|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Hell - an embarrassment to many Christians these days?
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Well, I'm not a Prot. So for me "revelation" isn't just the bible, nor just the bible and the Church fathers, but in the end the bible and the Church fathers and the Church's teaching authority exercised through the ages. But certainly one can proof-text this one rather easily:
quote:
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.
All that seems clear and consistent enough to me.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orlando098
Shipmate
# 14930
|
Posted
I suppose so, but then there are verses (including one of yours) that refer to death or destruction, which could mean anihilation. Then some people (including in this thread) point to verses that suggest to them universalism. 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..
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?
Posts: 1019 | From: Nice, France | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Yummily parsimonious Trudy.
And of course Jesus promised a bearable Judgement for the most appalling Godless sinners. Twice.
It's self-confessed Christians like us who have to watch themselves.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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. 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.
It seems to me that to make belief in any form of perdition remotely palateable, you have to step outside the plain teaching of Scripture. The Bible teaches that there is a Hell, that it is indescribably nasty, and that some people will go there. Any attempts to spin this as being true, but not literal ('Hell is how the unrepentant experience God's love'; 'Hell is a metaphor for final death'...) inevitably fail to satisfy because the essential problem is that God does things to people which they experience or anticipate as terrifyingly unpleasant.
To make the doctrine comfortable, it would be necessary to be a universalist, or claim that people in Hell are actually more or less happy but seem lost from the perspective of heaven, or that Hell is remedial and the damned can and will get out eventually, or something less that counters the fundamental problem that Hell is terrible and lasts forever. I could live comfortable with such a doctrine, but I wouldn't want to try to it from scripture.
I hope that the traditional view of Hell is wrong. It might be, and Christianiy seems to me to be just big enough to allow for such a hope. But I don't think that we can throw out the doctrine of Hell altogether and still be true to either the Bible or tradition. And to throw it out in favour of annihilationism, which is just as disturbing but not nearly so well-attested seems to me to be the worst of both worlds.
If we are allowed to twist scripture to the extent necessary to see it as teaching annihilation, then why not do the same sort of thing in the direction of universalism? That's a much more palatable doctrine.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
The question, to me, isn't about the doctrine and how palatable it is. It's about the kind of God that doctrine espouses. God's character - supremely shown in Jesus - is all about loving and forgiving enemies. It's a hard one - very uncomfortable indeed.
If you are happy to worship a god you believe would let you suffer eternal agony for your unbelief then that's up to you.
S/he simply isn't the God I worship.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Unless you rate existence itself as something that it is always better to have, of course. But then you'd have to believe that it's better to exist in eternal agony than to not exist at all, and that's just screwy...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
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
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.
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.
I could understand an attempt to re-interpret the Bible to make God seem nice, but I don't see the point of doing it merely to make him seem somewhat less appalling.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Then perhaps that starting position is erroneous, as my comment in the parentheses referred to.
quote:
That one of those fates is preferable to the other doesn't signify.
It does to me, as a prospective sufferer! It signifies a heckuva lot!
quote:
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.
But if they are the only two options, annihilation is far kinder to the individual concerned than Hell.
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orlando098
Shipmate
# 14930
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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..
Posts: 1019 | From: Nice, France | Registered: Jul 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Orlando098:
Then some people (including in this thread) point to verses that suggest to them universalism.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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?
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.
My speculations about this topic changes frequently, since I have not really made up my mind. I think it is a non-trivial matter. What I thought of today, driving back home from work, is that we may be confused about the intent. People suffer eternally in hell, so we think God must want that to be so for its own sake. But maybe not, maybe God wants it to be so as a means?
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. 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.
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? 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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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!
quote:
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.
Sounds to me like your God has a lot in common with Jigsaw...
quote:
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?
If God truly loved us, that wouldn't matter.
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.
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!.
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.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
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.
This is nonsense to me. If something doesn't ring true for you how on earth can you accept it?
If you I can't think for myself then I can't think at all.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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!
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.
So I think you have to look at the whole thrust of scripture, and try to discern the earliest beliefs on the matter (for me, being a prot - I get that it's slightly different for you as a cath). For me, the conclusion is a form of universalism - something that surprised me if I'm honest, given my prior beliefs. But I wouldn't throw annihilationism out the window either.
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Ingo in his ignorant wooden literalism is of course right.
He put it there to get it over with.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What an egotist! If this God was a person, He'd be a complete jerk!
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If God truly loved us, that wouldn't matter.
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...
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
This is nonsense to me. If something doesn't ring true for you how on earth can you accept it?
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.
quote:
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!
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.
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. I see no point in adding to that. 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:
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
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!
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.
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:
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?
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.
quote:
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.
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.
This is my point - that whichever view you take, you'll be having some questions to answer and some decisions to make.
quote:
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).
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.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
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.
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".
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.
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What an egotist! If this God was a person, He'd be a complete jerk!
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.
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.
But Christianity actually teaches a God of love, who reaches out to us and wants us to love Him back. Not just to obey, but to love. In that context it matters a fucking LOT whether God is actually loveable, because if He's not then a theological variant of Stockholm Syndrome is our only hope!
quote:
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...
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.
Comparing that reasoning to the heavenly union results in a situation where Hell is pretty cool, but not as good as Heaven. I could live with that.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
THIS is the crux - for modern minds - is God lovable ?
The God appeased at the Heresy of Peor ?
To the modern mind ONLY if we rationalize Him to a liberal-Zen, Zaphod-I'm-just-this-God, God.
And we have "failed" to rise NOT fallen and Satan is just our projection of our de-idealized self.
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.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
THIS is the crux - for modern minds - is God lovable?
If we are called to love Him, I think it's an important factor in whether we can answer that call.
I realise that there are those who disagree, and are happy to declare their love for any monster that happens to be God, purely because it is God. I cannot do that.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Don't get confused by taking things I've said out of context, if that's what you're doing here..?
Even with Bliss the end result of cutting through the illusion of Maya of the multiple cycles of creation over countless trillions of years, Krishna is much more your style God than mine, taking himself out of creation he ultimately fails us, for Krishna we are still sockpuppets as we are with Origen. In Christ we have a God who has joined us inextricably in his creation, become part and parcel with us as co-creators with him. Bliss is not the end for us, Love is, and that is through involvement in our separate wills working in synergistic relationship with a God who created us equal. Hence we have, begin with, the Adam and Eve story, of conscious involvement of God in mankind, rather than mechanical and ultimately boring Karma of God playing himself out in multiplicity for his own amusement and from which breaking the shackles of involvement lead to the same blissed out as Krishna state with no real concern for that which exists in Maya, for even he wants to escape himself..
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You're not looking at the verses objectively, because you're pre-disposed to interpret them in a certain way.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But you've failed to recognise the great flaws inherent in Catholicism and Orthodoxy as well.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But you're unlikely to persuade me that the alternative offered by the Catholic Church is any better.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Myrrh. Don't ...
By the way, seen any Agios Phos recently ?
[ 09. September 2010, 18:44: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Myrrh. Don't ...
By the way, seen any Agios Phos recently ?
Not that lights my candles since I was in Jerusalem some years ago.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Ah, sorry! That's actually not true. A year after we buried my out-law ma we gathered at the grave and I'd brought a candle which we lit and placed on the grave. It was very windy, gusty type not constant, and the candle went out. I started forward to re-light it and it lit itself! We all ended up grinning like kids as we watched this candle go out and relight a half dozen times, and we began counting the seconds between, 15 secs and more sometimes. It was an ordinary candle, not the birthday kind that can do this. Mum was special, a member of the Spiritualist Church, into healing.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
But you're right in raising this issue. The very use of the word 'aionion' does not specify the lengths of time for either the life to come, or the discipline to come either, it only suggests, so this verse needs to be taken in context with the rest of scripture and the interpretation of the church.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But you've failed to recognise the great flaws inherent in Catholicism and Orthodoxy as well.
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.
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.
But the main issue with Catholicism for me, is in your earlier claim that scripture and church testimony have one consistent voice. Scripture doesn't always have one consistent voice, and that's one of the things I love about it. And the more I study church history, the more I see that the Church has rarely had on consistent voice, let alone a voice that is consistent with scripture. The reformation came about in large part because the voice of the Church was inconsistent with scripture.
The Catholic Church has constantly re-invented itself over time, and that may be no bad thing. But the problem is that despite this re-invention, there is an inability to admit that they got some things wrong before, and may have other things wrong now.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Just on this specific point:
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Secondly, "kolasis" does not primarily mean "discipline" in Koine Greek, but rather "punishment". This is apparently (I'm no scholar of Greek, this is google wisdom, see for example here...) well attested from other Koine Greek sources. Thirdly, similarly "aionios" is primarily known to indicate "eternal". I'm also not aware of any major bible translation that translates these words otherwise, and that includes English, German and Dutch translations.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Scripture doesn't always have one consistent voice, and that's one of the things I love about it.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
As for the opinion of the Church fathers, there were plenty who were pre-disposed to universalism.
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?
There remain with Clement of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, Diodore of Tarsus, Eusebius of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, Macrina the Younger, Origenes and Theodore of Mopsuestia a handful of acknowledged universalists, generally multiply cited. Against them stand the majority of other Church Fathers (as discussed for example by J.N.D. Kelly in "Early Christian Doctrines", XVII.6). It should be noted that one finds mention of eternal punishment even among the universalists (see my quote from Origenes above, likewise apparently in Gregory's ascetic writing "Chastisement", which I cannot however find online). Finally, I note that the rise of the doctrine of purgatory is related to all this. One can well see all this as a process of working out purgatory, i.e., the idea of a cleansing chastisement for sinners was not wrong, it was merely wrong to assume that all sinners will be cleaned this way.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
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.”
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.
The quotes I linked to were simply to make a point. You said that the Catholic system reflects the vast majority of the church fathers. My point is that this is not the case. Look, I may not be able to persuade you that universalism is right, but I hope to at least make you realise that it's not so clear cut as you make out. For example:
quote:
In the first five or six centuries of Christian history, the majority of theological schools in the East taught Universalism.
(yes, taken from wikipedia, but with a decent source).
Pre Augustine, universalism was an accepted orthodox voice in the Church, even if it was one voice among many. The Augustine quote shows this - the website's not saying that Augustine was a universalist, but it does illustrate that universalism was a respected and common view in the Church - same point with Jerome, even though he later changed his mind. Augustine said that 'very many' people were universalists, with whom he had a 'gentle disagreement' over the issue. Jerome said that 'most people' were universalists.
It's interesting that the universalists tended to be Greek, and the ETs tended to be Latin. Augustine was not well-educated in Greek, and most of the eternal torment arguments have their root in his views, which some universalists say come from his poor reading of Greek.
This is why I can't agree with your statement when you claim that the Catholic Church has one consistent voice throughout history. The voice has changed, and was not consistent in the first place. And this (in my view) is the major flaw of the RCC.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jel
Apprentice
# 9755
|
Posted
Much of our conceptualisation of hell dates from the turn of the fifteenth century, when it became clear that the Black Death was not a passing incident but a foretaste of plagues to come: most of the morbidity of gothicism comes from that period, and therefore should be eliminated from our thinking, not least because it gave a foundation to no end of abuse by the religious establishment.
The question then arises, what preceded it? The older Jewish doctrine suggested the destruction of the soul along Egyptian lines, but then mutated it with the import of Baalish definitions of Gehenna, chronologically associated with the loss of the Ark. I choose this as the spiritual antonym to salvation, rather than the Sheol/Hades axis which also should be considered.
Part of what the author asked, therefore, comes from the Born Again experience of hope in salvation: if we have Christ, why should we fear these? And that contextualises those without, which is the theme of Gehenna. Adding the sadism arising from the despair of the Late Middle Ages is a hell-and-damnation tactic unworthy of a doctrine of love in its purest sense: one can then bring in the extrapolation of Sartre's observation that hell is other people. What he's really saying is that if Christ has the keys of death and hell, then He is there too, and the quintessence of hell is eternal remorse. That has some interesting echoes in a detailed examination of biblical exegesis, which suggests that much of the inherited dichotomy of salvation and damnation is plain pure and simply wrong. Now mark me well, I'm not denying the Lord's injunctions on the matter, that salvation is the fruit not merely of repentant confession but also of His will, I'm looking at certain passages which suggest Rapture is simply a first phase: there is scope for forgiveness in judgement thereafter. There are certainly those who are beyond salvation, too, the determined enemies of sanctity: but GOP foolishness doesn't fall into that class.
GOP? Good Old-fashined Pagans, rather than what some of our New World Cousins might have thought - although...
Posts: 40 | From: Brussels | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jel
Apprentice
# 9755
|
Posted
I think I'll add some sources on the Middle Ages:
Laura Smoller: History, Prophecy and the Stars on Pierre d'Ailly's Cosmology (of great interest to our American cousins because he was, thanks to Pope Eugenius IV's secretary Toscanelli, Columbus' chief inspiration in going West).
Ferreiro: The Devil, Heresy and Witchcraft
Morgan: Prophecy, Apocalypse and the Day of Doom (Harlaxton)
The point is that the eschatological use of cosmology was central to the mediaeval academic norm of the quadrivium in the service of theology, focused on the anagogical: where are we bound in this Ship of Fools? Taking Augustinian doctrine into account, there was concern about salvation, but in general it was held within reach, unlike in the early Renaissance, resulting in the doctrine of Courtly Love which so annoyed the more spiritual arm of the church. d'Ailly, the power behind the rise of the Devotio Moderna, railed considerably against secular love, but to no end, as it developed into the full concept of romantic love CS Lewis described. The castigation of the Decameron is typical: whilst Boccaccio like Chaucer is lusty, none the less it is rarely maleveolent.
Posts: 40 | From: Brussels | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
sanc
Shipmate
# 6355
|
Posted
Thanks Jel. Sumptuous verbal spaghetti.
--------------------
I am, therefore I think.
Posts: 358 | From: Philippines | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
In the first five or six centuries of Christian history, the majority of theological schools in the East taught Universalism.
(yes, taken from wikipedia, but with a decent source).
Having looked at the source I'm not at all convinced.
After the rather modest claim that some Fathers were universalist, and that they influenced others, the paragraph suddenly concludes - "and indeed the whole Eastern church until after 500AD was inclined to it." But no actual evidence for this bold statement is offered.
[ 14. September 2010, 05:42: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
We're still inclined to it.
When you begin with the teaching: we are created in the image and likeness of God, rational with free will, God cannot act against our will, we are born innocent as Adam and Eve, we do not sin until we reach the age of reason, our God is LOVE as taught by Christ and the object of our existence is to realise here and now that we are that in image and likeness, that we understand this by practice in bringing out good from ourselves not evil for our aim is to become perfect as Christ taught God is perfect, to love friends and enemies equally, always to do good to and be kind to enemies and those who hate us, and in practice this includes forgiving forgiving to the nth degree because God loves all mankind and the aim of our existence is to become God here on earth, then, where is there not universalism?
It's late, but the jumble it's in is actually quite descriptive of it all. Like a magnet pulling in doctrine by pulling in all the associated teachings on this, and by having it we can see clearly what isn't it.
The magnet is Christ.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jel
Apprentice
# 9755
|
Posted
Oh, well, to unpack the mediaeval mind for those who want their spaghetti quick-boiled:
Anagogy: Living one's life with the expectation that the end may be tomorrow. The experience of the spirit-filled believer.
Exegesis: Understanding why the end may as well be tomorrow as any other date.
Posts: 40 | From: Brussels | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
We're still inclined to it.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) 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."
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
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."
Shrug Johnny, what can I say but that is how I was taught it was.
Because we think in this way, that we can hardly be expected to aim for the perfection of God Christ teaches us to aim for if God is actually inferior to that.., that doing good and being kind to those who are evil and hate us is that perfection because that is God's being.
Surely you recall all the arguments about this? Our righteousness always means mercy..?
That our Last Judgment is God's Love in which there is no condemnation..?
It's Orthodox teaching. I didn't know until a decade ago that other Christians didn't have this.
Your doctrines attribute to God all the stuff Christ teaches us isn't from God and teaches we shouldn't practice. We're to keep forgiving but God isn't capable of this?
Then what perfection is Christ teaching us to reach?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
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...
Sigh. You just did it again.
Perhaps someone with multiple PhDs can come along and explain how you are able to make that transition from 'I' to 'we' so effortlessly.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Because Orthodox teaching is that the Orthodox Church is the Mind of Christ...
..we're not into this idea of 'individual salvation' models. Actually, we don't really think about salvation at all.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How heterodox.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Perfectly Orthodox -
This piece isn't written by a fan of the Orthodox, littered as it is with his underlying denigration by creating the idea that we have some kind of unthinking group mentality and linking this to communism.., but like the Baptist book pointing out all that was wrong with the Orthodox Church it does actually cover quite well some aspects of the mind of the Orthodox Church which is the Mind of Christ.
[i]Orthodox Church and Phronema
But anyway, I really don't understand why Johnny is having such a big problem with this. The Creed is said by "we believe" for example. When I use "we" in saying something is Orthodox it can be because it is something that I have been taught by teaching and example and so consider it Orthodox. "We" is also a common way to refer to one's own Church and its doctrines, and especially so in the Orthodox Church, in which I was brought up, we always referred to our beliefs in the common "we" because that is our liturgy. We worship, we offer the sacrifice", we are communal because that is what the Church is, the Body of Christ with Christ the only Head of our Body.
..maybe it's something I take so much for granted that I don't notice it's there? I can't recall every receiving any instruction directed to 'you', it was always, 'it is or is not', or 'we should forgive'. But then, we in practice also don't impose our individual wills even on other family members, so, this is getting too complicated..
If I use "we" in context of Orthodox as a Church, then it's either doctrine and practice as I've received it which is pretty much bog standard, or in general of the community of Orthodox, as one would say one is a Lutheran and continue with "we".
I still don't see what Johnny's problem is here.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
