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.
पोस्ट्स
३६२ टिप्पण्या:
362 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Well, the Pope may contradict Christ ("gehenna") if he so chooses.
Since Scalfari is a Marxist (you allude to it, but few others do) we should also remember that Marxists are very good at "disinformation." So yah, like the Russians and the election.
Finally: without Hell, to what place can we consign a^^holes?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, it was a bad idea to make a Jesuit pope.
I regard it as extremely unlikely that there is life after death, but as a septuagenarian I expect to find out soon enough.
Hell exists.
Why do you care what the Pope thinks, Althouse? What's it to you?
I'm not sure what's more absurd, the Pope denying hell, or reading about in the NYT.
I'll have to go back to "Do bears shite in the woods?"
So you elect a South American marxist Pope and you're surprised that this is the result?
Of course Hell exists.
If it didn't "Bob's" free advice would be meaningless:
"Don't just eat that hamburger, eat the Hell out of it!"
"One doesn't have to be baptized in "Bob" to be saved, nay! Members of rival cults who were unknowing, unsaved SubGeniuses in life will find themselves in SubGenius Hell -- which they'll naturally think is their Heaven." -- Making it up as he goes along.
Har har on those rival cults!
The Pope is a Jesuit. Which is, perhaps, all that one needs to know.
What is more likely is that NO ONE KNOWS.
Whether there is a Hell, a Heaven, Reincarnation, or nothing at all. It is unknowable until you experience it. Then there doesn't seem to be any real way to get that information back to the living.
No one knows. Not even the Pope.
It's fascinating how enamored the liberal elites are of THIS pope, having basically trashed his predecessors and his religion (and all faiths save Islam) for decades. He's an "intelligent man" because he's a socialist.
"Since Scalfari is a Marxist (you allude to it, but few others do) we should also remember that Marxists are very good at "disinformation."..."
Why has the Pope had 5 conversations with him?
You make it sound as though Scalfari is off on his own romp, but Francis is involved in whatever weird thing is going on.
No hell? The Hell you say.
Now quit your yapping and go to hell.
"Since Scalfari is a Marxist (you allude to it, but few others do) we should also remember that Marxists are very good at "disinformation."..."
Why has the Pope had 5 conversations with him?
You make it sound as though Scalfari is off on his own romp, but Francis is involved in whatever weird thing is going on.
"Why do you care what the Pope thinks, Althouse? What's it to you?"
He has a lot of influence on the people of the world... more than anybody, really. I care about humanity.
It used to be that the rulers of the secular world bowed down before the Roman Church. Now, in the new age, the Pope bows before the altar of secularism.
Does this somehow elevate Christianity? I don't think it ever needed to be elevated. Pope Francis is a clown. He is to Catholicism what Obama was to the U.S. Presidency -- his narcissism makes it all about his place in history, and not about the welfare of the institution or the people he is supposed to serve..
There is invincible ignorance and then there is intentional ignorance.
Even when told over and over and over and over -- truth is unable to penetrate a mind full of irrational animus. Especially when layered over with such arrogant and undeserved pride over her own ill-informed views.
I would not think it strange at all to find out that the Pope was an annhilationist. All those passages about Christ overcoming death.
Autographed copy of the Bible found
A pope should like talking to lost people.
One reason I believe it is that Hell is such an implausible notion that I think an intelligent person, such as Pope Francis, is unlikely to believe it
I say this with all due respect--fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You are proof that if you believe in nothing, you fall for everything the Left craps out.
I'm curious as to what Prof. Althouse has done to help indigenous children, beyond the immense contribution of sitting around not believing in hell.
At its essence, Hell is the state of being of being apart from God. A God who, being Love, does not and will not impose Himself on another.
Now, if there is a God, then He will respect a person's decision to have nothing to do with Him. Hence, Hell. Even if God were to force a person to be with Him in all eternity in "Heaven," then that state of being would be to that person not Heaven, but Hell.
If there is not God, then that person is necessarily already apart from God. Hence, Hell.
Hell, by its very nature, does and MUST EXIST, each and every way you look at it with reason and rational thought.
And yet you continue to have these people with so intentionally closed minds that they continue to prove their ignorance with statements like "Hell is such an implausible notion." And then they go on in the pride to insult not only well over half the world, but the same person she supposes she is complementing.
Hell doesn't have to be such a dreadful place in order to be hell. Heaven could be the VIP section of the club where pretty people decorously lounge in comfortable seating and eat great food without ever gaining weight. We others sit on stadium benches, getting ever fatter on Indian food whilst watching the beautiful enjoy their languor.......In the Middle Ages when the most privileged life was a torment, they had to go to ridiculous lengths to punish the sinners. Nowadays, you just have to cut off their wifi to give them the torments of the damned.
@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?
George neumayr has the explanation, re this popes background and political preferences.
Jesus didn't personally teach me anything. (My last drug-induced dream had to do with Fred and Wilma Flintstone.)
Ann Althouse said...
@Darrell If you really believed in Hell, you would not take the risk of speaking so abusively
LOL, that's what I thought.
Plus he used Horse's name in vain.
@Mark If you define the term to mean something other than what I'm talking about, then it doesn't make sense to treat me as if I had called that other thing an implausible notion.
You're committing a logical fallacy.
Heh - the folks who don't believe in Hell are the ones going there!
Just because a person has lacked the sophistication to understand that scripture often uses analogy and the imagery of things we can comprehend to describe mysteries that are largely beyond our understanding, that is not a basis upon which to say that they are more intelligent on the subject. Quite to the contrary.
"Did Jesus teach you to speak like that?" is talking in metaphor and mockery. Which is icky.
One would think someone who advocates freedom and choice would not have a great difficulty believing in the existence of hell. Otherwise heaven is forced upon us by God, whether we will it or not. There is also the problem that if paradise is destined for all, there is no ultimate consequence for committing evil acts. Eternity of bliss rather outweighs whatever paltry finite justice is meted out on earth, if it is at all.
um, people can believe in Hell and be intelligent.
If you define the term to mean something other than what I'm talking about
If you twist well-settled concepts to mean something than other what they are, and then insist that your twisted ideas are what is true, then what this all is is an exercise in ignorance and hate.
I'm am only defining "Hell" in the way that the Church -- and Pope Francis -- understands it to be.
Hard to believe the exceptionally smart Althouse wrote the following, “One reason I believe it is that Hell is such an implausible notion that I think an intelligent person, such as Pope Francis, is unlikely to believe it....”
Hell is right in the Bible. It is not a matter of intelligence regarding believing in it. Belief in it is Divine Word.
If there is no Hell, there are no consequences. Is Charlie Manson and Hitler in Heaven now? Or just nothingness?
I am horribly disappointed in this Pope. Even more so because he is a Jesuit. He should know better.
And as to the treatment of Native children, they thought they were doing a good thing at the time.
To continue my point from 9:39, I could just as well look at the old quote "Hell is other people," and then I'd have to admit it's almost a sure thing that Hell exists, because there are other people.
And Mark, don't you think the Pope probably was talking to Scalfari with ideas like that, Hell in this abstruse metaphorical or philosophical way. I suspect that somewhere in that man-to-man chat, Scalfari confronting Francis with the idea of a real place with torture and fire and demons and eternally suffering souls, and Francis said, no, there's nothing like that, which is what Scalifari reported.
Bay Area Guy said...
Heh - the folks who don't believe in Hell are the ones going there!
I don't believe in Hawaii.
I understood the Pope to mean the unrepentant wicked and evil would be plunged into non-existence, into a state of absolute nothingness. If you know others will continue to exist in a state of perfect happiness forever, nonexistence is kind of a scary thought when you think about it.
For now we see through a glass, darkly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then shall I know, even as also I am known.
Hell is the state of being severed from God.
If you're Augustinian it makes good sense. Evil is privation, the absence of good. Absolute evil is nothingness.
"Naughty" once had dreadful connotations that it lacks now.
As an atheist, Scalfari has his own agenda. Don't assume he's not above twisting words to match is own opinion.
"don't you think it's shameful if the reason people believe in Hell is that they want to believe in Heaven?"
Context of the "people" is important. At the root of a Christian teaching on hell in early centuries is the idea that we should wait for God's justice. In the Roman Empire, Jewish people and then early Christians were subject to a very powerful government.Add to this the usual interpersonal and intercultural realities where justice seems to be lost for the sake of political expediency or because of rampant corruption.
The message of Jesus was radical for those suffering injustice:
Don't repay evil for evil, the Bible says. Love your enemies.
That's a way to undercut the cycle of violence, in which aggrieved parties respond to each other. In doing so it seems to dismiss the harsh reality of injustices. It's counter-intuitive, so how can a message satisfy both love and justice.
Eternal justice was a message to an underclass and persecuted people, that God was not overlooking it all. It was a message of hope for people who felt there was no justice in the world, and a hope that oriented them toward reconciliation (as much as possible) and formation in their own lives rather than living for revenge or revolution.
It's a much different teaching when the powerful (culturally and/or politically) are using hell as a way to invoke guilt to the oppressed or outsiders. Which is what it has become, making it more of a threat of an angry God.
That kind of approach turns God's redemptive work into a bit of a good cop and bad cop story. The Father is angry and wants to throw the book at people, but we'll let him calm down while Jesus comes in and says if we just confess, things will go easier.
That's not very good theology, but it does define a lot of popular theology.
Making the teaching on hell actually almost the opposite of its original intent in many cases.
And I agree with Althouse that the Pope probably said something privately about his beliefs on hell (which are in keeping with a lot of Christian teaching over the centuries) but such private beliefs aren't in line with official teaching, so couldn't be used as a public expression.
That's not wrong, as Christian teaching has never been simply the expression of one powerful leader, so a Pope can have personal ideas without that being somehow a change of Catholic teaching.
The idea of annihilationism is theologically allowed in a lot of movements. If we see human life as sustained because of God's presence, then removal of that presence entirely (the definition of hell), results in dissolution. If sin is the corruption of the good, and sin is all that is left, then that is non-existence.
reposted and slightly edited to fix a big misstatement
I suspect that somewhere in that man-to-man chat, Scalfari confronting Francis with the idea of a real place with torture and fire and demons and eternally suffering souls, and Francis said, no, there's nothing like that, which is what Scalifari reported.
No, Scalifari did not simply report that Francis said that the notion of Hell as a physical place of fire and torment is not real, but that the real Hell is far worse. Scalifari was not that precise. Instead, he claimed simply that the Pope said there is no Hell, period.
In other words, Scalifari twisted what Francis actually said, either out of intentional malice or because he is so cemented in his own ideology that no matter how many things are explained to him, he still insists on parroting his foolishness.
""Did Jesus teach you to speak like that?" is talking in metaphor and mockery. Which is icky."
You are wrong. I was absolutely sincere. I think the words of Jesus can be read in the Bible, and when we read them, we are taught by Jesus. I guess there's some question about the meaning of "teach," but we use "teach" to refer to lessons gained from the written word all the time.
How does Jesus teach us to speak to each other? Don't you think that's an important matter?! I do. I memorized the Sermon on the Mount when I was in my 20s, and I consult it frequently. Just yesterday, I was reading and talking with Meade about "Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you."
So it's fine if you want to revile me falsely on Jesus's account.
In fact, thanks! I'm rejoicing and glad!
No Hell? Then we're all wasting our time in Church on Sunday mornings, aren't we? Might as well be doing something positive like taking a long walk, reading a good book, seeing a movie, or spending quality time in an art gallery or museum, n'c'est-ce pa?
As a person raised in the Roman Catholic Church, I was taught to believe in Hell and a bunch of other things, like the 3 in one divinity of God. Concepts which, even then, at age 8, seemed improbable. When I asked questions or wanted clarification of the ideas, the Nuns basically said shut up.
Once I was kicked out of Catechism Class for arguing that surely God wouldn't send people to Hell or Purgatory just because they weren't baptized. What about the people in ancient times, before Christ??? who didn't know anything about baptism? What if the parents didn't baptize the babies? How is this fair to send babies to Purgatory for something they have no control over? Is Purgatory full of little children and people,indians and cavemen, who never even had a chance? Can they never get out? Is God THAT mean? They made me stand outside until my mother came to pick me up. I didn't have to go back to class either :-D
Basically, I am agnostic on the whole idea of Heaven, Hell, Supreme Being, whatever. Doesn't mean that these things DON'T exist. Maybe they do. In fact, it might be nice to have some sort of guiding force over the chaos that is life, a plan for everything. A reward for the good and a punishment for the truly bad, with the ability to learn and repent.
Even though I don't know or believe that there is Hell, Heaven or anything else, I still try to live my life in such a way that if there IS....well then, I'm covered. I did right. If there is NOT anything but a void...oh well. At least I lived a decent life, treated people nice, did no purposeful harm and tried to correct any trespasses that I may have committed.
What more do you want?
I'd like to hear what the pope thinks of the existence of unicorns, who are mentioned in about ten places in the Old Testament.
The question is why does the Vatican news secretariat not come out specifically to say "Francis did not say this" and instead issue a vague statement. Because the officials at the Vatican are trying to be a bit nice to a foolish old man, rather than harshly brand him as a liar. So, instead, they use diplomatic language. And everyone who understands such diplomatic language knows exactly what they said, which is an absolute, definite "no" to the Pope saying it.
"scripture often uses analogy and the imagery of things we can comprehend to describe mysteries that are largely beyond our understanding..."
So Hell is just an analogy? A poetic image? Is that a turtle you're standing on?
As for why Pope Francis might continue to talk with this atheist Communist who is reckless with the truth and has a long record of distorting the truth to Francis' detriment?
Maybe the Pope is fool enough to care about this guy's soul and think that maybe one of these times he can get through to him.
Accept Christ as your atoning Savior, ask for forgiveness, live the Christian life; then you don't have to worry about the hell question.
I doubt the Pope was speaking English. Who translated his words, and did they do the translation correctly?
I will say this about the Pope's reported statement.
Arguing with a Jesuit is like trying to nail Jell-O to a tree.
The reporter mostly likely misinterpreted the statements or on purpose only heard what he wanted to hear.
Ann Althouse said, "I care about humanity." Second best interview line, after "I'm a people person."
DBQ
Sorry about your Catholic grade school experience. Those poor nuns probably weren’t capable of handling your questions.
As to God being mean, I say yes. He has to fight Satan and evil. God can be tough and mean in the appropriate circumstances.
Berkemania's observation on "naughty" is very good and adds something to the discussion.
The referenced article, not so much. There might have been a time when our national media could have discussed matters of Christianity with some perspective and insight. That time is not now.
The NYT canvasses the full range of political discourse from the Upper West Side to Brooklyn and not much else. It treats this matter as a political topic because that is the only frame it has. It can locate a communist on its spectrum but not a Catholic. The paper lacks the vocabulary, as Berkemania does not.
I care about humanity.
"Wenn ich 'I care about humanity' höre ... entsichere ich meine Browning."
I don't care about humanity, I care about humans. As individuals.
Ann writes: "One reason I believe it is that Hell is such an implausible notion."
Oh, Come on, Ann. What you mean is that an eternity spent in hell or life after death is an implausible notion. But those are just figures of speech. Dostoevsky, who once faced a firing squad, said that some experiences are so intense that a single second can counterbalance an entire lifetime of ordinary feeling. Eternity in a grain of sand, in the words of William Blake.
But when it comes to the extreme depths of human misery and pain, surely you do not not believe in those, do you? Too many people have been there, including you yourself I would imagine at some points at least maybe. And those are things that we all rightly fear.
Forgive me if I sound preachy on Easter weekend.
"Hell is right in the Bible. It is not a matter of intelligence regarding believing in it. Belief in it is Divine Word."
I hope you don't eat shrimp and lobster. Do you have any evidence than that there are some mentions of hell in the Bible? I think not.
"If there is no Hell, there are no consequences. Is Charlie Manson and Hitler in Heaven now? Or just nothingness?"
So there is Hell because you think there ought to be Hell, but in fact it's a horribly evil thing to be picturing. You want Hitler tortured for eternity. A million years of torture wouldn't be enough, even though in the United States, we wouldn't torture anybody, even for one minute, for doing anything. And Hell isn't just for Hitler. Look at all the people who supposedly go to Hell. I know Protestants — believers in Jesus — who had Catholic friends who told them they were going to Hell because they were not Catholic. But the consequence for that cruelty is that they they get to go to Heaven, because they believed the right thing. And you want to say it makes such perfect sense it's a reason to believe. Because you want consequences. I question why, but assuming you do, I think you're using as evidence your own desire for it to be true. You don't like seeing bad people getting away with stuff. Noted.
"And as to the treatment of Native children, they thought they were doing a good thing at the time."
Al Qaeda thinks it's doing a good thing. Hitler probably thought he was doing a good thing. These people with big, aggressive ideas, imposed on others... they are the worst.
DBQ
If you are serious about this topic then go read up on it. Authors like Loyola, Augustine and Aquinas have surely covered the topic.
Please report back after you have completed the assignment.
I hold a similar view to @mark. Hell is separation from God. People choose Hell over God. They do the rejecting. I think of the parable of the rich man in Luke. When he discovers he is in Hell, he does not ask for help to get out; instead, he asks for Lazarus to bring him water to relieve him from some of his agony.
"A pope should like talking to lost people."
And so does Scalfari.
Randy wants to know where the fire and brimstone Hell he imagined is.
The Devil explains that “Hell is never what you expect it to be. But for you, this is it. It’s a curious thing, but they have the exact same room up there (gesturing toward heaven). You see, while this room is absolute Hell for you, up there it is someone else’s idea of heaven.”
John Astin is an aging hippie about to discover what Hell has in store for him in the Night Gallery segment “Hell's Bells”...
Randy Miller (John Astin, quite funny), firmly enmeshed in the counterculture of the day (1971), in both attire and argot, if a bit old for it (Astin was 41 at the time this was shot), drives his car off a dark highway and dies in a fiery crash. He sees rotating heads of three demons who make silly faces and spout garbled words, then he slides through a sort of laundry chute and is deposited into Hell's waiting room. Yes, Hell has a waiting room.
Growing more and more impatient, Randy demands that the Devil show himself and explain what’s going on. He does, in the form of the segment’s writer and director, Theodore J. Flicker. The Devil is dressed in red and has horns, but he’s not nearly as frightful or imposing as Randy expects. In fact, he’s kind of a short, pudgy middle-aged guy in a not-too-convincing costume...
And with that he disappears, leaving aging hippie Randy Miller to collapse and writhe around the ground with the knowledge that this is how he will spend eternity—with lame music, a boring old farmer chattering about completely uninteresting things and a couple showing an endless parade of vacation slides. With narration, of course.
Robother -- will you please bother to actually read the excerpt that you yourself posted.
Where does it say that Hell is "just" an analogy?? It does not. It says that scripture uses things we are familiar with to describe things that we are not familiar with.
As for that imagery -- Scripture uses two ways to describe Hell. One is that of a pit of fire and pain and torment. The other way Hell is described is that of being cast out into the cold dark night.
Well, which is it?? Hot and bright from fire and cold and dark are diametrically opposite things. It cannot be both.
Already we see that scripture is trying to go deeper with the idea than mere physicality. What scripture says in both cases is that -- Hell is a thoroughly unpleasant place and you should want to avoid it as much as possible.
But the reality is far, far worse than either fire or gnashing of teeth. It is being apart from God -- God who is Love, God who is Truth, God who is Life itself. And worse, being there because of your own freely-willed choice.
"Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules" is the Alinsky "Rule for Radicals" that applies when some person with unknown values brandishes a stereotype of proper Christian behavior and uses it to browbeat others. It's rhetorical garbage and a little dishonest.
Of course, Christianity is awash in metaphor for spiritual phenomena that cannot be described well by language; and the word "Hell" at best points to its place on the map of human experience. You can look at Detroit on a map and know where it is and how to get there, but in no way does the name alone describe Detroit's reality. Same for Hell. Now, maybe Pope Francis would tell us that Detroit doesn't exist, and we would consider him delusional. But why would we consider him any less delusional when, in evaluating the collective historical and personal experience of the Church, he says Hell doesn't exist?
The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-7 is filled with direct and indirect references to hell and the devil. Jesus wasn’t holding back.
I care about humanity.
...people
Who care about strangers
Who care about evil
And social injustice
Do you only
Care about the bleeding crowd?
How about a needing friend?
......
Reference: Hair the musical
"Heh - the folks who don't believe in Hell are the ones going there!"
That's a conundrum, a Zen koan, and I solve it to mean that you don't believe in Hell, because if you did, you wouldn't laugh at the prospect of tortured souls because you would be afraid you might go to Hell. Clearly, you are not afraid and are simply laughing at the people who believe in Hell and imagine it's for those other people.
To believe in Hell, it seems, you need a theory that utterly protects you from the risk of your ending up there, and so the doctrine is constructed to give you 2 inseparable ideas: There's a hell, but you're out of danger of going there. Take both, and enjoy. Is it Christian to enjoy that? (I know Thomas of Aquinas says, yes!)
Why would anyone choose Hell?
Well, by rejecting God, by saying "I don't want God, I never want God," by dying in mortal sin, which separates us from Him, one necessarily chooses to be separate from God. And since true love is never imposed upon someone, God being Love, He does not impose Himself on anyone against their will. He does not save them against their will. He does not force them to spend eternity with Him against their will.
Again, what Hell really is in its essential aspect, that is what damnation is -- is eternal separation from God (from our perspective) -- eternal separation from love, eternal separation from truth, eternal separation from authentic life. But God does not cause that separation, God does not cause that damnation out of a petulant fit of pique, He does not use His divine boot to crush, like ants, those that tick Him off. That is not who or what God is.
God is Love, and He remains Love whether you are a saint or a sinner, whether you love Him in return or whether you hate Him. God does not return hate for hate, or anger for rejection. The Lord delights not in the death of anyone, He is a God of the living and desires that all be saved and reconciled to Him. He will always remain faithful to you and offer love in return for your infidelity, but He will not make you take His love.
We must choose to accept and then actively accept forgiveness and the salvation of being with God eternally. If someone is disposed to reject what is offered, and not make that choice of being with God, then they have necessarily chosen to be apart from God. And He will respect and grant that choice.
One reason I believe it is that Hell is such an implausible notion that I think an intelligent person, such as Pope Francis, is unlikely to believe it, though he might choose to keep quiet on the subject and not rock the boat the Vatican seems not to want rocked.
You are a lovely person and the world is better for your having been in it, but sometimes I think you don't understand how this Christian faith thing works.
But you're right about Francis choosing Scalfari. That's his go-to guy for backing off from Catholic teaching, and then semi-denying it sort of but not really.
"Oh, Come on, Ann. What you mean is that an eternity spent in hell or life after death is an implausible notion...."
I've already responded to that point. You're redefining the term. Straw man.
Moltmann (who know doubt Francis knows well) wrote that Hell is empty because of Christ's work. He gives a little insight into his approach (and how it's Biblically and Scripturallly valid) in a short preface he wrote, which a blogger reposted a while back.
More on this can be found in his very stimulating book In the End, the Beginning. He has a section on hell on page 45. Althouse, I suspect you'd find that book very interesting.
His more developed versions can be found in his longer, academic works, of course.
If I may attempt to put words in your mouth, Professor, you are perhaps saying that Hell is not so much like Dante's depiction and more like C.S. Lewis' in "The Great Divorce" ... ?
(In terms of "fire", as Hell is normally described, the noted theologian Scott Hahn has speculatively remarked (it's not really a topic for detailed study, as our focus is on the Lord) that it could very well be hotter in Heaven, but simply less tolerable for those without sanctifying grace.)
Mark said...
One is that of a pit of fire and pain and torment.
0 Bible results for “fire and pain and torment..”
Same non-result for a few other versions.
But they have about 50 different Christian Bibles, so some other variant might contain the words you want to read.
Ann.
Just now Googled “hell in the Bible” and all sorts of quotes came up. Here’s one, “Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
I wrote a paper for a theology class at Creighton about food restrictions and religion. Some of it was just tribalism and some of it was just a health measure. There was no refrigeraton and pork was a problem. Also trichinosis. Hogs were filthy beasts then.
I haven’t researched lobster and shrimp and why it was prohibited in the Old Testament but diet is not a core concept for believing in God. I am not going to Hell if I ate meat last Friday.
As to your friends and their views, with all due respect I wouldn’t consider them authoritative.
I would urge you and Meade to drive to Milwaukee on Sunday and go to Mass at the Marquette University Church. My dear friend, Fr. John Schlegel, S.J., was pastor there. I’m sure his successor is a good priest too.
Next up, the Pope needs to float not supporting the filioque clause.
That would cause a radical realignment of global Christendom.
What more do you want?
Do good, avoid evil, act as if a loving God, etc. does exist. That's a good start.
More than that? I would suggest that we not take it out on God, or otherwise blame Him, for the stupid, mean, and wrong things that are said and done by the imperfect sinful human beings who inhabit the Church and who are in need of redemption themselves. Don't mistake the messengers for the message.
Maybe I wouldn't be surprised about the Pope not believing in hell as a place of eternal physical torture, because I don't believe that myself and never have.
Paddy: "It was a message of hope for people who felt there was no justice in the world, and a hope that oriented them toward reconciliation (as much as possible) and formation in their own lives rather than living for revenge or revolution."
A sop. When a sop was needed.
"It's a much different teaching when the powerful (culturally and/or politically) are using hell as a way to invoke guilt to the oppressed or outsiders. Which is what it has become, making it more of a threat of an angry God. That kind of approach turns God's redemptive work into a bit of a good cop and bad cop story. The Father is angry and wants to throw the book at people, but we'll let him calm down while Jesus comes in and says if we just confess, things will go easier. That's not very good theology, but it does define a lot of popular theology. Making the teaching on hell actually almost the opposite of its original intent in many cases."
Yes, it reeks of the human.
"And I agree with Althouse that the Pope probably said something privately about his beliefs on hell (which are in keeping with a lot of Christian teaching over the centuries) but such private beliefs aren't in line with official teaching, so couldn't be used as a public expression."
Thanks.
"That's not wrong, as Christian teaching has never been simply the expression of one powerful leader, so a Pope can have personal ideas without that being somehow a change of Catholic teaching. The idea of annihilationism is theologically allowed in a lot of movements. If we see human life as sustained because of God's presence, then removal of that presence entirely (the definition of hell), results in dissolution. If sin is the corruption of the good, and sin is all that is left, then that is non-existence."
This whole idea of what is "theologically allowed" is interesting. It's similar to ideas about law. You have to work within the precedents and the texts, and there is a deference between a Supreme Court decision and the things that are within the range of what can be argued within the norms of legal professionalism. Beyond that are just the layperson's freewheeling ideas about law and mistakes that lawyers are making, misreading things or corrupting the norms of professionalism.
More people believe in Heaven than in Hell.
L’enfer, c’est les autres means everybody but you.
People. Althouse is just messing with your heads. You know that, right? I believe she's sincere in messing with your heads, but still . . . mainly she's gettin' her argumentation on. That's what she does. That's what she's good at. She would have given Socrates a run for his money in the Athenian agora, if Socrates had allowed women into his group of bright young lads.
The existence of hell and what the pope really said and meant -- it IS fun to talk about. But really, you may as well be arguing about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
That said: knock yourselves out. Me, I'm going to mass.
Ann:
Fr. Roc O’Connor is at Gesu Church in Milwaukee. He’s a great singer and guitar player. He wrote many songs with the musical group The St. Louis Jesuits. Tell him I sent you.
Is it wrong that as a life long Catholic my first thought was that this will really throw a crimp into the Church's fundraising efforts?
"But the reality is far, far worse than either fire or gnashing of teeth. It is being apart from God -- God who is Love, God who is Truth, God who is Life itself. And worse, being there because of your own freely-willed choice."
I've read this sort of thing many times, and it's wearing really thin.
You're being tortured with fire, years and years and you know it's never going to end, but what you're supposedly thinking is, what really hurts is that I can't be with the One who designed this torture and condemned me to it. Oh! That One is all about Love, and what really hurts is not being with Him! And I totally blame myself!
That's absurd. If you knew you were condemned to eternal torture, it wouldn't make you think well of God, not unless you got the news that if you could truly love God while being tortured by God, the torture would end. That's how Winston Smith came to love Big Brother.
The closest thing that there is to Hell on earth is the sudden loss of a loved one. To have someone near and dear to you suddenly ripped away from you, leaving nothing but a gaping wound and the emptiness of being all alone.
And then there are those whose loved ones did not die, but merely rejected and abandoned them. While one is happy they are not dead, the loss of that love from a break-up is just as real; they may not be physically dead, but they are dead to the heart. In both of these cases, what we see is a glimpse of Hell.
The permanent loss of love, eternal abandonment, the resulting feeling of emptiness. All of these have the potential to lead to excruciating mental and emotional pain and angst, as well as spiritual suffering. If we feel all of these things from the loss of a loved human person, imagine how much worse it would be if it were the heart-wrenching loss of love that results from separation from God?
If you think that the anxiety you feel from the loss of a human loved one is unbearable, and you feel that your insides are all twisted up and feel like they are turning inside out, and you feel nothing but utter despair of the pain ever going away, all that is just a taste of what Hell is like, where we are eternally separated from He who is Love itself.
Mark: You seem unaware of how circular your reasoning really is. If Hell is nothing more than eternal separation from God, why not just leave it at that? Why conjure up all the lurid torture and fires? And if it is nothing more than separation from a fundamentally mysterious deity, then why wouldn't the "Hell is simple nothingness" attributed to Francis by the atheist be true?
Your deny the plain truth that Ann (and most reasonable people without a dog in the fight) sees--Francis likely said pretty much exactly what Scalifari reported, in a way that allows plausible deniability: "Because the officials at the Vatican are trying to be a bit nice to a foolish old man, rather than harshly brand him as a liar. So, instead, they use diplomatic language. And everyone who understands such diplomatic language knows exactly what they said, which is an absolute, definite "no" to the Pope saying it."
Any reading of the Vatican's statement as a absolute, definite denial defies all common sense, is more reflective of a mind determined not to believe what is right in front of your own nose.
AA: One reason I believe it is that Hell is such an implausible notion that I think an intelligent person, such as Pope Francis, is unlikely to believe it...
...sophisticated readers...
Can't see how it's more or less implausible than any belief in a life-after-death for human souls per se.
Do you have any reasons for rejecting any notion of "hell" (however it's envisioned) beyond "I refuse to believe a loving God blah blah blah"? Because I'm not discerning the intelligence and philosophical sophistication in that point of view.
But it's hard to admit that the Church has propounded a frightening, painful lie for so long, harder than apologizing for...
Jack Chick tract, credentialed liberal Boomer edition...
"A frightening, painful lie"? This is silly stuff. Let me count the ways:
1) "It's a lie". Lol. How the hell (ha ha) would you know? Stick with "implausible". If you're a believer, I assume there is a substantive theological argument that can be made for its implausibility, even if you yourself haven't yet made the effort. If you're not a believer, or agnostic, it's all wanking about stuff that isn't real, or that we can never have any knowledge of, so no point at making any arguments at all.
2) It can be either true or untrue. Its truth or untruth doesn't depend on its being frightening and/or painful, and has no relation to whatever evil deed the RCC has gotten up to in history. It's as much a "lie" as anything you yourself believe about the nature of eternal life - sorry, your ideas about what this purported after-life is all about is supported by as much evidence as the next guy's.
3) Why are some people who don't believe in Hell, or a particular definition of hell (or who don't believe in God at all, or an afterlife) soooooo butthurt that some other people do? Soooooo sanctimonious and self-righteous about how evil the latter are? "How dare you presume to know the will of God?", "How dare you claim to speak for God!" they self-righteously demand, while letting you know what God really thinks.
I can go on...
It was a common experience growing up to have various Protestant Christians who adhered to the "literal lake of fire" conception of hell tell us Catholic types that we were damned and heading that way. A conviction that did, after all, follow logically from their first principles, so hey, who were we to lecture them about the finer points of their own theology? "Fundie prods, amirite?", we'd say, as we laughed and rolled our eyes. They were nice people.
The simple response is, if there is no hell, there is no heaven. No devil? No God. So as always, do you believe in God? Decide. There is, or there is not. Decide and get with it. You either seek to live your life with the teaching of Christ, or worship yourself. Decide.
"I wrote a paper for a theology class at Creighton about food restrictions and religion. Some of it was just tribalism and some of it was just a health measure. There was no refrigeraton and pork was a problem. Also trichinosis. Hogs were filthy beasts then. I haven’t researched lobster and shrimp and why it was prohibited in the Old Testament but diet is not a core concept for believing in God. I am not going to Hell if I ate meat last Friday."
So you get to pick which parts of the text to credit, using this "core concept" test? Then just say Hell (the torture place) isn't a "core concept."
"I would urge you and Meade to drive to Milwaukee on Sunday and go to Mass at the Marquette University Church. My dear friend, Fr. John Schlegel, S.J., was pastor there. I’m sure his successor is a good priest too."
Oh, I've always thought it was bad form to go to a church on Easter when it's not your regular church. I'm more someone who would go when it wouldn't be exacerbating a crowd situation.
That said: knock yourselves out. Me, I'm going to mass.
I've given up Roughcoat on trying to figure out if she is just trying to generate discussion by being provocative or whether she really means what she says -- but I lean heavily to the latter. But then it is not upon the reader to have to figure out what the writer means if she does not make herself clear about it.
As for going to Mass today. Come on man, you know better than that. It's Holy Saturday. There is no Mass today. One of only two days in the liturgical calendar when Mass is not celebrated. There is instead a silence in the earth. Jesus is dead.
You'll have to wait for Easter Vigil this evening.
Chop wood, haul water.
There have certainly been many hells created by men over the years, all temporary, but so were the lives lived there and usually ended there. It seems that it's not bad deeds or lack of faith that lands you in hell, but rather pacifism, and a weak response to evil when it presents itself. Peace can be a deceptive and dangerous thing that lures us to believe that it's blessings come from not rocking the boat. A functional faith to cling to is that there is no free lunch, or peace.
I've read this sort of thing many times, and it's wearing really thin.
You're being tortured with fire, years and years and you know it's never going to end,
You know what Althouse? You REALLY need to let go of your ignorance. You REALLY need to let go of these totally false ideas that you are so determined to hang on to. You are the cause of your own confusion. Let it go.
Mark: I meant to say I'm going to Easter Vigil at 8pm. You're right, I do know better. I misspoke. I do make mistakes. Forgive me.
Re Atlhouse: I believe she believes, and means, what she's saying.
Ann Althouse said....
To believe in Hell, it seems, you need a theory that utterly protects you from the risk of your ending up there, and so the doctrine is constructed to give you 2 inseparable ideas...
South Park: The Agnostic Family.
Agnostic Prayer
"And if this food comes as a gift from some divine intelligence, we understand that an intelligent being cannot blame us for questioning its existence. Nobody knows, nobody can know if any deity is watching over us. Amen."
Agnostic Code
"We cannot know with certainty if God or Christ exists. They COULD. Then again there COULD be a giant reptilian bird in charge of everything. Can we be CERTAIN there isn't? NO, so it's pointless to talk about. Now say it with me."
The Agnostic Beverage
"However, in this house you will drink only agnostic beverages! Dr Pep-er, and Diet Dr Pep-er! Because what flavor is it?! It is neither root beer nor cola! Nobody is sure what flavor it is, and nobody can be sure!"
Its always fine to go to a Catholic Church at any time.
These do not belong to their congregations, and your being there trumps any issue of "form".
Priorities.
Whatever il Papa may have said, he has made life hell for many.
According to the Bible, we all deserve Hell, as we have all sinned against our Creator. But God extended a bridge to those of us who will cross it. Only Christ and his sacrifice on the cross saves us from Hell.
The prospect of eternal torment is far more bracing than that of simple annihilation.
I thought the 2016 movie "Risen" was pretty good. Very moving. The Maori actor Cliff Curtis as Christ was perfect. The scene in the tavern where the Roman soldier tries to explain and make sense of what he saw at Christ's tomb is truly, for me, hair standing-up-on-the-back-of-my-neck inspiring. Addresses what I love profoundly about Catholicism and which I do find in Protestantism: the Mystery.
Hell exists.....
Certainly does for many of the "I'm with her" crowd.
So far eternity has lasted about a year-and-a-half.
"The simple response is, if there is no hell, there is no heaven. No devil? No God. So as always, do you believe in God? Decide. There is, or there is not. Decide and get with it. You either seek to live your life with the teaching of Christ, or worship yourself. Decide."
Well, you're restating what I think is the single greatest truth about the human mind: People believe what they want to believe.
But, of course, believing doesn't make it so. Do you believe based on truth or usefulness? That's a question not limited to religion.
Re Atlhouse: I believe she believes, and means, what she's saying.
You know, this could be -- could have been -- an excellent opportunity for a fruitful discussion. A teachable moment for people to learn some things. But you need to start with a good faith desire to know truth. And that is what is lacking here.
Well, Roughcoat, Angle-Dyne, et al., thanks for trying.
I wonder the number who live a truely Christian life. Of course there are tough challenges, but it seems most don't even really try that hard while still claiming to be members in good standing. If you don't really give it the incredible effort required, then are you really faithful, or just hopeful? I mean the stakes are extremely high, so the effort would seem worth it for the true believer.
And on other matters, it does no good to apply human reason or human feelings or any such thing to the state of things in heaven or hell. We have an insects conception of the big picture.
I find it difficult to inderstamd how anyone can take what is written in the Bible literally. In my chosen religion, Presbyterian, we believe the Bible is NOT inerrant and we need to believe that we’ll be shown the correct meaning by the Holy Spirit. I’d say all the sturm und drang is not unexpected when someone such as a Pope let’s it slip that he has doubts about the existence of hell, that is pretty significant.
Well, Mark, blow it out your ass, you pompous jerk.
In his lectures on the christian mythology, Peterson describes hell as a condition on earth. He claims to have treated many people who were trapped in the pit of hell, etc. His theory is that honoring God is essentially what Roughcoat says: Chop wood, carry water. It's funny, but the idiotic mind numbing infantilization of Christianity is that works do no good, the path to salvation is to convince yourself to fall for the con. Just the opposite is true. Chop wood, carry water. The flood is coming and you better get your shit together.
AA: I've read this sort of thing many times, and it's wearing really thin.
Wearing thin for you. Obviously other people find it compelling, persuasive, meaningful. Whatcha gonna do?
You appear to believe that you can and should do something about these heretics, but I don't know why.
such an implausible notion that I think an intelligent person...is unlikely to believe it
If there is an eternal afterlife, I'll be able to write down a comprehensive list of counterexamples to this notion.
"I wonder the number who live a truely Christian life. Of course there are tough challenges, but it seems most don't even really try that hard while still claiming to be members in good standing. If you don't really give it the incredible effort required, then are you really faithful, or just hopeful? I mean the stakes are extremely high, so the effort would seem worth it for the true believer."
Only worth it if the threat of Hell or the hope of Heaven is in the picture?
If there is a Heaven, I think the most worthy of reward is the person who didn't believe there would be a reward but lived up to the standards of how to live a good life. Yet many Christians seem to believe that person should go to Hell, and that those who fell far short of leading a good live will surely get Heaven because they took for granted the beliefs their culture told them were true.
This post reads as an excuse by our hostess to denigrate catholicism. It's her blog, but I would counter that the 20th century (and continuing) has shown us what a world run by athiests would look like. The excess and brutality of the catholic church pales in comparison.
If Hillary is is giving hell to deplorables for getting Trump elected, maybe il Papa is telling her it's not working.
AA: He has a lot of influence on the people of the world... more than anybody, really. I care about humanity.
Sorry, I missed this. So, "for the children", then. Gawd.
"If Hell is nothing more than eternal separation from God, why not just leave it at that? Why conjure up all the lurid torture and fires?"
You're a priest in 10th century Europe, trying to convince the dull clod of a peasant who is before you – taking a break from hoeing, leaning on his tool, mouth agape, blank incomprehension on his sullen brow – trying to convince this brute that he shouldn't (beat his wife|murder his neighbor|rape some orphaned girl). You think "you'll be eternally separated from God!!" is much of a disincentive?
Living a 'good' life won't get you to heaven nor will it save you from hell. Only Christ can do that.
"I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me" John 14:6.
Howard:
Catholic theology strongly emphasizes doing good works. Sometimes this produces unsatisfactory (from my standpoint), e.g. Marxist popes, Liberation Theology, Social Justice extremism wedded to collectivist ideologies. Nonetheless, good works are important.
The flood is not coming: "And the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done."
That said, I must admit that the old Negro spiritual resonates:
"And God gave man the rainbow sign:
No More water, the fire next time."
The writings of contempoary witnesses is all we have to prove historical figures really existed. Maybe Ben Franklin, who would set his own type with his apprentice's help, really wrote his own copy. But proof of 99% of History's famous characters sayings and doings is easily ridiculed as tribal myths, say the burden of proof shifting trick theologians of the popular 1800s German Theology.
As for the Hell location, what does that matter now. Calvinists like Trump think our eternal destiny has all been finished by provident grace. Now everybody please get to work doing good things to honor God. But the Guilt hucksters we will always have with us and forever keep up dire threats of damnation, the better to terrorize the sheep.
Me: "Heh - the folks who don't believe in Hell are the ones going there!"
AA:"That's a conundrum, a Zen koan, and I solve it to mean that you don't believe in Hell, because if you did, you wouldn't laugh at the prospect of tortured souls because you would be afraid you might go to Hell."
Whoa, Nellie! Extrapolate much?
1. I do think it's plausible there is a Hell, regardless of whether I'm going there or not. Those are 2 different things, which you conflate.
2. The reason I think it's plausible that there is a Hell, is because I think it's plausible there's a just God. And if there is a just God, I doubt he would send Adolph Hitler and, say, my sainted departed sweet Grandma to the same place (that would be unjust)
3. The questions - Is there a God, and, if so, does He have a similar sense of justice as we do on earth?- are far more important than whether there's a Hell.
4. There ought to be a special place in Hell for Communists, who have caused so much misery in the world.
5. If there is no God and no Hell, I really should have spent more time sleeping with Stormy Daniels-type chicks and shooting Communists to make my fleeting time on earth more interesting.
Alas, I'm thinking there's a 60-70% shot at a just God, so I keep plodding along.
Iowan2 says: "The simple response is, if there is no hell, there is no heaven. No devil? No God. So as always, do you believe in God? Decide. There is, or there is not. Decide and get with it. You either seek to live your life with the teaching of Christ, or worship yourself. Decide."
See. That is the problem. This SIMPLISTIC thinking. Black or White. Either OR. Plus the judgemental and demanding tone is off putting and one of the main reasons that some people reject certain types of religious thinking. If you believe then good for you. I'm glad you have
There IS a 3rd option. More like Schrodinger's Cat.
In simple terms, Schrödinger stated that if you place a cat and something that could kill the cat (a radioactive atom) in a box and sealed it, you would not know if the cat was dead or alive until you opened the box, so that until the box was opened, the cat was (in a sense) both "dead and alive". This is used to represent how scientific theory works. No one knows if any scientific theory is right or wrong until said theory can be tested and proved.
In other words, there may or may not be Heaven, Hell, Devil, God, Angels etc. But we will not know until the box is finally opened. AKA: We die.
Whether you believe the cat is dead or alive is YOUR choice. I choose to believe that I don't know either option until the box is opened.
However....I hope the cat is alive (there is a Supreme Being and a reason for all of this life) and act accordingly. Plus....if the cat really is dead. How will I ever know?
As the Jews slaughtered the Passover lamb, a lamb without blemish, and painted its blood on their doorways so that the Angel of Death passed over them, so Christ is our Passover Lamb.
And He came to save sinners, not to reward the 'righteous'.
Catholicism promised Hell for those that failed to follow the teachings. Why the current Pope is changing this tenet can only be theorized, but considering his political nature, I'm betting he's looking for more converts to continue the power of the church.
For the true believer, his words are gospel. For the non-believer it's just more political drivel. For the logical, such things are intriguing. The Catholic Church influenced the world for centuries. Drastic changes indicate a disagreement of politics, and this usually ends in dissension; a dissension that can lead to drastic actions, and the possible tremendous loss of power.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
In other words, there may or may not be Heaven, Hell, Devil, God, Angels etc. But we will not know until the box is finally opened. AKA: We die.
That would make you the cat.
Bible/no Bible, God/no God, hell/no hell--as a non-Christian, I don't have dogs in these fights, at least as arguments about what exists. It all depends on one's choice of axioms, a matter of faith. You can go this way, or that. (A Petersonian reading of those arguments as cultural legacy or codes for society is another matter.)
But I don't find it surprising that a Marxist Pope would talk to a Marxist journalist.
For the true believer, his words are gospel.
Not so. For the true believer, only the words of the gospel are gospel.
He was NOT speaking ex cathedra. How many times must this very important fact be pointed out? How many times in discussions such as this must the concepts of speaking ex cathedra and speaking what is merely one's opinion be explained?
If you want an argument to blow a Christian's mind try the one that says, "no one can expect love from a God who abandons and tortures His only begotten Son that way." That argument comes from a women's deep anger levels. Theology will not win it.
Schroedinger's cat + Pascal's Wager = betting on Olympic Cheetah races, without a program.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
In other words, there may or may not be Heaven, Hell, Devil, God, Angels etc. But we will not know until the box is finally opened. AKA: We die.
Fernandistein: That would make you the cat.
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.
You can have a firm belief either way. Heaven/Hell/God exists. Or Doesn't Exist. Or you can take the 3rd option, that we just don't know until the experiment (life) is over.
"no one can expect love from a God who abandons and tortures His only begotten Son that way."
I remember having discussions along those lines when I was maybe 12 years old. My mind was not blown.
Jimbino:
I've read the Bible from beginning to end, every word, at least a dozen times. I can't seem to recall the references to unicorns that you claim.
Ann:
You are on dangerous ground to claim that hell doesn't exist because your understanding of God does not allow for it. It implies that you have a perfect understanding of God. I know I don't. Nor does anyone else that I know of. Even Jesus acknowledged that there were things that the Father had not revealed to him.
Roughcoat to Jess:
"For the true believer, his words are gospel."
Not so. For the true believer, only the words of the gospel are gospel.
Yeah, saw that one. Eye roll.
He was NOT speaking ex cathedra. How many times must this very important fact be pointed out? How many times in discussions such as this must the concepts of speaking ex cathedra and speaking what is merely one's opinion be explained?
As many times as there are discussions such as this.
Everybody's an expert on Catholic dogma.
It does seem cruel and extremely unfair to only reward the human who still believes despite the information or lack of it presented during his life, regardless of the life lived. Information presented by God himself which seems designed to make one not believe. I know this sounds like an attack, but it's just an honest question: With this understanding, how is faith different from stubbornness, or even foolishness.
As Althouse writes, it seems the most righteous and deserving person is the one who acts virtuously without promise of reward or threat of punsihment.
Roughcoat -- you know I was complementing you, not criticizing you, right? That my critique was of someone else?
Mark: No, I didn't know that. I apologize. Sincerely.
Thanks Bay Area Guy.
I had never heard of Pascal's Wager, having never studied philosophy in college. Very interesting and sums up my personal philosophy.
The gist of the Wager is that, according to Pascal, one cannot come to the knowledge of God’s existence through reason alone, so the wise thing to do is to live your life as if God does exist because such a life has everything to gain and nothing to lose.
If we live as though God exists, and He does indeed exist, we have gained heaven. If He doesn’t exist, we have lost nothing. If, on the other hand, we live as though God does not exist and He really does exist, we have gained hell and punishment and have lost heaven and bliss. If one weighs the options, clearly the rational choice to live as if God exists is the better of the possible choices. Pascal even suggested that some may not, at the time, have the ability to believe in God. In such a case, one should live as if he had faith anyway. Perhaps living as if one had faith may lead one to actually come to faith.
"And He came to save sinners, not to reward the 'righteous'."
Well that seems to make it pretty easy to get in, but once you say "I believe", you have a tough road proving you're not lying.
"If we live as though God exists, and He does indeed exist, we have gained heaven. If He doesn’t exist, we have lost nothing."
The church seems to insist that you must give up plenty, so losing nothing is not quite true.
I'd like to hear what the pope thinks of the existence of unicorns, who are mentioned in about ten places in the Old Testament.
Actually there are references to an animal that the KJV translated from Hebrew to English as "unicorn," but likely referred to some kind of rhinoceros.
Finally: without Hell, to what place can we consign a^^holes?
Come on, Dad29, this is Althouse, use the whole alphabet. That's why it's there.
The fundamental problem of hell is the evolution of justice. In Medieval Europe where everyone believed in Dante's hell capital punishment for property crimes was commonplace. To the Medieval mind, justice was simply the will of the stronger party. The prince declares all the deer in his realm are his exclusive property, therefore if a desperate peasant kills a deer to feed his starving family and thereby gets hanged for infringing the poaching laws it's nothing unexpected. Proportionality of punishment as a concept had not yet arrived. By the same token, the notion that a loving God could condemn an immortal human soul to eternal suffering for the crime of being conceived by the sexual congress of his parents was not unacceptable. However, since the Renaissance and especially since the French Revolution, Western theories of justice have evolved to include proportionality of punishment as fundamental, and from that time forward hell has become increasingly incompatible with the existence of a just God.
Some Christain sects resolve the problem of hell by consigning the damned to annihilation -- ergo no eternal suffering, just a short sharp shock followed by oblivion. OK, cool, but not well supported by scripture (assuming of course that scripture is important). The other problem with hell as eternal loss of self is the fact that other religions hold the loss of self to be the ultimate reward of faith and not in any way a punishment, therefore perhaps fatally compromising the Great Commission.
Another problem of hell, at least the Christain one, is the dogma of redemption. The definition of hell as a place for assholes is not strictly scriptural. According to the story, on the first Good Friday Jesus was crucified along with two other convicts, specifically thieves. (When the Marxist Jesus became fashionable the thieves were transformed into anti-imperialist revolutionaries, but let's save that for later.) Presumably, a thief is a career asshole, and unless one postulates that the two criminals executed along with Jesus were unfortunate men caught stealing food for their children, then it follows they were assholes getting something like justice (Luke 23:40). One of the assholes asks Jesus to remember him in the hereafter. In reply, Jesus assures him they will together in paradise that day. (That day? Another problem for another Althouse discussion.) The asshole doesn't exactly repent, he just admits that getting nailed to a beam is just punishment for his deeds. Therefore, if Luke is reliable then there is at least one asshole in heaven (apart from the Big Asshole who invented hell, that is.) In fact, if one accepts the doctrine of redemption and the doctrine of original sin, one must conclude that if Hitler's last conscious thought before that 7.65mm slug scrammbled his noodle was a sincere acceptance of the redemptive power of Christ, then Hitler is at this moment enjoying paradise and my atheist girlfriend who died from complications following a fall from a horse -- a generous and loving person all her life and in no respects an asshole (unless loving an asshole like me makes one an accomplice to assholery) -- is suffering the pangs of hell.
I reject hell because it is the product of depraved imagination. If it is real, then its Creator is an asshole of cosmic proportions and justice is an illusion. If it is not real, then it is a deceit invented by contemptible parasites. Assuming there is one, assholes in the hereafter will help make eternity less tedious.
Ann:
There are plenty of books on what beliefs are core to the Catholic faith and, believe me, diet, open borders and global warming are not core beliefs.
There is an entire academic discipline on figuring out what elements of the New Testsment are words that Jesus actually said and what was added later. This type of literary analysis based on language is right in your wheelhouse. My Creighton professor, Dr. Bruce Malina, worked in that field.
Yes, it is a drive to Milwaukee but it is worth it to hear him sing. And in the typical Jesuit tradition, his homlies are first rate.
In this life there's no way we can ever know if there is a hrll or heaven or God or afterlife. We have no idea whether Christians muslims hindus animists or any other religion is right or wrong or neither or both
All we can do is take on faith and do the best we can.
Living our lives as Christians is no guarantee of anything ay all. But the Bible is a fairly good road map to a good life.
It's ALL faith
John Henry
Hell seems to have become a discussion about the best punishment method to use. Beheading is good, but the quickest of them. Slow tortures are the key. Using fire may be better. Skinning alive could be the best of all. But keeping them conscious of whatever it is eternally wins.
Jimbino,
Re unicorns being mentioned 10 times in the ot
Got books chapter verse?
I've never noticed them in my readings and writings of the ot
John Henry
What I suspect happened is that Francis said something along the lines of, hell is a state rather than a place, and that we aren't to think of the heaven / hell dichotomy in terms of parallel timelines with all the bad people frying in the lake of fire forever and ever. Both ideas are far from novel. We could argue about whether they represent a departure from apostolic tradition, or whether the images of Brueghel and Bosch – or Ann's understanding of the idea of hell – accurately represent the church's teaching at any time. But Francis is on the record as asserting the existence of hell, and I doubt that he said anything that marks a radical departure from the kinds of things popes and bishops (and the catechism) tend to say in our time.
E.g., from Joseph Ratzinger's Introduction to Christianity: "If there were such a thing as loneliness that could no longer be penetrated and transformed by the word of another, if a state of abandonment were to arise that was so deep that no 'You' could reach into it any more, then we should have real, total loneliness and dreadfulness, what theology calls 'hell'. We can now define exactly what this word means: it denotes a loneliness that the word love can no longer penetrate and that therefore indicates the exposed nature of existence in itself. In this connection who can fail to remember that writers and philosophers of our time take the view that basically all encounters between human beings remain superficial, that no man has access to the real depths of another? According to this view, no one can really penetrate into the innermost being of someone else; every encounter, beautiful as it may seem, basically only dulls the incurable wound of loneliness. Thus hell, despair, would dwell at the very bottom of our existence, in the shape of that loneliness which is as inescapable as it is dreadful."
Scalfari was probably accurately reporting his own understanding of what Francis said, more or less. I think it's a case of two people inhabiting completely different paradigms trying to communicate with one another.
As neither a Catholic nor a Christian, I maintain only a mild academic interest in the Catholic conception of hell, or any given Pope's conception thereof.
Althouse's near-obsession with the topic mystifies me. Now she's got yet another post about it.
A gentle reminder that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, so any English version is a translation. Any reference to "unicorns" in a translation is just the choice of the translator.
I am extending an invitation to all members of the Althouse blog community to attend a silent retreat based upon St. Ignatius Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises at The Cloisters on the Platte. It opens this year. It is just west of Omaha. It was built and paid for by Joe Ricketts who founded TD Ameritrade and owns the Cubs.
The buildings are fabulous. He has commissioned a number of statues. The landscape is great, And it is technically free.
The retreats are single sex. If one starts talking too much, you will get kicked out. Exiled to Hell, so to speak.
The Spiritual Exercises are a time-tested faith inquiry.
Ricketts has probably spent $50-100 million on this.
Google it.
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.
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.
I care about humanity.
Why? If we are just random accumulations of matter that happens to have the illusion of free will, then caring about humanity is just sentimentalism.
the idea of a real place with torture and fire and demons
Is non-biblical. The Inferno is a novel, not scripture.
why don't you continually speak with Christian charity?
In other words, "you aren't acting the way I think Christians should." When a Christian does that its known as being self-righteous. Well Christ himself drove people out of the Temple using whips made out of cords. I especially like the "if you really believed." Paul himself stated:
"For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do-this I keep on doing."
Romans 7:19
The good professor has the idea that being a Christian is about getting saved and then doing good works and acting like a goody goody in order to get into God's good graces. But, it is impossible to get into God's good grace by doing works. The nature of God's grace is that it is wholly unearned, it cannot be earned. That is why it is grace. But then, a lot of Christians struggle with that as well. It is a difficult concept. First of all, it is unjust. Second, it means that you are no better than the worst person that ever lived. Third, it takes all control from you. However, being a Christian means that God drew you to him and then forgave (and forgives cause you are going to keep sinning) you purely out of his love even though you don't deserve it. Its about the struggle against sin, which you may not be successful with. David believed in God, but he committed adultery and conspired to kill the woman's husband in order to conceal it. Nonetheless, "After removing Saul, he made David their king. God testified concerning him: 'I have found David son of Jesse, a man after my own heart; he will do everything I want him to do.'" Acts 13:22
The Bible is full of examples of people who sin and defy God but are his servants and are used by him. The theme of most of the Old Testament is Israel being saved by God, falling away from him, and then being saved by him again.
"There are plenty of books on what beliefs are core to the Catholic faith and, believe me, diet, open borders and global warming are not core beliefs."
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 why is Hell still in?
If the point is that Catholic leaders make the determination, you've got to give me a reason to follow their authority, and even if I agreed to accept them, I'd be observing that the Pope has been letting us see that a determination is in the process of being made.
To me, the current incarnation of the Catholic Church, more the laity than the clergy, seem closest to the original spirit of the Church than any other, although I don't know much about the Orthodox Church. This is a low bar, unfortunately. The Protestant Church seems to have run off the rails, either ridiculously liberal or ridiculously venal, with little in the way of middle ground. The genuinely conservative traditions/ideas of the Catholic Church are worth preserving, not just as a museum piece but as a counter balance to current fads, whatever they may be.
This is the best discussion ever.
Ever.
Mr Pope is trying to get his priestly child molesters to think they won’t burn in the eternal fires.
Most atheists have an understanding of Church teaching that stops at their 5th grade catechism class.
...
.... unfortunately so do most Catholics...
Speaking of Jesuits: Ramblers vs. Michigan today at 5:00 pm CST.
Hope the game ends before Easter Vigil.
Says this Chicago Irish Catholic lad: Go Ramblers!
Together with this reality of Hell as self-separation from God, of turning inward to such a degree that love and truth can no longer enter into the person, we also have the likelihood, which C.S. Lewis so helpfully noted, that those in this state of exclusion are not even aware that they are in fact in Hell.
In 1966, the Catholic priest that married my wife and I explained that heaven was the beatific vision and union with God. Hell was the
denial of this vision and separation from God. But then he quite the priesthood a few years later. Note the concepts of heaven and hell are
so broad and amorphous that they can be interpreted in myriad ways. The Catholic approach to scripture is far from fundamentalist; the priests I know are quite comfortable encouraging people to interpret scripture allegorically and symbolically, and even rhetorically. The Catholic church is only partly dependent on scripture; church historical tradition is nearly equal in importance. However, although saints may be traditional, Catholics are not requred to believe in them.
In fact in the Catholic churches I go to, the approach to interpreting scripture is nearly literary in approach,using the concepts the one might use for careful interpretations of literature.
In the book of Acts, Peter is shown a vision of unclean animals which God tells him to 'kill and eat', to which Peter protests that he has never eaten anything unclean. God tells him to not call anything unclean that He has cleansed. God was preparing Peter to preach to the Gentiles, who were considered unclean. Mosaic laws of the OT were fulfilled in Christ. The purpose of the law is to show us our sin, as Paul explains in Romans.
Even though I don't know or believe that there is Hell, Heaven or anything else, I still try to live my life in such a way that if there IS....well then, I'm covered.
According to Christian theology, no, you are not. Those are all very good questions by the way. A good catechism class would have had a teacher that could of answered them.
If the point is that Catholic leaders make the determination, you've got to give me a reason to follow their authority
As a Lutheran, this is a point I can agree with.
What's interesting about Prof Althouse's condemnation of Hell is not what she says, but rather what she doesn't say.
Does she have a problem with the existence of an eternal individual soul? A problem with Heaven as a place of eternal joy for the righteous? Or, just a problem with Hell as a place of eternal punishment for the damned?
Notice, too, that her objections are not metaphysical, i.e. that the existence of God, eternal souls, Heaven, & Hell, is improbable at best, & that the acquired patina that comes from a superstition having aged well still doesn't change the fact that it's still most likely a fable.
No, her objections are moral: the existence of Hell is a cruel thing for God to do, so it can't be, because God doesn't do cruel things.
When phrased this way, it's clear: Prof Althouse's views are just one more competing metaphysic, just another superstition out there with the rest of them.
Who knows the mind of God, if He exists? Must God be what we humans see as "kind"? Is God bound by moral laws, even His own? Or, rather, is God's Will, whatever it may be, the moral law because it is God's Will?
Christian (& Muslim & Jewish) theologians have throttled this stuff out through the ages. It's difficult material, not just in terms of its theological technicality, but also because it so often involves understanding God as "Ground", as the foundation in which two seemingly contradictory attributes (e.g. "Merciful" & "Just") are postulated.
Suffice to say, human reason sucks at this stuff.
Fernandistein" 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.
And I always thought it was brilliant. Leaving aside wave state/quantum matter theory, which I will never understand.....
The idea that you do not know the result of an experiment until the experiment has been completed is not a foreign concept. The unbaked versus baked cake. 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. Both alive and/or dead, depending on your point of view.
People can take a point of view on the state of the cat (God, Heaven, Hell) and argue until Hell freezes over about it :-D, but until we open the box, finish the experiment, in this discussion die, we just don't know. It can be yes or no..... or as I prefer maybe until the conclusion.
Speaking of Jesuits: Ramblers vs. Michigan today at 5:00 pm CST.
Hope the game ends before Easter Vigil.
Says this Chicago Irish Catholic lad: Go Ramblers!
You've got it, roughcoat! One thing that can be said of the Jesuits is that they do good basketball.
Villanova is of the Augustinian order, is it not?
"I am extending an invitation to all members of the Althouse blog community to attend a silent retreat based upon St. Ignatius Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises...."
I've had that book in my library since the 1970s.
"The retreats are single sex. If one starts talking too much, you will get kicked out. Exiled to Hell, so to speak."
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, and I said I needed to get out. They pulled over and left me by the side of the highway with my luggage, and as I was leaving another woman advised me that I ought to reflect on the importance, within Christianity, of not being selfish. My notion of Christian values at the time was to accept the abuse and not say, but I am doing this for another person, my unborn child. I had to cross the highway and walk a few long blocks in an unfamiliar part of the city to get to where I could hail not Mary but a cab.
That's what I think of when I hear about other people on a retreat.
My normal life is a retreat, so a retreat would be the opposite of a retreat for me.
“I care about humanity.“
This is almost always followed by/used for justification for selfishness.
Any reference to "unicorns" in a translation is just the choice of the translator.
And the King James version was created when there was a lot less knowledge of ancient Hebrew than what exists and a lot less knowledge concerning zoology and Africa.
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/08/are-there-really-unicorns-in-the-king-james-bible.html
Retreats are generally bad unless you're just relocating the battle to more favorable ground.
I understood the Pope to mean the unrepentant wicked and evil would be plunged into non-existence, into a state of absolute nothingness. If you know others will continue to exist in a state of perfect happiness forever, nonexistence is kind of a scary thought when you think about it.
Eternity cannot be described as unending time, since time no longer exists in Eternity. Eternity is perfection of existence and becoming divinized because of belief in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ (both components are necessary). Hell is the realization that one has willfully lost Eternity be refusing to accept faith offered freely and lovingly.
But one's existence will continue, and so will one's knowledge of that choice and loss.
Mock:
Yep, Villanova is Augustinian. Looking forward to a Loyola v. Villanova final, a Catholic fight card!
As said, I'm pulling for the Ramblers. I'm old enough to remember when they won the NCAA in 1963, beating two-time winner Cincinnati in overtime, one of the biggest (and best!) upsets in college hoops history. Good times!
"If the point is that Catholic leaders make the determination, you've got to give me a reason to follow their authority"
But... you're not a Catholic. Why should you follow their 'authority'?
Retreats are generally bad unless you're just relocating the battle to more favorable ground.
Or unless it's a feint. I was just reading about a successful one recently but don't remember where.
Even though I don't know or believe that there is Hell, Heaven or anything else, I still try to live my life in such a way that if there IS....well then, I'm covered.
According to Christian theology, no, you are not. Those are all very good questions by the way. A good catechism class would have had a teacher that could of answered them.
Here's an answer from a Catholic catechist -
Is it necessary to believe in God/Jesus to go to Heaven when you die?
That depends on what one means by "believe."
Intellectual belief, having an affirmative knowledge that you believe, certainly helps. At least in theory. For one thing, the intellectual believer will presumably then go and be baptized, which provides the grace of not only redeeming one from Original Sin, which is absolutely necessary for salvation, but it provides other graces as well to grow in the faith and grow closer to the Lord, if only one accepts those graces in the heart.
However, Jesus says that it is not necessarily the case that the intellectual believer will be automatically saved. He says that there are plenty who proclaim, "Lord, Lord," to whom He will say "I don't know you because you never really took me into your heart." (cf. Mt. 7:21-23)
Meanwhile, Jesus also affirms that there are many who received Him even without realizing they were doing so and that they will be saved. (Mt. 25:34-40) And Paul notes that the people of Athens worshiped God unknowingly with their altar to an unknown God. (Acts 17:22-23)
So, what is important that you "know" Jesus and "believe" in your heart, i.e., you have a sincere thirst for love and hunger for truth in your heart. (Mt. 5:3-10) That is enough to be "blessed," to at least open the door to possible salvation, even if you do not intellectually realize that you know Jesus in your heart. The God of Divine Mercy seeks to save, not to condemn, so He will help you the rest of the way.
At the same time, this "belief in the heart" is made more difficult if one intellectually affirmatively rejects Jesus and/or God and/or everything about Him. And sincere belief in the heart is -- or at least should be -- easier if one intellectually believes.
The thing is that you need to be on the right path and pointed in the right direction. You need to have an open heart.
Ann: "You are on dangerous ground to claim that hell doesn't exist because your understanding of God does not allow for it. It implies that you have a perfect understanding of God. I know I don't. Nor does anyone else that I know of. Even Jesus acknowledged that there were things that the Father had not revealed to him."
All I said is it's "implausible."
Where did I "claim that hell doesn't exist"? I don't think I've made any statements purporting to know.
Straw man.
If you want an argument to blow a Christian's mind try the one that says, "no one can expect love from a God who abandons and tortures His only begotten Son that way."
Christians have being dealing with that since about five minutes after Christ was resurrected. Mind. Not. Blown.
The Catholic and the Atheist. Geratric Marxists. Discussing high minded theological concepts.
Neither Jesus nor Karl are going to protect you from the Islamists. Those boys believe. Not the games of old men
"That's absurd. If you knew you were condemned to eternal torture, it wouldn't make you think well of God, not unless you got the news that if you could truly love God while being tortured by God, the torture would end."
Althouse,
Heaven and Hell are not the equivalent of, say, going to a spa vs. John McCain in Vietnam getting tortured.
It's about a soul being severed, permanently, from God. God is not choosing to condemn. The concept of free will is that a person can choose to turn away. Or choose to be permanently severed. God cannot force one to choose. That is not power on God's part but a lack of power. Souls need to choose to be united.
Here's a way to think about it. Let's say your soul is a cup. The cup wants water, and God wants to give water.
God can pour water on the cup. But if the cup is upside down and refuses to turn up to accept the water, there is nothing God can do.
Althouse @12:02 PM:
Good story, well-told. You should have clonked the smoker on the head when you got out of the car. Christianity is not a pacifist religion.
Stephen Daedalus's experience at the retreat in "Portrait of the Artist" is even more harrowing. A vision of hell, I daresay.
Meanwhile, Jesus also affirms that there are many who received Him even without realizing they were doing so and that they will be saved. (Mt. 25:34-40) And Paul notes that the people of Athens worshiped God unknowingly with their altar to an unknown God. (Acts 17:22-23)
An excellent rendering of the concept of "Baptism of Desire."
All people in all ages past present and future may be saved, even those who did not/do not/will not (knowingly) know Christ.
Ann wrote:
" 'Oh, Come on, Ann. What you mean is that an eternity spent in hell or life after death is an implausible notion....'
I've already responded to that point. You're redefining the term. Straw man."
I guess I missed it, but it seems like your definition is the straw one to me.
But then, on further reflection, maybe it's only the people who are afraid of hell who might actually go there? Like the God fearers in Genesis, they are the only ones who are truly human, who can be trusted in a dark place. Sociopaths like Hitler go out like a match.
Is there any justice in that? Maybe. It's a game of survival.
if the cup is upside down and refuses to turn up to accept the water, there is nothing God can do
Good analogy. I like it.
There is also one that a lawyer should be able to grasp --
Salvation is a gift. Legally, to be completed, a gift must be not only delivered, but accepted. If the package from the donor is not accepted and received as one's own, then the gift is not completed and it is as if one never received it in the first place. God will not force His gift upon anyone. He will not shove Heaven down anyone's throat.
It gets confusing, this heaven/hell salvation thing, and also messy. KISS. Chop wood, carry water.
God can pour water on the cup. But if the cup is upside down and refuses to turn up to accept the water, there is nothing God can do.
Well said, wwww. Except that God could, if he would, save everyone, turning their cups over to receive the water. But He chooses not to. It's His game and we're just players.
@ Begley
As to God being mean, I say yes. He has to fight Satan and evil.
That explains the Book of Job, which starts out with Althouse's God of Love, Truth and Life itself conspiring with Satan to torture Job and kill all his children, servants and livestock.
And for those of you who question unicorns in the Bible, Al Gore invented full Bible searches, such as quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/simple.html, which gives:
Num.23
[22] God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Num.24
[8] God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Deut.33
[17] His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
Job.39
[9] Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
[10] Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Pss.22
[21] Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
Pss.29
[6] He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
Pss.92
[10] But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Isa.34
[7] And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.
And claiming that "unicorn" meant "rhinoceros" doesn't explain the talking snake and donkey, or angels, devils, giants, assumptions, resurrections, virgin births, much less the recent invention of the immaculate conception. Or God's big mistake (says Mark Twain) of forbidding eating of the apple instead of the snake.
The idea that you do not know the result of an experiment until the experiment has been completed is not a foreign concept.
A misinterpretation of Schrodinger's Cat. Because the cat's life depends on whether a given radioactive sample emits a neutron that is detected, in other words, a probable quantum state, the cat is not dead or alive, it's both or neither. When the experimenter opens the box he learns but one thing: If the cat is alive the observer is in any one of an infinite number of Live Cat universes. If dead the observer is part of a Dead Cat universe.
Christianity cannot cope with souls that are both damned in hell and redeemed in heaven.
Nature personified is incredibly cruel, yet people who reject God often embrace Mother Nature. There is always a feminist slant to every story.
If the Loyola-Chicago Ramblers win today, it firmly establishes the existence of a benevolent God.
Quaestor:
Very appropriate that Anthony Fremont is your avatar.
Roughcoat: Thanks for your well considered response. Peterson assumes the flood myth is a proxy for "bad shit is gonna come". He goes into the difference between New Orleans and the Dutch and equates honoring God with good engineering. He also talks about how being on a solid mental, physical and financial footing can prevent a tragedy (which is coming for all of us) from spiraling out of control into the horrific terror of hell.
Just got back from setting up our community Easter egg hunt. Can't wait to see the joy on the faces of the kids.
Bay Area Guy:
Agreed. Although I reached that conclusion when the Cubs won the WS in 2016.
God can pour water on the cup. But if the cup is upside down and refuses to turn up to accept the water, there is nothing God can do.
A non-omnipotent God? That's spittin' distance from heresy.
Is there a hell? Everybody knows that nobody knows.
What's clear here is that the Pope did say that. Those quotes weren't made up out of whole cloth. The Pope did say those things, and those things are heresy, if you're a Catholic.
I've wondered for a long time what the liberation theology wing of the Roman Church had on Benedict. Secret Nazi? Boy buggerer? What?
All I can say is that the priests and nuns who educated me would have been appalled at the idea of a communist pope.
This Pope also questioned free agency in sin, going so far as to suggest the Lord’s Prayer be amended to recite “do not let us fall into temptation” from “lead us not into temptation.” This is on par with the Grand Inquisitor reasoning.
I’m not Catholic, but I believe that this Pope is an imposter intent on damaging the Church.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा