Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDr.S: If Ivanhoe would be more cooperative and just answer the questions, I wouldn't have to resort to cheap shots."
If Ivanhoe would be more cooperative and just answer the questions, I wouldn't have to resort to cheap shots.
LH, does (3) follow from (1) and (2)?
Sure Dear Doctor, why don't you just go right ahead and blame me for your behaviour ...... 😵
just for fun I will post this
"......I must also be willing to let my narrow understanding of truth be broken open, to learn my own beliefs better by understanding the other, and in this way to let myself be furthered on the path to God, who is greater--in the certainty that I never wholly possess the truth about God and am always a learner before it, a pilgrim whose way to it is never at an end.
Although we must always seek the positive in the other, union means that the other must help me to find the truth, we cannot and must not dispense with criticism. Religion contains, as it were, the precious pearl of truth, but it is also continually hiding it, and is always running the risk of missing its own essence. Religion can grow sick and become a destructive phenomenon. It can and should lead to truth, but it can also cut man off from it. The Old Testament's critique of religion has by no means become superfluous today. It may be relatively easy for us to criticize the religion of others, but we must also be ready to accept criticism of ourselves, of our own religion....."
as I said just for the fun of it.
"....Trinitarian theology is apophatic, for it cancels the simple concept of person derived from human experience and, while affirming the divine Logos, at the same time preserves the greater silence from which the Logos comes and to which the Logos refers us. Analogous things could be shown for the Incarnation. ...."
still funning.
Originally posted by darvlayMy question to the Christians on this site is how many of you believe this to be true?
Originally posted by Blindfaith101:
[b]"Everyone has the chance, to accept the love and Sacrifice that JESUS CHRIST gave. Therefore we all have the power to prevent the sufferring of going to Hell."
This is a large point of contention with me, as I've mentioned before. Evangelical Christians in these forums have stated several times that [ ...[text shortened]... a like most of you rich white folk. Is this an unfair geographic advantage that God has set up?[/b]
Obviously, there are millions of people who've never heard of Jesus. Nevertheless, everyone has been exposed to God at some point in their life.
Originally posted by bbarrI didn't say "merely" separation from God. I said primarily a separation from God. Literal burning may be involved, though I think that is just the best way of analogically expressing the effects of the spiritual torment involved. Given the integral relationship between the soul and the body, it makes sense that eternal torment for the soul would be reflected physically as well.
I have it on good authority (lucifershammer et. al.) that Hell consists merely of separation from God. No literal buring is involved. Do you think that scripture firmly supports your view of Hell? If so, what scriptural evidence do you have for this view?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesFrom the same article:
They are not speaking on behalf of Catholicism, then.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
From Section VI. of the Catholic Enyclopedia's entry for Hell:
"According to the greater number of theologians the term fire denotes a material fire, and so a [b]real fire. We hold to this teaching as absolutely true and correct."
...[text shortened]... of the fire of hell, and there is no sufficient reason for taking the term as a mere metaphor."[/b]
"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... It is quite superfluous to add that the nature of hell-fire is different from that of our ordinary fire."
In other words, there is nothing un-Catholic about holding a purely metaphorical perspective on Hell.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIs it such a major theological point? What difference does it make either way?
The last time I brought that up with LH, he cited another major Catholic source that said hell was not a literal fire, so at the very least, as a class of believers, they can't get their story straight on such a major theological point. Can you blame them, when the doctrine makers obviously have to equivocate to the degree of a circus act to ...[text shortened]... the physical implications of an eternally burning fire and an eternally scorching physical pain.
Originally posted by bbarrYou would think that if he wants anybody to take anything he says seriously, he wouldn't refuse to affirm that the syllogism is a formally valid argument.
And you expect, after all this time, Ivanhoe to suddenly start answering questions?
LH, does (3) follow from (1) and (2)?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIt doesn't say "literal" furnace of fire etc. It merely says that Jesus spoke of it (possibly metaphorically - at least one of the citations is in the context of a parable). Nor does it contradict the next article which talks of the chief aspect of Hell.
Items 1033 through 1035 are an example of the equivocation that I referred to.
It speaks of hell as a literal "furnace of fire" into which Jesus' angels throw cursed people --- those who "refuse to believe and be converted," such as Jews.
It also speaks of hell as a "state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God."
Then i ...[text shortened]... e Church affirms the existence of hell," immediately after equivocating on what the term means.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou think they're from the Gene Kelly school of religious dialogue?
You would think that if he wants anybody to take anything he says seriously, he wouldn't refuse to affirm that the syllogism is a formally valid argument.
LH, does (3) follow from (1) and (2)?
Originally posted by lucifershammerOf course it is a major point!
Is it such a major theological point? What difference does it make either way?
If hell is a furnace of torment, then disbelievers are punished for their rejection of God.
If hell is mere separation without physical torment, then what did Jesus save us from? This separation only? Why did he have to endure suffering , supposedly on our behalf, if that is the case?
It is a major point that says something about the nature of God. Either he is the sort that punishes those who reject him, or he is the sort that allows them to go their way without reaping his revenge upon them.