The Unforgivable Sin, and why we're probably all screwed [Archive]

Huntster

7th May 2006, 11:07 PM

I reference the Christian Unforgivable Sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, featured several places in the Bible, possibly the Gospels per se.

What occurred to me, is, that, because God is a Triune being, it's hard to tell where one personality of the Godhead ends and where another one begins....

That is especially so with regard to the "Holy Spirit". God (the Father) is easily recognizable, and God (the Son) is similarly recognizable.

My understanding of the Holy Spirit is that it is the "we" of Genesis (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis1.htm):

...Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."...

...So, when people generically curse God, unless they've specifically got "God the Creator NOT the Holy Ghost" in their head,...

When someone curses God, it's a sin that's specific enough for me, and I'm not even a lawyer.

It's a bad, bad thing.

...Given the human propensity for loose thinking it seems probable to me that piles of people, including Christians, have already committed the unforgivable sin. Atheists, especially.

You're probably screwed!...

No way.

Christ died for the redemption of souls. Mine is one of them.

I'm an evil, evil man. Yet, I can see that a sacrifice like that is meant for people like me.

If you believe, and if you appreciate, you can be saved.

Ossai

8th May 2006, 06:25 AM

Huntster
Christ died for the redemption of souls. Mine is one of them.

I'm an evil, evil man. Yet, I can see that a sacrifice like that is meant for people like me.

If you believe, and if you appreciate, you can be saved. Darn, I just can’t buy into the protection racket offered.

Rufo

8th May 2006, 07:11 AM

If there is a God, I count on that He has humor enough to appreciate the times I've blasphemed Him. I don't actually dislike Him or anything, and I don't think I've mocked Him more than a normal person could laugh off, let alone a omnipotent Creator.

Christ died for the redemption of souls. Mine is one of them.

I'm an evil, evil man. Yet, I can see that a sacrifice like that is meant for people like me.

If you believe, and if you appreciate, you can be saved.
I also count on that if He could forgive someone for being an evil, evil man, He can also fogive me for doubting the divinity of Christ.

Humphreys

8th May 2006, 09:35 AM

ChristineR

8th May 2006, 09:45 AM

Does the cursing God have to be spoken, or do bad thoughts count?

God knows what we're thinking, so I fail to see the difference in saying it out loud.

Now, with that said, who here, Christians included, can say they've never once done that?

This is of course why the majority of Christian scholars believe it is more or less impossible to actually blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

For me this was just another one of those places where the facts didn't add up but where the religious were asked to accept a tortuous (if not absolutely impossible) explanation without questioning it.

Beerina

8th May 2006, 12:20 PM

I reference the Christian Unforgivable Sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit, featured several places in the Bible, possibly the Gospels per se.

What occurred to me, is, that, because God is a Triune being, it's hard to tell where one personality of the Godhead ends and where another one begins. So, when people generically curse God, unless they've specifically got "God the Creator NOT the Holy Ghost" in their head, their sinful thoughts may roam and blur the two together. The same with Jesus, or all three together.

Given the human propensity for loose thinking it seems probable to me that piles of people, including Christians, have already committed the unforgivable sin. Atheists, especially.

You're probably screwed!

Cpl Ferro

One wonders about the justice in holding someone accountable for doing something that's not illogical, but just against some arbitrary claim by God -- and a deliberately unproveable one at that.

You should believe...but there's no proof. You've...blasphemed...but there's no proof of it...but you'd better believe it...or else! (but there's no proof!)

With the lack of proof a definite, existing, deliberate action on God's part since there's, evidently, some metaphysical value to it. So much, in fact, that evidently everything hinges on that point.

gnome

8th May 2006, 01:05 PM

What a fragile ego God must have... that it is possible for the words and thoughts of mortals to upset Him enough to apply the worst punishment he has available.

CplFerro

8th May 2006, 03:16 PM

Christ died for the redemption of souls. Mine is one of them.

I'm an evil, evil man. Yet, I can see that a sacrifice like that is meant for people like me.

If you believe, and if you appreciate, you can be saved.

Dear Hunter,

Are you saying that Christ lied when he spoke of the Unforgivable Sin?

Cpl Ferro

Huntster

8th May 2006, 03:18 PM

Dear Hunter,

Are you saying that Christ lied when he spoke of the Unforgivable Sin?

Cpl Ferro

That's H-U-N-T-S-T-E-R to you.

No, I don't.

If you want to read it literally, you are certainly free to do so.

8th May 2006, 03:23 PM

I still don't even understand what the holy spirit is...unless it's wine. Mmmm, wine.

Do you think JC was a good lover?

Huntster

8th May 2006, 03:30 PM

I still don't even understand what the holy spirit is...

Holy Spirit: (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#h)

The third divine Person of the Blessed Trinity, the personal love of Father and Son for each other. Also called the Paraclete (Advocate) and Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit is at work with the Father and the Son from the beginning to the completion of the divine plan for our salvation (685; cf. 152, 243).

8th May 2006, 03:50 PM

So the holy spirit is...love? Man, I'll bet that could sell some greeting cards.

Just Me

9th May 2006, 12:40 AM

Growing up I was taught only those who have actually seen God or JC, then blasphemy or deny the Holy Ghost, is guilty. :boggled:

Just Me

9th May 2006, 12:48 AM

Does the cursing God have to be spoken, or do bad thoughts count?

God knows what we're thinking, so I fail to see the difference in saying it out loud.

Now, with that said, who here, Christians included, can say they've never once done that?

Matthew 5:22-If you are angry at your brother you are DAMNED :eek: -but only if you say "Raca".- But that doesn't prove my point.:blush:

Matthew 5:28-If you look at a woman and lust after her you have commited adultery and are most likely DAMNED. :eek:

I do not know how this works out with women looking at guys and homosexuals though.
Most likely you are DAMNED. :eek:

phildonnia

9th May 2006, 03:46 PM

"Blaspheming the spirit" seems to be a pretty abstract concept, since no one can really agree on what it is. Here's the concrete example, from the bible:

But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. (Mt 12:24)

It appears that they were dissing Jesus, not the holy spirit. Since Jesus regards this as blasphemy against the spirit, this makes the interesting implication that Jesus himself doesn't wreak miracles, but somehow asks the spirit to do the work. I suppose that's all academic.

As a Catholic, I was taught some kind of line like "if you are worried about having committed an unforgivable sin, then you haven't, because someone who is irrecovably damned is too proud to consider such a thing." Which probably leads to some kind of paradox.

This whack-job site takes the bible verse literally:
The Unforgivable Sin is simply attributing Jesus' power to perform His miracles to Satan or to one of his demons.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/News/n1398.cfm

Palimpsest

9th May 2006, 04:00 PM

Matthew 5:22-If you are angry at your brother you are DAMNED :eek: -but only if you say "Raca".- But that doesn't prove my point.:blush:

Matthew 5:28-If you look at a woman and lust after her you have commited adultery and are most likely DAMNED. :eek:

I do not know how this works out with women looking at guys and homosexuals though.
Most likely you are DAMNED. :eek:

Yes we are:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. "

Meh. Screw the Holy Spook.

Humphreys

9th May 2006, 04:31 PM

I'm beginning to think Christianity is not the flowery-butterflies-in-the-stomach-fluffy-pillowy nice religion some want it to be.

ceo_esq

9th May 2006, 06:08 PM

Aquinas gives a fairly good overview of what appear to be the major lines of speculation about the nature of the "impardonable sin":

Three meanings have been given to the sin against the Holy Ghost. For the earlier doctors, viz. Athanasius (Super Matth. xii, 32), Hilary (Can. xii in Matth.), Ambrose (Super Luc. xii, 10), Jerome (Super Matth. xii), and Chrysostom (Hom. xli in Matth.), say that the sin against the Holy Ghost is literally to utter a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, whether by Holy Spirit we understand the essential name applicable to the whole Trinity, each Person of which is a Spirit and is holy, or the personal name of one of the Persons of the Trinity, in which sense blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is distinct from the blasphemy against the Son of Man (Matthew 12:32), for Christ did certain things in respect of His human nature, by eating, drinking, and such like actions, while He did others in respect of His Godhead, by casting out devils, raising the dead, and the like: which things He did both by the power of His own Godhead and by the operation of the Holy Ghost, of Whom He was full, according to his human nature. Now the Jews began by speaking blasphemy against the Son of Man, when they said (Matthew 11:19) that He was "a glutton . . . a wine drinker," and a "friend of publicans": but afterwards they blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, when they ascribed to the prince of devils those works which Christ did by the power of His own Divine Nature and by the operation of the Holy Ghost.

Augustine, however (De Verb. Dom., Serm. lxxi), says that blasphemy or the sin against the Holy Ghost, is final impenitence when, namely, a man perseveres in mortal sin until death, and that it is not confined to utterance by word of mouth, but extends to words in thought and deed, not to one word only, but to many. Now this word, in this sense, is said to be uttered against the Holy Ghost, because it is contrary to the remission of sins, which is the work of the Holy Ghost, Who is the charity both of the Father and of the Son. Nor did Our Lord say this to the Jews, as though they had sinned against the Holy Ghost, since they were not yet guilty of final impenitence, but He warned them, lest by similar utterances they should come to sin against the Holy Ghost: and it is in this sense that we are to understand Mark 3:29,30, where after Our Lord had said: "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost," etc. the Evangelist adds, "because they said: He hath an unclean spirit."

But others understand it differently, and say that the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, is a sin committed against that good which is appropriated to the Holy Ghost: because goodness is appropriated to the Holy Ghost, just a power is appropriated to the Father, and wisdom to the Son. Hence they say that when a man sins through weakness, it is a sin "against the Father"; that when he sins through ignorance, it is a sin "against the Son"; and that when he sins through certain malice, i.e. through the very choosing of evil, as explained above (I-II, 78, 1 ,3), it is a sin "against the Holy Ghost."

(source (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/301401.htm))

Based on my unscientific survey of sources, I'd say the Augustinian understanding (the sin against the Holy Spirit = impenitence unto death) traditionally enjoys the most favor.

Robin

9th May 2006, 06:15 PM

What a fragile ego God must have... that it is possible for the words and thoughts of mortals to upset Him enough to apply the worst punishment he has available.
The reasoning they give for this is quaint. For example in Garrigou Lagrange’s “Life Eternal”, which is still pushed as a primer for Catholic belief, they say that offense to a person is in proportion to the dignity of that person, so for example insulting a magistrate would be a more serious offence than insulting a street cleaner. So since God’s dignity is infinite so must any offense against God be infinite.

Of course few people today would suggest that an insult to a magistrate is more serious than an insult to a street cleaner.

10001

9th May 2006, 07:29 PM

I seem to recall that in the passage in the Bible where this comes up, someone (maybe a Pharisee?) has accused Jesus of being possessed by a demon, so I think the implication is that the relevant blasphemy is comparing the Holy Ghost to a demonic spirit.

Jesus was possessed by a demon. There, I've said it. Oh well.

If someone called you something you are not, odes it insult you? make you feel bad?...

How about if n Ant said it to you?

I dont think God and all it?'s parts realy care what humans think or say.

ceo_esq

10th May 2006, 12:45 PM

Of course few people today would suggest that an insult to a magistrate is more serious than an insult to a street cleaner.

Interesting point, as usual, Robin. But do you suppose they might suggest that, if they actually believed that the magistrate was truly of greater inherent dignity than the street cleaner?

I daresay many people would assent to the proposition that insulting a hero(ine) involves a greater injustice on some level than insulting a knave - even if they would not, for other policy reasons, expect it to carry (for example) greater legal repercussions.

Huntster

10th May 2006, 02:51 PM

...Of course few people today would suggest that an insult to a magistrate is more serious than an insult to a street cleaner.

In morality, no it isn't.

After you serve out your sentence for contempt of court, though, you might reconsider that statement in terms of reality.

supercorgi

10th May 2006, 03:15 PM

shemp

10th May 2006, 03:30 PM

... a complete libertine, commiting crimes for amusement and without conscience. Since the only people I know like that are on drugs...

No we're not, not all of us.

CplFerro

10th May 2006, 03:35 PM

Dear Huntster,

Could you please clarify about the Unforgiveable Sin? Do you think it exists, and if so, how does one do it?

Thanks,

Cpl Ferro

ruach1

10th May 2006, 04:19 PM

ruach1

10th May 2006, 04:21 PM

That is especially so with regard to the "Holy Spirit". God (the Father) is easily recognizable, and God (the Son) is similarly recognizable.

My understanding of the Holy Spirit is that it is the "we" of Genesis (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis1.htm):

When someone curses God, it's a sin that's specific enough for me, and I'm not even a lawyer.

It's a bad, bad thing.

No way.
Christ died for the redemption of souls. Mine is one of them.

I'm an evil, evil man. Yet, I can see that a sacrifice like that is meant for people like me.

If you believe, and if you appreciate, you can be saved.
Huntster, here's a book you might be interested in reading:
Pneumatology by Velli-Matti Karkkainen

Its a great read (very readable and short), and its available on Amazon.com :)

ceo_esq

10th May 2006, 04:40 PM

I also count on that if He could forgive someone for being an evil, evil man, He can also fogive me for doubting the divinity of Christ.

I suppose the Christian position would be that sincere contrition would be required in both instances. Is that the case with you?

Huntster

10th May 2006, 05:54 PM

Dear Huntster,

Could you please clarify about the Unforgiveable Sin? Do you think it exists, and if so, how does one do it?

Thanks,

Cpl Ferro

Yes, it exists (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#h):

HELL:

The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives (1033).

I believe that to be the sin referred to by Christ:

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore, I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Huntster

10th May 2006, 06:25 PM

Huntster, here's a book you might be interested in reading:
Pneumatology by Velli-Matti Karkkainen

Its a great read (very readable and short), and its available on Amazon.com :)

I looked at the description and reviews. It looks interesting, indeed. I'll have to catch up to it one day (my nightstand is already piled high at the moment!)

Thanks for that great tip, rauch!

Just Me

11th May 2006, 01:02 AM

Yes we are:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV)
"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. "

Meh. Screw the Holy Spook.
I go off the KJV of the bible, accept no substitute.
Homosexuals aren't listed there but "effeminate" is.
And it appears effeminates are sorta "girlie men" not neccesarily gay, although who knows how it was translated from possibly aramaic to latin to old english.

Just Me

11th May 2006, 01:08 AM

So it's OK to be a female prostitute? Wow, a whole new sinless career has opened up! :D

Rehab was a whore but is rewarded by being in the lineage of Jesus
Josh 6:22-25, Matt 1:5, Heb11:31

King Solomon had either 80 or 300 concubines
1 Kings 11:3, Song 6:8,

Abraham, yeah that one, whores his wife out. Twice.
Genisis 12:11-20, 20:1-16

Christians have fuzzy memories and forget about all this.

Just Me

11th May 2006, 01:09 AM

Must be da pimp juice

Zep

11th May 2006, 05:10 AM

I always thought the Unforgiveable Sin was farting in the lift (elevator).

On the way to a job interview.

With your prospective boss in there with you.

And making a big joke about it.

At his expense.

Rufo

11th May 2006, 05:24 AM

:clap:
Thank you!

I suppose the Christian position would be that sincere contrition would be required in both instances. Is that the case with you?
Obviously, if I am wrong I will regret making the wrong conclusion - which, I suppose, is what contrition is about. Who doesn't regret making the wrong conclusions when they are proven wrong?

JamesDillon

11th May 2006, 04:38 PM

I go off the KJV of the bible, accept no substitute.
Homosexuals aren't listed there but "effeminate" is.
And it appears effeminates are sorta "girlie men" not neccesarily gay, although who knows how it was translated from possibly aramaic to latin to old english.

So why does God want to torture effeminate men forever in hell?

JamesDillon

11th May 2006, 04:40 PM

If someone called you something you are not, odes it insult you? make you feel bad?...
Sure owuldn't. I guess I have a thicker skin than God Almighty.

ChristineR

11th May 2006, 05:34 PM

Actually Paul's words are so obscure that one of them (arsenokoitai) is unique to Paul and another (malakos) is not elsewhere used for sexual acts. Then there's the third word, pedophile, which pretty much means the same thing now as it did then. Arsenokoitai means "polluted with men" and malakos means "soft."

http://www.libchrist.com/other/homosexual/cor69.html

gnome

11th May 2006, 06:59 PM

So why does God want to torture effeminate men forever in hell?

Because, he found out about homosexuals, and went "ewwwww!!!" which is why you can prove you're holy by griping about gays. It shows you're very much like God.

It doesn't, for example, show that someone concieved of a god that shared his prejudices. No, not that at all.

Just Me

11th May 2006, 07:39 PM

So why does God want to torture effeminate men forever in hell?
No clue. He works in mysterious ways.

Robin

11th May 2006, 09:15 PM

I suppose the Christian position would be that sincere contrition would be required in both instances. Is that the case with you?
I think that may be impossible in the case of doubting Christ's divinity. Certainly if faced with the definite evidence admitting I was wrong would be inevitable. But if I would still think I had good reason for doubting it in the first place, given the evidence. So faked contrition is about the best I could manage, I doubt that would be enough.

Robin

11th May 2006, 09:27 PM

I think that may be impossible in the case of doubting Christ's divinity. Certainly if faced with the definite evidence admitting I was wrong would be inevitable. But if I would still think I had good reason for doubting it in the first place, given the evidence. So faked contrition is about the best I could manage, I doubt that would be enough.
And then of course I would be in the very strange position of enduring eternal torment for not being contrite about being wrong about something. Seems kind of out of proportion.

YouBelieveWHAT?

11th May 2006, 11:37 PM

Zep - that's more of an "Unforgettable" Sin maybe?

YBW

Huntster

13th May 2006, 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by Just Me :
I go off the KJV of the bible, accept no substitute.
Homosexuals aren't listed there but "effeminate" is.
And it appears effeminates are sorta "girlie men" not neccesarily gay, although who knows how it was translated from possibly aramaic to latin to old english.

So why does God want to torture effeminate men forever in hell?

So who says that God does?

Mr. Dillon?

Huntster

13th May 2006, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by 10001 :
If someone called you something you are not, odes it insult you? make you feel bad?...
Sure owuldn't. I guess I have a thicker skin than God Almighty.

Does God have "skin"?

Huntster

13th May 2006, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by ceo_esq :
I suppose the Christian position would be that sincere contrition would be required in both instances. Is that the case with you? I think that may be impossible in the case of doubting Christ's divinity. Certainly if faced with the definite evidence admitting I was wrong would be inevitable. But if I would still think I had good reason for doubting it in the first place, given the evidence....

That is why Christ repeatedly called for faith. If you don't have it, you simply don't have it.

That doesn't mean that you deny God, and curse Him.

...So faked contrition is about the best I could manage, I doubt that would be enough...

Faked contrition is the best you can muster for your sins?

You're right; it won't be enough.

Huntster

13th May 2006, 05:32 PM

And then of course I would be in the very strange position of enduring eternal torment for not being contrite about being wrong about something. Seems kind of out of proportion.

Wrong decisions can get you dead, physically.

Seems out of proportion, yet it's true.

Just Me

13th May 2006, 11:55 PM

Does God have "skin"?
Would it be more correct to say, "My skin is thicker than the wispy cloud of God's being."?:confused:

Just Me

13th May 2006, 11:56 PM

That is why Christ repeatedly called for faith. If you don't have it, you simply don't have it.

That doesn't mean that you deny God, and curse Him.

Faked contrition is the best you can muster for your sins?

You're right; it won't be enough.
Ahhh, no. JC called for faith because he knew he was a fraud.

Just Me

14th May 2006, 12:02 AM

Wrong decisions can get you dead, physically.

Seems out of proportion, yet it's true.
Regardless of wrong decisions, ALL decisions lead to death, physically. Name me one person who has died, that has never made a decision or never had a decision placed upon them from another person. Name me one person alive who has not made a decision or had a decision placed upon them from another person who will not die.
If xtianity happens to be true I would hope that after a few millenia God would soften His heart and accept all former nonbeleivers sincere apology.

Huntster

14th May 2006, 12:21 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Does God have "skin"? Would it be more correct to say, "My skin is thicker than the wispy cloud of God's being."?:confused:

Yes, considering the definition of the word "thick", it would.

So?

Huntster

14th May 2006, 12:23 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That is why Christ repeatedly called for faith. If you don't have it, you simply don't have it.

That doesn't mean that you deny God, and curse Him.

Faked contrition is the best you can muster for your sins?

You're right; it won't be enough. Ahhh, no. JC called for faith because he knew he was a fraud.

Is that a claim?

Of course, as one who adheres to the "policies" of science, you have evidence of that claim?

Pauliesonne

14th May 2006, 12:26 AM

The way I see it.....

The biblical JC isn't a fraud because he'd have to be an actual person to be a fraud.

Huntster

14th May 2006, 12:30 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Wrong decisions can get you dead, physically.
Seems out of proportion, yet it's true.

Regardless of wrong decisions, ALL decisions lead to death, physically...

Actually, the very fact of physical existance leads to physical death.

Decision or no. If you live on this Earth, you will physically die.

Sorry. That's just the way it is. Bad decisions bring that death on quicker.

In the Catholic faith, bad decisions can also bring on spiritual death.

...Name me one person who has died, that has never made a decision or never had a decision placed upon them from another person. Name me one person alive who has not made a decision or had a decision placed upon them from another person who will not die....

Huh?

...If xtianity happens to be true I would hope that after a few millenia God would soften His heart and accept all former nonbeleivers sincere apology.

Of course you would "hope" that. The problem is that, standing "naked" in front of God is probably not the best time to be hoping such things.

What's the problem with learning now?

Huntster

14th May 2006, 12:32 AM

The way I see it.....

The biblical JC isn't a fraud because he'd have to be an actual person to be a fraud.

He was an actual person. There is plenty of historical reference to establish that.

Of course, you can believe those who argue otherwise, but I find their arguments desperate.

Pauliesonne

14th May 2006, 12:38 AM

I said...

A BIBLICAL JESUS

....not someone I would credit simply a first century Plato.

How's my linguistics?

Just Me

14th May 2006, 12:39 AM

Actually, the very fact of physical existance leads to physical death.

Decision or no. If you live on this Earth, you will physically die.

Sorry. That's just the way it is. Bad decisions bring that death on quicker.

In the Catholic faith, bad decisions can also bring on spiritual death.

Huh?

Of course you would "hope" that. The problem is that, standing "naked" in front of God is probably not the best time to be hoping such things.

What's the problem with learning now?
1)I know existence leads to death. That was what the whole, ". . . name me one person who has died. . . ." Already showed. Start reading.
2) I'm sure God has x-ray vision and can see through my clothes ANY TIME HE WANTS.
3)The problem with learning now is simple. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!
Hey huntster, infinity plus infinity equals pi. The evidence is I said it. Have faith in that and learn it.:p

edited to correctly spell huntster's name.

Huntster

14th May 2006, 01:47 AM

I said...

A BIBLICAL JESUS

....not someone I would credit simply a first century Plato....

The biblical Jesus? As written about by the Gospel writers (as well as the apocryphal writers)?

I believe that the Nazorean, Jesus, was the Son of God; the only human to be conceived by both human and the Spirit of God, and that He performed all the miracles described in the Gospels (and much, much more), and was put to death by a conspiracy involving the Pharisees and the Romans. I believe He rose from the dead after three days, and is the only man to have done so under such circumstances.

What's more (and more important), I believe that his legacy is one of peace and faith, yet will result in turmoil and challenge for all who love the message.

It's difficult to imagine peace and faith interposed with turmoil and challenge, but it's true.

...How's my linguistics?

I understand you just fine. You don't want to get into the rules of the English language, do you?

I like to reserve that for folks who play the intellectual card.........

Just Me

14th May 2006, 03:49 AM

I understand you just fine. You don't want to get into the rules of the English language, do you?

Pls don't. I always seem to forget how to tell if a word is an adverb. :)

Huntster

14th May 2006, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster :

I understand you just fine. You don't want to get into the rules of the English language, do you?

Pls don't. I always seem to forget how to tell if a word is an adverb. :)

Just remember that an adverb describes a verb.

The English language is horrible. It requires constant attention.

It's scary that it's the "language of the sky".

Pauliesonne

14th May 2006, 09:08 AM

[QUOTE=Huntster;1637182]The biblical Jesus? As written about by the Gospel writers (as well as the apocryphal writers)?

I believe that the Nazorean, Jesus, was the Son of God; the only human to be conceived by both human and the Spirit of God, and that He performed all the miracles described in the Gospels (and much, much more), and was put to death by a conspiracy involving the Pharisees and the Romans. I believe He rose from the dead after three days, and is the only man to have done so under such circumstances.

.

QUOTE]

Whatever floats your boat......

Just Me

16th May 2006, 03:52 AM

Is that a claim?

Of course, as one who adheres to the "policies" of science, you have evidence of that claim?
I don't recall using the word "policy" or "policies" once on this forum.
If David Blaine attempted to raise himself to the status of deity, I'd call him a fraud too. I am allowed opinions as are you.

Just Me

16th May 2006, 03:58 AM

Just remember that an adverb describes a verb.

The English language is horrible. It requires constant attention.

It's scary that it's the "language of the sky".
It can also describe/modify another adverb.

Just Me

16th May 2006, 04:00 AM

snip
I believe He rose from the dead after three days, and is the only man to have done so under such circumstances.
snip
.
I agree w. this. Marcus Rexburg, Jesus' buddy, took 4 days to rise from the dead. Marcus is no god of mine.
4 days, what a joke.:rolleyes:

16th May 2006, 09:42 AM

Because, he found out about homosexuals, and went "ewwwww!!!" which is why you can prove you're holy by griping about gays. It shows you're very much like God.

It doesn't, for example, show that someone concieved of a god that shared his prejudices. No, not that at all.

The real question is, why did god create homosexuals and 'effeminate' men? Did he just need a whipping boy for his testosterone-laden followers to pick on?

Surely he knew what he was doing, right? Why would you create something then make laws and prejudices against it? Seems like a 'whoops' that the maker of everything wouldn't have overlooked.

elliotfc

16th May 2006, 09:49 AM

The real question is, why did god create homosexuals and 'effeminate' men? Did he just need a whipping boy for his testosterone-laden followers to pick on?

If you're implying that homosexuals or "effeminates" are somehow off the mark, then you can extend this to people with poor eyesight or any other handicaps. If you're not implying that, then forget the extension.

Surely he knew what he was doing, right? Why would you create something then make laws and predudices against it? Seems like a 'whoops' that the make of everything wouldn't have overlooked.

We all have sinful desires, homosexuality may lead to sinful sexual desire, but so does heterosexuality. Whoopses everywhere. Why make laws against whoopses? Why not? Would it be better if there were no laws? Or no whoopses? Or both?

Without getting into specifics. We are imperfect beings who are called to be perfect. This can be viewed as a real bummer. No fair! Or, we can deal with it and do the best we can and ask for spiritual graces. Or we can do something else. Or nothing.

As for unforgiveable sins, we have enough forgiveable sins to worry about.
-Elliot

kurious_kathy

16th May 2006, 10:13 AM

If you're implying that homosexuals or "effeminates" are somehow off the mark, then you can extend this to people with poor eyesight or any other handicaps. If you're not implying that, then forget the extension.

We all have sinful desires, homosexuality may lead to sinful sexual desire, but so does heterosexuality. Whoopses everywhere. Why make laws against whoopses? Why not? Would it be better if there were no laws? Or no whoopses? Or both?

Without getting into specifics. We are imperfect beings who are called to be perfect. This can be viewed as a real bummer. No fair! Or, we can deal with it and do the best we can and ask for spiritual graces. Or we can do something else. Or nothing.

As for unforgiveable sins, we have enough forgiveable sins to worry about.
-Elliot
I always enjoy reading your posts elliot, you have a good way of relating to others. I am always having to reflect on my past to help me relate to others and what they may be struggling with. It's like we all want to do what's right, but sometimes we just need help seeing it more clearly. I don't want to come across judgemental with others, but I do have a low tolerance to things I now see as sin because of my painful past which taught me that I needed to get it out of my life.

As far as the OP my hubby and I have discussed this much and He doesn't think blasphemy of the Holy Spirit happens that much any more if at all. When Jesus was here and did His miracles the pharasees where warned not to say He did those miracles by the power of Satan. That's what blasphemy is, giving credit to the other guy for a miracle only God can do, right?

Now taking God's name in vain, I have a real hard time with this one. We can't even watch anything on TV anymore without hearing people doing that. I would just like to suggest people be more considerate in not using those words that may offend others.

elliotfc

16th May 2006, 10:16 AM

As far as the OP my hubby and I have discussed this much and He doesn't think blasphemy of the Holy Spirit happens that much any more if at all. When Jesus was here and did His miracles the pharasees where warned not to say He did those miracles by the power of Satan. That's what blasphemy is, giving credit to the other God for a miracle only God can do, right?

No doubt Kathy. It's better to say that Jesus never rose from the dead, than to say that Jesus rose from the dead because of the power of Satan.

-Elliot

Genesius

16th May 2006, 11:43 AM

Now taking God's name in vain, I have a real hard time with this one. We can't even watch anything on TV anymore without hearing people doing that. I would just like to suggest people be more considerate in not using those words that may offend others.

Alas, the Founding Fathers neglected to include the "right to not be offended" in the Bill of Rights. Guess you'll just have to freakin' grow up and stop whining.

Genesius

16th May 2006, 11:45 AM

No doubt Kathy. It's better to say that Jesus never rose from the dead, than to say that Jesus rose from the dead because of the power of Satan.

-Elliot

Since I have no belief in the afterlife and no fear of punishment in same, I hereby state for the record that Jesus rose from the dead because of the power of Satan. All hail the Dark Lord!

elliotfc

16th May 2006, 12:06 PM

Alas, the Founding Fathers neglected to include the "right to not be offended" in the Bill of Rights. Guess you'll just have to freakin' grow up and stop whining.

That's what I'm talking about you! Michael Newdow, go home! Was that the title of the thread? I forget.

-Elliot

elliotfc

16th May 2006, 12:08 PM

Since I have no belief in the afterlife and no fear of punishment in same, I hereby state for the record that Jesus rose from the dead because of the power of Satan. All hail the Dark Lord!

Are you implying that if you believed in the afterlife, and if you had fear of punishment, you wouldn't say something like that?

Since you don't believe, your words are just dumb, you don't want to be taken seriously, and won't be. Kind of like when little kids act petulantly. No, God won't damn you to hell for this. Maybe a little smile, shake of the head, awww he's acting out.

-Elliot

Genesius

16th May 2006, 12:18 PM

Are you implying that if you believed in the afterlife, and if you had fear of punishment, you wouldn't say something like that?

Since you don't believe, your words are just dumb, you don't want to be taken seriously, and won't be. Kind of like when little kids act petulantly. No, God won't damn you to hell for this. Maybe a little smile, shake of the head, awww he's acting out.

-Elliot
So anyone who doesn't believe in your preferred mythology is dumb? Ah, the arrogance of the True BelieverTM. :rolleyes:

Robin

16th May 2006, 12:35 PM

Wrong decisions can get you dead, physically.

Seems out of proportion, yet it's true.
You just haven't thought this whole thing out, have you?

The supposed attributes of the being under discussion are infinite mercy, infinite justice, infinite love.

Right?

So the scenario I gave is that somebody is sentenced to eternal torture for admitting they were wrong but not being contrite about it, even if the contrition would have to be dishonest.

And you do not see any contradiction there whatsoever?

Robin

16th May 2006, 12:48 PM

That is why Christ repeatedly called for faith. If you don't have it, you simply don't have it.

That doesn't mean that you deny God, and curse Him.

Er... how does doubting Christ's divinity add up to cursing God?
Faked contrition is the best you can muster for your sins?

You're right; it won't be enough.
You know often it helps when you actually deign to read the argument you are commenting on. Helps no end.

No, I said faked contrition is the best I could muster for doubting Christs divinity. I really do doubt it. Now if I was wrong and God asked me I would have to tell the truth and say I really did doubt it. Wouldn't I?

Now you are telling me that in order to gain eternal life I would have to lie to God and say I didn't really doubt it. And that if I told God the truth he would sentence me to eternal torture.

Mind you, as I have said in the past, I don't hold with torture. I would rather have the eternity of torture than etenity in a torturer's spider hole.

YouBelieveWHAT?

16th May 2006, 10:57 PM

CP489

16th May 2006, 11:33 PM

T J Stough did raise an interesting point some posts ago.

Why would God design people to be gay, then condemn them?

It's a similar question as to why would he design all those dinosaurs then kill them off in His great flood? Especially in that case, when it was only His human designs that had pi$$ed Him off.

It seems to me that the God's only motivation is to threaten people in order to make them worship Him, and call it "Free Will". Then, if you pass that test, collect your wings and harp on the left as you enter the pearly gates.

When I read about conditions in and around the Bronze Age, there's constant mentions of famine, high mortality, etc.

Now if God is our father, as the Lord's Prayer tells us, why on earth wasn't he teaching people about stuff like hygiene and irrigation, instead of concentrating on how to prepare slaughtered animals to burn and titillate His nostrils.

A teacher God - now there's a concept that might interest me!

YBW

Why did God create the 99.9% of all species that are now extinct?

On almost every level, for me, God fails as an infinite being. Creator? Flaw after flaw and yet he refuses to radically change the design of any organism. Moral Teacher? His moral ambiguity and condemning of some pretty innocent acts make me recoil, and the morals he did "provide" had already been thought of by "infidels".

But I'm getting off topic, so I'll stop.

Huntster

17th May 2006, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Wrong decisions can get you dead, physically.

Seems out of proportion, yet it's true.
You just haven't thought this whole thing out, have you?...

Not only have I thought the whole thing out, I've also applied RCC doctrine (as it was taught to me, and how I read it in the Catechism myself), and what I've read in the Bible, and what I've experienced in life.

...The supposed attributes of the being under discussion are infinite mercy, infinite justice, infinite love.

Right?...

Right.

Are you focusing on the "infinite mercy", and not giving full consideration to "infinite justice"?

...So the scenario I gave is that somebody is sentenced to eternal torture for admitting they were wrong but not being contrite about it, even if the contrition would have to be dishonest....

Okay. That's the scenario you offer.

That's not the scenario I or the RCC agrees with.

Huntster

17th May 2006, 12:47 PM

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by Huntster :
That is why Christ repeatedly called for faith. If you don't have it, you simply don't have it.

That doesn't mean that you deny God, and curse Him.

Er... how does doubting Christ's divinity add up to cursing God?....

I'm sorry. You may not personally have denied or cursed God. Some on this forum have, and that's what I was writing about.

Faked contrition is the best you can muster for your sins?

You're right; it won't be enough.

You know often it helps when you actually deign to read the argument you are commenting on. Helps no end.

No, I said faked contrition is the best I could muster for doubting Christs divinity. I really do doubt it. Now if I was wrong and God asked me I would have to tell the truth and say I really did doubt it. Wouldn't I?...

Ummmm......yeah; if you're honest.

....Now you are telling me that in order to gain eternal life I would have to lie to God and say I didn't really doubt it. And that if I told God the truth he would sentence me to eternal torture....

No. I'm not sure what will gain one "eternal life". I've read plenty of parables in the New Testament which outline it, but I guess I'm dense. That's why I refer to the theologians of the RCC to "condense" it for me.

This (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#h) seems clear, reasonable, and just:

HELL: The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives (1033).

...Mind you, as I have said in the past, I don't hold with torture. I would rather have the eternity of torture than etenity in a torturer's spider hole..

You may not "hold" with torture, but you sure seem infatuated with it.

If you consider "self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed" to be "torture", than perhaps you'd better ensure that you don't "refuse by your own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of your life".

elliotfc

18th May 2006, 07:39 PM

So anyone who doesn't believe in your preferred mythology is dumb? Ah, the arrogance of the True BelieverTM. :rolleyes:

No. That isn't what I said.

You don't believe. Then you, I guess, pretended to believe. Then you said something about the Dark Lord.

See, a non-believer doesn't have to pretend to believe to make a point. Or say "hail to the Dark Lord". There's the dumbness that I identified, there's no reason to extend it, I would have done so if I wanted to, and I didn't. It's to your discredit that you extended the specific label of "dumb" to your entire self. That's on you, I didn't bring it up.

-Elliot

elliotfc

18th May 2006, 07:41 PM

T J Stough did raise an interesting point some posts ago.

Why would God design people to be gay, then condemn them?

Did God design people to be gay? Has that been assumed to be unassailable dogma to believer and non-believer alike? When did this happen, and why was I not copied on this?

-Elliot

elliotfc

18th May 2006, 07:44 PM

Why did God create the 99.9% of all species that are now extinct?

Assuming that he did...

Why not?

What's wrong with creating species that go extinct? If that's how they were designed, then his design was successful, wasn't it?

Can't a designer do *anything* he wants?

If you want they why, ask God in the next one. All I'll say is.....why not? The ultimate authority can create anything he wants, anyway he wants. That includes creating beings with finite lifespans. Why not? That includes creating species with finite lifespans. Why not? Solar systems with finite lifespans. Why not?

On almost every level, for me, God fails as an infinite being. Creator? Flaw after flaw and yet he refuses to radically change the design of any organism. Moral Teacher? His moral ambiguity and condemning of some pretty innocent acts make me recoil, and the morals he did "provide" had already been thought of by "infidels".

Right. You put God to the test, and God fails your test. Shrug. You're not God.

As for morality, if you see objective morality elsewhere, that's great. Not sure how that works exactly...but whatever. I'm glad you see objective morality, and glad you have an objective moral standard. Please, don't have it any other way, atheist or not.

-Elliot

Huntster

18th May 2006, 09:28 PM

Why did God create the 99.9% of all species that are now extinct?...

How about Him creating a universe that changes as need/conditions require? Climate changes? No problem; some species die out, and others evolve to take their place. Huge meteor smashes into the Earth and totally destroys it? No problem. Bits of the planet, complete with tiny, frozen microgranisms, fly off to smash into other planets, and starting the whole process over again.

Whether you or I like it or not, it's perfect (as the designer sees it).

...On almost every level, for me, God fails as an infinite being. Creator? Flaw after flaw and yet he refuses to radically change the design of any organism....

Oh. You disbelieve and disregard the theory of evolution (science)as well as the spiritual teachings of the Church.

Well, then, I just don't know what to tell you..........

Genesius

19th May 2006, 06:54 AM

No. That isn't what I said.

You don't believe. Then you, I guess, pretended to believe. Then you said something about the Dark Lord.

See, a non-believer doesn't have to pretend to believe to make a point. Or say "hail to the Dark Lord". There's the dumbness that I identified, there's no reason to extend it, I would have done so if I wanted to, and I didn't. It's to your discredit that you extended the specific label of "dumb" to your entire self. That's on you, I didn't bring it up.

-Elliot

Let's have a fun experiment: how much do I have to blaspheme before your "god" strikes me down? It's stormy outside, I'm sure He can bestir Himself long enough to fire off one teeny little lightning bolt.

Conversely, how long do I have to blaspheme before it becomes obvious that "god" is just a figment of your fevered imagination?

I'll just get started while you mull this over. . . <ahem>

God the Father spends his free time hanging around Junior High School girls' locker rooms staring at naked teenagers.

Jesus spent his free time sneaking into fields at night and having sexual congress with sheep.

The Holy Spirit is a rapist for knocking up Mary without her consent.

ceo_esq

19th May 2006, 08:45 AM

The Holy Spirit is a rapist for knocking up Mary without her consent.

I suspect that in most jurisdictions, Ecce ancilla domini, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum would constitute valid consent.

ImaginalDisc

19th May 2006, 08:51 AM

I suspect that in most jurisdictions, Ecce ancilla domini, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum would constitute valid consent.

Why is it called "The Annunciation", rather than "The Question?" No one asked Mary, she was flatly told.

Rape.

CP489

19th May 2006, 08:51 AM

Oh. You disbelieve and disregard the theory of evolution (science)as well as the spiritual teachings of the Church.

Well, then, I just don't know what to tell you..........

Uhhh, no. The theory of evolution is sound, in part, precisely because there is no RADICAL (that's a key word, hence the caps) change between species. Minor changes that adapt them to their surroundings? Sure, and when many build up there appears to be "radical" change, however the DNA structure of all species is remarkably similar.

CplFerro

19th May 2006, 09:18 AM

I suspect that in most jurisdictions, Ecce ancilla domini, fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum would constitute valid consent.

Translation please, herr lawyer? Not all of us are blessed with the Latin tongue.

Cpl Ferro

P.S. And, yes, it was rape. Pedophilic, incestuous rape, at that, given that we are all God's children.

ceo_esq

19th May 2006, 09:24 AM

Why is it called "The Annunciation", rather than "The Question?" No one asked Mary, she was flatly told.

Rape.

No way, counselor. Presence of consent; absence - for that matter - of sexual contact. I suppose for purposes of the story that God foresaw the consensual outcome, perhaps making an interrogatory phrasing moot.

ceo_esq

19th May 2006, 09:29 AM

Translation please, herr lawyer? Not all of us are blessed with the Latin tongue.

"Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word."

What Mary said in response to the angel's prophecy, according to the story in Luke.

P.S. And, yes, it was rape. Pedophilic, incestuous rape, at that, given that we are all God's children.

Gross. Still consensual, but perhaps incestuous in some sense. I see your point.

ImaginalDisc

19th May 2006, 09:30 AM

No way, counselor. Presence of consent; absence - for that matter - of sexual contact. I suppose for purposes of the story that God foresaw the consensual outcome, perhaps making an interrogatory phrasing moot.

You're saying that the imaginary man who lives in the sky's defense is "I could tell she wanted it?"

Huntster

19th May 2006, 10:22 AM

I less than three logic

19th May 2006, 10:38 AM

...The theory of evolution is sound, in part, precisely because there is no RADICAL (that's a key word, hence the caps) change between species. Minor changes that adapt them to their surroundings? Sure, and when many build up there appears to be "radical" change, however the DNA structure of all species is remarkably similar.
So, you don't accept that all physical life on Earth evolved from a beginning point?

That indicates a diversity of life at the beginning, doesn't it?
I don’t think you read what he said correctly. He was saying that a dinosaur didn’t lay an egg that hatched a bird, but that the gradual accumulation of many, many smaller changes can create the radical changes seen between different species. I’m pretty sure that’s what the theory of evolution has always said. It seems to me, that most people that don’t accept evolution have a hopelessly poor understanding of it to begin with. Then base their judgment on that incorrect perception.

ceo_esq

19th May 2006, 10:41 AM

You're saying that the imaginary man who lives in the sky's defense is "I could tell she wanted it?"

Assuming there was any sexual intercourse - and the story does not indicate that there was - his defense is that it was consensual, as she actually made an apparently valid expression of consent. Whether that expression was preceded by a question or not is immaterial to the rape charge,. My speculation about foreknowledge goes merely to explaining why God would confidently announce what he planned to do rather than phrase it as a question.

ImaginalDisc

19th May 2006, 10:45 AM

Assuming there was any sexual intercourse - and the story does not indicate that there was - his defense is that it was consensual, as she actually made an apparently valid expression of consent. Whether that expression was preceded by a question or not is immaterial to the rape charge,. My speculation about foreknowledge goes merely to explaining why God would confidently announce what he planned to do rather than phrase it as a question.

Let's assume she made an expression of consent. This imaginary sky chief is allegedly in charge of the universe. Considering their power relationship, could Mary have refused? Does it not constitute sexual harassment?

Genesius

19th May 2006, 11:28 AM

Is there anything in the Bible or the legends surrounding it that gives an idea how old Mary was at the time in question? Perhaps she was too young to provide informed consent.

ceo_esq

19th May 2006, 11:36 AM

Is there anything in the Bible or the legends surrounding it that gives an idea how old Mary was at the time in question? Perhaps she was too young to provide informed consent.

I don't believe it does say specifically, but I've read scholarly conjectures of 14-17 being the likely age range. She was old enough to contract a marriage, apparently. The Romans of the time regularly consummated premenarchal marriages (11 or 12 years old); I don't really know about the Jews.

ceo_esq

19th May 2006, 11:52 AM

Let's assume she made an expression of consent. This imaginary sky chief is allegedly in charge of the universe. Considering their power relationship, could Mary have refused? Does it not constitute sexual harassment?

There's an idea: God as POTUS; Mary as White House intern.

Seriously, people and entities in the stories, who presumably share a similar power relationship as Mary did with an omnipotent being, do defy God (with varying results), so I daresay she could have withheld her consent. Most people interpret her significance to the story as residing chiefly in her free act of consent, in fact. On the other hand, God could easily have forced himself on Mary for (non-?)sex and she could not have repelled a determined advance. Yet do not people frequently consent freely to sex with partners who could obtain it by forcible compulsion anyway?

ImaginalDisc

19th May 2006, 12:10 PM

TYet do not people frequently consent freely to sex with partners who could obtain it by forcible compulsion anyway?

False analogy. People do do have sex with allegedly infinitely powerful alleged imaginary people every day. The power relationship between the POTUS and an intern, or even between a parent and a dependant child pales before that.

Huntster

19th May 2006, 12:39 PM

I don’t think you read what he said correctly. He was saying that a dinosaur didn’t lay an egg that hatched a bird, but that the gradual accumulation of many, many smaller changes can create the radical changes seen between different species. I’m pretty sure that’s what the theory of evolution has always said.....

That's the way I see it, so perhaps I did misunderstand him.

So, how isn't that a "perfect" design? Why would a radical, instantaneous change for physical beings be required for a deity that lives forever?

Huntster

19th May 2006, 12:43 PM

...Considering their power relationship, could Mary have refused? Does it not constitute sexual harassment?

Is the "sky chief" bound by American civil law?

If so, who will arrest Him? Who will be the presiding judge?

I'm sure you'd like to be on the jury.

If there was no sexual intercourse (which I would think is impossible for a being who isn't physical), has there been "sex"?

Huntster

19th May 2006, 12:45 PM

Is there anything in the Bible or the legends surrounding it that gives an idea how old Mary was at the time in question? Perhaps she was too young to provide informed consent.

Can you define what age was dictated at that time and place at which "informed consent" was established in civil law?

Are you a historian or lawyer?

Huntster

19th May 2006, 12:47 PM

...People do do have sex with allegedly infinitely powerful alleged imaginary people every day.....

Do you have any evidence or proof of that claim?

ImaginalDisc

19th May 2006, 12:50 PM

Do you have any evidence or proof of that claim?

I don't need to prove that people aren't having sex with gods, because no one can prove that gods exist. My statement is exactly as reasonable as saying "people do not have sex with unicorns."

Huntster

19th May 2006, 12:58 PM

I don't need to prove that people aren't having sex with gods, because no one can prove that gods exist. My statement is exactly as reasonable as saying "people do not have sex with unicorns."

That's not the claim I challenged. The claim I challenged is:

People do do have sex with allegedly infinitely powerful alleged imaginary people every day

Now, admittedly, I'm not sure if "do do have sex" is the same as "do have sex".

Genesius

19th May 2006, 01:00 PM

Can you define what age was dictated at that time and place at which "informed consent" was established in civil law?

Are you a historian or lawyer?

No I'm not, which is why I asked the question. If I knew the answer I wouldn't have to ask.

ImaginalDisc

19th May 2006, 01:05 PM

That's not the claim I challenged. The claim I challenged is:

Now, admittedly, I'm not sure if "do do have sex" is the same as "do have sex".

Oh, I didn't notice my typo. It's an error. "People do not have sex with imaginary sky chieftans every day." is more what I meant to type.

Huntster

19th May 2006, 01:13 PM

No I'm not, which is why I asked the question. If I knew the answer I wouldn't have to ask.

Is there anything in the Bible or the legends surrounding it that gives an idea how old Mary was at the time in question? Perhaps she was too young to provide informed consent.

Sorry. You must have left out the question mark in the second sentence.

Huntster

19th May 2006, 01:17 PM

Oh, I didn't notice my typo. It's an error. "People do not have sex with imaginary sky chieftans every day." is more what I meant to type.

Sorry. Thanks for the clarification.

I less than three logic

19th May 2006, 01:22 PM

That's the way I see it, so perhaps I did misunderstand him.

So, how isn't that a "perfect" design?
I don’t see how it constitutes a “perfect” design. I don’t see how it implies any design at all. It’s just what happens as life struggles to survive against the complex interactions between matter and energy, bound by physical laws, that we call nature.

Why would a radical, instantaneous change for physical beings be required for a deity that lives forever?
It wouldn’t be required. Sure would make it easier to prove an omnipotent being existed though. Still, the absence of such radical changes doesn’t provide any evidence against the existence of such a being, but it certainly doesn’t provide any evidence supporting one either.

ceo_esq

19th May 2006, 01:30 PM

False analogy. People do do have sex with allegedly infinitely powerful alleged imaginary people every day. The power relationship between the POTUS and an intern, or even between a parent and a dependant child pales before that.

All analogies are false in some sense, but technically I was not making one (ETA: not counting that throwaway comment about Bill and Monica - I assume you're referring to the rest of the post). I was simply latching on to the aspect of the situation that, based on your query "Could Mary have refused?", you seemed to consider most relevant. (I took your query to mean "could Mary have made an effective refusal" in the sense of whether God's practical ability to carry out his plan depended upon her consent.) I think the answer is no, and therefore the God-Mary relationship is a member of the set of scenarios in which one partner would be unable to prevent the other carrying out a sexual aggression. On that basis, the relationship among the members of that set is not a merely analogical one.

But perhaps I misread you; perhaps you think that the property just defined is not the relevant consideration. What did you have in mind? What, over and above God's (undisputed, but not unique to God) ability to have his way with a woman even absent her consent, is the uniquely relevant consideration arising from his being (in the story) the Almighty?

ImaginalDisc

19th May 2006, 01:32 PM

All analogies are false in some sense, but technically I was not making one. I was simply latching on to the aspect of the situation that, based on your query "Could Mary have refused?", you seemed to consider most relevant. (I took your query to mean "could Mary have made an effective refusal" in the sense of whether God's practical ability to carry out his plan depended upon her consent.) I think the answer is no, and therefore the God-Mary relationship is a member of the set of scenarios in which one partner would be unable to prevent the other carrying out a sexual aggression. On that basis, the relationship among the members of that set is not a merely analogical one.

But perhaps I misread you; perhaps you think that the property just defined is not the relevant consideration. What did you have in mind? What, over and above God's (undisputed, but not unique to God) ability to have his way with a woman even absent her consent, is the uniquely relevant consideration arising from his being (in the story) the Almighty?

It constitutes sexual harassment. We're talking about sexual congress between a young woman, and the allegedly omnipotent creator of the universe. If we accept that it is inappropriate for a employer to make advances on an employee, then it floows that it is inappropriate for a deity to make advances on a human.

ceo_esq

19th May 2006, 02:12 PM

It constitutes sexual harassment. We're talking about sexual congress between a young woman, and the allegedly omnipotent creator of the universe. If we accept that it is inappropriate for a employer to make advances on an employee, then it floows that it is inappropriate for a deity to make advances on a human.

(As an aside, it's not clear that we are talking about sexual congress. We probably aren't; that's one of the more distinctive features of this legend.)

I appreciate your opinion on what constitutes sexual harassment. But even in the workplace, an advance must be unwelcome to be harassing. Even if we were, improbably, going to apply EEOC standards in the context of Luke 1, we'd presumably want to preserve that key part of the law.

Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.

...

My soul doth magnify the Lord,

And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name.

Good-bye, Title VII case.

ceo_esq

19th May 2006, 02:29 PM

[delete double post]

19th May 2006, 02:53 PM

Did God design people to be gay? Has that been assumed to be unassailable dogma to believer and non-believer alike? When did this happen, and why was I not copied on this?

-Elliot

Is it your contention then that homosexuality is completely voluntary and god had nothing to do with it? That there is no genetic component for it?

ceo_esq

19th May 2006, 03:04 PM

Is it your contention then that homosexuality is completely voluntary and god had nothing to do with it? That there is no genetic component for it?

I don't wish to speak for elliotfc, but think his sole contention there was that the contrary cannot confidently be assumed.

CP489

20th May 2006, 12:30 AM

I don’t think you read what he said correctly. He was saying that a dinosaur didn’t lay an egg that hatched a bird, but that the gradual accumulation of many, many smaller changes can create the radical changes seen between different species. I’m pretty sure that’s what the theory of evolution has always said. It seems to me, that most people that don’t accept evolution have a hopelessly poor understanding of it to begin with. Then base their judgment on that incorrect perception.

Thanks, that is what I was trying to say, I did a poor job of it.

Polaris

20th May 2006, 10:49 AM

Alas, the Founding Fathers neglected to include the "right to not be offended" in the Bill of Rights. Guess you'll just have to freakin' grow up and stop whining.

They've found an alternative: raise enough unthinking drone children to affect policy.

Polaris

20th May 2006, 10:53 AM

ImaginalDisc

20th May 2006, 01:22 PM

But even in the workplace, an advance must be unwelcome to be harassing.

Not in my work place.

ceo_esq

20th May 2006, 01:30 PM

Not in my work place.

I'm telling you what the law of the land is (including in your workplace, if you work in the United States). I cannot speak as to other definitions of "harrassing".

ImaginalDisc

20th May 2006, 01:33 PM

I'm telling you what the law of the land is (including in your workplace, if you work in the United States). I cannot speak as to other definitions of "harrassing".

My location is "Miami Beach, Fl", so yes, it would logically follow that I work in the United States. My workplace follows stricter policies regarding EEOC. For example, discrimination based on sexual orientation is expressly prohibited, and EEOC director made our zero tolerance policy quite clear in a workshop a few years ago.

ceo_esq

20th May 2006, 01:42 PM

My location is "Miami Beach, Fl", so yes, it would logically follow that I work in the United States. My workplace follows stricter policies regarding EEOC. For example, discrimination based on sexual orientation is expressly prohibited, and EEOC director made our zero tolerance policy quite clear in a workshop a few years ago.

Title VII already covers same-sex harassment, though. And if your employer has a policy that prohibits conduct that does not violate sexual harassment laws by virtue of not being unwelcome, that's a private matter. It's certainly not a generally shared view, however. To return us to the matter of Luke 1, if God would have run afoul of your office policy but not of the logic underlying sexual harassment statutes and regulations of general applicability, why are you insisting that the conduct amounts to sexual harassment (as that term is customarily understood)?

Huntster

20th May 2006, 03:10 PM

...My workplace follows stricter policies regarding EEOC. For example, discrimination based on sexual orientation is expressly prohibited, and EEOC director made our zero tolerance policy quite clear in a workshop a few years ago.

Is God employed at your workplace?

If so, and your workplace policy is stricter than federal and state law, than God might have violated your workplace policy, and might be fired.

That is, if your workplace has a "statute of limitations" that runs, oh, 2,000 years..........

ImaginalDisc

21st May 2006, 08:43 PM

Title VII already covers same-sex harassment, though.

I wasn't refering to same sex harassment, I was simply pointing out that different employers have different EOOC standards.

ceo_esq

21st May 2006, 10:22 PM

I wasn't refering to same sex harassment, I was simply pointing out that different employers have different EOOC standards.

Technically, EEOC standards are only those duly adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and published in the Federal Register (though strictly speaking, certain of these may apply only to some employers rather than all). What you seem to be pointing out is that employers may privately adopt workplace anti-discrimination standards that go beyond what is required under the statutory and regulatory regime. Still, I don't see how this responds to my previous query, which was:

To return us to the matter of Luke 1, if God would have run afoul of your office policy but not of the logic underlying sexual harassment statutes and regulations of general applicability, why are you insisting that the conduct amounts to sexual harassment (as that term is customarily understood)?

Robin

22nd May 2006, 05:40 AM

Okay. That's the scenario you offer.

That's not the scenario I or the RCC agrees with.
And yet when I originally posed this scenario you appeared to believe it to be just. Hence this present exchange.
This seems clear, reasonable, and just:

HELL: The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives (1033).
Yes, only a Christian could find the expression "...refuse of their own free choice to believe..." clear and reasonable.

Of course if there was such a thing as sincere disbelief (or sincere belief in another religion) the whole basis of Christian faith would crumble. So I suppose it is best for you guys to avoid that subject.

But are you telling me that the RCC have finally dropped the "pain of sense" from their Hell doctrine? In Aquinas day they had no place for such PC spin doctoring like the catechism you quoted, Hell was a place of real physical pain. But in Aquinas day torture was also regarded as acceptable.

These days the Church has to keep up with modern secular morality where inflicting pain as punishment is considered absolutely immoral. So Hell has been renovated using words like "self-exclusion" and "free choice", and the language of the Bible now held to be symbolic.

There appear to be some hold outs, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia:
The poena sensus, or pain of sense, consists in the torment of fire so frequently mentioned in the Holy Bible. According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct.
And Catholic bookstores still sell books extolling the traditional Catholic view of Hell, such as the Garrigou-Lagrange book I mentioned earlier.

And finally, Jesus seems to have no time for talking of "self-exclusion". He outright calls it "eternal punishement". He should have had the benefit of your catechism.

Huntster

22nd May 2006, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Okay. That's the scenario you offer.

That's not the scenario I or the RCC agrees with.

And yet when I originally posed this scenario you appeared to believe it to be just. Hence this present exchange.

This seems clear, reasonable, and just:

HELL: The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives (1033).

Yes, only a Christian could find the expression "...refuse of their own free choice to believe..." clear and reasonable....

What do you find not clear about that definition of Hell?

As for reasonable, why is it unreasonable for a soul "who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives" to be sent to "the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed"? It hasn't been chosen by God. It has been chosen by that particular soul.

...Of course if there was such a thing as sincere disbelief (or sincere belief in another religion) the whole basis of Christian faith would crumble. So I suppose it is best for you guys to avoid that subject....

Of course there is "such a thing as sincere disbelief". Many on this forum demonstrate that.

It certainly doesn't crumble the basis of Christian faith, because there are plenty of Christians out there who possess and feed their sincere faith.

...But are you telling me that the RCC have finally dropped the "pain of sense" from their Hell doctrine?...

"Finally"? Did it occur to you that you haven't been aware of true RCC doctrine, and are still clinging to 1,000 year old beliefs and parables?

...In Aquinas day they had no place for such PC spin doctoring like the catechism you quoted, Hell was a place of real physical pain. But in Aquinas day torture was also regarded as acceptable....

Aquinas' day was 750 years ago.

Isn't the RCC permitted to learn and evolve with the rest of the planet?

...These days the Church has to keep up with modern secular morality where inflicting pain as punishment is considered absolutely immoral. So Hell has been renovated using words like "self-exclusion" and "free choice", and the language of the Bible now held to be symbolic....

Again, since after one dies and the spirit leaves the physical body, doesn't physical pain become impossible?

...There appear to be some hold outs, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The poena sensus, or pain of sense, consists in the torment of fire so frequently mentioned in the Holy Bible. According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct....

And the rest of that quote:

The poena sensus, or pain of sense, consists in the torment of fire so frequently mentioned in the Holy Bible. According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct. However, we must not forget two things: from Catharinus (d. 1553) to our times there have never been wanting theologians who interpret the Scriptural term fire metaphorically, as denoting an incorporeal fire; and secondly, thus far the Church has not censured their opinion. Some few of the Fathers also thought of a metaphorical explanation. Nevertheless, Scripture and tradition speak again and again of the fire of hell, and there is no sufficient reason for taking the term as a mere metaphor. It is urged: How can a material fire torment demons, or human souls before the resurrection of the body? But, if our soul is so joined to the body as to be keenly sensitive to the pain of fire, why should the omnipotent God be unable to bind even pure spirits to some material substance in such a manner that they suffer a torment more or less similar to the pain of fire which the soul can feel on earth? The reply indicates, as far as possible, how we may form an idea of the pain of fire which the demons suffer. Theologians have elaborated various theories on this subject, which, however, we do not wish to detail here (cf. the very minute study by Franz Schmid, "Quaestiones selectae ex theol. dogm.", Paderborn, 1891, q. iii; also Guthberlet, "Die poena sensus" in "Katholik", II, 1901, 305 sqq., 385 sqq.).

As can be read, the Church has not come to an ultimate decision on the question. Like science, it refrains from making statements until it feels it has enough information to make that statement.

elliotfc

22nd May 2006, 09:18 PM

Let's have a fun experiment: how much do I have to blaspheme before your "god" strikes me down? It's stormy outside, I'm sure He can bestir Himself long enough to fire off one teeny little lightning bolt.

Again, you're putting God to the test! If God doesn't play your silly game, you have this little triumph you can brag to your friends about. It doesn't mean anything to me.

Conversely, how long do I have to blaspheme before it becomes obvious that "god" is just a figment of your fevered imagination?

Until you no longer are able to, how about that? Until your lifespan is over, in which case you will have wasted a lot of time getting yourself off, and when you're dead, it just won't matter anymore, will it? If it even mattered at all in the first place.

Knock yerself out, I'm glad you're amusing yourself. Gotta get through life somehow.

-Elliot

elliotfc

22nd May 2006, 09:24 PM

Is it your contention then that homosexuality is completely voluntary and god had nothing to do with it? That there is no genetic component for it?

No.

Is sexual desire voluntary. I don't know. Let's say it isn't. That goes for heterosexual desire. Homosexual desire. Autosexual desire. Desire for animals. Desire for appliances.

Does God have anything to do with sexual desire? The Christian understanding is that the *normal* state is heterosexual desire. This would be related to the normal state of vision being 20/20, the normal number of fingers being 10. This suggests that there *may* be a genetic compontent to it, although I don't know for certain, nor does anyone else.

I do believe that all actions are voluntary.

Edited to add that I don't think that God "created" homosexuality...I think that God created sexuality as a way of propagating life, sexual desire being a component of this...and obviously homosexuality doesn't propagate life...it is a desire that falls short of the mark, like how many other human non-sexual desires?

I have no reason to condemn homosexuals. In my opinion, adultery is 817.273 times worse than a chaste homosexual relationship (yes, I recognize that by Christian definition a homosexual relationship cannot be chaste), I may be a bit off with my calculations.

-Elliot

ImaginalDisc

22nd May 2006, 09:50 PM

Technically, EEOC standards are only those duly adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and published in the Federal Register (though strictly speaking, certain of these may apply only to some employers rather than all). What you seem to be pointing out is that employers may privately adopt workplace anti-discrimination standards that go beyond what is required under the statutory and regulatory regime. Still, I don't see how this responds to my previous query, which was:

ceo, there is a profoundly different power level here. It's wrogn for a father to sexually approach their own child, and it's wrong for a teacher to put the moves on a student. Likewise, it's wrong for an allegedly omnipotent god to put the moves on a teenage girl.

Robin

24th May 2006, 05:39 AM

What do you find not clear about that definition of Hell?
Because, as I explained it is impossible to choose to believe or disbelieve of your own free will. Clearly. Try it. Try sincerely believing that the moon is made of purple marshmallow. Can you do it?

If you don't believe something you might be convinced otherwise by evidence, but you can't simply choose to believe.
As for reasonable, why is it unreasonable for a soul "who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives" to be sent to "the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed"? It hasn't been chosen by God. It has been chosen by that particular soul.
Well as I have been explaining "refuse by their own free choice to believe" is quite simply a meaningless statement.

You cannot base a meaningful definition of Hell out of a meaningless statement.

But are you are saying that Hell will be something that I would choose? Endless summers on a 12 Ft skiff on Sydney Harbour, the perfect library, Ronaks restaurant? That sort of thing? Or is there some implication that Hell would be unpleasant? Even for someone who thinks that communing with God and the Blessed does not sound like a barrel of monkeys?

You see it has nothing to do with choice if Hell is some unpleasant alternative. Like saying "do as I say or I will lock you in the cupboard". That would not be offering a free choice, that would be a forced choice.
Of course there is "such a thing as sincere disbelief". Many on this forum demonstrate that.
So a sincere disbeliever has "chosen" not to believe? If so that is not sincere. A sincere disbeliever would have considered the question and be unable to believe.
It certainly doesn't crumble the basis of Christian faith, because there are plenty of Christians out there who possess and feed their sincere faith.
It certainly knocks that stupid definition of Hell that you quoted for six.
"Finally"? Did it occur to you that you haven't been aware of true RCC doctrine, and are still clinging to 1,000 year old beliefs and parables?
Which is why I quoted more recent sources. I was recommended two books on Catholic beliefs by the local church. Both called Hell a punishment. Both mentioned the pain of sense as Catholic doctrine.
Aquinas' day was 750 years ago.
I agree he is out of date.
Isn't the RCC permitted to learn and evolve with the rest of the planet?
Absolutely, I welcome the doctrine of Hell being brought into line with modern secular morality. It still does not make sense as I have shown.
Again, since after one dies and the spirit leaves the physical body, doesn't physical pain become impossible?
It was not I, but the RCC that proposed the pain of sense in the first place.

There is of course a great deal about Christian belief that makes no sense.
As can be read, the Church has not come to an ultimate decision on the question. Like science, it refrains from making statements until it feels it has enough information to make that statement.
Would it were true.

Robin

24th May 2006, 06:11 AM

[quote]Again, since after one dies and the spirit leaves the physical body, doesn't physical pain become impossible?
Another thing you have overlooked about this is that metaphors are normally chosen for their similarity to the thing they are describing.

So if Hell were not torture then why would the scriptures use a metaphor of torture?

elliotfc

24th May 2006, 06:38 AM

[QUOTE=Huntster;1654060]
Another thing you have overlooked about this is that metaphors are normally chosen for their similarity to the thing they are describing.

So if Hell were not torture then why would the scriptures use a metaphor of torture?

To make the intangible, tangible.

In relating the *theolgoical concept* of hell, you're delivering it from people of a different background than ourselves. Who lived in a different world. Gehenna then became something they could relate to.

Another way of looking at it...why *not* use a metaphor of torture. At the most basic the theology is this. Hell=reallyreallyreallybad. How do you explain that, metaphorically? Well, they did a hella job doing it with torture, didn't they? Such a good job that most atheists...well, maybe not obsess about it...but are more into the descriptions of hell then the average Christian that I know. So they succeeded. Can we agree that hell is really really really bad? Sure, you seem to understand that quite well.

Hell is the worst possible state to be in. Separation from God is the absolute pits. How can that be gotten through to people? Really visual imagery is one way. If that ain't for you, we can stick to the theological theoretical, OK? Theological metaphors are often a poor substitute for objective reality, whatever that is, but we do the best we can.

If someone *does* believe that hell is torture (which it may actually be...or it may be torture for some, and not for others...I can ramble on about this if you'd like!), and this helps them want to reject the possibility of ever being eternally separated from God...well, that's great! What's wrong with that?

-Elliot

Huntster

24th May 2006, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
What do you find not clear about that definition of Hell?

Because, as I explained it is impossible to choose to believe or disbelieve of your own free will. Clearly. Try it. Try sincerely believing that the moon is made of purple marshmallow. Can you do it?...

Of course not. Man has been to the moon. Even before that, we knew the ingredients and manufacturing process to make purple marshmellow.

God? We cannot "know" unless He reveals it. One must believe, or reject, neither "knowing: for sure.

...As for reasonable, why is it unreasonable for a soul "who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives" to be sent to "the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed"? It hasn't been chosen by God. It has been chosen by that particular soul.....

Well as I have been explaining "refuse by their own free choice to believe" is quite simply a meaningless statement.

You cannot base a meaningful definition of Hell out of a meaningless statement.

That is your belief. It is not mine.

...But are you are saying that Hell will be something that I would choose? Endless summers on a 12 Ft skiff on Sydney Harbour, the perfect library, Ronaks restaurant? That sort of thing?...

No. You choose whether or not to believe and be converted. Therefore, after death, you get exclusion. You have chosen it.

...Or is there some implication that Hell would be unpleasant? Even for someone who thinks that communing with God and the Blessed does not sound like a barrel of monkeys?...

It sounds unpleasant to those of us who have chosen communion with God and the blessed. If you think communion with God and the blessed isn't a bed of roses, and you choose otherwise, you might very well be elated with exclusion from those who you do not like.

...You see it has nothing to do with choice if Hell is some unpleasant alternative. Like saying "do as I say or I will lock you in the cupboard". That would not be offering a free choice, that would be a forced choice....

So, lets see..............

You want to vociferously deny God your whole life, then after death, when you stand naked before Him, you want to chide Him for not providing you with proof of His existence your whole life, and demand communion with Him then?

Robin

24th May 2006, 11:20 AM

Can we agree that hell is really really really bad?
Right. Not torture. Just really really really bad. Very well. If that makes you think the doctrine is somehow defensible.
Of course not. Man has been to the moon. Even before that, we knew the ingredients and manufacturing process to make purple marshmellow.
Hmm... you seem incapable of even attempting to address the point. Could you, then, just for the sake of experiment, choose to sincerely believe that Mohammed is God's last true prophet and that all who do not follow the strictures of the Koran will go to hell?

If you cannot choose to believe this, then what makes you think others can choose to believe something they don't?
God? We cannot "know" unless He reveals it. One must believe, or reject, neither "knowing: for sure.
Well we never know anything for sure. Again, how do you believe something you don't.
That is your belief. It is not mine.
Nope. That is my experience. I could not believe this if I tried with every fibre of my existence. There is just no evidence. The thing does not make sense. So I know that the phrase "refuse of their own free will to believe" does not make sense in my case. It is not reasonable to suppose that I have a completely unique mind so I must conclude that this is true of most if not all human beings.
So, lets see..............

You want to vociferously deny God your whole life, then after death, when you stand naked before Him, you want to chide Him for not providing you with proof of His existence your whole life, and demand communion with Him then?
As I just said (and please try to pay attention), I don't really have an interest in communing with the RCC version of God, whatever that might mean.

Should I turn out to be wrong and I stand naked before God and he says that I have to be subjected to eternity of, (now let's see, how do you like to describe it?) reallyreallyreallybad stuff because I didn't accept the sacrifice of his son, or I didn't follow the strictures of his last Prophet Mohammed or some other damn thing then it probably wouldn't be worthwhile chiding him for not providing evidence of his existence, and the alternative would probably be better than communing with such a creature.

Actually if there is a God and afterlife then he will probably be nothing like any of you have ever imagined, so you guys are going to have just as shocked a look as we atheists.

Huntster

24th May 2006, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Can we agree that hell is really really really bad?

Right. Not torture. Just really really really bad. Very well. If that makes you think the doctrine is somehow defensible....

I don't need to "defend" it. It's not my responsiblity, and I don't have authority.

[QUOTE][QUOTE]Of course not. Man has been to the moon. Even before that, we knew the ingredients and manufacturing process to make purple marshmellow.

Hmm... you seem incapable of even attempting to address the point.

I'm addressing the points you are bringing up.

...Could you, then, just for the sake of experiment, choose to sincerely believe that Mohammed is God's last true prophet and that all who do not follow the strictures of the Koran will go to hell?...

No, because I don't believe that Muhammed is God's last true prophet.

...If you cannot choose to believe this, then what makes you think others can choose to believe something they don't?...

I don't. Not all can be saved: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew13.htm)

And he spoke to them at length in parables, saying: "A sower went out to sow. And as he sowed, some seed fell on the path, and birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky ground, where it had little soil. It sprang up at once because the soil was not deep, and when the sun rose it was scorched, and it withered for lack of roots. Some seed fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked it. But some seed fell on rich soil, and produced fruit, a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold. Whoever has ears ought to hear." The disciples approached him and said, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" He said to them in reply, "Because knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven has been granted to you, but to them it has not been granted. To anyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; from anyone who has not, even what he has will be taken away.

Matthew 13:3-12

So, lets see..............

You want to vociferously deny God your whole life, then after death, when you stand naked before Him, you want to chide Him for not providing you with proof of His existence your whole life, and demand communion with Him then?

As I just said (and please try to pay attention), I don't really have an interest in communing with the RCC version of God, whatever that might mean.

Okay. That's what I've been writing.

Since you don't have an interest in communing with God, you shall get your wish; you will be self-excluded.

Suzan

24th May 2006, 05:27 PM

I came here a few days ago, and wanted to put in my two cents on the blasphemy topic. It took me so long to get registered that by the time I was able you almost left the subject, but I will post what I've got nonetheless.

I read awhile back in this thread the question of blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. And I believe I may have the answer/opinion to the question.
A very long time ago I asked the same question, and the answer was way simpler then I had imagined.
The reason that to blasphemy the H.G. is unforgivable is because you cannot very well accept into your life something that you say does not exist (by damning it or saying it isn't there). If you say it does not exist for you, then you cannot very well be forgiven by it, nor accepted into eternity with something you say is non existent.

Huntster

24th May 2006, 05:42 PM

....The reason that to blasphemy the H.G. is unforgivable is because you cannot very well accept into your life something that you say does not exist (by damning it or saying it isn't there). If you say it does not exist for you, then you cannot very well be forgiven by it, nor accepted into eternity with something you say is non existent.

That's very similar to this: (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#h)

HELL:
The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives

Suzan

24th May 2006, 05:54 PM

Yes, that would be correct. Unless of course a person falls under grace and was not afforded the opportunity to know they had a choice (through geographical location or a physical limitation).

But, yes to flatly know your choices, and deny, or not accept, or rebuke the H.G. would mean.... Hell bent. :(

elliotfc

24th May 2006, 07:23 PM

Right. Not torture. Just really really really bad. Very well. If that makes you think the doctrine is somehow defensible.

Maybe you can restate this. The way I read it...it seems to suggest that *torture* is different from really really really bad. Why? Is torture *not* really really really bad? Or, does it deserve 9 reallys, instead of 3 reallys?

I'm trying to separate the doctrine from the metaphors in play. Do you think this is possible...or...is the doctrince contingent on the metaphors in play? I'm suspecting you think that the metaphors came before the doctrine. If you do, *so do I*. Yes, the metahpors came first. Jesus wasn't about establishing doctrine. Take the Nicene Creed. How much of that explicity came from the gospels?

I can understand that someone from the outside could poo-poo the doctrine because they don't see it in the Bible. Three things about that....

1) that would go for the *majority* of articulated church doctrine
2) why should anyone limit their belief to what is explicity said in the Bible? Isn't that a form of fundamentalist (a reverse form...as you're probably opposed to the fundamentalisism...yet you would expect that from Christians who *aren't* fundamentalists!)
3) what is in the Bible *ought* to be viewed as an...immature...theology. New ideas being introduced in the easiest possible way. Tangible imagery that people can sink their teeth into. Theology can follow after that imagery has taken hold.

-Elliot

ceo_esq

24th May 2006, 10:32 PM

ceo, there is a profoundly different power level here. It's wrogn for a father to sexually approach their own child, and it's wrong for a teacher to put the moves on a student. Likewise, it's wrong for an allegedly omnipotent god to put the moves on a teenage girl.

Leaving aside for the moment that this story does not relate that God "put the moves" on Mary, I explained that a "different power level" is not dispositive of the sexual harassment question. Although it is now unclear whether you have retreated from that specific (and indefensible) position to a more vague charge that the conduct in question is simply "wrong".

If relative power made all the difference, stories of romances between princes and peasants would enjoy far less sympathy than they actually do. And frankly, serious engagement of any sort between an omnipotent God and his creatures would take on a distinctly problematic dimension. At any rate, I find your take on this to be unusual, and wonder if it is not unduly influenced by some general antipathy toward the notion of the God of the Gospels.

I just don't think you can nail the big guy on any kind of sexual misconduct. On the other hand, I've noticed that that wire fraud and tax evasion are sometimes fruitful alternatives for the grudge-bearing prosecutor. That, however, will have to be for another discussion.

ImaginalDisc

25th May 2006, 08:14 AM

And frankly, serious engagement of any sort between an omnipotent God and his creatures would take on a distinctly problematic dimension.

Thank you, yes. That is exactly my point. The omnipotent creator of the universe ought not to be getting it on with ignorant mortals.

ceo_esq

25th May 2006, 09:29 AM

Thank you, yes. That is exactly my point. The omnipotent creator of the universe ought not to be getting it on with ignorant mortals.

I wasn't referring to sexual relations (the fact that Mary and God don't have them is, as I mentioned earlier, one of the more exceptional and distinctive features of the myth of the Incarnation). I meant any kind of relations between a creator and his creation would become problematic - if, that is, your take on the balance-of-power issue were justified, and I think few people would agree that it is. In any event, within the context of the story, we are led to believe that Mary's fiat (no car jokes please) was freely and knowingly given. As a free being, she had the power, in principle, to withhold it. That seems to me to be the most pertinent and important issue of "power" in all this.

ImaginalDisc

25th May 2006, 09:34 AM

I wasn't referring to sexual relations (the fact that Mary and God don't have them is, as I mentioned earlier, one of the more exceptional and distinctive features of the myth of the Incarnation). I meant any kind of relations between a creator and his creation would become problematic - if, that is, your take on the balance-of-power issue were justified...

You keep making my points for me. How can an allegedly omnipotent deity be justified in manipulating vastly inferior beings to their own detriment. How can he justify hatching an elaborate scheme to kill his own child to save his own creations from his own wrath?

Huntster

25th May 2006, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by ceo_esq :
And frankly, serious engagement of any sort between an omnipotent God and his creatures would take on a distinctly problematic dimension.
Thank you, yes. That is exactly my point. The omnipotent creator of the universe ought not to be getting it on with ignorant mortals.

That is unless, of course, the omnipotent creator of the universe specifically wanted to become human in order to live, teach, and die as a human.

The best teachers get down into the work with their students............

Huntster

25th May 2006, 10:49 AM

....How can he justify hatching an elaborate scheme to kill his own child to save his own creations from his own wrath?

God didn't kill Christ. The political powers at that time and place put Him to death.

ImaginalDisc

25th May 2006, 10:51 AM

God didn't kill Christ. The political powers at that time and place put Him to death.

That doesn;t sound terribly omnipoten. Wouldn't an omnipotent being be able to come up with a more convincing book that the bible, and a more compelling story than one of a street preacher who gets killed for makin' a rukus?

Huntster

25th May 2006, 10:56 AM

That doesn;t sound terribly omnipoten. Wouldn't an omnipotent being be able to come up with a more convincing book that the bible, and a more compelling story than one of a street preacher who gets killed for makin' a rukus?

That defeats the purpose of "free choice" and "faith", doesn't it?

Did it occur to you that this life may be one of learning and developing spiritual virtues like faith, which are more central to spiritual life when the physical life ends?

ceo_esq

25th May 2006, 12:09 PM

You keep making my points for me. How can an allegedly omnipotent deity be justified in manipulating vastly inferior beings to their own detriment. How can he justify hatching an elaborate scheme to kill his own child to save his own creations from his own wrath?

If you think my point, er, pointed to this, then you didn't understand mine. It seems to me that anyone without some underlying subjective interest in denying it ought to be able to acknowledge that the story of the Incarnation is not the story of human beings being manipulated to their own detriment. As for your last query regarding essentially (if I understood correctly) the doctrine of the Atonement, that seems to go substantially beyond the scope of what we were talking about. Accordingly, I will not devote much space to it here except to note a couple of points by reference to the old Catholic Encyclopedia article (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm) on that topic. The article contains an interesting overview of the subject, and several things emerge from it.

First of all, it would appear that although the dogma that Jesus died for the sins of the world - a relatively simple proposition taken as a matter of revelation - has always been agreed, how that actually works is deemed a capital-M Mystery, and theologians haven't always seen eye-to-eye on specific explanations, none of which rise to the level of doctrine. In the encyclopedia's historical treatment, special attention is paid to Anselm's theological theory on the subject:

No sin ... can be forgiven without satisfaction. A debt to Divine justice has been incurred; and that debt must needs be paid. But man could not make this satisfaction for himself; the debt is something far greater than he can pay; and, moreover, all the service that he can offer to God is already due on other titles. The suggestion that some innocent man, or angel, might possibly pay the debt incurred by sinners is rejected, on the ground that in any case this would put the sinner under obligation to his deliverer, and he would thus become the servant of a mere creature. The only way in which the satisfaction could be made, and men could be set free from sin, was by the coming of a Redeemer who is both God and man. His death makes full satisfaction to the Divine Justice, for it is something greater than all the sins of all mankind.

Atonement theology seems to have been an area of intense activity, and I do not have the intellectual background to pursue it very far, so I leave it to your independent study; that article is probably neither more nor less than a good starting point. However, I will note that the article points out two conceptual mistakes to which I suspect you may (based on your description of this as God's "kill[ing] his own child to save his own creations from his own wrath") have fallen prey in terms of understanding the doctrine. The first arises from the notion that "the Atonement ... is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God"; the second has to do with "the tendency to treat the Passion of Christ as being literally a case of vicarious punishment".

At any rate, all very interesting, but a bit far afield from our discussion of sexual harassment.

ceo_esq

25th May 2006, 12:14 PM

That doesn;t sound terribly omnipoten.

If omnipotence implies the capacity to realize any possible scenario, in what way can the realization of one scenario sound more or less "omnipotent" than the realization of another scenario?

elliotfc

25th May 2006, 06:42 PM

You keep making my points for me. How can an allegedly omnipotent deity be justified in manipulating vastly inferior beings to their own detriment.

To their own detriment? Are you talking about the Annunciation?

How can he justify hatching an elaborate scheme to kill his own child to save his own creations from his own wrath?

Other people killed his child (it's in the Bible), and we are saved from ourselves and from evil when we except Christ. -Elliot

elliotfc

25th May 2006, 06:46 PM

That doesn;t sound terribly omnipoten. Wouldn't an omnipotent being be able to come up with a more convincing book that the bible, and a more compelling story than one of a street preacher who gets killed for makin' a rukus?

An omnipotent being could do anything I suppose. And omnipotent being doesn't *have* to do anything we can come up with. Part of being potent is choosing what to do, and what not to do. An omnipotent being would not be limited by what he could do...but he could still do whatever he wants, and not to whatever he doesn't want to do.

At some level this is completely elementary to me...this is one of the general points that I'm surprised atheists are so adamant about. Why does God have to act in the way that we say he ought to act?

-Elliot

elliotfc

25th May 2006, 06:48 PM

If omnipotence implies the capacity to realize any possible scenario, in what way can the realization of one scenario sound more or less "omnipotent" than the realization of another scenario?

Wow, you had already said what I tried to say, nice one. -Elliot

Outhere

25th May 2006, 07:15 PM

If this discussion goes on much longer, we'll be rehashing the old controversies that split the Eastern Orthodox from the Catholic Church.

Early churchmen had too much time on their hands and wondered too much about the Holy Trinity being one God, Divine in Nature, but in Three Persons; Jesus being Two Natures in One Person; and the other philosophical concepts that have no real meaning now. Like the difference between accidents and substance which explains how the Host becomes the body and blood of Christ while retaining the appearance of bread.

All this sounds kind of silly to me now, though I spent many years puzzling it out.

elliotfc

26th May 2006, 04:37 AM

ImaginalDisc

26th May 2006, 08:25 AM

That defeats the purpose of "free choice" and "faith", doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. An omnipotent being can reconcile free will with salvation, religion, and salami for all I know. If a being is omnipotent, then it can do anything. As far as I can tell, if such a being does exist, it's cutting corners.

Huntster

26th May 2006, 10:15 AM

...An omnipotent being can reconcile free will with salvation, religion, and salami for all I know. If a being is omnipotent, then it can do anything......

That includes doing it in ways that you may not understand or agree with.

Robin

26th May 2006, 10:52 AM

Maybe you can restate this. The way I read it...it seems to suggest that *torture* is different from really really really bad. Why? Is torture *not* really really really bad? Or, does it deserve 9 reallys, instead of 3 reallys?
No, I think that reallyreallyreally bad inflicted on someone for punishment counts as torture. The tone was meant to be ironic.

Huntster was the one suggesting that torture was different from really really really bad, so you should take it up with him.
I'm trying to separate the doctrine from the metaphors in play. Do you think this is possible...or...is the doctrince contingent on the metaphors in play? I'm suspecting you think that the metaphors came before the doctrine. If you do, *so do I*. Yes, the metahpors came first. Jesus wasn't about establishing doctrine. Take the Nicene Creed. How much of that explicity came from the gospels?
I don't think they were intended as metaphors. I don't think that people thought that much about the difference between physical bodies and spiritual existence. I think they were meant as scary punishments for sinners. Punishment is the word Jesus uses in the Gospels.

A majority of the most important Church theologists appear to have agreed with me.
I can understand that someone from the outside could poo-poo the doctrine because they don't see it in the Bible. Three things about that....

1) that would go for the *majority* of articulated church doctrine
2) why should anyone limit their belief to what is explicity said in the Bible? Isn't that a form of fundamentalist (a reverse form...as you're probably opposed to the fundamentalisism...yet you would expect that from Christians who *aren't* fundamentalists!)
3) what is in the Bible *ought* to be viewed as an...immature...theology. New ideas being introduced in the easiest possible way. Tangible imagery that people can sink their teeth into. Theology can follow after that imagery has taken hold.

-Elliot
I have no idea where you got the idea that I was poo-pooing it because it does not come from the Bible.

I have cited medieval as well as 20th century sources to support that the Pain of Sense has been Catholic doctrine until recently and that many in the Church still believe it to be doctrine.

Apart from the Biblical fire image the Pain of Sense has been articulated consistently in Church theology right up to the present age. I have two books before me, written in the late 20th century, available in Catholic bookstores and recommended for adult initiates into the Church which both clearly state the Pain of Sense is a Church doctine.

Both identify Hell as a punishment and the "free choice" part is not mentioned in either of them. The Catholic Encyclopedia states Pain of Sense as a Church doctrine.

This doctrine is in fact effectively abandoned, since John Paul II identified biblical fire images as metaphors in a Letter. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not appear to have realised this yet.

However I think I am probably right in thinking the catechism mentioned by Huntster is a fairly late change to the Hell doctrine, late 20th century and in response to secular mores.

I am also poo-pooing the new version because as I pointed out it makes no sense. It says that hell is a place for people that refuse to believe of their own free will.

It is meaningless because if you don't believe it is not because you really do believe but have chosen not to. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Try the test I gave Huntster. Try choosing to believe of your own free will that Mohammed is Gods last true prophet and that eternal punishment awaits all who do not follow the strictures of the Koran. Try this for the next two weeks. Try it for even a minute. I bet you can't

If you don't believe something, it is because you don't believe.

ImaginalDisc

26th May 2006, 10:56 AM

That includes doing it in ways that you may not understand or agree with.

And it seems, it includes punishing me for all eternity for disagreeing when it refesues to explain itself, or prove it exists.

Robin

26th May 2006, 11:05 AM

No, because I don't believe that Muhammed is God's last true prophet.
I know you don't believe that. That is not what I asked. You are still dodging this one. I said could you choose to believe it of your own free will?

Alternately would you agree that you are refusing to believe of your own free will that Mohammed is God's last true prophet (which would obviously imply that you really do believe)?

You insist that you are addressing my points but you have consistently dodged the issue of whether it is possible to choose to believe something of your own free will. That is understandable. The idea is absurd, and hence the new PC doctrine of Hell is absurd.

elliotfc

26th May 2006, 11:50 AM

No, it doesn't. An omnipotent being can reconcile free will with salvation, religion, and salami for all I know. If a being is omnipotent, then it can do anything. As far as I can tell, if such a being does exist, it's cutting corners.

If by cutting corners you mean, acting as it wants to act, and not as we want it to act, then I would agree. -Elliot

elliotfc

26th May 2006, 11:54 AM

And it seems, it includes punishing me for all eternity for disagreeing when it refesues to explain itself, or prove it exists.

If true happiness can only be found in God, and you reject God, you could rationalize that as being punished. There are certainly metaphors in circulation, metaphors that are *popular* and *easily accepted* (as you seem to have latched on to it yourself, even though I suspect you reject it), which call it a punishment. And to some extent I'd agree. It is kind of like a punishment for God to allow people to reject him, and choose life separated from God.

You add "refuses"...I don't think God has refused, as he became human, which is proving that God exists, as Jesus was his spokeperson. If that wasn't good enough, you can sort that out with God, and again, you're free to reject him. You want to call such a rejection punishment? Fine. I believe all people you reject God will be up to their eyeballs rationalizations, eupemisms, and coping mechanisms, enough to last them an eternity.

-ELliot

ImaginalDisc

26th May 2006, 12:29 PM

If true happiness can only be found in God, and you reject God, you could rationalize that as being punished. There are certainly metaphors in circulation, metaphors that are *popular* and *easily accepted* (

Roasting in a firey dimension of unending torment for all eternity because I refused to believe in a fictious sky cheiftan in spite of the lack of evidence isn't punishment?

ceo_esq

26th May 2006, 01:16 PM

This doctrine is in fact effectively abandoned, since John Paul II identified biblical fire images as metaphors in a Letter. The Catholic Encyclopedia does not appear to have realised this yet.

The old Catholic Encyclopedia that's available online hasn't been updated since it was published almost a century ago, so it won't reflect anything that has occurred during the intervening time. Nevertheless, the article on Hell states:

However, we must not forget two things: from Catharinus (d. 1553) to our times there have never been wanting theologians who interpret the Scriptural term fire metaphorically, as denoting an incorporeal fire; and secondly, thus far the Church has not censured their opinion. Some few of the Fathers also thought of a metaphorical explanation.

This strongly suggests to me that the belief in poena sensus has at no time formed part of the actual doctrine of Hell. Out of caution, it would probably take a magisterial document to convince me otherwise.

elliotfc

26th May 2006, 01:27 PM

Roasting in a firey dimension of unending torment for all eternity because I refused to believe in a fictious sky cheiftan in spite of the lack of evidence isn't punishment?

Not if you made an informed choice. Let's say a Christian is told to repudiate the faith, or die a painful death. The Christian does not repudiate the faith, and then dies a painful death. You call that punishment. I call that martyrdom.

Suffering for one's beliefs is embraced by some, rejected by others.

By the way, do you have a problem with, as you put it, roasting in a fiery dimension and all that? If so, *that's good*. I can ask you that you are applying a metahpor that you don't have to apply...but if you can't let go of the metahpor, fine. Use it to your advantage!

If I'm in a courtroom...a judge gives me a way out of, what you call, punishment, but I don't accept the way out...then I am complicit in the subsequent judgment, no? Obviously, the so-called punishment is more attractive then the alternative. So...wouldn't accepting the alternative be a greater punishment? If not, then why not accept the alternative, if the primary issue, as you state it, seems to be the concept of punishment?

Now...personally, I don't think the primary issue is punishment. But you apparently do. Fine. I can give you the scoop on how to avoid the punishment. If you're not interested, what can I do besides throw up my hands?

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th May 2006, 01:57 PM

I don't think they were intended as metaphors. I don't think that people thought that much about the difference between physical bodies and spiritual existence. I think they were meant as scary punishments for sinners. Punishment is the word Jesus uses in the Gospels.

I agree that they were intended as they were intended. I believe that the intent was to describe extreme punishment. I believe that this was an effective delivery. That it loses effectiveness over time, that people have more and more issues about it over time, is just another indication to me that theology evolves over time. It evolved in the Bible, and there are no real impediments (besides accepted/created ones) to it evolving today.

A majority of the most important Church theologists appear to have agreed with me.

Sure, and those theologians were further back in time than I. I don't hold it against them. If I lived back then, I'd probably think a lot closer to them than I do now. We don't diverge on everything, and when we do diverge, I'll offer my theology to explain the divergence. If my theology isn't sensible to you, then you're free to stick with the greats. Actually, I submit that you won't go all that wrong sticking with them. If you accept what they say about hell...maybe you can like *really* accept it, and believe it. That, and all of the Jesus stuff too. :)

I have no idea where you got the idea that I was poo-pooing it because it does not come from the Bible.

I see, just a poor inference on my part.

Apart from the Biblical fire image the Pain of Sense has been articulated consistently in Church theology right up to the present age. I have two books before me, written in the late 20th century, available in Catholic bookstores and recommended for adult initiates into the Church which both clearly state the Pain of Sense is a Church doctine.

I don't reject the Pain of Sense. In fact, I think most people in hell experience it. If not all. People who reject God will embrace other things, those things may be rooted in material existence, past memories, earthly pleasures. The kicker is there will never be any real fulfillment in longing for anything that is not God. Could this manifest itself as Pain of Sense? Sure, why not. Others will rationalize their existence as the fires of hell, and may experience just that, as a way to prove to themselves that God only cares about torture.

Or...maybe God will actually torture those who reject Him. If that's the case, I do admit that part of my earthly sensibility does not like that. However, I still believe that people choose to accept God, or reject God...and I also believe that people will be completley aware of the repercussions of rejecting God...and now it's your turn to say how unfair all of this is, how God is a petty bastard, how people are being forced to accept something under threat of punishment. I've heard all of this in other posts. Maybe with the last one...if someone is forced to accept something under threat of punishment...is that necessarily bad? If I tell you to give a piece of bread to a starving child, or else I'll stick a knife in your eye...in some way, isn't that threat of punishment an *added* incentive? Placed on top of something we should already do...give a piece of bread to a starving child if we're in that situation?

This doctrine is in fact effectively abandoned, since John Paul II identified biblical fire images as metaphors in a Letter.

Yes.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_en.html

The Catholic Encyclopedia does not appear to have realised this yet.

I dunno about the Catholic Encyclopedia...but, this from the Cathechism...
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1033

I am also poo-pooing the new version because as I pointed out it makes no sense. It says that hell is a place for people that refuse to believe of their own free will.

It is meaningless because if you don't believe it is not because you really do believe but have chosen not to. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I dunno, it makes sense to me. Yes, someone who rejects God actually does believe in God, because you have to believe to reject. Right...chosen not to...rejecting...

Refuse to believe...refuse to believe that God is good? That Jesus is the way to salvation? That Christ died for your sins? See...all of that are the extra beliefs, on top of God being God, which Satan himself recognizes.

Try the test I gave Huntster. Try choosing to believe of your own free will that Mohammed is Gods last true prophet and that eternal punishment awaits all who do not follow the strictures of the Koran. Try this for the next two weeks. Try it for even a minute. I bet you can't

No, because as you present it, it doesn't move my heart or my intellect or my whole being.

I'm not suggesting that your test isn't an interesting, or educational, one. If you've lived your entire life hating God, rejecting Jesus, feeling that all of creation is one big set-up, I do agree that just, in a moment's notice, choosing to believe what you've always rejected is just about the hardest thing to do in the world. This is why I try to advise people who *really care* to keep an open heart. Do the gospels speak to you on such a level, or, when you read the gospels, do you only tend to remember the ugly bits? That is a choice as well. Our choices develop our persons. Since I've made I don't know how many choices already, your test is contingent on all of that. Contingent on the combined result of all of my life's choices.

If you don't believe something, it is because you don't believe.

Sure.

-Elliot

Robin

26th May 2006, 02:03 PM

If I'm in a courtroom...a judge gives me a way out of, what you call, punishment, but I don't accept the way out...then I am complicit in the subsequent judgment, no?
What if the way out was a logical impossibility. The judge says you are condemned to the rack, but you can get out of it if you get married and remain a bachelor.

So are you still complicit in the subsequent judgement.

By the way, have you had any luck in choosing to believe of your own free will that Mohammed is the last true prophet of God?

Robin

26th May 2006, 02:06 PM

By the way, have you had any luck in choosing to believe of your own free will that Mohammed is the last true prophet of God?
Just saw you responded.

ImaginalDisc

26th May 2006, 02:18 PM

Not if you made an informed choice. Let's say a Christian is told to repudiate the faith, or die a painful death. The Christian does not repudiate the faith, and then dies a painful death. You call that punishment. I call that martyrdom.

Suffering for one's beliefs is embraced by some, rejected by others.

Wait a second. Let's say I hancuff your arms to a post, and threaten to lop off your arms if you don't whistle Dixie. You refuse to whistle Dixie, and I lop off your arms. Is that punishment? Is it justified? I informed you of the consequences, afterall.

Robin

26th May 2006, 02:28 PM

If I tell you to give a piece of bread to a starving child, or else I'll stick a knife in your eye...in some way, isn't that threat of punishment an *added* incentive? Placed on top of something we should already do...give a piece of bread to a starving child if we're in that situation?
What if I said, OK, where is this child and I will give him bread and you refuse to tell me. What do I do then?
I dunno, it makes sense to me. Yes, someone who rejects God actually does believe in God, because you have to believe to reject. Right...chosen not to...rejecting...
But the catechism does not say "reject" it says refuse to believe of their own free will, which is meaningless.

Atheists do not reject God, they don't believe. (This should be blindingly obvious, but if I had a dollar for every time I have had to remind a Christian of this I would be a very rich man indeed).
Refuse to believe...refuse to believe that God is good? That Jesus is the way to salvation? That Christ died for your sins? See...all of that are the extra beliefs, on top of God being God, which Satan himself recognizes.
Does not matter what, it is "refuse to believe" part that is meaningless.
No, because as you present it, it doesn't move my heart or my intellect or my whole being.
Nor does it move my heart, intellect or my whole being. And I feel just the same way about the Christian belief. So presumably your inability to believe in the Muslim faith is not blameworthy. Presumably also my inability to believe in the Muslim faith is not blameworthy. So how would my inability to believe in the Christian faith be blameworthy.
I'm not suggesting that your test isn't an interesting, or educational, one. If you've lived your entire life hating God, rejecting Jesus, feeling that all of creation is one big set-up, I do agree that just, in a moment's notice, choosing to believe what you've always rejected is just about the hardest thing to do in the world. This is why I try to advise people who *really care* to keep an open heart.
I have never hated God, rejected Jesus or felt that creation is one big set-up. I have never come across anybody who has. Or even heard of such a thing.

You can't hate something you don't believe in. Reject Jesus - just how would you go about doing that? As far as I am concerned creation is just a bunch of stuff that happened.

This is the way Christians avoid the issue all the time. You talk of hating God, cursing God, rejecting Jesus. You totally avoid the real issue which is non-belief.

But as I have said, if it is really possible to really not believe in God, or in the divinity of Jesus (as you disbelieve in the status of Mohammed as God's last prophet) this is a big problem for Christian belief.

Because then you have a belief system that includes an infinitely just God sending people to eternal torment for the mere fact that they found the whole thing impossible to believe.

Contradictions, of course, cannot exist.

YouBelieveWHAT?

26th May 2006, 02:57 PM

Well said Robin - I'm with you all the way on that.

At least we've not had the "How can you live moral lives without being ****-scared of hell?" question!

Thanks to all contributors for that!

YBW

elliotfc

26th May 2006, 03:13 PM

What if the way out was a logical impossibility. The judge says you are condemned to the rack, but you can get out of it if you get married and remain a bachelor.

So are you still complicit in the subsequent judgement.

Yes, if you reject purgatory, a place where you could be, oh I don't know, re-educated or something. :)

If a person truly is in a state of not being able to accept Christ/God...that doesn't mean that person is totally devoid of the desire, or, potential to accept Christ/God. Meaning if I've built myself into a person who will reject God/Christ, but, I see that I have misunderstood many things about God/Christ, I could request some extra time to get it sorted, to get right with God. This is why we pray for deceased souls, we meaning Catholics.

-Elliot

elliotfc

26th May 2006, 03:18 PM

Wait a second. Let's say I hancuff your arms to a post, and threaten to lop off your arms if you don't whistle Dixie. You refuse to whistle Dixie, and I lop off your arms. Is that punishment? Is it justified? I informed you of the consequences, afterall.

It's justified to the person doing the lopping. It wouldn't be justified to me, the loppee, because I think the person is acting unjustly.

Going to God...it's also justified to God...it doesn't have to be justified in my perspective, if I think that God is acting unjustly. Here's the kicker. I don't think that God can act unjustly, becaue God is perfect justice.

Back to hell. If God sends us to hell, he is not accountable to anyone for that decision, unlike the guy who cut my arms off, who is accountable to God for that decision.

The perfect judge can not be effectively judged by others in any sense other than mere personal subjective rejection, which would only affect that individual and the individual's relationship with God.

-Elliot

ImaginalDisc

26th May 2006, 03:24 PM

It's justified to the person doing the lopping. It wouldn't be justified to me, the loppee, because I think the person is acting unjustly.

Going to God...it's also justified to God...it doesn't have to be justified in my perspective, if I think that God is acting unjustly. Here's the kicker. I don't think that God can act unjustly, becaue God is perfect justice.

Back to hell. If God sends us to hell, he is not accountable to anyone for that decision, unlike the guy who cut my arms off, who is accountable to God for that decision.

The perfect judge can not be effectively judged by others in any sense other than mere personal subjective rejection, which would only affect that individual and the individual's relationship with God.

-Elliot

So you're trying to tell me that your imaginary sky chieftan isn't doing something wrong, when he punishes people with torment and suffering?

elliotfc

26th May 2006, 03:42 PM

What if I said, OK, where is this child and I will give him bread and you refuse to tell me. What do I do then?

Despair, I think.

But the catechism does not say "reject" it says refuse to believe of their own free will, which is meaningless.

I disagree, I think people can certainly refuse to believe of their own free will. You can be before the throne of God, God can show you all of your sins and you can refuse to believe that they were sins. God can tell you in the strongest possible terms that you have sinned, and you can totally refuse to believe that. Or question his moral authority. I guess I really don't get what you're saying.

Atheists do not reject God, they don't believe. (This should be blindingly obvious, but if I had a dollar for every time I have had to remind a Christian of this I would be a very rich man indeed).

I disagree, and I disagree because atheists continually define God, notably in a different way than I define God. That definition they supply is completely abhorent to them. In this way you reject God, as the point is, I think, that anyone who would think of God as you would think of God would *also* reject God.

I'd retract the above opinion (if you ever care that I have this opinion that is) if you would define God as the average Christian on the street would define God. You probably think you already do! I disagree, your statements about God, while certainly heartfelt, are specifically demonstrative of your obvious repugnance of the concept, as you see it.

Yes, you don't believe God as you define it. You also have an obvious disgust for God, as you define it. I consider that a way of rejecting God. You define God very specifically. If it was mere disbelief, I don't think we'd be quibbling as much as we have about the nature of God. If it was mere disbelief, all you could do is say "fine, define God as you want, I just don't believe in Him. End of. No need for me to reject your definition, that's irrelevant". But you haven't done that, thus my opinoin about you.

Does not matter what, it is "refuse to believe" part that is meaningless.

I accept that it is meaningless to you, OK? Meaning is a subjective term. Meaning is contingent on humans who find meaning in things.

I do actually believe in objective meaning, but that's tied up with my theism, which you don't believe, so I won't go into that.

Nor does it move my heart, intellect or my whole being. And I feel just the same way about the Christian belief. So presumably your inability to believe in the Muslim faith is not blameworthy. Presumably also my inability to believe in the Muslim faith is not blameworthy. So how would my inability to believe in the Christian faith be blameworthy.

On it's own I don't think it is blameworthy. I don't think Gandhi is being whacked with the blame stick for not accepting the Christian faith. Here's what I think is blameworthy. Reading the Gospel of Christ with a specific agenda. Reject the beauty, see only what to you is repugnant, and then proclaim a Gospel for the *sole* purpose of making people find it repulsive. That to me is quite blameworthy. And no, I'm not damning you to hell. I'm just answering your question.

I have never hated God, rejected Jesus or felt that creation is one big set-up. I have never come across anybody who has. Or even heard of such a thing.

You have defined God in a very particular way. I say that you have rejected Jesus because in all of our theological conversations *you've never even brought him up*. With all of your obvious theological knowledge I ask the question...why have you rejected Jesus? Why don't you talk about him, when you talk about a thousand other things?

I am accusing you of subconsciously doing such things then. If I'm wrong...well, I already have a thread with that title, don't I? :)

Meaning, if my accusations are wrong, does it matter? It matters to you obviously. Unless it doesn't. We'll both die, you don't believe in God, so who cares? Unless you do care. I'm not intentionally trying to make you feel miserable. I've read enough of your posts to see that you are quite sincere, and quite directed in your thinking about my religious beliefs. So much so that I think you do think about God quite a bit. And the bits you don't mention...they're of no use for you, are they? As they don't further your complaints. In that way you reject them, because certainly you're aware of them.

You can't hate something you don't believe in.

Not true. I hate fast-moving zombies, and I don't believe in them.

Reject Jesus - just how would you go about doing that? As far as I am concerned creation is just a bunch of stuff that happened.

Easy. Jesus confronts you in the next one. He says he died for your sins. You respond "you have GOT to be kidding. How could you possibly expect me to believe all of that nonsense?" That's how you reject Jesus.

Or, just to repeat myself, you read the Gospels and all you come up with are a handful of metaphors about Hell. That to me is rejecting Jesus as well.

To me. If you don't think you've rejected Jesus...then maybe you haven't I guess. I hope I'm wrong. I don't enjoy the fact that I think you've rejected Jesus. If you haven't, I'll take you at your word. If you get the straight scoop on Jesus in the next one, I'm sure you'll have to problem accepting it.

This is the way Christians avoid the issue all the time. You talk of hating God, cursing God, rejecting Jesus. You totally avoid the real issue which is non-belief.

No, I don't always avoid that issue. Some atheists don't believe and can't be bothered even talking about God, and I accept that. In those cases I see total and complete non-belief. I never accuse them of hating God or cursing God. As for rejecting Jesus...well...if I read the Book of Mormon, I can not believe it and reject it at the same time. Can't I?

But as I have said, if it is really possible to really not believe in God, or in the divinity of Jesus (as you disbelieve in the status of Mohammed as God's last prophet) this is a big problem for Christian belief.

Because then you have a belief system that includes an infinitely just God sending people to eternal torment for the mere fact that they found the whole thing impossible to believe.

I disagree. In my theology, if you've honestly and sincerely found the whole thing impossible to believe, God will not hold that against you. Other Christians disagree with this, and I'd stand with you in rejecting that belief, if it makes you feel any better.

Contradictions, of course, cannot exist.

No, essential contradiction can't exist, but accidental or contingent contradiction can.

I'm outta here, I enjoy your posts Robin, will check in next week I hope.

-Elliot

Huntster

26th May 2006, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
That includes doing it in ways that you may not understand or agree with. And it seems, it includes punishing me for all eternity for disagreeing when it refesues to explain itself, or prove it exists.

That "punishment" is essentially separation from Him.

I guess Heaven isn't a democracy. If you can't deal with that, you choose otherwise.

Huntster

26th May 2006, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
No, because I don't believe that Muhammed is God's last true prophet.
I know you don't believe that. That is not what I asked. You are still dodging this one. I said could you choose to believe it of your own free will?...

No, because I believe there have been other prophets since Muhammed, and the reason I believe is because of evidence.

That written, it is evidence that you would likely to reject, so there's no reason to delve into it further.

...Alternately would you agree that you are refusing to believe of your own free will that Mohammed is God's last true prophet (which would obviously imply that you really do believe)?...

Huh?

...You insist that you are addressing my points but you have consistently dodged the issue of whether it is possible to choose to believe something of your own free will....

No, I haven't. I believe that one can believe something of his/her own free will. That doesn't mean that one will (or should) believe everything of his/her own free will.

...That is understandable. The idea is absurd, and hence the new PC doctrine of Hell is absurd.

That's your opinion, and you're free to espouse it.

Huntster

26th May 2006, 11:59 PM

Roasting in a firey dimension of unending torment for all eternity because I refused to believe in a fictious sky cheiftan in spite of the lack of evidence isn't punishment?

If you insist on calling it "punishment", then please do so. That is why Hell was described as "hell"; because the self-imposed exile from God for eternity is likely a nasty prospect.

But you don't have to go there. All you have to do is accept Him.

Huntster

27th May 2006, 12:03 AM

What if the way out was a logical impossibility. The judge says you are condemned to the rack, but you can get out of it if you get married and remain a bachelor....

Sounds logically impossible to me. But guess what I'd do?

I'd ask the judge how to do it, and I'd accept his description. I don't want to go to the rack.

Huntster

27th May 2006, 12:07 AM

Originally Posted by elliotfc :
If I tell you to give a piece of bread to a starving child, or else I'll stick a knife in your eye...in some way, isn't that threat of punishment an *added* incentive? Placed on top of something we should already do...give a piece of bread to a starving child if we're in that situation?

What if I said, OK, where is this child and I will give him bread and you refuse to tell me. What do I do then?

Seek the child yourself, ask other people where the child is, or eat the bread yourself.

Huntster

27th May 2006, 12:09 AM

So you're trying to tell me that your imaginary sky chieftan isn't doing something wrong, when he punishes people with torment and suffering?

Can you define the words "punishment" and "justice"?

ImaginalDisc

27th May 2006, 01:36 AM

Can you define the words "punishment" and "justice"?

I do not need to. The dictionary serves just fine, thank you.

Huntster

27th May 2006, 10:36 AM

I do not need to. The dictionary serves just fine, thank you.

I agree fully.

Punishment: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=punishment)

The act or an instance of punishing.
The condition of being punished.
A penalty imposed for wrongdoing: “The severity of the punishment must... be in keeping with the kind of obligation which has been violated” (Simone Weil).
Rough handling; mistreatment:

Justice: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=justice)

The quality of being just; fairness.

The principle of moral rightness; equity.
Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
Law. The administration and procedure of law.
Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
Abbr. J. Law.
A judge.
A justice of the peace.

If Hell is "the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives," isn't that more "justice" than "punishment"?

After all, it is the choice of the individual.

ImaginalDisc

27th May 2006, 02:16 PM

I agree fully.

Who does this god person think he is anyway? Infinte punishment for finite crimes? How is that justice?

Huntster

27th May 2006, 03:46 PM

Who does this god person think he is anyway?...

Creator of all we know about.

Who do you think you are to question the Creator, His motives, or His plan?

...Infinte punishment for finite crimes? How is that justice?

Why are you having such a difficult time reading what I posted? I'll paste it again (complete with emboldened words, again):

If Hell is "the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives," isn't that more "justice" than "punishment"?

After all, it is the choice of the individual.

Robin

28th May 2006, 11:39 PM

You have defined God in a very particular way. I say that you have rejected Jesus because in all of our theological conversations *you've never even brought him up*. With all of your obvious theological knowledge I ask the question...why have you rejected Jesus? Why don't you talk about him, when you talk about a thousand other things?
I call you on this. Show me. Show me the definition I have used of God and why it is not reasonable for me to use this definition.

Perhaps I represent RCC doctrine in the way some would not like me to. I plead guilty to that one. But when Huntster disagreed with my representation of Hell as "torture" and supplied instead "really, really, really bad", it was you who weighed in to say that there was no difference.

Robin

28th May 2006, 11:44 PM

If Hell is "the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives," isn't that more "justice" than "punishment"?

After all, it is the choice of the individual.
So would you say, to use eliotfc's earlier example, that Nero was dispensing justice to the Christians because the Christians chose of their own free will to go to the lions, rather than give up their faith?

Would you term his actions as morally good?

I suppose he would have been morally wrong for not providing this choice.

Robin

28th May 2006, 11:47 PM

Not if you made an informed choice. Let's say a Christian is told to repudiate the faith, or die a painful death. The Christian does not repudiate the faith, and then dies a painful death. You call that punishment. I call that martyrdom.
I have got to say I find this example most appropriate. God as Nero.

As I asked Huntster, would you define Nero as dispensing justice? Would you define his actions as morally good? Would he have been morally reprehensible for just leaving the Christians alone?

Robin

28th May 2006, 11:52 PM

This strongly suggests to me that the belief in poena sensus has at no time formed part of the actual doctrine of Hell. Out of caution, it would probably take a magisterial document to convince me otherwise.
As I said to Huntster, metaphors are normally chosen because of their similarity to the target.

I am not sure what moral difference it makes if it is physical torture or some kind of spiritual torture.

The catechism supplied by Huntster tastefully fails to mention any unpleasantness whatsoever.

Of course it is easy to make torture sound reasonable if you just don't mention the torture part.

If this alternative that God has so generously provided involved eternal unbearable torment then the polite thing to do would be to mention it.

Huntster

28th May 2006, 11:53 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
If Hell is "the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives," isn't that more "justice" than "punishment"?

After all, it is the choice of the individual.

So would you say, to use eliotfc's earlier example, that Nero was dispensing justice to the Christians because the Christians chose of their own free will to go to the lions, rather than give up their faith?

Would you term his actions as morally good?

Again, Justice:

The quality of being just; fairness.

The principle of moral rightness; equity.
Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.

The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
Law. The administration and procedure of law.
Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason: The overcharged customer was angry, and with justice.
Abbr. J. Law.
A judge.
A justice of the peace.

Maybe if you tried to read the definition s l o w e r , you can answer your own questions.

RandFan

28th May 2006, 11:54 PM

What if you blasphemy while masturbating and fantasizing about having sex with both incubus and succubus and offering your soul to Satan for free?

"Was that wrong" --George Kastanza

ceo_esq

29th May 2006, 01:06 PM

As I said to Huntster, metaphors are normally chosen because of their similarity to the target.

True enough, at least with respect to the specific criterion on which the implicit comparison is being made. On the other hand, however, for a description to be a metaphor also implies that there is some essential dissimilarity to the target; it is a figure of speech precisely because we cannot actually equate the conceit with the target. I'm not sure I could enumerate all the differences, moral or otherwise, between an instance of actual torture and a mental state (remorse, guilt, loneliness, or something else) that, if sufficiently acute, might validly be compared to torture - but I don't want to leap to the conclusion that there aren't any meaningful differences.

By the way, do you still hold that "Pain of Sense has been Catholic doctrine until recently"?

Robin

29th May 2006, 04:00 PM

True enough, at least with respect to the specific criterion on which the implicit comparison is being made. On the other hand, however, for a description to be a metaphor also implies that there is some essential dissimilarity to the target; it is a figure of speech precisely because we cannot actually equate the conceit with the target. I'm not sure I could enumerate all the differences, moral or otherwise, between an instance of actual torture and a mental state (remorse, guilt, loneliness, or something else) that, if sufficiently acute, might validly be compared to torture - but I don't want to leap to the conclusion that there aren't any meaningful differences.
If remorse, guilt and loneliness are the things that the metaphor is supposed to evoke, it is a very poor metaphor indeed. (And in fact since these things are so well understood, why do you need a metaphor for them?).
By the way, do you still hold that "Pain of Sense has been Catholic doctrine until recently"?
It depends on what you mean by doctrine. It was never an article of faith, however it was the consensus theological viewpoint.

As I said, the pain of sense is promulgated in recent books designed specifically to communicate the Catholic faith to new initiates. So in the last 10 years the Catholic Church has been promoted the pain of sense as something that is believed.

It only takes a quick view of various Catholic websites to see that many still believe it to be doctrine.

The catechism does define Hell as a "punishment". It describes the chief punishment as the pain of loss, suggesting that there are punishments besides that. And the catechism does mention eternal file.

So you tell me, is it doctrine? Is there such a thing as doctrine, or is it all, as Hunster suggests, just a work in progress?

Robin

29th May 2006, 04:14 PM

Maybe if you tried to read the definition s l o w e r , you can answer your own questions.
I asked for your answer, I already know my own answer. Nero was neither morally right nor just. Justice requires more than simply a choice to be provided. I can see nothing in the definition you pasted that supports anything you have said.

So neither is "Believe in me or go into the punishment of eternal fire" justice simply because a choice is offered.(try looking at the part of the catechism you didn't quote to see that the RCC does indeed define Hell as a punishment).

If I say give me all your money or I will kill you, have I acted justly, simply because I have offered a free choice?

In order to be justice, it really actually has to be just.

As I have said, it is not justice to condemn somebody to eternal punishment for sincere alternate belief.

So either there is a Hell (as described in your catechism) or God is just. Both cannot be true.

So here is a thought. Instead of just cutting and pasting dictionary definitions, try to answer the question.

Nero has met your requirements for justice, he has provided a choice. Was Nero then just?

Or does justice require more than merely the provision of a choice?

Huntster

29th May 2006, 08:37 PM

...As I said, the pain of sense is promulgated in recent books designed specifically to communicate the Catholic faith to new initiates. So in the last 10 years the Catholic Church has been promoted the pain of sense as something that is believed.

It only takes a quick view of various Catholic websites to see that many still believe it to be doctrine.

The catechism does define Hell as a "punishment". It describes the chief punishment as the pain of loss, suggesting that there are punishments besides that. And the catechism does mention eternal file.

Yes, Hell is horrible. It's Here, many times worse, and forever.

It's seperation from God forever, as the victim chooses. No hope. No faith. No love. Only the worse Earth has to offer, with none of the Good, none of the time, forever.

"Sense of Loss"?

You're damned right. I couldn't even imagine it now, let alone completely and forever.

Choose otherwise. Choose God.

Do it now. Don't delay.

...So you tell me, is it doctrine? Is there such a thing as doctrine, or is it all, as Hunster suggests, just a work in progress?

It's both.

Huntster

29th May 2006, 08:47 PM

...If I say give me all your money or I will kill you, have I acted justly, simply because I have offered a free choice?...

Nope. You just signed your own death warrant.

I might be convinced to give you "much" of my money, but immediately upon telling me that you will or would kill me, for any reason, I'm gonna kill you (if I can).

Sorry.

It musta been environmental.......

Robin

29th May 2006, 08:53 PM

Nope. You just signed your own death warrant.

I might be convinced to give you "much" of my money, but immediately upon telling me that you will or would kill me, for any reason, I'm gonna kill you (if I can).

Sorry.

It musta been environmental.......
You twist and turn and dodge when asked a straight question don't you? Is it cowardice, or do you really not understand the question?

I guess I have to take it as "no".

Forget it I will take your answer as "Yes, Robin, justice involves more than simple choice, Hell as punishment for sincere disbelief is definitely contradictory with the concept of justice and therefore the concept of God promulgated by the RCC is contradictory and therefore false".

As I said earlier, if there is such a thing as Hell it is obviously infinitely preferable to spending eternity with the kind of mind that could devise it.

Huntster

29th May 2006, 09:03 PM

You twist and turn and dodge when asked a straight question don't you? Is it cowardice, or do you really not understand the question?

I understand the questions quite well. You can't take straight answers. You've proven that.

If you can't take the parables as well, oh *********** well.

I guess I have to take it as "no".

Forget it I will take your answer as "Yes,

You can take it however you wish.

I really don't give much of a damn.

..As I said earlier, if there is such a thing as Hell it is obviously infinitely preferable to spending eternity with the kind of mind that could devise it.

Than get your ass there as fast as you can.

Adios.

Robin

29th May 2006, 09:16 PM

I understand the questions quite well. You can't take straight answers. You've proven that.
I can take them, I just don't get them from you. Do you think that Nero was acting justly by giving the Christians the free choice of going to the lions? Or does justice require more than just a free choice?

If you answered that one, I can't find it.
Than get your ass there as fast as you can.

Adios.
As I have demonstrated, the place does not exist. Neither does the spider hole where you want to spend eternity.

Bye.

Huntster

29th May 2006, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster

...Adios....

...Bye.

This is the end, isn't it?

Robin

29th May 2006, 10:50 PM

Meaning, if my accusations are wrong, does it matter?
What matters is that by saying that you give the impression that you don't understand the point I am making. That matters to me.

Whether you think I am a secret theist who has perversely ticked the "eternal fire" box does not really matter to me.
Easy. Jesus confronts you in the next one. He says he died for your sins. You respond "you have GOT to be kidding. How could you possibly expect me to believe all of that nonsense?" That's how you reject Jesus.
He can even confront me in this one if he wants - always available for epiphanies.
Or, just to repeat myself, you read the Gospels and all you come up with are a handful of metaphors about Hell. That to me is rejecting Jesus as well.
To repeat myself I used contemporary and medieval sources to identify the Church's position on Hell. The scriptural metaphors were brought up by Huntster, I merely responded to them.

Moreover the discussion was on Hell before I became involved. If you want to start a discussion on the Gospels generally I am more than happy to contribute.

Maybe that can be followed with the Upanishads.
In my theology, if you've honestly and sincerely found the whole thing impossible to believe, God will not hold that against you. Other Christians disagree with this, and I'd stand with you in rejecting that belief, if it makes you feel any better.
Not really about me, I was just trying to make the general point that there are a lot of people out there that believe something other than the Christian faith. The theological position that they will all be cast away if they die disbelieving is not something that gels with the normal conception of God.

westphalia

30th May 2006, 06:45 AM

I was just trying to make the general point that there are a lot of people out there that believe something other than the Christian faith. The theological position that they will all be cast away if they die disbelieving is not something that gels with the normal conception of God.

What is a "normal" conception of God? There are hundreds of different conceptions, and all may be wrong, one may be right, but all cannot be right. Either everyone has it wrong, or just one group out there has it right, since the conceptions are so varied and contradictory.

If we're using the "normal" conception of God as defined by the average, run-of-the-mill man on the street, we shouldn't, because we're appealing to popularity.

To a person who believes his conception is correct, and all others incorrect, an exclusionary construct of God is perfectly reasonable, since his God can run the universe however it sees fit, all others be damned (pardon the pun).

ImaginalDisc

30th May 2006, 06:46 AM

Creator of all we know about.

Who do you think you are to question the Creator, His motives, or His plan?

Just because you make something doesn't put you beyond morality. If murder is wrong, it's still wrong even if you made people in the first place. so too is endless toerment.

Why are you having such a difficult time reading what I posted? I'll paste it again (complete with emboldened words, again):

Spare me your meaningless gobblygook. I can't chose to believe in anything as absurd as a god. It's impossible. It's like seriously entertaining the concept of leprachauns.

ceo_esq

30th May 2006, 11:50 AM

If remorse, guilt and loneliness are the things that the metaphor is supposed to evoke, it is a very poor metaphor indeed. (And in fact since these things are so well understood, why do you need a metaphor for them?).

Not knowing the extent of what the torments of hell might be like (if they existed), I can't reach the same conclusion that the metaphor is poor - and even if I could conclude that the metaphor was poor, it would only be my own opinion.

I'm not suggesting that a non-physical Hell would necessarily be limited to remorse, guilt and loneliness. But is anything so well understood universally that metaphors should be discouraged?

Remember Burns' famous "Remorse"? Presumably believing in poena sensus, Burns considered that one could appropriately compare the fires of Hell to the pangs of remorse and guilt (and the fires of Hell would fall short!):

Of all the numerous ills that hurt our peace,
That press the soul, or wring the mind with anguish,
Beyond comparison the worst are those
By our own folly, or our guilt brought on:
In ev'ry other circumstance, the mind
Has this to say: - 'It was no deed of mine.'
But, when to all the evil of misfortune
This sting is added: - 'Blame thy foolish self!'
Or, worser far, the pangs of keen remorse,
The torturing, gnawing consciousness of guilt,
Of guilt, perhaps, where we've involved others,
The young, the innocent, who fondly lov'd us;
Nay, more, that very love their cause of ruin!
O burning Hell! in all thy store of torments
There's not a keener lash!
Lives there a man so firm, who, while his heart
Feels all the bitter horrors of his crime,
Can reason down its agonizing throbs,
And, after proper purpose of amendment,
Can firmly force his jarring thoughts to peace?
O happy, happy, enviable man!
O glorious magnanimity of soul!

At any rate, without lending credence to either, I find the catechetical teaching on Hell to be a reasonable interpretation of the scriptural teaching.

It depends on what you mean by doctrine. It was never an article of faith, however it was the consensus theological viewpoint.

I suppose by "doctrine" I generally do mean an article of faith. But if the old Catholic Encyclopedia is correct, it wasn't the "consensus theological viewpoint" either, was it? Didn't the article indicate that from the earliest Fathers onward, the metaphorical interpretation of the fires of Hell has had some proponents among theologians (and that the Church never corrects those theologians)?

As I said, the pain of sense is promulgated in recent books designed specifically to communicate the Catholic faith to new initiates. So in the last 10 years the Catholic Church has been promoted the pain of sense as something that is believed.

Hmm. I don't know the status of those books with regard to the Magisterium. Presumably they received an imprimatur, but that's technically limited to the jurisdiction of the diocese of publication. I'm uncertain how much of the content of those books may be imputed to the Catholic Church. (Remembering, of course, that Pain of Sense is not incompatible with Catholic doctrine.)

It only takes a quick view of various Catholic websites to see that many still believe it to be doctrine.

I'm sure you're right, but I attribute limited significance to this fact in trying to understand the Catholic doctrine of Hell. We all know how ignorant believers can be of their own religions, and this is probably especially true for a highly nuanced religion like Catholicism.

The catechism does define Hell as a "punishment". It describes the chief punishment as the pain of loss, suggesting that there are punishments besides that.

OK, then. But any guesses as to exactly what they are? If they're in a similar vein as the "pain of loss", one might infer that they're more the "self-inflicted" kind of punishment.

And the catechism does mention eternal file.

Clearly a Hell dreamed up by Vatican bureaucrats, then. Damn them and their eternal files. :D

So you tell me, is it doctrine? Is there such a thing as doctrine, or is it all, as Hunster suggests, just a work in progress?

No, I don't think it's doctrine; yes, I do think there's such a thing as doctrine. As for whether the doctrine of the Church is a work in progress, I'm not sure.

Huntster

30th May 2006, 01:22 PM

....I can't chose to believe in anything as absurd as a god. It's impossible. It's like seriously entertaining the concept of leprachauns.

Then, I must ask, why do you bother participating in a thread titled "The Unforgivable Sin"?

As you admit, it isn't even in the realm of entertainment.

Aren't there other issues where you might be able to offer something in other threads?

ImaginalDisc

30th May 2006, 04:20 PM

Then, I must ask, why do you bother participating in a thread titled "The Unforgivable Sin"?

As you admit, it isn't even in the realm of entertainment.

Aren't there other issues where you might be able to offer something in other threads?

What's the matter? The perfect and divine being you believe in is so fragile, it needs you to chase me off before I ask questions about it?

Huntster

30th May 2006, 04:43 PM

What's the matter? The perfect and divine being you believe in is so fragile, it needs you to chase me off before I ask questions about it?

These are "questions"?:

I can't chose to believe in anything as absurd as a god. It's impossible. It's like seriously entertaining the concept of leprachauns.

Are you being "chased off"?

I asked 2 simple questions.

You have no answers?

ImaginalDisc

30th May 2006, 04:48 PM

These are "questions"?:

Are you being "chased off"?

I asked 2 simple questions.

You have no answers?

You asked rhetorical questions, Hunster. They don't deserve answers.

Huntster

30th May 2006, 06:19 PM

You asked rhetorical questions, Hunster. They don't deserve answers.

What's the matter? The perfect and divine being you believe in is so fragile, it needs you to chase me off before I ask questions about it?

Your questions to me about the almighty God demand answers, yet my questions to you about you do not deserve answers?

Robin

30th May 2006, 09:02 PM

At any rate, without lending credence to either, I find the catechetical teaching on Hell to be a reasonable interpretation of the scriptural teaching.
As long as you don't just stop with 1033!
I suppose by "doctrine" I generally do mean an article of faith. But if the old Catholic Encyclopedia is correct, it wasn't the "consensus theological viewpoint" either, was it?
OK, consensus was the wrong word.
Hmm. I don't know the status of those books with regard to the Magisterium. Presumably they received an imprimatur, but that's technically limited to the jurisdiction of the diocese of publication. I'm uncertain how much of the content of those books may be imputed to the Catholic Church.
The Church is still very careful about error in teaching. If the intention of these books is to ensure that initiates don't get any wrong ideas about the Church I am pretty sure they would be checked for error. They have been around for a while and revised.
I'm sure you're right, but I attribute limited significance to this fact in trying to understand the Catholic doctrine of Hell. We all know how ignorant believers can be of their own religions, and this is probably especially true for a highly nuanced religion like Catholicism.
Perhaps, but I think that on this particular subject there is nobody authoritative - so nobody can really be said to be ignorant. They are all saying things that could be true given the range of beliefs. Aquinas is still regarded as being a somewhat important figure.
OK, then. But any guesses as to exactly what they are? If they're in a similar vein as the "pain of loss", one might infer that they're more the "self-inflicted" kind of punishment.
Pain of loss is not self inflicted unless it really is chosen. I have expressed my doubt about whether it is possible to *choose* to disbelieve. I guess that theists are using the word "believe" in some sense that I am incapable of understanding.

So far as I know the majority of Hindus, Jews, Muslims etc are as sincere in their belief as the majority of Christians are.
No, I don't think it's doctrine; yes, I do think there's such a thing as doctrine. As for whether the doctrine of the Church is a work in progress, I'm not sure.
You see the problem is - the catechism speaks of terrible consequences for failing to believe - to believe what?

As far as I remember the Gospels themselves to not speak of Jesus dying for the worlds sins (I admit my memory may be shaky on this), the Gospel Jesus clearly does regard his death as a duty, but fulfillment of scriptural prophecy appears to be the motive. I don't think that Jesus identifies himself as God as such, or even as the Son of God (he tells all Christians to pray to God as "Dad").

Now it appears to me that if someone simply believed, as the Muslims do, that Christ was a prophet then this would be a reasonable interpretation of scripture. If someone simply believed that Jesus was an inspired teacher would this be disbelief? If someone did not even believe that Jesus existed buy thought the ideas promoted were pretty good, would that be disbelief? After all, what was more important, the teacher or the teachings?

Given the wide range of views even withing the RCC, never mind the Christian church generally or the general theistic beliefs out there, at what point does disbelief start?

After all Eliotfc would be called a disbeliever by some for denying the infallibility of the Old Testament or saying that the New Testament was just a starting point.

Am I denying God because I say that if he existed and was benevolent then there could not be such a place as Hell as described by Christian tradition and the catechisms - even without the pain of sense?

Or is someone denying God when they say that God might be unjust?

Correa Neto

31st May 2006, 06:19 AM

Suzan

31st May 2006, 06:41 AM

After lurking along this thread, here's my 2 cents on the "self exclusion from God" issue.

What would be the differences between a state of "self exclusion from God" in this life and in a suposed afterlife, ressurrection, whatever? Actually, why there should be a difference? Assuming we all are immortal souls, our feelings, our consioussnesses would be the same! Maybe without "physical sensations", whatever are the meanings one ascribe to them. But still, the very same basic feelings. Love, hate, fear, doubts, etc are there.

Now, if I stop believing in God at this very moment, I have excluded myself from God. Following this reasoning,

To a Christian...(not a catholic) If you were to stop believing now, then yes I suppose if you never gave it (acceptance of Christ) a second thought...you would be waiting to go to hell.... but, Hell in the Christian faith..is the souls destiny, not your earthly body. It will pass away.. return to the earth.

I would be in Hell right now.

I was raised on a Catholic family. I remember my childhood with the shadow of God's punishment always lingering. Gradually I stopped believing in God. Several concepts of God were sucessively dropped, the Christian God being among the first of them. I liberated myself from the last links with the Christian God in the early 90s. And it felt really good. If Hell is self-exclusion from the Christian God, then I am in Hell. And its a very good place. A place where you can challenge, where we can be human beings instead of mere sheep. Much better than where one lives under a tyrannical deity who imposes arbitrary rules and penalties. Much better than living in a state of fear from punishment, and always feeling of being guilty of something.

I have been lurking here too :)

In the catholic faith....there is purgatory (sp?) does this account for your statement...hell is here on earth for those who have fallen away, never accepted, or denied the faith all together?

I was not raised catholic so please forgive me for my ignorance. In the Christian faith (which I am btw) Hell is for what comes after....this earthly life. The now would not be purgatory...or waiting. But, the actual site of the place where we are to find our faith (so to speak).

Correa Neto

31st May 2006, 08:35 AM

For Catholics, purgatory is a place where after an individual's death, his/hers soul is purified (usually by some sort of suffering) from the stains created by his/hers sins before entering Heaven. After the regular pain section (I am always amazed by how pain and submission are so deeply rooted in Christian faith and theology), the soul may ascend to Heaven or dive in to Hell for eternal punishment. So, according to official doctrine, its not here. Its in the afterlife.

And the whole "not accepting Christ" issue is also IMHO should by no means a reason to dump someone´s soul to Hell or Purgatory. No, I will not use the standard example (toddlers, all the people born before Christ, all those born under different cultures). Just suppose a certain person born in some country where Christianism is the dominant religion. What if this person does not accepts Christ because the priests, pastors, whatever, who were supposed to bring people to the church were incompetent?

Huntster

31st May 2006, 09:36 AM

After lurking along this thread, here's my 2 cents on the "self exclusion from God" issue.

What would be the differences between a state of "self exclusion from God" in this life and in a suposed afterlife, ressurrection, whatever? Actually, why there should be a difference? Assuming we all are immortal souls, our feelings, our consioussnesses would be the same! Maybe without "physical sensations", whatever are the meanings one ascribe to them. But still, the very same basic feelings. Love, hate, fear, doubts, etc are there.

Now, if I stop believing in God at this very moment, I have excluded myself from God. Following this reasoning, I would be in Hell right now....

I believe that is correct.

...I was raised on a Catholic family. I remember my childhood with the shadow of God's punishment always lingering. Gradually I stopped believing in God. Several concepts of God were sucessively dropped, the Christian God being among the first of them. I liberated myself from the last links with the Christian God in the early 90s. And it felt really good. If Hell is self-exclusion from the Christian God, then I am in Hell. And its a very good place....

Thus, your choice is made, and you are happy with it.

Congratulations.

...A place where you can challenge, where we can be human beings instead of mere sheep. Much better than where one lives under a tyrannical deity who imposes arbitrary rules and penalties. Much better than living in a state of fear from punishment, and always feeling of being guilty of something.

That is exactly what Satan wanted; to be God himself.

Congratulations on your achievement, but I prefer otherwise for myself.

Suzan

31st May 2006, 09:46 AM

For Catholics, purgatory is a place where after an individual's death, his/hers soul is purified (usually by some sort of suffering) from the stains created by his/hers sins before entering Heaven.

Are we not washed clean through baptism? (in the catholic belief?)

After the regular pain section (I am always amazed by how pain and submission are so deeply rooted in Christian faith and theology), the soul may ascend to Heaven or dive in to Hell for eternal punishment. So, according to official doctrine, its not here. Its in the afterlife.

And the whole "not accepting Christ" issue is also IMHO should by no means a reason to dump someone´s soul to Hell or Purgatory. No, I will not use the standard example (toddlers, all the people born before Christ, all those born under different cultures). Just suppose a certain person born in some country where Christianism is the dominant religion. What if this person does not accepts Christ because the priests, pastors, whatever, who were supposed to bring people to the church were incompetent?

No, those that have no knowledge won't be judged as they don't know, but will be afforded the opportunity to know and make a choice.

Wow (purgatory) I didn't know of that doctrine, though I have heard it mentioned ..I should read more, or should tell me more.. before I make a dumb comment :rolleyes:

The only part I can comment on is this...if you are shown the wrong way, and never shown the right (or have never been shown before at all in anyway) I don't believe that you can be judged in a negative way. It would fall under not fair....in my opinion. You can only be judged on what you know.

It is said that a man be better off not having put his hands to the plow then to fall away. (not verbatim)

Yes, judgement is in the next life, based on this life. and we are accountable for what we "know" and do not take heed to or purposefully turn away from. I don't know of purgatory, do you have scripture that I can read on it? For me, it is the learning of the here now...and what you know (judgement system), which is determined after death.
A scripture comes to mind... to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Your judged on your works here....and that would depend on the intent of your heart in those deeds, and acceptance of Christ.
Please give me some scripture...and I will read it, sorry I can only offer an opinion till after I read on it more.

I less than three logic

31st May 2006, 11:42 AM

A place where you can challenge, where we can be human beings instead of mere sheep. Much better than where one lives under a tyrannical deity who imposes arbitrary rules and penalties. Much better than living in a state of fear from punishment, and always feeling of being guilty of something.
That is exactly what Satan wanted; to be God himself.
I don’t think we read the same paragraph. Where exactly in that statement is anything resembling the intention to be God?

Perhaps the challenge bit, but it doesn’t require being a God to challenge something, be it an idea, intention, or something more physical. Is God’s ego so fragile that a mere question against him shatters it? Apparently so, the act is upsetting enough for him to condemn you to eternal punishment. Is it just for a professor to fail you if you simply question his understanding of the class subject matter? He should clearly have some authority on it.

ImaginalDisc

31st May 2006, 11:57 AM

Your questions to me about the almighty God demand answers, yet my questions to you about you do not deserve answers?

Hunster, I post in this thread because I chose to. What I do with my free time is my buisiness. Now, mind returning to a relevant topic?

Correa Neto

31st May 2006, 12:59 PM

No, those that have no knowledge won't be judged as they don't know, but will be afforded the opportunity to know and make a choice.

Wow (purgatory) I didn't know of that doctrine, though I have heard it mentioned ..I should read more, or should tell me more.. before I make a dumb comment :rolleyes:

The only part I can comment on is this...if you are shown the wrong way, and never shown the right (or have never been shown before at all in anyway) I don't believe that you can be judged in a negative way. It would fall under not fair....in my opinion. You can only be judged on what you know.

It is said that a man be better off not having put his hands to the plow then to fall away. (not verbatim)

Yes, judgement is in the next life, based on this life. and we are accountable for what we "know" and do not take heed to or purposefully turn away from. I don't know of purgatory, do you have scripture that I can read on it? For me, it is the learning of the here now...and what you know (judgement system), which is determined after death.
A scripture comes to mind... to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Your judged on your works here....and that would depend on the intent of your heart in those deeds, and acceptance of Christ.
Please give me some scripture...and I will read it, sorry I can only offer an opinion till after I read on it more.

Wikipedia's entry on Purgtory can be a nice start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory
The entry also shows concepts that are not from Roman Catholic Church.

You'll see many parts of the doctrine does not seem to have a very solid backing on the scriptures, but rather in theological speculation or inspirations gathered from certain individuals such as saints. Same is valid for the Limbo (IIRC the Limbo is no longer accepted as real by official Catholic doctrine). Anyway, the same seems to be valid regarding non-catholic "doctrines" such as the rapture.

Anyway, I fail to see why there has to be acceptance of Christ for a salvation. I see plenty of problems within the ethics of all salvation doctrines. I see, however, the ressurgent theme of accepting authority without questioning. A common point in all Abrahamic religions. Pretty good if you take in to account that one of the basic functions of religions is to keep the society's status quo.

Correa Neto

31st May 2006, 01:29 PM

I don’t think we read the same paragraph. Where exactly in that statement is anything resembling the intention to be God?

Perhaps the challenge bit, but it doesn’t require being a God to challenge something, be it an idea, intention, or something more physical. Is God’s ego so fragile that a mere question against him shatters it? Apparently so, the act is upsetting enough for him to condemn you to eternal punishment. Is it just for a professor to fail you if you simply question his understanding of the class subject matter? He should clearly have some authority on it.

Exactly.

God seems to be very annoyed when a human dares to ask "why".

Asking "why" is the basic reason or motivation for human progress. Accepting orders and rules without questioning will not bring anything but stagnation. Exactly what some groups truly would like to see.

If we can't challenge, if we can´t ask why, why should we have free will?

If God's intentions were to have perfectly tamed and obedient creatures, ants and bees, not humans would be the answer. Just add a "worship" gene or function and there you are- the perfect religious community.

I am a human, I am not a drone (I am also not a number). I have no fear of using my (limited) free will to challenge, to question, to investigate. I am quite proud of it and would not have it any other way.

juryjone

31st May 2006, 01:50 PM

Who do you think you are to question the Creator, His motives, or His plan?

A human being. It's kinda what we do.

Alternatively: Who are you to question? I maintain that every time you go to scripture or some theologian's interpretation of scripture, you are questioning God, his motives and his plan, even if the question is just "What is the plan?" When you are searching your heart to find God, you are in effect asking a question of him. The only difference is that atheists ask, "Is he?" We find the answer is not forthcoming from him - all we get are anecdotes about what someone else thought was him.

I understand the questions quite well. You can't take straight answers. You've proven that.

If you can't take the parables as well, oh *********** well.

You can take it however you wish.

I really don't give much of a damn.

Than get your ass there as fast as you can.

Adios.

My, what a wonderful Christian atttitude.

I suppose by "doctrine" I generally do mean an article of faith. But if the old Catholic Encyclopedia is correct, it wasn't the "consensus theological viewpoint" either, was it? Didn't the article indicate that from the earliest Fathers onward, the metaphorical interpretation of the fires of Hell has had some proponents among theologians (and that the Church never corrects those theologians)?

Yes, but if you read a little further, doesn't it also say "Nevertheless, Scripture and tradition speak again and again of the fire of hell, and there is no sufficient reason for taking the term as a mere metaphor."

No sufficient reason. Sounds to me like that's about as close to a doctrine as you're going to get without coming out and calling the "metaphorists" heretics.

kitakaze

31st May 2006, 02:00 PM

Before I add my $0.02 I'll say I'm guilty of two things, one being that I only looked at the last page of this thread and the other being that I usually don't touch the R n' P with a 10 ft pole. That said, I still have the same question concerning Christianity that I had for the christian family that baby-sat me when I was seven and resulted in them refusing to baby-sit any further. If God created and loves us all yet we are required to accept and worship him lest we go to Hell why would he allow a world in which billions do not find him and therefore upon passing burn for eternity? If I am the hindu child of hindu parents and have lived a pure and simple hindu life am I destined to perpetual torture in the hellfires for my ignorance of Jesus? (That's not how I phrased it when I was seven, mind you.)

I less than three logic

31st May 2006, 02:16 PM

kitakaze

31st May 2006, 02:29 PM

You’ll find a whole list of responses that basically boil down to two answers. First, those that do not know the word of God (Christian version) are judged by their own standards on admittance to heaven. Second, every theist’s very favorite, God acts in mysterious ways that we can not possibly understand.'Oh?' and 'yeah, I heard that' I guess would be responses to those. That and concerning the first, I guess God coming to us in the form of his son Jesus to spread his word was kind of a trial and error thing? Faith makes us do wonderful and terrible things.

Huntster

31st May 2006, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Who do you think you are to question the Creator, His motives, or His plan?

A human being. It's kinda what we do.

Alternatively: Who are you to question? I maintain that every time you go to scripture or some theologian's interpretation of scripture, you are questioning God, his motives and his plan, even if the question is just "What is the plan?"

Precisely.

Then Robin needs to go to scripture and seek the answers to his/her questions from the source, not keep repeating the same mantra repeatedly, rejecting every attempt at my answers.

When you are searching your heart to find God, you are in effect asking a question of him. The only difference is that atheists ask, "Is he?" We find the answer is not forthcoming from him - all we get are anecdotes about what someone else thought was him.

After reviewing scripture, and seeing that the theme and insistence is repeatedly focused on "faith", when will you figure out that God has no intention of revealing the secrets of the universe to you during this physical life, in an unquestionable parade of "proof"?

The answer is "faith". If you are not capable of developing and strengthening it, I'm truly sorry.

That's the best I can do.

Originally Posted by Huntster :
I understand the questions quite well. You can't take straight answers. You've proven that.

If you can't take the parables as well, oh *********** well.

You can take it however you wish.

I really don't give much of a damn.

Than get your ass there as fast as you can.

Adios.

My, what a wonderful Christian atttitude.

Actually not. However, there is a limit to all things human, especially me. Robin clearly refuses to accept God, or my links to Church doctrine which explain what the 2,000 year old hurch understands. Our exchanges went on and on. No more. He/she gets what he/she wants.

Self-exclusion.

kitakaze

31st May 2006, 03:11 PM

I respect your opinions on the subject, Huntster, but if I may put a few things forward...when will you figure out that God has no intention of revealing the secrets of the universe to you during this physical life, in an unquestionable parade of "proof"?If he can't do so in the nothingness before he creates us, does he do it in the eternal bliss that comes afterward if we follow his way? What about the eternally damned?The answer is "faith". If you are not capable of developing and strengthening it, I'm truly sorry.Which makes us do wonderful and terrible things.Robin clearly refuses to accept GodIs she therefore destined for an eternity of suffering based on the opinions she formed in the life and circumstances she was born into? Is acceptance of God a prerequisite to the redemption of our original sin? (Sorry for the obvious questions.)

juryjone

31st May 2006, 03:22 PM

Is acceptance of God a prerequisite to the redemption of our original sin? (Sorry for the obvious questions.)

Not wanting to speak for Huntster, but I believe he answered that question when he said, "The answer is 'faith'." According to him (and the RCC catechism he quotes from), the unforgiveable sin is to "choose" to not believe. Faith, blind faith, is the one true way to heaven.

It does not help that he then uses a condescending attitude towards those of us who have not made the same "choice" he has made.

Huntster

31st May 2006, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
when will you figure out that God has no intention of revealing the secrets of the universe to you during this physical life, in an unquestionable parade of "proof"?

If he can't do so in the nothingness before he creates us, does he do it in the eternal bliss that comes afterward if we follow his way?

I don't know if He can or can't do so in the nothingness before he creates us, or at any other time. But in the Bible (both Testaments), the central theme is faith.

Obviously, upon our physical death, if "the lights don't go out", and instead we experience something else, we will be learning things that we couldn't have learned beforehand.

What about the eternally damned?

My understanding is that those who are eternally damned are seperated from God, and it was their own choice.

Robin clearly refuses to accept God

Is she therefore destined for an eternity of suffering based on the opinions she formed in the life and circumstances she was born into?

I don't know about "eternal suffering", but I believe she will be destined for eternal seperation from God.

That would be suffering for me, in my opinion. But she has stated that she prefers that than to share life with God, who she sees as a malevolent entity. Others in this forum have clearly stated similar sentiments. Perhaps eternal seperation from God won't be suffering for them. Indeed, that is what Satan wanted, and what he got, and I assume he's happy.

Is acceptance of God a prerequisite to the redemption of our original sin?...

Not as I understand it: (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#b)

BAPTISM: The first of the seven sacraments, and the "door" which gives access to the other sacraments. Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification. Baptism, Confirmation, and Eucharist constitute the "sacraments of initiation" by which a believer receives the remission of original and personal sin, begins a new life in Christ and the Holy Spirit, and is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ. The rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water, or pouring water on the head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (977, 1213 ff.; 1275, 1278).

Just as original sin came automatically upon birth as a human, it is automatically cleansed upon rebirth in the sacraments.

Robin

31st May 2006, 04:31 PM

Then Robin needs to go to scripture and seek the answers to his/her questions from the source, not keep repeating the same mantra repeatedly, rejecting every attempt at my answers.
Seems to me you never really answered my questions, merely quoted unrelated RCC party line. You never did respond on whether justice has been done by the mere provision of a choice.

You also stated that Church beliefs were in a constant state of change, you compared it to science. So why should I go to the earliest texts if these are now out of date?

By the way I may well be more familiar with the scriptures than you are.
Robin clearly refuses to accept God, or my links to Church doctrine which explain what the 2,000 year old hurch understands.
Can you show me where I have refused to accept God? No, I didn't think so. Not believing something is not the same as refusing to accept.

For example in another thread I did not believe that there was a wearable computer in the 1970's that could predict the fall of a roulette ball accurately enough to impact the odds. Later with a number of arguments and links supplied I was obliged to accept that my original disbelief had been wrong. Had I refused to accept it no amount of information could have changed my mind.

So there is a clear difference to disbelieving something and refusing to accept it.

But I suppose as long as you choose to believe what you say you don't need evidence. I have said that I would refuse to accept an unjust God. Because that would not be, by definition, God.

Also I showed that your link to the catechisms stopped short of the part that contradicted your assertions and showed that the Church still did regard Hell very much as a punishment..

Or am I not allowed to read the part of the catechism that is inconvenient to your assertions?
No more.
I would have hoped so, but yet you keep on and on, don't you?
I don't know about "eternal suffering", but I believe she will be destined for eternal seperation from God.
And on and on...

Huntster

31st May 2006, 04:46 PM

........Can you show me where I have refused to accept God? No, I didn't think so. Not believing something is not the same as refusing to accept.

For example in another thread I did not believe that there was a wearable computer in the 1970's that could predict the fall of a roulette ball accurately enough to impact the odds. Later with a number of arguments and links supplied I was obliged to accept that my original disbelief had been wrong. Had I refused to accept it no amount of information could have changed my mind.

So there is a clear difference to disbelieving something and refusing to accept it.

Now I'm confused.

You believe, and refuse to accept?

...I have said that I would refuse to accept an unjust God. Because that would not be, by definition, God....

So, you refuse to accept God because you judge Him unjust?

So, you believe, yet refuse to accept?

Also I showed that your link to the catechisms stopped short of the part that contradicted your assertions and showed that the Church still did regard Hell very much as a punishment..

So, if it "stopped short of the part that contradicted my assertions", did it contradict my assertion?

Is a direct quote of the Catechism "my" assertion?

Or am I not allowed to read the part of the catechism that is inconvenient to your assertions?

You are allowed, and encouraged, to read it all.

I would have hoped so, but yet you keep on and on, don't you?

And on and on...

I was asked a question by someone. I answered it.

I'm answering your charges right now.

Yes, as long as somebody gives me something to reply to, I will "go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on.

Robin

31st May 2006, 06:25 PM

Now I'm confused.

You believe, and refuse to accept?
You can avoid confusing yourself in future by actually reading what I have said. I have said nothing even remotely like your misrepresentation.

I unambiguously said that to disbelieve something is not the same as refusing to accept it. I very clearly gave an example of where I disbelieved something and then subsequently believed it after receiving evidence. If I had refused to accept it no amount of evidence would make be believe it.

I will disbelieve something until I am given good reason to believe it. Then I will both believe and accept it.
So, you refuse to accept God because you judge Him unjust?
Again, I have not said this, or anything like it. I said, what I said. Read it.
So, you believe, yet refuse to accept?
Again, I have said nothing like this. What a weak, weak thing your faith must be if it depends on such patently dishonest tactics.
So, if it "stopped short of the part that contradicted my assertions", did it contradict my assertion?
No, because you stopped short of the part that did.
Is a direct quote of the Catechism "my" assertion?
Your assertion was that punishment was the wrong way to describe hell. And yet the catechism describes hell as punishment. (As does scripture)

Huntster

31st May 2006, 07:06 PM

So, you refuse to accept God because you judge Him unjust?

Again, I have not said this, or anything like it. I said, what I said. Read it.

Then, what does this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1670484&postcount=204) mean?:

As I said earlier, if there is such a thing as Hell it is obviously infinitely preferable to spending eternity with the kind of mind that could devise it.

So, if it "stopped short of the part that contradicted my assertions", did it contradict my assertion?

No, because you stopped short of the part that did.

Is this (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#h) not a complete quote of the RCC definition of Hell in the Catechism?:

HELL: The state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives (1033).

Is a direct quote of the Catechism "my" assertion?

Your assertion was that punishment was the wrong way to describe hell. And yet the catechism describes hell as punishment. (As does scripture)

Scripture does indeed describe Hell as punishment. Scripture is full of parables.

I can fully understand why many would interpret and describe Hell as punishment.

Yet, per the definition of Hell in the Catechism, I call it justice. It is the result of a choice. You get what you choose.

What can be more just?

Robin

31st May 2006, 08:09 PM

Then, what does this (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1670484&postcount=204) mean?:
It means what it says, no more, no less. Read it.

It certainly says or implies nothing remotely like "I believe but I refuse to accept". Did you cite the wrong post?

Possibly you are unfamiliar with the usage of the word if, which might be the source if your confusion.
Is this (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/glossary.htm#h) not a complete quote of the RCC definition of Hell in the Catechism?:
No it is not. It is an entry from the glossary. The definition of hell is contained in article 12, paragraphs 1033 - 1037. The actual articles say nothing about belief. The article clearly states hell as a punishment, it speaks of condemnation.

They speak also of self-exclusion, but not in relation to belief. The glossary entry is not an accurate reflection of the text of the article. In this case the article itself should be regarded as being more authoritative.
I can fully understand why many would interpret and describe Hell as punishment.
Because as I have shown it is an article of faith of the Roman Catholic Church that hell is a punishment.
Yet, per the definition of Hell in the Catechism, I call it justice.
The word "justice" is contained neither in the glossary or the actual definition itself. The catechism unambiguously calls it a "punishment".
It is the result of a choice. You get what you choose.

What can be more just?
I cannot find a definition of justice that involves "getting what you choose". Certainly not in any dictionary. Can you provide a source for this odd definition?

You say that you answer questions, yet you have still to answer the question on this.

If Emperor Nero offers the Christians the choice between recanting their faith and being thrown to the lions, is he acting justly?

Robin

31st May 2006, 08:11 PM

Easy. Jesus confronts you in the next one. He says he died for your sins. You respond "you have GOT to be kidding. How could you possibly expect me to believe all of that nonsense?" That's how you reject Jesus.
So what would you have me do, lie to Jesus?

Huntster

31st May 2006, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by Huntster :
Then, what does this mean?:

It means what it says, no more, no less. Read it.

It certainly says or implies nothing remotely like "I believe but I refuse to accept". Did you cite the wrong post?

Let's do it again:

Originally Posted by Robin :
So, you refuse to accept God because you judge Him unjust?

Again, I have not said this, or anything like it. I said, what I said. Read it.

Then, what does this mean?:

As I said earlier, if there is such a thing as Hell it is obviously infinitely preferable to spending eternity with the kind of mind that could devise it.

Is this not a complete quote of the RCC definition of Hell in the Catechism?:

No it is not. It is an entry from the glossary....

Glossary: (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=glossary)

A list of often difficult or specialized words with their definitions, often placed at the back of a book.

...The definition of hell is contained in article 12, paragraphs 1033 - 1037. The actual articles say nothing about belief. The article clearly states hell as a punishment, it speaks of condemnation....

Paragraph 1033: (http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art12.htm)

...Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

Paragraph 1035:

...The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs...

Paragraph 1036:

The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny...

Paragraph 1037:

God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.....