Originally posted by SwissGambitAnd what exactly did Jesus say as reguards people burning in a place called hell?
Yes, technically there is no contradiction in believing in a hell and hoping no one is in it, but isn't that an obvious false hope? Look at the words of Jesus on eternal punishment and the Book of Revelation. Clearly, there are going to be people in Hell.
Originally posted by Conrau KI think he does. Just look at the two sentences he tacked on after the bit about purification:
I don't think he asserts that. He says it would be unjust if Hitler 'got off free' and that if anyone were a deserving candidate, Hitler would certainly be him. I think what Pell is saying is something like, 'For those who think Hell is an abominable doctrine, don't you think Hitler deserves it? For the sake of Christian charity, however, let's hope he isn't in Hell but has been reconciled to God through Purgatory.'
But I believe on behalf of the innocent victims in history that the scales of justice should work out. And if they don't, life is radically unjust, the law of the jungle prevails.He said that mere obliteration was too good for Hitler. Why then would he want Hitler to go to heaven? If he really thinks that would be just, then he's even more incoherent than I first imagined.
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Matt 25:41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
And what exactly did Jesus say as reguards people burning in a place called hell?
I would have thought you had read this.
Originally posted by SwissGambitBetween hell and obliteration is purgatory and, to a Catholic, purgatory does balance the scales. Hope for his salvation does not mean he gets off free.
I think he does. Just look at the two sentences he tacked on after the bit about purification:But I believe on behalf of the innocent victims in history that the scales of justice should work out. And if they don't, life is radically unjust, the law of the jungle prevails.He said that mere obliteration was too good for Hitler. Why then wou ...[text shortened]... If he really thinks that would be just, then he's even more incoherent than I first imagined.
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75And you JWs claim to know the Holy Bible and yet you have to ask this question. How shameful.
And what exactly did Jesus say as reguards people burning in a place called hell?
P.S. What you know is what the Watchtower tells you the Holy Bible says.
You read the "AWAKE" publication of the Watchtower Society.
Originally posted by SwissGambitWell, he did eventually mention purgatory. I guess the reason for its omission is that he was asked specifically about hell and so this is logically the place to start first.
Funny how he never mentioned purgatory at all, but jumped straight to hell. Was he having a Rick Perry moment? 😵
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk0XhJglsaQ
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitPurgatory was invented by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to bring
Funny how he never mentioned purgatory at all, but jumped straight to hell. Was he having a Rick Perry moment? 😵
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk0XhJglsaQ
in more money by praying your loved ones out and into heaven I understand.
Just like paying for indulgences that Martin Luther was against and got booted
out for complaining about. I am not saying that there are not real Christians in the
RMC but the "Tares" sometimes seem to overide the "Wheat".
Originally posted by Conrau KHe may have mentioned it later in the debate, but to leave that poor kid hanging on to a false dichotomy....think of the children, Conrau, the children! 🙂
Well, he did eventually mention purgatory. I guess the reason for its omission is that he was asked specifically about hell and so this is logically the place to start first.
Originally posted by SwissGambiti don't think it was his intention to describe all the eschatological possibilities open to the soul but to illustrate that some people deserve hell, whether or not hell is their destination in the end.
He may have mentioned it later in the debate, but to leave that poor kid hanging on to a false dichotomy....think of the children, Conrau, the children! 🙂
Originally posted by RJHindsThey invented the Trinity too, but I'll bet you don't have any problem with that. 😀
Purgatory was invented by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church to bring
in more money by praying your loved ones out and into heaven I understand.
Just like paying for indulgences that Martin Luther was against and got booted
out for complaining about. I am not saying that there are not real Christians in the
RMC but the "Tares" sometimes seem to overide the "Wheat".
Originally posted by Conrau KNow you're claiming Pell did state that people like Hitler deserved Hell. Pulling a Gingrich, eh?
i don't think it was his intention to describe all the eschatological possibilities open to the soul but to illustrate that some people deserve hell, whether or not hell is their destination in the end.
Originally posted by SwissGambitNo problem with the Trinity doctrine because it only organizes what has been
They invented the Trinity too, but I'll bet you don't have any problem with that. 😀
stated about God in the Holy BIble. There is nothing in the Trinity Doctine that violates scripture, in fact it harmonizes scripture.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneI think I am correct in thinking that hell was a clear teaching of Jesus yes?
Cardinal George Pell of the RCC in Australia in the debate with Richard Dawkins recounts a story where he "proves" the existence of hell to a young boy.
Seems like both Pell's argument and belief are based upon the idea that life would be "radically unjust" if hell doesn't exist for the Hitler's of the world. He also seems to simultaneously hold the c ...[text shortened]... f they don't, life is radically unjust, the law of the jungle prevails.[/quote]
Originally posted by knightmeisterNo, it is the way people have interpreted it.
I think I am correct in thinking that hell was a clear teaching of Jesus yes?
Jesus spoke about "outer darkness" and "wailing and gnashing of teeth", which seems to indicate a separation and, yes, severe remorse and regret.
Let's for a minute just take a closer look at Hitler, who seems (in this thread at least) to be the most likely candidate for Hell.
Let's also assume that the term "Appropriate Punishment" has some judicial value.
What would be "appropriate" for a Hitler?
Let's say that for each of the six million Jews he killed he gets 100 years of extreme punishment. Let's say that for the 50 million people that he affected in WW2 he gets another 100 years each.
And then, just for the hell of it (sorry for the pun!) let's double that.
No wait, let's triple it.....
That would come to, say, only 20 000 million years of extreme torture.
But this is less than the first "second" of eternity!
Remember eternity lasts for ever.
Does the punishment fit the crime?
I think not.
Rob Bell wrote a good book about that: Love wins. A good read. Also his website: mars hill.