoever on salvation. God could just let us all go to hell and it would be just, for we all sin (or are tainted by original sin - a detail we should set aside, since I'll give you young children for sake of this argument...). Instead He offers salvation to absolutely everyone at all times, with very few conditions indeed. That's supremely merciful. Hence God had mercy on all men, indeed - everyone can be saved. However, He does not force people to accept His mercy and it is also (mildly) conditional. Hence some will not take what is offered, and end in hell. There's no problem whatsoever with the non-universal interpretation of this verse.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
That's not what the verse says, it's your interpretation of it. It says 'all men', and 'have mercy on them all', not 'have mercy on all'. It's talking about each individual, not humanity as a whole. If you can correlate having mercy on someone with throwing them into an everlasting hell, then great. To me, that's a shoddy interpretation.
quote:Except of course that Jesus doesn't say that. They do not go to a "time of discipline", but to "eternal punishment". To say anything else is not just shoddy interpretation, it is straight eisegesis. The exact same word is used for describing "eternal life" and "eternal punishment": aionion. If this were to mean a finite "time of discipline", then also the blessed only have a finite "time of life". Perhaps that's your hope, it sure isn't mine. There is no detectable intention in the text to differentiate between the two options time-wise, indeed, just the opposite. Clearly using the same word twice in close proximity is a rhetorical means to indicated similarity.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
For someone who undertakes that process now it will be a lot peachier than for those that don't. I take Jesus' words seriously when he says that the goats go to the time of discipline.
quote:Yes. And these univeralist arguments are always of the Humpty-Dumpty kind, because an ambiguity has to be forced onto the very words of scripture in order to avoid their obvious contradiction. Whereas this is just not the case for the non-universalist case, where instead the problem always can be resolved by making some additional distinction concerning what scripture is talking about. See our respective example above. Thus universalists falsify scripture by imposing their doctrine, whereas non-universalists have their doctrines refined by scripture. That's a big, fat difference.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
And there are about a dozen verses that are quoted to support a literal hell, and there is a variety of ways of interpreting all of them in a universalist manner. You can find all that on the web by a simple google.
quote:That's true, but irrelevant. The question is whether the Catholic system is internally coherent, respects all of scripture, and reflects the majority opinion of the Church fathers. The answer is yes. This view of scripture cannot be defeated from scripture, therefore it is entirely OK to be pre-disposed to it in reading scripture.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You're not looking at the verses objectively, because you're pre-disposed to interpret them in a certain way.
quote:Such as? The biggest problems I see with Catholicism is that human beings have been handed Divine responsibility. This is bat-shit insane, but very much in character for Christ.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But you've failed to recognise the great flaws inherent in Catholicism and Orthodoxy as well.
quote:I'm highly skeptical of individual truth seeking. That probably has to do with being a scientist, and hence being confronted day in and day out with the necessity of the checks and balances imposed by a truth seeking group of peers. I think people are rather taking a "modern art" approach to religion these days, i.e., religion for them is precisely not about truth seeking, but about "expressing themselves" as far as their spiritual urges go. For that an individual approach is obviously right.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So I try to be aware of these flaws, and discern truth without being restricted by one or another of the world views.
quote:It is one of my many failings as Christian that I defend the RCC not because I hope that you will join her, but because I hope to be right.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But you're unlikely to persuade me that the alternative offered by the Catholic Church is any better.
quote:For me, the path to faith basically proceeds like this: I know God exists, I hope that He is the God of Christ, I know that we need help to live a holy life, and I believe that Jesus set up the (RC) Church to provide it. All the rest follows.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
As for what Christ actually did in founding a Church, that's a question I've pondered for most of my life.
quote:Not that lights my candles since I was in Jerusalem some years ago.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Myrrh. Don't ...
By the way, seen any Agios Phos recently ?
quote:Well, forgetting that you've ignored the fact that it's not 'punishment', it's 'discipline', and 'eternal discipline' is a strange notion, you're right, aionion is used for both. But aionion doesn't mean eternal, it means 'age', so it's the 'age of life' and the 'age of discipline'. An age by definition has no specific length - how long is a piece of string? Its length is defined by whatever it's describing. If I say 'I was waiting at the doctors for an age', then I'm probably talking about a few hours. If I talk about the 'ice age', then I'm talking about something slightly longer. Given that the destination of the sheep is the age of life, the very fact that it's life itself that is being described suggests that it's neverending. Since discipline is for a time, with an ultimate goal, this suggests that the 'age of discipline' is only temporary.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The exact same word is used for describing "eternal life" and "eternal punishment": aionion. If this were to mean a finite "time of discipline", then also the blessed only have a finite "time of life". Perhaps that's your hope, it sure isn't mine. There is no detectable intention in the text to differentiate between the two options time-wise, indeed, just the opposite. Clearly using the same word twice in close proximity is a rhetorical means to indicated similarity.
quote:The flaws are in these type of claims that are made, which when questioned, are backed up with a 'because it just is'. Catholicism and Orthodoxy both claim to have this unbroken tradition through apostolic succession, but they differ on important issues. So they can't both have that unbroken succession - either one does or neither do.
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:Such as? The biggest problems I see with Catholicism is that human beings have been handed Divine responsibility. This is bat-shit insane, but very much in character for Christ.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But you've failed to recognise the great flaws inherent in Catholicism and Orthodoxy as well.
quote:Well, we've been debating whether it respects all of scripture (which I'm not convinced it does). As for the opinion of the Church fathers, there were plenty who were pre-disposed to universalism.
Originally posted by IngoB:
The question is whether the Catholic system is internally coherent, respects all of scripture, and reflects the majority opinion of the Church fathers. The answer is yes. This view of scripture cannot be defeated from scripture, therefore it is entirely OK to be pre-disposed to it in reading scripture.
quote:Firstly, what you want scripture to say is this: "And these will go away into a time of discipline, but then with the righteous into eternal life.” However, scripture just doesn't say that. Whatever meaning the words may have, the structure of the actual sentence "And these will go away into (period) (treatment), but the righteous into (period, same word) (treatment, different word).” suggests a clear separation by equal but opposing alternatives. There's not even a hint that the cursed will join the righteous. And this mirrors the whole prior discussion, which sets up a clear opposition in deeds and hence in consequences, in particular verse 34 promises the sheep that they will inherit the kingdom, and verse 41 the goats eternal fire. Nowhere a hint that the goats will inherit the kingdom.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Well, forgetting that you've ignored the fact that it's not 'punishment', it's 'discipline', and 'eternal discipline' is a strange notion, you're right, aionion is used for both. But aionion doesn't mean eternal, it means 'age', so it's the 'age of life' and the 'age of discipline'. An age by definition has no specific length - how long is a piece of string? Its length is defined by whatever it's describing. If I say 'I was waiting at the doctors for an age', then I'm probably talking about a few hours. If I talk about the 'ice age', then I'm talking about something slightly longer. Given that the destination of the sheep is the age of life, the very fact that it's life itself that is being described suggests that it's neverending. Since discipline is for a time, with an ultimate goal, this suggests that the 'age of discipline' is only temporary.
quote:There certainly are many and very different voices in scripture, but they are ultimately singing one song together. Actually, scripture mostly has the structure of a fugue, I would say.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Scripture doesn't always have one consistent voice, and that's one of the things I love about it.
quote:The website provides short snips without proper attribution. Basil the Great and John Chrysostom are no universalists, I have provided corresponding proper quotes above in this thread. Augustine is so clearly not a universalist, no quote is necessary. Jerome is known to have renounced universalism. Many of the given quotes are not clearly universalist and would require the absent context for clarity (Ambrose, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Irenaeus of Lyon, Peter Chrysologus, Theodoret the Blessed, Theophilus of Antioch). We also have "Olnmpiodorus", who is unknown to me as Church Father?
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
As for the opinion of the Church fathers, there were plenty who were pre-disposed to universalism.
quote:It's really not about what I want scripture to say at all, I promise. Neither you or I are experts in Greek, but I've read enough experts that say that 'eternal punishment' is a poor translation that it at least makes it dubious for me.
Originally posted by IngoB:
what you want scripture to say is this: "And these will go away into a time of discipline, but then with the righteous into eternal life.”
quote:(yes, taken from wikipedia, but with a decent source).
In the first five or six centuries of Christian history, the majority of theological schools in the East taught Universalism.
quote:Having looked at the source I'm not at all convinced.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:(yes, taken from wikipedia, but with a decent source).
In the first five or six centuries of Christian history, the majority of theological schools in the East taught Universalism.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
We're still inclined to it.
Unless you are going to give some evidence in response to my question what you really meant to say was, "I'm still inclined to it."
quote:Shrug Johnny, what can I say but that is how I was taught it was.
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
We're still inclined to it.
quote:Sigh. You just did it again.
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Shrug Johnny, what can I say but that is how I was taught it was.
Because we think in this way...
