|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is the Traditional, Biblical view of the afterlife messed up?
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I suppose it is tedious to point this out, but I do so for the benefit of the newcomers: This entire post is delusionally unmoored from the text of the parable.
That is hilarious. I hadn't actually read the post. Justinian was clearly joking. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
I found it quite bewildering as well. It seems unmoored from the point that the parable is a parable, rather than an account of a real event. Hence trying to infer actual motives and hidden family rifts and inconsistencies isn't really helpful.
It's like taking my diagram of a son returning to his father, and pointing out that actually the path isn't really shaped like a path and could well be something else. And that the perspective isn't what it first appears, such that the son is in fact walking away. And the son has a rather odd beard and could well be too old to really be the son.
In fact it is my picture, I drew it to communicate a particular idea, and any failings in the drawing or inconsistencies in the drawing don't mean that I was in fact thinking of something else.
If you disagree with the idea or think the idea far-fetched that's perfectly legitimate, but you can't undermine the idea itself because of inconsistencies in the realism of my drawing.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I suppose it is tedious to point this out, but I do so for the benefit of the newcomers: This entire post is delusionally unmoored from the text of the parable. It adheres rather to an idiosyncratically tendentious antiChristian reading into the text.
It is merely different from the normal Christian reading. And it is different because it pays attention to what is in the actual text, the actual behaviour of the father and his place in the society. And it ignores the traditional interpretation, starting again from first principles. If you actually have a problem with how I explain what is actually in the text, citing the text itself rather than making an assertion would be a good start. And then citing under what circumstances the Prodigal Son would actually be able to claim his inheritance early.
But yes, I agree that it is not the normal mainstream Christian reading. Anyone interested in the actual text of the parable of the Prodigal Son and who wants to go back to source can find it here.
Pay special attention to the fact the Elder Son had to find out by asking the servants and investigating, the claim that the elder owned everything against the reality of the feast involving the fatted calf and the feast the elder wanted, and that the Prodigal's motivation for going home was hunger.
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
That is hilarious. I hadn't actually read the post. Justinian was clearly joking.
Oh, there was a definite tongue in cheek element to my deconstruction and it was fun to write.
That said I object strongly to TSA's claim that it's delusionally unmoored from the text of the actual parable - what made it fun (and, I hope, funny) is that it uses the exact text - just not in the orthodox manner.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I found it quite bewildering as well. It seems unmoored from the point that the parable is a parable, rather than an account of a real event. Hence trying to infer actual motives and hidden family rifts and inconsistencies isn't really helpful.
Try addressing that point to Dr. Kalomiros (or EE as the one who cited him). Who was trying to infer actual motives from the parable - and then use that as the basis for a line in Socratic logic. Sauce for the goose...
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
Sorry about my timing, leo.
I deleted a post out from under leo, one that should have been addressed to EtymologicalEvangelical, asking how many wills Jesus had.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
the normal mainstream Christian reading.
What is 'normal' and 'mainstream'?
For a long while, the elder brother was seen as Judaism and the younger as Christianity.
There was also the view that the prodigal son was Jesus, who left home = heaven and went to live with pigs = humans and had wild parties = glutton and drunkard.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Try addressing that point to Dr. Kalomiros (or EE as the one who cited him). Who was trying to infer actual motives from the parable - and then use that as the basis for a line in Socratic logic. Sauce for the goose...
You miss the point again. I'm not saying one cannot infer motives, we are obviously supposed to infer motives in the parable. (It can hardly be a parable about human beings otherwise).
The point is that the teller of the parable is in charge of the motives that he gives the characters. You might be able to infer all sorts of other motives that the teller didn't intend. Perhaps some of them even some logically more satisfying to you. But although it might be an interesting academic exercise, it is not relevant to getting at the truth of what the parable teller was trying to communicate.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
You miss the point again. I'm not saying one cannot infer motives, we are obviously supposed to infer motives in the parable. (It can hardly be a parable about human beings otherwise).
The point is that the teller of the parable is in charge of the motives that he gives the characters. You might be able to infer all sorts of other motives that the teller didn't intend. Perhaps some of them even some logically more satisfying to you. But although it might be an interesting academic exercise, it is not relevant to getting at the truth of what the parable teller was trying to communicate.
And this is in the realms of philosophy and literary criticism. Barthes' Death of the Author is 45 years old and deconstruction as a school of literary criticism is about as old. The author might have the best idea for what they were trying to communicate - but the author doesn't have an exclusive right to interpret what they actually said.
And I still claim extreme double standards in your comments. I do not believe I was reaching any further in answering the string of would-be socratic questions than Dr. Kalomiros was in asking them. From your approach, the question e.g. about wh loved whom is not answered directly in the text so by your approach is an invalid question to be asking on that text. And the teller of the parable has been dead for almost two thousand years.
My belief is that in context (the context being Luke 15 and straight after the parable of the coin and the parable of the lost sheep) it was simply about looking after your fellow people, evangelising, and being delighted when people return. I do not believe it had anything to do with the nature of hell to which Dr. Kalomiros twisted it, and in which context I was replying.
Go take up your complaint against Dr. Kalomiros. And just about everyone else who has tried to read a deeper meaning into that parable (as outlined by Leo).
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
The point is that the deeper meaning you read into it needs to take account of the fact that Jesus had a particular meaning in mind.
For what it's worth I don't think one can read much into this parable about hell, as I don't think that was the point of it. If your re-interpretation was a reductio ad absurdum or a parody then it worked. If you meant it seriously, then I think it is equally wayward as trying to get a doctrine of hell out of the parable. But two wrongs don't make a right.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The arrogant will certainly be thrown out ....
And what about those who are arrogant in some spheres and humble and kind in others?
It happens - a lot. People can become arrogant for all sorts of reasons, even when - normally - they are patient, kind, gentle individuals.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
As a matter of interest I looked up the teaching of the Church of England and the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on Hell. The former is from “Doctrine in the Church of England”, which, though first published in 1938, still, I think, broadly represents the doctrine of the Church:
“If any freedom of choice is attributed to the human will, this together with the universal facts of moral experience compels man to face the possibility that he may refuse for ever to respond to the call of the Divine love, and this possibility is prominent in the New Testament. Such a refusal must involve exclusion from the fellowship of that love. Some hold that the soul mighty continue for ever in that state of exclusion; others that at some point the soul which totally rejects the Divine Love must perish out of existence. Between these two we do not feel called upon to judge. Both may be held to be compatible with Scripture; both can be supported by ethical arguments. In either case, such a soul is ‘lost’.
Whether in fact any soul will suffer that final loss in either sense it is not possible for man to pronounce. But if we leave this open, as we must, that must not be allowed to obscure the reality of the final and irreversible ‘damnation’ of evil. God’s judgment upon sin is not provisional, nor is His repudiation of it reversible. For some the fundamental conviction is that the possibility of ‘loss’ or ‘perdition’ seems to be involved in the reality of human freedom; for others the fundamental conviction is that the Divine Love cannot suffer final defeat, and that such defeat seems to them to be involved in the perdition of any soul. There is here a real conflict of convictions and both sides of it must be fully recognised. There must be room in the Church both for those who believe that some will actually be lost, and also for those who hold that the love of God will at last win penitence and answering love from every soul that it has created; while probably the majority feel strongly the force of the argument on both sides and are content to hold their minds in suspense.”
I think Freddy and EtymologicalEvangelical among others would go along with most of that, as do I, though I do not accept that refusal to respond to the call of the Divine love can ever be final - eternity does not have a final point of time and in my belief the soul in Hell has the freedom to respond throughout eternity, by the exercise of the free will with which God has endowed it.
The Roman Catholic teaching is expressed more concisely and definitely in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire." The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”
This suggests that the separation of those who die in a state of mortal sin from God is eternal from the time they die and is unchangeable thereafter. I have to say that I do not find this as satisfying as the doctrine of the Church of England, which envisages the possibility of repentance and forgiveness after death, and also acknowledges that on some points at least we do not know and do not have to form a concluded view in our lifetime.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Are you seriously suggesting that those who are evil, embittered, miserable, arrogant, self-centred bastards can effectively veto the joy, peace and relief of those who have finally escaped their clutches?
And now we see the system laid bare. Those in heaven are those who want to escape those they do not like, and who have no compassion for their fellow humans.
No, it is about being protected from abusers and oppressors. It is not about refusing to have compassion, but about certain people refusing to receive compassion.
I suppose in your bizarre and twisted world, you would be quite happy for a rape victim to be forced to live eternally with her abuser leering at her - and perhaps even attacking her? He refuses to show any remorse, but still his victim has to show the evil bastard compassion, because we are supposed to treat unrepentantly evil people with kid gloves.
I am compassionate to the victim and want to see her protected from evil, but you, apparently, seem to insist that she should be raped and abused for all eternity. In other words, you are the one condemning people to eternal hell!! You are the one lacking any sense of justice. You are the one who advocates torture, by insisting victims should live forever with their remorseless oppressors.
quote:
quote:
The arrogant will certainly be thrown out, and there will be no concession to the kind of emotional blackmail that your words imply.
And the saints and decent human beings will follow them to try to help as they are actually concerned about the suffering of others. Leaving heaven as a circle jerk of the self-satisifed who are happy that they no longer have the riff-raff around because they spoiled the view.
The more you describe your heaven and the way it works, the more I want no part of it.
Try to help them do what exactly?
I can just imagine a "saint and decent human being" going up to someone consumed with arrogance and hatred of God, who is in agony because of his own evil.
Saint: "Hi. I'm here to help you understand how much I love you and God loves you, and I want to reassure you that I want to do all I can to relieve your distress."
Unrepentant person: "Oh, just fuck off, will you! Piss off back to your shitty heaven and leave me alone." (And then spits in the decent human being's face)
What does "decent human being" do then? Respect the evil person's dignity and independence, or force that person to be good, even though they cannot be good - and therefore know any peace - because they refuse the good?
I think if the "decent human being" returned to heaven, no one in their right mind could call that person 'self-righteous'!
quote:
And the reality of your God is that he is a monster. Whose so-called love burns people and whose so-called justice involves eternal torment.
No, you're the monster who wants to torture people for ever, by expecting victims to have to live with their unrepentant oppressors.
--------------------
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
EE (and others), you continue to make the mistake of thinking this is about justice. Justice has nothing to do with it. Hell and Heaven are unjust: nobody deserves either.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
No, it is about being protected from abusers and oppressors. It is not about refusing to have compassion, but about certain people refusing to receive compassion.
I suppose in your bizarre and twisted world, you would be quite happy for a rape victim to be forced to live eternally with her abuser leering at her - and perhaps even attacking her? He refuses to show any remorse, but still his victim has to show the evil bastard compassion, because we are supposed to treat unrepentantly evil people with kid gloves.
I am compassionate to the victim and want to see her protected from evil, but you, apparently, seem to insist that she should be raped and abused for all eternity. In other words, you are the one condemning people to eternal hell!! You are the one lacking any sense of justice. You are the one who advocates torture, by insisting victims should live forever with their remorseless oppressors.
Wait, what? When did I say that everyone should be able to see everyone else and be seen by everyone else at all times? You are excluding a huge middle here - and to encompas everyone, heaven must be huge. No one can possibly be aware of everyone at all times. You are making things up and then attributing them to me.
quote:
Try to help them do what exactly?
I can just imagine a "saint and decent human being" going up to someone consumed with arrogance and hatred of God, who is in agony because of his own evil.
Who is in agony because God has decreed that they should be such. And then declared this to be a part of their own evil.
quote:
Saint: "Hi. I'm here to help you understand how much I love you and God loves you, and I want to reassure you that I want to do all I can to relieve your distress."
And now I see yet more about your heaven. "Hi. I'm a smug, self-satisfied git who patronises people. This makes me a saint." Yup, that sounds almost exactly like one of the people I said would be left in your heaven when the genuinely good people were trying to help those in distress.
The first thing to do if you want to help people is empathise with them - something your 'saint' seems incapable of from that approach. The second is to try to find a common point of contact. And this must be done person by person.
quote:
Unrepentant person: "Oh, just fuck off, will you! Piss off back to your shitty heaven and leave me alone." (And then spits in the decent human being's face)
You say "decent human being" - I say self-righteous, arrogant prick who is patting himself on the back that he is not like one of those sinners he is ministering to.
quote:
What does "decent human being" do then?
Either returns to heaven with the other "decent human beings" or tries listening for a change rather than starts off by reading from the textbook marked 'Inept Evangelism 101' - and by doing so takes the first step from being a "decent human being" into actually being a decent human being willing and able to help others.
To help others in need, you need to start by listening.
quote:
I think if the "decent human being" returned to heaven, no one in their right mind could call that person 'self-righteous'!
I think that you could call them a self-righteous prick for the opening spiel of "Hi. I'm here to help you understand how much I love you and God loves you, and I want to reassure you that I want to do all I can to relieve your distress."
(And yes, I tend to the self-righteousness).
quote:
No, you're the monster who wants to torture people for ever, by expecting victims to have to live with their unrepentant oppressors.
Balls. If the choice is between heaven and hell, heaven for all is preferable. But that doesn't mean that everyone is in the same place. And I believe that the choice between heaven and hell makes a travesty of justice either way. The choice of heaven for all is the best available. But humans aren't pure and there is no one who deserves either heaven or hell. It's simply that if there's a choice between doing an undeserved good to someone and an undeserved evil you pick the good every time.
A path of Purgatory to Heaven with people spending different lengths of time in purgatory would be far better - but a key difference between Purgatory and Heaven is that Purgatory is not eternal. I don't believe that there is such a thing as someone who can't learn and can't grow. And I believe that given enough time and support everyone will grow.
--------------------
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
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
EE (and others), you continue to make the mistake of thinking this is about justice. Justice has nothing to do with it. Hell and Heaven are unjust: nobody deserves either.
Thank you! No one does or even can deserve either.
The only question for the judge who chooses between heaven and hell is whether to do something truly nice for someone who doesn't deserve it, or something infinitely vile to someone who doesn't deserve it.
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
The only question for the judge who chooses between heaven and hell is whether to do something truly nice for someone who doesn't deserve it, or something infinitely vile to someone who doesn't deserve it.
Well what a relief that we have a God who does something truly nice for all people, who don't deserve it.
Pity that some people find this nice thing so disgusting, and insist on doing something infinitely vile to themselves by refusing to forsake evil.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Pity that some people find this nice thing so disgusting, and insist on doing something infinitely vile to themselves by refusing to forsake evil.
If I might,
"Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great supper, and bade many: And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready. And they all with one consent began to make excuse..." Luke 14:16-18
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I've met people who look something like EE's description of those he thinks will be in Hell: cynical, bitter, disillusioned, miserable, misanthropic, sad. But every single such person I've ever come across was the way they were because they had been continually beaten and trodden down by the world around them for the better part of a lifetime - including being beaten and trodden down by the sanctimonious bastards who usually pass as saints.
And for some of them, Hell would be no big deal, and no big surprise. Just more of what they've had in this life - just another kicking in a life that has been all kickings. And some of them don't particularly want God's love. They just want a final end to their pain. And some of them can't love, or be generous, because they've had those kinds of instinct knocked out of them.
So what will become of them? Hell, apparently, because they have failed to love. God will toss them into the fire. But from where I'm standing, the real failure will not be their failure to love, but God's failure to heal. Because that's all that those people have ever needed: healing. But no, God just says, "Oh well. Judgement Day. This one's a lost cause, off to the fire with you."
And don't tell me the damned exclude themselves. They don't. The New Testament is quite clear that what they are suffering is a punishment inflicted on them by God, not by themselves.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
You forget the rest of the story, Adeodatus.
"...Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind."
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Adeodatus
Good post. A point I made earlier - I used to work with very abused people, who were themselves abusive, so should we conclude then that they are evil, and deserve hell?
That itself sounds absolutely callous and cold to me. And also shallow, since people like that can recover, with help.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You forget the rest of the story, Adeodatus.
"...Then the master of the house being angry said to his servant, Go out quickly into the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in hither the poor, and the maimed, and the halt, and the blind."
And I think you are forgetting the bloke who committed the faux pas of not wearing a wedding garment - cast into the outer darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth.
For a wardrobe malfunction!
[ 09. October 2012, 17:08: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Well, there's no accounting for simplistic readings of the Bible.
The point being, it's the "righteous," not the outcasts, who are spurning God's offer. The outcasts, indeed, are the ones who accept grace most readily.
[ 09. October 2012, 17:13: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I wonder if I could 'throw' a quote into the mix and ask whether this might be a pertinent discussion point:
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'"
Matthew 25 v 41
What significance does this last phrase have, that hell was created for the devil?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Well, there's no accounting for simplistic readings of the Bible.
The point being, it's the "righteous," not the outcasts, who are spurning God's offer. The outcasts, indeed, are the ones who accept grace most readily.
But you still don't get it. I don't want the righteous, the self-righteous, the hypocrites, or the sanctimonious bastards to go to hell either. Let me be absolutely clear:
Nobody
deserves
eternal
punishment.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Well, there's no accounting for simplistic readings of the Bible.
The point being, it's the "righteous," not the outcasts, who are spurning God's offer. The outcasts, indeed, are the ones who accept grace most readily.
But you still don't get it. I don't want the righteous, the self-righteous, the hypocrites, or the sanctimonious bastards to go to hell either. Let me be absolutely clear:
Nobody
deserves
eternal
punishment.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
What you aren't getting is that some people don't want eternal salvation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What you aren't getting is that some people don't want eternal salvation.
Maybe they don't, but I don't know many people who want scorching fire over every inch of their spiritual bodies for ever and ever and ever, either.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
The only question for the judge who chooses between heaven and hell is whether to do something truly nice for someone who doesn't deserve it, or something infinitely vile to someone who doesn't deserve it.
Well what a relief that we have a God who does something truly nice for all people, who don't deserve it.
Pity that some people find this nice thing so disgusting, and insist on doing something infinitely vile to themselves by refusing to forsake evil.
Pity that God created hell as a place to keep such people. His is the power and his the responsibility. What a "relief" we have a God who creates a Place of Torture and then condemns those who won't follow the party line there.
I'm entirely with Adeodatus. No one should go to Hell. And that was an excellent post about why, and who would appear to go there above. I'm just not sure whether ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) or ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif) is appropriate.
--------------------
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What you aren't getting is that some people don't want eternal salvation.
Maybe they don't, but I don't know many people who want scorching fire over every inch of their spiritual bodies for ever and ever and ever, either.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
The only question for the judge who chooses between heaven and hell is whether to do something truly nice for someone who doesn't deserve it, or something infinitely vile to someone who doesn't deserve it.
Well what a relief that we have a God who does something truly nice for all people, who don't deserve it.
Pity that some people find this nice thing so disgusting, and insist on doing something infinitely vile to themselves by refusing to forsake evil.
Pity that God created hell as a place to keep such people. His is the power and his the responsibility. What a "relief" we have a God who creates a Place of Torture and then condemns those who won't follow the party line there.
I'm entirely with Adeodatus. No one should go to Hell. And that was an excellent post about why, and who would appear to go there above. I'm just not sure whether or is appropriate.
--------------------
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
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
(By the way, Hosts, I'm awfully sorry, I don't know where these duplicate posts are coming from. I'm really only pressing "Add Reply" once, honest!)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What you aren't getting is that some people don't want eternal salvation.
Maybe they don't, but I don't know many people who want scorching fire over every inch of their spiritual bodies for ever and ever and ever, either.
Then why don't we accept God's grace? Why do we withhold ourselves from God and our fellow men?
Sin is a reality, I believe. God offers his grace freely, and we spit on Him and nail him to a cross all the same. God says to us "Come unto me all ye who are weary and heavy laden and I will give you rest" and we run the opposite direction. We say we want grace, but we don't, not really.
[ 09. October 2012, 17:33: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
What you aren't getting is that some people don't want eternal salvation.
Maybe they don't, but I don't know many people who want scorching fire over every inch of their spiritual bodies for ever and ever and ever, either.
I don't think that many us hell-praisers here think that it's real fire.
Rather, the fiery references describe the underlying malevolence of their characters, and the burning desires, anger and hatred when roused. This is a common biblical metaphor.
This causes them to shun those who love God and try to do His will, and to look for happiness in pursuing their own interests.
--------------------
"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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by egg;
As a matter of interest I looked up the teaching of the Church of England and the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on Hell....I have to say that I do not find this (Catholic doctrine) as satisfying as the doctrine of the Church of England ,
I agree with this, in spite of my move to Rome, but any harshness in the Catholic teaching is tempered by the following;
1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: ‘Lord, let me never be parted from you.’ If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God ‘desires all men to be saved’ (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him ‘all things are possible’ (Mt 19:26).
and:
1821... In hope, the Church prays for ‘all men to be saved.’
Blessed Pope John Paul II wrote:
Eternal damnation remains a possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it. (General Audience of July 28, 1999 )
Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor said, in an interview:
"We’re not bound to believe that anybody’s there (in hell), let’s face it... I cannot think of heaven without thinking of being in communion with all the saints and with all the people I’ve loved on this earth… I hope I will be surprised in heaven, I think I will be."
What all the churches are saying is that we can't be categorically sure that all will be saved, it is indeed heretical to do so if we acknowledge God's sovereignty. But is is right and proper for all Christians to hope and pray for the salvation of all, and to believe in God's ultimate mercy. Your quote from the doctrine of the Church of England on the subject, and much of what now comes from the Catholic Church, resonate completely with how I see it, or rather, I have grown to resonate with them.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Then why don't they accept God's grace? Why do they withhold themselves from God and their fellow men?
Does it matter? God stops asking. Otherwise Hell wouldn't be eternal. God asks at a certain point and then judges, writing people off, drowning them in flood, or sentencing them to hell. "Grace" in the bible is limited and very conditional.
quote:
Sin is a reality, I believe. God offers his grace freely, and we spit on Him and nail him to a cross all the same. God says to us "Come unto me all ye who are weary and heavy laden" and we run the opposite direction. We say we want grace, but we don't, not really.
And then God sentences people to be tortured for ever in the torture chamber he himself created for the purpose. On the one hand I can follow the torturing monster presented in the bible who does an infinite amount of evil to many people and drowns the whole world. I wonder why people wouldn't accept that God...
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Well, there's no accounting for simplistic readings of the Bible.
The point being, it's the "righteous," not the outcasts, who are spurning God's offer. The outcasts, indeed, are the ones who accept grace most readily.
But you still don't get it. I don't want the righteous, the self-righteous, the hypocrites, or the sanctimonious bastards to go to hell either. Let me be absolutely clear:
Nobody
deserves
eternal
punishment.
And
That
Is
Why
Christ
Died
So
That
None
Need
Perish.
God
Wants
All
Men
To
Be
Saved
But
Even
Jesus
Conceded
That
Belief
In
Him
Was
The
Prerequiste
For
Escaping
Condemnation
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Does it matter? God stops asking.
And how long, do you feel, God must offer his grace before the consequences for our choice are given to us?
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Although equally given to pontificate on another's eternal fate I try to remember;
quote:
When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”
Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”
I do not believe we have enough information to develop a proper theology of judgement from the NT, and I do not believe any of the books were written with that aim in mind.
I do not believe there is such a thing as a Biblical view of the afterlife - only difficult challenges to us for how we must live this life, some of which reference he next life in passing.
[ 09. October 2012, 18:03: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I do not believe there is such a thing as a Biblical view of the afterlife - only difficult challenges to us for how we must live this life
I agree with this. I think Christianity has concerned itself too much with personal salvation, or "pie in the sky when we die." The Hebrew view, which supports Trudy Scrumptious' idea of conditional immortality, is that our work is to do the will of God in the present moment. From this, we may hope that He will resurrect us from the dead to an imperishable live with a new heaven and a new earth. I see this as a much healthier way to live the present life, which is the only life we can be sure we have.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Well what a relief that we have a God who does something truly nice for all people, who don't deserve it.
Pity that some people find this nice thing so disgusting, and insist on doing something infinitely vile to themselves by refusing to forsake evil.
Pity that God created hell as a place to keep such people. His is the power and his the responsibility. What a "relief" we have a God who creates a Place of Torture and then condemns those who won't follow the party line there.
No, God didn't create hell. God is hell (Hebrews 12:29). The God who is "good to all" and "whose tender mercies are over all his works" (Psalm 145:9) and "who has no pleasure in the death of him who dies" (Ezekiel 18:32) is hell in the experience of those who hate him. Nothing to do with God hating and devising ways to torture them, and everything to do with their own pride, arrogance and utter contempt for all that is good.
But you clearly don't accept that human beings possess genuine moral responsibility, do you? You just want a God who will let everybody do whatever they like, and then magically bail them out 'cos he's such a nice old fellow. This is the typical humanist idea of God, hence the bitter complaints when the God who has been routinely ignored doesn't just step in and do a superman job when anyone is in any kind of trouble. Yours is an amoral universe, in which we are merely machines programmed by God. (Well, I realise that you are actually an atheist, but I am drawing conclusions about what you think God ought to be like, on the assumption that he does exist.)
I would agree that no one "deserves" hell, but neither does the person who runs out in front of a moving vehicle. That person does not "deserve" to be run over, but he is still run over, because that is the consequence of his action.
It really doesn't matter how loving and accepting God is to some people. They will always hate him. Perhaps you wonder why anyone would prefer torture to repentance. But never underestimate the lengths some people will go to in order to "prove their point".
It seems to me that God has two simple choices (and I offer these with fear and trembling, anticipating LeRoc's: "Awww, but you can't say that 'cos the God who simultaneously exists and doesn't exist doesn't do logic...."):
1. He can gather all people into one heavenly place, and thus allow the unrepentant to torture the repentant for ever.
2. He can separate the unrepentant from the repentant, so that those who love him can be protected and delivered from all evil, and those who hate him can suffer the consequences of their own entirely wilful rebellion.
So it's a choice between torturing everyone for ever (which is what you want), or allowing some people to torture themselves for ever (something God does not want, but sadly has to comply with, due to his respect for human free will). Clearly God is infinitely more compassionate than you are, because, unlike you, he desires to protect people from evil.
Now I think that, in the light of this, God is wonderfully compassionate. And I also believe the door of mercy is open forever to all people, conditional on repentance. (Note the last phrase!)
--------------------
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
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
It puzzles me that there is no recognition here of Hell as inescapable torture by devils, which may or may not be non-biblical, but Christians such as Dante and C.S.Lewis have presented fictions based on this.
Then again varieties of Christianity have asserted that salvation is not available to the unbaptised or indeed to anyone but the Elect. No choice there.
Now I may agree with ideas of Hell whose pains are self-inflicted, is chosen by the Lost, is the glory of God seen by the insistently wicked, or is ended when the "last penny" has been paid, but surely this is not what has mostly been taught.
In any case, my hopeful universalism is continually tested, time after time.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
It puzzles me that there is no recognition here of Hell as inescapable torture by devils, which may or may not be non-biblical, but Christians such as Dante and C.S.Lewis have presented fictions based on this.
Then again varieties of Christianity have asserted that salvation is not available to the unbaptised or indeed to anyone but the Elect. No choice there.
Now I may agree with ideas of Hell whose pains are self-inflicted, is chosen by the Lost, is the glory of God seen by the insistently wicked, or is ended when the "last penny" has been paid, but surely this is not what has mostly been taught.
In any case, my hopeful universalism is continually tested, time after time.
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EE:
It really doesn't matter how loving and accepting God is to some people. They will always hate him.
Why do you think that? Especially when Romans 14:11 says:
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
It may take some people longer to acknowledge God than others. As we know, life isn't a level playing field. People who grew up seriously abused, physically or sexually, may hate so much that they find it impossible to let God's love in. People who are hungry, or whose children are hungry, may have a moral code which is different, by necessity, from those of us who've never known true hunger. But Paul, quoting Isaiah is confident that EVERYONE will bow and confess to God.
And what are your criteria for suggesting that someone hates God? My experience of evengelical Christianity is that it usually boils down to not believing what you believe about Jesus. Does this amount to hating God forever? certainly not! if we acknowlwedge that faith is a gift from God, that can only lead either to a Calvinist belief in double predestination, or a belief that Christ will draw all people to Himself. (John 12.32). I believe in irresistable grace, but only when it includes everyone.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Now I think that, in the light of this, God is wonderfully compassionate. And I also believe the door of mercy is open forever to all people, conditional on repentance. (Note the last phrase!)
Then you yourself have departed from the traditional and biblical teaching. Traditional teaching, especially in the Reformed Churches, is quite clear: hell, once you are consigned to it, is for ever. There is no opportunity for repentance, no possibility of rehabilitation. The door is emphatically not locked on the inside. And, what's more, you have to make your choices and decisions in this life - later, when you feel the blast of heat approaching, is too late.
Personally, I do believe that human beings are moral agents. I'm also very clear that evil deeds sometimes require punishment. But I also have a sense of justice, in which however evil the deeds of a finite creature, an infinite punishment is never just.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*
quote:
Originally posted by EE:
It really doesn't matter how loving and accepting God is to some people. They will always hate him.
Why do you think that?
Free will.
quote:
Especially when Romans 14:11 says:
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess, but willingly or unwillingly?
What about Jesus' words about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:32)? :
quote:
"...whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."
I find it difficult to believe that Jesus would mention this, if he knew that really no one would ever commit this sin. Interestingly Jesus mentions the idea of forgiveness "in the age to come", which suggests that the Protestant idea of the eternal and irrevocable separation of humanity into saved and damned at death is suspect. So this suggests some form of purgatory.
quote:
And what are your criteria for suggesting that someone hates God? My experience of evengelical Christianity is that it usually boils down to not believing what you believe about Jesus. Does this amount to hating God forever?
Ah, I see. Presumably you mention the word "evangelical" because of my user name? My user name is just a test, to see if people can look beyond labels. It's supposed to focus people on the original meaning of "evangelical", meaning good news. Nothing to do with affiliation to evangelicalism. As it happens, I'm not really much of an evangelical at all, in the ecclesiastical sense of the word.
So, no, I do not subscribe to a 'gnostic' view of salvation, dependent on doctrinal box ticking. When I talk about "hating God" I am talking about the reality of evil, which involves a deep seated rejection of love, compassion and mercy.
--------------------
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
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
inescapable torture by devils... , which may or may not be non-biblical, but Christians such as Dante and C.S.Lewis have presented fictions based on this.
Dante yes, but I don't know where CS Lewis went in for that view of hell?
In any case it doesn't seem remotely biblical. A more biblical idea might be the torture of devils. But in the end, as I said above, I don't think we have enough information to form a cogent and comprehensive view.
We have an indication that there is an after-life, that it may be bad or good, that judgement and reward is not as mechanical and legalistic as we might think (e.g. the sheep and goats or the parable of the talents), and I think Christians are called to a particular way of life in the here and now, and to have faith in God to sort out the after-life in a loving and just way. How he manages that is anyone's guess.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
My user name is just a test, to see if people can look beyond labels.
And is your posting style just as testing?
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Now I think that, in the light of this, God is wonderfully compassionate. And I also believe the door of mercy is open forever to all people, conditional on repentance. (Note the last phrase!)
Then you yourself have departed from the traditional and biblical teaching. Traditional teaching, especially in the Reformed Churches, is quite clear: hell, once you are consigned to it, is for ever. There is no opportunity for repentance, no possibility of rehabilitation. The door is emphatically not locked on the inside. And, what's more, you have to make your choices and decisions in this life - later, when you feel the blast of heat approaching, is too late.
Yes, I probably have departed from the traditional teaching, but not the biblical teaching, as I see it.
"Mercy triumphs over judgment", and given that God's mercy endures forever, then it follows that this mercy is extended to all people for all eternity. If the damned remain in hell forever, then it is because of their absolute rejection of mercy, and perhaps they only went to hell in the first place, because they had wilfully put themselves beyond any hope of redemption. However, mercy implies that the door is open forever.
There are hints in Scripture about post mortem repentance, such as the fact that "it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement" than for the cities in which Jesus preached. (Mark 6:11) The people of Sodom and Gomorrah most definitely died in their sins, as they were judged by fire, but yet the suggestion is that there will be some kind of mercy shown to them after death. Also, those who died in the flood went to a place where they could repent - hence 1 Peter 3:19-20.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
