|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Universalism: The case against
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
If we decide to ignore God or shut him out of our lives ... and resist whatever God does to win us back....
Do you really believe that it is possible for mere dust to effectively resist God?
As I engage with this thread, I realize what a "Calvinist" I really am, at least as far as "effectual calling" and "irresistible grace" are concerned.
If God really did "respect" our choices, we'd all be lost, because not one of us could freely choose God. Romans 9:16: "So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy." Ephesians 2:8: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not your own doing; it is the gift of God...."
I really think "damnationists" and "annihilationists" who try to justify their position based on God's respect for "free will" are going to have to come to terms with the strong biblical witness for God's absolute sovereignty and irresistible grace. It's not just us universalists who have a hard row to hoe when it comes to defending our beliefs in relation to Scripture.
But, in the end, a TUUIP is a much more beautiful flower than a TULIP! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Dunno... according to Romans 1 (if we're going to get into this), people "knew God" yet "did not honour him as God or give thanks to him". The OT prophets, speaking the very words of God to his people, were rejected. Jesus came showing God's power in an unprecedented way and fulfilling Scriptures left, right and centre and people rejected him. I know there's times in my life (oh so many) when I have a good idea of what God wants and fail to do it.
So yes, I do think it's possible for "mere dust" to reject God. The part of me that wants to be a Universalist hopes it won't be forever.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Sorry! I didn't mean to imply that I was taking your statement personally. It's simply a "charge" I encounter a lot, and since your post was the latest to suggest it, I "pounced." My argument was not directed against you, but against the often-expressed idea that universalists are lecturing God on morality.
No probs (and don't blame you for pouncing - sorry if my post provoked it!)
quote:
I can't and won't speak for other universalists, but my beef isn't with God, it's with God's PR firm!
In that, you have my full agreement!!
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
So their situation depends (or may depend) on someone else's choice - whether their carer(s)/parent(s) chose to baptise them? That sounds arbitrary, not just, to me.
Of course, who gets born in what circumstances may seem arbitrary to you, but is not so for God. For all we know, the fate of eternal natural happiness may not only be just but a mercy extended by God to that person. God's omniscience does not only see this world, but all possible worlds.
As for depending on the choices of others, well, that we are all doomed to burn in hell thanks to Adam, who squandered sanctifying grace from the heirloom of mankind, should have tipped you off that God does not believe that man is an island. You may of course consider that just more old-fashioned nonsense. Unfortunately, then also Christ's sacrifice has no particular meaning any longer. It's then a nice symbol, perhaps personally inspiring, but why precisely should God reckon Christ's sacrifice onto you, if we are indeed all just individuals before God? No, God does not just meet us as individuals, and your parents can fuck up your eternal salvation. Or more properly, fail to help you to unfuck your eternal salvation that has been fucked up by Adam. Millstones around their neck in return, for sure, but that doesn't mean that you are in the clear.
As an aside, missionaries save souls. Think about that. The way most people talk these days, missionaries are some kind of cultural ambassadors: not really necessary, but kind of nice to have around. But no, without missionaries more people go to hell. Now, how does that work? How do you explain that in a framework where every individual gets exactly the same fair and square deal from God, no matter what the circumstances or what anybody else does? You can't. Fundamental Christian practice speaks against this idea.
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Similarly, some people are agnostic or atheist as children and become Christians as teenagers or adults. But they cannot do so if they are in a fatal accident or die of a disease before they would have become a Christian. On your view, they haven't made the right choice during their lifetime, so they get torture. The distribution of fatal accidents and terminal diseases seems largely arbitrary to me. So, for these people too, the allocation of torture seems arbitrary, not just.
I have never said anything like "all agnostics / atheists go to hell", hence this argument is partly based on false premises. There is scope for everybody to go to heaven, though admittedly for atheists there is only very limited scope. Let's be clear that it is actually a significant advantage to be a Christian, it maximises one's salvation chances. Whereas being an atheist is very disadvantageous for that. But if an atheist, or a Hindu, or whatever follows the promptings of God's grace sufficiently within their situation, then they will go to heaven. (And if Christians don't, then they will go to hell.)
But on the whole arbitrariness thing: Let's remember that God is Lord, not Landlord. He's not simply the owner of this place, who nevertheless has duties to the tenants imposed by some external lawmaker. He makes the rules as much as the things they apply to. He isn't arbitrary because He is perfectly steadfast, but there is exactly nothing that constrains the flow of His will.
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Your "God" is a moral monster, and to understand what comes from belief in such a creature, we only need to listen to the screams of burning "heretics," "witches," and Jews.
If it was deeply immoral to kill all those people, as you clearly believe and as I mostly concede, then the following is the case: According to you, all these killers who murdered people in horrible ways now enjoy an eternity of bliss in heaven with God. According to me, those brutal killers are now most likely suffering for eternity in hell. Getting God terribly wrong and mistreating people atrociously has in the end absolutely no consequence in your scheme, whereas it typically has devastating consequences in mine. So this apparently makes my God a moral monster. Oh well, I think I can live with that.
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I'm arguing that God will save Caligula, Nero, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Jeffrey Dahmer, Radovan Karadzic, Osama bin Laden, the commandants of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Chelmno ... and me, the foremost sinner (move over, Pseudo-Paul! -- 1 Timothy 1:15).
Well, if that's the company you wish for, then God will probably grant your wish. You are right as far as that goes.
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
But -- and this is the wonderful thing -- this God isn't going to pour out his Wrath on us, because he poured it out on himself. He took his own justice in full measure, so that there is not a drop left for us.
I'm not sure how God beating Himself up makes Him any less a basket case than God beating us up? The cross really is a terrible embarrassment for universalists, if God only had sent a heartfelt greeting card instead. But anyway, it is really good to know that not a drop of justice is left in God. Thus if I can manage to avoid human justice, I'm all in the clear to do whatever I want. Great stuff. I think I will start with some adultery, just as a warm-up, and then slowly work myself up to a murder or two. Who knows, if I am getting really good at this, I might try my hand at some genocide. Just because I can.
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
So would the safest option be to make a full and frank confession of one's sins and then die immediately after in a nasty accident?
Well, after getting the absolution and doing the penance. Yes. To optimise, I would suggest getting a plenary indulgence as well though. You don't want to have time in purgatory dealing with temporal punishments, if you can avoid it. Or simply die directly after baptism, that's the comprehensive package. (Just to be clear, in any way arranging a nasty accident that will kill you is basically suicide, a mortal sin. So you will have to hope for a timely death. Or indeed pray for it.)
--------------------
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
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
If we decide to ignore God or shut him out of our lives ... and resist whatever God does to win us back....
Do you really believe that it is possible for mere dust to effectively resist God?
As I engage with this thread, I realize what a "Calvinist" I really am, at least as far as "effectual calling" and "irresistible grace" are concerned.
If God really did "respect" our choices, we'd all be lost, because not one of us could freely choose God. Romans 9:16: "So it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who shows mercy." Ephesians 2:8: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not your own doing; it is the gift of God...."
I really think "damnationists" and "annihilationists" who try to justify their position based on God's respect for "free will" are going to have to come to terms with the strong biblical witness for God's absolute sovereignty and irresistible grace. It's not just us universalists who have a hard row to hoe when it comes to defending our beliefs in relation to Scripture.
But, in the end, a TUUIP is a much more beautiful flower than a TULIP!
I'm not really arguing against your ideas here and I don't want to argue about free will - but I think it's worth reiterating that it is possible to doubt that God would subject anyone to inescapable eternal damnation without a Calvinist belief in the operation of grace and free will.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I'm arguing that God will save Caligula, Nero, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Jeffrey Dahmer, Radovan Karadzic, Osama bin Laden, the commandants of Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Chelmno ... and me, the foremost sinner (move over, Pseudo-Paul! -- 1 Timothy 1:15).
Well, if that's the company you wish for, then God will probably grant your wish. You are right as far as that goes.
"Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming near to listen to him. And the Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling and saying, 'This fellow welcomes sinners and eats with them.' So he told them this parable...." (Luke 15:1-3)
I'll let you look it up and read the rest on your own.
I'm looking forward to spending eternity, too, with the various heretic-burners your Church has canonized.
There's also room in heaven for people who try to win arguments by polemically misrepresenting others' arguments and attributing ideas to them that they've never actually expressed.
Thanks be to God!
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I'd rather their company than yours mate.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But on the whole arbitrariness thing: Let's remember that God is Lord, not Landlord. He's not simply the owner of this place, who nevertheless has duties to the tenants imposed by some external lawmaker. He makes the rules as much as the things they apply to. He isn't arbitrary because He is perfectly steadfast, but there is exactly nothing that constrains the flow of His will.
This may be a little lexicographical, but one can be both "arbitrary" and "steadfast". In fact, having nothing constrain the flow of one's will is the definition of arbitrary. But just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean it's not consistent. The rules for various sports are "arbitrary", insofar as there's no underlying reason they couldn't be different, but they are also consistent ("steadfast" in your terminology) in that everyone plays by the same rules.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But on the whole arbitrariness thing: Let's remember that God is Lord, not Landlord. He's not simply the owner of this place, who nevertheless has duties to the tenants imposed by some external lawmaker. He makes the rules as much as the things they apply to. He isn't arbitrary because He is perfectly steadfast, but there is exactly nothing that constrains the flow of His will.
This may be a little lexicographical, but one can be both "arbitrary" and "steadfast". In fact, having nothing constrain the flow of one's will is the definition of arbitrary. But just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean it's not consistent. The rules for various sports are "arbitrary", insofar as there's no underlying reason they couldn't be different, but they are also consistent ("steadfast" in your terminology) in that everyone plays by the same rules.
Wait - so there are no limitations on what God can and cannot do - but if He says He is good or just or something, does that mean we can safely expect to always comply with the definition of goodness or justice, etc., that God has given us? What are those definitions? Heretic that I am I'll probably disagree on the definitions or even on whether God said that He had a certain quality - although I do believe God is good and just. I don't have an airtight explanation for anything I believe, though, and I don't expect to ever have one at this point in my life. But I am interested in whether God's descriptions of Himself to us can be used to predict what He would and would not do.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
IngoB,
First, with regard to the burnings of heretics, witches, and Jews....
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If it was deeply immoral to kill all those people, as you clearly believe and as I mostly concede, then the following is the case: According to you, all these killers who murdered people in horrible ways now enjoy an eternity of bliss in heaven with God. According to me, those brutal killers are now most likely suffering for eternity in hell. Getting God terribly wrong and mistreating people atrociously has in the end absolutely no consequence in your scheme, whereas it typically has devastating consequences in mine. So this apparently makes my God a moral monster. Oh well, I think I can live with that.
It's nice of you to "mostly concede" that it was "deeply immoral" for sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church (urged on by Mom Herself) to kill heretics, witches, and Jews.
Could you, please, clarify what your view is on the eternal fate of those people who were burned? I mean, the real, hardened, unrepentant heretics like Jan Huss, William Tyndale, John Tewkesbury, Nicholas Ridely, and the guy in my member icon. And the actual witches--there must have been a few women who really did believe they were conjuring spirits and harnessing supernatural power. And the Jews, many of whom definitely loathed "that son of an impure woman," the "hanged one," as they liked to call him.
Then, let's discuss the eternal fate of one of the heretic-burners, keeping in view what you wrote above on this issue: "According to me, those brutal killers are now most likely suffering for eternity in hell. Getting God terribly wrong and mistreating people atrociously ... typically has devastating consequences in [my scheme]."
Where is Thomas More right now and what is happening to him?
Remember! He got God "terribly wrong" and mistreated people "atrociously"! The historical record is unambiguous about that. John Tewkesbury, named above, was one of his victims, about whom More wrote: "[He] burned as there was neuer wretche I wene better worthy"; More also relished the idea of him suffering in hell: "an hote fyrebronde burnynge at hys bakke, that all the water in the worlde wyll neuer be able to quenche."
So, is More burning in Hell now? [I can hear the conservative Protestants in the cheap seats shouting, "Damn right he's burning in Hell!"]
Now, to clarify my own position as a Christian universalist. I can't claim to know what is happening right now to Thomas More. Such knowledge is above my pay-grade. But I do shudder when I imagine/speculate what it must have been like for him when he stood before God and had to account for his actions.
(No consequences? Show me where I said sin has no consequences!)
What I can and will assert with confidence is that More will "enjoy an eternity of bliss in heaven with God," just like every other sinner saved by God's grace--which is all of them. How More will get to that, what path he'll have to take, I gladly and trustingly leave to God.
Re. Hitler in heaven....
quote:
Well, if that's the company you wish for, then God will probably grant your wish. You are right as far as that goes.
I ended up responding separately to this one, but must add: If you don't wish to spend eternity with saved sinners, you're going to have to forgo the traditional Christian afterlife, because classic, orthodox doctrine says that heaven will be full of all kinds of people who did really horrible things--like that guy who stood by while the mob stoned Stephen. Never mind universalism at all! Your problem's with the claims of your own tradition!
You aren't the first damnationist in this thread to end up attacking traditional Christian doctrines in an effort to refute universalism. It's a striking phenomenon that so many Christians seem unhappy with the idea that sinners might not get what's coming to them! I can imagine them being secretly frustrated that Jesus didn't execute the woman caught in adultery: "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again." What a wimp Jesus was! Being sinless, he should have cast the first stone, a nice, big one! Bashed in her head! Just like the Torah said to!
quote:
I'm not sure how God beating Himself up makes Him any less a basket case than God beating us up?
Seriously? You're going to belittle and mock the teachings of your own tradition just to try to score a point against universalism?
quote:
The cross really is a terrible embarrassment for universalists, if God only had sent a heartfelt greeting card instead.
I'm a universalist, and the cross doesn't embarrass me in the least.
quote:
But anyway, it is really good to know that not a drop of justice is left in God. Thus if I can manage to avoid human justice, I'm all in the clear to do whatever I want. Great stuff. I think I will start with some adultery, just as a warm-up, and then slowly work myself up to a murder or two. Who knows, if I am getting really good at this, I might try my hand at some genocide. Just because I can.
Go ahead! Knock yourself out! You'll be in good company with the adulterers, murderers, and those who've committed genocide who do believe in Hell and judgment and still go ahead and commit such acts.
But, seriously, this is the best you can manage? A tired, old argument that morality is impossible apart from fear of divine punishment? The Ship's atheists must be laughing at this one!
In any event, I didn't claim that God won't hold people responsible for their actions (although my rhetorical flourish was sloppy enough that it was easy for you to misrepresent my views). There is no incompatibility between universalism and believing that finite actions have appropriate, proportional, and finite consequences.
Do you have kids? If so .... Why do they follow your guidance and example? Out of fear of terrible punishments you will inflict? Or because they love and respect you?
"There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has no yet reached perfection in love." (1 John 4:18)
I love because God first loved me. Maybe someday you'll be able to do the same. With grace, anything is possible.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Cranmer kind of brought it on himself. No way he could have predicted Mary Tudor becoming queen. He took a risk and got literally burned. Still, as I see it, Crammed and company are likely in heaven with Bloody Mary and Thomas More.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Cranmer kind of brought it on himself. No way he could have predicted Mary Tudor becoming queen. He took a risk and got literally burned. Still, as I see it, Crammed and company are likely in heaven with Bloody Mary and Thomas More.
There's hope for you yet!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
They were all baptized.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
They were all baptized.
So were Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, and the commandants of all of the Nazi death camps.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
There's also room in heaven for people who try to win arguments by polemically misrepresenting others' arguments and attributing ideas to them that they've never actually expressed.
Good thing, too, or all of us Purgatory dogs would go straight to Hell.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Of course, who gets born in what circumstances may seem arbitrary to you, but is not so for God ... Adam, who squandered sanctifying grace from the heirloom of mankind, should have tipped you off that God does not believe that man is an island. You may of course consider that just more old-fashioned nonsense. ... How do you explain that in a framework where every individual gets exactly the same fair and square deal from God, no matter what the circumstances or what anybody else does? ...
Yes, who gets born in what circumstances does seem arbitrary to me! For what it's worth, I like the idea that 'no-one is an island'. My problem is how that idea makes it just for one person's choice to affect whether someone else is left out of Heaven.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... I have never said anything like "all agnostics / atheists go to hell", hence this argument is partly based on false premises. ... if an atheist, or a Hindu, or whatever follows the promptings of God's grace sufficiently within their situation, then they will go to heaven. (And if Christians don't, then they will go to hell.)
I made a wrong assumption. I was wrong to assume that, when you wrote that we must choose during our lifetime, this meant 'choose to become a Christian'. In fact, you meant 'choose to follow the promptings of God's grace'.
Allowing for my error, my initial thought is that my argument still works. Suppose two people grow up as friends. They grow up on an island where there's very little traffic, so it's normal for people to walk on the roads safely. They go to the same university on the mainland. They're now 20 years old. They came from families of atheists and, for their first 20 years of life, they didn't pay any attention to the promptings of God's grace. They're walking on a street in their university town, deep in conversation. One of them absentmindedly walks into the road and is killed. The survivor, deeply affected by the death of her/his friend, talks to a priest in the university chaplaincy and embraces God's grace. If I understand your view correctly, the friend who died doesn't go to Heaven; the friend who survived does. As I see it, this is arbitrary; either friend could have been the one who walked into the road without thinking. Have I misunderstood your view? If so, how am I wrong? If not, how is this situation compatible with justice?
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, it's not about rejection. I don't know anyone who rejects God. I know a lot of people who don't believe he exists. And that's because they don't see a lot of reason to suppose that he does. If God regularly wandered down the street, asking us to accept or reject him, in full knowledge that he really was God, that'd be one thing. But it's not like that. How can you choose someone if you don't know they're there?
Actually, there are only few people who don't believe that He exists. Where "He" is not necessarily the Christian God, of course. It could be some other religion, or merely some undifferentiated sentiments about "something higher". But atheism is for the most part an educated affectation of the rich, and in the West, a cultural disease (or as one of the prominent disease vectors would say, a "meme"). There is a big difference between saying "the Christian God does not exist" and "there is nothing higher / supernatural". The latter opinion is truly limited to fools, just as the bible says. The former is simply a different, quite reasonable discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
But that does not mean that I believe the verses of Scripture, the writings of Church Fathers, Doctors, and theologians, and the decrees of Councils and Popes that appear to say that God does indeed punish those not living in a state of grace at the time of death with eternal suffering.
There is no such thing as faith without sources. It is frankly rather boring to read through these lists of what people do not accept as sources for their faith. This little more than pride in having rejected somebody else's source, just because those sources are "standard" and hence one can feel like a "rebel". Whatever. Knock yourself out. The real question is rather what people actually accept as their sources. And the real problem there is that "me, myself and I" is not a particularly trustworthy source...
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Therefore I find comfort in knowing that even though God could very well a God who damns people to suffer forever, that there is nothing that requires me to believe that unless I really can get my conscience to accept it. And no matter how much I learn about Christianity and Catholicism, my conscience just cannot accept it.
Matt 13:14-17: With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: 'You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.' But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So - you reckon either that atheists are too stupid to realise God exists, or have decided to pretend he doesn't? Given that I also find it hard quite often to believe God exists, do you think I'm too stupid to see the truth or merely self-deceptive? I'd love to know.
As mentioned above, I would make a difference between not believing in (the Christian) God, and not believing in (some supernatural principle which we may conveniently call) god. If you find it hard to believe in the latter, rather than the former, then I would say as a Westerner it is most likely due to a combination of cultural corruption and hiding various personal immoralities, plus a helping of acedia induced by a (relatively speaking) luxurious life. So it's probably more a kind of self-deception than simply stupidity.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't find faith is something I can manufacture as an act of will.
Yet that is precisely what it is, an act of will making a decision on a matter that the intellect cannot properly decide. So perhaps your problem is simply that you have an overly exalted opinion of what faith must be like, and then fail to meet the unrealistic standards that you have set for yourself? This is highly likely if you come from a Protestant background, with its heroic take on conversion and romantic views on communion with God.
FWIW, my faith is for the most part calculated and workman-like, with all the personal passion of brushing one's teeth regularly. I also have not "encountered Jesus", though I have had some mystic experiences (which I found more scary than comforting, frankly). I consider Christian life mostly a hard slog, and the only thing the Christian community tends to inspire me to is rage-quitting. Yet I have a kind of faith, and it is a pretty resilient one. By Protestant standards, I'm probably nowhere near to "being saved" with that kind of faith, but I couldn't care less about that. By Catholic standards, my soul is also in danger. But for "practical" reasons, that can be fixed with available sacramental tools by priestly mechanics. I like that aspect of the traditional ways. There's room for gushing kitsch sentimentality, as well as for me, because it is in the end about moving your will in a particular direction. I can do that, in my way. Other people have their ways. Good for them, good for me.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So you will have to hope for a timely death. Or indeed pray for it.
I do. Every day.
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Ingo, your problem there is that you're coming up with a statement that I know is false - that atheists, those who say that (provisionally at least) there is no supernatural, are fools. I know a lot of atheists. Few of them are fools. They just aren't.
So something's wrong with your argument, because it involves something I know isn't true.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ingo, your problem there is that you're coming up with a statement that I know is false - that atheists, those who say that (provisionally at least) there is no supernatural, are fools. I know a lot of atheists. Few of them are fools. They just aren't. So something's wrong with your argument, because it involves something I know isn't true.
Actually, they are. "Fool" is not a statement about cognitive ability. I was an atheist for most of my life, and I consider myself to be rather intelligent and reasonably well educated.
But I would be sad if you stopped reading my post at that first part. For the last part was quite independent of that, and contained what I wanted to say to you, personally.
--------------------
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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ingo, your problem there is that you're coming up with a statement that I know is false - that atheists, those who say that (provisionally at least) there is no supernatural, are fools. I know a lot of atheists. Few of them are fools. They just aren't.
So something's wrong with your argument, because it involves something I know isn't true.
Yes, I'm not sure what 'fool' means here, but it makes me scratch my head. I grew up in a working class area, where nearly everybody was an atheist. And my whole family were, including grandparents, maiden aunts, and so on. Well, I suppose some of them were fools in one sense, but mostly they were just ordinary people, who were not interested in God or religion. So I don't get the idea of atheism being a product of affluence. Surely, in England it was the other way round - the working class gave up on religion, while the middle class hung on, and this was happening in 1800.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ingo, your problem there is that you're coming up with a statement that I know is false - that atheists, those who say that (provisionally at least) there is no supernatural, are fools. I know a lot of atheists. Few of them are fools. They just aren't. So something's wrong with your argument, because it involves something I know isn't true.
Actually, they are. "Fool" is not a statement about cognitive ability. I was an atheist for most of my life, and I consider myself to be rather intelligent and reasonably well educated.
But I would be sad if you stopped reading my post at that first part. For the last part was quite independent of that, and contained what I wanted to say to you, personally.
I didn't stop reading, but you didn't sing to my soul. Not your fault.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ingo, your problem there is that you're coming up with a statement that I know is false - that atheists, those who say that (provisionally at least) there is no supernatural, are fools. I know a lot of atheists. Few of them are fools. They just aren't.
So something's wrong with your argument, because it involves something I know isn't true.
Yes, I'm not sure what 'fool' means here, but it makes me scratch my head. I grew up in a working class area, where nearly everybody was an atheist. And my whole family were, including grandparents, maiden aunts, and so on. Well, I suppose some of them were fools in one sense, but mostly they were just ordinary people, who were not interested in God or religion. So I don't get the idea of atheism being a product of affluence. Surely, in England it was the other way round - the working class gave up on religion, while the middle class hung on, and this was happening in 1800.
I've taken it to mean a person who does know that God is real, but nevertheless pretends to themselves that "there's no God so I can do what I like". It's like a cosmic version of "the teacher's not looking so I'll scoff these sweets now and he'll never know." It doesn't, to my mind, mean that atheists are inherently fools.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I'm not sure what 'fool' means here, but it makes me scratch my head.
Foolish as in "unwise", not as in "stupid".
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I grew up in a working class area, where nearly everybody was an atheist. And my whole family were, including grandparents, maiden aunts, and so on. Well, I suppose some of them were fools in one sense, but mostly they were just ordinary people, who were not interested in God or religion. So I don't get the idea of atheism being a product of affluence.
I note two things: First, once more, not believing in Christianity does not necessarily indicate atheism, even in a predominantly Christian culture. Actually, precisely in a culture heavily dominated by one religion there is scope for "fake atheism", i.e., an actual denial of the dominant religion expressed as a denial of all religion precisely because society equates the two. Second, lack of engagement in religion does not equate to atheism either. Being apathetic about higher things is functionally like atheism (one doesn't do "religious stuff"), but psychologically quite different. Again, there is scope for "fake atheism" there, i.e., explaining one's lack of interest not as the apathy that it really is, but as a (in some sense more respectable) choice of conscience. I think "real atheism" requires strong conviction and an actual emotional investment. One must really mean it when one says "there are no gods, or anything like that".
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, in England it was the other way round - the working class gave up on religion, while the middle class hung on, and this was happening in 1800.
If true, then that's rather interesting.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Ingo, your problem there is that you're coming up with a statement that I know is false - that atheists, those who say that (provisionally at least) there is no supernatural, are fools. I know a lot of atheists. Few of them are fools. They just aren't. So something's wrong with your argument, because it involves something I know isn't true.
Actually, they are. "Fool" is not a statement about cognitive ability. I was an atheist for most of my life, and I consider myself to be rather intelligent and reasonably well educated.
So you were a fool, but now you're not? And if Pope Francis slips and says something you disapprove of, are you going back to being a fool?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
The cross really is a terrible embarrassment for universalists, if God only had sent a heartfelt greeting card instead.
I'm a universalist, and the cross doesn't embarrass me in the least.
Well yes. The other way round if anything. The Cross, the scandalous cross, is God's response to a truly serious situation. We are all sinners and incapable of helping ourselves.
If the rather retro Romanism that IngoB describes here were true, where its not faith or a Christian profession that God uses to save you, but rather contriving not to have committed an unconfessed mortal sin just before your death, then the Cross would hardly be needed.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Whilst I have genuine difficulties with the traditions in some areas, I think IngoB nailed something that troubles me about contemporary middle of the road Christianity, rather well described as the teaching of the huggy bear God.
Regardless of individual texts I think you have to look at the overall attitude, and there is a theme running throughout the NT, of the fear of God (and that is fear as in fear), that is not clearly proclaimed. Of course, there are teachers and denominations, that still take as central (not outmoded) the idea that we should pass our time in fear and trembling, but I don't hear it. Your as likely to get knob jokes as talk about judgement to come from the vicar and I'm not talking crude hellfire ranting, I'm talking any hint that God might do to you something that would make you afraid if you thought it could happen.
Someone will doubtless quote "perfect love casts out fear" to which I would steal an idea of CSL and suggest setting up a separate board for the perfect where it can be debated.
[ 26. March 2014, 11:14: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I think that's because it doesn't make sense Anteater. I am not afraid of people who love me, because they love me, and I have confidence that that means they will neither reject me nor do something unspeakable to me. Is God's love less than theirs? If his love is as defined in that famous bit in 2 Corinthians, then what basis for fear would there be? That love that always forgives, keeps no record of wrongs...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So you were a fool, but now you're not?
Well, I'm not as foolish as I was about this sort of thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
And if Pope Francis slips and says something you disapprove of, are you going back to being a fool?
I'm not totally sure what this is in reference to. I cannot become an atheist again, since I accept at least one (probably several) of the philosophical arguments for the existence of (the metaphysical) God as true. I can however certainly abandon the RCC, if Pope Francis manages to prove her doctrinally unreliable.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Well yes. The other way round if anything. The Cross, the scandalous cross, is God's response to a truly serious situation. We are all sinners and incapable of helping ourselves.
The situation is not serious in the slightest for an universalist, and no sinner is in that scheme in the need of any help whatsoever (other than that universal salvation). At most an universalist can make some hay out of some kind of purgatory setting, though I don't hear that stressed so often. But frankly, as compared to a guarantee of infinite bliss, what does any finite difficulty matter? The drama of the cross is completely pointless for universalism. It's like someone making a big deal out of having found a booger in their nose. Everybody does get that eventually, and it has no significant consequences, so why the ado?
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If the rather retro Romanism that IngoB describes here were true, where its not faith or a Christian profession that God uses to save you, but rather contriving not to have committed an unconfessed mortal sin just before your death, then the Cross would hardly be needed.
No cross, no salvation, no sacraments. No faith, no sacramental confession. No sacramental confession, little chance of perseverance. The only thing contrived here is your critique.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If his love is as defined in that famous bit in 2 Corinthians, then what basis for fear would there be? That love that always forgives, keeps no record of wrongs...
Uhhh... Did you mean 1 Cor 13? Let me assume that you did. Well, there's that. But then there's also 1 Cor 5. St Paul clearly did not think that he was contradicting himself in the very same letter.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
St Paul clearly did not think that he was contradicting himself in the very same letter.
That doesn't mean he wasn't.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If his love is as defined in that famous bit in 2 Corinthians, then what basis for fear would there be? That love that always forgives, keeps no record of wrongs...
Uhhh... Did you mean 1 Cor 13? Let me assume that you did. Well, there's that. But then there's also 1 Cor 5. St Paul clearly did not think that he was contradicting himself in the very same letter.
I did mean that. I've always thought knowing what's in there is more important than knowing where it is.
And then what Mousey said.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
St Paul clearly did not think that he was contradicting himself in the very same letter.
That doesn't mean he wasn't.
Not per se, of course. But this was no ordinary man, but an apostle. And this is not an ordinary letter, but part of inspired scripture. Of course, the instrument Saul of Tarsus colours what the Holy Spirit wishes to teach us. But if you are going to take out entire chapters of the bible like this, then we part company. No can do. And indeed, even accepting this sort of approach for the sake of argument: who says that it is 1 Cor 5 that has to go, rather than 1 Cor 13?
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I did mean that. I've always thought knowing what's in there is more important than knowing where it is.
Well, as it was I spent time hunting for some particularly striking definition of "love" in 2 Cor. I would not exactly call that time wasted, given that I was reading through scripture... Still, I would consider correct and specific quoting/referencing a basic courtesy around here.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Someone will doubtless quote "perfect love casts out fear" to which I would steal an idea of CSL and suggest setting up a separate board for the perfect where it can be debated.
It's been done. I guess you missed my last lengthy reply to IngoB's lengthy post.
Your comment here suggests that you (and apparently Clive Staples) are equating "perfect love" with "perfect lovers."(*) Have a look at 1 John. It's clear that the author sees "perfect love" as something well within the reach of imperfect people. That's because, like everything else good, perfect love has its source in God (who is, ontologically, Love) and God's unmerited grace.
(*) This would not be Lewis' first or worst exegetical or philosophical error.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
... and there is a theme running throughout the NT, of the fear of God (and that is fear as in fear)....
Since the Bible wasn't written in English, it can't possible just be "fear as in fear." The English word has lots of connotations that must be absent from the biblical usage
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The situation is not serious in the slightest for an universalist, and no sinner is in that scheme in the need of any help whatsoever (other than that universal salvation). At most an universalist can make some hay out of some kind of purgatory setting, though I don't hear that stressed so often. But frankly, as compared to a guarantee of infinite bliss, what does any finite difficulty matter? The drama of the cross is completely pointless for universalism. It's like someone making a big deal out of having found a booger in their nose. Everybody does get that eventually, and it has no significant consequences, so why the ado?
This is the giantist straw man that gets wheeled out every time we have this kind of discussion.
I mean, the argument that nothing matters unless it is eternal is ludicrous. You're sweeping away the suffering of countless people, labelling any justice that is meted out in our lifetimes as inconsequential.
And secondly, where do you get to the idea that no sinner is in need of any kind of help? Of course we are. We all are. Universal Reconciliation states that clearly, and that God does something about that for everyone, not just a select few. And we can be part of that for one another.
In terms of a kind of purgatory setting, I for one stress it every time we discuss this issue. Once and for all: Hell does not have to be eternal to be a very, very big deal.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The situation is not serious in the slightest for an universalist, and no sinner is in that scheme in the need of any help whatsoever (other than that universal salvation).
I think I have to refer you to my earlier post with answers yourt poijnt.
Sin is serious. We cannot help ourselves. God only can help us. The watered-down semi-Pelagianism you seem to be offering doesn't cut the mustard. Why would Jesus have to die for us if it was possible for us not to sin?
God has to take the initiative. And God from eternity knows who is saved. Its not up to us.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
]No cross, no salvation, no sacraments. No faith, no sacramental confession. No sacramental confession, little chance of perseverance. The only thing contrived here is your critique.
How can you tell when it seems you either haven't read or haven't thought about what I wrote?
[ 26. March 2014, 12:55: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The situation is not serious in the slightest for an universalist, and no sinner is in that scheme in the need of any help whatsoever (other than that universal salvation). At most an universalist can make some hay out of some kind of purgatory setting, though I don't hear that stressed so often. But frankly, as compared to a guarantee of infinite bliss, what does any finite difficulty matter? The drama of the cross is completely pointless for universalism. It's like someone making a big deal out of having found a booger in their nose. Everybody does get that eventually, and it has no significant consequences, so why the ado?
This is the giantist straw man that gets wheeled out every time we have this kind of discussion.
I don't get this (Ingo's argument here, not gopherrevs') either. I can't think of anything more terrifying than meeting God and not pleasing him. Any hell you can imagine won't be itself divine*, so it won't be as scary. So no fear of hell would motivate me if awe of my god wouldn't.
*As in hell would be of God not be itself God.
[ 26. March 2014, 12:59: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What do you call a God who provides a more bearable judgement for the foul denizens of Sodom and Gomorrah than the still bearable one for Bethsaida, Chorazin and Capernaum?
He's got to be some kind of liberal wimp, a huggy bear, surely?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lapsed heathen
Hurler on the ditch
# 4403
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think that's because it doesn't make sense Anteater. I am not afraid of people who love me, because they love me, and I have confidence that that means they will neither reject me nor do something unspeakable to me. Is God's love less than theirs? If his love is as defined in that famous bit in 2 Corinthians, then what basis for fear would there be? That love that always forgives, keeps no record of wrongs...
I duno about you but I both knew that my mother loved me and was in fear of my life of her. I don't think it was fear that she would kill me other than metaphorically but it was fear all the same. I think this is closer to what fear of God is than some fear of punishment.
It's a fear of being out of harmony and the dangers that that exposes you to. Not fear of retribution, 'tho in my mothers case retribution was not just a possibility but a certainty.
Huggy Bear God is not the full story but it's part of the story.
--------------------
"We are the Easter people and our song is Alleluia"
Posts: 1361 | From: Marble county | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
This is the giantist straw man that gets wheeled out every time we have this kind of discussion.
For a very simple reason: it is no straw man but a devastating critique of the universalist claim.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I mean, the argument that nothing matters unless it is eternal is ludicrous. You're sweeping away the suffering of countless people, labelling any justice that is meted out in our lifetimes as inconsequential.
If the eternal outcome is not connected to whatever happens in a finite span of time, and this includes any potential "finite time" in purgatory, then any suffering or joy there just is inconsequential. Both in the literal sense (one is not the consequence of the other), and in a "bookkeeping" sense: the most horrible but finite suffering simply does pale into insignificance against eternal bliss. In note that this is (1) a traditional Christian argument for coping with the suffering in this life, and more importantly, (2) simply the flip side of the usual universalist argument why God cannot possibly punish eternally. Namely because such "infinite punishment" is not justified for any "finite sin". Never mind why that universalist argument is false, but by the same logic "infinite bliss" simply overrides any "finite pain".
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
And secondly, where do you get to the idea that no sinner is in need of any kind of help? Of course we are. We all are. Universal Reconciliation states that clearly, and that God does something about that for everyone, not just a select few. And we can be part of that for one another.
Actually, I said: needs no help other than that universal salvation. And that is plainly true. The sinner for example does not need any particular grace to overcome sin in this life. What for? He will go to heaven anyway. Perhaps a bit slower, but that you will wake up with a hangover does not stop everybody from drinking too much.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of a kind of purgatory setting, I for one stress it every time we discuss this issue. Once and for all: Hell does not have to be eternal to be a very, very big deal.
Well, the purgatory angle is better than nothing. Every little bit of hell helps, so to speak. But ultimately it is precisely not a big deal. It's more like getting a root canal. Sure, it's going to be horrid while it lasts, but you are certain that in the end you will be done with that, and then feel a lot better. And the possibility of getting a root canal does surprisingly little to stop people from eating sweets. Also a key aspect of human psychology is "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". What horrors await in purgatory is speculation, what pleasures await the sinner in this world is not.
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Why would Jesus have to die for us if it was possible for us not to sin?
Who has claimed that it was possible for us not to sin (by our own powers)? Why do you address this question to me?
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How can you tell when it seems you either haven't read or haven't thought about what I wrote?
I read and thought about what you wrote. I answered to the little sense that I could make of it.
--------------------
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
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Karl: quote:
I am not afraid of people who love me, because they love me, and I have confidence that that means they will neither reject me
I think lots of people have seen relationships founder because they were certain that their loved one would always stay by them no matter what.
I have a good relationship with my Dearly Beloved, but that is compatible with me also knowing that she also has her life, her agenda, and for that matter, her standards about what she will put up with.
I would even fear rejection by her if I were to behave in certain ways and certainly a distinct change in the relationship. Of course I don't intend to, but it's not impossible. I'm not talking about having to do something unspeakable. Just being a lazy arsehole and or a misery-guts would seriously affect our relationship. As would restarting smoking.
How far I would have to go to trigger a cooling off I do not know, and don't intend to find out.
Same with God, in my view. I know you only half believe in God, so maybe your half-way house is to believe in a God who is bound to you as much as you to she/him or it.
Still, I'm sure you would not dispute that Jesus taught that we should fear God.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I may have been sold a pup Anteater - I was assured God's love was unconditional.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I may have been sold a pup Anteater - I was assured God's love was unconditional.
"...not even the powers of hell can separate us from God’s love. No power in the sky above or in the earth below — indeed, nothing in all creation will ever be able to separate us from the love of God that is revealed in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8: 38-39)
I think someone will now say that St Paul means "nothing in all creation *except ourselves*".
--------------------
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
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
DubiousThomas:
quote:
Have a look at 1 John.
What this teaches to me is that love in and of itself casts out fear, and The one who still has fear has not been made perfect in love.
Which I thought was the point. I.e. If you are perfect in love you will not fear. And that is all I was implying. You'd need to explain to me more, why you think that is the wrong interpretation.
quote:
It's clear that the author sees "perfect love" as something well within the reach of imperfect people.
Depends what you mean by "well within the reach".
Does it include you? Do you know quite a few people who have perfected the love of God and their neighbour.
Personally I don't know any.
Now I would certainly agree from the NT that people can reach a degree of holiness such that the word "perfect" is appropriate. So "within reach" I would have to agree with. "Well within reach"? Not so sure. It's not clear to me.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
For a very simple reason: it is no straw man but a devastating critique of the universalist claim.
I'm sorry, but despite your explanations, I just don't see it.
The finite matters. Things happening now matter, and things happening then (in the future) will too. Consequences don't have to be eternal to count. I mean, if all that ultimately counts is what happens in eternity, then why should (according to your belief system) acts in this life determine peoples' eternal fate? In that system, the finite is the thing that defines everything else - like there are four fingers pointing back at you when you make this criticism.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In note that this is (1) a traditional Christian argument for coping with the suffering in this life, and more importantly, (2) simply the flip side of the usual universalist argument why God cannot possibly punish eternally. Namely because such "infinite punishment" is not justified for any "finite sin". Never mind why that universalist argument is false, but by the same logic "infinite bliss" simply overrides any "finite pain".
That's not how I understand it. The argument isn't about temporal and infinity, it's about the ending of suffering, and ultimate hope of rightness. In that, your root canal illustration fits. The comfort is in the hope that the suffering will end, not in that in the end our infinite bliss will mean that our current suffering is inconsequential simply because it is finite. In "One day this will be over, and things will be well", the focus has very little to do with whether "well" will be finite or infinite, so far as I see it, and much more about the simple fact that "it is over", and there will be wellness in general.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
a degree of holiness such that the word "perfect" is appropriate.
Would it help to point out that (as far as I understand it) "perfect" in the Bible is perhaps better rendered "complete"? Not perfect and unchangeable in a Platonic sense, but right, proper, whole, good: complete.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Thing is, it's not about rejection. I don't know anyone who rejects God. I know a lot of people who don't believe he exists. And that's because they don't see a lot of reason to suppose that he does. If God regularly wandered down the street, asking us to accept or reject him, in full knowledge that he really was God, that'd be one thing. But it's not like that. How can you choose someone if you don't know they're there?
Actually, there are only few people who don't believe that He exists. Where "He" is not necessarily the Christian God, of course. It could be some other religion, or merely some undifferentiated sentiments about "something higher". But atheism is for the most part an educated affectation of the rich, and in the West, a cultural disease (or as one of the prominent disease vectors would say, a "meme"). There is a big difference between saying "the Christian God does not exist" and "there is nothing higher / supernatural". The latter opinion is truly limited to fools, just as the bible says. The former is simply a different, quite reasonable discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
But that does not mean that I believe the verses of Scripture, the writings of Church Fathers, Doctors, and theologians, and the decrees of Councils and Popes that appear to say that God does indeed punish those not living in a state of grace at the time of death with eternal suffering.
There is no such thing as faith without sources. It is frankly rather boring to read through these lists of what people do not accept as sources for their faith. This little more than pride in having rejected somebody else's source, just because those sources are "standard" and hence one can feel like a "rebel". Whatever. Knock yourself out. The real question is rather what people actually accept as their sources. And the real problem there is that "me, myself and I" is not a particularly trustworthy source...
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Therefore I find comfort in knowing that even though God could very well a God who damns people to suffer forever, that there is nothing that requires me to believe that unless I really can get my conscience to accept it. And no matter how much I learn about Christianity and Catholicism, my conscience just cannot accept it.
Matt 13:14-17: With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: 'You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.' But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear. Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
...
FWIW, my faith is for the most part calculated and workman-like, with all the personal passion of brushing one's teeth regularly. I also have not "encountered Jesus", though I have had some mystic experiences (which I found more scary than comforting, frankly). I consider Christian life mostly a hard slog, and the only thing the Christian community tends to inspire me to is rage-quitting. Yet I have a kind of faith, and it is a pretty resilient one. By Protestant standards, I'm probably nowhere near to "being saved" with that kind of faith, but I couldn't care less about that. By Catholic standards, my soul is also in danger. But for "practical" reasons, that can be fixed with available sacramental tools by priestly mechanics. I like that aspect of the traditional ways. There's room for gushing kitsch sentimentality, as well as for me, because it is in the end about moving your will in a particular direction. I can do that, in my way. Other people have their ways. Good for them, good for me.
I agree with you. I don't have faith in the conventional sense, and in terms of my inability to accept orthodox Christian/Catholic teachings on eternal inescapable (once you're in it) damnation I think I won't win in any argument based on the premises of Christianity as commonly understood. I am certainly guilty of moral narcissism and I also have a decadent morality that is the consequence of being much more spoiled than even most people in developed countries. Those are parts of myself that I need to work to improve (and pray for help in doing so). That said, I have come to believe that my brazenly heretical, schismatic and/or apostate, Purgatorially universalist, religiously-pluralistic, pseudo-agnostic form of Cafeteria Catholicism/Christianity is a good thing. I'm not interested in proving that I am right or that you are wrong - but I would like to understand your ideas/beliefs better.
That said, I'd like to look at your idea that belief in a supernatural entity that doles out eternal punishment or something like it is pretty inherent to the human condition unless our moral and spiritual development is corrupted by the comforts/distractions/perversions/etc. of modern, relatively affluent society. I understand that belief in scary supernatural forces that need to be propitiated is perhaps wired into humans as a response to danger, scarcity, violence, and natural disasters. A scientific understanding of natural phenomena and the security of food, shelter, warmth, personal safety, etc., available to many (but not all) in developed societies has mitigated these impulses towards fear and awe of the supernatural. It's very possible that most people replace a belief with conventional supernatural forces with a loose, fluid, and often self-centered belief in pseudoscientific spiritual phenomena or, if a person claims to be purely empirical and rational in their beliefs, with a reverence for natural laws and natural beauty. That said, though, could you explain why the traditional belief in supernatural forces that mete out punishment of neverending suffering is better than modern approaches to spirituality, some claiming to be religious (even Christian), others claiming to be secular, that do not have such forms of supernatural eternal punishment?
As for your last paragraph, I find deep sympathy with it and in the period of my life in which I tried to color within the lines of Catholic orthodoxy I felt similarly (although I never tried very hard to follow the sexual rules, whether or not I believed that I should). That period of attempt at Orthodoxy was preceded by the loosey-goosey non-Christian New-Ageyness that I was raised in, and was followed by the loosey-goosey "Catholicism" (perhaps in name only) that I follow now. I actually believe that there are degrees of faith - degrees of willingness to give over responsibility for what one believes regarding spiritual and moral matters up to some authority. I don't think that my side of the line in the sand that some would call making the "leap of faith" is not part of the faith spectrum. I obviously do believe (partially, nearly wholly, or perhaps even wholly) quite a few things that I am not able to prove to myself with complete accuracy - even regarding spiritual and unseen things. I know that quite a few people regard such a form of "faith" meaningless and delusional, but I don't.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What do you call a God who provides a more bearable judgement for the foul denizens of Sodom and Gomorrah than the still bearable one for Bethsaida, Chorazin and Capernaum?
He's got to be some kind of liberal wimp, a huggy bear, surely?
Martin, I detect your irony here, so I'm posting to agree with you, not to dispute....
I'll add:
A God who allows himself to be spat upon, beaten, mocked, flogged with in an inch of his life, and then nailed to a cross to die of suffocation and blood loss sure does look like a wimpy, liberal huggy bear, doesn't he?
The Christian universalists the damnationists and annihilationsist here are arguing with are clearly "straw people," bearing only a passing likeness to the actual universalists, who have posted to this thread.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Karl: quote:
I am not afraid of people who love me, because they love me, and I have confidence that that means they will neither reject me
I think lots of people have seen relationships founder because they were certain that their loved one would always stay by them no matter what.
I have a good relationship with my Dearly Beloved, but that is compatible with me also knowing that she also has her life, her agenda, and for that matter, her standards about what she will put up with.
I would even fear rejection by her if I were to behave in certain ways and certainly a distinct change in the relationship. Of course I don't intend to, but it's not impossible. I'm not talking about having to do something unspeakable. Just being a lazy arsehole and or a misery-guts would seriously affect our relationship. As would restarting smoking.
How far I would have to go to trigger a cooling off I do not know, and don't intend to find out.
Same with God, in my view. I know you only half believe in God, so maybe your half-way house is to believe in a God who is bound to you as much as you to she/him or it.
Still, I'm sure you would not dispute that Jesus taught that we should fear God.
When it comes to grace, respecting free will, reward, and punishment, I think that the analogy of a marriage of equals for the human-God relationship is perhaps not the best one. Remember that marriage (unfortunately) was traditionally seen with one partner in the God, dominant role, and another in the human, submissive role. Since this framework for marriage (rightly) is no longer the most popular one in Western society, I think that the parent-child or ruler-"one ruled over" analogies are better. With the parent-child example, a parent might indeed cut off all contact indefinitely with a child if the child poses a threat of harm to the parent, or if the parent has harmed the child so much that the child is justified in asking the parent to never contact him/her again. However, these conditions do not exist with God, who cannot possibly be harmed by us and who is not abusive to His children (despite how some atheists might read Scripture). So absent these conditions, it makes perfect sense for a parent to keep reaching out (albeit tactfully) to restore contact and relationship even with a child who has stated a desire to never see that parent again. Just because we have free will doesn't mean that God would ever stop trying to change our minds when we want to reject Him. I don't see how a God who continues to try to change our minds, no matter how hardened our hearts may have become, is disrespectful of our free will. Rather, giving up on trying to change our minds, when God knows we will be much happier if we do change our minds (try and argue that we wouldn't be), seems to me to be disrespecting our free will, since it seems to be based in the belief that some people are utterly incapable of accepting God's call to Communion with Him.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
