|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Universalism: The case against
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Exactly guys, the long walk. In which all the dark absolute certainties we see so clearly in our reflection in a very dark, engraved, old glass indeed, will be talked away for a start.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If universalism is correct - you realise that all the homophobes in this life will be in heaven too?
I'm sure no universalist ever thought of this! Now that you've brought it to my attention, I renounce my universalism! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
You seem to be under the misapprehension that universalists believe that heaven will be filled with unregenerated sinners. Your misapprehension reflects your low view of what God is capable of; this is your problem, not the problem of universalists. As a universalist, I believe in a God who turned a Pharisee named Saul, who stood by while the mob stoned Stephen, into a Christian missionary named Paul. If God could manage that, I'm quite sure he can transform homophobes -- when and how he wishes.
Yes, all the homophobes, big and small, really nasty and not so nasty, will all be in heaven. I look forward to spending eternity with them. I look forward to spending eternity with you, too, ExclamationMark!
"When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, 'Then who can be saved?' But Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.'" (Matthew 19:25-26)
--------------------
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 Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Exactly guys, the long walk. In which all the dark absolute certainties we see so clearly in our reflection in a very dark, engraved, old glass indeed, will be talked away for a start.
Martin,
When I take my time, and pay attention, I realize that I'm reading poetry that just isn't set out in the conventional way. THANKS for this one!
I look forward to the end of all of my "dark absolute certainties"!
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You're a ray of sunshine, DeeTee.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You're a ray of sunshine, DeeTee.
I do try! After all, Jesus Wants Me For a Sunbeam! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The 19th century Christian convert, Edersheim, claims that the schools of Hillel and Shammai both had a conception close to the traditional Christian one.
I'm not speaking from a position of authority here, but several years ago I read a book called, "Jesus the Jewish Thelogian" by Dr Brad H Young, and I was amazed at how many of Jesus' teachings had parallels in the Jewish climate of His day. But it isn't really that surprising. He didn't formulate His thoughts in a vacuum. I would stongly suspect that His hard teachings on heaven and hell would be found with either Hillel of Shammai or both, as the leading rabbinic schools of His generation. But you know the old quip, two Jews, three opinions. The fact is that any doctrine of the afterlife within Judaism is optional believing, because it's much more concerned with pleasing God in the present and trusting God to take care of the unseen.
The Chabad Lubavitch movement gives this description of hell, which is much more like Catholic purgatory, while here is a more balanced view which countenances the possibility both of anihilation for the seriously wicked, or eternal punishment. In any event, it's thought that that fate is for the very few, the irredeemable, and that the majority will find hell to be but a form of purgatory. It's quite possible, even likely, that Jewsih views have softened in two muillennia, wheras Christianity has kept the older, harsher opinion.
But another consideration: The 20th century Swiss mystic Adrienne von Speyr, who strongly influenced her priest and confessor, Hans Urs von Balthasar, said that Jesus' talk of separation and hell was from before He had, in space and time, conquered sin, death and the devil by His cross and resurrection. Her theology of Easter Saturday was that He spent it destroying hell. This was certainly the view of some of the Church Fathers in the first centuries of the Christian era. We believe that the universe had a single cause and origin, the will of God. I believe that it must have a single end, fulfilled in union with God. To achive that, He must unite all things with His irresistible grace, or destroy what He cannot redeem. I don't believe that good and evil will be perpetuated into eternity by the dualism of heaven and hell. I'm basically a monist and panentheist who sees God immanent in His creation, whose ultimate purpose if unity, not fraction.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
PaulTH'
quote:
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
PaulTH'
quote:
The 20th century Swiss mystic Adrienne von Speyr, who strongly influenced her priest and confessor, Hans Urs von Balthasar, said that Jesus' talk of separation and hell was from before He had, in space and time, conquered sin, death and the devil by His cross and resurrection. Her theology of Easter Saturday was that He spent it destroying hell.
Well that is a new thought to me and worth exploring. I do not have a basic block on believing that Jesus' thought underwent development, and it would see this both in his belief about the Gentiles' place in God's plan and the immanence of the Parousia. I shall investigate further.
quote:
To achive that, He must unite all things with His irresistible grace, or destroy what He cannot redeem.
Strange use of the term "irresistible (except when it isn't) grace".
quote:
I don't believe that good and evil will be perpetuated into eternity by the dualism of heaven and hell.
I think that is a strong point against the traditional view, although I don't see the link to monism.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
Following on PaulTH*'s post about Jewish afterlife beliefs....
The second linked article [thanks, Paul!] is certainly worthy of attention: the author is the associate dean at a well-known and reputable Jewish educational institution. He's someone who knows what he's talking about, and is giving reliable information (as best I can judge). Page 3 of the web-article is where he discusses Gehinnom (the Hebrew designation, from which we get the Greek rendering Gehenna that appears in the New Testament).
Here's the final paragraph of that section of the article:
quote:
Only the utterly wicked do not ascend to Gan Eden ["the Garden of Eden" = rabbinic Jewish "heaven"] at the end of this year. Sources differ on what happens to these souls at the end of their initial time of purgation. Some say that the wicked are utterly destroyed and cease to exist, while others believe in eternal damnation (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Law of Repentance, 3:5-6).
NOTE his emphasis on the fact that there is no definitive position on the ultimate fate of the "utterly wicked." This is typical of rabbinic Judaism, which has not tended to define "orthodoxy" in terms of precise doctrines.
His final reference is to the famous and influential medieval scholar, Rabbi Moses son of Maimon (1135/38 - 12014), specifically his legal codification.
In the section the rabbi cites, Maimonides says that the utterly wicked are "spiritually excised and destroyed, and judged for their great wrongfulness and sinfulness forever and ever."
[Here's a link for an English translation of the whole text.]
Clearly, Maimonides was an annihilationist, but in line with classic rabbinic thought, he evidently thought that the number of people who would be finally annihilated was quite small.
Jesus, of course, lived centuries before Maimonides and the developments in rabbinic Judaism that led up to Maimonides. So, we really cannot be sure what beliefs Jesus was assuming when he spoke about "Gehenna" to his Jewish audiences.
It's important to keep a basic point in mind: You can't take fully developed rabbinic Judaism and use that to fill in knowledge about Jesus.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
[QUOTE] stongly suspect that His hard teachings on heaven and hell would be found with either Hillel of Shammai or both, as the leading rabbinic schools of His generation.
Unlikely to be Hillel - he believed people went straight to Heaven whereas Shammai saw Hell as a sort of purgatory, after which you went on to heaven.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Clearly, Maimonides was an annihilationist, but in line with classic rabbinic thought, he evidently thought that the number of people who would be finally annihilated was quite small.
Actually, I'm wrong about this! I just took another look at the text, and Maimonides' list of those who don't get a place in the World to Come, but who end up being destroyed in Gehinnom, is quite large! It includes: "Muslims and Christians who say that G-d exchanged one mitzvah [commandment/law] for another, or that the Torah has been nullified, even though it was [originally] from G-d. Each one of these three is a denier of the Torah."
But, he goes on to say that genuine repentance [Hebrew, teshuvah, literally, "turning around"], even at the last moment, is sufficient to save a person from ultimate destruction: "as there is nothing that cannot be overcome by teshuvah [repentance]. Thus, one would have a place in the World to Come even if he denied the existence of G-d his whole life but did teshuvah [repented] at the very end. As it’s written: 'Peace, peace, both for those far and near, says G-d, and I will heal them" (Isaiah 57:19).'"
--------------------
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 leo:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
stongly suspect that His hard teachings on heaven and hell would be found with either Hillel of Shammai or both, as the leading rabbinic schools of His generation.
Unlikely to be Hillel - he believed people went straight to Heaven whereas Shammai saw Hell as a sort of purgatory, after which you went on to heaven.
Leo, could you provide references for these ideas? As I noted above, Hillel and Shammai are typically characterized in terms of their different legal positions (and their personalities: Hillel being open and patient, Shammai being narrow and impatient). I'd like to see a classic rabbinic text that actually sets out a distinction between them on the question of the afterlife.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How does one do business with this particular darkness projected on a bloody, scratched, smoked old glass from upstream? With no hint beyond the glass?
"(Baptised babies go to heaven. Unbaptised babies may go to an eternal state of natural happiness called limbo, though we can hope that they go to heaven.)"
Can any other 'authority' tell us what the intellectual state of them is to start and whether it can develop?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I think that is a strong point against the traditional view, although I don't see the link to monism.
A description of theosis from this wiki article on monism:
In Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, while human beings are not ontologically identical with the Creator, they are nonetheless capable with uniting with his Divine Nature via theosis, and especially, through the devout reception of the Holy Eucharist. This is a supernatural union, over and above that natural union, of which St. John of the Cross says, "it must be known that God dwells and is present substantially in every soul, even in that of the greatest sinner in the world, and this union is natural." Julian of Norwich, while maintaining the orthodox duality of Creator and creature, nonetheless speaks of God as "the true Father and true Mother" of all natures; thus, he indwells them substantially and thus preserves them from annihilation, as without this sustaining indwelling everything would cease to exist.
Regarding Christian Monism from the same article:
Some Christian theologians are avowed monists, such as Paul Tillich. Since God is he "in whom we live and move and have our being" (Book of Acts 17.28), it follows that everything that has being partakes in God. Dualism with regard to God and creation also barred the possibility of a mystical union with God, as John Calvin rejected[citation needed], according to Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Such a dualism also leads to the problematic position of positing God as a particular being the existence of which can be argued for or against, failing to recognize God as the ground and origin of being itself, as in Acts 17, or in the Hashem, YHWH, meaning "He causes to come into being." Such a view was called by Tillich panentheism: God is in all things, neither identical to, nor totally separate from, all things.
While these don't do total justice to what I'm trying to say, if one believes that God is the author of all, and that nothing in creation occurs that is outside His control, and that His creative energy sustains creation in each microsecond, should He withdraw that energy, everything would cease to exist. It's in that sense that I can't accept the dualism of a divided eternity.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Unlikely to be Hillel - he believed people went straight to Heaven whereas Shammai saw Hell as a sort of purgatory, after which you went on to heaven.
I did a little "digging," and I think I have located a text that may be connected with the claim you make about Hillel and Shammai. It's Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:3. This is Danby's translation, pulled from this online version:
quote:
The School of Shammai say: There are three classes; one for EVERLASTING LIFE, another for SHAME AND EVERLASTING CONTEMPT [Dan 12:2]--who are accounted wholly wicked, and a third class who go down to Gehenna, where they scream and again come up and receive healing, as it is written: AND I WILL BRING THE THIRD PART THROUGH THE FIRE, AND WILL REFINE THEM AS SILVER IS REFINED, AND WILL TRY THEM AS GOLD IS TRIED; AND THEY SHALL CALL ON MY NAME AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD [Zech 13:9]. And of these last Hannah said: THE LORD KILLETH AND THE LORD MAKETH ALIVE, HE BRINGETH DOWN TO SHEOL AND BRINGETH UP [1 Sam 2:6].
The School of Hillel say: HE IS GREAT IN MERCY [Exod 34:6], that is, He leans in the direction of mercy; and of them David said: I AM WELL PLEASED THAT THE LORD HATH HEARD THE VOICE OF MY PRAYER, etc. [Psalm 116:3-5]; and of them, the whole psalm is written.
I don't see this text as attributing to the House of Hillel the idea that everyone goes "straight to heaven." Rather the House of Hillel seems to be saying that the House of Shammai's category three (those who are purged in Gehinnom) is much bigger than the House of Shammai supposes--so that category two, the wholly wicked, is considerably smaller. The argument might make category one bigger as well, but it wouldn't mean that everyone belongs to that category.
As much as I might like it, I cannot see the House of Hillel teaching "universalism" here.
In any event, we shouldn't simply equate the teachings of the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel with the teachings of their eponymous founders. What we have here is a claim about what the schools named after them taught, not what they themselves taught. We have no clear evidence that the schools/houses existed prior to the late 1st century A.D., after the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70.
In the past, scholars often read later rabbinic teachings back into the time of Jesus. But that approach has fallen on disfavor, because it's so clear that many ideas attributed to early authorities don't actually go back to them.
By the way, the rest of the text is worth a look, since it goes into further detail about who goes where and what happens to them, and it puts special emphasis on the destruction of the wicked.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And former sister-in-law. Has Down's. So heaven or limbo? She's smarter than her spoken vocabulary: 'chip', 'bean', 'babbage', 'fillet-o-fish', 'Malibu-coke', 'Martin', 'Madam', 'Mum', 'Jean', that's about it. A LOT smarter. But is that what she's stuck with? Forever? In Milton Keynes in the clouds? She's not baptized of course.
What does the sooty, bloody, old glass engraved in Aramaic reveal?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If universalism is correct - you realise that all the homophobes in this life will be in heaven too?
I'm sure no universalist ever thought of this! Now that you've brought it to my attention, I renounce my universalism!
You seem to be under the misapprehension that universalists believe that heaven will be filled with unregenerated sinners. Your misapprehension reflects your low view of what God is capable of; this is your problem, not the problem of universalists. As a universalist, I believe in a God who turned a Pharisee named Saul, who stood by while the mob stoned Stephen, into a Christian missionary named Paul. If God could manage that, I'm quite sure he can transform homophobes -- when and how he wishes.
Yes, all the homophobes, big and small, really nasty and not so nasty, will all be in heaven. I look forward to spending eternity with them. I look forward to spending eternity with you, too, ExclamationMark!
"When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astounded and said, 'Then who can be saved?' But Jesus looked at them and said, 'For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.'" (Matthew 19:25-26)
It may be misapprehension to you - it's something wholly different to me. Please don't presume to state that it's "my problem," whatever that might mean in the context of grace.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It may be misapprehension to you - it's something wholly different to me.
What is it, then? Do tell!
Keep in mind: The issue here is your snide comment about homophobes in heaven, as if universalists had never considered such a thing. Given that I'm a gay Christian universalist, I took it as an especially cheap shot -- comparable to reminding a Christian universalist of color that there will be racists in heaven.
I repeat, I wasn't taken by surprise. I think about the fact often -- and I rejoice. Shouldn't every Christian rejoice that "the vilest offender" (Fanny J. Crosby, "To God Be the Glory!") can be restored by God's grace?
The only difference between universalists and "orthodox" Christians is that we universalists don't limit that restoration to the span of earthly life.
quote:
Please don't presume to state that it's "my problem," whatever that might mean in the context of grace.
Jesus said something about doing unto others.... If you're going to urge others not to presume, you might follow your own urging and not presume.
Be that as it may, I'll try to do better. Sinner that I am, I tend to return blow for blow, when I know I shouldn't.
So, I invite you to explain your view of grace? Or is your approach to this thread going to be nothing but snide hit-and-runs?
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dogwalker
Shipmate
# 14135
|
Posted
Anteater wrote:
quote:
I don't know how his scholarship is viewed. His famous work was "The life and times of Jesus the Messiah", much quoted by evangelicals.
Apparently, the original is out of copyright and available on the web. See Life and Times.
It also looks like there are updated editions, too.
--------------------
If God had meant for us to fly, he wouldn't have given us the railways. - Unknown
Posts: 155 | From: Milford, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dogwalker:
Anteater wrote:
quote:
I don't know how his scholarship is viewed. His famous work was "The life and times of Jesus the Messiah", much quoted by evangelicals.
Apparently, the original is out of copyright and available on the web. See Life and Times.
It also looks like there are updated editions, too.
The first line of the description of the book: "Alfred Edersheim believed that some knowledge of ancient Jewish society was necessary for the general reader of the New Testament to fully understand Jesus' life and works."
He was correct, of course, about what is necessary. But if anyone is interested in gaining accurate knowledge about ancient Jewish society before and during the time of Jesus, they shouldn't waste time with this book.
We know immensely more about the Second Temple period than people in the 19th century did -- not least because we have the Dead Sea Scrolls and they didn't. Not to mention that Edersheim's 'scholarship' is compromised by his convert-to-Christianity biases. I've just happened across a selection from his book in an evangelical writer's book about afterlife beliefs, and it is clear that Edersheim badly misrepresents early rabbinic teachings to make them support his conventional Protestant understanding of heaven and hell, etc.
Instead of Edersheim, I would recommend, E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism.
Or, James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism.
Or, for a specifically Jewish perspective on the period, one of these:
Shaye J. D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah
or
Lawrence Schiffman, From Text to Tradition.
There is also the illuminating Jewish Annotated New Testament, edited by acquaintances of mine, Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Z. Brettler.
Seriously, folks, let's not head down the Edersheim rabbit hole!
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Good for Nothing
Apprentice
# 17722
|
Posted
I've never really found a convincing answer to Bertrand Russell's observation:
"The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured that these infants went to Heaven. No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so."
Posts: 20 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Apart from psychosis? From utter derangement from Love? Apart from if there weren't a Devil it would be necessary to invent him?
What staggers me is the detail, the completeness of all that we 'know' by staring in to the abyss of a dark glass. The absolute certainties of our dark on dark reflection staring back at us. And we call it Love.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
I've never really found a convincing answer to Bertrand Russell's observation:
"The Spaniards in Mexico and Peru used to baptize Indian infants and then immediately dash their brains out: by this means they secured that these infants went to Heaven. No orthodox Christian can find any logical reason for condemning their action, although all nowadays do so."
If this really was from Russel (reference?), then it is unusually stupid of him. (Quite apart from the question whether this is a historically accurate story, which is rather unlikely. Again, reference?) Every orthodox Christian can find the most simple logical reason for condemning this action. The 5th Commandment "you shall not murder" (Ex 20:13, Dt 5:17, Mt 19:18) settles the issue already. Obedience to the direct Commandment of God (as expressed in OT & NT) is not optional for Christians. Furthermore, a key concept of traditional Christian morality has always been "one may not do evil that good may come" (Rom 3:8). So there is no excuse for the murderer in the achievement of good for the victim.
A more interesting case would be if the Spaniards were decided to murder these infants anyhow (say for military reasons), but decided to at least baptise them first. Then in a tragic way there would have been vestiges of Christian good in the evil of those murders.
--------------------
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
I have tracked it down to 'Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?', which is available online.
But as IngoB said, it is a remarkably stupid thing to say, as killing people is immediately contraindicated in Christianity, except in special circumstances such as war.
Unless perhaps Russell is laying emphasis on a 'logical' reason, and he might say that there is no logical reason not to kill anybody. But that is also remarkably stupid.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Yes, it is a horrid story and I agree with IngoB as well.
Not knowing the background, it looks like a particularly vile demonstration of power by conquerors. Included in the messages are, ' if your children stay with you, you are so inferior that you will endanger their souls. So this is an act of mercy, to save your children from your corruption".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
There q. You let the dark in. War is no special circumstance period. And it certainly isn't one in which Christians can participate.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Good for Nothing
Apprentice
# 17722
|
Posted
Stupid? Of course. Horrid? Definitely. Wrong, from a Christian perspective? Certainly. But Russell's point is surely that the act of 'murder' would be one of amazing sacrificial love in that the infants' life in heaven would be secured by the same deed that condemned the perpetrator to hell.
Of course, like me, Russell did not really believe any such wicked nonsense, but the logic is disturbingly sound.
Posts: 20 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Hi,Good for Nothing! Were you asking about the logic (i.e., why not kill people immediately after baptism so as to assure their salvation?)? If so, I'll take a whack, though it's a gruesome discussion.
First, as IngoB says, we've got the commandment--and we can take it on God's authority that it would be a Bad Thing™ to do, even if we don't see how. He presumably has his reasons. Second, it doesn't respect their free will--those infants have the right to grow and choose, even if that means choosing to reject their baptism and eternal life. God respects that, and how much more should we? And third, a person who dies immediately after baptism is a person who has no chance to contribute to the growth of God's kingdom on earth. And goodness knows we need all the help we can get here.
Does that help any?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
1, 2, 3 ... no. Not for me. In the slightest. Ah well, good job we're not all the same and if it works for you, great.
What came to mind as I read the latest entries is the theme to Donny Darko. But again, that's me.
One man's projection of his dark reflection is another man's madness.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have tracked it down to 'Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?', which is available online.
But as IngoB said, it is a remarkably stupid thing to say, as killing people is immediately contraindicated in Christianity, except in special circumstances such as war.
Unless perhaps Russell is laying emphasis on a 'logical' reason, and he might say that there is no logical reason not to kill anybody. But that is also remarkably stupid.
He's not saying there's no logical reason not to kill anybody; he's saying that baptizing and then immediately killing infants should be unobjectionable on logical grounds to anyone who believes the infants were thus guaranteed eternal bliss in heaven. The lines immediately before the passage previously quoted: quote:
This individualism [promoted by Christianity] culminated in the doctrine of the immortality of the individual soul, which was to enjoy hereafter endless bliss or endless woe according to circumstances. The circumstances upon which this momentous difference depended were somewhat curious. For example, if you died immediately after a priest had sprinkled water upon you while pronouncing certain words, you inherited eternal bliss, whereas if after a long and virtuous life you happened to be struck by lightning at a moment when you were using bad language because you had broken a bootlace, you would inherit eternal torment. I do not say that the modern Protestant Christian believes this, nor even perhaps the modern Catholic Christian who has not been adequately instructed in theology, but I do say that this is the orthodox doctrine and was firmly believed until recent times.
(Page 15 from here.)
Such a belief in the importance of circumstances is reflected in Hamlet's decision (Act 3, scene 3) to put off killing his uncle at prayers:
quote:
Now might I do it pat, now he is praying;
And now I'll do't. And so he goes to heaven;
And so am I revenged. That would be scann'd:
A villain kills my father; and for that,
I, his sole son, do this same villain send
To heaven.
[...]
Up, sword; and know thou a more horrid hent:
When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage,
Or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed;
At gaming, swearing, or about some act
That has no relish of salvation in't;
Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven,
And that his soul may be as damn'd and black
As hell, whereto it goes.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
stongly suspect that His hard teachings on heaven and hell would be found with either Hillel of Shammai or both, as the leading rabbinic schools of His generation.
Unlikely to be Hillel - he believed people went straight to Heaven whereas Shammai saw Hell as a sort of purgatory, after which you went on to heaven.
Leo, could you provide references for these ideas? As I noted above, Hillel and Shammai are typically characterized in terms of their different legal positions (and their personalities: Hillel being open and patient, Shammai being narrow and impatient). I'd like to see a classic rabbinic text that actually sets out a distinction between them on the question of the afterlife.
I didn't base my post on any references but on memory. Looking into it, it becomes more complicated.
For example Sherman Nobles, who is a Christian claims that Hillel thought that no purification was needed but that Rabbi Hanina added that some go to Gehenna for a while and then go 'up again'.
This site claims that Hillel taught that some spend 12 months in Hell but some stay for all eternity.
It seems as if nobody really knows.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems as if nobody really knows.
Refer above to my follow-up post. The best thing to do would be to read the original sources -- ideally, in the original Hebrew, if not, then in a reliable translation (such as Danby's).
I gave the relevant citation and a link to Danby's translation available online.
The two websites you linked -- neither of them, as best I can tell, are qualified scholar of Judaica -- are both basing themselves on the text I linked: Tosefta Sanhedrin 13 (especially section 3).
Again, it is important to distinguish between the "Houses" ("Schools") of Shammai and Hillel and those eponymous teachers. We have no contemporary sources on the teachings of Hillel and Shammai. We only have texts set down centuries after their deaths, which purport to record their teachings (or, rather, the teachings of the "Houses" named after them).
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You see on Friday night I was surrounded by a sea of broken humanity looking for hope.
One man said he saw it in my eyes. It was only his reflection. And I said yes there is. He was a chronic depressive with combat PTSD. Just reunited with his wife and daughter who obviously love him. But you could see the threat to that in his helpless self justification. Something he'd be forever blind to. Clever, funny. Broken.
Who sinned? This man or his parents?
Another, a paranoid schizophrene desperate to 'help', walked up to me. I opened my arms. He fell in to them for literally five minutes. NEVER pat. Just hold on. Tight. Pray nonsense. He took me outside to meet his sister he hadn't seen for 16 years. I prayed inadequate nonsense for them both.
Who sinned? This man and his sister or their parents?
Then there was Glenn, in his suit and black tie. As big and scary and grieving as ever and anew. Paranoid schizophrene. Another had saved him from jumping out of a high rise window a few years ago.
Who sinned? This man or his parents?
And what does the dark glass say about their hope?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Why is there any value to punishment for punishment's sake? Punishment can have the purposes of deterrence, rehabilitation/lesson-teaching, and restitution of damage done. The last purpose is irrelevant since no one can damage God. You are proposing punishment as an end in itself. What is the point in that? I am not asking where in Scripture punishment for punishment's sake is mentioned, but rather for an explanation of why there is any value to punishment as an end in itself.
Of course, you left out the perhaps most straightforward purpose of punishmente. As Wikipedia says "Fundamental justifications for punishment include: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitations. " Some moderns - like the philosopher Immanuel Kant - have considered retribution to be the only valid justification for punishment. It is not just some stone age system of formalised revenge. And while the punishment of eternal hell does not rehabilitate the one suffering it, it certainly serves as deterrence to others in this life, and it may be considered as an incapacitation as well. It has been suggested on this thread that the main function of this life is to teach us to not mess up heaven for others. In which case the doomed would be the ones who didn't learn and are incapacitated by separation from God to mess up heaven for the blessed (and the pain of separation from God is traditionally considered to be the main punishment of the doomed).
At any rate, for me the problem is that most of this discussion is simply unrealistic. My first concern is not the justification of hell, but whether it exists or not, and how one can avoid it if it does. The very same sources (scripture, and for some, tradition) that universalist use to hypothesise a non-existence of hell based on their conceptions of God, man, and justice, are in my opinion full of clear accounts of final judgement, heaven and hell. As far as I can see, it is more things like purgatory and limbo that are less obvious.
For me it is consistent, reasonable, to dismiss all of this stuff together, as the package that it is. In the end one needs faith to consider this as information about reality. If one has that faith then it is reasonable for me to accept all that, and perhaps make an effort to understand it (in terms of God, man and justice). But to take this set of information and accept part of it ("God is love") and use it to reject other parts ("there is hell") seems to me to be unreasonable. One cannot consistently claim that one part of the information stream provides privileged access to the Divine, and the other is wrong. Such a judgement would require one to understand the Divine beyond revelation, which we do not. Hence if it were true that one part of revelation contradicts another, then the whole source would be compromised. One cannot simply pick one side of a contradiction as true just because one likes it more. There are of course things in scripture and tradition which we can "argue away" as historically conditioned, as reflection of the instrument "inspired writer" rather than the author, God. But I do not think that our eternal fate can be "argued away" like that, there just is not enough give in scripture or tradition for that. If one can get rid of this, then basically of anything, in which case we are left again with a compromised source.
Basically, if universalism is possible, then in my opinion Christian scripture and tradition is merely another human attempt at capturing the truth, and I do not care about it more than say about Stoic philosophy. That also has its good bits, but is not Divine revelation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
Stupid? Of course. Horrid? Definitely. Wrong, from a Christian perspective? Certainly. But Russell's point is surely that the act of 'murder' would be one of amazing sacrificial love in that the infants' life in heaven would be secured by the same deed that condemned the perpetrator to hell.
Of course, like me, Russell did not really believe any such wicked nonsense, but the logic is disturbingly sound.
I think the Russell quote, to answer IngoB's question is from "Why I am not a Christian".
My guess is that the story is part of the 'Black Legend' inasmuch as I have never seen it cited other than anecdotally. The Conquistadors did some fairly horrible things when they arrived in the Americas but that may well not have been one of them. The English and the Dutch, in the latter part of the sixteenth century, were not wholly averse to over-egging the pudding on the subject. Given that during the same period the Church did some fairly horrible things to dissenters on the grounds that it would save their souls, so it's not impossible to see how the story caught on but I'm not aware of a reliable reference to the story. The Spanish Dominicans who objected to the conquest did so, among other reasons, on the grounds that the Conquistadors were focussed on rape and pillage at the expense of evangelisation. I think that if the practice had occurred they would have had some fairly sharp things to say about it.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Good for Nothing
Apprentice
# 17722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
quote:
Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
Stupid? Of course. Horrid? Definitely. Wrong, from a Christian perspective? Certainly. But Russell's point is surely that the act of 'murder' would be one of amazing sacrificial love in that the infants' life in heaven would be secured by the same deed that condemned the perpetrator to hell.
Of course, like me, Russell did not really believe any such wicked nonsense, but the logic is disturbingly sound.
I think the Russell quote, to answer IngoB's question is from "Why I am not a Christian".
My guess is that the story is part of the 'Black Legend' inasmuch as I have never seen it cited other than anecdotally. The Conquistadors did some fairly horrible things when they arrived in the Americas but that may well not have been one of them. The English and the Dutch, in the latter part of the sixteenth century, were not wholly averse to over-egging the pudding on the subject. Given that during the same period the Church did some fairly horrible things to dissenters on the grounds that it would save their souls, so it's not impossible to see how the story caught on but I'm not aware of a reliable reference to the story. The Spanish Dominicans who objected to the conquest did so, among other reasons, on the grounds that the Conquistadors were focussed on rape and pillage at the expense of evangelisation. I think that if the practice had occurred they would have had some fairly sharp things to say about it.
Posts: 20 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Good for Nothing
Apprentice
# 17722
|
Posted
But Gildas, history aside, had it happened as quoted, would it have been an act of generous love from which those infants would have benefited for eternity? I don't believe it, but that's because I can make no sense, logical or moral, of the afterlife beliefs on which it is based.
Posts: 20 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
Sorry, I haven't had time to respond in detail to your post, Ingo, and conversation is moving on. A few core points though.
As others have noted, I don't find the 'baby question' answer at all satisfactory. If I truly believed that killing lots of babies would ensure that they would all go to eternal bliss, and I would go to Hell for eternity, then I would consider myself a sacrifice worth making, compared to the risk that leaving them alive would mean that all of them are in danger of Hell. It would be the kindest course of action to take. (Good thing that I don't believe that!).
In terms of the 'exam', I agree about the bar being set low, but I still don't think it is set low enough. There is no bar. Everyone can pass. But then, I don't think that it's about passing or failing, but growing. Perhaps it's useful to remind you that my form of universalism isn't a deterministic one (everyone will be saved), but a hope, an expectation, a belief (my inkling is that everyone will be saved). Of course we don't know what will happen, because it hasn't happened yet.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you believe that it is easy to repent and ask for forgiveness, then I doubt that you have ever really done so. And the idea that one can mature beyond "sinning" is basically Pelagian. However, ignoring that, it seems to me that you are simply arguing my case. If indeed some people would "ruin heaven" by not being Christlike enough, then that sounds like a rather good reason for keeping them out of heaven. And far from being "faux", the problem of getting into heaven then just is the problem of becoming Christlike enough.
There's a few themes here. Firstly, when I said 'easy', I suppose I was using it in the same way as you saying that temporal suffering is 'nothing' in comparison to eternity. I doubt you really believe that suffering is unimportant or inconsequential. I'd prefer you didn't speculate about my own experiences of repentance, by the way. Of course repentance isn't easy. But in comparison to actually changing and becoming more Christlike, it is (and of course, it's an aspect of that process). As for 'ruining heaven', yes, it does sound like a good reason for keeping them out. But a better reason would be to transform them so they won't ruin it. You believe that will happen for only the 'saved'. I believe that will happen for everyone.
In terms of the corporate element, you are right to point out that your system has a corporate element to it. I do think that the criticisms people have given of that are valid, though. The corporate element of your system seems to be arbitrary and unfair. That such a huge difference in fates can depend on whether someone's parents baptise them or not seems bizarre.
The corporate element I was talking about wasn't so much about a corporate responsibility for each other (which does exist), but that our problems as humans are corporate, and need fixing together. We are saved as a whole, not as individuals. I think the theme is not that God saves X,Y and Z, and then forms them together into a people, but that God saves Peoples. Like how Scripture talks about Israel as a people, and God saving them corporately, as individuals, their relationships with each other, their failings, their fallings out. God saves the whole lot, rather than just some individuals to then start again in terms of relationships, societies, cultures. Not sure how well I've explained that, I hope you get the distinction. Basically, that everything is redeemed, not just individuals.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of this life, my conclusion is that there is something special about being mortal, about living and facing death, that it vital for this process of maturing. It changes us, grows us. As a baby has to go through the trauma of being born in order to grow, so do we have to live and die in order to grow into our ultimate full potential.
That's not what scripture says though, which clearly identifies death as punishment for Adam's sins, both in the OT and the NT.
My problem with that is that (as others pointed out) humans were mortal from the moment they evolved, the Eden story is obviously metaphorical, and despite Jesus defeating sin, people still die (for now). So, I don't see death as a transaction that results from sin, rather that the Eden story explores the themes of sin and death, and how they apply to people, using poetic language.
Sorry, this post was quite rushed. Happy to go into more detail later.
--------------------
"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:
Of course, you left out the perhaps most straightforward purpose of punishmente. As Wikipedia says "Fundamental justifications for punishment include: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitations. " Some moderns - like the philosopher Immanuel Kant - have considered retribution to be the only valid justification for punishment. It is not just some stone age system of formalised revenge.
Maybe, but such retribution sounds more like a human, or animal, emotion, that it does like an attribute of God. As I said before, one of those "passions" the the theologians tell us God is without.
And not even all humans feel the emotional desire for it, other than in flashes of anger.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
So what passages might the universalist cite in their favour as well as providing a consistent exegesis of those cited above to show why an annihilationist viewpoint is an incorrect interpretation?
The Romans passage tells us what St.Pul thought and Revelations is the vision of someone who had probably ingested some ergot, so I don't particularly feel the need to be consistent with either.
So, for a start, there's this:
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. (I John 4:7)
So that covers quite a lot of people.
Then there's the judgement of the sheep and the goats:‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ (Matthew 25:40)
To throw your text criticism back at you, your quote of I John only tells us what St John thought. And of course the bit from St Matthew only tells us what Matthew says Jesus said.
Facile dismissal works on nearly everything.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Good for Nothing: quote:
But Gildas, history aside, had it happened as quoted, would it have been an act of generous love from which those infants would have benefited for eternity?
This just shows how badly things can go wrong if some people's ideas as to what logically count as acts of love to a child are acted out.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Why is there any value to punishment for punishment's sake? Punishment can have the purposes of deterrence, rehabilitation/lesson-teaching, and restitution of damage done. The last purpose is irrelevant since no one can damage God. You are proposing punishment as an end in itself. What is the point in that? I am not asking where in Scripture punishment for punishment's sake is mentioned, but rather for an explanation of why there is any value to punishment as an end in itself.
Of course, you left out the perhaps most straightforward purpose of punishmente. As Wikipedia says "Fundamental justifications for punishment include: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitations. " Some moderns - like the philosopher Immanuel Kant - have considered retribution to be the only valid justification for punishment. It is not just some stone age system of formalised revenge. And while the punishment of eternal hell does not rehabilitate the one suffering it, it certainly serves as deterrence to others in this life, and it may be considered as an incapacitation as well. It has been suggested on this thread that the main function of this life is to teach us to not mess up heaven for others. In which case the doomed would be the ones who didn't learn and are incapacitated by separation from God to mess up heaven for the blessed (and the pain of separation from God is traditionally considered to be the main punishment of the doomed).
At any rate, for me the problem is that most of this discussion is simply unrealistic. My first concern is not the justification of hell, but whether it exists or not, and how one can avoid it if it does. The very same sources (scripture, and for some, tradition) that universalist use to hypothesise a non-existence of hell based on their conceptions of God, man, and justice, are in my opinion full of clear accounts of final judgement, heaven and hell. As far as I can see, it is more things like purgatory and limbo that are less obvious.
For me it is consistent, reasonable, to dismiss all of this stuff together, as the package that it is. In the end one needs faith to consider this as information about reality. If one has that faith then it is reasonable for me to accept all that, and perhaps make an effort to understand it (in terms of God, man and justice). But to take this set of information and accept part of it ("God is love") and use it to reject other parts ("there is hell") seems to me to be unreasonable. One cannot consistently claim that one part of the information stream provides privileged access to the Divine, and the other is wrong. Such a judgement would require one to understand the Divine beyond revelation, which we do not. Hence if it were true that one part of revelation contradicts another, then the whole source would be compromised. One cannot simply pick one side of a contradiction as true just because one likes it more. There are of course things in scripture and tradition which we can "argue away" as historically conditioned, as reflection of the instrument "inspired writer" rather than the author, God. But I do not think that our eternal fate can be "argued away" like that, there just is not enough give in scripture or tradition for that. If one can get rid of this, then basically of anything, in which case we are left again with a compromised source.
Basically, if universalism is possible, then in my opinion Christian scripture and tradition is merely another human attempt at capturing the truth, and I do not care about it more than say about Stoic philosophy. That also has its good bits, but is not Divine revelation.
My question was not whether retribution has beenisted as a
legitimate grounds for punishment, but why. I think we can discuss deterrence as a reason why eternal damnation may exist but I don't see any value in punishment for the sake of inflicting harm on one who has done wrong (ie, retribution).
I totally agree that a discussion between someone who either considers sources of revelation to have at minimum some very perspicuous teachings about reward and punishment after death or someone who believes that the teaching of the Church based on this revelation is itself perspicuous and airtight - or at least airtight enough to severely limit what aspects of reward and punishment after death are open for discussion - and someone who does not believe either of these things is bound to be frustrating. Hence the appeals to consider what the purpose of punishment is and what it means for an omnipotent deity to give creatures free will and offer eternal damnation as a choice that can only be reconsidered during a certain time period the length of which is unknown to the chooser. If one person can simply argue based on divine prerogative and another questions whether or not God said or did what the other person said He said or did, you are bound to have frustration. But I find such conversation useful.
Some people not only prevent their mind from going too far down the road of doubt but also cut conversations short or limit where they can go based on similar constraints. CS Lewis hailed these constraints as one of religion's great gifts to us. I agree that we have to agree on some universals (harm is generally bad, helping others is generally good) but I don't see much point to limiting speculation in evena discussion that claims to be Christian.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems as if nobody really knows.
Refer above to my follow-up post. The best thing to do would be to read the original sources -- ideally, in the original Hebrew, if not, then in a reliable translation (such as Danby's).
Work got the better of me and i haven't keep up my Hebrew for the past 35 years or so and would need to stop and look things up too often.
I note that Mr. Danby was a Zionist - I don't normally think Christian Zionists to be trustworthy.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It seems as if nobody really knows.
Refer above to my follow-up post. The best thing to do would be to read the original sources -- ideally, in the original Hebrew, if not, then in a reliable translation (such as Danby's).
Work got the better of me and i haven't keep up my Hebrew for the past 35 years or so and would need to stop and look things up too often.
I note that Mr. Danby was a Zionist - I don't normally think Christian Zionists to be trustworthy.
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
Apologies for the aborted post above! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Work got the better of me and i haven't keep up my Hebrew for the past 35 years or so and would need to stop and look things up too often.
I note that Mr. Danby was a Zionist - I don't normally think Christian Zionists to be trustworthy.
I've wondered before, and I wonder again, how your anti-Zionism goes over in your work with Jews. As a Christian Jewish Studies scholar, I know how my Jewish friends and colleagues would respond if I were an anti-Zionist -- not well! Most Jews are Zionists, and they expect their Christian friends to understand and respect their commitment to their national homeland and its state.
I'm astonished that anyone who claims a commitment to improving relations between Christians and Jews would dismiss Herbert Danby's positive accomplishments. Here's the Wikipedia article about DANBY, which states, quite correctly, that he "played a central role in the change of attitudes toward Judaism in the first half of the twentieth century."
In any case, his alleged "Christian Zionism" (whatever that means!) has no bearing on his qualifications as a scholar of the Hebrew language. For crying out loud, he was Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, and his translation of the Mishnah is still in print and still widely cited. Many scholars, including myself, consider it to be superior to the more recent translation prepared by Jacob Neusner.
So, I'd encourage you to get past your prejudice against Danby and to have a look at his translations of the relevant texts.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I think we've already established on this thread, that the Christian concepts of heaven, hell and purgatory already existed in some form, in the Second Temple Judaism in which Jesus lived. Not all authorities agreed. It wasn't established what proportion of humanity would fail to rise from Gehinnom to Gan Eden at the end of the purification process, nor what was their ultimate end. Some believed they would be anihilated, others thought they would suffer eternally.
Likewise, within Christianity, not all authorities agree. Catholics believe in Purgatory, Protestants don't. The Catholic Church has never claimed that any particular individual is in hell. Perhaps that's why Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor thinks he can justify saying that we're not bound to believe that anyone is there. For Protestants, some leading evangelicals such as the theologian and former Bishop of Durham N T Wright favour anihilationism, others strongly favour eternal punishment.
It's against this backdrop of uncertainty that I feel, like the Cardinal, that I'm not bound to accept that any individual will suffer the fate of eternal damnation. I'm aware that, for most of Christian history, it's been standard doctrine, but every generation has had those who believe otherwise. In the Apostles Creed we say:
he descended into hell;
on the third day he rose again from the dead;
he ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty;
from there he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I would make no arguements nor disputes with this, but I don't feel bound to accept that, after His descent into hell, to preach to the captives, and break the bars, His judgement will send anyone back there. While this obviously makes me a universalist, I attach one important caveat. I hope and pray for the salvation of all, which is why I pray for the dead. But I acknowledge that ultimately, it is God and God alone, who is sovereign over these matters, and that I have no insight into how He governs these things.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Apologies for the aborted post above!
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Work got the better of me and i haven't keep up my Hebrew for the past 35 years or so and would need to stop and look things up too often.
I note that Mr. Danby was a Zionist - I don't normally think Christian Zionists to be trustworthy.
I've wondered before, and I wonder again, how your anti-Zionism goes over in your work with Jews. As a Christian Jewish Studies scholar, I know how my Jewish friends and colleagues would respond if I were an anti-Zionist -- not well! Most Jews are Zionists, and they expect their Christian friends to understand and respect their commitment to their national homeland and its state.
Indeed. I suppose the term 'Christian Zionist' i misleading.
There are Jews who are Zionist because they support Israel's right to exist.
Then there are those who support Israel because it will usher in the various prophecies and the final return of Christ - in other words, they support the state of Israel for ulterior motives.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
