|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Gaping Maw of Hell
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
But Zach, is it not at least as plausible that humans who so reject the nature/qualities of God will be forever alienated from Him and from His kingdom?
Accepting the qualities of God found in the Christian Scriptures is entirely what I am on about.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Evil is nowt.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I reconcile myself to the possibility of hell when I consider the sort of wickedness humanity tends to occupy itself with.
The god that isn't filled with wrath at that is no god at all.
Well, yes - though I'm sure Ingo would say that you're anthropomorphising God by declaring that he should be filled with wrath, a human emotion.
However, the idea that God's wrath should be measured by how many people end up in hell, and how long they're punished for is a bit simplistic, like saying you can tell how angry a person is by how much furniture they smash up.
I think hell is as much an expression of God's love as it is his wrath. First, in that he allows us freedom to reject him, and secondly, in that, at least as I understand it, it is a form of restorative justice, not vengeful punishment.
But yes, the idea that sin, wickedness and injustice doesn't provoke extreme righteous wrath and indignation in God (again, like his Love, way beyond the simplistic emotion we call anger) is way off the mark.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
His intentionality is expressed in how things are, not in what He does. The reason why nobody blames the cliff when you walk off it and go splat is precisely that the cliff doesn't do anything to make that happen, in the sense of changing its activity. It just is the way a cliff is, and if you ignore that walking off it is dangerous, then it is your own fault if you go splat. But likewise, heaven and hell are not something that God does to us. The world just is made in a particular way, and if you go one way, you live, if you go the other way, you go splat. "But should there be cliffs? Why is not everything just flat?" That is a good question IMHO. But it is a question that should not stand in the way of recognising a cliff, and that one is walking towards its edge, I reckon.
Fair enough. Then let me rephrase according to your understanding of God:
There is no sense or reason for eternal torture/punishment in Hell. There is no justice in it. It is the opposite of justice, it is vindictive and evil because while someone may commit atrocious crimes and therefore be deserving of hell, an eternal recompense is out of proportion to the crime because the crime committed will not have eternal consequences (tho I suppose you could argue the repercussions could be eternal but lets suppose they are not for the sake of argument).
So the very fact that God created such a cliff in the first place is no consonant with what we understand to be just.
And while our concept of justice will ultimately be only analogous to God's sense there has to be some correlation otherwise why bother saying Jesus is a window into God at all. All theology becomes meaningless.
[ 12. June 2014, 10:13: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So the very fact that God created such a cliff in the first place is no consonant with what we understand to be just.
Fair enough.
So why not hypothesize a different scenario in which God is not unjust, and yet which does not contradict the Scriptures?
The premise should be that God is loving and fair, and that He allows us to do as we wish.
To my mind this leads to an idea of eternity in which people think, will, and behave as they wish.
Isn't it inevitable that this set-up will result in varying degrees of happiness for the participants?
It seems to me that it is inevitable, because while happiness is subjective and different for every person, it is also axiomatic that happiness increases in proportion with a person's close connection with God. This, of course, defines God as the source of all love and therefore of all happiness.
This seems to me to be a fair system, and one that is consistent with a loving and fair God. It is also consistent with Scripture - as long as we understand the way that Scripture uses hyperbole for effect.
The only question is whether the acceptance of the idea that happiness can vary can also mean that it can vary even to the point of unhappiness - and still be fair.
Can it? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
And given that happiness is subjective, how hard is it to imagine that one person's idea of happiness might not really be happy at all in a more objective sense?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is no sense or reason for eternal torture/punishment in Hell. There is no justice in it. It is the opposite of justice, it is vindictive and evil because while someone may commit atrocious crimes and therefore be deserving of hell, an eternal recompense is out of proportion to the crime because the crime committed will not have eternal consequences (tho I suppose you could argue the repercussions could be eternal but lets suppose they are not for the sake of argument).
In fact, what I was on about here is that one shouldn't be terribly surprised if facile moral evaluations by human standards of justice do not capture what God may be doing. You can of course ignore all that and repeat what has been argued to death. Fine. My answer is that there in fact is a human standard of justice, and one that wasn't simply developed for this case, according to which this is perfectly just. And this standard of justice is distinguished from our more egalitarian one simply by taking into account the status of the victim. The higher the status of the victim by some socio-cultural measure, the greater the crime. We have remnants of that in various lèse-majesté laws still, and this sort of thinking was hardly rare. I think we can safely say that it has dominated human history. Well then, by any measure that you can possibly think of, God's status is infinite. And that makes any offence against Him infinitely bad. Whereupon it follows that an eternity in hell is entirely justified as retributive punishment.
Let's be clear, I doesn't matter at all whether you agree with that sort of moral calculus. Because your claim is not that hell does not work in one specific moral calculus, say the one that you have adopted for yourself. No, you are saying that it is outright impossible to have hell and a just God. Thus these two things must be incompatible by any reasonable moral calculus. My argument here has been that 1) I don't think that you can really apply moral calculus here, 2) and if you do, then it is rather daring to assume that your human sensibilities are the proper measure, to which I add now 3) but as it happens, there is a reasonable human moral calculus available, which was (and probably still is in many places) highly popular, according to which this is in fact just.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So the very fact that God created such a cliff in the first place is no consonant with what we understand to be just.
Rather, it is not consonant with what you understand to be just. And that has about as much influence on reality as a fart in a hurricane. Open your damn eyes! This world is created by God. It has cliffs. You can fall off them if you do not watch your step. What are you going to scream on your way down, "but it's not fair?!" A fat lot of good that will do you. Where do you see any evidence at all for your mollycoddling god? In nature? Hardly. In the OT? Hardly. In the NT? Well, apparently, though I remain entirely mystified how. For every nice word, there are two harsh ones there. In the life of faith as seen in history? Yeah, a faith founded on the blood of martyrs, ... let's all do the happy dance now.
It's just not real. And sorry, I deal in realities. Your sweet and nice god can send me an essay on why I have to deal with this crap earthly life if I am anyway going to heaven. He should add a few sections on why I have to "improve" myself, if He can just create me perfect and fit for heaven. Is this supposed to be a practical joke, or something? Your theology just does not add up. It's the sort of dream that people dream on their way to work. But work doesn't go away, nor do the bills. Life is no fun ride, and whoever created this place was not designing it to the standards of equity, fairness and appropriate behaviour as discussed at the latest meeting of the union of kindergarden teachers. So why would you think that ultimate salvation is for the funsies? Get a bloody grip.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And while our concept of justice will ultimately be only analogous to God's sense there has to be some correlation otherwise why bother saying Jesus is a window into God at all. All theology becomes meaningless.
You mean the Jesus that goes on and on about the dangers of going to hell? Perhaps you didn't realise this, but hell pretty much is a Christian preoccupation (thought it was one of several Jewish options in Christ's time). Do you really think that the apostles sat down and said to themselves "We can't really control all those pesky new converts, let's invent some gruesome horror story, attribute it to Christ, and then scare them all into submission?" Is that what happened?
What's happening here is a neat bit of repression. There's a serious danger lurking very close to you, and you can't find the nerve to face it. So you deny it. Poof, it's gone. Well, in your mind it is. It's still there, of course, and since you have chosen to ignore it your chances of running into it have much increased. But you will use all mental capacity to somehow find a way to deny what's right there in your face.
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
I think you are right, Ingo.
The point about the cliffs is an especially good one. They are clearly unfair! Their very existence can be taken as proof that God is unfair, or that He doesn't exist - if your mind works like that. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
A TEC preacher said to me what gets thrown into hell is sin, not people. The way people get there is by clinging to the sin. The solution is to let go of the sin.
What I don't know is whether there comes a time in a human's development that they cannot change, cannot give up the familiar even if they know clinging to it is hurting them.
People used to say old folks get rigid in their thoughts and ways, but truth is you don't live to be old unless you can adapt. And surely at any age young or old we struggle to get rid of old habits and form better ones.
So mostly I just have to say I don't know much and trust God's promise of being absolutely loving, forgiving, knowledgeable, and wise, and not fret the details.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I think you are right, Ingo.
The point about the cliffs is an especially good one. They are clearly unfair! Their very existence can be taken as proof that God is unfair, or that He doesn't exist - if your mind works like that.
No. The cliff analogy is a poor one.
If you fall of a cliff, you die. It's quick.
Eternal torture in hell is another game altogether. It's pure cruelty.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QBThis seems to me to be a fair system, and one that is consistent with a loving and fair God. It is also consistent with Scripture - as long as we understand the way that Scripture uses hyperbole for effect [/QB]
I'm assuming from this you dismiss the idea of eternal torture - take it as hyperbole.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
As I said, Bronze Age.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The cliff analogy is a poor one.
If you fall of a cliff, you die. It's quick.
Eternal torture in hell is another game altogether. It's pure cruelty.
I see.
Isn't that making a somewhat fine distinction between violent death and long-lasting pain - where one is OK for a loving God but the other unacceptable?
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm assuming from this you dismiss the idea of eternal torture - take it as hyperbole.
Hyperbole isn't the same as dismissal. Hyperbole exaggerates to make a point.
But yes, I don't believe that the biblical descriptions are literally accurate, or that there are torturers or literal fire in store for sinners.
Rather, I think that a self-centered life is bleak by comparison to a life of love to God and the neighbor. That bleakness is enormously unhappy and lifeless. But you could never convince someone of that who was completely caught up in that way of living.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In fact, what I was on about here is that one shouldn't be terribly surprised if facile moral evaluations by human standards of justice do not capture what God may be doing. You can of course ignore all that and repeat what has been argued to death. Fine. My answer is that there in fact is a human standard of justice, and one that wasn't simply developed for this case, according to which this is perfectly just. And this standard of justice is distinguished from our more egalitarian one simply by taking into account the status of the victim. The higher the status of the victim by some socio-cultural measure, the greater the crime. We have remnants of that in various lèse-majesté laws still, and this sort of thinking was hardly rare. I think we can safely say that it has dominated human history. Well then, by any measure that you can possibly think of, God's status is infinite. And that makes any offence against Him infinitely bad. Whereupon it follows that an eternity in hell is entirely justified as retributive punishment.
QB]
My, my. That's a very anthropomorphic understanding of God. I thought you arguing against such a notion.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QB No, you are saying that it is outright impossible to have hell and a just God.
No I'm not. You're confusing me with a universalist.
I'm saying its outright impossible to reconcile being eternally tortured and punished in Hell with a just God.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Thus these two things must be incompatible by any reasonable moral calculus. My argument here has been that 1) I don't think that you can really apply moral calculus here, 2) and if you do, then it is rather daring to assume that your human sensibilities are the proper measure, to which I add now
Ah. The old - "it's a mystery".
The soft option.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
but as it happens, there is a reasonable human moral calculus available, which was (and probably still is in many places) highly popular, according to which this is in fact just.
It is not a reasonable human moral calculus. It is one that favours the lofty for no particular reason. Very Dark Ages.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So the very fact that God created such a cliff in the first place is no consonant with what we understand to be just.
Rather, it is not consonant with what you understand to be just.
Because my understanding of justice comes from the scriptures.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Open your damn eyes! This world is created by God.
You open your damn eyes. This world is as fallen as we are and is not a perfect predicate for discerning God's nature. Natural theology can be interesting, but it is very limited.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It's just not real. And sorry, I deal in realities. Your sweet and nice god can send me an essay on why I have to deal with this crap earthly life if I am anyway going to heaven. He should add a few sections on why I have to "improve" myself, if He can just create me perfect and fit for heaven. Is this supposed to be a practical joke, or something? Your theology just does not add up. It's the sort of dream that people dream on their way to work. But work doesn't go away, nor do the bills. Life is no fun ride, and whoever created this place was not designing it to the standards of equity, fairness and appropriate behaviour as discussed at the latest meeting of the union of kindergarden teachers. So why would you think that ultimate salvation is for the funsies? Get a bloody grip.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And while our concept of justice will ultimately be only analogous to God's sense there has to be some correlation otherwise why bother saying Jesus is a window into God at all. All theology becomes meaningless.
You mean the Jesus that goes on and on about the dangers of going to hell? Perhaps you didn't realise this, but hell pretty much is a Christian preoccupation (thought it was one of several Jewish options in Christ's time). Do you really think that the apostles sat down and said to themselves "We can't really control all those pesky new converts, let's invent some gruesome horror story, attribute it to Christ, and then scare them all into submission?" Is that what happened?
What's happening here is a neat bit of repression. There's a serious danger lurking very close to you, and you can't find the nerve to face it. So you deny it. Poof, it's gone. Well, in your mind it is. It's still there, of course, and since you have chosen to ignore it your chances of running into it have much increased. But you will use all mental capacity to somehow find a way to deny what's right there in your face.
Wow. That's quite the rant. I didn't realise you knew me so well and so intimately. I also didn't realise you were a psychologist.
Well while we're psychologising:
I'm guessing you don't really like your image of God and desperately want other people to join you in your angst so as to somehow validate yourself.
Good luck with that. I'm not falling for it.
God is Good. I'm sorry you don't feel that. You've missed the Gospel.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't that making a somewhat fine distinction between violent death and long-lasting pain - where one is OK for a loving God but the other unacceptable?
I can't think of a less fine distinction. One is quick, one is eternal. There is an absolute world of difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Rather, I think that a self-centered life is bleak by comparison to a life of love to God and the neighbor. That bleakness is enormously unhappy and lifeless. But you could never convince someone of that who was completely caught up in that way of living.
I quite agree.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
I'm confused (again). If this is so, why do we pray?
I'm sorry, but I can think of multiple ways in which what I said could be confusing about prayer. Can you be more specific, please?
You said that God doesn't watch over us, sending us things as He discerns our needs. Rather, He creates everything so that "parts" like me can function as he intended.
There's no need for a cog to petition the engineer for a new coat of teflon or more oil - he sees that the cog gets those in due course at the right time in the maintenance cycle. The engineer isn't magnetised by the helpless poverty of the petitioning cog. He just checks a dipstick and adds oil.
If God really is that engineer, then I'm a dipstick (in the colloquial sense) for putting my empty hands out and begging, when He isn't going to hear me or "care" in any way that I can understand, aren't I?
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So the very fact that God created such a cliff in the first place is no consonant with what we understand to be just.
Fair enough.
So why not hypothesize a different scenario in which God is not unjust, and yet which does not contradict the Scriptures?
The premise should be that God is loving and fair, and that He allows us to do as we wish.
To my mind this leads to an idea of eternity in which people think, will, and behave as they wish.
Isn't it inevitable that this set-up will result in varying degrees of happiness for the participants?
It seems to me that it is inevitable, because while happiness is subjective and different for every person, it is also axiomatic that happiness increases in proportion with a person's close connection with God. This, of course, defines God as the source of all love and therefore of all happiness.
This seems to me to be a fair system, and one that is consistent with a loving and fair God. It is also consistent with Scripture - as long as we understand the way that Scripture uses hyperbole for effect.
The only question is whether the acceptance of the idea that happiness can vary can also mean that it can vary even to the point of unhappiness - and still be fair.
Can it?
And given that happiness is subjective, how hard is it to imagine that one person's idea of happiness might not really be happy at all in a more objective sense?
I believe the purpose of this life is for us to learn the only way we can-- thru experience & observation-- that God's way of life is the only one that brings us happiness. So that in the next life we will be able to look back at our choices over our past lifetime and the fruits of those choices, and will freely choose to live in God's Kingdom, the place where God reigns-- where we freely choose to follow.
I imagine at that point everyone-- no matter how broken or lost in this life-- will freely make that choice. So that hell-- the place we created through our own tortured choices-- is quite real, but also, ultimately, quite empty.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
If God really is that engineer, then I'm a dipstick (in the colloquial sense) for putting my empty hands out and begging, when He isn't going to hear me or "care" in any way that I can understand, aren't I?
Christianity understands that God knows all prayers before they are asked. He does not really sit up there considering human petitions, and deciding in favor of some and not others.
Rather, God is near at all times with the answer to every conceivable prayer. The point of prayer is that it changes the disposition of the asker. When we are looking for, and asking for, what God has to offer the answer is instantly present.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I imagine at that point everyone-- no matter how broken or lost in this life-- will freely make that choice. So that hell-- the place we created through our own tortured choices-- is quite real, but also, ultimately, quite empty.
Sure. Why not?
Full or empty, though, the theory remains the same.
The way these things work, best and worst-case scenarios are seldom the reality.
I am hoping for the few/many alternative. I am quite sure that in the long-term future the proportion of humanity choosing the happier life-alternatives will increase. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I imagine at that point everyone-- no matter how broken or lost in this life-- will freely make that choice. So that hell-- the place we created through our own tortured choices-- is quite real, but also, ultimately, quite empty.
Sure. Why not?
Full or empty, though, the theory remains the same.
The way these things work, best and worst-case scenarios are seldom the reality.
When I was in elementary theory we were regularly warned that if we didn't do the work well enough we would flunk that grade. Which seemed an obviously terrible thing. No one flunked. Even the significantly retarded man in my class learned a little each year, within his own limits, and was moved ahead.
Why aren't the warnings about hell similar? Just intended to motivate us to at least minimally try?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Try not to be a bastard now because a bigger bastard will get you?
Or because being a bastard means putting some other poor bastard in hell now?
And risk yourself being in the first circle of hell now and not even knowing it. Frozen. Emotionally dead. Uncompassionate. Unfeeling. NOW. That is a fate worse than death.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And risk yourself being in the first circle of hell now and not even knowing it. Frozen. Emotionally dead. Uncompassionate. Unfeeling. NOW. That is a fate worse than death.
Some people are reared that way "we are intellectuals, we don't do those messy emotions."
I keep thinking the answer to "saved from what?" is "from ourselves." Or better, apparently the word saved is equally translated healed. Healed from the distorted things we were taught about ourselves and about life.
I've been amazed how many women are taught from early "you are ugly" and/or "no one will ever love/want you" and how many men are taught from early "you'll never amount to anything" and/or "you are no good." Turned outwards it becomes "those kind of people are no good."
Worth being saved from/healed of.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
If God really is that engineer, then I'm a dipstick (in the colloquial sense) for putting my empty hands out and begging, when He isn't going to hear me or "care" in any way that I can understand, aren't I?
Christianity understands that God knows all prayers before they are asked. He does not really sit up there considering human petitions, and deciding in favor of some and not others.
Rather, God is near at all times with the answer to every conceivable prayer. The point of prayer is that it changes the disposition of the asker. When we are looking for, and asking for, what God has to offer the answer is instantly present.
Just to be clear: that is the understanding that SOME Christians hold re: prayer. It is not the only, nor probably even the most common, Christian understanding of prayer.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And risk yourself being in the first circle of hell now and not even knowing it. Frozen. Emotionally dead. Uncompassionate. Unfeeling. NOW. That is a fate worse than death.
Some people are reared that way "we are intellectuals, we don't do those messy emotions."
I keep thinking the answer to "saved from what?" is "from ourselves." Or better, apparently the word saved is equally translated healed. Healed from the distorted things we were taught about ourselves and about life.
Yes-- spot on. Tony Campolo says something similar, "saved from a fruitless way of life". This is what I was getting at in an earlier post re: the purpose of this life is to learn experientially that life God's way really is the best possible life, so that we will come ultimately to freely chose it.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Just to be clear: that is the understanding that SOME Christians hold re: prayer. It is not the only, nor probably even the most common, Christian understanding of prayer.
I'm sure that you are right. Many, maybe even most, Christians do think that prayers change God's mind.
I was thinking of what churches actually teach. Most of them are aware of Christ's words from the Sermon on the Mount:
quote:
Matthew 6:8 "Your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him."
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Just to be clear: that is the understanding that SOME Christians hold re: prayer. It is not the only, nor probably even the most common, Christian understanding of prayer.
I'm sure that you are right. Many, maybe even most, Christians do think that prayers change God's mind.
I was thinking of what churches actually teach. Most of them are aware of Christ's words from the Sermon on the Mount:
quote:
Matthew 6:8 "Your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him."
Which is not the same thing as the view of prayer you proposed. Knowing what we need is not the same as knowing what we're going to pray, or the suggestion that prayer is not efficacious. Which is why many, perhaps even most, churches teach that prayer changes things.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What things?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Yes, what things?
Prayer certainly changes things. The only question is what it changes? God? No, it changes us.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which is not the same thing as the view of prayer you proposed. Knowing what we need is not the same as knowing what we're going to pray, or the suggestion that prayer is not efficacious. Which is why many, perhaps even most, churches teach that prayer changes things.
Prayer is definitely efficacious.
God's knowledge of what we need is the same thing as His knowledge of what we're going to pray. god knows everything.
I said:
quote:
Christianity understands that God knows all prayers before they are asked. He does not really sit up there considering human petitions, and deciding in favor of some and not others.
Rather, God is near at all times with the answer to every conceivable prayer. The point of prayer is that it changes the disposition of the asker. When we are looking for, and asking for, what God has to offer the answer is instantly present.
Prayer is very important. It changes the one praying. It doesn't change God or tell Him anything that He didn't already know. When we are ready for God's answers He gives them instantly, granting every sincere prayer.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
And what does materialism demonstrate? Errm... nothing.
Well, when the the tenets of materialism/physicalism/naturalism are built into a method of inquiry, you can actually demonstrate quite a lot. It can't demonstrate anything outside of the parameters of the scientific method, of course, but, and here's the thing, can anything else do any better? This thread is a rather entertaining demonstration that theology certainly can't. In fact, your highlighting of epistemic difficulties of non supernatural philosophising, here of all places, is hilarious. What we've got is a bit like a bunch of biologists arguing about whether trees are animals, plants, fungi or bacteria and unable to come to a conclusion.
quote:
Because its basic premise is not only unprovable, but impossible.
That's an unsupported assertion that can be safely ignored until elaborated on. Although I've got a sneaking suspicion that will involve some wibbling on about "objective validity"
quote:
Oh, and self-refuting, of course...
Some philosophers have argued that, others have differed. Meh. Although your St Clive, when he argued that naturalism is self refuting got his arse handed to him on a plate by a Catholic theologian. He altered the book the argument was in and never wrote apologetics again. How much the two events were connected has been the subject of (not much) debate. Since, I think, the whole thing hinged on the definition of "because", normal people have not taken much interest. Another example is Alvin Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument against naturalism, which treads similar ground with a fair smattering of abuse of evolutionary theory, maths and the philosophy of mind.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But this is the old confusion between method and philosophy, isn't it? Science uses a naturalistic method, but that does not lead to a naturalistic philosophy. In other words, if scientists study nature, they are not implying 'there is only nature'.
They are ignoring anything else, partly because, as Grokesx said, there is no method for describing the supernatural; in other words, it is all guesswork.
[ 13. June 2014, 13:00: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, what things?
Prayer certainly changes things. The only question is what it changes? God? No, it changes us.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which is not the same thing as the view of prayer you proposed. Knowing what we need is not the same as knowing what we're going to pray, or the suggestion that prayer is not efficacious. Which is why many, perhaps even most, churches teach that prayer changes things.
Prayer is definitely efficacious.
God's knowledge of what we need is the same thing as His knowledge of what we're going to pray. god knows everything.
I said:
quote:
Christianity understands that God knows all prayers before they are asked. He does not really sit up there considering human petitions, and deciding in favor of some and not others.
Rather, God is near at all times with the answer to every conceivable prayer. The point of prayer is that it changes the disposition of the asker. When we are looking for, and asking for, what God has to offer the answer is instantly present.
Prayer is very important. It changes the one praying. It doesn't change God or tell Him anything that He didn't already know. When we are ready for God's answers He gives them instantly, granting every sincere prayer.
Which, again, is a perfect valid, perfectly mainstream, Christian understanding. It's just not the only Christian understanding of prayer, or the only one "taught by churches."
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Which, again, is a perfect valid, perfectly mainstream, Christian understanding. It's just not the only Christian understanding of prayer, or the only one "taught by churches."
I see what you are saying. Yes, you are right. Thank you for clarifying.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But faith and reason needs a starting point.
Accepting the Bible as a divinely inspired work is still valid.
the other choice is that heaven and hell are something we find on earth, not after. And accept that the bible does not actually tell us a great deal about what happens after we die.
Which would mean that we cannot know what happens. We can trust that God is good and reasonable and will deal with us in an acceptable way. But that it may be as much based on whether we spread heaven or hell while we are here on earth.
There is more than one text that is claimed to be divinely inspired.
Indeed. Scripture contains between 66 and 81 such texts, depending on whom you ask.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If you don't see a contradiction in "God is light, in whom there is no darkness at all" with a God that punishes and tortures eternally then feel free to explain why.
Light of a sufficiently high intensity will burn the hell out of you.
--------------------
"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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Perhaps you didn't realise this, but hell pretty much is a Christian preoccupation (thought it was one of several Jewish options in Christ's time).
I think most Christians do realise this. Though you correctly point out that some strands of the Jewish plethora of His day, such as the Enoch tradition, paint a stark picture of the damned, eternal hell is entirely a Christian preoccuption. Very few of the world's spiritual philosophies are as ugly. So what should we make of this? IngoB believes that the hardest possible interpretation of these mysteries is the correct one. Others, myself included, would agree much more with Evensong's assertion that eternal damnation is unjust and serves no purpose.
That isn't to say that we don't have to suffer the fires of hell for our wrongful deeds and thoughts. As Fr Webber wrote:
quote:
Light of a sufficiently high intensity will burn the hell out of you.
Whether or not it makes me a bad Catholic, a bad Christian or an apostate, I belive that Christ's teachings on hell were hyperbolic. There's much else in Scripture that gives more hope. And there's much more in the outside world, away from the Christian preoccuption with hell, that can lead a person in the direction of obeying Christ's command to love unconditionally. That's where salvation is to be found.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Makes you a great Catholic Christian to me PaulTH*
--------------------
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
Here is a contemporary Jewish explanation of hell in its historical context. Of particular interest to me is:
quote:
It is not until the later books fo the Hebrew canon that we start to hear the idea that there are different destinations in the afterlife. Now if you search non-canonical Jewish sources (apocalyptic literature, for example), the theme of the wicked being fated to eternal suffering in fire and ice appears repeatedly. Indeed, it is from this thread of Jewish thinking from around 100BCE - 100CE that Christianity, and later Islam, derive their doctrines of eternal damnation. But Judaism ultimately rejects this idea as incongruent with a God who both just (infinite punishment for a finite life of sin?) and compassionate. There is also an element of God being conscious of sharing responsiblity for our moral shortcoming. God designed us with this potential to sin built in, so how can the Creator totally fault the creation for acting within specs? (see RaSHI's commentary on Hagigah 15b,* for example, or the famous parable on Cain and Able in Genesis Rabbah 22:9). So what you find in rabbinic texts is the notion of Gehinnom (Gehenna in Yiddish/English), a kind of purgatory in which the soul confronts its sins and is purified before it returns to God.
Many individual Christians throughout the ages have come to the same conclusion as the rabbis, that eternal damnation is incompatible with a God of justice and compassion. Also, an element which I first considered 45 years ago, is that it's at least in part, God's fault that we are as we are, because He created us here, with a proclivity to sin. That we are meant to rise above that, I can see, but the flesh is weak even when the spirit is willing. So I can entirely agree with this explanation about punishment being age enduring. suggestions of a year in Gehinnom are obviously metaphorical, but the idea that it can't last forever is quite logical given what Jesus has shown of the nature of God's love.
Some Christians such as Origen were condemned by the Church, others such as Gregory of Nyssa weren't. The Church could never tolerate anything which threatens its power to grant or deny salvation.
quote:
The wicked stay in Gehinnom till the resurrection, and then the Messiah, passing through it redeems them. (Emek Hammelech, f. 138, 4
This alternative view accords with the Christian belief in the harrowing of hell, which was very much emphasised, especially in the early centuries of Eastern Christianity. Not all theologians agreed about who exactly is saved by Christ's descent, but at least some thought it applied to all those in captivity. We believe that the Messiah has already been resurrected and passed through hell, so I am happy to believe it's empty.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Not all theologians agreed about who exactly is saved by Christ's descent, but at least some thought it applied to all those in captivity. We believe that the Messiah has already been resurrected and passed through hell, so I am happy to believe it's empty.
If there really is a hell, does anyone believe that it is actually a place? Isn't it more of a state of mind?
An empty hell would really mean that all were happy. A nice thought!
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Now being a pomo old post-Prod I can't go with the dogma of the Harrowing of Hell ... but I LOVE it as metaphor.
If a person cannot be loved better, what's a resurrection for? It might even melt even Satan's heart of flint.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
But this is the old confusion between method and philosophy, isn't it?
I'm not sure what this confusion actually is. In my opinion the only thing that separates science from philosophy is the testing part of science. Otherwise they are concerned with the same thing - exploring the world rationally. Philosophy's brief is wider - encompassing all logical possibilities (and also the nature of logic itself) leading to nooks and crannies of sheer bloody uselessness. At best, in one of those crannies is a path to theology.
quote:
Science uses a naturalistic method, but that does not lead to a naturalistic philosophy. In other words, if scientists study nature, they are not implying 'there is only nature'.
They are ignoring anything else, partly because, as Grokesx said, there is no method for describing the supernatural; in other words, it is all guesswork
That's not the whole story, though. The success of science implies that 'there is only nature in nature'. Or at the very least there is only nature in the lab or on those occasions where we work really hard to eliminate biases and to make the work repeatable and as free from error as we possibly can. Thus, the modern scientist ignores the supernatural not only because the supernatural is not required for science to be successful, but taking it seriously would cripple science beyond imagining.
This is not to deny that nothing supernatural exists at all, or that our natural world is not the work of some supernatural entity. The possibility of forces working outside the realm of what we can empirically detect cannot be discounted. But the success of methodological naturalistic science severely constrains what the supernaturalist can claim about the world, which is why, I suppose, modern theology relies on empty verbiage - culminating in the apophatic variety of discourse - or endless wibbling about the guesswork, as we see on show here. Or else barfing out "Scientism!" or similar every verse end.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jesus kataphatically IS theology.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
But this is the old confusion between method and philosophy, isn't it?
I'm not sure what this confusion actually is. In my opinion the only thing that separates science from philosophy is the testing part of science. Otherwise they are concerned with the same thing - exploring the world rationally. Philosophy's brief is wider - encompassing all logical possibilities (and also the nature of logic itself) leading to nooks and crannies of sheer bloody uselessness. At best, in one of those crannies is a path to theology.
quote:
Science uses a naturalistic method, but that does not lead to a naturalistic philosophy. In other words, if scientists study nature, they are not implying 'there is only nature'.
They are ignoring anything else, partly because, as Grokesx said, there is no method for describing the supernatural; in other words, it is all guesswork
That's not the whole story, though. The success of science implies that 'there is only nature in nature'. Or at the very least there is only nature in the lab or on those occasions where we work really hard to eliminate biases and to make the work repeatable and as free from error as we possibly can. Thus, the modern scientist ignores the supernatural not only because the supernatural is not required for science to be successful, but taking it seriously would cripple science beyond imagining.
This is not to deny that nothing supernatural exists at all, or that our natural world is not the work of some supernatural entity. The possibility of forces working outside the realm of what we can empirically detect cannot be discounted. But the success of methodological naturalistic science severely constrains what the supernaturalist can claim about the world, which is why, I suppose, modern theology relies on empty verbiage - culminating in the apophatic variety of discourse - or endless wibbling about the guesswork, as we see on show here. Or else barfing out "Scientism!" or similar every verse end.
Good post. If I can paraphrase Francis Bacon, FFS, stop wittering on about Aristotle, and use the senses!
I would say that strictly speaking, the scientist makes observations about appearances - the status of those appearances vis a vis reality is not his/her concern usually.
After that, guesswork reigns supreme, and is the Queen of speculation. Maybe it's all pixies with a complicated series of immaterial pulleys and levers. Oh and demons also, who prod you up the arse with something nasty.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No, that's haemorrhoids. Unless Terry Pratchett is right and there are haemorrhoid demons IF you think there are!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
But this is the old confusion between method and philosophy, isn't it?
I'm not sure what this confusion actually is. In my opinion the only thing that separates science from philosophy is the testing part of science. Otherwise they are concerned with the same thing - exploring the world rationally. Philosophy's brief is wider - encompassing all logical possibilities (and also the nature of logic itself) leading to nooks and crannies of sheer bloody uselessness. At best, in one of those crannies is a path to theology.
Theology and philosophy always went hand in hand until around the reformation: peaches and cream.
Then we got a bit lost with Descartes separating things out - ye old false dichotomy.
But I think we're back on track now. Theologians with any credibility at least.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
I would say that strictly speaking, the scientist makes observations about appearances - the status of those appearances vis a vis reality is not his/her concern usually.
Hm, there are people whose concern it is, though. Every engineering project there has ever been has relied on some science being a pretty good fit with reality. Not to mention medicine.
Funnily enough I've just seen a quote for the day which may be germane to the topic. It must be a sign. It's Bertrand Russell:
quote:
When one admits that nothing is certain one must, I think, also admit that some things are much more nearly certain than others.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx
Although your St Clive, when he argued that naturalism is self refuting got his arse handed to him on a plate by a Catholic theologian. He altered the book the argument was in and never wrote apologetics again. How much the two events were connected has been the subject of (not much) debate. Since, I think, the whole thing hinged on the definition of "because", normal people have not taken much interest.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The Anscombe Myth rears its head again. I actually have both editions of 'Miracles' - the naughty one with the 'objectionable' chapter, and a later edition with the rewrite. Lewis' argument is substantially the same! And furthermore, Elizabeth Anscombe accepted the revised version. This is what she wrote about the debate and its effect on Lewis:
quote:
The fact that Lewis rewrote that chapter, and rewrote it so that it now has those qualities [to meet Anscombe's objections], shows his honesty and seriousness. The meeting of the Socratic Club at which I read my paper has been described by several of his friends as a horrible and shocking experience which upset him very much. Neither Dr. Havard (who had Lewis and me to dinner a few weeks later) nor Professor Jack Bennet remembered any such feelings on Lewis's part [...]. My own recollection is that it was an occasion of sober discussion of certain quite definite criticisms, which Lewis's rethinking and rewriting showed he thought was accurate. I am inclined to construe the odd accounts of the matter by some of his friends — who seem not to have been interested in the actual arguments or the subject-matter — as an interesting example of the phenomenon called projection.
(from the introduction to her Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind, 1981 - emphasis mine.)
Clearly "the Anscombe Myth" is an example of 'projection'.
The discussion of ideas in the "grown up" world tends to operate like this, especially in academia. Scholars don't have nervous breakdowns when they are subjected to a searching critique of their views. In fact, they welcome such a critique. It's only naive intellectual onlookers, who have some axe to grind, who see such debates as personal affairs of "winning and losing", "pride versus humiliation" etc. Such people don't really understand, of course...
As for Lewis not writing apologetics after the debate (which took place in 1948), well, perhaps you should read this letter to the Telegraph. It doesn't give the author, but it is clearly Walter Hooper (as he mentions his own book in the letter). I am sure he knows a lot more about CS Lewis (and Elizabeth Anscombe) than you do.
By the way... it really is remarkable that it seems your definition of "normal people" is: "people who cannot understand the difference between causation and justification", hence your nonsensical comment: "Since, I think, the whole thing hinged on the definition of "because", normal people have not taken much interest".
It's pretty basic epistemology (you know, the subject that you are referring to in all your posts when you seek to elucidate the scientific method. The subject you seem to think is a load of woo).
But as Lewis rightly said: "Materialism is a philosophy for boys", hence the implication: "Epistemology is obviously a subject too difficult for such tender souls".
[ 15. June 2014, 13:46: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@EE
As I say, the subject of not much debate. The mileage varies depending on who you talk to. Apparently Lewis himself thought she "obliterated me as an apologist" according to some random guy on the internet.
quote:
It's only naive intellectual onlookers, who have some axe to grind, who see such debates as personal affairs of "winning and losing"
Someone should have told Lewis that, then - in the very letter you cite we find:
quote:
Lewis told me in 1963 that he thought he won the debate with Anscombe at the Socratic Club in 1948.
15 years on he's still bothered.
quote:
By the way... it really is remarkable that it seems your definition of "normal people" is: "people who cannot understand the difference between causation and justification", hence your nonsensical comment.
Well, if I could list all the attributes of a normal person, the one that says s/he needs to take account of the ground-consequent and cause-effect senses of "because" in deciding whether there is a god or not would be unlikely to make the cut.
quote:
It's pretty basic epistemology (you know, the subject that you are referring to in all your posts when you seek to elucidate the scientific method. The subject you seem to think is a load of woo)
I don't think the subject is a load of woo. The way you treat it, though, is a different matter altogether.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Evensong, let me explain.
You use the words 'torture and punish'; From that I infer you think the belief is that at death God decides who is to be condemned and then actively punishes them on the basis of his last judgment.
I do not accept this premise at all.
Thank you for explaining your position Mudfrog. Why don't you accept this premise? It's what the bible says.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Torture? Fire? Haloes? Wings?
All symbolic
So you too interpret things symbolically when you don't like the literal truth.
That's usually what you accuse others of doing. Like Adeodatus has said above.
I do not accept the idea that God 'tortures' people.
Neither do I accept the false notion that after a lifetime of behaviour God then brings all humanity together to decide who is to be condemned and who is to be saved.
The doctrine of the atonement says very clearly that all mankind is at enmity with God as the default position - Jesus said we are condemned already; God doesn't need to decide who to condemn. We are all sinners, all fall short of the glory of God and are all in need of rescue from the kingdom of darkness in which we all exists, dead in trespasses and sins.
The judgment day simply conforms what is already the case.
What the death/resurrection of Christ gives is salvation from that for all who, having heard, believe.
(Justice and mercy covers those who have not heard or who have heard or been told incorrectly.)
Secondly, in respect to haloes and wings, etc, you accuse me of not liking the 'literal truth'. It's not the truth I don't 'like' - the truth is there and the imagery of heaven is highly symbolic. It isn't meant to be taken literally, even though we are indeed meant to believe in the solid reality of heaven.
[ 16. June 2014, 11:37: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The doctrine of the atonement says very clearly that all mankind is at enmity with God as the default position - Jesus said we are condemned already;
There is no The Doctrine of The Atonement. You should say your particular doctrine of the atonement believes....
.......and I don't recall Jesus saying we are condemned already. I think that's Pauline theology.
Jesus said he came to save sinners, not the righteous. Implication being there are those that are righteous around (Noah, Zechariah and Elizabeth in the temple etc.). Paul had to press the point to make a point. Unfortunately it led to many discrepancies of examples of righteous people in the bible.
As for the rest of your post: good to see you're not all that different from us damned liberals. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
p.s. Mudfrog.
As someone that believes he takes scripture seriously I'd be interested to hear your opinion on when you see the New Testament idea of Hell coming into existence. It did not exist in the Old Testament scriptures. Sheol paints quite a different picture.
I've mentioned on the other thread that I wonder if the reality of Hell (and yes - I do believe in its reality - just not the torture) came about through the advent of Christ.
What do you think? When and why did the New Testament notion of Hell emerge?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The doctrine of the atonement says very clearly that all mankind is at enmity with God as the default position - Jesus said we are condemned already;
There is no The Doctrine of The Atonement. You should say your particular doctrine of the atonement believes....
.......and I don't recall Jesus saying we are condemned already. I think that's Pauline theology.
quote:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
"Whoever believes in the Son has life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him."
Jesus
As far as Noah, etc, are concerned - just read Hebrews 11. These people were all counted as righteous and were saved. The cross works backwards too and saved all those who were faithful to God's revelation in their day.
Believing that the Bible expresses truth through symbolism does not make an evangelical a liberal. I do not believe, for example, that Jesus is a real lamb. Neither do I believe God smells sacrifices or walks in gardens. Do you really believe that evangelicals take such things totally literally?
[ 16. June 2014, 12:15: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
p.s. Mudfrog.
As someone that believes he takes scripture seriously I'd be interested to hear your opinion on when you see the New Testament idea of Hell coming into existence. It did not exist in the Old Testament scriptures. Sheol paints quite a different picture.
I've mentioned on the other thread that I wonder if the reality of Hell (and yes - I do believe in its reality - just not the torture) came about through the advent of Christ.
What do you think? When and why did the New Testament notion of Hell emerge?
A lot of clarity of truth came through the coming of Jesus - what was the point of him being a teacher and the final revelation of God's word, if he didn't bring a fuller revelation of the truth?
I din't think we need to (or should) place the OT teaching of Sheol against the NT teaching of Gehenna as if the more shadowy teaching regarding Sheol therefore negates any need to believe what Jesus taught about Gehenna. The reason that the NT is clearer is pogressive revelation. I don't think we need to tell Jesus we'rd rather not listen to his teaching and prefer the older version.
Yes, he drew on intertestamental and rabinnical language - apocalyptic language - in order to make his point, but again, what is important is the reality of ongoing condemnation for those who will not repent and believe and eternal life for those who believe in the name of Jesus for salvation.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
