Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYour original question to ivanhoe contained the ambiguous terms "non-converts" (which would include people who've never heard the Gospel) and "furnace" (which implies a physical fire). For him (or, indeed, any Catholic) to answer that question could lead to unnecessary by-lanes of debate.
Don't be silly. Of course they do, because I can ask:
Is it true that Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evi ...[text shortened]... of them.
My question to ivanhoe is simply, Do you accept these affirmations of the Catechism?
If your question simply is, does ivanhoe believe in what the Catholic Church teaches about Hell, then that is answerable (though further discussion would again require explanation of terms).
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe CCC explains that the term used by Jesus is more of a metaphor (although physical aspects cannot be ignored). The quotes are to clarify that it is to be interpreted primarily in a metaphorical sense.
It's not my term. The Catechism says that Jesus used that term.
Why put it in quotes, as if I made it up or used it in a funny way, when it's the real thing?
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerWell, you've changed your stance quite a bit.
Similarly, a person can express reasonable doubt when faced with the Gospel, but as long as the person takes an active interest in resolving these doubts and keeps himself open to the possibility of conversion, he cannot be said to be lackadaisical or indifferent to salvation.
Originally, you said one must obstinately refuse in order to be cast into the furnce.
Now you say failure to take an active interest in conversion is sufficient.
I believe your new stance to be much more accurate with respect to the text in question.
Originally posted by lucifershammerOn whose authority does the CCC declare that Jesus was speaking metaphorically and not literally?
The CCC explains that the term used by Jesus is more of a metaphor (although physical aspects cannot be ignored). The quotes are to clarify that it is to be interpreted primarily in a metaphorical sense.
Jesus did not say "a funace of separation from my love and presence."
He said, "a furnace of fire."
He added that those cast into it were cursed. The CCC is either ignoring the literal meaning that Jesus intended, or it is downplaying the severe rhetoric that He was using.
Originally posted by lucifershammerBut can this person you describe enter heaven?
Similarly, a person can express reasonable doubt when faced with the Gospel, but as long as the person takes an active interest in resolving these doubts and keeps himself open to the possibility of conversion, he cannot be said to be lackadaisical or indifferent to salvation. That can only happen if the person wilfully decides to close the case.
Is open-minded contemplation sufficient for salvation?
You are trying to have it both ways.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWilful ignorance/indifference when one has the opportunity to do otherwise is one form of obstinate refusal. So is wilful disobedience/rejection.
Well, you've changed your stance quite a bit.
Originally, you said one must obstinately refuse in order to be cast into the furnce.
Now you say failure to take an active interest in conversion is sufficient.
I believe your new stance to be much more accurate with respect to the text in question.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOn the authority of Jesus himself - who is the founder of the Church and from whom the Church derives its infallible Magisterium.
On whose authority does the CCC declare that Jesus was speaking metaphorically and not literally?
Jesus did not say "a funace of separation from my love and presence."
He said, "a furnace of fire."
He added that those cast into it were cursed. The CCC is either ignoring the literal meaning that Jesus intended, or it is downplaying the severe rhetoric that He was using.
In this case, how is "literal meaning" different from "severe rhetoric"? Sorry, but both your choices in the second question appear to mean the same. Please clarify.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThere are two cases. Either Jesus's words were meant literally or not.
On the authority of Jesus himself - who is the founder of the Church and from whom the Church derives its infallible Magisterium.
In this case, how is "literal meaning" different from "severe rhetoric"? Sorry, but both your choices in the second question appear to mean the same. Please clarify.
The literal case is distiguished by him refering to an actual fire and actual cursed people being cast into it.
The non-literal case would be if he was using extreme rhetoric, metaphorically using fire to symbolize separation from him, and cursed people to represent those that He didn't want condemned.
It is my finding that the latter case is absurd. When you suggest that he was speaking metaphorically, you need to put forth a convincing argument about why he would speak in severe terms of furnaces, fire, and curses, when all he really meant literally was that some people would be separated from him. I don't think you can.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow many people well-versed in Catholic doctrine agreee with this finding, that mere open-minded contemplation is sufficient for salvation according to the Catechism?
Yes. (Follows logically from wilful refusal being a necessary condition of Hell)
Let us see a show of hands, please.
How many non-Catholic Christians agree with this finding according their faith? Hands please.
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerHow much reason is a person allowed to use to establish this reasonable doubt of which you speak. Our outspoken atheists here have, I believe, honestly and fairly considered the question of the existence of God and have used their powers of reason to arrive at doubt. They also claim that they will open-mindedly and rationally evaluate all new evidence that comes to light regarding the matter. Have they thus earned salvation?
Similarly, a person can express reasonable doubt when faced with the Gospel, but as long as the person takes an active interest in resolving these doubts and keeps himself open to the possibility of conversion, he cannot be said to be lackadaisical or indifferent to salvation.
Or is there a limit to how much reason one is entitled to use?
Doesn't the reasonable doubt clause you suggest serve as a salvific (woohoo, I stole Nemesio's word!) loophole for any thinking person, for at Judgment Day, he can simply say, "My doubt was reasonable, which the CCC allows!" Or will God then say to those people, "Sorry, but lucifershammer was full of it --- you needed to believe. Get in line for the furnace."
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think you underestimate the suffering this separation means ("all he really meant ..."😉. Let's start with the assumption that, for a human soul, eternal separation from God is the worst form of suffering there is. Since God is the source of life, eternal separation from God is like a person being separated from oxygen. The need for metaphor is clear - no human (still alive) could possibly imagine what an eternity of separation means for his soul. Perhaps fire is the closest thing we have on earth.
It is my finding that the latter case is absurd. When you suggest that he was speaking metaphorically, you need to put forth a convincing argument about why he would speak in severe terms of furnaces, fire, and curses, when all he really meant literally was that some people would be separated from him. I don't think you can.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI wouldn't call it "mere" - it would have to be active. Contemplation/meditation is an active choice - the person contemplating is searching for the truth. He's not just waiting for it to come and find him.
How many people well-versed in Catholic doctrine agreee with this finding, that mere open-minded contemplation is sufficient for salvation according to the Catechism?
Let us see a show of hands, please.
How many non-Catholic C ...[text shortened]... ians agree with this finding according their faith? Hands please.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI'm sorry - have I offended you in any of my previous posts? Was there a need for a snide, personal remark in what was otherwise developing as a reasonably polite discussion?
How much reason is a person allowed to use to establish this reasonable doubt of which you speak. Our outspoken atheists here have, I believe, honestly and fairly considered the question of the existence of God and have used their powers of reason to arrive at doubt. They also claim that they will open-mindedly and rationally evaluate all new evi ...[text shortened]... ry, but lucifershammer was full of it --- you needed to believe. Get in line for the furnace."
How much reason is a person allowed to use? As much reason as can be used - but, of course, human reason has limitations, particularly with respect to matters of Revelation. Assuming that the atheists on this forum have honestly and fairly considered the question of the existence of God, what is their attitude towards the question? Are they looking for the final piece(s) in the puzzle that would give them faith? Or are they looking for cracks in the argument to reject the notion? Are they nitpicking?