homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Is the Traditional, Biblical view of the afterlife messed up? (Page 5)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  15  16  17 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Is the Traditional, Biblical view of the afterlife messed up?
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555

 - Posted      Profile for agingjb   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I personally doubt whether God is doing anything remotely like beating up six year olds, but I think we have to come to terms with a substantial element of Christian tradition that asserts that God hands over unbaptised children to powerful, malevolent, and pitiless entities for perpetual torture.

I know that this is in no way a universal belief, but it has certainly been held by people through whom the traditions of Christianity has been handed down.

"Created sick, commanded to be sound."

--------------------
Refraction Villanelles

Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513

 - Posted      Profile for Alogon   Email Alogon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
But the Bible never actually says anything about people being burned for all eternity. Those are embellishments by later preachers and writers.

As Percy Dearmer demonstrated in The Legend of Hell. They tied to outdo one another in the horror department, each generation elaborating on it a little more.

--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.

Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707

 - Posted      Profile for moonlitdoor   Email moonlitdoor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I know this question is a sideline but I hope I may ask it anyway.

quote:
originally posted by IngoB

As for annihilation of the wicked, well, people assume that God can annihilate. But, can he? Can the Creator destroy? Can the Maker unmake? Can Being un-be?

If the answer to these questions is no, does this imply that there would need to be an after life for all the other animals too ? Or is it that they are not created by God in the same sense as humans ?

--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai

Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trudy Scrumptious

BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647

 - Posted      Profile for Trudy Scrumptious   Author's homepage   Email Trudy Scrumptious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I know this question is a sideline but I hope I may ask it anyway.

quote:
originally posted by IngoB

As for annihilation of the wicked, well, people assume that God can annihilate. But, can he? Can the Creator destroy? Can the Maker unmake? Can Being un-be?

If the answer to these questions is no, does this imply that there would need to be an after life for all the other animals too ? Or is it that they are not created by God in the same sense as humans ?
As I've said before, asking that question presupposes an immortal soul. We have no problem accepting that God can create all kinds of life forms that live out their appointed span and then exist (at least in a sentient form) no more. But we assume that God is doing something UNnatural if He allows human beings to cease to be.

In fact, the unnatural thing He does is giving the gift of eternal life -- ALWAYS described in Scripture as a gift, never as our natural state.

Not much of a gift if you're going to give it to someone only to torture them throughout their "eternal" life.

--------------------
Books and things.

I lied. There are no things. Just books.

Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
IngoB

Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700

 - Posted      Profile for IngoB   Email IngoB   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
In light of what you've said, what do you make of Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"?

First I would point to the preceding
quote:
Romans 2:5-10
But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. For he will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

This does not talk about annihilating the evildoers, it talks about hitting them with wrath and fury to their tribulation and distress on the day of judgement. Next, I would point to the fact that Romans 6 follows on from Romans 5, where St Paul is mainly concerned with pointing to the similarity and difference of Adam and Christ. Now, frankly St Paul is somewhat messy in his argumentation there. Most of the time he seems to talk of death as of physical death, but then we get
quote:
Romans 5:17-19
If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

So we see that the same trespass causes death to reign and many to be sinners. And then just a little later in
quote:
Romans 7:9-13
I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died; the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and by it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good. Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, working death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

we now find that death here surely is not physical, but rather spiritual. A dying to God, rather than a dying of the body. The upshot of this is that the meaning of death in Romans 6:23 is far from clear, in my opinion, but that there is no real reason to believe that St Paul intended to contradict his earlier statement of evildoers getting hit by the wrath of God at judgement.

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
And, in the same vein, what do you think the word "perish" means in John 3:16?

To answer this I would first look at
quote:
John 3:36
He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.

John 5:28-29
Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

This shows that John here means more with "life" than just existence. Clearly, evildoers are being resurrected, thus existing, yet they do not see life, but rather the wrath of God rests on them (a word indicating something remaining in the Greek, other translations have "abide") as their judgement. What John means by "life" here is a righteous life in the Son, cf. 1 John. Coming back to "perish", the word used actually means more something like "totally ruined / destroyed or lost". Using the same word, the old wine skins in Luke 5:37 are destroyed, the sheep in Luke 15:4 is lost, and in particular the son in Luke 15:24 is also lost. Clearly that son didn't perish though in the sense of dying or being annihilated, since after all he was later found again. Most notable though is the use of the same word in
quote:
Matt 10:28
And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Note that "kill" and "destroy" are here different words in Greek as well, and clearly we get the physical slaying in the former, but the sort of ruination and destruction that hell implies in the latter. And for that the same word is used as the "perish" in John 3:16. To summarize, for John one lives in Christ, and perishes without Him, but this is a "perishing" compatible with the ruination of hell inflicted by the abiding wrath of God.

--------------------
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
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Wasn't one ancient view that we should be pleased at God's justice, hence pleased, that some are (justly) sent to hell?

I can't remember who it was who said, are you delighted that your mother is in hell? If not, why not?

What about Hitler, Stalin, etc; would you be happy if they wound up in heaven next to you?
Yes, provided they were truly sorry for what they had done. That would mean that in confronting God at the end of time, they were hit with the full force of the pain and misery they had inflicted and their own responsibility for it.

But surely, after that, repentence and mercy?

But what if they didn't? Or what if Hitler wound up next to the Jewish victims of the Shoah?

[ 05. October 2012, 10:18: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848

 - Posted      Profile for blackbeard   Email blackbeard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Back to the opening post:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
.....So what's fucked up about my understanding of the traditional, Biblical view of what happens to those who are, through their own fault or not, the wrong sort of people for Heaven? What have I missed, here?

This could be a really short thread, or it could go for weeks. .......

We seem to have a number of views represented in replies.
As has been already pointed out:
Salvation by faith, salvation by works, and universal salvation; can all be supported by quotes from the Bible. It's just a question of selecting the quotes you want. Similarly, all these viewpoints can be found with within the Christian tradition.
So it seems, Marvin, that if your understanding is fucked up, so is that of a good many other people (including me).

For what it's worth:
While we are about it, it may be worth acknowledging the obvious problem that salvation-by-faith, salvation-by-works and universal-salvation all give serious difficulties if we postulate a God who is simultaneously just, merciful and loving. Much, far too much, has been written in an effort to find a way round this obvious problem, generally obscuring the problem rather than illuminating it.

Again for what it's worth, I did happen on a clue, in the most obvious place possible, in the letter to the Romans written by that crusty short-tempered old batchelor Paul. (Rom 11 33 - 36). In my NIV it's described as a "doxology" but it looks to me more like a little dance of joy on discovering that all his fellow-Jews will all receive mercy (what about Gentiles? yes, them too). But it does tell us that God's way is far beyond our human understanding; if our mere human intellect can't find a solution, it doesn't follow that God can't! (Obvious, really.)

(Sorry to throw chapter and verse at you, not something I would normally do, but thought it might help. Works for me, anyway. And my apologies to theologians, who, it now appears, might not have the complete answer after all.)

Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858

 - Posted      Profile for Erroneous Monk   Email Erroneous Monk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Wasn't one ancient view that we should be pleased at God's justice, hence pleased, that some are (justly) sent to hell?

I can't remember who it was who said, are you delighted that your mother is in hell? If not, why not?

What about Hitler, Stalin, etc; would you be happy if they wound up in heaven next to you?
Yes, provided they were truly sorry for what they had done. That would mean that in confronting God at the end of time, they were hit with the full force of the pain and misery they had inflicted and their own responsibility for it.

But surely, after that, repentence and mercy?

But what if they didn't? Or what if Hitler wound up next to the Jewish victims of the Shoah?
Well ++Desmond Tutu seems able to deal with the idea that the perpetrators of the Sharpsville massacre might end up in heaven (along with Hitler and Stalin).

I really really hope he's right.

--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.

Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Or what if Hitler wound up next to the Jewish victims of the Shoah?

On the feast of the martyrdom of St Stephen (when, if you recall, Saul who became Paul held the coats of those stoning Stephen to death), the Roman Breviary gives us a sermon by St Fulgentius, which includes this:
quote:
And now Paul rejoices with Stephen, with Stephen he enjoys the brightness of Christ.... What a really true life must there be now, brethren, where Paul is not put to confusion although he killed Stephen, but where, instead, Stephen rejoices in the fellowship of Paul; for in both of them love itself rejoices.
(Edited to make the quotation, I hope, acceptably brief.)

Sure, Paul repented and came to Christ while he was still in this life. But nevertheless I think Fulgentius gives us food for thought on the subject of the reconciliation of enemies in the presence of God.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Trudy Scrumptious

BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647

 - Posted      Profile for Trudy Scrumptious   Author's homepage   Email Trudy Scrumptious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
IngoB, I think your reply to me illustrates the extent to which we all read and interpret Scripture with our own preconceptions firmly in place. You are convinced of the reality of an immortal soul and of eternal punishment, so you read words like "death" and "perish" metaphorically, to mean something other than literal non-existence.

I, having been steeped in a tradition of Biblical interpretation that tells me that there is no "soul" that survives independent of the body, no life apart from God, and no God that would keep people alive to torture them indefinitely, read those same texts and take "death" and "perish" to mean exactly what they say. However, I read the texts about hellfire and eternal punishment more metaphorically, without the idea of endless torture attached -- to me, "eternal punishment" can only be death, not an endless process of punishing, and hellfire is the fire that destroys utterly (both body and soul destroyed in hell, as Jesus says in Matt. 10).

Fortunately for you, as a Catholic you can be guided by your tradition as well as by Scripture and say that since the church has generally read these texts in this way, that must be the right way. As a Protestant I have to give primacy to Scripture but of course I can't entirely shake off the way my tradition has taught me to read Scripture (nor would I want to, since it leads me to a conclusion that God is just and fair, not sadistic and monstrous). I suppose it's possible to build a case for both views using the same text, but I still find "the wages of sin is death" to be the more convincing view, once you shed the need to believe in an immortal soul (remembering that God alone possesses immortality -- 1 Tim. 6:16 -- and that immortality is a gift which we will "put on" at the resurrection, 1 Cor. 15:54).

This whole discussion illustrates to me how difficult it is for anyone to put aside their preconceived ways of reading the Bible and understanding God, even when, as in Marvin's case, those preconceived readings have led you to hate the God you find in Scripture.

--------------------
Books and things.

I lied. There are no things. Just books.

Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109

 - Posted      Profile for the long ranger   Email the long ranger   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As a parenthesis, the immortal soul appears to be an ancient Greek idea (see Plato). Paul in the epistles appears to be much more concerned about the resurrection of the body than the soul.

--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”

Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged
Trudy Scrumptious

BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647

 - Posted      Profile for Trudy Scrumptious   Author's homepage   Email Trudy Scrumptious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
As a parenthesis, the immortal soul appears to be an ancient Greek idea (see Plato). Paul in the epistles appears to be much more concerned about the resurrection of the body than the soul.

Yes, it's a concept that definitely came into the church via the Greek route rather than the Jewish one -- the Jewish assumption seems to always be of body and soul tied together, possibly with a resurrection of both in the future, but no soul living on without a body.

--------------------
Books and things.

I lied. There are no things. Just books.

Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
the Jewish assumption seems to always be of body and soul tied together, possibly with a resurrection of both in the future, but no soul living on without a body.

How do we know this?

There isn't much evidence in Scripture, and passages that mention the soul can be read any number of ways.

The "souls under the altar" in Revelation don't appear to be bodiless.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trudy Scrumptious

BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647

 - Posted      Profile for Trudy Scrumptious   Author's homepage   Email Trudy Scrumptious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I assume the souls under the altar, whether bodiless or not, HAVE to be read metaphorically on the common-sense ground that nobody would believe your reward for martyrdom is to be stuck under an altar crying out for help for all eternity (or even for a prescribed period of time). But then, on a common-sense basis I wouldn't think anyone would believe in an eternally burning hell either.

The main Scriptural basis for seeing body + soul as a single entity is right at the beginning in Genesis 1 -- God creates Adam (his body), breathes into him the breath of life, and man BECOMES (not obtains) a living soul. So a "soul" is portrayed here simply as a living human being, a body animated by the breath of life. The word "soul" (nephesh) seems to be used in the Hebrew Bible to indicate simply a human being (and is also used for other living things) and is sometimes described as having died (as in Ezekiel 18:4 -- "the soul that sins shall die." It's parallel to the use of the Greek psyche in the NT.

What God breathed into Adam was ruach, often translated "spirit" but is also translated "wind" and "breath." It can also refer to the Spirit of God. Nowhere, even in the passages that talk about a man's ruach returning back to God who gave it when he dies, is there any suggestion of ruach as an independent entity that can survive on its own. The Greek parallel in the NT would be pneuma.

References to the afterlife are scanty in the Hebrew Scriptures for sure, but those that do exist (with the possible except of "Saul" called up by the Witch of Endor) suggest a complete and bodily resurrection, as in Job 19:25, which seems to suggest a renewed body after physical death: "When my skin has been destroyed, in my flesh will I see God" (although there are some translations that render that as "apart from my flesh I will see God" ... I don't know enough about the Hebrew to know, but I'd suspect that the latter translations are being driven by a presupposition that there is an immortal soul and that it can be resurrected apart from the body).

--------------------
Books and things.

I lied. There are no things. Just books.

Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: Again you are contradicting yourself (but given your view of logic, I don't suppose you are really bothered by that).
I didn't have access to internet the last couple of days, but I decided to continue this discussion here.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
References to the afterlife are scanty in the Hebrew Scriptures for sure, but those that do exist (with the possible except of "Saul" called up by the Witch of Endor) suggest a complete and bodily resurrection, as in Job 19:25, which seems to suggest a renewed body after physical death: "When my skin has been destroyed, in my flesh will I see God"

I think the "scanty" part is the important thing here. The view of the afterlife is so obscure in the OT that I see no room to make any kind of definite statement about it.

Clearly Samuel looked like a whole person to Saul, even though he had no physical body. Job 19 can easily be read as saying that even without my "skin" I am a whole person with a body. Every biblical vision of people in the afterlife, whether those of Daniel, Ezekiel or Zacharia in the OT or visions of Moses, Elijah, Abraham, or in Revelation in the NT, describes them as looking like people with bodies.

When God breathed the breath of life into Adam and Eve and they became living souls this can be read as simply saying that the soul is the true person.

In any case, I am not arguing that you are wrong, only that the evidence is too scanty to make definitive statements. The Bible can easily and reasonably be read as confirming either position. I think that ancient Israel had no definite or clear picture of an afterlife.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
egg
Shipmate
# 3982

 - Posted      Profile for egg   Author's homepage   Email egg   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Having been away, I have read through the whole of this long thread, and I am a little surprised that no one has referred to C.S.Lewis’s The Great Divorce, which has always seemed to me to get the position broadly right. God’s forgiveness and welcome into Heaven is always open, but there are some who refuse to accept it, and prefer to continue in the grey world which is Lewis’s picture of Hell, where they can continue their self-centred existence. An allegory no doubt, but one that for 50 years has formed the basis of my understanding of Heaven, forgiveness and Hell, with free will thrown in. I think Freddy on 2 Oct at 1812 and 2059 (if I remember correctly) has much the same view, though more fully worked out.

--------------------
egg

Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We got close to something like that view, egg, but it was declared impossible that anyone would reject God's offer of grace.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Trudy Scrumptious

BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647

 - Posted      Profile for Trudy Scrumptious   Author's homepage   Email Trudy Scrumptious   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
Having been away, I have read through the whole of this long thread, and I am a little surprised that no one has referred to C.S.Lewis’s The Great Divorce, which has always seemed to me to get the position broadly right. God’s forgiveness and welcome into Heaven is always
open, but there are some who refuse to accept it, and prefer to continue in the grey world which is Lewis’s picture of Hell, where they can continue their self-centred existence. An allegory no doubt, but one that for 50 years has formed the basis of my understanding of Heaven, forgiveness and Hell, with free will thrown in. I think Freddy on 2 Oct at 1812 and 2059 (if I remember correctly) has much the same view, though more fully worked out.

I love The Great Divorce, but I love it as Lewis intended it -- as a parable about the choices we make in this life, not about what might happen in an afterlife. If we take it in any way literally then it offers me the same problem as all the "softer" versions of Hell (i.e., people live forever in some not-very-happy state, though not being literally tortured by fire). You are still tied to this idea of immortal souls and of a God who allows/requires people to exist forever even though He cannot override the free will of those who insist on choosing selfishness.

Eternal existence in a drab, grey town like the Hell of TGD, or eternal existence in a lost, vague "outer darkness," or eternal existence anywhere away from light and joy in God's presence, is still, in the end, going to be an eternity of torture. And if it involves the damned living in any kind of sense where they're able to contact and communicate with each other, you'd have to allow the possibility of people torturing each other, and making one another's lives miserable, through all eternity. It's less horrific than the eternal-torture-by-fire method but in the end if you're tied to the concept of an immortal soul you're left with only two options: a God who overrides people's free will and forces Himself on people, or a God who allows/forces those who reject Him to live forever in a miserable state with no hope of reprieve through death.

--------------------
Books and things.

I lied. There are no things. Just books.

Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
Having been away, I have read through the whole of this long thread, and I am a little surprised that no one has referred to C.S.Lewis’s The Great Divorce, which has always seemed to me to get the position broadly right.... I think Freddy on 2 Oct at 1812 and 2059 (if I remember correctly) has much the same view, though more fully worked out.

That's right. Lewis' take on this is clearly a version of the Swedenborgian views that he learned from his friend George MacDonald.

At the end of the book, though, he makes it clear that he is engaging in speculation and is not making hard and fast statements along the lines of Swedenborg.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
If we take it in any way literally then it offers me the same problem as all the "softer" versions of Hell (i.e., people live forever in some not-very-happy state, though not being literally tortured by fire). You are still tied to this idea of immortal souls and of a God who allows/requires people to exist forever even though He cannot override the free will of those who insist on choosing selfishness.

This is a reasonable objection. So it is understandable that annihilation might seem like a better option.

I think, though, that the people living in "some not-very-happy state, though not being literally tortured by fire" might debate the idea that annihilation would be better. A key is that people are not necessarily perfectly aware of the relative desirability of their chosen lifestyle.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
you're left with only two options: a God who overrides people's free will and forces Himself on people, or a God who allows/forces those who reject Him to live forever in a miserable state with no hope of reprieve through death.

I don't agree is fair.

I don't think God forces himself on people. In the parable, the father is waiting at home - he doesn't actively go out to find the son in the pigsty. But the moment the son wishes to return home, the father is ready, running to meet him.

But that observation says nothing about how many 'sons' will choose to return to the 'father'.

We took a bunch of kids from our youth club to the cinema one Saturday morning - they could choose between Despicable me and Marmaduke. All the kids - every single one of them - chose Despicable me. Does the 100% take up prove that the kids had no choice, that their free will was overridden? Of course not - they just all agreed what the best choice was.

My gut feeling is that this is what will happen. In the end, everyone will finally choose God, because it's the best choice. But they'll choose out of their own free will, not because God has 'forced' himself on them.

Of course I don't know that will happen - it's just what I think will happen, and what I hope for. In the meantime, I think God is just there waiting, like the father in the story. Because ISTM, for a loving father, that's the only option - you wait for as long as it takes, even if that's forever. And those who are 'living forever in a miserable state', aren't doing so without hope. Because there's always hope, because God does not reject the prodigal.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious
IngoB, I think your reply to me illustrates the extent to which we all read and interpret Scripture with our own preconceptions firmly in place. You are convinced of the reality of an immortal soul and of eternal punishment, so you read words like "death" and "perish" metaphorically, to mean something other than literal non-existence.

In the light of your comments about interpretation and your annihilationist view of God's judgment (or rather mortality of the human soul / spirit), I would be interested to know how you read Revelation 22:11a:

quote:
"He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still;..."
I can't see how this could conceivably mean that those who are unrepentantly evil simply cease to exist at death.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs
We took a bunch of kids from our youth club to the cinema one Saturday morning - they could choose between Despicable me and Marmaduke. All the kids - every single one of them - chose Despicable me. Does the 100% take up prove that the kids had no choice, that their free will was overridden? Of course not - they just all agreed what the best choice was.

I assume you just asked the group rather each person individually (without knowledge of what any of the others had chosen)? If so, then surely free will would have been influenced by the herd instinct.

I think it's interesting that we always assume that if a leader in a (usually relatively oppressive developing) foreign country gets elected by anything more than about 90% of the vote, the vote was rigged in some way. But according to your reasoning, 100% of the populace could vote for a party in a truly free and fair multi-party election.

I think if you study the history of multi-party democracy, where the elections are generally regarded as free and fair by the international community, you will find that a wide range of views are always supported by the electorate. If, at the next general election, in, say, Sweden, one party won by 100% of the vote, would the international community recognise the result? I very much doubt it.

I cannot see how free will can really, genuinely, be free if ultimately every single person will unfailingly choose a certain option (of course, it is theoretically possible that everyone could freely choose a certain option, but it can never be assumed). It is abundantly clear to me that some people utterly and totally hate compassion, mercy and kindness towards others. That is, after all, what evil actually is. Those who think that ultimately everyone will just accept the love of God, must assume that evil is not really 'real' at all, and is just an effect of ignorance or poor upbringing or some other mitigating factor. I disagree profoundly with this view.

No one will ever succeed in convincing me that a man who walks into a primary school and guns down little children (after having carefully planned the operation) is merely acting out a bad upbringing or personal ignorance. Such an action is the effect of a wilful and committed choice of evil, for which there is absolutely no excuse whatsoever. It is not possible to commit such a crime without possessing a deep personal hatred of love, compassion and mercy. So why would someone, whose whole inner being is built on the foundation of a rejection of love, suddenly, at the instant of death, or just after, decide to embrace the very thing he utterly hates with every fibre of his being?

When that man comes face to face with eternal love, what will this love "say" to him? I would suggest his whole consciousness will be filled with this message: "You are a totally self-centred person." To which he could respond, either by repenting there and then, or by reacting and rejecting this view, and there then follows what Jesus referred to as "gnashing of teeth" - bitter anger at God's judgment. That is a free choice. Even if there was repentance, I would suggest that someone in that appalling spiritual state would still need some kind of purgatorial cleansing, but I realise that I am undermining my Protestant credentials by suggesting that!

As for annihilationism: why should someone, who has committed such a heinous crime, escape some form of punishment? I realise that there is a problem with the idea of eternal punishment, but the idea that people can nonchalantly go through life hurting others and then just disappear from existence without having to face any consequences for their actions, is, in my view, quite outrageously immoral.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... someone, whose whole inner being is built on the foundation of a rejection of love ...

Gosh. Do you know anyone like that? I don't.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
... someone, whose whole inner being is built on the foundation of a rejection of love ...

Gosh. Do you know anyone like that? I don't.
I take it that you don't follow the news.

Or perhaps you are including "conceited self-love" in my definition of love?

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I assume you just asked the group rather each person individually (without knowledge of what any of the others had chosen)? If so, then surely free will would have been influenced by the herd instinct.

We just said to the group "you can see whichever film you like", and in their little friendship groups they chose - 20 or so kids. But the details distract from the point - 100% of people choosing something does not mean that they did not have a choice. Any arguments about God 'coercing people' could be as relevant to a heaven with 10% of humanity in (have those 10% been coerced?) as it is with 100%.

But who says that herd instinct is a bad thing? Thinking of the story of the woman caught in adultery, it was herd instinct that made a bunch of guys decide to stone the woman. But it was also herd instinct that meant that they walked away following Jesus' words. The older guys came to their senses first, causing the younger guys to do the same. But that didn't mean there was no free will. Influence of course, but any one of those guys could have stayed their and chucked stones at the poor lady. But again, all of them repented, and all of them had free will.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I cannot see how free will can really, genuinely, be free if ultimately every single person will unfailingly choose a certain option (of course, it is theoretically possible that everyone could freely choose a certain option, but it can never be assumed).

Of course it can't be assumed, which is why I said I think, and I hope for it. But just as you can't assume it, you also can't dismiss it.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It is abundantly clear to me that some people utterly and totally hate compassion, mercy and kindness towards others. That is, after all, what evil actually is.

You're making it sound like there are some totally evil people, (beyond redemption?). I disagree with that. Everyone is grey, some dark, some light. Everyone has some good in them.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Those who think that ultimately everyone will just accept the love of God, must assume that evil is not really 'real' at all, and is just an effect of ignorance or poor upbringing or some other mitigating factor.

I don't follow your logic there at all. I believe evil to be very real indeed.

I do agree with your point about people needing to face up to their evil, and that annihilation actually does let them off the hook. I also agree with your point about purgatorial cleansing, but I think that it's something that we will all go through - not just the worst cases like men who kill kids with guns. We're all evil, and we all need to be refined and cleansed so that we can enter Life.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs
You're making it sound like there are some totally evil people, (beyond redemption?). I disagree with that. Everyone is grey, some dark, some light. Everyone has some good in them.

You are right in saying that that is what it sounds like, because that is certainly what I believe. According to Jesus there are people who are so evil that they are, in fact, through their own choice, beyond redemption, hence His words about "the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit". I take this sin to mean that, since the Holy Spirit ministers the experience and reality of the love of God to us (see Romans 5:5), then to call this reality 'evil' puts someone beyond any hope. There is no "plan B" for such people who despise and reject the love of God.

To say that "everyone has some good in them" is the kind of comment that is on a par with "Hitler did some good, like unify Germany, cancel the nation's debt and build the autobahns" (ignoring the use of slave labour in the latter instance, of course). Good used in the service of evil is not good. Period.

quote:
We're all evil, and we all need to be refined and cleansed so that we can enter Life.
In a sense, yes (new born babies, young childen, those with very severe learning difficulties excepted, of course), but there are two fundamentally different types of 'evil'. I will illustrate the difference with reference to an archery contest...

The target has been set up and we are all commanded to try to hit the target. Some people do their utmost (or at least make some effort) to hit the bullseye, but, due to imperfection, perhaps laziness in training, or some defect of personality, fail to hit the target, or get anywhere near the bullseye. However, they tried.

But there are other people who say "sod this, I'm not even going to try to hit the target". They have no intention of even making the slightest effort to do what is right. They deliberately turn their backs on the target and petulantly shoot their arrows in the opposite direction.

There is therefore a world of difference between moral imperfection, on the one hand, and wilful evil, on the other. That is why I have little time for those who look at the actions of an Ian Brady, a Peter Sutcliffe, a Hitler or a Stalin and casually say "But for the grace of God go I", with the implication that we really shouldn't be too angry with these kinds of evildoers, because it would be hypocritical.

[ 08. October 2012, 12:19: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It is abundantly clear to me that some people utterly and totally hate compassion, mercy and kindness towards others ... a deep personal hatred of love, compassion and mercy ... someone, whose whole inner being is built on the foundation of a rejection of love...

It's easy to come out with all the "these people deserve to be PUNISHED!" stuff when you're crafting such an extreme example of an evil person that it surely cannot be describing one single person in the history of the world*.

But those aren't the people I think about when I think of Hell. I think of the people who walk past beggars in the street because they're too wrapped up in their own cares to worry about anyone else's. The people who are perfectly warm and loving with people they like, but have no time for those they don't. People who have no particular desire to deny others the help they need, so long as it doesn't disadvantage them. The common, down-to-earth greed and selfishness and insularity that affects every single one of us to one degree or another.

Maybe that's why I struggle with this so much. Others think of Hell and they see child murderers and genocidal maniacs, and it's so easy to say that they should be burning for all eternity. But I think of Hell and I see people who were trying to live their life the best they could, but just didn't have enough love and compassion to spread around more than a few hundred others.

.


*= even Hitler was, by most accounts, a perfectly warm and genial chap when with his friends and loved ones.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But there are other people who say "sod this, I'm not even going to try to hit the target". They have no intention of even making the slightest effort to do what is right. They deliberately turn their backs on the target and petulantly shoot their arrows in the opposite direction.

I struggle with this kind of binary distinction between those who try but fail and those who don't even try. While I don't (at least, not so far in my life!) murder people, I 'petulantly shoot my arrow in the opposite direction' many times each week, if not each day - I stay in bed a few minutes longer instead of getting up to pray; I ignore the impulse to ring up or pop round to see a friend because I'm feeling a bit tired; I don't take an opportunity to do a kind deed, because it would mean changing my plans in some small way. I am a selfish ******* who makes many selfish, ungodly choices each day.

Clearly, my misdeeds are not as grotesque or spectacular as those of people like Hitler, Stalin etc. But I don't think I'm qualitatively different from any of those people whom we might talk of as being irredeemably evil. It's a spectrum and we're all on it at some point, IMO.

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
It's easy to come out with all the "these people deserve to be PUNISHED!" stuff when you're crafting such an extreme example of an evil person that it surely cannot be describing one single person in the history of the world*.

*= even Hitler was, by most accounts, a perfectly warm and genial chap when with his friends and loved ones.

"...it surely cannot be describing one single person in the history of the world."

You have surely got to be kidding!

Are you seriously suggesting that no one is so evil as to torture and murder a child, for example? Are you suggesting that that has never happened in the history of the world? The attitude behind such an action is devoid of any goodness whatsoever!

Or perhaps you think that such a person is really loving and open to the love, mercy and compassion of God in his (or her) heart, but is just a little misguided?

As for Hitler being warm and genial to his friends and loved ones: I'm afraid that is not consistent with the love of God, which reaches out to all people. Anyone can love those who are just an extension of one's own ego; that is just a form of self-love. The real test of whether someone is open to the love of God is a willingness to love those outside one's own circle. Hitler overwhelmingly failed that test. Therefore there was absolutely no good in him whatsoever. ("A good tree cannot bear bad fruit". Hitler's fruit was bad, therefore the tree was bad.)

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I struggle with this kind of binary distinction between those who try but fail and those who don't even try.

It's not a clearly binary distinction.

It is an infinitely long three-dimensional sliding scale between two opposite worlds.

We all fall in between and reap precisely what we sow - not at the hand of an immortal Judge, but simply because of the goodness or lack thereof implicit in what we think, feel and do.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The target has been set up and we are all commanded to try to hit the target. Some people do their utmost (or at least make some effort) to hit the bullseye, but, due to imperfection, perhaps laziness in training, or some defect of personality, fail to hit the target, or get anywhere near the bullseye. However, they tried.

But there are other people who say "sod this, I'm not even going to try to hit the target". They have no intention of even making the slightest effort to do what is right. They deliberately turn their backs on the target and petulantly shoot their arrows in the opposite direction.

There is therefore a world of difference between moral imperfection, on the one hand, and wilful evil, on the other. That is why I have little time for those who look at the actions of an Ian Brady, a Peter Sutcliffe, a Hitler or a Stalin and casually say "But for the grace of God go I", with the implication that we really shouldn't be too angry with these kinds of evildoers, because it would be hypocritical.

I'm not sure I would say that evil is "real", because I tend to see evil as a privation of good. And that, I think, gives me a very different view from yours of how we might view people who do evil things (and note I don't say evil people).

But okay. Let justice be satisfied. Let justice be done on a man who killed six million people. What would be just? That he himself suffer six million deaths? Or shall we let our wrath have its day, and make him suffer six million times six million deaths? Will our ears be content then with his cries to stop? Then let him suffer six million to the power of six million deaths. Are we satisfied yet? Has justice been done? - Because even now we have not even scratched the surface of what "eternal punishment" means.

And yes, I'm one of those who regularly says, "There but for the grace of God...". But not to excuse those people; rather so that I might have a healthy fear of taking the single wrong footstep that set them on the path they took.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754

 - Posted      Profile for IconiumBound   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As to the afterlife, even though I presently do not believe in such, I have always liked George B. Shaw's take on it in "Don Juan In Hell."

His version of Hell is one of continuous self-serving debauchery. The choice is always to leave Hell for Heaven where continuous service to others is the rule. The choice is up to the individual.

Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Are you seriously suggesting that no one is so evil as to torture and murder a child, for example?

I'm suggesting that even child murderers have compassion, mercy and kindness for some people. Just not all.

Even child murderers have people they love, and people who love them.

quote:
The attitude behind such an action is devoid of any goodness whatsoever!
One action does not define someone's entire being.

quote:
As for Hitler being warm and genial to his friends and loved ones: I'm afraid that is not consistent with the love of God, which reaches out to all people. Anyone can love those who are just an extension of one's own ego; that is just a form of self-love. The real test of whether someone is open to the love of God is a willingness to love those outside one's own circle.
So let me get this straight: love only counts as love if it's offered to someone you don't love? If you already love someone, then it's impossible for you to love them in a "Godly" way? And, therefore, the people who only love those whom they love have absolutely no love in their lives whatsoever?

Is that seriously what you're saying? And if so, is that the sort of twisted 'logic' that one has to employ in order to drown out the screams of the damned enough to sleep at night?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin
I struggle with this kind of binary distinction between those who try but fail and those who don't even try. While I don't (at least, not so far in my life!) murder people, I 'petulantly shoot my arrow in the opposite direction' many times each week, if not each day - I stay in bed a few minutes longer instead of getting up to pray; I ignore the impulse to ring up or pop round to see a friend because I'm feeling a bit tired; I don't take an opportunity to do a kind deed, because it would mean changing my plans in some small way. I am a selfish ******* who makes many selfish, ungodly choices each day.

Clearly, my misdeeds are not as grotesque or spectacular as those of people like Hitler, Stalin etc. But I don't think I'm qualitatively different from any of those people whom we might talk of as being irredeemably evil. It's a spectrum and we're all on it at some point, IMO.

I completely disagree with you.

What you are describing is qualitatively different from the deeds of people like Hitler and Stalin. I would have no problem associating with you on the basis of what you have described about yourself, but I don't think I would be comfortable associating with someone who I suspected was a psychopath. Are you a psychopath? Obviously not! Are you even a moderate psychopath? Somehow I doubt it!

What you are describing may possibly be called 'sin' (in the context of your conscience and what you believe God is calling you to do), but it is a result of human weakness. This is qualitatively different from someone who deliberately plans to murder an innocent person. That is not merely human weakness, but wilful evil. You may fail to take the opportunity to do a kind deed for someone, but would you really like to torture that person to death - and never feel any remorse for doing so? You may prefer to stay in bed rather than get up and pray (I must admit I tend to like praying while in bed!), but that is rather different from getting up and spending the first hour of the day actively worshipping Satan and blaspheming God!

Surely you can see the difference?

So I would say that you are "aiming your arrow in the right direction", but failing to hit the target through weakness, and not through a wilful commitment to hate the whole idea of hitting the target in the first place! (My analogy is not perfect, of course; no analogy ever is. But I think it makes the point.)

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
I'm suggesting that even child murderers have compassion, mercy and kindness for some people. Just not all.

Even child murderers have people they love, and people who love them.

Yes, they may have this kind of 'love', but it is not consistent with the love of God, because if it was, then they would not torture and murder children. It's the love of God, which rules in heaven, not the kind of discriminatory love that is characteristic of human egotism.

quote:
One action does not define someone's entire being.
Some actions do, because of their serious nature. If a person is full of the love of God, then he or she would not do certain things. The committing of certain acts - the "bearing of bad fruit" - are only possible if "the tree is bad". The nature of the fruit reveals the nature of the tree.

quote:
So let me get this straight: love only counts as love if it's offered to someone you don't love? If you already love someone, then it's impossible for you to love them in a "Godly" way? And, therefore, the people who only love those whom they love have absolutely no love in their lives whatsoever?

Is that seriously what you're saying? And if so, is that the sort of twisted 'logic' that one has to employ in order to drown out the screams of the damned enough to sleep at night?

Nope. That is certainly not what I am saying! If you think it is, then you are seriously twisting my words.

Of course, the love of God operates in and through relationships between people who love each other!!

But the love of God also (note the word!) requires that we love - or, at least, do not hate - those with whom we do not have a relationship. Hitler may have loved his dog etc, but such love is completely neutralised by his hatred for, for example, the Jews.

It's not a question of "either ... or", but "both ... and". So stop setting up a false dichotomy.

As for the "screams of the damned": what are the damned expecting God - or me - to do for them? They scream because they hate God and they hate those who love God, not vice versa.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Are you seriously suggesting that no one is so evil as to torture and murder a child, for example?

I'm suggesting that even child murderers have compassion, mercy and kindness for some people. Just not all.

Even child murderers have people they love, and people who love them.

That's right. Just not very many. Compassion, mercy and kindness are not absolute qualities, but infinitely variable ones. The more the better, the less the worse.

The issue is not absolute good vs. evil, bliss v. agony. The issue is whether a person is more able and willing or less able and willing to receive the happiness and peace that God wishes to give.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
As for Hitler being warm and genial to his friends and loved ones: I'm afraid that is not consistent with the love of God, which reaches out to all people. Anyone can love those who are just an extension of one's own ego; that is just a form of self-love.
So let me get this straight: love only counts as love if it's offered to someone you don't love? ...Is that seriously what you're saying? And if so, is that the sort of twisted 'logic' that one has to employ in order to drown out the screams of the damned enough to sleep at night?
The damned don't scream, they want you to scream.

It is true that it is easy to love those who are an extension of one's own ego. That is a great insight.

It is not that anything "counts as love" or doesn't count. No one is counting. All we are debating here is the way to inner peace.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So I would say that you are "aiming your arrow in the right direction", but failing to hit the target through weakness, and not through a wilful commitment to hate the whole idea of hitting the target in the first place! (My analogy is not perfect, of course; no analogy ever is. But I think it makes the point.)

Well, Paul alludes to exactly that analogy in Romans 3:23-24.

quote:
..all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Where the root of the Greek word for 'sin' is an archery term, giving us an image of arrows missing the target. Paul makes no distinction between those who try and fail to miss the target, and those who don't try at all. But he does say that all are freely justified by Christ - presumably even the Hitlers and child murderers.

Just wondering, EE, have you ever seen the film Dead Man Walking? It deals with this kind of issue pretty well. If you have, what do you think of it?

I think that it's more complicated than whether or not people try to hit the target or not anyhow.

My reality is that in some aspects of my life I do try (even if I fail) to hit the target. But others, I'm just too lazy, selfish or ignorant. And I'm totally guilty of not giving it any effort at all. So, your analogy is more applicable to specific issues and motivations in a person's life than their whole life lumped into one.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The issue is not absolute good vs. evil, bliss v. agony.

If we're talking about the traditional, biblical view, then that is precisely the issue: utterly undeserved eternal happiness versus utterly undeserved eternal pain. There are no other options.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Even child murderers have people they love, and people who love them.

Yes, they may have this kind of 'love', but it is not consistent with the love of God, because if it was, then they would not torture and murder children. It's the love of God, which rules in heaven, not the kind of discriminatory love that is characteristic of human egotism.
Can you not see how it's possible to love one person and hate another, without either the love or the hate being any less "real" for the existence of the other?

quote:
quote:
One action does not define someone's entire being.
Some actions do, because of their serious nature. If a person is full of the love of God, then he or she would not do certain things.
And I bet that none of those things is anything you've ever been tempted to do. That's always the way with those who lay down lists of Sins That Cannot Be Forgiven.

quote:
The committing of certain acts - the "bearing of bad fruit" - are only possible if "the tree is bad". The nature of the fruit reveals the nature of the tree.
One bad apple shouldn't spoil the whole bunch.

quote:
quote:
So let me get this straight: love only counts as love if it's offered to someone you don't love? If you already love someone, then it's impossible for you to love them in a "Godly" way? And, therefore, the people who only love those whom they love have absolutely no love in their lives whatsoever?

Is that seriously what you're saying? And if so, is that the sort of twisted 'logic' that one has to employ in order to drown out the screams of the damned enough to sleep at night?

Nope. That is certainly not what I am saying! If you think it is, then you are seriously twisting my words.
Your exact words were as follows:

quote:
some people utterly and totally hate compassion, mercy and kindness towards others ... a deep personal hatred of love, compassion and mercy ... someone, whose whole inner being is built on the foundation of a rejection of love...
Note the phrasing - this is not a description that allows for the described person to have any love, compassion or mercy in their lives whatsoever.

I therefore replied pointing out that everyone has some love in their lives, to which you answered that "Anyone can love those who are just an extension of one's own ego; that is just a form of self-love. The real test of whether someone is open to the love of God is a willingness to love those outside one's own circle."

What else am I supposed to conclude, other than that you don't think the love people have for their friends and family counts as love for the purposes of declaring them to have "a deep personal hatred of love"?

quote:
Of course, the love of God operates in and through relationships between people who love each other!!
Then you cannot declare them to have "a deep personal hatred of love".

quote:
Hitler may have loved his dog etc, but such love is completely neutralised by his hatred for, for example, the Jews.
So you're saying that the love in a person's life doesn't count if they also do evil deeds?

quote:
As for the "screams of the damned": what are the damned expecting God - or me - to do for them?
Giving a shit about them would be a good start. Especially when you've been the one preaching about how the love of God requires us to care about everyone.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for the "screams of the damned": what are the damned expecting God - or me - to do for them?

Giving a shit about them would be a good start. Especially when you've been the one preaching about how the love of God requires us to care about everyone.
Irony alert. [Eek!] [Ultra confused] [Eek!]

So I see we're now all on the same page. [Biased]

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
eh?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
eh?

So in order to be a person fit to live are we then expected to give a rip about the ones in hell? Sounds like this is what you think. And it sounds like EE thinks the opposite.

That is ironic in my book. [Killing me]

[ 08. October 2012, 15:17: Message edited by: Freddy ]

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So in order to be a person fit to live are we then expected to give a rip about the ones in hell? Sounds like this is what you think.

Everyone is "fit to live", if by that you mean "doesn't deserve to go to hell".

EE was preaching about how everyone who doesn't utterly detest love must have love for those who are outside of their circle, and I decided to call him on the hypocrisy when he then proceeded to show no love for people outside his circle.

But to be honest, the only reason I care about those who are in hell is because I genuinely fear I'll join them one day.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Can you not see how it's possible to love one person and hate another, without either the love or the hate being any less "real" for the existence of the other?

Did this mother love or hate her sons, in your opinion?

quote:
And I bet that none of those things is anything you've ever been tempted to do. That's always the way with those who lay down lists of Sins That Cannot Be Forgiven.
Yeah, someone who mugs old ladies and tortures children in his spare time doesn't really want to do it, but he just can't help it!! He's really a nice fellow... really he is!!! (Really! Pleeeease believe me!!)

In other words, Marvin... if you want to fantasise that a person's actions do not reflect his character, then please carry on. I will continue living on this planet, and you continue living on yours.

quote:
Note the phrasing - this is not a description that allows for the described person to have any love, compassion or mercy in their lives whatsoever.

I therefore replied pointing out that everyone has some love in their lives, to which you answered that "Anyone can love those who are just an extension of one's own ego; that is just a form of self-love. The real test of whether someone is open to the love of God is a willingness to love those outside one's own circle."

What else am I supposed to conclude, other than that you don't think the love people have for their friends and family counts as love for the purposes of declaring them to have "a deep personal hatred of love"?

I was, of course, talking about the love of God. Those who hate the love of God can, of course, possess a certain kind of 'love': self-love, and its objectification in other people who bow and scrape to them and stroke their ego. That sort of 'love' is not consistent with the love of God. We must remember that the English word 'love' is rather vague compared to the more specific Greek terms.

quote:
So you're saying that the love in a person's life doesn't count if they also do evil deeds?
Correct. That is exactly what I am saying. Because 'evil', by definition, is the antithesis of the love of God.

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
As for the "screams of the damned": what are the damned expecting God - or me - to do for them?

Giving a shit about them would be a good start. Especially when you've been the one preaching about how the love of God requires us to care about everyone.
But I do care about them and "give a shit" about them. The problem is that such people don't care and "give a shit" about themselves.

What exactly are you asking me to do for people who freely choose to be evil?

[ 08. October 2012, 15:55: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

 - Posted      Profile for Justinian   Email Justinian   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Can you not see how it's possible to love one person and hate another, without either the love or the hate being any less "real" for the existence of the other?

Did this mother love or hate her sons, in your opinion?
Assuming the Daily Mail is telling the truth this is still utterly unapplicable. An applicable comparison would be the mother not just shopping her son into a system that works under classic theories of punishment, but dragging her son by the ear and delivering him unto the tender mercies of the Holy Inquisition to serve life with neither parole nor hope even of death.

And such would be a perversion of justice. It's not the punishment part that makes God evil. It's the disproportionate nature that makes God into a sadistic bastard whose so-called justice is nothing more than a perversion of the concept. Eternal punishment is disproportionate to anything possible in this mortal life - indeed the only thing that it can be proportionate to (and therefore a just response to) is willingly and knowingly condemning someone to hell.

And if the only two choices are to do undeserved good to someone and undeserved evil to them (as the choice between heaven and hell is for the judge) then you do undeserved good to them every time. The judge that sentences anyone to hell (even Hitler or Judas) is taking part in the greatest injustice imaginable. The gratuitous inflicting of infinite evil. And therefore whatever else they do they are infinitely evil.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
Can you not see how it's possible to love one person and hate another, without either the love or the hate being any less "real" for the existence of the other?

Did this mother love or hate her sons, in your opinion?
What has that article got to do with what I posted, exactly?

quote:
quote:
And I bet that none of those things is anything you've ever been tempted to do. That's always the way with those who lay down lists of Sins That Cannot Be Forgiven.
Yeah, someone who mugs old ladies and tortures children in his spare time doesn't really want to do it, but he just can't help it!! He's really a nice fellow... really he is!!! (Really! Pleeeease believe me!!)
Point proved, I think.

quote:
In other words, Marvin... if you want to fantasise that a person's actions do not reflect his character, then please carry on. I will continue living on this planet, and you continue living on yours.
Either all of a person's actions reflect their character or none of them do. You simply cannot state that all the good actions they do with their friends and loved ones count for nothing while the bad actions they do against others count for everything.

quote:
I was, of course, talking about the love of God. Those who hate the love of God can, of course, possess a certain kind of 'love': self-love, and its objectification in other people who bow and scrape to them and stroke their ego.
So you're saying they're completely incapable of true love? That any love they might have for anyone else is really only love of themselves?

quote:
quote:
So you're saying that the love in a person's life doesn't count if they also do evil deeds?
Correct. That is exactly what I am saying. Because 'evil', by definition, is the antithesis of the love of God.
Ah yes, so you are.

Well, my view of Christianity and the afterlife might be fucked up, but it's good to see I'm not alone in that. Your theology posits a binary world inhabited by people who are either completely and totally good or completely and totally evil. It allows no middle ground, no grey area, and no fine line between the two. If someone is evil then they are utterly and wholly evil, and if someone is good then they are utterly and wholly good.

And the crazy thing is, because of this theology you end up having to deny the possibility of any actual actions being good or evil. To the extent that you are, on this very thread, claiming that any love that exists within the lives of those you have deemed to be evil people is no more than some form of evil thing masquerading as love! I shall pass over your implication - made when referring to hell - that torture is a good thing if it's done by the good, but that's a symptom of the same failing.

Life is not black and white, EE. Good people do evil things, and evil people do good things. There are people who do both on a daily basis that don't really deserve to be called good or evil, and that's where I think most of us lie.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
Assuming the Daily Mail is telling the truth this is still utterly unapplicable. An applicable comparison would be the mother not just shopping her son into a system that works under classic theories of punishment, but dragging her son by the ear and delivering him unto the tender mercies of the Holy Inquisition to serve life with neither parole nor hope even of death.

You're taking this out of context of my discussion with Marvin. We were talking about the concept of 'love', and I was making the point that there are two different kinds of love, the 'love of God' and a 'love' for one's own family and friends that can exist alongside evil towards people - or certain people - outside one's own circle.

I think the point I am making here is pretty obvious. I am sure Marvin can work it out (or perhaps he really can't - judging by his latest post, which I have just noticed!).

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So in order to be a person fit to live are we then expected to give a rip about the ones in hell? Sounds like this is what you think.

EE was preaching about how everyone who doesn't utterly detest love must have love for those who are outside of their circle, and I decided to call him on the hypocrisy when he then proceeded to show no love for people outside his circle.
Hence my mention of "irony." [Paranoid]
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But to be honest, the only reason I care about those who are in hell is because I genuinely fear I'll join them one day.

I'm sure this is true of all of us.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  ...  15  16  17 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools