I don't give a damn (not that there's any such thing) what "The Vatican" thinks, but I do care what Pope Francis said in his conversation with his friend, the 93-year-old Eugenio Scalfari. Scalfari is — as the NYT puts it — "an atheist, left-wing and anticlerical giant of Italian journalism." Scalfari has no audio recording or even jotted-down notes to back up his statement that Francis said, "A hell doesn’t exist."
“These are not interviews, these are meetings, I don’t take notes. It’s a chat[," said Scalfari]. While Mr. Scalfari said he remembered the pope saying hell did not exist, he allowed that “I can also make mistakes.”....The Pope is deliberately choosing and using Eugenio Scalfari. There's something complex happening there, and a flat denial that the Pope said there is no Hell is at least as much of a simplification as the Scalfari report that he said it. So you can believe what you want.
Sophisticated readers of Italian journalism understand how to read Mr. Scalfari, which is to say, with a grain of salt when it comes to papal quotations. To many here, Mr. Scalfari personifies an impressionistic style of Italian journalism, prevalent in its coverage of the Vatican, politics and much else, in which the gist is more important than the verbatim, and the spirit greater than the letter.
And yet, despite the public relations headaches Mr. Scalfari has caused, Francis, 81, seems to like talking to him. The pope, Mr. Scalfari said, has a “need to talk with a nonbeliever who stimulates him.” This month’s meeting was their fifth....
In October 2017, Mr. Scalfari wrote, “Pope Francis has abolished the places where souls were supposed to go after death: hell, purgatory, heaven.” But the pope, who is surrounded by a court full of politically attuned cardinals, yes men and conservatives trying to undercut his mission, keeps coming back to Mr. Scalfari.
“We’ve become friends,” Mr. Scalfari said, recalling that the pope helped him into his car during the last visit, and that this time he walked him to the door. “He blessed me, but knowing that I’m not faithful, he blew me a kiss. And I responded in the same mode.”
I think the Pope likes talking with Scalfari so he can get some good back and forth and so he can get his ideas out to the world filtered through this slightly but not completely unreliable narrator. There is deniability, and there is also the leakage of the good news (that there is no hell).
But it's hard to admit that the Church has propounded a frightening, painful lie for so long, harder than apologizing for the 150,000 indigenous children who "were separated from their families and forced to attend the schools between the 1880s and the final closure in 1996, often suffering physical, sexual and psychological abuse."
Pope Francis won't do that. He has a different approach — he talks to the atheist, left-wing and anticlerical giant of Italian journalism who doesn't take notes but spins out the story in that impressionistic Italian style that sophisticated readers understand.
Posts
362 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 362 of 362Howard:
Thanks for that. Totally agree.
Ann:
You may have the Spiritual Exercises book in your library but it is meant to be used in an exercise with a spiritual director. That was one of the insights of Ignatius and why he titled it The Spiritual Exercises and not Spiritual Readings.
I understand you had a bad experience on the way to a retreat. You made the right choice, That smoker woman was an idiot. Many have a problem with the people in the religion industry because of the faults of the humans who run the show. For me, I can’t stand long and poorly written homilies or getting preached about politics from the pulpit. When I was younger I frequently thought about leaving Mass if the homily got too political or was too stupid. I went to a Ted Cruz campaign rally in Des Moines and was totally shocked at the number of pastors there. Politics and religion should not mix.
Today, I just cut the priests lots of slack. I discount the political stuff and the dumb stuff. I hold the Jesuits too a higher standard and they rarely disappoint.
My invitation to visit Cloisters on the Platte remains open. It would do you some good to get out of your comfort zone. I would further add that one of the lead actors in the movie about Jesuits in Japan (Silence) is not Catholic and he did the Spiritual Exercises. You definitely don’t need to be Catholic to go on this retreat. And I am not trying to convert you.
As neutron detectors have improved markedly since Erwin Schrodinger's day we must face the fact that the Dead Cat universes are a larger infinity than the Live Cat ones.
"Is there a hell? Everybody knows that nobody knows."
Have you been to Bakersfield, CA in August? Theologically speaking - if it ain't Hell, it's darn close.
Salvation is a gift. Legally, to be completed, a gift must be not only delivered, but accepted.
Yes - Humans have free will. Humans have the power to turn themselves away and be severed. God doesn't choose the severing.
My point is, once you have a tool that lets you cut things out of the text, you've lost your foundation for convincing other people based on the text. What determines what's in and what's out ...?
And yet very smart people believe there is something that is called Constitutional Law and you should believe them when they tell you what it is (which, of course, isn't precisely what the Justices say it is).
Dead Cat universes are a larger infinity than the Live Cat ones.
Ha ha ha! You DO have a sense of humor!
Althouse seems to be very much inside her head. Intellectualism.
Another approach is to try to understand religious practice, such as communion, or prayer, or attending church as something more then a rationalistic decision? Try to get outside of the head a little bit?
Meanwhile, this being Passover, the account of the Plagues provides a glimpse into how God deals with the evildoer.
Initially God asked Pharaoh to do the right thing - let His people worship Him. At first, Pharaoh professes an ignorance of God. Then he seeks to bargain and negotiate with God, seeking to set conditions and terms of doing good. When Pharaoh said, "no," God did not obliterate Egypt at the first sign of rejection. Rather, He gave Pharaoh a modest rebuke (the first plague) and gave him another chance. And then another, and another, and another.
Ten times God asked Pharaoh to let His people go (the number ten has symbolic meaning, it means completeness). God gave Pharaoh a complete number of opportunities to turn to truth and justice.
Each time, like any sinner, especially like the sinner who suffers some adverse consequences because of his sin, Pharaoh begins to lose resolve, he begins to crack, and starts to turn toward the good, if only with the “imperfect contrition” of wanting to avoid further punishment. Perhaps he really is truly sorry and repentant? But his movements toward the good end, and he becomes obstinate – his heart is hardened – when the pressure is off. The temptations of sin – in his case, power – cause him to fall backward.
The cycle repeats itself over and over. After a while, Pharaoh, like a typical sinner, even admits his fault and is sorry, but again the will to do good is weak and he falters. Eventually, however, the obstinate sinner runs out of time – the final plague is the point at which it is too late – death. Death of the first-born who is Pharaoh's future. It is now too late to repent, just as it is too late for us.
The lesson to be learned is that God does not merely want to destroy the wrongdoer, the oppressor, but to convert him, giving him many opportunities to do so. God gave the evil oppressor Pharaoh many chances, many opportunities to do the right thing.
And while Moses and Aaron and the Israelites are the People of God, Pharaoh and the Egyptians -- indeed, all the oppressors of the world -- are God's children too. As His children, He loves them too. Just as He gives us many, many opportunities to repent, so too did He give Pharaoh many chances to do the right thing. God did not strike him down immediately, He did not destroy Egypt with one blow the first time, but only upon the tenth time.
This is one of the big messages concerning God’s approach to sinners, which should give those of us who are also sinners hope. God will do a LOT to keep us out of Hell. He prods, He pokes, He warns, He chastises, He is patient when the sinner back-slides, He gives countless chances, and His divine mercy is everlasting. He even endures horrific torture and gives up His life on the Cross. All so that no matter how obstinate we might have been in sin, so long as we turn toward Him while there is still time, before death when it is then too late, that we will be reconciled to Him and to Life. If you still end up in Hell after all that, don't blame God for it.
A non-omnipotent God? That's spittin' distance from heresy.
No It's the concept of Free Will.
God can move souls, but God cannot force acceptance of God's love. The cup chooses to accept the water.
jimbino, had Eve eaten the snake, instead of the apple, she would have told Adam, "It tastes like chicken."
Imagine what the world might have been from the get-go; neon signs for KFC across the fruited plain, as far as the eye can see.
Well, after reading all these comments, especially Althouse's, It's a hell of a thing, but I need a nap.
It's not time for The Big Sleep yet
The moral of the story is: Once you walk through the looking-glass of religious superstition, you can believe any crazy thing.
No, God cannot save someone against their will. He cannot force His water into someone's downturned cup.
The nature of love is that it is free and voluntary. You cannot force love upon someone. Not even God can do that. For God to force His love upon someone would not only not be love, but instead an act of violence and a lie, it would for God to stop being God, who is the fullness of Love and Truth. And God cannot be Not-God.
Now, according to the Koran, Allah can contradict himself, but God cannot.
Yes - Humans have free will. Humans have the power to turn themselves away and be severed. God doesn't choose the severing.
If humans have free will, then how can there be Original Sin? In Christain doctrine, the sacrifice of Jesus has redemptive power because he died free of the taint of sin, particularly Original Sin, which is why the Nicene Creed insists he was "was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit." Later Roman Catholic dogma magnifies this point through the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, making both his progenitors free of Original Sin.
A non-omnipotent God? That's spittin' distance from heresy.
What would be heresy -- one which Mohammed was guilty of, by the way -- is the idea that you are inferring, which is that God is so all-powerful that He has the power to not be God. Which is of course a logical absurdity. And God being a rational being, the Logos, there is no part of Him that is contrary to reason. It is not a question of "power," but of truth.
There is a Jesuit retreat center in Oshkosh, WI. NB. All faiths welcomed.
“Located 80 miles north of Milwaukee, the Jesuit Retreat House on Lake Winnebago welcomes men and women of all faiths to its silent preached and directed retreats. The blue waters of Lake Winnebago wrap around the 23-acre campus like open arms. Vibrant spring and summer greens, gorgeous fall colors and tranquil winter snow provide a serene environment for reflection no matter the season.
The newly completed Manresa Residential Wing (ADA compliant w/two (2) elevators) offers 60 private bedrooms with toilets and showers as well as 2 new contemplative lounges with fireplaces for praying, reading and journaling. Meandering walkways, swings, benches, bridges and a gazebo contribute to a backdrop ideal for contemplation. Bikes and lawn chairs are available seasonally. An exercise room is available, and it is safe to walk or jog outside on the grounds and surrounding areas.
Meals are served buffet style, and the menu can accommodate nearly all retreatants (vegan and/or gluten free available). Snacks and drinks are always available 24/7, as well as a refrigerator for retreatant use. Daily Mass is held in the St. Ignatius Chapel, overlooking beautiful Lake Winnebago.
The Jesuit Retreat House is open year-round, offering silent weekend preached retreats from September thru May. Five (5)-day and eight (8)-day silent directed retreats are offered from June thru August. Preached retreats are offered for couples....”
Mark @12:57 PM:
Splendid. You're rolling. Keep going.
Snacks and drinks are always available 24/7 Is wine also served? I mean, before it's turned into blood?
If humans have free will, then how can there be Original Sin?
Roman Catholics believe in free will. The Pope is not a Calvinist.
If humans have free will, then how can there be Original Sin?
There was Original Sin -- and continues to be individual sin -- precisely because of human free choice of the will. The first humans chose to act apart from God, they chose to act like they did not need God and did not want God. They chose to act as if they were gods themselves and could choose their own truth, their own right and wrong.
Humans chose that. Not God.
It is not a question of "power," but of truth.
This right here! Buona Pasqua.
You cannot force love upon someone. Not even God can do that.
Yes, thank you Mark.
I think it's funny that Ann is mostly supporting the Pope is considered anti-Catholic, while those who think the Pope is absurd think themselves defenders of the faith.
Lots of Protestants in papist clothing around here!
Like him or not, Francis represents a significant theological voice and his election came upon a long period of prayer by those entrusted with the leadership and future of the church.
Lots of people are making minor doctrines into tests of faith, and that's much more misguided than anything Ann has said. If you think having a medieval view on Hell is required for salvation, you really need to read the Gospels again. There's been historically a very wide set of views within orthodox thought.
Ann is much closer to understanding Christian orthodoxy by staying close to the actual words of Jesus in the sermon on the mount.
The best discussion on Original Sin and the text in Genesis I've ever seen was given by Pope Benedict (of course) --
We can begin to understand what original sin, inherited sin, is and also what the protection against this inherited sin is, what redemption is. What picture does this passage [from Genesis] show us? The human being does not trust God. Tempted by the serpent, he harbours the suspicion that in the end, God takes something away from his life, that God is a rival who curtails our freedom and that we will be fully human only when we have cast him aside; in brief, that only in this way can we fully achieve our freedom.
The human being lives in the suspicion that God's love creates a dependence and that he must rid himself of this dependency if he is to be fully himself. Man does not want to receive his existence and the fullness of his life from God.
He himself wants to obtain from the tree of knowledge the power to shape the world, to make himself a god, raising himself to God's level, and to overcome death and darkness with his own efforts. He does not want to rely on love that to him seems untrustworthy; he relies solely on his own knowledge since it confers power upon him. Rather than on love, he sets his sights on power, with which he desires to take his own life autonomously in hand. And in doing so, he trusts in deceit rather than in truth and thereby sinks with his life into emptiness, into death.
[In truth] love is not dependence but a gift that makes us live. The freedom of a human being is the freedom of a limited being, and therefore is itself limited. We can possess it only as a shared freedom, in the communion of freedom: only if we live in the right way, with one another and for one another, can freedom develop.
We live in the right way if we live in accordance with the truth of our being, and that is, in accordance with God's will. For God's will is not a law for the human being imposed from the outside and that constrains him, but the intrinsic measure of his nature, a measure that is engraved within him and makes him the image of God, hence, a free creature.
If we live in opposition to love and against the truth - in opposition to God - then we destroy one another and destroy the world. Then we do not find life but act in the interests of death. All this is recounted with immortal images in the history of the original fall of man and the expulsion of man from the earthly Paradise.
And God being a rational being, the Logos, there is no part of Him that is contrary to reason. It is not a question of "power," but of truth.
Rational? How did you arrive that conclusion? The Scholastics struggled with that one for three hundred years and failed. They often pointed to the perfection of the heavens as examples of Divine Reason in action, Then Galileo aimed his telescope upwards and started the inevitable demise of that supposed Reason. Heisenberg and others drove a few other nails into that particular coffin.
More from Pope Benedict --
Dear brothers and sisters, if we sincerely reflect about ourselves and our history, we have to say that with this narrative is described not only the history of the beginning but the history of all times, and that we all carry within us a drop of the poison of that way of thinking, illustrated by the images in the Book of Genesis.
We call this drop of poison "original sin". Precisely on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, we have a lurking suspicion that a person who does not sin must really be basically boring and that something is missing from his life: the dramatic dimension of being autonomous; that the freedom to say no, to descend into the shadows of sin and to want to do things on one's own is part of being truly human; that only then can we make the most of all the vastness and depth of our being men and women, of being truly ourselves; that we should put this freedom to the test, even in opposition to God, in order to become, in reality, fully ourselves.
In a word, we think that evil is basically good, we think that we need it, at least a little, in order to experience the fullness of being. We think that Mephistopheles - the tempter - is right when he says he is the power "that always wants evil and always does good" (J.W. von Goethe, Faust I, 3). We think that a little bargaining with evil, keeping for oneself a little freedom against God, is basically a good thing, perhaps even necessary.
If we look, however, at the world that surrounds us we can see that this is not so; in other words, that evil is always poisonous, does not uplift human beings but degrades and humiliates them. It does not make them any the greater, purer or wealthier, but harms and belittles them.
This is something we should indeed learn on the day of the Immaculate Conception: the person who abandons himself totally in God's hands does not become God's puppet, a boring "yes man"; he does not lose his freedom. Only the person who entrusts himself totally to God finds true freedom, the great, creative immensity of the freedom of good.
The person who turns to God does not become smaller but greater, for through God and with God he becomes great, he becomes divine, he becomes truly himself. The person who puts himself in God's hands does not distance himself from others, withdrawing into his private salvation; on the contrary, it is only then that his heart truly awakens and he becomes a sensitive, hence, benevolent and open person.
A non-omnipotent God? That's spittin' distance from heresy.
You keep using that word, omnipotent, I don't think it means what you think it means.
The best discussion on Original Sin and the text in Genesis I've ever seen was given by Pope Benedict...
Which talks completely around the doctrine that we are born guilty of that sin, that "free will" (a non-Catholic invention attributed sometimes to the Hussites) has nothing to do with it since we cannot choose how we are conceived.
This much I will confess --
I read some of these comments that people make with such certainty (and often in a "gotcha" tone), and my response so often is, "Huh??" I have no idea what they are talking about.
Bill Clinton was good at that. He would say something, sometimes a quote from scripture, and then give a knowing nod to the crowd. And I would not have a clue as to what he was trying to say. In fact, a lot of what the left says leaves that impression on me.
You keep using that word, omnipotent, I don't think it means what you think it means.
Explain it to me then. Given its Latin roots, it means all powerful. If it means "just powerful enough to accommodate Christain apologetics", then you should petition the OED committee.
This much I will confess --
That's a rather Clintonian dodge, Mark, painting your opponents as just fast-talking charlatans.
About this omnipotence thing --
Let's talk freedom instead. Is a person free to be a slave?
If a person does not have the freedom to be a slave, he is really free?
Is "Hell is Nothingness" necessarily equivalent to "There is no Hell"?
No, Quaestor, I most honestly and emphatically HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
And don't worry, you are not alone Quaestor.
"My invitation to visit Cloisters on the Platte remains open. It would do you some good to get out of your comfort zone...."
Thanks. I appreciate the invitation.
I do have my 14-year uninterrupted blogging to maintain, so I'm probably not willing to do something that would cut me off from that. It's pretty important to me!
Other than that, I would do some things out of my comfort zone, but I am unusually sensitive to feeling unwelcome, going back as far as I can remember. Even if you tell me I would be welcome, I find it too hard to accept. I don't feel welcome in my own city. I didn't feel welcome in the law school where I worked for 30+ years. I don't picture myself feeling welcome in any kind of religious situation.
I do feel welcome on my own blog, which is why it's so important to me.
I don't picture myself feeling welcome in any kind of religious situation.
I understand introverts feeling uncomfortable, but I promise you would be welcome. If a church doesn't welcome new visitors, something is horribly wrong.
I often attend new churches out of town when traveling, and I cannot think of many instances where I did not feel welcomed.
Ann Althouse said...
Even if you tell me I would be welcome, I find it too hard to accept. I don't feel welcome in my own city. I didn't feel welcome in the law school where I worked for 30+ years.
So if you had lived in Virginia and taught at Liberty University you would have spent the last 14 years complaining about the Wall Street Journal, gun nuts and Christians?
I read some of these comments that people make with such certainty (and often in a "gotcha" tone), and my response so often is, "Huh??" I have no idea what they are talking about.
As far as that comment concerns me, be it known that I'm not certain of anything, including the existence or non-existence of God and all his works, including heaven, hell, and Jesus. That's not to say I am not sadly mistaken. It's just what I conclude by observation. Every time I look, God is not in evidence. It's certainly possible that he's there, occulted by his own will, but that's the defect of inductive reasoning. The chickens cannot know what the farmer intends by feeding them. However, I find it difficult to square a loving God who seeks my salvation with an invisible one who chooses to speak through ancient proxies who aren't themselves paragons of reason.
Everything good or evil about existence is adequately explained by either human agency or natural science. If God wants in on this, he needs to do some explaining first.
I think some people feel they can't attend a church if they aren't positive they understand and believe in the church's theology 100%
If you're worried that you can't go to a church because you don't know if you believe 100% in its theology, that's ok. The idea of a church is to welcome strangers, and doubters, and people who are not members.
I have been in Bakersfield CA in August.
I have been in worse places.
Ann:
Yes, your 14 years of blogging every day is very impressive. It shows great discipline and passion.
Part of the beauty of a retreat is that it cuts you off from the rest of the world. If you aren't willing to do that - even for few days - then it is not for you.
I would suggest, however, that husband Meade or son John could carry on if you did a shorter weekend retreat. It might give you a new perspective.
As to feeling welcomed at a retreat, it has been said many times about Creighton that it is a very welcoming and friendly place. That's the Jesuit influence. I went to a different school my first year and it was markedly different at Creighton. Trust me, you would be welcomed if you went to it with an open mind and open heart.
You have a highly intellectual approach to many things and that's why I think a Jesuit directed retreat might appeal to you. The Jesuits are all well educated and very rigorous in their thinking.
Enough! Creighton alum Porter Moser leads Loyola of Chicago against Michigan in about 3 hours.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
The idea that you do not know the result of an experiment until the experiment has been completed is not a foreign concept.
It also doesn't anything to do with QM.
The reality is that like the cat in the box, until you KNOW the answer, the state of the cat can be several things at once.
The lameness is that the human isn't the only "observer", so there's no reason to think the state depends on what the human observes:
Feynman @Wiki:
"This is all very confusing, especially when we consider that even though we may consistently consider ourselves to be the outside observer when we look at the rest of the world, the rest of the world is at the same time observing us, and that often we agree on what we see in each other.
Does this then mean that my observations become real only when I observe an observer observing something as it happens? This is a horrible viewpoint.
Do you seriously entertain the idea that without the observer there is no reality?
Which observer? Any observer? Is a fly an observer? Is a star an observer?
Was there no reality in the universe before 109 B.C. when life began? Or are you the observer? Then there is no reality to the world after you are dead?
I know a number of otherwise respectable physicists who have bought life insurance."
On feeling welcome (or not):
Once upon a time, during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, I checked into a B&B in Belfast. I ask the lady who owned the place, "where can I go hereabouts for a pint?" She said, "I can send you to a Catholic pub or a Protestant pub. Which do you prefer?" And I said, clueless American that I am, "I have no preference, doesn't matter to me." Whereupon she replied, quite sternly, "Well, it matters to us. Now, tell me: which do you prefer?" When I hesitated to answer, she said, "I'll send you to a mixed pub. Everybody's welcome, if you don't talk religion or politics. Whatever you do, don't talk religion or politics."
I went, I was welcome, I had a good time. Mostly we talked about America. After closing, on my way back to the B&B, I was more than a little tipsy, stumbling a little, when around the corner came a patrol of very heavily armed British squadies. They drew down on me with their FNs and I raised my hands and smiled and said, "Hi guys, what's up?" It happened so fast I didn't have time to be scared, I reacted automatically, just like I would have reacted if I had run into a couple of Chicago cops under similar circumstances, which I have. They heard my American accent and laughed and lowered the weapons and gathered around me and we had a nice friendly chat. They were good guys, just kids actually, and I liked them.
It was only later that I realized that I had come within a hair's breadth of getting shot to shit, and that's when I began to sweat.
True story.
Papal elections are often about much more worldly matters.
Or, rather, about a great number of things including many worldly considerations, many of which may not be worthy of consideration.
Any study of Church history should make that clear.
It is not anti-Catholic to be skeptical about the clergy. The clergy is skeptical about the clergy, more often than not. Luckily the Church is not justified by the quality of the clergy.
I most honestly and emphatically HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
I started by outlining the case that hell, a place of eternal punishment is incompatible with post-Medieval concepts of justice. (I avoid using the term Modern since it has acquired an unsavory gloss over the years since Das Capital was published.) If hell does not serve justice, which it cannot, given the finite nature of human life, then purpose what does it serve? Nothing worthy of a God worthy of our adoration is my contention.
"At its essence, Hell is the state of being of being apart from God."
The real question is only how faithful we must be to the cartoon. Those who believe there is a little white bearded man sitting on a cloud are obliged to believe in the little red man with pitchfork, right?
"The moral of the story is: Once you walk through the looking-glass of religious superstition, you can believe any crazy thing."
Like the belief that everything is random, yet somehow it still matters whether we let other peoples' children starve to death.
Paddy O: I think it's funny that Ann is mostly supporting the Pope is considered anti-Catholic, while those who think the Pope is absurd think themselves defenders of the faith.
Lots of Protestants in papist clothing around here!
Uh, no. Nothing odd or un-Catholic or "Protestant" about disagreeing with a pope's opinion. I'd be surprised if you really didn't know that.
Like him or not, Francis represents a significant theological voice and his election came upon a long period of prayer by those entrusted with the leadership and future of the church.
None of that is an argument against thinking he's voiced an absurd opinion.
Ann is much closer to understanding Christian orthodoxy by staying close to the actual words of Jesus in the sermon on the mount.
That there is no hell (however conceived) is not Roman Catholic Christian orthodoxy, regardless of anybody's opinion about the how close or far that is to "true" Christianity.
I've always thought that non-belief in God is what's irrational. Gets back to the old "why is there something instead of nothing" question.
No, I don't believe in turtles all the way down.
If the Loyola-Chicago Ramblers win today, it firmly establishes the existence of a benevolent God.
Blasphemy!
(Rock Chalk)
"If humans have free will, then how can there be Original Sin?"
Like almost all if not all free will arguments, it suffers from the assumption that "free will" requires not only a choice of what to do with ourselves, but a state of being born into a perfect world where who we are and the world we live in is untainted.
But that is the world that is lost. We influence each other - that is part of free will, too, that what we do affects others. What our parents choose affects the world we come into and affects who we are.
We are all touched by each other. That is part of being human.
Part of being Christian has to include understanding that, somehow, we rise and fall together. It seems to me that most Christians agree with this in some form, but argue bitterly about what it means.
Catholicism is heavily influenced by classical philosophy, particularly the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle.
Plato thought the physical universe we are all familiar with is but a distorted and defective reflection of a Perfect Universe where Truth and Beauty become one. At the end of times, if the tradition of hell as a place of eternal confinement for evil and vicious souls (or selves) exists, there is a philosophical problem. A Perfect Universe consisting of all existing things would not be perfect if the traditional notion of hell existed. One way around this is to propose the idea that hell is what we call the transition of evil and vicious selves into non-existence, something that happens for no other reason than that they have freely willed themselves into absolute nothingness.
Ann, time for a field trip. Look up Fr John Zuhlsdorf who lives in your neck of the woods, make an appointment, discuss this issue with him and report back.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/03/pope-francis-alleged-remarks-about-hell-fr-z-says-let-not-your-heart-be-troubled/
"No, I don't believe in turtles all the way down."
Amazing how often the 'rational' peoples' arguments rely on mocking or belittling the beliefs instead of actually rebutting them. And these are the Indigo Bright Leaders Of The One True Future.
In truth, the questions we're dealing with are unprovable and unknowable, and both belief and unbelief require faith in certain unprovable, illogical possibilities.
It bugs me when people beg the question to prove that their unprovable, illogical possibilities are smart and rational (or, worse, 'scientific' - as if the scientific method could ever be a useful tool for examining metaphysical truth).
very heavily armed British squaddies
Roughcoat, how would you discriminate between armed, heavily armed, and very heavily armed? Not mocking, quite sincere.
On the topic: As a Jew, I stand outside this contention, but feel informed by your debate. I will say there is something wrong with this Pope, and, kal v'chomer (aka a fortiori), with those "who sent him."
A zissen Pesach, and a happy Easter too.
David Begley said...I would suggest, however, that husband Meade or son John could carry on if you did a shorter weekend retreat. It might give you a new perspective.
I think a "Slow Train Coming" phase in the Althouse oeuvre would be interesting. She could always relapse.
I'm a non-believer, although I would like to believe there is a Commie and/or Nazi Hell in which people who actively promoted tyranny are condemned to eternal torture chambers. (Better repent now, some of you!) However, since last this blog posed something about this story, and mentioned how in the Apostles' Creed (if I remember my Catholic-school theology) it says Jesus "descended into Hell." It was accompanied by a painting depicting Jesus' "Harrowing of Hell." I believe that the nuns, and later the Christian Brothers, taught us that this was a mis-translation, and that Jesus, after his death of the cross, actually went to Limbo, not Hell (or at least not "Hell-Hell," as Whoopi Goldberg might put it). He was supposed to free those souls of folks who had been worthy of Heaven but couldn't get in because they lived and died before Jesus' "redeemed" them by his death. The "harrowing" was where he literally went down into the underworld and got the heaven-worthy souls out of there.
Eaglebeak
Points of interest (to me):
1. All depends on definition of Hell. If it means eternal (or even very long) separation from God, that's one thing. If it means burning flames, that's another. There's no sense discussing it before defining it (that goes for Francis too).
2. Many people far more intelligent than Francis have believed in it (again, definition required, and in these cases given): Origen, Augustine, Maximus the Confessor, Anselm, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Luther, Calvin, etc. etc.
To invoke intelligence as a sort of argumentum ad hominem therefore seems unconvincing.
The intelligence of the believer or non-believer is not dispositive, any more than it was for the heliocentric theory/geocentric theory controversy.
Roughcoat, how would you discriminate between armed, heavily armed, and very heavily armed? Not mocking, quite sincere.
Though not directed to me I would point out that those are all relative terms. Given the relative badness of the SA-80 family of assault rifles and the relative goodness of the FN FAL as a battle rifle (I understand that the BA discontinued issuance of the select-fire version of the FN FAL in favor of the semi-auto version in the 1970s.) that just by the fact of carrying FN battle rifles as opposed to SA-80s made them "very heavily armed". Personally, I wouldn't argue with a FAL at ranges less than 500 yards, 700 if the squaddie has optics.
Roughcoat: When I hesitated to answer, she said, "I'll send you to a mixed pub. Everybody's welcome, if you don't talk religion or politics. Whatever you do, don't talk religion or politics."
Cool story, bro.
Last summer, on my eclipse road trip, we stopped for some post-totality brews at a John Day, Oregon establishment. I don't remember the exact wording, but prominently displayed was a sign, the gist of which was "For the sake of all patrons' enjoyment and safety, NO POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS allowed on these premises". Damn, I thought, things sure are getting testy in this country.
Despite that, I'm really not in any fear of "getting shot to shit" in any watering holes I'm likely to find myself in in this country, even if the patrons did start flouting the posted rules.
If we look, however, at the world that surrounds us we can see that this is not so; in other words, that evil is always poisonous, does not uplift human beings but degrades and humiliates them. It does not make them any the greater, purer or wealthier, but harms and belittles them.
Thank you, Mark, for the quote. While not a Catholic I had a lot of respect for Benedict. He's right: SIN IS BAD FOR US!!! No good can come from it. While we continue to sin as long as we are in the flesh, willful sinning is an affront to God and brings destruction upon families and nations.
Repentance is the turning away from sin and is a part of salvation.
LOL at the story of Christians on their way to a spiritual retreat leaving a pregnant woman on the side of the West Side Highway because she objected to cigarette smoke.
Roughcoat, how would you discriminate between armed, heavily armed, and very heavily armed? Not mocking, quite sincere.
Figure of speech. They were armed with assault rifles and pointing them at me. I mean come on, gimme a break.
But if you insist on specifics: you know the "O-lee-um" guards parading and singing with their halberds outside the Wicked Witch's castle? I regard them as being "heavily armed." And almost as scary as the squadies.
Hope that answers your question.
Spot on in the UK's Catholic Herald:
Why Pope Francis would continue to trust that man, Scalfari, is beyond reckoning. Nearly half a dozen times since Francis’s election, have we been treated to a round of Scalfarism, the circuit of which is predictable enough, but each time more pernicious in its effect. Even if Pope Francis believes that Scalfari’s soul depends on continuing their conversations and allowing Scalfari to take egregious license with his reportage of them, he must know that the inevitable results of his commerce with the man are confusion and scandal, hence that his persistence in it constitutes a failure in his mission to confirm the brethren.
It is easy to believe the Holy Father motivated in his continued commerce with Scalfari by genuine charity, by desire that Scalfari’s soul be not lost. If the Pope’s intentions in all this are blameless, his judgment is nevertheless —indeed all the more — appalling. If the Pope’s solicitude for Scalfari’s soul is indeed so great, and Scalfari’s protestation of friendship sincere, then let Francis resign the office and go talk with his friend all day long over vino burino and briscola.
R.J. Chatt
There is a parable in that story, the parable of excommunication for heresy in the dawn of the do as you fucking please era.
For anyone interested Schrodinger's cat box, here is a good explanation of why it's not interesting: no undefined or multiple states, the human observer doesn't matter, etc.
"If you really think there could be a Hell, why don't you continually speak with Christian charity?"
Christ doesn't command us to be charitable toward EVERYONE.
Christ drove out the money changers.
The Church believes in a just war.
@Darrell If you really believed in Hell, you would not take the risk of speaking so abusively. Did Jesus teach you to speak like that? If not, if you really think there could be a Hell, why don't you continually speak with Christian charity?
Scoundrels always make that argument. Jesus drove the money changers from the temple--you get the words you deserve. And judging--condemning-- another person--isn't your call. We are specifically warned about doing that. That job was given to Jesus after the resurrection.
Leftists are always looking to avoid the punishment that they are due. Hence the gun grab wishes. The Pope is a Marxist and has been for thirty years. He lied about a conversion after being elected Pope, but papers he wrote thirty years ago gave him away. He was the Manchurian candidate among the Latin American social justice Cardinals waiting for the others to chose him as the least evil when they wanted to pander to the high-growth Latin congregations. They lost big time. No man can serve two masters and Pope Karl serves Herr Marx.
"I once attempted to go to a religious retreat — Episcopalian, so I forgive you if you say that doesn't count as "religious" — and I bailed out on the way to Connecticut somewhere on the West Side Highway. I was 2 months pregnant and another retreat-goer started to smoke and I asked her not to smoke and when she declined, I revealed that I was pregnant, which I did reluctantly but with confidence that it would get her to stop. She didn't,"
I just read upwards. This is horrible behaviour. Well, I suppose humans are imperfect, but WOW this is horrific.
I belonged to an Episcopalian youth group in high school, and they were a group of really nice kids.
I believe that in one of the Gospels, Jesus tells the apostles to buy swords. The Pope has recently stated that what Jesus meant was to buy "non-assault swords" and to make sure the swords they bought were registered with Pontius Pilate.
@John Henry: I think jimbimo was referring to the Bible verses set in National Parks. ;)
Christ doesn't command us to be charitable toward EVERYONE.
Christ was not charitable toward the Pharisees, that's for sure. He called them whited sepulchers and spawn of the devil.
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. John 8:44,45
Seriously, I agree with Ann's theory that the Pope wanted to introduce the idea to Christians that their imagined concept of hell fire for eternity is not accurate. Considering the blow back from Catholics who want to believe in eternal hell fire I think that was a wise choice.
As a Jew I found the discussion fascinating intellectually. Jews don't actually put much energy into the concept of hell, it doesn't figure into the life choices people make. For Jews the main distinction is between life and death here on earth, following the commandments to live a godly life, and eventually the Messiah will come and there will be heaven on earth. (in answer to the question of many Catholics who are asking why did I have to do all those good things if there's no hell?) The Jewish tradition holds that the sinner who repents and turns to God is held in higher esteem than the observant one who has mindlesssly followed the laws.
Christians go through so much turmoil because of the crucifixion of Jesus and why would something like that happen to Him? But then we all suffer, so in some way we all must deal with the puzzle of how would a loving God allow so much suffering? Whether you are Jewish celebrating the redemption of Passover or Christian celebrating the resurrection you fundamentally choose that life is positive and good. God is fundamentally good and worthy of love. Happy Passover! Happy Easter!
There are different rules/realities along the way for different groups, like different personality types. For Muslims, for example, there is definitely the possibility of eternal hell fire (the Qur'an mentions it repeatedly) and there's no guarantee of paradise even for observant Muslims. Somehow they accept this capriciousness and embrace their fate and do their best to please Allah. No justice indeed.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Read more carefully. The concept or existence of God, Heaven, Hell is the cat in the box. We don't know the reality of the cat in the box until the box is finally opened.
Fernandistein responded:
Yeah I know, just having some fun.
The observer doesn't die, cat dies - or not - and then the cat sees the observer observing him. Or not.
I always thought it was a pretty lame "thought experiment" because you don't need the idea of observations causing wave-states to collapse, or however you want to phrase it, it's just that you don't know whether or not the cat is dead until you look.
Here's an amazing thing. Fernandistein, you are wrong. I don't mean it's amazing that you've made a mistake. What's amazing is that that your very plausible assertion which seems so logical that it seems like it must be true is probably wrong.
First I need to explain that word: probably. The cat in the story is meant as a metaphor for a quantum mechanical entity. If cat equals quantum mechanical entity then the cat is both dead and alive at the same time as long as we have not looked. We know this because the experiment has been done, or rather something similar where if it's just a question of us not knowing whether the cat is dead or alive, we would see one thing, and a different thing if it, the quantum mechanical entity, is simultaneously both. In all these experiments the answer is the same: it's the act of looking that collapses the wave-state. Before then it is both.
My next assertion is just a maybe. (I've been wondering if this might be true, and I've been thinking about it as it so happens lately, and of course it could be that I'm quite wrong.) But it maybe that if we are talking about a literal cat in a box that as long as there is no prior connection between us and the cat in the box, that is as long as there is no conceivable way we could ever have known whether the cat is dead or alive, that the literal cat is both dead and alive up until the moment we look.
Is theology to be formulated by democratic or republican framework.
If anyone here has ever been in a deep dark depression then they know what hell is. It is deeply dark and lonely and when you’re in it it feels like it is eternal, that even death wouldn’t put an end to its misery.
“I do feel welcome on my own blog, which is why it's so important to me.”
Because it’s an entity of your own making, creating and controlling your own surroundings and giving you a retreat away from your physical world outside your home and your head, where you feel unwelcome. I think I have better insight into what makes you click.
Or I could be wrong, lol.
R.J. Chatt said...
LOL at the story of Christians on their way to a spiritual retreat leaving a pregnant woman on the side of the West Side Highway because she objected to cigarette smoke.
3/31/18, 2:59 PM
This is one case where I feel I have to have the other side of the story. It's not at all hard for me to imagine Ann Althouse being put out of a car. (The secret word is "bitch"). I mean, I wouldn't do it, but that doesn't mean I can't relate.
It is a little hard imagining her not arranging to be let off off at a place of relative safety and convenience, but it depends where she was on the West Side Highway. And when was this, the 70s?
Still...tsk/lol. F'in Episcopalians, I guess. No wonder Althouse voted against McCain. I remember her showing us his semiotic sweatshirt back in '08.
(I guess if her erstwhile companions wanted their side of the story to be represented, they could get their own damn blogs. I wonder if they remember her. I suspect they do. I suspect they may yet bear the scars.)
R.J. Chatt: Considering the blow back from Catholics who want to believe in eternal hell fire...
I wonder if either you or Althouse can figure out why other people would find this comment funny.
(Maybe it's just me, but no matter how many times I watch Althouse set-out on another question-begging adventure in moral or theological reasoning, it never stops being entertaining.)
There is an old Catholic joke about the Trinity being asked where they would most like to go. The Holy Spirit said Rome since he had never been there.
Fernandistein, I'm puzzled by your reference.
See for example this quote:
The non-classical nature of the superposition process is brought out clearly if we consider the superposition of two states, A and B, such that there exists an observation which, when made on the system in state A, is certain to lead to one particular result, a say, and when made on the system in state B is certain to lead to some different result, b say. What will be the result of the observation when made on the system in the superposed state? The answer is that the result will be sometimes a and sometimes b, according to a probability law depending on the relative weights of A and B in the superposition process. It will never be different from both a and b.
The intermediate character of the state formed by superposition thus expresses itself through the probability of a particular result for an observation being intermediate between the corresponding probabilities for the original states,† not through the result itself being intermediate between the corresponding results for the original states.
So with these words the author acknowledges that the cat in the box does not behave classically, or in other words, one cannot explain things here by assuming the cat is either alive or dead, and then looking to discover which it is.
So after acknowledging the whole point of the paradox, although admittedly in such a way that many readers aren't going to get what has just been said, the author then turns around and says, There is no justification for assuming an intermediate (and absurd) condition of simultaneous live and dead cats. The thing that is "intermediate" is the probability, not the outcome.
It seems like a silly game. The phrase intermediate is the probability means the same thing as both alive and dead.
Many years ago as an agnostic, I attended a Catholic retreat at Monastery in Kentucky. While there I went to confession in the office of one of the priests who helped me understand why God could not be comprehended from a logical basis. It was the key to a new outlook for me but was not life changing.
Later, from study of the bible with a couple of other students I surrendered my life to Christ. THAT was a life changing experience for me and I have never had serious doubts since about the essential veracity of the scriptural account of God. Study is still important and I have read much but continue to believe that the scripture is God's word to man and to me specifically. I am far from perfect, far from comfortable with my understanding of many mysteries. But I am saved.
Roughcoat wrote: I've always thought that non-belief in God is what's irrational. Gets back to the old "why is there something instead of nothing" question.
Cosmologies that include multiverse scenarios posit the likelihood of short-lived universes which collapse or dissipate rather than inflate as ours did some 14 billion years ago. The answer to the question cited is the same as the answer to why the winning dice shooter rolled his point before rolling craps -- he got lucky. Why is there something? We got lucky, otherwise, we wouldn't be here and able to ask.
You make it sound as though Scalfari is off on his own romp, but Francis is involved in whatever weird thing is going on.
Scalfari is perfectly happy to sow a bit of division. Pp Francis is speculating--inaccurately.
The real problem is what you mention: Francis likes to talk with this guy. Scalfari will run with anything he can, accurate or not, to rock the boat. Francis is either dumb (a good possibility) or a scoundrel. Of the two, I'll select "dumb". The other is....ahhh.......
"It is a little hard imagining her not arranging to be let off off at a place of relative safety and convenience, but it depends where she was on the West Side Highway. And when was this, the 70s? "
Happy and Joyous Passover!
But I gotta disagree with some of the assumptions about the smoking-in-car-with-pregnant-lady-people. The people in that car were acting abominably. People smoked a lot more 30-40 years ago. But they knew smoke was bad for unborn babies, and they most definitely knew about morning sickness!
Althouse told them she was pregnant. For the smoker-lady to keep smoking is horribly selfish. For the driver to not find a reasonable solution, if the smoker is such an addict she needed a smoke, they could have stopped somewhere for a smoke break.
So the Pope and Althouse wish to use logic and reason to explain God?
What a sad endeavor, to attempt to put God into your box.
“Althouse told them she was pregnant. For the smoker-lady to keep smoking is horribly selfish. For the driver to not find a reasonable solution, if the smoker is such an addict she needed a smoke, they could have stopped somewhere for a smoke break.”
What a car load of hypocritical bitches! Sheesh!
“Ann, time for a field trip. Look up Fr John Zuhlsdorf who lives in your neck of the woods, make an appointment, discuss this issue with him and report back.”
I think this would make Althouse very uncomfortable. All those pushing her to get out of her comfort zone and attend retreats are not understanding her social awkwardness (not a criticism). This blog is where she seems to feel free to be herself, hey whatever floats her boat, plus she provides a forum for us all. Thanks!
Maybe some renowned theologian will appear and discuss the existence ( or not) of hell with her here in her comfort zone. She paid her dues by working in an environment (although the paycheck was nice) and living in a city for years in which she felt unwelcome. Why should she at this age be put in situations that will make her uncomfortable? I suspect that it’s not worth it to her (nothing wrong with that) to hash out her spiritual/religious doubts in an environment such as a retreat or one on one meeting with a stranger. That’s what she has all of you commenters for.
Blasphemy!
(Rock Chalk)
Psst. You're playing Villanova.
@R.J. Chatt,
Jews don't actually put much energy into the concept of hell,
Well, Jews of the Reform stripe certainly don't. Bluntly, I'm sure what theological energy Reform Jews expend on much of anything anymore.
I'm not Jewish (married to a Jewish agnostic), but, as someone passingly familiar with the Rabbinic tradition, it bugs me when a Reform/secular Jew says something about the history of Judaism that I know isn't true. And it happens all the damn time!
Is there in traditional Rabbinic Judaism the idea of an eternal Hell for the damned? No, there's not. There is a "temporary Hell", like the Catholic Purgatory. But the bigger question is: Was traditional Rabbinic Judaism heavily shaped by its eschatology? The answer to that is very much so, & this is where modern secular/Reform Jews get very dodgy indeed.
The Resurrection of the Dead & The World To Come play a central role in Rabbinic Judaism. It is the time where God squares the moral ledger, & makes just an existence that all too often imposed massive suffering on the Righteous. It is most definitely not the same as the Christian or Muslim eschatology, but is central all the same.
"I did a little shopping today [Monsignor Ferrari is in the Eternal City], everywhere I go people talk about Hell and Francis. Until this week only a few thought him a heretic, now most of Rome does, even atheists." On Twitter. 'Monsignor Ferrari' is perhaps not really a monsignor, or in Rome, nor confessor at an abbey of nuns.
I've been trying to keep busy with the more important things of Holy Week and the Triduum but (obviously) got to this post and all its comments today. Gosh.
While I'm not prepared to accuse the Pope of heresy (although the denial of the two truths he talked about with Dr Scalfari-- the immortality of the human soul, and the existence and eternity of Hell-- would merit that term, I think), I was saddened by the terribly poor judgment he exercised in allowing this nonsense to be published just before the Triduum: it's all truly a cause of real pain for many believers.
Althouse is of course welcome to speculate about things she has an imperfect understanding of (and we all benefit from her doing so, in one way or another), and I don't doubt her sincerity. In fact I think she is quite perceptive in pointing this out:
"The Pope is deliberately choosing and using Eugenio Scalfari. There's something complex happening there, and a flat denial that the Pope said there is no Hell is at least as much of a simplification as the Scalfari report that he said it."
Having read Henry J. A. Sire's Dictator Pope a while back and now Ross Douthat's new book, I don't doubt that it's possible that Franciscus is doing some very significant making of 'complexity' that will end with him being remembered in the same breath along with Honorius and John XXII.
But the great news of the day is that Good Friday has come, Holy Saturday is passing, and we are assured by faith that Easter will soon be here.
IIRC, Pharisees believed in life after death but the Sadducees did not.
"Why should she at this age be put in situations that will make her uncomfortable?"
But she was made uncomfortable because she ran into some horribly, and extraordinarily, rude people. I wonder if she was hanging around some rather rude people in New York City. She's interested in theology and religious practice. Why not? She's not going to carpool to the retreat with a rude smoker-lady.
Anyways, isn't the retreat mostly quiet? Journaling, praying -- not a lot of socializing, right?
Just to play with -because again I don't confront the professional armor of the gentlemen -but seeing the pap mixed with the sewage that the media dispenses as daily gruel, and resents being asked for better quality, bit never minds being asked for more :
...how would you discriminate between armed, heavily armed, and very heavily armed?
ISTM this can be relative or absolute.
Quaestor and Roughcoat both seem to make it a matter of having a literally heavy or large weapon or one of heavy caliber. Not so much about number, quantity, amount. For them an actual assault rifle, ie a 5.56mm, an M16 or SA80, or perhaps an AK in the short 7.62, is armed, a 7.62 NATO is heavily armed, I guess an M2 would be very heavily armed.
So is having a pistol being lightly armed? Even in a caliber that starts with "4"? How about two pistols? Plus a backup piece? Couple of knives? A Billy? Entrenching tool? A sword? Tachi-tanto set? A pocket full of shuriken? Is having a shotgun being heavier armed than to have a rifle? Would it be about magazines and total ready ammo on hand?
Generally one hears of lightly armed troops in the context of their failure to achieve an objective, to repel a foe, or to sustain operations. One generally hears of heavily-armed people of any sort in the context of personal criticism, as perhaps immoral.
Part of my wondering is that I am considering the purchase of a CMP Garand. Now with this battle rifle, loaded and a clip in my pocket, am I heavily armed? Perhaps if I have one of the pistols too? Or don't be satisfied with anything less than an M-14 or BM59?
How about if I have two Garands, is that heavily armed? Or more practically, an assault rifle plus an 870 or a Mosin-Nagant over my shoulder?
Should it refer to an automatic vs semiautomatic weapon? M-16 vs AR-15?
Or explosives? Grenades? What if you have only one grenade? Two? How many is heavily armed?
How about a. 22 and a thousand rounds? What if it's an American 180?
I could not deny that anyone with an M-60 or even a SAW is heavily armed with even one belt of ammo, but not "very" heavily unless he has more.
How about a. 75 musket and a brace of pistols?
"LOL at the story of Christians on their way to a spiritual retreat leaving a pregnant woman on the side of the West Side Highway"
I don't get the relevance of this whole thing. Why does the presence of a bad person say anything at all about a religious belief? Even if this were a priest, rather than a mere layperson?
I know a scientist who believes in astrology, but a single dumb scientist hardly proves the scientific method is useless. A hundred child molesting schoolteachers does not prove public schooling is a bad idea. A thousand evil butchers does not prove anything yay or nay about whether socialism is a good idea.
Yet I see this all the time - people citing the existence of a bad Christian (or a bad person who may or may not be a Christian) somehow acts as a gotcha proving the whole Christian faith is a sham, lololol!!
@ Bay Area Guy: Descartes settled your question in the affirmative.
Popes may come and go but Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, today and forever. Hebrews 13:8.
“But she was made uncomfortable because she ran into some horribly, and extraordinarily, rude people. I wonder if she was hanging around some rather rude people in New York City. She's interested in theology and religious practice. Why not? She's not going to carpool to the retreat with a rude smoker-lady.”
True, but then she was lectured on her “selfishness” or being unChristian or something of the sort from women who considered themselves Christians. There are many people who consider themselves Christians, go to church, retreats, etc. that claim they welcome all, but in truth don’t. I’ve attended a couple of churches in which I felt very unwelcome. One such church was a Wisconsin Lutheran Church in which the Pastor made sure to tell the congregation that if they hadn’t been confirmed in the Wisconsin Synod Lutheran faith, they were not welcome to take communion. I wasn’t about to take communion in a church that I wasn’t a member of anyway, but wow, way to make worshipers feel unwelcome
As for the smoking car, I suppose the question of actual car sickness had not occurred to me. Does one have morning sickness at two months?
I had assumed that she was merely trendily fretting for the fetus. Mothers in my mother's time smoked, let alone tolerated the smoke of others. Unless they couldn't bear it, and left the room, I suppose. I still remember going downstairs to Eddie the doorman to get my mother a pack of Benson and Hedges. So Althouse may have been out of place, if not out of line.
As rhhardin might say, if it was because she was nauseated, the way to prove her point, of course, would have been to vomit. (I wonder what impression this would have made upon the non Samaritans in the car.) The story does make one rather think that there is a reason the Episcopalians are going the way of the Shakers.
“As for the smoking car, I suppose the question of actual car sickness had not occurred to me. Does one have morning sickness at two months?”
Hell yes, so to speak.
Yet I see this all the time - people citing the existence of a bad Christian (or a bad person who may or may not be a Christian) somehow acts as a gotcha proving the whole Christian faith is a sham, lololol!!
The one bad apple is always about which side of the tree you're on.
I remember the family story of my sister once telling my parents on a car trip that she was getting car sick. I believe they ignored her. Eventually she delivered. Thenceforth I believe she got whatever condition of front or back seat, open or closed window, she required. So I have always viewed car sickness through a lens of humor.
wwww. But I gotta disagree with some of the assumptions about the smoking-in-car-with-pregnant-lady-people. The people in that car were acting abominably.
"Abominably" is a bit much. I'll settle for "major assholes". I've known lots of thoughtful and considerate smokers, but there are others...
People smoked a lot more 30-40 years ago. But they knew smoke was bad for unborn babies, and they most definitely knew about morning sickness!
As someone who got pole-axed by serious "morning" (ha ha ha) sickness, I can attest that a lot of people don't know about morning sickness.
Althouse told them she was pregnant. For the smoker-lady to keep smoking is horribly selfish. For the driver to not find a reasonable solution, if the smoker is such an addict she needed a smoke, they could have stopped somewhere for a smoke break.
Addiction doesn't bring out the best in people. That's why it's so degrading. "Sorry, but nothing can come before my satisfying my craving, not even seriously inconveniencing other people, or avoiding making them miserable or sick."
Sure, we don't have the other side of the story, but there's no reason to jump to the conclusion that it was Althouse who was being the bitch here. In real life, I always defer to the pregnant lady.
Inga to Bad L:
“As for the smoking car, I suppose the question of actual car sickness had not occurred to me. Does one have morning sickness at two months?”
Hell yes, so to speak.
Ha. Hell double yes. And at three months, four months, five months, six months, seven months, eight months, and nine months. (And calling it "morning" sickness is some sick joker SOB's idea of funny.)
The disposition of hell will be such as to be adapted to the utmost unhappiness of the damned. Wherefore accordingly both light and darkness are there, in so far as they are most conducive to the unhappiness of the damned. Now seeing is in itself pleasant for, as stated in Metaph. i, "the sense of sight is most esteemed, because thereby many things are known."
Yet it happens accidentally that seeing is painful, when we see things that are hurtful to us, or displeasing to our will. Consequently in hell the place must be so disposed for seeing as regards light and darkness, that nothing be seen clearly, and that only such things be dimly seen as are able to bring anguish to the heart. Wherefore, simply speaking, the place is dark. Yet by Divine disposition, there is a certain amount of light, as much as suffices for seeing those things which are capable of tormenting the soul. The natural situation of the place is enough for this, since in the centre of the earth, where hell is said to be, fire cannot be otherwise than thick and cloudy, and reeky as it were.
Some hold that this darkness is caused by the massing together of the bodies of the damned, which will so fill the place of hell with their numbers, that no air will remain, so that there will be no translucid body that can be the subject of light and darkness, except the eyes of the damned, which will be darkened utterly.
--Aquinas.
Benedict XVI's text on the question of Hell corresponds with the above; however, Benedict assumes that the "I-Thou" is paramount to humans. Same thing, different sauce. Nothing wrong with either of them.
We can NOT assert that "there is no Hell," which is heresy simple. We can, however, speculate on what "hell" actually consists of. See how Aquinas defined it, compare/contrast with B-16. If Francis said "there is no Hell--there is nothing" then--if and only if he presupposes that Hell is the absence of being--he is right.
As to church-going: the St Paul center on the UW campus is staffed with excellent priests. No need to travel to Milwaukee, nor to find Fr. Zed.
As to 'Althouse is fixated on Hell': intelligent people ask questions about important topics.
Perfect Justice and Perfect Mercy are reconcilable because they co-exist in God. The fact that we cannot 'reconcile' them points to a defect in our understanding of the term(s), not the impossibility of reconciliation.
I should also say that, barring some special circumstance to which Althouse does not advert, it's hard for me to imagine having the needle in so deep that you can't take a smoke break for an hour or two or until you get gas. How many packs a day would such a person smoke, I wonder?
The answer to the question cited is the same as the answer to why the winning dice shooter rolled his point before rolling craps -- he got lucky. Why is there something? We got lucky, otherwise, we wouldn't be here and able to ask.
Magic 8-Ball says: Reply hazy try again.
Really, Quaestor, you can do better than that. Maybe start by asking: "Why did we get lucky?"
Tautological answers are disqualified.
Bad Lieutenant @4:45 PM:
Calm down. We know you're special.
Off to watch basketball now. Go Ramblers.
@indiana: "In truth, the questions we're dealing with are unprovable and unknowable, and both belief and unbelief require faith in certain unprovable, illogical possibilities."
Unbelief does not require "faith." It can take the form of questioning the unjustified default of belief (i.e., the term "unbelief" itself) or denying that certain existential questions are well-posed.
Logic only applies to the consistency of and what follows from one's axioms, not the choice of axioms.
How to choose is itself a choice. For some people, it is unwise to put much faith in things unprovable and unknowable, regardless of whether some people in the Middle East wrote a big book about them a few millennia ago.
indiana118: Yet I see this all the time - people citing the existence of a bad Christian (or a bad person who may or may not be a Christian) somehow acts as a gotcha proving the whole Christian faith is a sham, lololol!!
Along with the non-believer/non-Christian lecturing Christians on how real Christians should be behaving (the way some non-believer/non-Christian wants them to behave), I sometimes wonder if this a manifestation of some unconscious, irrational belief in "moral redistribution". Namely, if there's a large enough supply of do-gooding in the world, the no-goodniks get to leach off the moral wealth of the do-gooders, thereby possessing a redeeming supply of goodness that they won't work to accrue for themselves. So they're (unconsciously) distressed at any indication of do-gooder slacking. A kind of moral rent-seeking, as it were.
Crazy talk, sure, but there is something weird about how huffy and self-righteous some immoral and post-moral non-Christians can get about slacking Christians.
making minor doctrines into tests of faith
The existence of Hell is not a 'minor doctrine,' much as some CINOs would like to have it that way.
Blogger Roughcoat said...
Bad Lieutenant @4:45 PM:
Calm down. We know you're special.
Oh now, you ruffian, there you go again harshing my mellow. Enjoy the game with the orange ball.
Blogger Dad29 said...
The disposition of hell will be such as to be adapted to the utmost unhappiness of the damned.
Room 101.
Does one have morning sickness at two months?
It's the worst in the first trimester cause the hormones are quickly rising. That's when Kate Middleton was in the hospital for an extreme form of it. For many it tapers off by the start of the second trimester.
Major birth defects are at the highest risk in the 1st trimester cause that's when all the major parts are moving around. I asked about taking some migraine medicine. The doc said the ears could end up in the wrong place. But they know more now-a-days about the first trimester.
"I remember the family story of my sister once telling my parents on a car trip that she was getting car sick. I believe they ignored her. Eventually she delivered."
ha! One vacation we were driving on Skyline Drive in Virginia. My mother was counting deer to get my mind off it. No good place to turn off. Got to 99 deer. Parents took it MUCH more seriously after that point. Prepared with dramamine, hard candy, and no-reading-in-the-car was strictly enforced.
Ha. Hell double yes. And at three months, four months, five months, six months, seven months, eight months, and nine months. (And calling it "morning" sickness is some sick joker SOB's idea of funny.)
I am good second and third trimester. Except for that one time my husband microwaved fish. FISH! In the MICROWAVE!
It was the wintertime. All windows were opened.
319 comments and no scurrilous pope jokes.
And you people call yourselves theologians.
It struck me looking at Blake's Judgement painting that the one sitting in waiting is in some despair. That then would be a life which I can relate to and it is not one which God can live in either. The Bible often has 2 brothers or two wives who need to reconcile. One would maybe have a better sense of good. But until the 2 sides reconcile, universally, God can't live in a mind beset by the understanding of both heaven and hell. Still waiting.
wwww: I am good second and third trimester. Except for that one time my husband microwaved fish. FISH! In the MICROWAVE!
You don't wanna to go mano-a-mano on barfing anecdotes with me, sister.
Next Saturday let's all meet back here to argue what came "before" the Big Bang.
You don't wanna to go mano-a-mano on barfing anecdotes with me, sister.
I managed not to barf. I was lucky and didn't have much morning sickness.
But I may have threatened to change the locks if he put fish into the microwave again.
"Christians on their way to a spiritual retreat leaving a pregnant woman on the side of the West Side Highway because she objected to cigarette smoke."
I think there must have been people in that car who were disturbed by leaving a pregnant woman, possibly about to be sick, by the highway. But people are so slow to realize that they should speak up. Then these situations go on in people's minds, thinking points for the rest of their lives. Maybe some women who was in that car spoke up rapidly later on in a situation where someone was in real danger because that woman had been reproaching herself ever since for not speaking up on behalf on Althouse. Maybe someone's life was actually saved yesterday as the final end of that long ago situation. I'm saying this because I've met plenty of activists and first responders who were trying to rise above a long-ago failure to act. We don't see our whole story as it is, only as it now seems within our limits.
The girl smoking on the trip with Althouse should have responded "that clump of cells has less moral worth than the happiness this cigarette is worth".
Althouse mistakenly referred to that clump of cells as a baby?
Crazy!
I'm convinced that in the next life there will be justice and justice that I consider to BE justice. What that will be ... eternal fire for the bad? Well, perhaps but for myself I hope for mercy. I kind of think I won't get it if I keep thinking about mercy for me, justice for them; eternal fire for them, mercy for me. I don't want the last word I shout to be: "GIMMIE JUSTICE." So perhaps we should aim at heaven for ourselves, not hell for them. I'm sure the Lord who implanted the spirit to stand up to the Madison liberals has a part of heaven suitable for the bold spirit he made.
Off to watch basketball now. Go Ramblers.
Roughcoat, they're skating on thin ice right now. I'm pulling for them, too.
Sorry, roughcoat! :-( But go Villanova!
I'm checking out 4chan like I normally do, seeing what crazy shit people are up to. And there's the usual crazy shit. So I catch up on some crazy shit, then come to check out Althouse. And I see there is a post on the Pope and Hell and there are comments about the Pope and Hell and cats and communists, and, like, there's some crazy shit here, too.
I think I understand the point that Althouse is making, but that makes me think I don't really understand it. Because she thinks at a real high level, and my mental Legos are missing some of those bricks. I pretty much just make Monster Trucks.
And that makes me think of God and Heaven and Hell. Because I don't think I can understand what Heaven or Hell really is, my brain just isn't big enough to figure that shit out. So when I think about God and Heaven and Hell it's like when I'm reading Althouse: I think I understand what I'm thinking, but that makes me think I don't really understand it at all.
And then some of the commenters start talking about things that make me confused about what I thought I was confused about. They're talking Important Shit Stuff, and I'm just kinda thinking about the chicks spreading their ass cheeks and showing their assholes on 4chan, and if they are going to Hell for that. If there is a Hell.
Because it would suck if some chick went to Hell for spreading her ass cheeks and showing her asshole on the internet and now she's in the same place as, like, Hitler. And Charlie Manson. That seems a little harsh. Because God made us naked, and that includes the asshole, people.
But the Pope doesn't talk about shit like that. Or maybe he does, but it's like in metaphors and shit, and if he is talking about that shit in metaphors then I'm not really getting it. Just say it, dude.
Like this whole Hell thing. Now they're saying there isn't a Hell, but what if another Pope comes along and says, hey, there is a Hell now again, sorry for the confusion. Is it like killing someone and getting the death penalty, but then they take down the death penalty so now you're good, but then they go and bring the death penalty back again and you don't know if it still, like, applies to you or not? That's messed up, even if you did kill somebody.
But maybe the death penalty isn't so bad if there was no Hell. Because before they'd strap you down and kill you and shit, and you knew that, right after they killed you, you were going to Hell, so it sucked all around. But now they kill you and you don't have to go to Hell, because there is no Hell, so it isn't as bad, you're just dead.
But I'm not going to go kill someone just because there's no Hell anymore, so I think that kinda balances me out for looking at chicks spreading their ass cheeks and showing their asshole on 4chan. And I'm glad those chicks aren't going to Hell, either, because like I said, I think that would've been harsh.
The existence of Hell is not a 'minor doctrine,'
What hell is like certainly is. We're not the judges. We testify to what was witnessed. Peter knew what he was about, here's what he had to say.
And while there's discussions about judgment in the NT, there's not a lot of mention about hell itself.
The Nicene and Apostle's creed speak of judgment, but not about hell (except for versions that have Jesus visiting hell).
It's worth noting that the Pharisees knew their Bible the best of anyone of that era. They knew it so well, they knew exactly what the Messiah was going to do.
So they rejected Jesus. Because he didn't fit what they knew God was going to do.
They knew it so well, they resisted what God actually did do.
So, yeah, I think a doctrine of hell is a minor one. It's not unimportant, especially in Christian tradition, but it's not central in a highly defined way that other core doctrines are. And given much of our interpretation is more based on medieval interpretations than the Bible itself, I think there's a degree of love and grace that should be offered to those who have trouble with it. Since love and grace are actually core Christian doctrines, without which a person will never see God. And that will leave them, well, probably something not entirely unlike internet forum debates.
From Dad29 references Aquinas.
I realize now geocentric vs heliocentric is a bigger deal than I had thought: it upsets traditional locations for hells and heavens!!
Paddy O to Dad29: "The existence of Hell is not a 'minor doctrine,'"
What hell is like certainly is.
Its existence was the point being disputed here. Somebody or other had positive knowledge that the orthodox Roman Catholic view of the matter was wrong. (Something about it being "a lie" or "inaccurate", though they seemed to be a bit misinformed about what that "it" was.)
And given much of our interpretation is more based on medieval interpretations than the Bible itself, I think there's a degree of love and grace that should be offered to those who have trouble with it. Since love and grace are actually core Christian doctrines, without which a person will never see God. And that will leave them, well, probably something not entirely unlike internet forum debates.
That's nice, but you appear to have wandered off-piste here. "Roman Catholic dogma" isn't the same subject as "our interpretation".
Where does the idea of hell as a place where people are eternally physically tortured come from? I haven't found it in the Bible. I thought I might have missed it, so I ran a computer search to pull up every verse with "hell" in it, then categorized them by the original words that were translated as hell. I still don't see it.
Blogger Quaestor said...
Roughcoat wrote: I've always thought that non-belief in God is what's irrational. Gets back to the old "why is there something instead of nothing" question.
Cosmologies that include multiverse scenarios posit the likelihood of short-lived universes which collapse or dissipate rather than inflate as ours did some 14 billion years ago.
The "multiple universes" idea bothers me, Quaestor, because if it can be shown to be true, even with logic rather than the physical evidence present in this universe, there must be some leakage between these other universes and ours, and so they really can't be called "other universes." They are part of this universe. It contains the reality of them.
Pope says no HELL! Altar boys could not be reached for comment...
"Other than that, I would do some things out of my comfort zone, but I am unusually sensitive to feeling unwelcome, going back as far as I can remember. Even if you tell me I would be welcome, I find it too hard to accept. I don't feel welcome in my own city. I didn't feel welcome in the law school where I worked for 30+ years. I don't picture myself feeling welcome in any kind of religious situation."
You need to move to the South.
My answer to your question: The likelier of the two options is that there is a hell. I have it on good authority, from Someone named Jesus, that there is such a place. So, as much as I like the pope, I have to disagree with him on this one. (I know that's not PC or sophisticated, but that's what I believe, on what I consider to be sound grounds.)
There are different questions being debated here:
1) Does hell, as mentioned in the Bible, exist in any form?
2) Is there a hell that is a place of eternal, physical torture?
These are very different questions.
Pic or it didn't happen.
There's no Heaven, no Hell, no Jesus, no Jehovah, Thor, Woden, Zeus, Osiris, Krishna, etc. It's all just mythology.
Freeman Hunt asks: Where does the idea of hell as a place where people are eternally physically tortured come from? I haven't found it in the Bible.
Revelation 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."
Matthew 13:49,50 [Jesus said]: So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out, separate the evil people from the righteous, and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
but it's not central in a highly defined way that other core doctrines are.
Wrong.
Hell is one of the four last things, the others being 'death', 'judgment,' and 'heaven.'
Whether lake of fire, fire and no lake, absolute zero, the absence of God, the presence of whatever the condemned hate, or the absence of 'other' (being God), it is central, and it is defined.
And get off that 'medievals are ignorant goat-herds' crap, too. Read some history, gain some understanding. Try Bearing False Witness by Prof. Rodney Stark--a non-Catholic. Short book, you can knock it off in 6 hours or less.
Ramblers played hard but in the end Michigan was the better team. Well done to both teams and thanks to both for a terrific game.
Pulling for Michigan in the final. Go Blue!
"Unbelief does not require "faith." It can take the form of questioning the unjustified default of belief (i.e., the term "unbelief" itself) or denying that certain existential questions are well-posed."
Sure, if you all agree on what constitutes a well-posed argument and what constitutes acceptable evidence, and a whole lot of other assumptions that you can't prove, but take on faith.
Look at every great question that scientists imagine have something to do with questions of who and what we are and why we're here, and you'll find that they've redefined the question away from one they cannot answer to one they can. For instance: consciousness - why do we experience consciousness? What IS consciousness? There are people who have claimed to have answered a whole bunch of things about this question and its relatives, and every single time the answer turns out to be [ASSUMING this this this and this, because obviously], then here is how and when consciousness becomes relevant. Because obviously it's an emergent property and obviously it belongs to creatures like what I assume I am, but not creatures that seek for food but aren't "conscious" (because seeking for food means something else if you're small enough, because obviously).
I have never heard an atheist argue for what he believes without the atheist either explicitly or implicitly making the argument "of course, because my positions are just the default unless you prove otherwise, and if you can't prove I'm wrong, that proves I'm right". And most of the rest is game playing, question-hiding, and/or mocking opposing beliefs.
And always question-begging: OBVIOUSLY there's no reason to believe that there's a teacup, so OBVIOUSLY that somehow proves not only that there's no God, but there's "no evidence of God" - that every bit of evidence ever offered in favor of God's existence is not only not persuasive, but is not even evidence and does not even have to be examined for persuasiveness. And that means you've failed to prove your position, which means the atheist position wins because it is automatically the default.
Because it's so illogical and riddled with contradictions - if life were meaningless, there would be no "progress", there would be no morality, there would be no reason to live; this is why honest atheists started killing themselves in the first half of the twentieth century. But today's atheists have learned to deal with the problem by simply screaming that anyone who doesn't agree with them is not on the "right side of history" - not because the theory of evolution suggests there might be such a thing as history having morally "right" or "wrong" sides, but because the worldview atheists have lifted (or, more accurately, cherry-picked) their entire worldview from sure does.
"Revelation 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.""
That's the devil, not people. Additionally, it's out of Revelation which is full of symbolism.
"Revelation 21:8 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.""
Where is the indication here that these people will live for eternity rather than simply being destroyed in this lake? Also, Revelation--difficult to get a literal read on physically existing things in it.
"Matthew 13:49,50 [Jesus said]: So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will go out, separate the evil people from the righteous, and throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.""
Again, where is the idea that they will live for eternity in this furnace weeping and gnashing their teeth? It seems like a straight forward reading would indicate that they are consumed.
The soul is not physical matter. Hell is being severed from God for eternity.
He is Risen!
This conversation keeps prompting that quote from Umberto Eco.
“The fact is that the world is divided between users of the Macintosh computer and users of MS-DOS compatible computers,” Eco says. “I am firmly of the opinion that the Macintosh is Catholic and that DOS is Protestant
Indeed, the Macintosh is counterreformist and has been influenced by the "ratio studiorum" of the Jesuits. It is cheerful, friendly, conciliatory, it tells the faithful how they must proceed step by step to reach - if not the Kingdom of Heaven - the moment in which their document is printed. It is catechistic: the essence of revelation is dealt with via simple formulae and sumptuous icons. Everyone has a right to salvation.
DOS is Protestant, or even Calvinistic. It allows free interpretation of scripture, demands difficult personal decisions, imposes a subtle hermeneutics upon the user, and takes for granted the idea that not all can reach salvation. To make the system work you need to interpret the program yourself: a long way from the baroque community of revelers, the user is closed within the loneliness of his own inner torment."
Also, some Protestant cooking traditions are not in favour of flavour. Garlic, Oregano, thyme, lemon, tomatoes. Connections to the Calvinistic tradition?
There most definitely is a hell. The only reason why people reject the concept is because almost all of damnation is tied up in rejecting your OWN free will, and no one ever manages (in the real and complete universe, which we only experience after we're dead) to get to hell or stay in hell except by their own choice.
It's not God doing that to you, it's you. Your own bad self. And it takes some real doing, because G_d, the great Unknowable and the Always-There, the Light so Great and so Generous that it willingly and tenderly hides its light from you, so that you can nurse your own light into something that you can choose, is stacking the deck in your favor.
There are those who choose it, though. It seems to have something to do with egotism. The sulks. In some sense we are all toddlers wailing with hunger, but refusing to eat our favorite sandwich because the parental unit cut it the wrong way, or served it on the wrong plate.
Sooner or later, most of us grow out of that, but there are a few who choose not to do so. They have the free will to do that.
If you don't believe in God, and you don't believe in heaven, then at least you have to believe in human beings. Read C. S. Lewis' The Great Divorce. It's close enough.
"You may object that, with the passage to Windows, the DOS universe has come to resemble more closely the counterreformist tolerance of the Macintosh. It's true: Windows represents an Anglican-style schism, big ceremonies in the cathedral, but there is always the possibility of a return to DOS to change things in accordance with bizarre decisions.....
And machine code, which lies beneath both systems (or environments, if you prefer)? Ah, that is to do with the Old Testament, and is Talmudic and cabalistic."
Probably this Pope thinks that Christianity is too full of unthinking superstition and Catholics are too uncritical and dogmatic. He might also believe that (some) atheists are smarter and less inhibited and conversation with them is more interesting, more spontaneous, and more bracing, because he's getting some pushback, of the kind he accepts and likes.
Likely, back in Argentina he had some smart left-wing atheist friends and looked down on traditionalist old Catholic ladies; he believes in progress and in the ethical and philosophical superiority of the modern point of view.
I think his is a puerile and selfish point of view, but then again I'm not the Pope and don't really understand his environment and life experiences. Hopefully he will get the discernment he needs.
The Bible is symbolism... a wee bit of sanity.
ראם is the Hebrew word found in the Book of Numbers which one of the commenters here keeps claiming means unicorn but actually means wild ox. You can look up the word in the Tanakh, i.e., any Hebrew Bible and in any Hebrew dictionary. There's nothing in the OT about unicorns.
Also, regarding a comment I made about finding funny a situation of a bunch of Christians on their way to a retreat getting into a fight with Ann over smoking, causing her to exit the car on the West Side Highway-- that wasn't meant as a judgement of all Christians. Sorry some people took it that way. To be clear on the matter, neither was I saying the episode itself was at all funny, which at the time was anything but funny. I laughed because I identified with the craziness of the situation and my own experiences with some "spiritual" and "religious" people on retreats. Lots of crazy experiences on meditation courses, etc.
Finally, I got some flak from the YoungHegelian regarding my comment about the lack of emphasis in Judaism on hell and he went on to essentially reiterate what I had said, after insulting me as a secular or Reform Jew. That was inappropriate on a lot of levels.
There's no butter in hell
Sucks if you're from Wisconsin.
@Freeman Hunt -- How about this in Matthew 25 re Hell suffering being eternal (my bolding):
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
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. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
"Howard said...
The Bible is symbolism... a wee bit of sanity."
Everything is symbolism. We perceive the ineffable world as symbols, and our thoughts of it are allegory.
Happy Easter!
A minority of Christians believe in a concept called Annihilationism, in which bad people are totally destroyed so as to not exist. Many Anglicans and Episcopalians believe this, along with Seventh Day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses.
In the Bible Jesus gives us the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus. It's a very specific accounting of hell, so many of us take it on faith that hell exists. But most Christians also believe this is a parable that Jesus invented to teach us a lesson.
It is of course difficult to square eternal damnation with the concept of a loving God who wants reconciliation with all his children.
And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding…
Holy Easter and God bless.
Many Anglicans and Episcopalians are annihilationists? I didn't know that; that various (this is what they are, from my point of view-- am not trying to be unnecessarily offensive) Christian sects profess that heresy, I did. A co-worker, a Seventh Day Adventist, and I were talking about these things the other day. In the Catholic Church it belongs to the depositum fidei, the immortality of the human soul.
None of the revealed truths about God Our Lord are not 'difficult to square' with this or that aspect or use of reason or human sentiment.
Happy Easter to everyone, for sure. Hac die quam fecit Dóminus, Solémnitas solemnitátum et Pascha nostrum: Resurréctio Salvatóris nostri Jesu Christi secúndum carnem, as the Martyrology puts it: this is the day the Lord has made, the solemnity of solemnities and our Pasch.
None of the revealed truths about God Our Lord are not 'difficult to square' with this or that aspect or use of reason or human sentiment.
Amen, Marc! And καλό Πάσχα to you!
Maxedoutmama @ 12:09
If we are the measure of all things we are well and truly fucked.
Pulling for Michigan in the final. Go Blue!
No, roughcoat! 'Nova all the way! Michigan has no chance. You heard it here.
Is the Pope Catholic?
Post a Comment