Ship of Fools: The old Eskimo joke and the Priest's response

Thread: The old Eskimo joke and the Priest's response Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027398

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

There is a joke that I often hear and circulates online fairly often (visual here ).

quote:
Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?'

Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.'

Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'

What should the Priest's response be?

(Bear in mind Jesus says something similar to the Pharisees)

[ 05. June 2014, 10:22: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is a joke that I often hear and circulates online fairly often (visual here ).

quote:
Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?'

Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.'

Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'
What should the Priest's response be?

"Oops. You've just dropped a depth charge through my attempts to cling to the doctrine of Hell whilst trying to make it out to be fair. I'll go and think things through a bit more."

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

"Because salvation isn't just about what happens when you die."

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

So that you could come to glimpse heaven now, and help others to do the same?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Such statements would pale in comparison to eternal torment don't you think?

#thedoctrineofhellisaseriousproblemforthechurch

I wonder if such a person that believed in such a doctrine might respond:

"But you wouldn't know eternal life (both here and later) either."

Is that fair?

[ 05. June 2014, 10:57: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

"So you can inherit eternal life, starting right now"

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

Priest: Oh, yes! Well I guess I'll become a Universalist then... Carry on.

Eskimo: Okay. Have a fish.

Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.'

IME very few people actually believe this in this unqualified state. Rather they would say that for people who have not heard the gospel they aren't necessarily bound for hell, just that God will deal with them justly on the basis of what they know.

Hence the "why did you tell me?" (implying the telling has doomed him) doesn't necessarily follow.

Of course that's too nuanced for a joke so...

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

EE!! I keep forgetting that in all the stuff you're against you're against damnationism of any kind and therefore ALL is forgivable.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

[tangent for information]
From wikipedia:
" In Canada and Greenland, the term "Eskimo" has fallen out of favor as it is considered pejorative and has been widely replaced by the term "Inuit,""

No-one would ever call someone "Eskimo" to their face without giving offence. It's probably at the level of "redskin", which like Eskimo, is the name of a football team, but would never be used in connection with a person.

BTW, I have never heard this joke.
[/tangent]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

In Alaska, use Eskimo instead of Inuit, it seems.

As to the joke, I question the premise that we are inherently immortal souls.

[ 05. June 2014, 12:41: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is a joke that I often hear and circulates online fairly often (visual here ).

quote:
Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?'

Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.'

Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'
What should the Priest's response be?

(Bear in mind Jesus says something similar to the Pharisees)

Priest: Because you know more already than you think. You can claim to be ignorant about the teachings that I bring, but the evidence of God's existence is all around you and his moral law is written on your heart. Where you fail to see the true God in nature, and where you fail to follow the good promptings of your heart, this shows the corruption that you share with all humans, including me. But for the mercy of God, this corruption would land us all in hell, for close to God no darkness can persist. Will you find mercy in God's eyes without the gospel that I bring, and enjoy the bliss of being with Him in heaven? I do not know. Perhaps. But I do know that God came down from heaven to bring His love and mercy to us as Jesus Christ, that He gave my Church the means to bring it to all people of the earth, and that it is my duty and my pleasure to bring it to you. So you can continue on your own to grope for the narrow path to God among the shadows. But I have been given light, and I can show you the way that I know is true. Will you let me?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I've never heard this joke either, but would note that my Inuit acquaintances will occasionally use the word eskimo as an adjective in some circumstances, as in "He speaks Eskimo well," possibly because the word for the language (Inuktitut) is considered too difficult for the Qablunaat (white folk) to pronounce.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
"Because salvation isn't just about what happens when you die."

bingo.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In Alaska, use Eskimo instead of Inuit, it seems.

As to the joke, I question the premise that we are inherently immortal souls.

Interesting. Here's from the U of Alaska, Fairbanks, which acknowledges the use in Alaska and the derogatory nature elsewhere. It would seem that technically the word Eskimo doesn't refer to the Inuit and Kalaallit, though in practice it seems to. The man in the OP link looks Inuit to me, but perhaps Yupik people have similar appearance. Kind of like the collective term "Paki" for people who look East Indian I suppose or perhaps "Darkie" for other groups.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

Pity Limbo was closed down.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

If being told about anything could change our eternal destiny, it would be a pretty poor eternal destiny. The eskimo/innuit would be right - the best option would be not to tell anyone, and then surely everyone would go to heaven when they died?

But faith, destiny, whatever is not dependent on what we KNOW. It is dependent, if anything, on who we are. Telling someone does not change anything, it just gives us a guideline and a plan for how we should be.

What is more - most - is that it helps us to be better people here on earth. Or at least it should - there are far too many examples of where it doesn't.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

It';s not an especially funny joke. It can be read as a nasty commentary about priests or about evangelism in general. As people have commented, the priest's answer is hopelessly clumsy. If the priest does not have a good answer to the Eskimo's second question, he should quit his job.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In Alaska, use Eskimo instead of Inuit, it seems.

As to the joke, I question the premise that we are inherently immortal souls.
Interesting. Here's from the U of Alaska, Fairbanks, which acknowledges the use in Alaska and the derogatory nature elsewhere. It would seem that technically the word Eskimo doesn't refer to the Inuit and Kalaallit, though in practice it seems to. The man in the OP link looks Inuit to me, but perhaps Yupik people have similar appearance. Kind of like the collective term "Paki" for people who look East Indian I suppose or perhaps "Darkie" for other groups.

At a guess I'd say "Negro" was probably the better analogue. I'm not aware of anyone who considers "paki" an acceptable descriptor.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

After reading Schroedinger's cat's post, I'd go with that.

[ 05. June 2014, 20:47: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I personally would rather have a terrible life of darkness and ignorance of the gospel if that meant I had no reason to fear going to Hell for something I did or did not believe. I think quite a few would agree.

[ 05. June 2014, 21:18: Message edited by: stonespring ]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

As to the joke, I question the premise that we are inherently immortal souls.

Can you say more about this?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?'

Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.'

Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'

I remember being asked precisely the same question forty years ago by a skinhead who wandered into a coffee-shop outreach (does anyone still do them?)which we were running.

Don't think he was ethnically Eskimo, Inuit or whatever, and I can't remember what I replied.

Posted by Trin (# 12100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?'

Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.'

Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'
What should the Priest's response be?

(Bear in mind Jesus says something similar to the Pharisees)

What does Jesus say to the pharisees?

The whole set up doesn't make any sense. If not hearing about God and sin is a free pass in to heaven it would have made no sense for God to make any attempt to reveal himself to mankind in the first place.

[ 06. June 2014, 08:42: Message edited by: Trin ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

As to the joke, I question the premise that we are inherently immortal souls.
Can you say more about this?

I can't speak for Nick, of course, but the soul isn't by itself immortal. It's only immortal in that God wills it to be because nothing exists except that God wills it to.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem
I can't speak for Nick, of course, but the soul isn't by itself immortal. It's only immortal in that God wills it to be because nothing exists except that God wills it to.

True. But what if God has willed that the soul (and spirit) of man is inherently immortal? There is a verse of Scripture that seems to imply this: He has put eternity in their hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

But, of course, I am proof-texting. So I might be wrong...

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trin:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?'

Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.'

Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'
What should the Priest's response be?

(Bear in mind Jesus says something similar to the Pharisees)
What does Jesus say to the pharisees?

Jesus says to the Pharisees something like if they had not heard him, they would be without sin, but because they had heard his message but rejected it, they would be condemned. Can't remember the verse off the top of my head. Perhaps someone else can oblige.

quote:
Originally posted by Trin:

The whole set up doesn't make any sense. If not hearing about God and sin is a free pass in to heaven it would have made no sense for God to make any attempt to reveal himself to mankind in the first place.

Quite right.

But if it is only in the incarnation that heaven (eternal life) is opened up as a possibility, then it makes more sense.

Obviously the reverse becomes true then too. The possibility of eternal condemnation.

Double edged sword?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

As to the joke, I question the premise that we are inherently immortal souls.
Can you say more about this?
I can't speak for Nick, of course, but the soul isn't by itself immortal. It's only immortal in that God wills it to be because nothing exists except that God wills it to.

Of course. But was eternity available before the advent of Christ? Is that the new thing?

The Te deum says:

When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death :
thou didst open the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

As to the joke, I question the premise that we are inherently immortal souls.
Can you say more about this?
I can't speak for Nick, of course, but the soul isn't by itself immortal. It's only immortal in that God wills it to be because nothing exists except that God wills it to.
Of course. But was eternity available before the advent of Christ? Is that the new thing?

The Te deum says:

When thou hadst overcome the sharpness of death :
thou didst open the Kingdom of Heaven to all believers.

I believe that the souls in Hades would have continued to exist, only there would have been no heaven and no resurrection. I think that is what the verse from the Te Deum is referring to, that Christ openned to the way to heaven for those in Hades and ultimately the resurrection of the body.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Hades is a Greek conception.

Sheol is the Hebrew and Old Testament one. Quite unlike the visions of hell in the NT. It is a place of nothing - non existence.

The NT visions of hell do not exist in the OT: it is a new thing.

OTOH you have a point. Jesus does descent to Hell in Matthew does he not? Wonder what the Greek term is there....is it reference to Sheol or a kind of hell more descriptive of the type the NT elucidates?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Priest: Because you know more already than you think. You can claim to be ignorant about the teachings that I bring, but the evidence of God's existence is all around you and his moral law is written on your heart.

What if the Eskimo doesn't see any evidence of God's existence?

[code]

[ 06. June 2014, 12:51: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Jesus does descent to Hell in Matthew does he not?

Not. Matthew 12:40 refers to Jesus being in the heart of the earth but doesn't mention him going to hell. There are no such references in the NT; the idea of Jesus going to hell came much later, notably in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter and in the Apostles' Creed.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
What if the Eskimo doesn't see any evidence of God's existence?

Well, in that extremely unlikely event, I suggest that he will be judged by his response to the God who reveals Himself to him when at last they come face to face post mortem. After all, an ignorant arrogant man is no less arrogant than an informed arrogant man. And I suppose one could say the same about humility.

If the Eskimo is genuinely open to God, then, when he is finally required to, he will respond with humility, love and worship. If he is not, then he will not.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
What if the Eskimo doesn't see any evidence of God's existence?
Well, in that extremely unlikely event, I suggest that he will be judged by his response to the God who reveals Himself to him when at last they come face to face post mortem. After all, an ignorant arrogant man is no less arrogant than an informed arrogant man. And I suppose one could say the same about humility.

If the Eskimo is genuinely open to God, then, when he is finally required to, he will respond with humility, love and worship. If he is not, then he will not.

Why unlikely? I don't see any evidence of God's existence and I don't see myself as being in any way out of the ordinary.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Hades is a Greek conception.

Sheol is the Hebrew and Old Testament one. Quite unlike the visions of hell in the NT. It is a place of nothing - non existence.

The NT visions of hell do not exist in the OT: it is a new thing.

OTOH you have a point. Jesus does descent to Hell in Matthew does he not? Wonder what the Greek term is there....is it reference to Sheol or a kind of hell more descriptive of the type the NT elucidates?

The Greek word used is Hades (which we profess in the Creed, "he descended into Hades"). Christ preached to the souls their, or as St. Peter says in one of his epistles "the spirits in prison".

[ 06. June 2014, 12:52: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Hades is a Greek conception.

Sheol is the Hebrew and Old Testament one. Quite unlike the visions of hell in the NT. It is a place of nothing - non existence.

The NT visions of hell do not exist in the OT: it is a new thing.

OTOH you have a point. Jesus does descent to Hell in Matthew does he not? Wonder what the Greek term is there....is it reference to Sheol or a kind of hell more descriptive of the type the NT elucidates?
The Greek word used is Hades (which we profess in the Creed, "he descended into Hades"). Christ preached to the souls their, or as St. Peter says in one of his epistles "the spirits in prison".

Sorry, I meant the Apostles' Creed, not the Nicene Creed.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

As to the joke, I question the premise that we are inherently immortal souls.
Can you say more about this?
I can't speak for Nick, of course, but the soul isn't by itself immortal. It's only immortal in that God wills it to be because nothing exists except that God wills it to.

You could by the same logic say the soul doesn't by itself exist, because it only exists inasmuch as God wills it to.

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Jesus does descent to Hell in Matthew does he not?
Not. Matthew 12:40 refers to Jesus being in the heart of the earth but doesn't mention him going to hell. There are no such references in the NT; the idea of Jesus going to hell came much later, notably in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter and in the Apostles' Creed.

The Harrowing of Hell is also mentioned by Melito of Sardis, who died in 180. In terms of Christian history, that's like the next day. It is also supported by the passage in 1 Peter 3:19, where it states that Christ preached to the spirits in prison. Granted that's only 2 verses and it's far from conclusive, but it's certainly more biblical support than sola scriptura ever had.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But what if God has willed that the soul (and spirit) of man is inherently immortal? There is a verse of Scripture that seems to imply this: He has put eternity in their hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

But, of course, I am proof-texting. So I might be wrong...

Or you're just misinterpreting. I have seen that verse glossed as saying that he has given them a desire for eternity.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You could by the same logic say the soul doesn't by itself exist, because it only exists inasmuch as God wills it to.

Indeed, and you'd be right because that's exactly what I'm saying. Immortality is only continued exitence for ever and ever.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Jesus does descent to Hell in Matthew does he not?
Not. Matthew 12:40 refers to Jesus being in the heart of the earth but doesn't mention him going to hell. There are no such references in the NT; the idea of Jesus going to hell came much later, notably in the apocryphal Gospel of Peter and in the Apostles' Creed.

So the idea that Jesus opened the way to both heaven AND hell is still possible then.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
I don't see any evidence of God's existence...

Then define what you mean by 'evidence'. What kind of evidence would convince you? What kind of evidence do you think is absent?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

As to the joke, I question the premise that we are inherently immortal souls.
Can you say more about this?

Yes, but it will probably be later on tonight. I'm at the office right now.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
I don't see any evidence of God's existence...
Then define what you mean by 'evidence'. What kind of evidence would convince you? What kind of evidence do you think is absent?

IANGS, but I think the obvious answer is that there is not a particular kind of evidence that is absent, but rather that there is no evidence that is present.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In Alaska, use Eskimo instead of Inuit, it seems.

As to the joke, I question the premise that we are inherently immortal souls.
Interesting. Here's from the U of Alaska, Fairbanks, which acknowledges the use in Alaska and the derogatory nature elsewhere. It would seem that technically the word Eskimo doesn't refer to the Inuit and Kalaallit, though in practice it seems to. The man in the OP link looks Inuit to me, but perhaps Yupik people have similar appearance. Kind of like the collective term "Paki" for people who look East Indian I suppose or perhaps "Darkie" for other groups.

Yupik and Inupiaq are related - linguistically, culturally, and genetically. Here they are collectively called "eskimo" which IME has never been used specifically in a derogatory way. The term eskimo is used to refer to the Yupik/Inupaiq/Siberian Yupik language/cultural group collectively, as opposed to the Aleut, the Athabascan, the Tlingit, Tsimshian, Haida, etc. the three "big" distinctions are eskimo, indian, and aleut.

colloquially, "Inuit" is used to refer to Canadian eskimos - i.e. the same linguistic/cultural/genetic family as the Yupik and Inupiaq, but from Canada. Greenlanders are usually considered in their own group.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
ANGS, but I think the obvious answer is that there is not a particular kind of evidence that is absent, but rather that there is no evidence that is present.

The statement that "no evidence is present" only has meaning if the person making it has some idea what the word 'evidence' means. After all, we cannot say that something is not present if we have no idea at all what it is that is not present!

I might as well say that there is no bloobibogifatipol present. I have no idea what bloobibogifatipol is, but I know that there is none present!!

Clearly that claim is nonsense.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
ANGS, but I think the obvious answer is that there is not a particular kind of evidence that is absent, but rather that there is no evidence that is present.
The statement that "no evidence is present" only has meaning if the person making it has some idea what the word 'evidence' means. After all, we cannot say that something is not present if we have no idea at all what it is that is not present!

I might as well say that there is no bloobibogifatipol present. I have no idea what bloobibogifatipol is, but I know that there is none present!!

Clearly that claim is nonsense.

But that's easy. Evidence of the existence of God is something that would make GS go, "Oh, I see! That suggests God exists!" He doesn't need to know what form it would take. He would recognize it when he sees it.

Just as I have no idea what would prove a graviton exists, but If a scientist says, "Here, this proves a graviton exists" and explains why this particular bit of evidence does in fact suggest the existence of the particle, then I can say, "Oh yeah, that is evidence of their existence."

The burden of proof is on the scientist who thinks they exist to justify his evidence. Similarly, the burden of proof is on the theist to justify his evidence of God's existence, and why that evidence really is, well, evidence. It is not the duty of the to-date-unconvinced to invent ways to prove God exists. Just as it's not my responsibility to invent tests that might prove the existence of gravitons before I can say, "Nobody has shown me any evidence of gravitons."

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

"He has put eternity in the heart of men" - I don't think this is any proof of the soul being immortal. I did some work on this once, and concluded that it is about us being able to understand the concept of eternity, to desire to live for ever.

And it is in a complex and difficult book, with ideas that are not always easy to engage with.

The message to the Pharisees was very specifically to them - because they had made a deliberate intention to find truth, and had rejected it when they found it (standing in front of them) they were condemned. If they had not made this effort, but accepted the faith of their people, they would have been judged according to their behaviour and attitude, not their explorations.

So if you don't seek out truth, you will be judged according to your attitude. If you seek it, explicitly, then you will be judged based on this search as well. In a sense, there is no difference, but the problem was that the Pharisees considered themselves better than others, because of their learning. Jesus was saying that they were no better, and probably worse.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
What if the Eskimo doesn't see any evidence of God's existence?
Well, in that extremely unlikely event, I suggest that he will be judged by his response to the God who reveals Himself to him when at last they come face to face post mortem. After all, an ignorant arrogant man is no less arrogant than an informed arrogant man. And I suppose one could say the same about humility.

If the Eskimo is genuinely open to God, then, when he is finally required to, he will respond with humility, love and worship. If he is not, then he will not.

I actually interpreted George's comment literally, and that he was talking about a blind man. Now plenty of blind people are open to God, but it did make me think of people who for medical reasons are alive but not aware of the outside world, or who are only aware of it to a tiny extent. If one is physically incapable of being aware of the outside world, then how can they be aware of God? One needs to be medically able to assent to God as well as theologically/philosophically.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

As to the joke, I question the premise that we are inherently immortal souls.
Can you say more about this?
Yes, but it will probably be later on tonight. I'm at the office right now.

I hope this is concise enough to sum up my current understand of it without having to write a book:

Look at what the OT says about the end of the wicked. It appears to me to describe destruction. In 1 Timothy we are told God alone is immortal. In Romans 6 we are told that the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life. In Matthew 10 we are told "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I'm afraid I don't follow. What is the connection between the scripture quotes?

Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm afraid I don't follow. What is the connection between the scripture quotes?

Presumably, that the soul isn't inherently immortal. Only God is.The human soul is a creation of God, and can be destroyed.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

And the connection with the joke? [Confused]

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

Not presuming to answer on behalf of Mere Nick, but answering because I would have chosen some of the same Scriptures to post -- if there is no immortal soul, and immortality is given only as a gift of God to those who believe, then the Inuit person in the joke is not threatened with an eternally burning hell. He is threatened with, at worst, a non-conscious non-existence after death. The priest comes to offer him the hope of eternal life, which can only be received as a gift from God (it is not inherent to our natural state as humans, since we are mortal).

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Thanks Trudy.

So as I've mentioned upthread, does this mean that the advent of Jesus makes both eternal life AND eternal damnation possible whereas they were not before?

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yonatan:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm afraid I don't follow. What is the connection between the scripture quotes?
Presumably, that the soul isn't inherently immortal. Only God is.The human soul is a creation of God, and can be destroyed.

Yes, that's how it looks right now. The soul that sins shall die. Eternal life is a gift from God.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
Not presuming to answer on behalf of Mere Nick, but answering because I would have chosen some of the same Scriptures to post -- if there is no immortal soul, and immortality is given only as a gift of God to those who believe, then the Inuit person in the joke is not threatened with an eternally burning hell. He is threatened with, at worst, a non-conscious non-existence after death. The priest comes to offer him the hope of eternal life, which can only be received as a gift from God (it is not inherent to our natural state as humans, since we are mortal).

Pretty much, but it looks like a lost soul will receive punishment, being destroyed in hell. The punishment is eternal. Once destroyed, you stay destroyed. That's how it looks to me.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Thanks Trudy.

So as I've mentioned upthread, does this mean that the advent of Jesus makes both eternal life AND eternal damnation possible whereas they were not before?

It appears to me that it makes eternal life possible. With the, I suspect probable to certain, exception of children and those possessing sufficient mental defect, eternal destruction was the default end of us wicked folks.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Ah! You see Hell as annihilation (The End), as opposed to a place of eternal torment and suffering.

While that's certainly a more palatable and OT solution, I don't think it takes account those scriptures in the New Testament that speak of eternal torment and suffering and punishment. They are still a problem.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Ah! You see Hell as annihilation (The End), as opposed to a place of eternal torment and suffering.

While that's certainly a more palatable and OT solution, I don't think it takes account those scriptures in the New Testament that speak of eternal torment and suffering and punishment. They are still a problem.

Ok. I can start a threat about it all, ok?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

From the OP of your other thread, I take it you're not an innerantist then. I thought perhaps you were.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

So as I've mentioned upthread, does this mean that the advent of Jesus makes both eternal life AND eternal damnation possible whereas they were not before?

Does no one agree with this idea as a possibility?

The OT does not have Hell. The NT does.

[ 08. June 2014, 11:15: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

Just about every theory I have seen on this general theme - not just on this thread, or even on this board, but generally - seems to consist of speculation based on a few Bible verses, but ignoring others. I haven't seen a single one which is compatible with the Bible as a whole. Can I (yet again) put forward the idea that the problem lies in our understanding, that we are not smart enough to figure out God's mind, and that the snippets of information which we have are, as it were, just single facets of the complete gem? and that some of these facets are, perhaps, of an illustrative or allegorical nature? and that God can combine justice, and mercy, and love in a way which we can't yet comprehend?

... and that some theologians who have tried to lay down how things are, and command our belief in what they have said, are not nearly so clever as they think they are?

... and, while we are here; it seems to me that external extinction of what was once a human being is only marginally less scary than eternal torment, and I am more than a bit reluctant to believe in either?

... and before this gets all too heavy ... the Bible says - yes, Jesus' own words - that prostitutes and even tax gatherers will get into the Kingdom of Heaven before the Holy Joes. Should this guide our lifestyle choices? how about a career in the Inland Revenue?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Just about every theory I have seen on this general theme - not just on this thread, or even on this board, but generally - seems to consist of speculation based on a few Bible verses, but ignoring others. I haven't seen a single one which is compatible with the Bible as a whole. Can I (yet again) put forward the idea that the problem lies in our understanding, that we are not smart enough to figure out God's mind, and that the snippets of information which we have are, as it were, just single facets of the complete gem? and that some of these facets are, perhaps, of an illustrative or allegorical nature? and that God can combine justice, and mercy, and love in a way which we can't yet comprehend?

Nicely said.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Just about every theory I have seen on this general theme - not just on this thread, or even on this board, but generally - seems to consist of speculation based on a few Bible verses, but ignoring others. I haven't seen a single one which is compatible with the Bible as a whole. Can I (yet again) put forward the idea that the problem lies in our understanding, that we are not smart enough to figure out God's mind, and that the snippets of information which we have are, as it were, just single facets of the complete gem? and that some of these facets are, perhaps, of an illustrative or allegorical nature? and that God can combine justice, and mercy, and love in a way which we can't yet comprehend?
Nicely said.

And true about far more than just this one topic.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
From the OP of your other thread, I take it you're not an innerantist then. I thought perhaps you were.

I think I probably am. If there is any error it would be in my understanding of what I try to understand.

quote:
The OT does not have Hell. The NT does.

They both describe the end of the wicked, though, don't they?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
The OT does not have Hell. The NT does.
They both describe the end of the wicked, though, don't they?

But without an afterlife, "the wicked always get their comeuppance" is demonstrably false.

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
The OT does not have Hell. The NT does.
They both describe the end of the wicked, though, don't they?
But without an afterlife, "the wicked always get their comeuppance" is demonstrably false.

Yes. To me, though, the debate is between conscious unending torment and being destroyed with the misery and duration of the destruction being related to the evil one has done. It seems to me that the weight of the evidence is on the second outcome and it would be a real drag to find out the hard way.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
From the OP of your other thread, I take it you're not an innerantist then. I thought perhaps you were.
I think I probably am. If there is any error it would be in my understanding of what I try to understand.

So the bible is not in error (or contradictory), it's just you and your lack of understanding any apparent contradictions?

If so, on one level that seems ridiculous, on another level we accept other such contradictions in tradition (e.g. The Trinity) that defy rational understanding so what the hey - perhaps you're entitled to that opinion too.

I suppose the only caveat on that might be that scripture should be intelligible in the protestant tradition.....?

[ 11. June 2014, 11:20: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
From the OP of your other thread, I take it you're not an innerantist then. I thought perhaps you were.
I think I probably am. If there is any error it would be in my understanding of what I try to understand.

So the bible is not in error (or contradictory), it's just you and your lack of understanding any apparent contradictions?

If so, on one level that seems ridiculous, on another level we accept other such contradictions in tradition (e.g. The Trinity) that defy rational understanding so what the hey - perhaps you're entitled to that opinion too.

I suppose the only caveat on that might be that scripture should be intelligible in the protestant tradition.....?

It seems the most accurate way to put it would be to say that I realize I don't know everything. I suspect anyone who reads the bible, listens to a sermon, talks with others about what passages mean, etc, is admitting the same thing.

If I run across what appears to be contradictory, that would cause me to go back and question some of my premises.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

In scholarship, the usual mode of operation is to give the author the benefit of the doubt until you can't any longer. Sometimes you just have to give up and say, "No matter how I slice it, this is internally inconsistent."

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
The OT does not have Hell. The NT does.
They both describe the end of the wicked, though, don't they?
But without an afterlife, "the wicked always get their comeuppance" is demonstrably false.

'course, I was daft enough to be fooled into that version of Christianity that says that even with an afterlife, the wicked don't always get their comeuppance, because of this thing called grace.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:

quote:
The OT does not have Hell. The NT does.
They both describe the end of the wicked, though, don't they?
But without an afterlife, "the wicked always get their comeuppance" is demonstrably false.
'course, I was daft enough to be fooled into that version of Christianity that says that even with an afterlife, the wicked don't always get their comeuppance, because of this thing called grace.

These clearly aren't the wicked to whom Mere Nick was referring. Sorry, I must rule this irrelevant.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The wicked get their comeuppance immediately by being wicked. It's its own reward. That's my experience of being wicked. It's hell. Endless hell. The guilt, the shame, the regret, the intrusive thoughts, the rumination, the dysfunctionality go on and on and on even though I'm as white as snow in Christ - I still DID it and the effects are indelible in this life. That's bad enough. But being wicked and NOT suffering those after effects is even worse. What's worst of all is NEVER experiencing regret. What punishment could be worse than that? Being reprobate. As Satan.

Why does anyone need punishing? By what? For what? For whom? All loss will be restituted. I want NO ONE punished on my account. Does our forgiveness not count? Of others? Does Hitler need punishing? Satan? HOW? To what end? We love having Hitlers and Stalins to compare ourselves favourably with. Consider Phlebas. And then some. How would the victims of the Holocaust benefit from Hitler's punishment? And should he like Jesus bear the punishment of the one million Germans who implemented the Holocaust? That poor little boy?

Sigh.

Posted by Frankenstein (# 16198) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is a joke that I often hear and circulates online fairly often (visual here ).

quote:
Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?'

Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.'

Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'
What should the Priest's response be?

(Bear in mind Jesus says something similar to the Pharisees)

Wikipedia gives us: Eskimo is a term for the indigenous peoples who have traditionally inhabited the northern circumpolar region from eastern Siberia (Russia), across Alaska (United States), Canada, and Greenland.

For Eskimo insert any other people who do not have access to Christian theology, a very large percentage of the human race.

For priest read missionary/teacher of religious instruction.

The question remains the same but has something changed and what is it?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

No. Nothing has changed.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

I'm not very impressed by the priest. He has not, evidently, read Roman's Chapter 1: verses 18 to 32- though you may think that is to his credit, Evensong!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0