1. Standard memberRedmike
    Godless Commie
    Glasgow
    Joined
    06 Jan '04
    Moves
    171019
    17 May '05 14:39
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Why would you be surprised that there are two Christian views on salvation here?

    What dj2 is arguing appears to be the Fundamentalist (a specific school of thought in Christianity; not to be confused with fundamentalist as in extremist) view of salvation; what I'm arguing is the Catholic view of salvation.

    Your first question is best answered b ...[text shortened]... it boils down to "If I do not care about the consequences of action X, why should I not do X?"
    I'm not surprised there are 2 christian points of view. I just said it was intereresting.
    I used to be a catholic, so theological differences aren't a surprise to me.

    You're lottery analogy is interesting. But it is really the reverse of my position. I know I can't win the lottery, so why buy a ticket?

    Of course I care about the consequences of my actions, but I'm specifically giving examples of actions whose consequences are mostly spiritual.

    I'm saying that, as I'm not getting into heaven anyway, why shouldn't I covet my neighbour's wife? Why should I observe the sabath? I'm not saying that, because I'm not getting into heaven I should be free to murder at will.
    So, the consequences of not observing the sabbath (for example) are nil.
  2. South Dakota, USA
    Joined
    30 Sep '04
    Moves
    1783
    18 May '05 00:49
    Originally posted by Wheely
    I read most of that page. Quite remarkable. I liked the bit about the worms. Almost enough on it's own to allow me to dismiss the entire article.
    That site does a serious disservice to Christianity. All scriptural language about the characteristics of Hell is probably figurative. You could just as well, nay, better, read Dante. It is better written and everyone knows it is imaginative literature, not theology.

    We don't know much about Hell actually. It is the place (the use of the word "place" is metaphorical to an extent, since, as far as we know, the souls of the dead do not occupy space and are therefore not in a "place" in the usual sense) for those who finally reject God's love. It is when He says to someone "Thy will be done."

    I suspect that the torments of Hell are self inflicted, by those who have chosen to remain small and selfcentered, in the darkness of their own narrowness. Perhaps in some figurative sense, their personalities, separated from God, collapse in on themselves. That is certainly what we seem to see in less dramatic fashion among the living who completely reject God. A category that does not include a lot of people who would profess to do that, by the way. Even those who see religion as target for ridicule may be earnestly seeking in their own ways.
  3. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    18 May '05 01:17
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    I am not too sure about all the details. Actually I wouldn't like to know. I suppose the only way anyone will find out for sure is the moment they die and go there. I don't actually want to take that risk.

    But here is a site that may give you as acurate a picture of Hell as we might know of before death:

    http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
    that website is utterly ridiculous IMO.
  4. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    18 May '05 01:28
    Originally posted by Redmike
    A question for the believers - just out of curiosity.

    Assuming there is a hell, and that I, as an unbeliever, am destined to go there. I'm interested in whether there are degrees of hellishness.

    So, do some people get of relatively lightly in hell and are others treated more severely? Are there special punishments reserved for those who've been espec ...[text shortened]... ime too many) , do they treat you a bit better?

    Or is everyone in hell treated just the same?
    from my understanding of reading the bible, there are no degrees of hell. everyone who goes to hell supposedly suffers the same eternal and infinite torment. which to me is pretty funny because as you point out, you can go to hell for being a good person who leads a good life, but for some mundane reason or another you fail to accpect JC (from what i understand, you don't have to outright refuse him, you just have to not accept him, which is fundamentally different).

    my views are usually dynamic by their nature, constantly evolving, but in general, i see myself as agnostic. as such, i am not yet convinced hell even exists, and this may all be academic.

    even if you are a non-believer who has made up his mind that he will never accept JC (and thus you are destined to go to hell), i think it would still go against man's nature to start wreaking havoc and not caring at all about any subsequent implications of those actions. still, there would be little incentive to adhere strictly to any moral code.
  5. Arizona, USA
    Joined
    15 Jun '04
    Moves
    656
    18 May '05 02:002 edits
    Shooting from the hip I am, but here's how I remember it.

    There was a dump site just outside of the old city of Jerusalem, back in B.C. times, that was called 'Gehenna.' Typically there was a smoldering fire amongst the trash, and no doubt a noxious odor associated with the site. Of several gates in the walls protecting Jerusalem, the one closest to Gehenna was called the 'Dung Gate,' since that particular byproduct of the beasts of burden living within the walls was one of the discardables taken to Gehenna. The word 'Gehenna' mutated in meaning over time to become to the Jewish people the Hell of afterlife.

    Italy and Sicily are quite active in their geology. There is a volcano in the Mediterranean that spurts lava so frequently that it is known as 'The Lighthouse.' The Golan Heights not far from Jerusalem are dormant volcanoes. The mention of hell as being a 'lake of fire' in the New (?) Testament probably derives from the writer having heard of--or maybe having seen in person--glowing magma in some volcano in one of those places. The Bible may mention "brimstone" as well, which I think is a reference to the stinky sulfur compounds that are inevitably found in places of active volcanism. The Christian version of Hell probably owes a debt to volcanoes.
  6. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    18 May '05 02:081 edit
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Matt 12:32
    1 Cor 3:15
    2 Macc 12:43-45

    http://www.catholic.com/library/purgatory.asp
    Since that site is not an "official" one of the Roman Catholic Church whatever it says should be completely ignored. http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22769&page=7
  7. Standard memberColetti
    W.P. Extraordinaire
    State of Franklin
    Joined
    13 Aug '03
    Moves
    21735
    18 May '05 02:20
    Originally posted by Paul Dirac
    Shooting from the hip I am, but here's how I remember it.

    There was a dump site just outside of the old city of Jerusalem, back in B.C. times, that was called 'Gehenna.' Typically there was a smoldering fire amongst the trash, and no doubt a noxious odor associated with the site. Of several gates in the walls protecting Jerusalem, the one closest to ...[text shortened]... in places of active volcanism. The Christian version of Hell probably owes a debt to volcanoes.
    Pretty good for shooting from the hip. I think most descriptions on hell are analogies, and any decent analogy should compare the thing to something people understand. I may look up the smoldering trash fire and volcano links.
  8. Arizona, USA
    Joined
    15 Jun '04
    Moves
    656
    18 May '05 03:59
    Originally posted by Coletti
    ... I may look up the smoldering trash fire and volcano links.
    I don't have any particular links for those topics.

    Off-topic, here is a fascinating site on how Jerusalem got its water:

    http://www.netours.com/2003/first-jm-MB-water.htm
  9. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36105
    18 May '05 09:08
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Since that site is not an "official" one of the Roman Catholic Church whatever it says should be completely ignored. http://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22769&page=7
    Oh, get over it!

    I never argued that whatever a document with the nihil obstat says should be completely argued, just that everything it says is not necessarily Church teaching.

    In this case, anyhow, the question was about Bible citations that support purgatory. The truth of whether the citations I provided do support purgatory can be evaluated independently, regardless of whether they are part of Church teaching or not (though not necessarily independent of certain hermeneutic principles).

    Anyway, all three Bible citatations I provided are also referred to in the CCC section on purgatory.
  10. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36105
    18 May '05 11:36
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    I never argued that whatever a document with the nihil obstat says should be completely argued*

    *ignored

    Anyway, all three Bible citatations* I provided

    *citations
  11. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    18 May '05 16:25
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    Oh, get over it!

    I never argued that whatever a document with the nihil obstat says should be completely argued, just that everything it says is not necessarily Church teaching.

    In this case, anyhow, the question was about Bible citations that support purgatory. The truth of whether the citations I provided do support purgatory can be eva ...[text shortened]... ay, all three Bible citatations I provided are also referred to in the CCC section on purgatory.
    Objection II.1. The premise is not necessarily true.

    (a) The article cited does not actually say that the Church teaches that the [their is a purgatory]. The statement cited may be the author's own view.

    (b) The fact that it has Church "approval" does not imply that all statements made in it paraphrase the teachings of the Church. This is because the Church "approval" given to the document is just a nihil obstat ("No objection" ) which simply means that the document is free of doctrinal error (at the time of publication). The Church may simply have no teaching whatsoever as to whether [their is a purgatory] or not.

    N.B.: I'm not saying that is the case, simply that your argument does not give sufficient evidence to prove it is.

    Please cite an "official" Church document on purgatory as you insisted that I MUST do to show my claim that the Church teaching is that the natural law purpose of sex is procreation. You are not allowed to make rules that others MUST follow and you do not. This post reeks of hypocrisy and childishness; esp. considering that you are using the very same site now that you refused to consider as competent evidence in the prior thread.


  12. London
    Joined
    02 Mar '04
    Moves
    36105
    19 May '05 10:591 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Objection II.1. The premise is not necessarily true.

    (a) The article cited does not actually say that the Church teaches that the [their is a purgatory]. The statement cited may be the author's own view.

    (b) The fact that it ha ...[text shortened]... d to consider as competent evidence in the prior thread.

    You're kidding me, right?

    1. The question I was responding to was not about Church teaching on purgatory - but biblical references to purgatory. It doesn't matter where I take these references from as long as the source uses the same hermenuetic principles as mine (which, in this case, are the same as that of the Church).

    Your whole post is based on strawman reasoning.

    2. When a document D has the Church's nihil obstat, the following statement holds:

    "If D asserts X, then it is true that the Church does not assert ~X".

    The following statement (which was the reasoning you used in that thread) does not NECESSARILY hold:

    "If D asserts X, then it is true that the Church asserts X".

    What you're committing is (IIRC) the fallacy of the excluded middle (which, incidentally, is also what George W. Bush commits when he says "You are either for us or against us" ).

    This is a matter of simple logic. Ask your fellow wolves (many of whom are skilled logicians).

    I'm not a lawyer, so I won't comment about "competent evidence" (which, I presume, has a precise legal definition).
  13. Standard memberorfeo
    Paralysed analyst
    On a ship of fools
    Joined
    26 May '04
    Moves
    25780
    19 May '05 16:47
    Originally posted by Redmike
    OK. That kind of ties in with my recollection of how it was supposed to work.

    I guess my secondary question is as follows....

    Given the undeniably poor state of my soul at the moment, and given my lack of any desire to rectify this situation, I'm therefore certain to go to hell, if it exists.

    Why, then should I bother to observe any of the 'rules'? If I'm going to be toast whatever happens, why shouldn't I enjoy myself meantime?
    There's a line from Isaiah that expresses this: "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die". If you have nothing else to look forward to, go ahead and enjoy yourself.

    I guess on one level, there ISN'T any reason, spiritually, to observe the 'rules' if you have decided to accept your fate. I would consider that a tragic decision, and one that if you tried to carry it out to its logical endpoint, I think you would probably find not so enjoyable after all.

    [Sorry, the grammar in that last sentence is appalling.]

    Are you still interested in consequences in this life? Legal and societal ones, I mean.
  14. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    19 May '05 22:111 edit
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    You're kidding me, right?

    1. The question I was responding to was [b]not
    about Church teaching on purgatory - but biblical references to purgatory. It doesn't matter where I take these references from as long as the source u ...[text shortened]... ent evidence" (which, I presume, has a precise legal definition).[/b]
    You're being ridiculous; if all you were trying to provide is the biblical references, there was no need to provide the citation to the article: the citation to the passages would have been sufficient. You were citing the article as proof of the Church's position and when I cited an article from the same source as evidence of the Church's position, you claimed it was no evidence at all. Your usual smartass comments about my supposed ignorance of logic are merely your typical dodges when you use hypocritical and false reasoning. There is no possibility of an "excluded middle" in the propositions that we were discussing; either the Church teaches that the natural law purpose of sex is procreation or it does not; either the Church teaches there is a purgatory or it does not. To say an article that says either one does not violate doctrine, means that the article is correctly stating doctrine. There is no "middle ground" available.

    "Competent evidence" does have a legal definition, but I was not here using the term according to it. I was merely pointing out that you refused to accept an article from the same source as any evidence of Catholic doctrine and insisted I must use "official" sources. Then you quote the same source! You have my chutzpah award for the day.
  15. Joined
    16 Dec '04
    Moves
    97738
    19 May '05 22:28
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    from my understanding of reading the bible, there are no degrees of hell. everyone who goes to hell supposedly suffers the same eternal and infinite torment. which to me is pretty funny because as you point out, you can go to hell for being a good person who leads a good life, but for some mundane reason or another you fail to accpect JC (from what i un ...[text shortened]... f those actions. still, there would be little incentive to adhere strictly to any moral code.
    There is only true understanding of Hell and that is the understanding of THE WORD OF GOD. If there was a chance for someone to go to hell, other that what CHRIST had done, and be able to come out. What was the purpose of CHRIST'S sacrifice on the cross at Calvery? Would not the ability of man to go in and out of Hell on there own, make the Sacrifice of CHRIST mute?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree