Tags
We now have a winner for the post which provoked the most comments on this blog. My post on The difficulty of hell has reached more than 600 comments, and despite a couple of other posts on the issue, is going strong.
Our Roman Catholic commentators have, rightly, commented that the traditional view is the one taught by their Church and that, for them, is that. This seems entirely right, and I am very grateful to those who have engaged constructively here. What the discussion has revealed is that views in the early Church were more varied than some had thought, and that the main dogma on this comes from as late as 1215, and endorses the view St Augustine put forth in his City of God. It is interesting that the subject has never been debated at an ecumenical council, but that probably reflects the overwhelming nature of the Roman Catholic consensus on the issue.
My reason for raising it at all is not to be controversial for its own sake, but because in active evangelisation I have found it to be one of the subjects most often raised by those willing to engage me and others on my little team in conversation. That, I think, has much to do with the way in which the Dawkinsite atheists have highlighted it as a major objection to Christianity. In so doing, my experience suggests, they have hit a rich vein. People, I have found, are very open to talking about Christianity in terms of Jesus and his teaching, and I have rarely found anyone mounting the argument against the faith from the “Jesus did not exist” or “Jesus’ teaching is repugnant” angles. The opposite is the case with two things – the existence of hell, and the fate of people who are not Christian.
The Church of England comes in for a fair amount of criticism for being ‘wishy-washy’, but that is because it is always easier to caricature attempts to work through theological concepts which time and custom have left undisturbed, than it is to engage with them. The early Church was often a ferment of discussion and debate, and our doctrine is the better for it. For a long-time the Roman Catholic Church, profoundly disturbed by the Reformation and then by the rise of nationalism and socialism, was so on the defensive that it became difficult to continue that tradition; even theologians as distinguished as de Lubac and de Chardin found themselves under suspicion. The Church of England has retained the intellectual self-confidence to confront contemporary questioning in the light of tradition. The Church of England, recognising the objections raised to the traditional concept, has responded not by saying” ‘this is what has always been taught and that’s that’, but rather by taking a serious look at the history and theology behind our concepts of hell. Early in 1996 a report by the Doctrine Commission of the Church of England was published. It was a book (called The Mystery of Salvation). Predictably, the press reacted to one paragraph and rushed out with headlines about ‘church abolishes hell’. But the report, like the debate in the Church, has tried to make the Christian understanding of salvation relevant and meaningful in the context of contemporary life and society. As the report put it when it rejected the idea of hell as a place of fire, pitchforks and screams of unending agony:
“There are many reasons for this change, but amongst them have been the moral protest from both within and without the Christian faith against a religion of fear, and a growing sense that the picture of a God who consigned millions to eternal torment was far removed from the revelation of God’s love in Christ”
The Roman Catholic Church has also, made some moves towards a deeper, and better, understanding of what hell really means. The Catechism has only seven paragraphs on the subject, and whilst it says that Jesus spoke of hell as an ”unquenchable fire,” it says hell’s primary punishment is ”eternal separation from God,” which results from an individual’s conscious decision. Bishop Robert Barron has recently commented: ‘“Think of God’s life as a party to which everyone is invited,” he says, “and think of hell as the sullen corner into which someone who resolutely refuses to join the fun has sadly slunk.”
The Bishop, like anyone involved in evangelisation, knows that it is not possible to talk about hell without talking about heaven and salvation.
Salvation is not missing hell, hell is missing out on salvation, and we can only explain the one in the context of the other; Christ came to save us. If we are made to know and to love God, then we can find salvation only in that fate – salvation, now and in the life of the world to come, comes in knowing God. If that is the fate God intends for us, that is what we get by embracing his Son. If we do not do that, what happens? The traditional fire and brimstone version posits a second destiny for us. If we do not achieve the knowing and loving God, we are plunged into eternal fire and torment. Paul said the wages of sin is death; the Roman Catholic Church traditionally insists it is something worse than death. The Anglican report suggested that we might better read the Gospel passages on this subject more plainly – the wages of sin is death – we are not raised to eternal life with God, we cease to exist at all. That is not a comfortable thought, but it does not portray a God who hands us over to the devil for eternal torture. Which of these versions of God one believes may well reflect one’s own experience of love and of God: some seem quite comfortable with the idea (assuming of course that it will not be them) of those who displease God being confined to an eternal torture chamber; others cannot find in them an experience of the God of love who defines his live for his creation in that way.
The question I am often asked when teaching, is what sort of God created the traditional vision of hell, and why I, or any decent human being, would want to worship him. As one young woman said to me recently, ‘God seems a bit of a cruel narcissist – if you don’t worship him he will make you suffer eternal fire for ever’. That is not, I told her, what the Church of England teaches, and nor is it. The distinguished Anglican theologian, John Wenham wrote some years ago now:
I feel that the time has come when I must declare my mind honestly.
I believe that endless torment is a hideous and unscriptural doctrine which has been a terrible burden on the mind of the church for many centuries and a terrible blot on her presentation of the gospel.
I should indeed be happy if, before I die, I could help in sweeping it away.
Christianity is not a faith preserved in amber, neither is it a museum piece. It responds, as it always has, to the circumstances in which it finds itself. Traditional teaching about hell has been around, but in an unexamined way, since the days when even civilised men thought nothing of burning each other in the name of Jesus. In our own age, as with capital punishment, it is being examined and discussed in a way unparalleled in Church history. In Rome, as in Canterbury, theologians are responding to the challenge. Those comfortable with the idea of hell-fire and brimstone may object, but it is happening across the Christian community, and it will continue until we reach some kind of consensus on what hell is. No one is abolishing it, but modern theologians, reaching back to the early Fathers, are reexamining the idea – this is what happens in a living church led by the Spirit. Is it uncomfortable to those who have not kept up with what the theologians have been saying? To judge from the comments on my other thread, it is. But as their own Church moves in the direction my own one has pioneered, they can add that to the ever-lengthening list of ‘heresies’ taught by the ‘Novus Ordo’ sect, or whatever uncomplimentary description they apply to the Pope and those who think like Bishop Barron.
ginnyfree said:
Beautiful picture. Only lacks one type of person depicted: those who take the Swan Dive off the cliff into the eternal fires. No more time this morning and I’d like to give your essay some thought. Maybe later. Looks fun from first glance. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
By all means – have fun!
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Go into a religion church. All of them are swan diving into hell.
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Very thoughtful piece, Jessica.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Thank you, Zeke – and as you can see from the links, the Roman Catholic Church is not as hostile to this way of thinking as some of its members here 🙂
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
I come to this blog because it makes me think. I don’t have any particular axe to grind and so do not demand that others see things my way or the RCC way. It does not threaten me or the RCC to ponder what is true and what is not. If I consider ideas that contradict RCC teaching, it doesn’t mean that I conclude that the Church is wrong, it just means that I am using my God-given brain and intellect. I became Catholic because of the depth of the teaching, it enhances my faith in ways I cannot explain, but I don’t demand that all my family and friends live and think as I do (tried that, guess what, it failed). God has his way with each of us in His own way and in His own time, he is not a dictator and neither am I. I love my Christian friends from all walks of life. I put my trust in the Lord. End of today’s sermon. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
What a very good sermon Zeke – I wish we had more like it 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
Thank you Jessica, this comment from this morning was just my way of dealing with reading 600+ comments on the previous “Hell” post. I feel better now. 🙂
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
There are a lot, aren’t there? At least this new one provides another home for them 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
orthodoxgirl99 said:
Nicely put Jessica. I too, struggle with the medieval image of hell fire and brimstone but rather think along the lines of eternal separation and C S Lewis’s “The Great Divorce” imagery. Separation from God would, to me, be eternal hell. My soul would perish slowly and agonisingly – not a great thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Thank you. This is, I think, one of the most difficult parts of our tradition as Christians, but it is interesting how unexamined so many of the assumptions are – and how little some of the recent theology on this has percolated down – or perhaps that last one isn’t 🙂
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
I am at once reminded of one of my favorite essays by the great thinker, Bishop Sheen; The Decline of Controversy. https://servusfidelis.wordpress.com/?s=the+decline+of+controversy&submit=
Note the last sentence of the third paragraph. 🙂
So you may be right, my dear friend that people have become very lazy in their thinking and unwilling to come to blows with one another in the realm of ideas; the good bishop saw this as so not long after the Vatican II Council.
I am one of those he speaks about; for I am not adept nor knowledgable enough nor a deep enough thinker to speak for the Church and Her Traditions. But I am willing to try though I may be left for dead in the field.
What I think is aparent is what the bishop makes clear: what you see in the C of E as engaging with the world looks to many of us like a rolling over to the consensus of the world and never putting up a good defense or a worthy fight. It is not just the C of E that has this modernist strain; we all have this tendency and it is now the fabric of the society in which we live.
As to the subject of hell: Where it can be found, I prize consistency between the natural and the supernatural.
For instance, in the Natural realm we abhor ‘mercy killings’ though we lament the pain and suffering of the person. In the Supernatural realm we abhor the ‘annihilation of the soul’ while we lament the loss of the soul to pain and suffering. In the Natural realm we do all that we can to prevent the cause of the suffering of the body. In the Supernatural realm God provides sufficient Grace in order to prevent the cause of the suffering of the soul.
There is a consistent theme here, which seems both right and just, that allows for the natural and for the supernatural order of things to transpire without doing violence or interfering with its orderliness. Indeed the concept of Hell and who it is for is under attack: even its existence is at stake among some. Then this spirals out to the nature of the soul (made to be eternal or is this not part of the nature of soul anymore?). So this is where the Churches need to raise up the folks who can properly give defense instead of leaving it to buck privates that barely got through high school.
You put the dilemma well in this post Jess. But even here we need to question what Modernism is costing us: are we slowly stripping away our dogma’s and disassembling our creeds by our negligence and enthusiasm for those souls who don’t like them? Is that really evangelism then? Or is it placating the objections of the world? 🙂
LikeLiked by 5 people
JessicaHof said:
As always, a really thoughtful response 🙂
Does Scripture say our soul is made for eternal life or eternal life in God? If the latter, then the question arises of the fate of the soul which rejects eternal life with God. Can there even be eternal life apart from God? It seems to some that that is not what Scripture says. It would fit with what Paul says about the wages of sin being death; there is no eternity apart from God, not even an eternity in hell.
I don’t think we should shy away from hard thinking about assumptions which have lain unexamined for a long time. Look at the way thinking about the Jews, or indeed, about dealings with other Christians has changed. There were those who rejected the Chalcedon definition of Christ’s two natures because it used the word ‘hypostasis’ which is not in the Bible and which earlier Fathers had never used. They took their stand on an unimpeachable traditional teaching – but the rest of the Church has told them they were wrong.
I can see the objection to conforming to the wishes of the world, but I can also see the argument for updating our thinking as questions get raised which were not raised before. Until recently the death penalty was taken for granted and most people supported it – so did the churches. Now were the churches just following what the state wanted, or did this idea come from the church? It seems unclear to me which way round it was, but it could be an example of the church following the world – even as both western society and the Church now tends against the DP.
‘Mercy killings’ are now far more of a problem, not because of anything the church has done, but because medical science can keep people alive who would otherwise be dead, and in the past would just have died. It seems to me that contemporary society in every age throws up fresh problems, and the church cannot just refuse to deal with them and say it was always this way and always will be. Apart from anything, that was not how the early church proceeded.
So yes, some very interesting wider questions arise here 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
I would doubt, my friend, that I can add much more to this discussion. I would however suggest a book by a man who was a thinker of some renown: the Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagranges’s book, Everlasting Life; a Theological Treatise on the Four Last Things.
From the last paragraph of Ch. XV, he quotes Jean-Baptiste-Henri Dominique Lacordaire.
“Just think! ‘Tis God who came down to you, who took on your own nature, who spoke your language, healed your wounds, raised your dead to life. ‘Tis God who died for you on a cross. And shall you still be permitted to blaspheme and mock, to enjoy to the full your voluptuousness? No. Deceive not yourselves: love is not a farce. It is God’s love which punishes, God’s crucified love. It is not justice that is without mercy; it is love. Love is life or death. And if that love is either eternal life or eternal death.” __ Conferences in Notre Dame, 72nd conference, in fine.
Indeed, I must re-read the chapters on hell again for there is much thought in these pages. There is much to digest. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rob said:
John also seems to confirm that only those in Christ have eternal life-
“And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.” 1 Jn. 5:11-12
LikeLiked by 6 people
Jock McSporran said:
Not ‘seems to confirm’; rather, ‘states explicitly’. The question (of course) is: who has the Son of God?
LikeLiked by 2 people
ginnyfree said:
OH Jocko! Pop quiz! Love it! Easy answer – those who keep His Commandments! Do I get a prize?
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
…. so you mean that nobody has the Son of God?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
You win a cracker
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
But this is not explicit or does not confirm anything?
Matthew 25:33-46
33 and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ 40 And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,[a] you did it to me.’ 41 Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
LikeLiked by 5 people
Jock McSporran said:
Sorry – I misunderstood the point.
No – I don’t see how John can be taken to say that.
In John’s writings, it seems to me that death is the natural state that we are in and life is the state we enter in to when we ‘have the Son’.
‘Eternal life’ in this context therefore means ‘assurance of salvation’.
LikeLiked by 3 people
ginnyfree said:
Hello Jock. Nice to “see” you here too. No, we need to read Scripture as a package. One verse of scripture cannot be used (or I should say mis-used) to directly contradict another. There needs be a harmony, a consonance that remains as consistent as the Divine Author these things inform us of. So, any use of the words of St. John to disprove the words of St. Matthew is bound to fail. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I really don’t see how else we can read that 🙂
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Jess, can you not read that passage as having eternal life for those who are in Christ whilst the others do not? It does not make the case Rob wants it to make in my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Yes, I can, but if they have eternal life, what do those who are not in Christ have? My problem here is it seems to be positing another reason we are made – eternal torment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Well, dear friend, not what we are made for . . . but what happens when the soul does not live according to its nature (by choice). It is no longer that image and likeness of Christ that we always like to write about. They are enemies of Christ. I am liberally borrowing from Garrigou-Lagrange in my arguments but in my own words. So I cannot reproduce the development of this in an acceptable length. Again, how much do we want to rebuild of the Faith once we start picking it apart? And won’t it be a Church of our own making when we get done?
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
That is always a danger. The orher danger is that we fail to think through obstacles to conversion. It deems to me significant that no Apostle preached fire and brimstone. It does not seem to have been part of theit apologetics, which raises the question of why it should be part of ours?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
It usually is not the topic of evangelization or homilies. But it is always taught to those who learn their catechism. It should always be in the back of one’s mind that our consequences are not going to be pleasant if it is our own pleasure in finite things that we live for instead of an unreelting love of God and for Christ who died to keep us from such a place as hell. Now that’s Mercy.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
I thik here I am with Bishop Barron. Exclusion is terrible – but it does not raise the question of what sort if love condemns souls to torment for eternoty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I am suspect as to whether Bishop Barron rejects eternal punishment in hell. One analogy, taken totally out of context, does not a theology make. 🙂 Even then, he does not trump the Church, the early Fathers, the Athanasian Creed, the Scriptural understand by the Church supported by the visions of the Saints. But perhaps he is beginning to work on a theology of his own on these, I do not know. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
I think that like many he is examining the history of our thinking on this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
If so, he is barking up a tree that will bear no fruit, I’m afraid. I admire the man for his series and his many useful analogies in explaining bits of our faith. But in this analogy (and a few other I heard) he is not exactly convincing or helpful. I do have some problems with some of what he says though I just love his history lessons.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Every Church is having to engage here, and it won’t be going away anytime soon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I think that is true. It is like a pack of dogs that has found that they can back up their prey. They all get involved and will remain to do so until some backbone is shown and then they will be filled with fear: as they should. (pun intended) 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Alternatively, we are all responding to changes in the way we see the world. There was once a time when the law found nothing wrong with extracting confessions from people via torture, and a time when prisons were hell holes of suffering and pain. If we, broken and sinful creatures, have moved beyond thinking this is right, then is it not natural we should also wonder why God would behave less well than we do?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
How is it that you keep making God a finite man of limited worth and dignity. Our dignity is leased to us for short while and all men (including the reprobate) were shown infinite love by receiving this life and receiving His loving invitation to fly from sin and into His arms as His own child. To make a decision against such love is hatred and disdain of the infinite Good.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
But surely positing God as someone who takes such offence at this that he sentences men and women to torment in hell is making him a very finite and flawed sort of man. If not one of us would do this to an adopted child, why do we suppose God would behave less well than we should?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
It is not a sentence dear friend. It is the choice of a reprobate soul that is more in the realm of the spirit of satan than of God whose likeness it was crafted for and given the dignity of adoption.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
It is, I think, a more recent view that it is the choice of the individual, although there were always Fathers who thought that it was. More recently, Popes have said that no one has said anything about who is in hell, and it seems to me that the eternal flames line of thought is not often present in modern teaching.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
The Decline of Controversy . . . those who are unwilling to meet steel with steel.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
That could be – but it could also be that the vision we have of hell was forged in a particular time 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
That’s Rob’s contention which I find a bit absurd. Christians have been smarter than that . . . never once forgetting the infinite price of their sins.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Dave wrote:
“How is it that you keep making God a finite man of limited worth and dignity. Our dignity is leased to us for short while and all men (including the reprobate) were shown infinite love by receiving this life and receiving His loving invitation to fly from sin and into His arms as His own child. To make a decision against such love is hatred and disdain of the infinite Good.”
Dave in relation to your comment, this is how I see it:
God did not seem to be so concerned about his dignity when He hung naked on the cross for us. He does not seem to be driven compulsively to defend Himself or uphold His dignity as we are. In fact God in person advised us not to follow this path but that when we are reviled we should not follow suit. The cross absolutely reveals our God is not about self-justification and His renunciation of such ways is exactly what establishes the true dignity of God we see displayed in Jesus.
Essentially this whole topic about hell turns on one’s image of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Why should God be ‘concerned’ about it; He is ‘Dignity’ (righteousness and justice) Himself . . . it is innate. An infinite reward offered out of Infinite Mercy must logically be countered by infinite Justice when dealing with an infinite wrong. Heaven is a place of infinite merit and hell a place of infinite demerit. If our sins were ‘worthy’ of the suffering and death of God . . . then what price is our sins after this Infinite Act of Love and Mercy? God is not seeking ‘self-justification’ Rob, He has made plain the serious nature of sin: worthy of God’s suffering . . . but in your mind not worthy of our suffering.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Your logic does not reflect to me the character of God that I see displayed by Christ – my comment had nothing to do with what I considered man to be worth of.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Rob, I would also suggest your reading the book I gave the link to. Just the Part on Hell would be useful.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
I also though his analogy rather simplistic. It seems to relegate those ‘sulking’ in the corner of the party to a state where it might be possible to engage and reform them. I think it would have been more hones for his to say it was like those who showed up to the party without invitations, were locked outside in the dark where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth: at least there Biblical evidence for such a consequence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
That’s true. But I remain unclear as to why one would worship an omniscient being who sentenced those who refused to worship him to eternal torment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Where there is law there is a sentence for transgression of the law. When was this ever not the case. His law does ot say what you posited anyway. We do not know how he will judge souls: we only know that those who have transgressed will have rejected Christ and His ransome for their sins. They transgress the law of love. It is infinite love they sin against. It is love that condemns them. It is justice that is satisfied when the reprobate should be deprived of all good for all eternity. Absence of pain is a sensible good. Since it was by the love of the finite sensible pleasures that were self-serving, that it is just that they suffer as well in their finite senses. The absence of pain then is removed. What is left but pain?
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
well explained dear friend. But what sort of omnipotent and omniscient creator is it who condemns us to burn, like that poor Jordanian pilot in a cage, but forever? You might love and worship such a being, but I would trun from him in repugnance. Would you admire an earthly leader who behaved that way to lawbreakers?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
But see friend, I am not able to make the point without writing as much as did the author of the link I provided.
Perhaps you would take enough time to read the Section on Hell. The Chapters are short and they build upon one another . . . like a lawyer would build a case. There is much on fear, there is much on eternity, and much on love, mercy and justice. You would need to read it all as I am a poor layman that cannot provide an adequate synopsis that does the argument justice (speaking of justice). 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I shall do so, dear friend – and am grateful for your patience and guidance 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Thank you, that would relieve this poor foot soldier from trying to win the war by himself. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I am told that Geoffrey will be sending reinforcements 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Bless Him. My prayers are answered . . . and God sent a Host from Heaven to my defense.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Geoffrey is a host in himself 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Indeed so . . . and I welcome his nighty sword in battle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
P.S. That was supposed to be ‘mighty’ not to have folks think that Geoffrey wears a nightie. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
I doubt anyone would think that 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I should hope not . . . humorous mispellings occur from time to time. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
We do not know how he will judge souls:
Who is “we”
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I think she is talking about you, me, the Pope, mortal beings. But I forgot, in the Bosgospel the sheep know each other, not in the real Gospel, but you know it but not what it means.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Hello Bosco = Happy New Year for later 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Happy new lousy year my good sister.
Good brother Chalcedon, Jesus said how he would judge. If he didn’t know you, you will go to darkness and weeping. BUT YOU FALSE RELIGION PEOPLE DONT BELIEVE ONE WORD OF THE BIBLE.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
And a happy new year to you.
We’ve been here before. I believe the Bible, but I do not just take a view and then twist what Scripture says to make it fit that view; you should try it sometime.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Happy new yr to you good brother.
You say you don’t twist scripture. Then how come you don’t believe Jesus had brothers and sisters? Scripture says he did. How come you call men Father? Why do you subscribe to a religion that has its dupes bowing befor graven images?
Good news is……every day above ground is a good day. Jesus knocks at your door.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
We’ve been through this many times. The answer is simple. The word used in the Greek does not mean brothers and sisters. Where are these brothers and sister on the flight into Egypt? Where are they when Jesus gets lost in the Temple? Where are they at the Crucifixion? They are not mentioned on any of these occasions. His mother is at the foot of the Cross with her female relatives, not one of whom is her child. It is you who twists the Scriptures. You read a translation, you assume it means in the original what a seventeenth century Englishman made it mean, and you don’t think of any of the things I have just mentioned.
We have been through the other things two. God forbids worshipping idols. You, again making an ass of yourself, assume that bowing is idolatry. I recently had the honour of being in the same company as Queen Elizabeth II. I bowed to her – that was not an act of worship. As for Father, the Greek word used is teacher. If you understood anything of what you parrot, it would be some sign that you are what you claim to be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Im embarrassed for you. You want to equate bowing befor a human which is not made by human hands to an idol made of wood and stone.
Oh look… I bowed befor as human….therefor its OK to bow beforwood and stone.
You ninny. The command says not to bow befor the works of your hands.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Poor Bosco. You really know nothing. The command is not to worship and idol. I don’t. You don’t understand the Bible, but then as you keep saying (and not seeing the irony) unsaved people don’t. I have yet to see you get one thing right here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
You need to slap your pastor or priest or rica teacher in the face. You were taught wrong. The command doesn’t say anything about worshiping the image. It says not to make them or bow down to them, you ninny. Im not going to post the commandment because we all know it.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
You make spot on observations with your questions my friend.
“To a certain degree mad does get lost; so too do preachers, catechists, teachers; as a result, they no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell. And perhaps even those who listen to them have stopped being afraid of hell.” – Pope St. John Paul II from Crossing the Threshold of Hope
I adhere to the teachings of Pope St. John Paul II in regards to hell. Mostly, I think his wisdom comes from his conflict with the modern world and the Church’s teachings. In many respects, John Paul II does admit that it’s a separation from God, but it also a very real place. John Paul II writes, “ The problem of hell has always disturbed great thinkers in the Church, beginning with Origen and continuing in our time with Sergey Bulgakov and Han Urs von Balthasar. In the point of fact, the ancient council rejected the theory of the “final apocastastasis,” according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every create would be saved; a theory which indirectly abolished hell.”
John Paul II continues, “In Matthew’s Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment, (Mt: 25:46): 46 And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life… Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, “It would be better for that man if he had never been born.” (Mt. 26:24)
There’s also the problem with the profession of faith and the Apostle’s Creed. The Creed states that Christ “he descended into Hell.” In respect to the Trinity, hell would have to be more than just the separation from God as Christ is God.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Philip Augustine said:
should read, “man gets lost”
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
In one of the earlier post, it ws suggested the hell is what the Jews called Sheol, so not eternal. I don’t know if that answers the case?
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Jess, certainly the assertion would be I believe along the lines that souls were in hell prior to the sacrifice of the Messiah, does the mean the place no longer exists? I certainly think in accordance to what I have read from Pope John Paul II’s theology it does.
However, I think in this regard answers from the early Church Fathers more important St. Augustine as you point out. I think if Christian’s are to believe in his philosophy of original sin, it would be wisdom and consistent to believe in his doctrine of hell.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I can see that, and yet Revelation has hell disappearing into the lake of fire.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
According to the Sheol version of hell . . . it was two states, one which Christ could enter and bring the righteous out of once the stone of his sepulcher (a symbol of sheol) was rolled back and it was empty. But the other is the hell of Christianity that remains . . . separated by an impassible chasm. We went through that one as well, didn’t we? I guess after 600+ comments there isn’t too much that we left out of our discussions. Good job for stirring us all up and challenging our minds beyond the ordinary limits. Well done! 🙂 xx
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
It is interesting, following the links to the discussion in your church that the discussion is going in the same direction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Apparently not a late development. These arguments go back into the darkness of lost history, I’d bet.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
True, but it seems as though for a very long time we stopped discussing this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
More a condemnation of the lack of teaching we have become used to. The discussions are occurring now . . . but mostly along this line of trying to explain away the reality of the settled doctrine. So we are pandering to the world. It is no wonder why it is beginning to get roots. We never laid the axe to the roots when they began to sprout.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
I am not sure they are trying to explain it away, they are trying to explain it. To many it is quite unclear why anyone would want to worship any being who sentenced people to be tortured for ever. Why would you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Too anthropomorphized a response for me to peretend to be God and exercise human wisdom or charity to an infinite being and infinite justice. One might make parallels to some degree but we have to leave the abode of finite man and enter into the mind of God through holy theology to make sense of it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
But I wonder whether the image of God as in charge of a gigantic torture chamber which he hands over to the devil to run is not very anthropomorphic and contextual to a particular time?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
You need think more on the nature of God and His simplicity to even dare think of God as a mere worldly king or inventor prancing to and fro and giving orders. It is the nature of the love and justice of God that has done what is infinite right and just as it can do nothing else. It is God’s nature that you seem to think is lacking from what is in man. Is it not rather man that is lacking in these things . . . a very poor shadow of God?
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
I think my point is that that way of thinking of him may well be at work here. We might well think of justice as meting out eternal punishment, indeed given our fallen nature, we do. But have we projected that onto God?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
. . . I keep plugging the work of Fr. Garrigou-LaGrange perhaps because he is one of the most readable Thomist Scholastic thinkers of modern time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I will read him with care 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Thank you dear friend. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
It is precisely God’s nature and dignity that we are arguing for and not against it.
It is just that we have a far different view of what that dignity consists of. For our side we see the suffering God revealed in Christ. Whereas traditional theology with its Greek philosophical influence posits an immovable, impassive ‘g’od untouched by the pains of His creation. An impassive ‘g’od can torture offenders in everlasting hell-fire. The God of the Bible revealed in Jesus our Lord cannot.
Churches I suspect tend to conform to their image of their god pragmatically speaking is why it is essential that we have a true image of God as the church in the past ISIS currently has negatively demonstrated.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Do you really think that Christians thought God impassive after becoming man, suffering and dying for our sins on the Holy Cross? And then, by that token, we developed our own societies around this image? It is absurd on the face of it. We are fallen men. We are emotional men. We do the best we can muster for the times in which we live. In the General Judgment we shall see how we have done. It has no bearing on the theological and scriptural arguments except metaphorically in showing that there is a price for transgressing the law . . . and a punishment that fits the crime. An infinite crime would require an infinite punishment. Otherwise the infinite reward of heaven is not infinite at all . . . for it has no corresponding equivalent for evil.
LikeLike
Rob said:
I think the idea of a need for the corresponding equivalents you mention first came from Tertullian – I cannot recall Christ or His apostles speaking of it. Sounds much more human like a demand for one’s ‘pound of flesh’ to me.
I did not think up the idea. Impassive: is one of the standard traditional theological definitions of God’s nature. I am glad you do not swallow it as in my opinion that it’s origin was a Greek philosophical construction about god. The theological speculation on the subject proceed as follows:
Aquinas’s views on God’s impassibility, immutability, and eternality. Aquinas argued that God has no passions and God’s perfection rules out his negative emotions, such as sorrow, fear, envy, or anger. He mentioned that God cannot be angry because he cannot feel sorrow and he cannot be injured. Aquinas believed that the emotional side of impassibility is a minor detail in the doctrine of God. see –
http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195326093.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195326093-e-14
“Since the onset of a spasm of anger, or jealousy, is a change, God, who cannot change, much less change in his nature, cannot be subject to such spasms.
Third argument: not only is the very idea of passion foreign to God, particular passions are unworthy of God, ‘unbefitting to God’. That is, even if God might be subject to passions, certain passions would be contrary to his character. Which passions? ‘Sorrow or pain, for its subject is the already present evil, just as the object of joy is the good present and possessed. Sorrow and pain, therefore, of their very nature cannot be found in God’. Sometimes passions are distinguished by what Thomas Aquinas calls their mode.”
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
In the divine sense it appears an appropriate analysis. In the Person of Christ taking on the nature of man . . . brings to my mind that God is not without these things which before were attributes of humans and not of His Divine Essence . . . if that makes sense??? hopefully???
LikeLike
Rob said:
The OT pre incarnation picture of God does not show Him as being without these things either bur Greek philosophy does – Question, what is the source of the concept?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Of course not, Rob, how else can the imponderable essence to relate to His creatures in a meaningful way. It is why we have so much analogy in the scriptures.
The source of the concept is the light of the Living Flame of Love. The more the righteous soul ponders the ineffable wonders of His God the more that is revealed.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
I love your religion good sister Jess. me and my blushing bride are going to get…forgive the pun….hitched in your welcoming religion.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Thanks Philip, your additions here are very helpful as well. Well done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Another question I think Christians have to ask is what weight does Classical Liberalism of the Enlightenment and Western thought play into this idea hell not existing. Is this the product of Satan? St. Teresa of Avila certainly writes about in the 1500s in her autobiography.
Does Western Classical Liberal philosophy just argue for a a very special form of nihilism, of a belief ultimately in nothing? Since nothing is universally binding on individuals, there’s nothing worth fighting about (other than the idea that nihilism itself is true- whatever ‘truth’ actually means or could mean in such a context).
And since it argues for nothing, is it important that it eliminates the idea of hell to promote its agenda.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Dave Smith said:
There is a thread of such talk and it has not ever gone away. However, the ideas of Jess and Rob are nuanced in a way from what was taught in earlier denounced versions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I don’t think that is the direction- though it might be where the atheist objections arise. I still remain, alas, unclear what the answer is to the question of why anybody would want to worship a God who threatened them with eternal punishment otherwise- if a leader of a country did that we’d think him a monster surely?
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
I think it’s a perception. God created man in his image–love. However, it depends on Augustine’s philosophy of Original Sin. It’s mankind’s fault for his state as God as all of God’s creations are good, mankind brings sin into the world. God has provided us a way out. God even through Christ chose to share mankind’s man as Christ to provide this salvation. If one views God as malevolent, it’s purely because one has made God in his image, or at least the image of sin in the world.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
But with all respect due to Augustine, he lived in an era where secular justice thought nothing of torturing people to death, and so his image of hell reflected that.
Our society thinks this a dreadful thing. So, tell it God wants sinners to burn in hell forever, and it thinks of that Jordanian pilot burned alive by ISIS – and wonders who on earth could worship any being who did that? In Augustine’s day it happened and people accepted it. We have moved beyond that. We are miserable sinners and would not do that to a rat – we are then asked to believe that God is perfect love and finds nothing wrong in burning people for ever?
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
I think there is a danger with such thinking, personally. You can take the same thoughts and apply it to other folks as well. Take Reza Aslan’s “Zealot” his thesis builds on a similar idea.
Ask yourself this, is any explanation then timeless? I think Dave shows a lot of wisdom here that he cautions pealing back dogma for the sake of the modern world.
Are the things that Christ says in the bible a reflection of his era and his conflict with the Romans and the Pharisees?
What about St. Paul or St. Peter?
Also consider this, If literary images are used to reflect pain such as fire, If it’s just a place that is a separation of God, perhaps,you’re not considering how actually painful that separation would be on a person.
Frankly, I imagine hell to be a pain not experienced on earth FAR worse than burning a rat; however, Heaven is the ultimate joy.
I feat that dulling and pealing back the idea of hell only sends more to it.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Most of us take scripture as a revelation of reality but see the speculation of philosopher theologians as another matter.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Rob, can you expand exactly what you mean? Are you claiming fundamentalism? I don’t quite understand your comment.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Most here believe that the NT descriptions of hell were authentic descriptions from Christ and his apostles and were recorded by the apostles or their witnesses. We do not think the original Biblical descriptions are culturally determined but inspired by the Holy Spirit. We differ on how we interpret their meaning.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
I also would consider this idea. What is the point of our time on earth and needing to choose the Father, if there isn’t a hell of eternal torment or if God who loves all simply will save anyone.
In many ways, Christianity without the concept hell is the non-believers and Satan’s goal. It would make all of the other teachings insignificant.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
I think there is another consideration, that those who would make such comparisons are guilty of a false equivalence.
I think we must also be weary of using the modern world as an example of the reason of attempting to reason away hell.
It was in the modern age, by secular and modern means that so many were put to death in Europe and the Soviet Union (up the late 20th-century). Furthermore, if one is inclined to see abortion as a crime, those modern tools are certainly a destructive force.
No, I think it would be prudent to understand how those in the world are still vastly evil and using barbaric methods, but now we accept all of the above with apathy, much like many Christians accept the idea of hell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Good points here, but I keep coming back to the fact we are told to call God ‘Father’ and to think of ourselves as his children by adoption. I know how we would all think about a father who tortured a disobedient adopted child, and that is why I cannot relate the God I know to this possessor of an eternal torture chamber.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Again, I think it’s perception in that I don’t see God as the possessor of a torture chamber per say or that he puts us there. I think it’s a matter of our free will, God may want us as adoptive children; however, we must choose Christ to know him.
Chalcedon does make a good overall point in his new post that much of it is simply a mystery.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Yes, I was much struck by what C said – I think the differences are much less than they appeared to be at the start – which is a good result for any discussion 🙂
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Yes, and what about a Father who’d actually send His Son to be tortured to death upon a crucifix after a sleepless night of prayer? He was beaten with cords and whips to within an inch of His death, mocked and spit on. He had a crown of thorns pressed to His head. More than once He was heard crying out to this Father who watched without a word. Surely Ms. Jess would find this too as a reason to turn away towards a god of love who never, ever wants any of his precious children to suffer anything. Why a father who could stand to see such torture would be an ogre and as she noted before, modern protective services would surely remove that child from his arms! Yes, fools we are for worshiping such a Father. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No, because he did this to pay the price for our sins – i.e. he did it voluntarily. You are positing a God who does not say that the wages of sin is death. It would be good if you could find more than a couple of verses which may support your vast edifice of a torture chamber.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
Sorry, I can’t read my comments before I send them on my device. My thought was,”God chose to share mankind’s suffering”
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
“In respect to the Trinity, hell would have to be more than just the separation from God as Christ is God.”
Philip, I was following your comment up until that sentence, I am not sure what it is you mean. Can you expand on it just a little so I can understand what you mean? I guess my question would be if hell is more than just separation from God, then what is it and how does the descent of Jesus to that realm change it? I’m not a theologian so my question may be garbled, I do the best I can with the few brain cells I’ve been granted. THanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
Zeke I think Philip’s logic probably followed as:-
“Jesus is God
Jesus descended into hell
Hell cannot only be separate from God as Jesus was there”
The problem with the logic is uncovered by Jess’ post dealing with Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus we are not all always speaking about the same hell.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Philip Augustine said:
I think it was a bit more explained by Jess and Dave. The Trinity would be God is Christ is Holy Spirit is not Christ is not God. All the same, All separate.
Now in the Apostle’s Creed it states that Christ descended into hell. Some Christian theologians don’t believe it. I know the Catholics do, I would suspect any who use the above creed do believe it. Some of the biblical references would be: Acts 2:24, 1 Peter 3:19, Hosea 13:14, Zech 9:11, Ecclesiasticus 24:45, Psalm 23:7.
Now if Hell is just the separation of God, how could Christ possibly descend into that state as he is God? It doesn’t appear that the compatible. Notwithstanding, Jess opened up the idea of the Jewish Sheol being a place Christ visited the souls where they were waiting for Christ’s resurrection. Dave also explained that the place is explained as twofold parts–which may also still explain my idea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Rob forgot to mention Dave’s comment, conveniently, “According to the Sheol version of hell . . . it was two states, one which Christ could enter and bring the righteous out of once the stone of his sepulcher (a symbol of sheol) was rolled back and it was empty. But the other is the hell of Christianity that remains “
LikeLike
Rob said:
Yes we all agree that it remains at the present time, the disagreement here is about its existence subsequent to being cast into the lake of fire.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
So you’re agreeing to the fundamentalist description of the idea of hell, not specifically other parts of scripture?
LikeLike
Rob said:
No I was just trying to keep to this topic. I believe the whole of scripture to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and profitable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
Your comments peaked my academic interests, which why I asked for a further candid explanation before I explained.
If had to label myself: I’m a historian by trade, I do have an interest in philosophy from historical figures, and I’m a Roman Catholic.
Right now, I am in preliminary stages of my thesis on the Book of Exodus, which in many ways cannot be explained by archaeology as reality. Although as a historian, I don’t believe Archaeology always gets a final say, especially if its arguing from the negative. However, according to digs It couldn’t have happened as it is told in Scripture. However, my thesis is not to say that it’s fiction. The people who recorded parts of Exodus during the 13th century Bc. thru 7th century B.C. wouldn’t have wrote in the same manner as critical Western histories influenced by Herodotus, Thucydides, Bacon, Marx, and Ranke. The closest modern schools of historiography that the writers of Exodus would have written would be Cultural Turn and Literary Turn.
Overall the thesis will be a counter to many recent scholars attempts to disprove Moses as a historical figure. I am also waiting on a book that is suppose to come out some time by a professor from the University of Georgia Dr. Friedman how a smaller group of Levites left Egypt and took their religion of Yahweh to Israel.
LikeLike
Rob said:
I’m aware of the lack of evidence for Exodus etc. and would not necessarily be committed to a literal understanding.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
A great problem for the lack of evidence with the Bible, especially that far back is any Archaeological evidence for 3000 years prior would be buried under a tremendous amount of dirt, almost unfathomable amount. I find it silly Archaeology like Finkelstein are out there attempting to make claims based on this, although his claims about David and recent findings may have put his school of thought to an end. Hopefully.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
Originally meeting with the same branch of Christians I heard Professor Donald Wisemans talks on Biblical archelogy while a young man in the Brethren Assembly I attended. Have you heard of him?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Wiseman
LikeLiked by 2 people
Philip Augustine said:
Only in passing, I’m not familiar with his work. A lot of what I know about the Archaeology of the Bible has been presented by Atheist looking to discredit theism. I would certainly be interested in his commentary on Kings. Do you know his thoughts on historic Elijah?
LikeLike
Rob said:
Sorry no information about his views on Elijah but I will recount a story I heard directly from David Pawson a well-respected Baptist minister.
Pawson said a friend of his, a bit of an amateur archaeologist was rummaging around on the top of Mount Carmel. He found a piece of stone with a green (at least I think I remember he said green) glassy surface. Curious it took it to an Israeli museum in Jerusalem. They told him he was going to be disappointed by their conclusion. They said it was just a piece of limestone but it had been subject to an intense heat as if from a volcano. It was not the sort of thing that could have ever occurred in Israel. His friend walked away with what he considered a piece of rock that had been touched by the fire of God. Pawson said he envied his friends widow who now had the stone.
LikeLiked by 2 people
ginnyfree said:
Sneaky devil you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David B. Monier-Williams said:
As for the suffering in Hell or not, try this on for size:
Divine Mercy Sunday.com
Sister Faustina’s Vision of Hell
“I, Sister Faustina Kowalska, by the order of God, have visited the Abysses of Hell so that I might tell souls about it and testify to its existence…the devils were full of hatred for me, but they had to obey me at the command of God, What I have written is but a pale shadow of the things I saw. But I noticed one thing: That most of the souls there are those who disbelieved that there is a hell.” (Diary 741)
The Apostle of Divine Mercy
St. Maria Faustina Kowalska
of the
Congregation of the Sisters of Our Lady of Mercy
“Today, I was led by an angel to the Chasms of Hell. It is a place of great torture; how awesomely large and extensive it is! The kinds of tortures I saw:
The First Torture that constitutes hell is:
The loss of God.
The Second is:
Perpetual remorse of conscience.
The Third is
That one’s condition will never change.
The Fourth is:
The fire that will penetrate the soul without destroying it. A terrible suffering since it is a purely spiritual fire, lit by God’s anger.
The Fifth Torture is:
Continual darkness and a terrible suffocating smell, and despite the darkness, the devils and the souls of the damned see each other and all the evil, both of others and their own.
The Sixth Torture is:
The constant company of Satan.
The Seventh Torture is:
Horrible despair, hatred of God, vile words, curses and blasphemies.
These are the Tortures suffered by all the damned together, but that is not the end of the sufferings.
Indescribable Sufferings
There are special Tortures destined for particular souls. These are the torments of the senses. Each soul undergoes terrible and indescribable sufferings related to the manner in which it has sinned.
I would have died
There are caverns and pits of torture where one form of agony differs from another. I would have died at the very sight of these tortures if the omnipotence of God had not supported me.
No One Can Say There is No Hell
Let the sinner know that he will be tortured throughout all eternity, in those senses which he made use of to sin. I am writing this at the command of God, so that no soul may find an excuse by saying there is no hell, or that nobody has ever been there, and so no one can say what it is like…how terribly souls suffer there! Consequently, I pray even more fervently for the conversion of sinners. I incessantly plead God’s mercy upon them. O My Jesus, I would rather be in agony until the end of the world, amidst the greatest sufferings, than offend you by the least sin.” (Diary 741)
LikeLiked by 5 people
JessicaHof said:
I am sorry, that seems demented. who would even want to worship an omnipotent God whose anger against his creation sanctions such things? Why would anyone adore and love someone who, being omnipotent, could change things, but decided instead to fry his creation for ever? If that was an earthly father, social services would lock him up. If we sinners can see that sort of thing is wrong, are we to posit a God who thinks otherwise?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Don’t worry about it – Sister Faustina was on acid and simply had a bad trip. That’s all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
dbmw said:
Jessica, if you don’t like the description of what she saw in Hell I’m sure you won’t believe her description of Purgatory and Heaven.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jock McSporran said:
I’m a bit worried about the ‘terrible suffocating smell’. I’d better stop here; I’m finding it difficult not to descend to toilet humour.
LikeLiked by 2 people
orthodoxgirl99 said:
I’m greatly enjoying reading all the comments as there are some excellent links and thoughtful post but now
I’m past chuckling…now I’m laughing out loud – Jock Mc S you are funny 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I don’t think I should, David 🙂 xx
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
OK, here’s St. Fautina’s diary about Purgatory. Heaven to follow.
http://www.prayforsouls.org/library/references/diary_passages.php
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
Here’s St. Faustina’s description of Heaven:
Heaven:
” November 27, 1936. Today I was in heaven, in spirit, and I saw its unconceivable beauties and the happiness that awaits us after death. I saw how all creatures give ceaseless praise and glory to God. I saw how great is happiness in God, which spreads to all creatures, making them happy; and then all the glory and praise which springs from this happiness returns to its source; and they enter into the depths of God, contemplating the inner life of God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, whom they will never comprehend or fathom. This source of happiness is unchanging in its essence, but it is always new, gushing forth happiness for all creatures. Now I understand Saint Paul, who said, “Eye has not seen, nor has ear heard, not has it entered into the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love him.” And God has given me to understand that there is but one thing that is of infinite value in His eyes, and that is love of God; love, love and once again, love; and nothing can compare with a single act of pure love of God. Oh, with what inconceivable favors God gifts a soul that loves Him sincerely! Oh, how happy is the soul who already here on earth enjoys His special favors! And of such are the little and humble souls. The sight of this great majesty of God, which I came to understand more profoundly and which is worshipped by the heavenly spirits according to their degree of grace and the hierarchies into which they are divided, did not cause my soul to be stricken with terror or fear; no, no, not at all! My soul was filled with peace and love, and the more I come to know the greatness of God, the more joyful I become that He is as He is. And I rejoice immensely in His greatness and am delighted that I am so little because, since I am little, He carries me in His arms and holds me close to His Heart. O my God, how I pity those people who do not believe in eternal life; how I pray for them that a ray of mercy would envelop them too, and that God would clasp them to His fatherly bosom… ”
(Diary 777).
LikeLiked by 4 people
Bosco the Great said:
Wow, this good sister Faustina really got around. One day shes in hell, and the next day shes in heaven.
LikeLike
Philip Augustine said:
David, St.Teresa of Avila had a vision of hell that she recorded, she did describe it as a place but also described the pain:
“I experienced a fire in the soul that I don’t know how I could describe. The bodily pains were so unbearable that though I had suffered excruciating ones in this life and according to what doctors say, the worst that can be suffered on earth for all my nerves were shrunken when I was paralyzed, plus many other sufferings of many kinds that I endured and even some as I said, caused by the devil, these were all nothing in comparison with the ones I experienced there…however, was nothing next to the soul’s agonizing: a constriction, a suffocation, an affliction so keenly felt and with such a despairing and tormenting unhappiness that I don’t know how to word it strongly enough. To say the experience is as though the soul were continually being wrested from the body would be insufficient, for it would make you think somebody else is taking away the life, whereas here it is the soul itself that tears itself in pieces. The fact is that I don’t know how to give a sufficiently powerful description of that interior fire and that despair, coming in addition to such extreme torments and pains. I didn’t see who inflicted them on me, but, as it seemed to me, I felt myself burning and crumbling; and I repeat the worst was that interior fire and despair.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Philip Augustine said:
It appears that St. Teresa of Avila also speaks of spiritual fire.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
It is not so much a ‘decision’ of God but a ‘consequence’ that follows an irreparable evil. They are reprobate and will not ever repent or trade their finite self-love and desires for the glories that await them in heaven.
If we have a deep well, we certainly know the consequence of our action to jump into it by our own choice and decision. God did not make that decision; the person did. Should I be surprised about the outcome of this decision? It was known to the person and it was summarily dismissed . . . the consequence was rationally known before the act and yet they went ahead and did it anyway. This then is a failure of God’s Love and Mercy; I think not.
The father metaphor which you are predisposed to use, does not make an allowance for the Truth that not all souls are children of God. Those who have accepted Him as such are His children . . . to them the analogy holds. Others do not and are enemies of God and reprobate and unable to change. The time for prodigal sons and the like is during our borrowed life on earth. What comes after is a consequence of how we used this borrowed life.
Even scripture is inadequate to use for the defense of the faith; for by manipuation of the meanings of the scriptures, annihilation seems to be the word that is missing and must be supplied by the reader. Nothing short of a definitive scriptural passage that says that eternal punishmet is that these souls are unmade or annihilated. Those words do not appear . . . and thus your argument depends upon their use. Though the teaching is not apodictic in itself, the strength of the belief of Christendom, the reading of the Scriptures as the Church reads them, the testimony of the saints that have been shown hell and the theological thought developed by our greatest theologians have agreed. It appears plainly in the Athanasian Creed and the list of accepted Dogma. The mainline Christians have held the almost to a total consensus until recently. It is wrong to think that we have not dome much thinking on these things for we have a list of early fathers, a list of saints and theologians waiting to be explored by the doubtful.
What is missing today are the lack of people willing to defend the Church and access the material to demonstrate the teachings. We readily agree that these demonstrations are not apodictic but they are true but not explicitly understandable such as the number of sides which are infinite in possibility from a polygons which is incribed in a circle will never be a perfect circle and conform to the circumference we can still approximate a demonstration that tends toward our understanding.
It seems that we have approached this subject from a tenuous starting point. It seems to me that the better approach is start where most of all Christianity taught until recently, held in doctrine and creed and read the arguments of the Church rather than those who would undo that which is apalling to them. Apologetics doesn’t begin that way. First we need know what the Church says, read scripture under their guidance, examine the evidence of the Church and then, and only then, read the challenges to the teachings. In that way we might have a basis upon which we might convince or at least cast doubt about when we enter into dialogue.
For we are now actually entertaining theologians of the caliber of de Chardin who has managed to combine Christian Theology with New Ageism. That no council was convened in the past is only a demonstration of the absurdity in which these ideas were held and still are. They were denounced and with the Organists and others but have now been reintroduced. Might we have to go through the libraries and the theologies of men, drag out the history of the peoples solid belief once again: though settled. I don’t mind if we do as long as we are not trying to reinvent a Church . . . for what we are doing is paramount to fiddling about with the foundational stones of teaching (an unraveling of the fabric of the Church by pulling on a thread. We will be left having to put Humpty Dumpty back together again . . . and are we sure that once decimated and torn to pieces that a consistent thought will even be possible again? What will we need to rethink and redefined next? And once that happens it affects the surrounding bits that are built upon it. It does seem to me that it is a recipe for disaster.
It doesn’t work for me: neither the method nor the consequence for the Faith with which we were entrusted. I think that was bit more than 2 cents . . . I yield the floor. 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
Steve Brown said:
Yes, that was more like $16879.43, but worth every penny!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Thanks Stevie . . . though I fear the impasse is about as wide as the chasm between Lazarus and Dives and will remain. 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
You always do this so very well, and whatever you say, you are a very fine Apologist in the proper sense of the word.
What I would say in response is that it is not clear that the mind of the Church has thoroughly debated this subject, and that it may be that in our time, there is the need so to do.
As with all debates, it will not be clear where it will come out, but it will be healthier to have had it 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
O, I totally understand that Jess and a ‘defense’ rather tha a ‘debate’ is probably a better way to proceed. I really think the Church did not get much resistance from those who held to annihilism of the soul They were dismissed and they went away (largely) . . . until our own day. I don’t want the Church to do give the impression that we have not made a decision and this is not held in Christianity in almost every denomination; I used to hear more about fire and brimstone and eternal torment and such in the Baptist churches than today. We do not preach much on it . . . and for good reason. The book, which I commended to you has much to say about the higher road of coming to Christ by love rather than fear. But he says that we should know that the consequence is dire and understand the types of fear: mundane, servile, felial or reverential fear. He makes the point that mundane fear is always bad but the others have saved many from the pains of hell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
That is very interesting dear friend. I am unclear about how fear can bring us to God- and it is the coming to God which saves us.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
It was repeated in Scripture a number of times and as long as it is not mundane fear: fear of not getting what you want of the sensible and finite pleasures, it is useful. It does not deter the reprobate but for those who are beginning to awaken to the fact that what we do in this life has eternal consequence: the other forms of fear have an impact on people. It was by fear (after seeing hell) that St. Theresa first began thinking of hell. Before that it was all love. But it was the fearsome fate that she saw that made her pray and work all the harder to save sould from this fate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I am just finishing rereading the Johannine epistles, and he, who knew Our Lord’s hear best, says nothing of fear. I really cannot imagine coming to love via fear. That may well be my limitation, of course. But I am much struck by how little Paul, John and Peter have to say on fear and hell. They either knew nothing of this, despite two of them being with Jesus, or it was not important to them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I’m of a more practical mind I guess. There are both divine and natural law. Transgression of laws, even by the state are punishable. Natural law and Divine law seem to be for our good and the good of order; all laws are of that purpose . . . they serve the Good and preserve the order. That is where Justice cooperates with love.
So if I form habits in fear of the consequence of the law (any law) is that not the beginning of all wisdom? It forms us and our consciences so that we might feel dread for sin and the consequences of sin. As we grow adverse to serious sin, don’t we naturally grow in love of the God of all Creation and the God Who saves us? Love takes root and soon servile fear turns to filial fear and motivates us to do good for love of God and good for our neighbors for love of God. As St. John of the Cross says love is the name of the boat that leads us best to heaven. But he recognizes that not all Christians are perfected enough in the Love of God. So fear helps them turn towards the faith and hope and finally charity which is necessary. Fear mostly, is connected to the increase of the virtue of hope.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
I think we must be using fear in a different sense, because I can’t see how fear gives rise to hope. It just seems odd to me that not one of the Evangelists major on this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Of course not . . . nor do we today. It is only being discussed because you want to challenge that which is existence. So we discuss it. Previously, it was simply a given of the Christian thought . . . with a few nay sayers to spice stuff up.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
I think it being discussed because people are raising it an a real obstacle to conversion. It is, as some of the quotes suggest, arising from the process of engagement with people outside the faith.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
If it is a ‘real’ obstacle it is because our pampered society cannot accept responsibility for their own actions. It is like this with all these doctrines which are being dumbed down by the political correct elitist . . . many who are leaders in our churches.
LikeLiked by 4 people
JessicaHof said:
But many who have been discussing this for the last twenty five years are not evading anyone’s responsibilities. They are pointing out that even secular law does not torture law-breakers (though it once did), and asking if that is true of sinful men, how can it be otherwise with God? The answer, because a previous era where law did torture people saw nothing wrong in this, simply does not work now.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Once again a person is punished according to the seriousness of the crime. In our finite world that is done by length of time. But what do you do when the subject of the wrong is God and infinite in scope? Nothing compares to the crime or to the metaphoric spitting into the face of Christ after He lowered Himself to become man, suffered and died, spilt His Blood for the sinner all for an Infinite Act of Love. This Infinite Act of Love was not just rejected but blashphemed and mocked. What is a suitable punishment for a crime far too grave for us to even comprehend much less sentence?
LikeLiked by 4 people
JessicaHof said:
But if God is to triumph, how can evil continue to exist? This puzzles me greatly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Then He has forced His outcome and not left it to judgment. His outcome and triumph is not diminished when the enemies are all defeated and far from the City of God.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
But in that case, evil still exists doesn’t it? That’s my puzzlement.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
If you want to call that existence or life . . . then yes. God banishes and rewards with equal value the Infinite Good and the Infinite Evil. It is equality that is Perfect in view of Love and Justice.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Much to ponder there – and I am reading the book you linked to 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
I hope it sufficient, dear friend. If not you will send me on to other writers and thinkers: of course, JPII and BXVI both fit this bill and both accepted the theology presented by the author of this book and held by the Church. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
BTW: I think you might like to read the Epilogue as well. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Thank you 🙂 xx
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I am struck by this:
‘The Church has not defined that the souls in hell suffer torments of the flesh directly corresponding to the manner in which the soul sinned in the flesh, nor has the Church defined that there is a spiritual “fire” that penetrates the soul that is “lit by God’s anger.” Nor for that matter has the Church defined that the torments of hell include a literal, physical fire (which, in fact, St. Faustina does not mention). These things are matters for theological speculation, and the content of St. Faustina’s vision is not decisive evidence on these matters for the Church.’
Robert Stackpole here:
http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/If-God-is-so-Merciful-Why-is-There-a-Hell-2690
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Indeed we run out of ‘descriptives’ as we quickly do if we are trying to ‘demonstrate’ the trinity, original sin, the two natures of Christ or any number of ‘mysteries’ that are veiled from our earthly, mundane eyes. That the soul experiences the toment of fire is believed by the Church. The ‘nature’ of this fire is indescribable as we have nothing to compare it to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
That’s interesting, because if the Church is no teaching that there is a literal fire in hell, then the ground between us is narrower than it has hitherto appeared.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Hooray! For it is given to us that we do not know the actual nature of the fire . . . but that this is probably the best descriptie we have in our vocabulary. For in a real, normal fire, it consumes entirely and nothing is left. But this is not the case. So we speculate . . . and still believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Reading para 9 I am puzzled by this:
‘There are no merits after death, contrary to what many Protestants teach.’
I never met any Protestant who taught such a thing!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I believe he is speaking to the protestants that taught that one could earn their way out of hell by penance and prayer . . . in other words, hell is not forever for them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I never met any Protestant who thought that 🙂
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
So then why does Scripture guide us to it? Fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of wisdom? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
As usual, you have to go to the Jewish part of the Bible to bring in fear. Now all you have to do is show me where Our Lord or his disciples agree with you, and you’ll get a gold star. In your Bible nothing seems to change because of the resurrection. In reality, everything changed.
You remind me of those atheists who ask why Christians eat shell fish or wear certain fibres and quote Deuteronomy.
I cannot find anywhere in the OT where we are told to call God Abba, or where we are told he is love.
You are welcome to your Jewish version of God, although you will find modern Judaism does not agree with you. Perhaps you are going for a version of Second Temple Judaism?
Have you asked yourself why you need a God of fear and why you are so scared of love?
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Only one thing to say about this part of your reply: “As usual, you have to go to the Jewish part of the Bible to bring in fear” The Old Testament you refer to is as valid today as ever. Marcionism. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No, Marcion said it was not valid. I simply say it has been fulfilled – as Jesus said. Don’t you agree with Jesus?
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Dave, I’ve gotten lost. I see you are referring to a book about the different kinds of fear but I cannot find the name of the book. Would you mind repeating it for me so I can stop searching for it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Grandpa, I’ll do you one better, and give you a link to the book in PDF. Rev. Garrigou-LaGrange taught theology to Pope Saint John Paul II.
Click to access 1877-1964,_Garrigou_Lagrange._R,_Life_Everlasting,_EN.pdf
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
As my late father would say when he was particularly impressed and pleased, “You are a gentleman and a scholar.” Many thanks, Dave.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Dave Smith said:
Yes, that was a family saying from my Grandp down to my family today. It’s been a while since anyone called me a gentleman and my scholarship is about is relevant as a classic comic. 🙂
But I do appreciate the compliment my friend and you are certainly welcome.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Can I second that from Zeke – a scholar and a gentleman indeed 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
You’re embarrassing me, good friend. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I don’t mean to 🙂 I really do think you provide a model of how to do this – and I try to learn a little from you 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
I think you influenced me far more than I, you. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Well, it is lovely to be here with such a kind and helpful Christian. It is everything I hoped for when I set this place up – and so nice of C to say what he did in his new piece – quite right about everyone except me 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
We give praise where prayse is due, dear one. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Hear! Hear!
LikeLike
NEO said:
I’ve missed a lot of this discussion, but I think this was raised earlier. I simply do not see how, if Hell is eternal and torment, how can God be victorious? Seems to me that hell, as all evil, must at some (unknowable) point cease to exist, to be destroyed as well might be a better phrase. Otherwise god is left still with an unvanquished enemy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Good point – I don’t see it either. If evil exists forever, where is God’s ultimate triumph?
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
That, added to all you’ve said here, is my problem with eternal torment. We disagree, to a point, about capital punishment, part of my feeling being that life without parole may actually be crueller than an easy death. At least for those few that there is no hope of earthly redemption for. But I recognize that as a slippery slope, much like “Safe, legal, and rare”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
orthodoxgirl99 said:
Yes, I have to agree Dave. This I think is the road that the C of E has been travelling dangerously for a while and now we have another split once more with the whole issue of female ordination and female bishops. The central tenets of our Faith have been somehow ignored and parts of Scripture re-interpreted in order to arrive at a comfortable conclusion (for some). As you say, they appear to have started from the wrong place and gone from there. There is much danger in this and because mankind has been by and large moving away from a life in Christ in the last decades, there is widespread ignorance and consequently ambivalence to these manoeuvres.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave Smith said:
Indeed, we see it here as well but the C of E does look a bit like the parakeet in the mine.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve Brown said:
Jessica, thanks for these posts. But, you seem to want to make God into an image that you approve of. 9 girls die in a fire, are you mad at God? Lockerbie, Paris, San Bernardino, ISIS, and the actions of your ex, are you mad at God? HE could have changed all, so I guess you blame Him because He didn’t.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
No, God gives us free will, bad things happen because we do bad things. What I have trouble with is a Father who consigns his children to eternal torment. I can see how that might be, but not how that God is called love.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
All sin is in some way a sin against love. It is love that condemns them. It is justice that says that an eternal rejection of infinite love is an infinite offense. The worse the sin, the worse the punishment. Is there anything worse than an infinite offense?
LikeLiked by 2 people
ginnyfree said:
Hmmmmm. Dave, it sounds like you may have actually read Dante and gotten one of his points. Good job. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Justice says we should pay the price for our sins; love says Jesus pays it. It seems that there is a sub-clause implicit in what you say – which is that love only applies to those who love back, those who do not are tortured for ever. Can you not see why so many people have a problem with that view, in your own church as well as mine?
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
This is an ominous statement to see repeated. Not good. I fear for you Jess. Sincerely. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
ginnyfree – I think that David Monier-Williams sums up entirely why I keep the Catholic church at arm’s length. It isn’t so much ‘doctrinal’, but rather at a pastoral level; extremely dangerous psychology and pastoring.
We agree (at least you and I do – although others on the thread don’t) that there is a Hell and we agree that there are people in Hell who are suffering eternal punishment. We don’t know whom God will send there, but ultimately we trust that His judgement is just. Personally, I can’t see that it is for people who get points of doctrine wrong, but we’ve all met bad characters in our lives who revel in their sins, they enjoy cruelty against their fellow human beings and treat those around them with contempt. The commandment ‘love your neighbour’ is absent from their lives.
But with these colourful visions that Sister Faustina had, I would have rather hoped that whoever was responsible for her in a pastoral role would have seen that she was in a bad psychological state and that she needed help.
Instead, she is regarded as a heroine of the faith and there is a shrine to her honour in Krakow. What sort of message does that send out to young impressionable people? A very dangerous one.
As long as people like Sister Faustina are honoured as heroes of the faith, I’ll continue to consider that the influence of Catholicism on society is malign. It’s easy to regard such visions as a source of humour, but really, it’s all very dangerous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Well, Jock, I can only ask this: Is Jesus not allowed to actually appear to persons who live in Convents and ask them to carry a Message of Mercy for Him to folks so He can revive the flagging spirits of many amongst other things? Let’s see all of the good God has done with the Divine Mercy Message and that which He will continue to do with it in the coming centuries, could have all been prevented if the poor girl would’ve had more “caring” superiors who would’ve sought mental health help for her and perhaps seen to it she got medicated for her visions? Is that really how you want to be perceived? I’m from my perspective, if you really want to maintain that position, then you’d be an instrument of malediction rather than peace. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
God doesn’t give new messages . It has been finished. The gospels are here for our edification. These new edifications are catholic hoaxes. Mary worshipers like you love to believe all these Mary voodoo priests and priestesses. That’s because you love false religions.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I can recognise pyschological disturbance when I see it. I am so sorry you are stuck in the middle ages. You are going to have such a horrid shock when you get to heaven – I do hope you can find the humility to accept it and not tell God he should be burning people.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Say, hey, good brother Jock, this sister Faustina is just another voodoo priestess in the church of Mary. These false religion people believe this kind of madness. Its hard to believe these people fall for this. But they do. Faustina is case in point. Its sad. But we have to come to grips that most people are going to hell. We cant stop that.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
…. sounds like a great script for an Edgar Alan Poe movie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Oh dear! You’re such an obstacle to evangelisation. For shame David. Have you not heard the Commission’s decree To Hell with Hell! Sheesh! Jess beat the Hell outta Hell yesterday. No more talk of such places. It has been banished from the kingdom. Speak of the City of Dis instead! God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
NEO said:
Excellent, thoughtful piece, dearest friend. I suspect you might be right, it’s not 1500 anymore, or, at least, I hope not
LikeLiked by 2 people
dbmw said:
FYI, St. Faustina died in 1939 so her visions were not 1500 based. You can with others accept them or not.
I’m not planning to test what was written in her diaries
LikeLiked by 6 people
Jock McSporran said:
What did she die of? Was it drugs related?
LikeLike
dbmw said:
My mistake she died in 1938 from tuberculosis.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
A wise decision.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Hello Jess! Aha! Eureka! I’m starting to get it. Alrightie then. Please tell me if I’ve got it wrong, but I think I’ve figured out the main difference between us. Your essay describes the changes to your church’s doctrine regarding Hell as a result of mainly, a book published in 1996 which was an issuance of your church’s Doctrine Commission. This being so, you, Jess are used to having a flexible, flowing body of doctrine that can adapt itself to various times and their needs. Being a solidly oriented Anglican, you follow the lead and flesh out what is meant by these adaptations in your own theology. You then find a comfort zone where you can rest in your inner self and be assured by discourse with those others who like you, adapt nicely to the developments of doctrines that are achieved by your Commission. I get that. It also explains why you feel annoyed at us Catholics who do not show this same flexibility and even prideful boast of a body of doctrine that has remained the same for 2000 years. You see this as a stagnation and an impediment to wider thought and dialog. You find in Bishop Barron a man of even temper who reflects a hint of this adaptability in his recent expostulations and you admire his flexibility and open-mindedness in this regard, especially his movements towards a hell-less theology.
Now, having gotten that part understood, it is easy for me to see the admiration you have for Mr. Wenham and is personal challenge to eradicate the idea of hellfire and it’s place of eternal torment in his lifetime. Quite bold indeed. A sort of theological Mount Everest. And Jess, you’ve gotten your hiking boots out of hock and are joining him in the climb, hoping to breath deeply of the rarified air one finds on such mountain tops.
I can only respond by saying one word: heresy. Yes, you said so yourself and you are correct. We of the Romish type do see the abolition of the torments of Hell as heresy. No, I will not be joining those who feel a need to reach the summit of this particular Everest, Bishop Barron being among the notables destined for its heights along with yourself and Rob and possibly Chalcedon. I will keep myself right here, looking forward to meeting my Lord tomorrow morning in a lowlier place, a pew in a run-down parish in that stillness He draws me to in the Eucharist. There together we will meet once again and I will fill myself with Him and He for His part will lead my tired mind deeper into the Mystery of Him and then He will depart and I’ll be left wanting the hours between tomorrow morning and the next occasion of our meeting to speed by so we can meet again. No mountain climbing for this gal I’m afraid. Boring I know, but peaceful and nourishing. No, I honestly feel that those who dare to attempt to climb this theological Mt. Everest may actually find themselves in the City of Dis for their efforts and those who travel with them may find themselves among the Donner Party rather than the Sherpa’s.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 5 people
JessicaHof said:
You are getting there 🙂
The 1996 report came after decades of discussion. The background is fairly simple. Not too long ago, the secular law thought hanging people found guilty was OK. Not too long before that, it thought torturing people to extract confessions was OK, and it thought the main purpose of imprisonment was punishment. In such a world, it was natural to think of hell in the way the church described it. Now, even fallen, broken mankind no longer thinks torture or the death penalty (some US state, Iran and North Korea apart) is OK, and it thinks imprisonment should be as much about rehabilitation. Is it not natural therefore to rethink what God means by hell and wonder whether we have not created a vision of it based on our own practices? If we do not think torturing people is OK, we start to wonder why we think God is fine with it.
That is where this train of thought comes from. The Church has always done this – that is rethink concepts. For example, sixty years ago your Church was happy to call the Jews Christ killers and to treat them as outcasts. To judge from some ‘trad’ sites, some still think that. But the mainstream of your church changed its mind after the Shoah – quite right too. Similarly with capital punishment. I know some US Republicans still want it, but your own USSCB has come out against it, and the last few Popes have spoken against it,
All of this can be seen two ways. By those who still think it OK to be horrid to Jews, or who want retribution to be the major part of justice, it is a bad thing; to others it is a sign we are becoming more civilized. Your own Church has a sad history of not encouraging discussion or debate, now, thankfully, abandoned. As time goes on, more theologians on your side will consider these matters, and if you looked at the NYT link, you’ll see the thinking is going in the same direction. It can’t be stopped, any more than the vernacular Mass could be stopped. Those who want to recreate the 1950s can do so only in their own heads – time moves on, and if we do not move with it, then we become an irrelevance – as Christianity is in most of the West.
Like you, I love my life in the church, and my closeness to God. The difference seems to be that in the God I experience there is only perfect love which inspires me to love back. I obviously lack fear of my heavenly Father – perhaps because his love drove that out?
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Jess, the pains of Hell aren’t the means to an end. They are endless, so your comparison to earthly torture as a means of punishing or extracting a confession is skewed. Your example has pain as a means of changing someone or something or both. There is no change in Hell. It is permanent. Once a soul is there there is no escape. Those headed there is this life can change the fact that that is where they are headed by simply turning to God in repentance. You see this as repugnant and claim that a god who loves would not be able to stand seeing his own child suffer and that this is a fault found in a god that is supposedly faultlessly love. The fault is not God’s nor are the punishments of Hell impossible in the face of comments such as God is love. IF as you hope there is a god who loves everyone without asking for anything in return for this love that dismisses all sins then there is a hope for you. But as we all know this isn’t so. God gave us 10 Commandment and said keep them. His Son was sent and He told us that those who truly love Him keep His Commandments and that this is not burdensome to them. It isn’t. But you seem to think it is, so you demand to be forgive because God loves you and to prove this, He’s simply got to look away from all your sins against Him because if He really loves you……………………..Fill in that blank anyway you want, but that pretty sums up your expectation. It is a demonstration of a love that expects that God does all the work and expects nothing from the child. No, God raises up the fallen. This is the God you reject, the One who warns of the eternal consequences of a life of sin so as to prevent the soul from going there. He did, after all, lay down His life so the sinner’s debt was paid. But if the sinner never repents, then the debt for that sinner cannot be applied. Reality. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I don’t think you have quite captured my meanings here.
What would we think of someone who said he was a Father who then put a disobedient child in torment for the whole of their life? If we are then told that this Father can prolong this torture for ever, would that make a difference? So I don’t quite understand your first point. In my eyes, and that of many, eternal torture is barbaric.
No one has blamed God for the sins of mankind. But God is omnipotent, and if God hands over souls to the devil to roast forever, then that is God’s responsibility.
Again, not once have I suggested we do not have to return God’s love, or repent of our sins. At no point have I, or Rob, suggested that God should turn a blind eye to sin, so I can’t quite see why you make that point; it is not one I have made. Nor, even once, have I suggested God does all the work and expects nothing. Nor more have I suggested hell does not exist – I have suggested it is not eternal – not the same thing.
I have said, repeatedly, that Christ’s blood does not cover the unrepentant sinner. It is this business of eternal hell-fire which divides us. This seems a prime example of men in the past creating a God in their own image, which makes it ironic you accuse me and others of doing this.
Question: if a father tortured a disobedient child, what view would you take of that father?
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Jess, to be honest, your comments about Jesus are getting to be too offensive to me. Here’s one:”No one has blamed God for the sins of mankind. But God is omnipotent, and if God hands over souls to the devil to roast forever, then that is God’s responsibility.’ You don’t see what is wrong with a statement like this. I suppose you are doing it for effect, and it does have one.
You cannot believe in a God who created Hell and allows sinners to go there.
Then don’t.
If this is as repugnant to you as you’ve stated here several times, then give it up and worship the god you’ve created for yourself. Lots do.
God bless. Ginnyfree
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Which part of that sentence was inaccurate? It would be better if you tried to engage with the argument and dropped the ad personam stuff.
where did I say God did not create hell or that I did not believe in hell? You kept repeating this and it is simply not true. What I doubt is that God allows people to be tortured for ever. You believe that, fine, I don’t, fine.
I have never once doubted God’s love or strayed from his ways, and I have stayed in the same church all my life and served it faithfully. When you can say the same, feel free to offer me advice on the nature of who it is I worship 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
Ginny did you miss the little word ‘if’ the little ones often mean as much as the big ones.
We do not believe ‘God’ does as you say your ‘g’od does. Our challenge is that you distort the image of God into that of your ‘g’od.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Well expressed Rob. Reading what is in the Catholic catechism, I am not sure that the RCC does believe that the fires of hell are literal, though it does say they are eternal.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Sometimes my objections are not so much towards what someone believes but the way in which they believe. If someone is delighting in the thought of their ‘god’ torturing the wicked for eternity I doubt they know much about the God I worship.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
This, to be honest, is what troubles me most. I doubt anyone really delights in the idea, but too often that impression can be gained. It may simply be that we are not all as careful as we might be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
We can hope that is it a slip in the use of language during the enthusiasm of debate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
I hope and expect so. I do sometimes get frustrated by comments which give the impression that ‘love’ is soppy, and easy, and that ‘justice’ is what God wants, with the word being defined the way men would use it.
We are recipients of the greatest act of mercy and (from one point of view) injustice possible. Instead of suffering the penalty for our sinful ways, Jesus has paid it and if we embrace him and believe and repent, we have eternal life. That is such a gift, utterly undeserved, that all I can do is thank God and try to do something that is impossible, and be worthy of it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bosco the Great said:
Why go to hell……When you can whip yourself into the arms of god with your very own JohnPaul II Penance Kit.
LikeLike
Rob said:
I discussed this topic over dinner with my wife tonight – her thought were:-
“If God created a universe with even the possibility of his creation burning in hell for eternity, like the Jordanian burnt in that cage for a short time, I would want nothing to do with such a god.
Even the possibility of such an outcome would make that god, who created the possibility a monster!”
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
This is the question no one will answer. It seems pretty clear that in an era when secular law was pretty gruesome in its punishments, men thought of God in that way. In an era when it doesn’t, we don’t.
It is so odd that those saying the church is adapting to society, cannot see that that is what it did when it accepted the medieval view of hell.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rob said:
I think we need to consider pre Christian pagan Greek philosophy and their views of hell. A case can be made that that their views infiltrated into inter-testament Judaism and Christian doctrine quite early and that the charge that currently the church is accommodating to our present culture is one that has a bearing on the formulation of the traditional view of hell e.g.
“Athenagoras [133 – c. 190 AD] frequently combined the beliefs of the Greek poets and philosophers, particularly Plato, with the doctrines of Christianity” (Encyclopedia Americana {2001}, vol. 2, p. 605).
His theology “is strongly tinged with Platonism” (Athenagoras Encyclopedia Brittannica, 11th ed., p. 831)
LikeLiked by 1 person
David B. Monier-Williams said:
Rob, you and your wife’s perception of God is one reason why you’re both members of one of the 45,000+ variations of Protestant sects.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bosco the Great said:
Yeah, so which is worster? You belong to a cult that believes this sister Faustina shuttles back and forth from heaven to hell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Steve Brown said:
David, yes, there they go again trying to make God worthy of their worship.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Not at all the motivation you presume to attribute to us which you would have realised if you had considered my comments,
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jock McSporran said:
…. but Steve has already demonstrated that he doesn’t know how to read a comment or consider its content.
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
Rob, (fact) I was commenting on your wife’s quote, not the others that may be contained in the 700+ over two of Jessica’s posts. Using this fact, and the fact that she cannot KNOW the mind of God, then, she is, or would withhold her worship. In other words, God must be worthy of her.
Now Rob, I’m not here to start a fight, and if I have it wrong, let me know. I asked Jock to also explain his understanding of one of my comments the other day and he refused saying: “Hi steve – on the whole I’d rather not – something about casting pearls before swine comes to mind.”
Rob, I must get some sleep and then off the the doctor. But I will return later today.
LikeLike
Rob said:
I will put something a little bit fuller together later to explain our motivations how and why we arrive at the views we hold.
Chief among them is to uphold the honour and glory of the God we see in scripture and definitively revealed in and through our Lord Jesus Christ.
You will note (I think) that I put my wife’s comment about a horrendous god with a small ‘g’ and was not referring to the true God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Alternatively, Steve, Augustine created a vision of hell in accord with the norms of his times, and those who still think people should be electrocuted to death still think like he does? Outside of the USA, Saudi Arabia, Iran and North Korea, people are not generally sentenced to death for crimes any more, so we who have moved beyond that wonder why God hasn’t, and wonder quite who is making God in their own image? 🙂
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Steve, you’ve said a mouthful in a very few words. Many do re-vision God into their own image and when they see things in teachings about Him they find objectionable, they compare it to their own image of their acceptable god and reject the Truth rather than re-vision their own image of what a god should look like or behave like. I relation to evangelisation, how can one be a messenger for one’s own interpretation of who God is when one has rejected who He really is and repackaged His teaching into an acceptable, a marketwise version so as not to offend? No, one ceases to be an evangelist when one brings another truth with one, if one ever was one. Somewhere in my Bible is a warning about accepting or rejecting those who come not bearing the Gospel with them. Smart stuff. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
David – and your testimony (for example, extolling the virtues of Sister Faustina) is utterly repellant – it’s because of people like you that many good Christians run a million miles from Catholicism. So you’re responsible, at least in part, for the 45 000+ non-Catholic Christian associations that you don’t like very much.
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
All due respect but you’re telling a Catholic that a saint of his church was on “acid” and was basically having a “drug trip”. Maybe you’re the reason many good Catholics criticize Protestantism so severely?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Newenglandsun – all due respect to you; I get the impression that you are basically a ‘good guy’. You’ve also indicated that you suffer from depression. I don’t know any more about you than that. I think you’re vulnerable, because people who are depressed will listen to anything that sounds as if it might help.
I regard all this Sister Faustina business as very dangerous at a pastoral level; it doesn’t set a good example. Please be aware that you have the Paraclete working within you – and that God, who created nature and created the laws of nature will work within you, through the Paraclete, in *natural* ways to (a) make this life worthwhile and (b) give a vague vision of what is in store for the next.
This business of sanctifying characters such as Sister Faustina is extremely dangerous at the pastoral level.
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
I’m not saying I agree with Sr. Faustina per se but her vision does not seem “demented” to me nor dangerous at a pastoral level. The key question is do you look at the part concentrating on the tortures of Hell or do you look at the part which concentrates on Faustina uniting herself to the will of G-d at the end?
“I incessantly plead God’s mercy upon them. O My Jesus, I would rather be in agony until the end of the world, amidst the greatest sufferings, than offend you by the least sin.”
As I have stated before, my own leanings are universalist and I prefer not to delve into the mystery but at the same time, I do not think one can simply dismiss eternal torment as “demented” due to the fact that this, in itself, revolves around a philosophical position to be accepted already. Nor did Sr. Faustina actually state G-d took pleasure in tormenting those in Hell.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
hi
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Good brother newengland is as wacked out as you can get. He doesn’t know the difference. As long as the false religion says Faustina is a true saint, its good enough for him. As long as its false, these false religion people believe it. If its true, these false religion people don’t believe it. Heck….what are false religions for?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
David, that’s very unfair. How many varieties of Catholic are there in the Catholic Church? To judge from the Internet, very many. Most non-Catholics agree on about 90% of doctrine – which is a larger percentage than Catholics who agree with Hamanae Vitae. It doesn’t help things very much. You own church long ago abandoned this line of apologetics.
Happy 2016 to you 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Rob said:
David is certainly quite wrong about the 45,000 churches.
I am sure that there are an incredible greater number of churches. I know of one couple that has started 9,000 in Mozambique in about the last 15 years.
Personally having been a church planter I rejoice at every new church started.
David’s figure must be way out particularly as the development of multitudes of house churches has proceeded since the mid-20th century in the West and in China since the communist revolution.
A Questions to David
Why does the apostle Paul identify ‘churches plural’ in Galatia (Gal. 1:2)?
David you claim there is one church as do I so why Paul’s mention of ‘churches’ and do these churches have a right to exist?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Good brother David is a sad dupe of the church of the virgin queen.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Lovely made up statistics Jess.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Which ones, the 45k varieties of Protestant or the pretence there is only one type of Roman Catholic?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Haaaaaaaahhhahahahahahah. I take back everything I said about you good sister Jess.You do have a backbone. Haaaahahah.Give it to the hypocrite church of Mary. They need to get a face full of the mud they throw on other faiths. Lousy dirty stinking idol worshipers.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Now, now, Bosco! Can you see from the way I argue that there are other ways of disagreeing?
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Part of Jessica’s concern is how to evangelize non-Christians and she has found that the subject of eternal torment by fire and brimstone often becomes an obstacle. The discussion here often focuses on what the Church traditionally teaches about Hell and the dangers of veering away from the teaching entails, but I wonder if anyone has thoughts specifically on how to teach about this topic to people who do not yet love the Lord. Are we justified in considering modern sensibilities when evangelizing?
LikeLiked by 5 people
Dave Smith said:
From my perspective, it is not an obstacle if one goes back to teaching the faith via the old Balitmore Catechism along with discussions on each point. When I began teaching converts or inquirers to the faith, there was no RCIA program and no new Catechism. The old question and answer format starts at ground zero and leads them to the more obsure and difficult teachings. I would say that the students that I had then were more zealous and active on a whole.
If the faith is taught and not turned into a group ‘sharing’ experience you slowly break down these modern sensibilities. By the time you are finished you usually are encountering people who have ‘fundamentality’ changed their views on a host of things. I teach and do not fiddle with the ‘faith sharing’ that is so exciting to the new pastors. For that reason, I am not teaching anymore as they are looking for folks who nod their heads as everyone tells their varying view of things. If we want people to become Catholic then we ought to teach them what is Catholic. But, alas, we are so eager to hear about what they believed before they had been given the grace to seek out the truths of the Catholic Church. We should give them what they seek.
Does that answer your question Grandpa? 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
JessicaHof said:
I can see that, dear friend, but is not the caveat there ‘from my perception’? Both in your Church and mine, this has been found to be a problem for a long time.
So little is said about hell that men have always interpreted it against their own standards of what happened to law breakers. The image you have is as much a product of its own time as the one I lean towards.
People who flinched at seeing ISIS burn a Jordanian pilot in a cage are not liable to think a God who does something like that one worthy of respect, let alone worship.
There is nothing fixed about how we see hell, and it seems natural that if even we miserable sinners would not burn someone forever, we should begin to wonder whether the God of love would.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
I find it odd and perhaps a bit telling that you choose to use something the enemies of Christ did, the ISIS warriors, to a poor man, possible a Martyr who went straight to Heaven, as an example of how wrong our Christian knowledge of the eternal fires of Hell is. Really Jess. Is this really the smartest example to use? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Rob said:
The guy that ISIS burnt in the cage was a Muslim. Just the wrong sort of Muslim according to them. Reminds me of some others from the past.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Please reread and try to grasp what is being said.
You say God allows sinners to burn in hell forever. How is that not like watching ISIS burn a man alive – except that ISIS do it for a limited span and you think God does it forever.
Incidentally, the pilot was a Muslim. Do you believe good Muslims go to heaven?
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Ginny, what do you mean when you say, in addressing Jessica, “…and perhaps a bit telling”? Can you be open and honest about your meaning?
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Let’s Zeke. She used the example more than once of a man being caged and burnt alive as a comparison to our teaching on Hell and said that the God we know as Catholics who would really do such things is in her words, a monster of a god not worthy of worship. Then she drives a wedge even further between the Jesus we supposedly share in common, as in Anglican and Catholics both having Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, so as to force a distinction that the God we know and love as Catholics is as cruel as the human example, ISIS terrorists in the example that she provides. Now, I think this is rather telling. She compares our God to theirs and claims that if we cling to our Jesus and the facts regarding Hell, we are worshiping a God she rejects because He, her words here, roasts His creatures in Hell and then likens that to what these malign ISIS terrorists have done. The message is clear. And it is too twisted a message for my taste. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
It is hard to think how you have managed to pack so many wrong statements into one short para.
As Zeke and Rob have both tried to point out, I am writing in the conditional sense – IF God were to do as you think (which is not actually what your Church says – look it up in the catechism) he WOULD be a monster. If you think not, then you have a duty to stop evading my question – what would you call a father who tortured an adopted child because she was disobedient?
When you say ‘their’ God, it looks as though you are writing about Muslims. It may come as a shock, but your Church teaches we all worship the same God – Muslims included.
It was you, after all, who called the MUslim Jordanian pilot a martyr – do you stand by that?
You message is quite clear – you fail to read carefully what is written because you can’t be bothered, and you can’t be bothered because you think you are right – even though, as we see here, you seem not to agree with your won Church. It draws no distinction between the God we worship and the one the Muslims worship – why do you?
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Okie dokie! I’ve a duty to respond say you! Don’t want to let you down so here’s answer to one of your points:
You claim my Church teaches that Muslims and Catholics worship the same God. Phooey, pooey and gooey too. I give you paragraph 841 of the Catechism: The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/841.htm
There ya have it in plain English: “THEY PROFESS to hold the faith of Abraham,” That is the Muslims profess to hold to the same faith as Abraham, but that would make the Jews! Um. THEY PROFESS is not the same thing as saying WE AGREE that or WE AFFIRM that, etc. Now, I don’t know about you Jess, but I really do believe that the Muslims are Jews or that they worship Jesus Christ, so as for the spin you try to give my Catechism to say we all have the same god, well, why don’t you ask a Muslim for a better answer? Happy New year.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
You need to read more in Catholic apologetics, your sad attempt to play with words is exploded here by Catholic Answers:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/do-muslims-worship-the-same-god-catholics-do and also here:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/christians-muslims-and-the-one-god
Perhaps they are less well-informed than you? If so, perhaps you could offer to correct them too? 🙂
LikeLike
Rob said:
and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
The first bit said ‘profess’ agreed but this section says that Muslims adore the one merciful God – I cannot see how Jess has misunderstood your church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
This site really needs an EDIT button. My do should be a don’t! Yikes another very unsightly typo! Don’t laugh. It wasn’t meant to say that. GRRRRRR……………………does it cost three more cents a day to have a edit feature on this silly com boxes or what? To Hell with it! Someday the Word Press will descend into the Lake of Fire and there it can be sentenced to editing all the bad posts ever made over and over and over again. AMEN!
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
No Ginny, the message is not clear. First of all, I don’t believe that Jessica is giving us a “message” in the way you suggest. She is questioning and searching for answers; I have tired to help her think through her questions without maligning her motives. Also, you just wrote: “She compares our God to theirs ” and again I believe that she has done no such thing. She was using an analogy by comparing human fatherhood to the fatherhood of God. I do have reservations about her use of the burning of the Muslim pilot as a deliberate act with what I believe is not a direct act of God against his beloved children and so I could challenge her on that point, but I would misrepresent what she has said and insinuate that her God is not our God. I do not separate myself from my Protestant brothers and sisters who show by word and deed that they are striving to love the Lord with their whole hearts and minds, and this includes Jessica, Rob, and Geoffrey of this blog. And I would never hold myself up a paragon of holiness from whom they are obliged to learn.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Rob said:
Thank you Zeke we may disagree but there is no need for any of us to be disagreeable and you never have been.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
Respectful dialogue is what draws me here Rob. I will return the compliment that you are consistently a thoughtful writer and a gentleman (as are most here), even when expressing disagreement.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Thank you Zeke. The reason I use the analogy is that we are told God is our Father. We all know what we would think of a father who told a bad child that her behaviour had earned her an eternity of torture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
Jessica, I understand this completely and think you pose some very interesting questions that require a careful thinking through. I don’t find this sort of inquiry threatening to my faith. God bless you and keep you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I do hope not Zeke, as the purpose of my asking is to get answers which will help me – and the rest of us – much appreciate your attitude and participation here – have a good 2016 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
I meant to write: would *not* misrepresent what she has said
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
yes good brother Rob…it reminds me of that filthy dirty stinking satanic idol ridden church of Mary that burnt live people to death for nothing , but to steal their land. Then its devotees sit here all smug and say protestants are all wrong. Give me a freakin break. Dirt bag idolaters. They even have a dragon up on the wall of their headquarters, just as the book of Rev says. They make no bones about them being the antichrist.
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Ginny, be fair. Why not quote Lumen Gentium 16 (the “plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohammedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” as well as the last two popes who have muddied the waters for Catholics and non-Catholics alike about who or what the Muslims worship.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Hello Zeke. What’s so muddle about the waters? They (the Muslims) profess but until they trade in Allah for Jesus Christ, guess what? Should Catholics really take their word for who it is they worship? You are right Zeke, there are those who try to blur these lines to say that we do in fact, have the same God. They would be in error, not the Church. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
You really should do a bit more work before assuming you speak for your church. My last two links show you are out of line.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I don’t know why she has to do this sort of thing. It is poor Apologetics to simply make your own interpretation and not check, Catholic Answers gives a much more accurate acount:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/christians-muslims-and-the-one-god
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Yes Jessica, I saw the Catholic Answers article and many others, but I didn’t link to them since I wasn’t in the mood of eliciting a “Phooey, pooey and gooey” response from Ginny.
I have come to your defense, dear Jessica, not because I think you need my help (you are clearly more than able to speak for yourself) but really it does gall me to see inaccuracies and injustices done by those who should know better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Thank you Zeke – you reassure me I am reading what she says correctly 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Don’t like gooey? how about euewey? Do you even know of Heuy, Deuy and Louie? They were Donald Ducks nephews.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
When you ain’t got an answer, resort to irrelevances? Try answering what CA says – or just do the decent thing and apologise for saying I was fibbing. I have a small bet you won’t do either 🙂
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
If you want Catholic Answers answers go there and ask them. There are plenty of folks who will explain things to you. I’ve really not got the time to do so. Hell is real. It lasts forever and when the bodies of the damned get resurrected prior to the Last Judgement of Christ, the Just Judge, their bodies AND souls will be cast into the lake of fire to suffer forever, and ever and those of us who are among the Church Triumphant will shout Amen! God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Why should I go there? I agree with them. You are the one who says you are right and they are wrong, so logically, you’re the one with a question. My only question would be why you can never admit when you get it wrong. It is clear you have no answer, it is clear you are wrong. It is clear you can’t ever admit to being at fault. I did not fib, you got it wrong and now you bluster – thanks for the laugh!
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
By the way, your Church also teaches that non-Catholics can go to heaven. I’d provide you with the links, except you wouldn’t deal with them.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Yes, I know Jess, Baptism of Blood will get you there so will Baptism of Desire as will invincible ignorance which leads to the Baptism of Desire. But I don’t think those who’ve actually read a Bible can claim ignorance. Just me! I’d love to chat it up this morning, but I have an appointment and gotta go. More later maybe. I promised C I’d say a word or three. I guess he’s next. Have a peaceful morning. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Well, I guess if you can’t answer the Catholic Answers busting of your argument, you can’t – bye for now 🙂
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Ginny now pronounces “Saying something is so doesn’t make it so.”
Got it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
You do realize that the word “profess” has two meanings, the first being the negative definition “to claim openly but falsely”, the second being the positive definition “to affirm one’s faith.” I am sure you also realize that Part 1, Section 1 of the CCC is titled “The Profession of Faith” and covers paragraphs 26-1065. Out of a total of 2865 paragraphs, that’s a sizable chunk. One might assume that the word “Profession” as used in the CCC takes the second positive meaning of “profess” meaning affirming faith, as in affirming the Christian Catholic faith. In paragraph 841 (which it taken from the V2 document Lumen Gentium) which you quoted above, does the CCC suddenly switch to the negative definition of “profess” when it comes to Muslim belief? This is what you are suggesting. I would assume, if they had a competent editor, that the CCC uses the same positive, affirming meaning throughout the publication unless clearly indicated otherwise. No footnote or qualifier there that I can see.
I’m sorry, I wish it were otherwise, but the waters are extremely muddy, Ginny. You could research it and be honest about the facts and not cast oblique aspersions on “those who try to blur these lines” whoever they may be. I can tell you one thing. Writers and commenters on this humble blog do not make headline news about Catholics and Muslims supposedly worshiping the same God. Popes and Church councils do, and they have.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Wrong! I’ve heard this paragraph twisted by better Sedevacantists than you are as an excuse to claim that the Pope and the Council gave the Church over to Allah! it gets tiresome. If I say (profess) to believe in one god, but call him Zeus, and claim that it is the only god I worship and then claim that Jews too worshiped this god, and this similarity is made note of by others, that is the monotheistic feature of my worship, does that mean those who make a note of my profession have gone over to the worship of Zeus? Yet that is what some claim against my Church, her Pope and the Councils of V2 & V1. It doesn’t work. Saying something is so doesn’t make it so. Surely your mother told this little fact of life when you got caught fibbing to cover you butt the first time as a child, didn’t she? I hope so. If not, well, then I’m doing it for her. Saying something is so doesn’t make it so. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Did you actually read the links? Is Catholic Answers a Sede site, no, so your point is what? Answer what CA says, not what you think it says. Pope Francis has recently repeated what I said. Maybe he’s a Sede too – or maybe, as so often, you speak before engaging brain in gear? I always back up what I say – you just assert you are right then accuse me of fibbing – good laugh. Here’s the link to what your own Pope says – let’s see you deny that:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/christians-muslims-and-the-one-god
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Hello Jess. 3 minutes left then I’m gone baby bgone.
From the CA article: “Whether or not their version of that revelation is authentic or correct, that’s what they “profess to hold” to.” BINGO! They are upholding what I’ve said, that it is them not us who profess to believe, not us affirming their beliefs. Then: “we cannot say that the God in whom Muslims profess to believe is theologically identical to the Christian God.” which is the exact twist to the words Zeke and others here have tried to claim, that my Church is in agreement that the same god they worship is our God, Jesus Christ. Now, gotta go. Time’s up. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
You didn’t read on to the end. Your own Popes don’t agree with you – s best of luck with your personal infallibility 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
This is from an official document of your Church:
“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.”
I will let you find it, as it will give you time to explain why you do not even understand your own church and its teaching and why you don’t agree with it.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
The person most in need of remembering that just because you say so doesn’t mean it is true is you. I provide links, you provide assertions. Still, our readers see through you.
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Ginny,what paragraph are you referring to in your last comment to me? I am puzzled because I didn’t quote a paragraph. You did, and it seems to me you are the one doing the twisting.
Also, calumny by calling me a Sedevacantistis a venial sin but is still a stain on your soul. The CCC points out that small sins lead to greater ones.
Of course I was prepared for the fact that I would receive a personal attack from you today. Predictable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Grandpa, I offered her links to a non-Sede site, so why she says what she says who knows? It seems as though she is keen to correct everyone else but not to be corrected herself – sad, but no uncommon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Zeke, why put words in my mouth that aren’t there? No one said you were a SV. I said they use the same argument, that’s all. Sheesh. And that gave you excuse to insult me some more. Thanks. Insults are honors. Blessed am I…..etc. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
So, you can give it out but not take it? Figures. He busted you, I busted you, and you whine about insults. Who accused who fibbing, and when busted didn’t have the courtesy to apologise?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
Who did you call a SV then? Is it Jess? Is it made better that you call her names? I don’t understand how someone who says she has found the pearl of great price can treat other Christians with the disdain you demonstrate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Have all of six minutes and then I have to leave. I called no one a SV today. I said very clearly that they use the same passage and give it the very same twist to prove the invalidity of the V1 & V2 and the Pope, etc. They point to this passage as the proof that the Church was handed over to worship of Allah. That’s what I said. Geeze Loueeeze. At least acknowledge you understand what I’ve said???!?!???! God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Yes, you keep making these insulting comparisons and when called say they mean nothing – so why make them?
Cathlolc Answers is not a Sede site, and it blew up your attempt at an argument, you couldn’t cope and went to default insult mode – that much is clear.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
What is an SV? Is it something horrid?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
It is a Sedevacantist – those so Catholic they insist the Pope isn’t one.
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
See my latest comment. You need to re-read what you wrote and stop calling me or anyone “fibbers.” Anyone is capable of making mistakes, I never deny being intellectually challenged. But you never concede a point or admit that perhaps you should reconsider. Also, when you say “the Church was handed over to worship of Allah” is not anywhere close to what I wrote in ANY of my comments and is BESIDE THE POINT.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
Here is another interesting link. http://justforcatholics.org/islam.htm
Following is a quote from the article:
“According to the Catechism, ‘together with us (Catholics) they (Muslims) adore the one, merciful God.’ Pope John Paul II repeats this statement even more clearly. Addressing Muslim youths, the Pope said: ‘We believe in the same God, the one and only God, the living God, the God who creates worlds and brings creatures to their perfection’ (What Dialogue Means for Catholics and Muslims, US Conference of Catholic Bishops, http://www.usccb.org/seia/brunett.htm).”
The link to the USCCB is broken but it can be found here:
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/what-dialogue-means-for-catholics-and-muslims.cfm
How anyone can dispute these facts and call those who report them “fibbers” is beyond me. I suppose when one is eager to discredit and insult others, well, then anything is fair game. Just not the facts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
It is rather sad, and a bit ironic of ginny to accuse others of fibbing when I was simply reporting what St John Paul II and the current Pope said. No doubt ginny will enlighten us!
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Zeke, for the last time (I hope) the Catechism clearly states that “they profess” that is the Muslims profess to believe….blah blah blah…….NOT “WE AFFIRM” that they worship the same God as us. HUGE difference. Why to you insist it says that which it doesn’t? That is fibbing with intent. Not so nice. But you’re Protestant, so………God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Try reading the links and you’d see this is a busted argument – being you, you will carry on shouting – sad really.
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Ginny, why do you resort to name calling and smears? Really ask yourself please. And, God and my confessor are the final arbiters of my standing within the Church. Not Ginny. I am really shocked that you would even presume to try.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
No Ginny, it is not finished. You said, and I quote: “I’ve heard this paragraph twisted by better Sedevacantists than you are”. Whether that statement was directed at me or Jessica, it is unclear, but the fact is that you said it. Now you deny saying it by stating: “No one said you were a SV. I said they use the same argument, that’s all.” Who did you say is fibbing with intent?
About the word PROFESS (I capitalize it since you seem to be fond of the word in capital letters) please find for me where I state that the word means AFFIRM. What I said (please read these words carefully) is this:
The CCC uses the word PROFESS TO MEAN AFFIRM. I gave you evidence of this to which you have not responded, instead throwing up smoke and mirrors to obfuscate your inability to admit that the Church clearly contradicts you. It is clear as the paper it is written on.
I make NO CLAIM to any authority, the Church is the authority and their definitions of the truths of the faith are clearly delineated in the CCC, or do you deny this?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Thank you Zeke.
This is from Nostra Aetate and is reference in CCC 841 and I quote:
The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even his inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.
I leave it to ginny to explain how that agrees with her statement that I am fibbing about what her Church teaches.
It wouldn’t be so bad if she were capable, just once, of admitting she’s wrong and saying sorry. Repentance seems weak with her.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Hello Jess. Here is the entire paragraph regarding the Muslims: “3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.” http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
Now, in Ginnyspeak: we have a Pope saying that the Church has respect for Muslims. Then he describes how they see THEIR God as a living being subsisting in hImself. that they consider him to be merciful and all powerful and that they believe their god, Allah, is the creator of heaven and earth. They also believe that their god, Allah, has spoken to men. They also take pains to submit their wills to their god, Allah, They claim that they are submitting to their god, Allah, in the same way that Abraham submitted to another God, (not theirs BTW, cause everyone knows they worship Allah and not Jesus Christ,) but they claim their god, Allah, is the same god that Abraham had. They kinda borrowed our God for a while, till they came up with another god, Allah, who they are fond of saying is ONE! Which means our Trinity of Persons cannot be! Oh dear! Oh my. They claim Jesus is only a prophet and they like Mary and will even make a show of being devoted to her. They include a type of judgement day in their beliefs that has some features of the resurrection of the dead. {Here it is good to remember that Islam STARTED AS A HERESY of Christianity, but it didn’t go well for poor ole Mohammed, so he cooked up a better religion and decided since his hersey didn’t sell too well, he’d simply use force instead. That’s when the killing and enslavement and pillaging and plundering started.} Back to the Pope: They try to live a moral life and in so doing worship a god, not ours, and they pray and fast and give alms. But they do not worship Jesus, nor do they believe He is God. So they have some other god than ours, the One true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
So, how you come up with they have the SAME God as us, I have no idea. But if that is what you think, fine. Just try not to say that is what my Church teaches. It doesn’t. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I come up with it because unlike you I do not read things through the lenses of ‘ginnyspeak’. The document you cite does not say what you claim. Where does it talk about ‘their God’? It doesn’t, you do.
So, here is your challenge. Come up with just one line from an official Church document which says what you say – ‘their God’and I will admit you are right. You being fluent in ‘ginnyspeak’, I do not expect you to admit you are wrong if you cannot do so.
You seem rather poor at admitting when you are in error. A shame, but there we are.
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Ginny just said, ” At least acknowledge you understand what I’ve said???!?!???!”
This goes both ways. Have you completely misunderstood what I have said deliberately or out of impatience (to quote you again, “blah blah blah”) or ill will? Can I not get an apology for now being described as someone twisting the words of the CCC to say that the Muslim god is theologically identical to the Christian God. In you last comment to Jessica, Ginny wrote: “which is the exact twist to the words Zeke and others here have tried to claim”.
Ginny, I made no such claim. Prove me wrong, call me a liar, and show me the words I used if I did make such a claim. You can’t because I didn’t.
We have not discussed in this thread ANY definition of the Christian God. None. We have not touched on the Trinity or what the Muslims believe or do not believe. Find my words that touch on these subjects if you can, Ginny. You can’t because I didn’t.
Ginny, I would ask that you read these words very carefully: I think your head may be filled with this SV stuff and you are jumping to conclusions about my intent. All I know about the SV is from reading your exchanges with Quaiv. I don’t personally go near them. If your comment earlier about being SV (whether directed to me or Jess is immaterial) went over my head, it is because of this – I do not study or follow the SV.
You have completely misunderstood my words, twisted my meaning and intent and imposed on my words meanings of your own imaginings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Okay Grandpa, I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings. I didn’t mean to. Fell better, okay? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rob said:
I have read all through this entire disagreement and Ginny your apology to Zeke is just not good enough. It passes the buck onto Zeke as if he were sensitive and had hurt feelings (possibly you are suggesting that he had them unjustly).
In fact I have not detected any hurt feelings in any of Zeke’s comments. What is abundantly clear is that you have either lied or made a mistake in calling someone an s.v. and also been abusive as usual in calling Both Jess and Zeke liars (fibbers). While Zeke and Jess have only tried to hold you to your duty of ‘genuine’ apology and repentance. Your church document clearly indicate they were fibbing.
You should be ashamed of your behaviour here and apologise for your and abusive comments. Your behaviour is getting tiring!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
Thank you Ginny, bless you. I think I am under the weather which may help to explain my grumpiness, and I apologize as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
I’m surprised Zeke, were you truly grumpy I did not take your comments to Ginny that way. If you were perhaps I have waded in too hard against Ginny in your defence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
Thanks Rob, I hope I wasn’t grumpy but my personality is a serious one and I have trouble making light of things that trouble me. I notice Ginny is able to switch to humor from time to time (to her credit), whereas I keep my nose to the grindstone until I feel satisfied that justice has been served. Thanks for your support.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
Rob, I just saw your comment to Ginny (after writing my last reply to you) and I’d like to reassure you see things as you do. I was feeling worn out this afternoon from a slight bug and thought perhaps I had been too stern with her, but re-reading the interaction, well, I think I made good points that were simply ignored or misrepresented by Ginny. I accepted her apology because, as inadequate as it was, it was a step in the right direction and at least showed a spark of human kindness that I hadn’t seen from her in quite some time. I am beginning to think there may be no real way to penetrate whatever it is that causing her these interpersonal problems. I notice that she has misread Chalcedon’s latest post and offered “corrections”. It seems to me she reads between the lines searching for other’s failings. What that is about I can’t imagine. Thanks very much again for your support.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
The god damned church of Mary regularly burned people to death. And now they send people to hell with mouths full of crackers and Faustina on their minds.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
I do wish Jessica would either moderate you to clean up your foul mouth and the taking of the Lord’s name in vain or ban you outright. I have nothing to do with you: for you are what we call in the Church ‘an occassion of sin.’ Best I ignore you and don’t read you . . . it will be my policy from now on.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Bosco the Great said:
I speak the truth
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
To quote Jack Nicolson: “The Truth, you can’t handle the Truth!’
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Only God is Truth as only God is Good. You are neither.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bosco the Great said:
Hey good brother Servus, why don’t you say the C of M never burned people alive? Because you cant. And that makes your cult damned by god. Enjoy
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
You really are as stupid as you sound then?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Come on good brother Servus, you can do it. Say your cult of death never burned anyone to death. Show us what a idiot you can truly be.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Do you not know how stupid you sound?
Your cult of human beings (and I assume you are one) committed all types of mortal sins deserving of hell (including Adam and Eve). So, by your logic, the entirety of humankind will be in hell. What do you not understand about personal sin? Or are you one of those idiots that believe in communal sin and communal justice? If so . . . guess where you’re going?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bosco the Great said:
You are correct. I am a member of the sinfull human race. At least I don’t call some man the Holy Father and think some cracker is god. You’ve got to be joking. Your Holy Father yousd to whip himself to get closer to god. Another of your Holy Fathers herded jews into a ghetto. Lets not mention the inquisition or crusades. And this is where you trust your salvation?
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Bosco …. don’t do that! Step!
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Oh come on, I just got off the step. Sheesh. Ok ….im on the step again……(mean ol lady)
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Outside of your prejudiced excuse for a mind, there is no ‘church of Mary’, and you have no evidence God has damned the Catholic Church, unless you have now, in your madness, decided you are God. What you call crackers, Jesus calls his body and blood (what, you don’t believe what Jesus says – do you believe anything in the Bible at all?), and if you could explain to us all how meditating on the mysteries of salvation and of hell can harm people, we would all be surprised. Here’s a little motto to help you: “before you open your mouth, ensure brain is in gear; if brain is absent, stop.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Lucky for you your house will save you. Its not me that exposes the C of M. The book of Rev exposes it and its own doings exposes it. Weve gone over this befor. Purple scarlet gold cup….etc etc.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
We have, and you have conclusively failed to prove your point. I hope you get saved one day, properly.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Nono no…not so fast bucko. You’ve got this sister Faustino to explain away. Your cult has this false stuff and now you are saddled with it. I know there is more, but im not privy to it. I know about Father Pio. A few things. Another wack job voodoo Mary madness. Sharing the sufferings and being two places at once. You Marys are beyond berserk.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
How is it possible for an individual to be so ignorant? You begin, I suppose, with an entirely false idea of what the Church is and go from there, perhaps?
If you had read the extract I last posted, you would see that the Church does not require anyone to believe Sr F’s visions. I am sure what you know about Padre Pio is also as skewed.
As for who is beserk and beyond, I think anyone reading your contributions here can make their own decision quite easily.
You do offer a witness here, but it is one to ignorance and stupidity. I doubt anyone would be led your way Bosco.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
You must think im stupid.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Now where would anyone get that impression? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
newenglandsun said:
Yes. This seems to be Mother’s concern. I don’t think necessarily doing away with the notion of an eternal Hell is the correct path. But the main problem is discussing this issue when evangelizing others. In evangelism though, the object is to have the one being evangelized focusing on the love of G-d. So the question when it comes to evangelizing others is “can we uphold the love of G-d and still retain a belief in an eternal Hell?” St. Isaac of Nineveh mentions the scourge of love that those who reject the love of G-d suffer. Dwelling in the presence of one who loves you while you do not love them is Hell as you are receiving love rejected. Some describe Hell as the absence of the experience of love. One who chooses to not love and be loved in this life will suffer the torment of Hell–absence of love. In essence, for G-d, under apophatic theology, he is always there in Hell but when the person is dwelling in the presence of love rejected, they definitely do not feel the love of G-d as they’re heart is stubbornly against it. St. Isaac was a universalist though. I do not think universalism or even hopeful universalism is heresy. Of course, you Catholics will probably disagree.
Mother though seems to be going down the route of annihilationism. The theologians I’ve read are much more convinced by universalism than annihiliationism. The question then becomes can the love of G-d be maintained if G-d intends to annihilate some completely out of existence. This ultimately is the downfall of annihilationism, IMO. To completely put someone out of existence doesn’t even grant them as a person at that point. Does G-d sever the personhood away from any body? Annihilationism raises interesting philosophical questions but it raises as many questions as it answers. There is simply no easy way to go about the teaching of Hell.
This is perhaps the most interesting philosophical anthology on Hell that I have come across.
http://www.amazon.com/Problem-Hell-Joel-Buenting/
It raises questions and issues with every single view–including universalism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
You gota stop reading these theologians. Ask your {…offensive comment deleted} ….(;-D
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Bosco – step!
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Im getting used to standing on the step. I can order a pizza with my cell phone. But why me all the time? Whaaaaaaaaaaaa
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
You know why you – because you keep being naughty 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Steve Brown said:
Grandpa Zeke, great question. “Are we justified in considering modern sensibilities when evangelizing?”
Ah yes, Modernity. I am sure Pierre Teilhard de Chardin wished that Christ should have, during His ‘Bread of Life’ discourse (John 6:22-71), called all those back who thinking His teaching hard and tried time and time again to tone down all He had taught so as not to offend there sensibilities.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Steve Brown said:
s/b their
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
well, we considered modern sensibilities in the Middle Ages when the Church stigmatised Jews, and when the RCC supported the death penalty. When was the last time your bishops agreed with either of those?
A puzzle for me is why all modernity seems to be stigmatised by you? Do you think Jews should be in a ghetto and denied civil rights. How about African-Americans? Should they stick to their own Churches in the fashion once universal in the USA?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Let them have it good sister Jess.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Good question Jock, and one she has asked many times, with no answer. Her point here is that this is not a question she raised, it is one many non-Christians and Christians have been raising for some time. It would be good if someone could explain why sentencing someone to burn for eternity is an example of love, and how we can explain that.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
I wish someone would. Dave Smith, lovely and patient as ever, said it was not a problem for him – but it is for so many of us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
I am catching up a little, and look forward to someone explaining this one. I thought what Rob’s wife said significant.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Bosco the Great said:
Good sister Jess, just ask Jesus to come into your life. Don’t worry about hell and its definitions.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
What makes you think he isn’t there already? 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Just keep asking.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
He’s here already Bosco dear.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
I am sure you will meet him
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
Adding more to the complexity behind the philosophical issue of Hell, I actually was quite iffy about the notion of a literal eternal fire and brimstone until I read this passage in the Russian philosopher, Fedor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov…It reads as follows:
“They talk of hell fire in the material sense. I don’t go into that mystery and I shun it. But I think if there were material fire in material sense, they would be glad for it, for I imagine that in material agony, their still greater spiritual agony would be forgotten for a moment.” (295)
This part is found in Dostoevsky’s section about the theological reflections of Fr. Zosima. It is important to digest the first part of what he says here–that what we are describing when we refer to Hell is a mystery. Hence, why we cannot be certain about the “great beyond” so-to-speak. That is not the human place to know. My leanings are universalist (at least strongly hopeful universalist). That said, what Fr. Zosima does here (or Dostoevsky via Fr. Zosima) is essentially remove an entire foot-stool that is commonly made when some of us humans find ourselves utterly disgusted at the notion of eternal, material, pain that these humans are suffering. This is in his next part–they are suffering even greater spiritual agony. My parents have asked me why I cut–does it remove pain? No. It produces physical pain to remove spiritual and emotional pain. The physical pain is far more tolerable and is nothing compared to the deeper, inward pain I feel deep inside. Is there a material fire in Hell for eternity? I don’t know. Is it eternal separation from G-d? I don’t know. I have never died. That said, after Dostoevsky’s reflection here (or Fr. Zosima?), I cannot find myself making a logical objection to the notion if there is a material Hell-fire. I’ve read numerous points of views. Of course there are the Dawkinsite atheists making such objections at this–mostly what they are objecting to is the material pain for eternity. But I propose that even if there was a coherent way to explain this mystery, they would still find objections. For a Christian, one is taught a theological perspective to fear the loss of G-d. Atheistic objection answered. But now, so what? An atheist does not have G-d any way and therefore no pain is seen from the joy of losing one’s connection to G-d. A Christian knows that there is nothing more painful than to lose one’s connection to G-d and be locked away from him for an eternity (which is what Fr. Zosima is getting at). We could tell an atheist then that G-d eventually annihilates and snuffs the non-believer out of existence adopting Wenham’s annihilationist perspective. Well the atheist would say that this might be fine as well…unless they object to the death penalty. But for an atheistic nihilist this might be acceptable as he believes he will descend into nothingness already. But so what? We’ve now answered half of the atheist populations’ objections. And even still does the thought of G-d snuffing some people out of existence make it sound like G-d is love? It might sound more like G-d is an executioner to some. Then we have universalism which also does not touch upon solving the problem as it can be objected that G-d is now intruding on people’s free will. Someone can easily argue that if G-d allows a human to have maximum capacity for free will then this must include the ability to reject G-d for an eternity.
Okay, that was a lot of stuff to digest. What I want is for people who read this comment here to reflect on this and to digest that when we talk about Hell and the afterlife we humans are simply wading into unknown territory. There is no simple way to talk about this subject. We have to acknowledge that this subject, like the Trinity, is a mystery that we simply cannot explain in terms intelligible to human audience. Understanding is not requisite though. And BTW, while I may have universalist leanings, I agree with Fr. Zosima’s first part–“I don’t go into that mystery and I shun it.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Bosco the Great said:
Good brother newengland, what do you care? Sounds like you’ve been listening to teachers too much. You both will fall into the ditch. You hate god. You and me both know that.
LikeLike
orthodoxgirl99 said:
You raise some interesting points here newenglandsun and I agree with your point (and Fr. Zosima’s) about Hell – it is, by and large, still a mystery to our finite, human minds. We can only draw our own conclusions and form our own ideas from what has been spoken of in Scripture by the Apostles and by Jesus himself. However, for teaching purposes, (particularly to those who are sceptics, the ‘unsure group’ and to a degree cynics and lapsed Christians) I would probably use the example of Hell as being ‘separated’ from the source of Divine Love and Wisdom – a state which the individual has wilfully chosen by living in a state of ego, unrepentance and/or stubborn refusal to open their hearts to God and be humble. I regard being in the state of ‘separation’ from God as pure Hell (on earth and in Heaven) – my soul would be miserable, tortured I suppose and slowly shrivel. I would argue that this image (perhaps a little wishy-washy to some?) would become stronger and hold more power as one’s faith deepened and the need and delight of a close, loving and intimate relationship with Jesus progressed. On the face of it, it doesn’t really mean too much and this would be a point that I would stress when explaining this to another. In other words, the other person ‘doesn’t know what they don’t know’ but more would be revealed in the course of a faith that grew and deepened over a period of time. I can only speak from my own experience as I am not as knowledgeable or widely read as some of my fellow bloggers here….so like our BVM, I tend to ‘ponder these things’ in my heart and hope that understanding and insight will be given me – eventually!
LikeLiked by 3 people
newenglandsun said:
If you’re talking strictly about teaching purposes, then I would suggest this area not be taught to skeptics. The statements about Hell are primarily given to Christians.
LikeLiked by 1 person
David B. Monier-Williams said:
I posted two comments way above, one a link to St. Faustina’s description of Purgatory the other the quote from her description of Heaven. Jessica and Rob et alii suggest you pause and read them.Then consider why these were written (Chaplet of Divine Mercy) and when and how they fit in to the Jubilee Year of Mercy.
This discussion isn’t about how the Church mistreated the Jews etc, it’s about the doctrine of one of the Four Last Things, Death, Judgement, Heaven and Hell.
Whether this doctrine and descriptions by St. Faustina keeps people from the Church I don’t know. If so, then more reading, discussion and prayer on this subject might be useful.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Bosco the Great said:
Say good brother David……you really believe this Faustina stuff? Please tell me youre joking. You tell me im all wrong and stuff like that. But please tell me you don’t believe this Faustina hoax. Please tell me you aren’t a blithering idiot.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Good brother Chalcedon, may I ask you a question?
Do you believe this Faustina stuff? You and the big Mary Servus have not commented on that. No Mary has commentd on that. I never heard of Faustina befor. But I want to know if Marys down the line believe this. Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You have a curiously antiquated notion of the Catholic Church, Bosco. Faustina’s visions are just that. Those who wish to believe them can, those who think they are visions from which we can extract spiritual truth are free to do that. It is nearly 2016 man, not 1516 – do wake up and smell the coffee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Do you believe this Faustino stuff…..yes or no will suffice. Thank you and happy new yr to you and yours.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Do I believe in heaven, yes, do I think her vision helps us spiritually, yes. Do I believe in hell, yes, do you? Happy New Year to you too Bosco – but I do wish you’d cut the prejudice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Let me be more specific . Do you believe sister Faustino went to heaven and hell and purgatory? Thanks in advance.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
She is saying she had a vision. Do I believe she had a vision, yes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
She said she was in purgatory and at the throne in heaven and in hell. Do you believe she was in heaven and purgatory and hell. ? Thanks in advance
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I believe she saw Purgatory and heaven and hell. Holy people have visions. Your whole view of Scrpture is based on one book of visions which you insist on reading as though it were a history book.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Bravo. You have distanced yourself from sister Faustino. Suck it up good brother. Your cult of death approves her. And you know it is wack. But you defend it because you are duty bound. Hahahahahhah. Hey, what are you going to do with the pine cone staff of Bacchus that your Holy Father holds? Hahahahaha. Wish that into the cornfield. Aye, the fish hats……im sure you got a snappy answer for those Babylonian remnants. Wipe the sweat from your brow and wish them all into the cornfield.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Which part of what I posed did you read? It stated very clearly that the Church does not require one to believe in that vision.
You and a few nutjobs believe it is a staff of Bacchus, but then you believe so much rubbish that it is impossible to plumb those murky depths. I did a whole post on the fish hats, which you were never able to deal with.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
This is too easy. (;-D The church does not require one to believe its saints. Hahahahahahahaha. bravo. That’s one way to get out of your wacfky beliefs. As for me not dealing with your religions fish hats… I have never shirked the task. Its obvious yor cult uses the same fish hats. I remember you tlling me yrs ago that it was just coincidence that they looked alike. Bow down to the female statue. Then tell me its just a coincidence.
Oh, well , we do all the things Nebuchanessar did but we aren’t a Babylonian cult…..because we say so….or at least our members says so.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
No, it is a statement of something which which you seem to be unfamiliar – the truth. I gave you the reference in a cut and paste job so it would be easy for you to see; clearly the truth is not something you know much about. It is far from clear, about the hats, you would have to explain how Babylonian hats suddenly came into fashion many centuries after Babylon had fallen. I have invited you to do so, and repeat the invitation. Fish hats from Babylon, unknown for centuries and then suddenly in fashion – did they find them on the Internet in your version?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
The cult of Babylon, or Nimrod, didn’t die out. Its priests just went elsewhere and continued the craft. Then they were invited to Rome. This is something the history books like to leave out.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That would be because they are history books and not the fiction you read.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Fiction. How come the Dagon fish hats are exactly like the Mary fish hats? Is that fiction? Its reality. And the pine cone staff your Holy Father holds….is that fiction? No……its reality. But , alas, you are duty bound to deny all of it, because after all, your religion is gods true religion. Fish hats aren’t fish hats…purple and scarlet aren’t purple and scarlet……gold cups aren’t gold cups….brother means cousin. I guess all od King Davids brothers were cousins. You Marys take the cake. You are even more wack than the imbecilic Morons.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
They aren’t, as my article on this blog shows
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Bosco, since you are so fond of cut and paste, try this:
‘The Church has not defined that the souls in hell suffer torments of the flesh directly corresponding to the manner in which the soul sinned in the flesh, nor has the Church defined that there is a spiritual “fire” that penetrates the soul that is “lit by God’s anger.” Nor for that matter has the Church defined that the torments of hell include a literal, physical fire (which, in fact, St. Faustina does not mention). These things are matters for theological speculation, and the content of St. Faustina’s vision is not decisive evidence on these matters for the Church.’
Robert Stackpole here:
http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/If-God-is-so-Merciful-Why-is-There-a-Hell-2690
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
These things are matters for theological speculation,
Tell that to the souls in hell.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Could explain how Sr Faustina’s vision would harm them? I know you can’t, but it will be fun watching you try.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Gotcha. You do believe Faustina. I thought you were a man of education. I was dead wrong. Even heathens don’t fall for voodoo. But you fall for voodoo. Im disappointed. You should know better my brother. But alas, you went religion shoping and bought the church of the virgin queen. Now you have to believe all its voodoo. You are a sham of an intellect.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Poor Bosco, you can’t read. Is there any point answering you?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
no need to answr
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Virgin queen. Celibate priests. Celibate nuns. The C of M is all about gonads and vaginas. Flesh. This is sick. Jesus was crucified next to a criminal. Yet the criminal was in paradise soon as he died. No seven sacriments. Does Jesus care about reproductive organs? No. But the sick sad C of M is all about the flesh. Its devotees are all about the flesh and the eyes. They can see their master Beelzebub. They love Beelzebub. Anyone who doesn’t love Beelzebub is a bad and stupid person, like me.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I think, Bosco, you may just be transferring your own obsessions to the Church. The only person here who obsesses about these things can be seen by you when you look in the mirror.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
I wish to thank good brother David for bringing good sister Faustina to my attention. Ive noticed not one of the church of the virgin queen devotees have responded to my queries. I went to the link good brother David put up. Now it is time for me to hoist you false religion queen of heaven worshipers on your own petards. And you guys call me all kinds of devils own. Lets take a look at Faustina….shall we? Its hard to keep a straight face.
[The next night] I saw my Guardian Angel, who ordered me to follow him. In a moment I was in a misty place full of fire in which there was a great crowd of suffering souls. They were praying fervently, but to no avail, for themselves; only we can come to their aid.
Only “we” can come to their aid? Bible says only Christ can save. But you damned of god Marys say humans can save. You make god a liar. Hell is there for souls like you. let us continue.
I saw Our Lady visiting the souls in PURGATORY. The souls call her “The Star of the Sea.” She brings them refreshment. I wanted to talk with them some more, but my Guardian Angel beckoned me to leave.
(;-D But wait, theres more…..
Once I was summoned to the judgment [seat] of God. I stood alone before the Lord. Jesus appeared such as we know Him during His Passion.
Jesus asked me, Who are you? I answered, “I am Your servant, Lord.” You are guilty of one day of fire in PURGATORY. I wanted to throw myself immediately into the flames of PURGATORY, but Jesus stopped me and said, Which do you prefer, suffer now for one day in PURGATORY or for a short while on earth?
I got you. You Marys are duty bound to believe this. And you have the unmitigated gall to call me all sorts of names. The C of M is wacked out as far as wack can go. No wonder why you Marys don’t respondeo to this Faustina stuff. Your embarrassed as hell. You guys can take your tons of canon law and ^(*&(*( it
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Why do you think we are bound to believe it? There is no such obligation. You really must stop telling lies. I don’t think saved people are supposed to tell lies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Good brother David believes this. It seems that official Mary sites believe this. Why do you call me a liar?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
This would be why Catholics can make their own mind up. You denied that. You lied. What’s new?
‘The Church has not defined that the souls in hell suffer torments of the flesh directly corresponding to the manner in which the soul sinned in the flesh, nor has the Church defined that there is a spiritual “fire” that penetrates the soul that is “lit by God’s anger.” Nor for that matter has the Church defined that the torments of hell include a literal, physical fire (which, in fact, St. Faustina does not mention). These things are matters for theological speculation, and the content of St. Faustina’s vision is not decisive evidence on these matters for the Church.’
Robert Stackpole here:
http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/If-God-is-so-Merciful-Why-is-There-a-Hell-2690
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Hey good brother David. Good brother Chalcedon wishes Faustina into the corn field. Its a take it or not thing. I command you to reprimand good brother Chalcedon for his unbelief.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Since it was David who posted the link I gave you, either prove it is a ‘take it or not thing’ or admit you have been caught in a lie.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
I have posted my reply above.
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
There was a time in that not so distant past when any comments from Bosco containing the word “Marys” were moderated.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Get on your rusty knees befor that female shaped graven image.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Bosco – stop it – this is not how we behave to each other here – naughty step is over there!
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Gad danged. I spend more time on the step than anyone. OK, im getting on the step. Sheesh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I am sure you will be the better for it 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Yeah, the better for it. But the mean time I have to stand here in humiliation. Why is it always me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
That would be because you are the only one using terms which insult others. Easy way out is to stop doing it. Geoffrey criticises, as does Rob, but they don’t need to use insults – nor do you, bless you.
I do hope 2016 is a good one for you. 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
I send you my best good sister.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
And you too – hope 2016 is a good one for you.
LikeLike
Rob said:
The eternal Son not only created all things by His omnipotent Word (Psalm 33:6; Hebrews 11:3) but is now “upholding all things by the Word of His power.”
Given these facts, for there to be an everlasting torment in hell it would not only be necessary for God to consign the wicked to hell but also necessary for Him to actively uphold their existence in order to continue their torture everlastingly.
Could such behaviour be thought of as anything other than diabolical – which gives us a hint of the origin of such concepts.
No wonder the concept of everlasting torment is a hindrance to Gospel evangelism the concept reeks of the devil’s works.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Do I read you correct good brother Rob? Are you against the notion of the fires of hell?
LikeLike
Rob said:
Nobody posting here doubts the existence hell some including me are questioning how long it lasts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
Let me know when youfind out how long it lasts. thanks in advance.
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
To you St. Bisto and Rob especially, further to C’s comment here’s a commentary on St. Faustina’s visions: http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/If-God-is-so-Merciful-Why-is-There-a-Hell-2690.
You’re both probably to young to remember the 1943 song by Nat King Cole, “Straighten up and fly right!”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bosco the Great said:
There are special tortures destined for particular souls.
This is a snipet from your Faustina post. Good brother David, you need to do a big think on where you trust your salvation.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
Do you believe in hell Bosco?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
What the freak do you think?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
In your case, who knows? Christ called for his followers to be baptised. You have not been baptised, so we only have your word you are a follower.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Tell me….how many times have I said that I believe every word in the bible?
How many time have you said you don’t believe every word in the bible? …
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You have shown many times you have no understanding of the words. Jesus founded a Church on Peter, he said so, you don’t believe it. Jesus said the sheep would know his voice, you believe he said the sheep know each others voices – need I go on.
You are the only person here who trade sin insults and prejudice. You and what you stand for are filthy, and will remain in the filth.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
I said the sheep can hear the voice in the other sheeps voice. Its sad that you consider me filthy. I don’t consider you filthy. I consider you worthy of salvation.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
You did, but Jesus said no such thing. You are worthy of salvation Bosco, but you need to lose the hatred and the prejudice and get your mind cleaned up.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Every man is filthy and his works are filthy rags. I am filthy. That makes the playing field level.
LikeLike
newenglandsun said:
Q1: Over and over again.
Q2: Never–C has never said he does not believe every word of the Bible. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Oh geeze. Good brother newengland, isn’t there a good game of kick the can on the freeway somewhere?
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
I would accuse you, good brother newengland, of being Eccles. But you are nowhere near as smart as that imbecile Eccles.
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
Heaven is looking into the Face of Infinite Love that is always the same yet ever changing. Hell is looking into a mirror.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Bosco the Great said:
That’s the best thing you’ve said.
LikeLike
David B. Monier-Williams said:
Thank you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
Have you seen the news world’s tallest building on fire in Dubai
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Yes, I saw that on the news-feed – looks terrible – praying for those connected with it and anyone inside.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Oh gosh….ill go to a news site and see what the deal is. I hope people \are safe.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Correction perhaps only near the tallest building
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Chalcedon (following on from a comment you made above): the Sister Faustina business is extremely damaging, because this sort of thing can lead the impressionable mind to start looking for visions and wacky supernatural experiences, instead of thinking things through with the rational sanctified mind that God has given us. The latter defines a good Christian role model; the former is dangerous.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I take your point Jock, which is why I answered Bosco as I did. I am afraid the impressionable will always find something by which to be impressed, and I am not sure that St F would be a bad thing if it made them think about their actions and their eternal consequences. As I see it, we are disagreeing here about the nature of hell, but not about its existence; some think it is until the second death, some think it eternal – whichever, it is not somewhere anyone would want to end up. If someone impressionable came away from these visions with the view that they did not want to go to hell, that would be no bad thing – surely?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jock McSporran said:
You are, of course, correct, that that would in and of itself be no bad thing.
I’m more worried, though, about the thought process. Good pastoring, in my opinion, should encourage people to think things through using the mind that God has given them, guided by the Holy Spirit. This should be the normal way to receive Spiritual guidance and the way that should be encouraged.
Creating Spiritual heroes and heroines out of those who received miraculous visions seems to me to be going in an opposite – and very worrying – direction. The good that comes of persuading people that hell isn’t very nice and somewhere that they don’t want to end up may not outweigh the bad when they go looking for spectacular visions of their own.
LikeLiked by 1 person
newenglandsun said:
Let me emphasize a point–your concern seems to be that Sr. Faustina was made a “spiritual heroine” due to her visions and that this might lead people to seek visions in order to become “spiritual heroes”. So do you think St. John the Divine a “spiritual hero” for his writing on the book of Revelation?
I think a point is to be made in that one may have visions but this does not necessarily mean their visions should be taken literally. People are spiritual heroes for more than just their visions though ultimately.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Newenglandsun – I think you make the point very well.
But I’d go further. Even if I take someone very seriously for other reasons, who then has (or claims to have) a vision, I’d still be very sceptical, because I don’t think it’s God’s preferred method for communicating to us.
It seems to me that what we’re doing on this thread right now – everybody thinking about it sincerely and putting their thoughts down – looks more like the way that God communicates with us and helps us reach a better understanding.
After all, the object of creation is ultimately a heavenly community of people – and presumably He wants us to be able to discuss things with each other.
If one of us put in a comment along the lines of, ‘well, God gave me a vision last night and the answer is ……’ I’m not sure we’d be very impressed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Good points Jock. One of the many problems we have with Bosco is that his sole line is just that – he has a private revelation. I recall an early commentator here, Jabbapappa had just the same line. It may well be they are right, but the problem comes when they say what no one else has ever said and their only response is “It is what Jesus tells me”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
newenglandsun said:
Well a vision must be verified by the community of the Church which Sr Faustina’s has or else she would not be canonized. As well, Pope John Paul II was a devout follower of her Divine Mercy devotions being Polish himself and so are many Anglicans as well.
LikeLike
Bosco the Great said:
Ive never once said Jesus told me anything. Research all my posts. If I ever said that….I will go away and never come back. If you cant find it….you should admit that you are a wack job and am sorry for accusing Bosco falsely.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Jess, perhaps this is another way to explain this in a manner suitable to most ears.
Everything Good comes from God. God is consistent with Himself. He is our Orientation. All of His creation was made to be oriented to Him. By His own will and knowledge of the consequences of his rebellion, satan changed his orientation toward God to himself and away from God. Adam and Eve did not have that advantage of foreseeing the consequences of their actions. So though guilty, God has given us, through Christ, the same choice that satan had: in full knowledge of the outcome of our decisions. Satan made an eternal decision. We too, now are making that same eternal decision: for or against God.
God is an attractive force like a magnet and His orientation will not change. Satan is a repulsive force to God. His orientation is like a magnet that is facing another magnet turned to an 180 degree orientation. We have the choice to be attracted to God or attracted to evil, as Satan.
In this fundamental ‘nature’ of God and souls we were given the ability to take on the orientation of our liking though we are naturally attracted to the Good. If we are attracted to God and remain in that orientation we are eternally fastened to God like a piece of magnetic iron. If not, we are repulsed by God and attracted by satan. The two natures of God and anti-God cannot be equal states of being. For even evil is the beneficiary of the Good of God when in this intermediary state (the sun and the rain falls on both the evil and the good). Evil is a state of corruption of all that is God and thereby all that is Good.
Pain is an evil. Lack of pain is a good. God is incapable of evil and evil is incapable of good. Therefore, if the soul is eternal and if hell is a forever orientation decided at the moment of death, then pain and suffering is inescapable. It does not say anything about God and His mercy. It speaks to the state of evil and what pure evil is when it is forever oriented away from God and will never have the goods that it had in this intermediary state again (the sun will not shine on the evil nor the rain fall on the wicked).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Dave – you know, most of this discussion seems to be taking something and pushing it way beyond the limits that we are permitted to go.
The purpose of creation, as I understand it, is to create a community who are fit for eternal communion with God. We do not understand why God creates this community in the way he did, but we humbly accept it. We know that, through the trials and tribulations of this life, we are being formed into people fit for eternal communion with God – and we humbly accept that everything we encounter and have to deal with in this life is a necessary part of the process of preparing us for the next.
We also know that some people will reject God – and that the love of God, when rejected, will turn to judgement (and, consequently, Hell, for those who reject God’s love).
Other than that, we don’t really know very much. We know (of course) that God will be just. We do not understand the mechanism, but we humbly accept that he will be just.
Matthew talks of eternal punishment, Revelation seems to talk about Hell itself being cast into the lake of fire.
This is surely a secondary issue, though; we know that God will be just with those who reject his love and we know that the primary issue is the community that he is preparing for eternal communion with him.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave Smith said:
Indeed so, Jock, though it seems to be a trait of man to decipher and understand all he is capable at a level that he is capable. That is why it seems so difficult at times to communicate what scripture contains and sometimes has us pondering if it is actually contradicting itself. So we fallen creatures try to wrestle with these questions . . . but, like you, I scarcely give them thought anymore unless brought up in these recent posts on hell. I am happy enough to say hell=bad and heaven=good. Let me try to be good and may God give me the grace to do so. Then, may God have mercy on my soul.
LikeLiked by 5 people
JessicaHof said:
I don’t have any problem with that at all, dear friend. My problems are twofold: that evil continues to exist after all things are consummated in God’s love; and that souls exist in pain for eternity whilst we call God love.
The reason I ask my question about how we would regard a father who tortured a disobedient child forever is we are taught to call God Father. No one here would regard a father who tortured a bad child as a good man.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
A soul such as Satan’s or the reprobate is a mutant of what they were. They are a hideous distortion of what God made. They have turned to the dark side where the light of God cannot even seek them out. They are true eneimies of God and all that Good. They ARE NOT children of God. Conceived as such they have irrevocably decided to choose againts Him.
By your ‘problem’ with this, you are saying that Satan Himself should not live in the
‘state of evil’ where there is no good and where thereby there is only what is ‘not good’ such as pain and suffering.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
I don’t think so, I think I am wondering whether, at some point, hell and satan cease to exist and all that is left is Goodness. 🙂 xx Happy New Year, dear friend.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Jess, it seems to me you are ‘imposing’ finite time on the timelessness of an eternal moment. We cannot even fathom it. After this intermediary existence is over for the soul or for Satan . . . such notions are meaningless. Eternity is of the moment . . . their hell is of that same eternal moment as is our heaven.
Happy New Year to you as will, Jess. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
Sounds like the film @Ground Hog Day’ 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
I hope not: that would be more like hell. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
Ha ha 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
ginnyfree said:
Rob, there is a section of Hell where you are forced to watch all the really bad movies there ever were and ever will be over and over and over again.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Ha ha again 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
That’s a very interesting point which I hadn’t considered. I am not quite sure what ‘eternal’ means in the context of timelessness – but I think I see what you mean 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Of course you can’t, Jess, and that is the blindness of our finite state and things we see and understand in this ‘in between’ place that we have no choice in using as a basis for our understanding. It is simply inadequate. 🙂 xx.
So join the club. I am only certain, as Jock said that God is just and that all will be well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
On that we can all, I hope, agree 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I should hope so as well, dear friend. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
So join the club. I am only certain, as Jock said that God is just and that all will be well.
Dave on that I believe we all agree.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
I do believe, as well, there are those things we all agree upon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Ah Jess, with one of your points boiled down to that bare minimum can you NOT see that your statement is a stab at denying the resurrection of the body? A glorified body, such as Christ’s remains eternally. At the end of time we are told that all bodies will be resurrected for the final judgment by Christ as He separates the sheep and goats. If they are annihilated, as you desire then they aren’t eternal anymore and so the resurrection of the body is no longer realized. Think if terms of domino effect. Knock down one domino, or two as you’ve boiled down your issues to two basic ones, and a few more dominos fall, a few more than planned. All of the articles of faith are interconnected and if you fool with one, you fool with the others. Yeah. It works that way. Happy New Year and Happy Feast Day too. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
You do that leap of logic thing which you and the rest of us do when we believe something. Nowhere is it stated that sinners will live forever – is it? Paul says the Godly go to eternal life and the sinners die. I say only that, so unless you think St Paul is denying bodily resurrection (which he isn’t) then I don’t see how I can be denying it?
I see entirely the separation, but do not see where we are explicitly told that the wages of sin is not death but life eternal in hell; did Paul get it wrong?
Can you provide Biblical support for the idea that sinners are reborn to eternal life?
I am following Scripture as I understand it within the teaching of my Church, and oddly, none of the dominoes have fallen over. Happy New Year to you too 🙂 xx
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Ya know what Jess? Having gone a few rounds with some Jehovah’s Witnesses on this very issue, your apologetic looks almost the same as theirs. Only you have yet to use Rob’s reference to the line in Ezekiel they misuse as Biblical support for some of their more grandiose assertions.
I’m amazed at your “forgetfulness” when it comes to Biblical proofs. It is a rather convenient forgetfulness. But since you insist the the words of Matthew’s Gospel have annihilated themselves between this morning and now, I can refresh your memory: “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Matthew 25:46.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
As I have always spent my life in the one church and never gone shopping for a new one, I shall have to bow to your experience of what the JW’s say.
If you want to play biblical bingo, can you explain why Paul says the wages of sin is death – since when did ‘death’ mean eternity in torment?
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Biblical Bingo? LOL. Laughed a little too hard on that one. Never heard it before. That’s cute. I’ll have to use it. LOL. Off to Mass and Communion with a smile on my face. Thanks Jess. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
Ginny I do not think your logic about a denial of the resurrection works, as the Lake of fire follows the ‘General Resurrection’. On the topic of resurrection perhaps at another time we should discuss the difference between the ‘First Resurrection and the ‘General Resurrection’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Another point that I might make here Jess. You keep speaking of the loving Father image and the children of God image. It is apparent that whilst on earth there is always hope of anyone alive to be turned into a child of God . . . but at death their decision is final. Now what is it that makes us a child of God? Is it merely that we are of He created us? If that were so, every atom of the universe would and every creature great or small are destined to be loved as a child. No, and you already know this, that God the Father is looking for ‘sanctifying grace’ in the soul at the moment their soul is separated from it on earth. The reason we are children of God, in that we have Christ in our Soul. That makes us a child of God; for God cannot deny His Son anything anymore than Christ could deny His Father anything. Their wills are one and the same.
So why do you insist that these demons of hell and reprobated souls are children of God which are owed even a second look or thought? They have made an eternal choice and have shut Christ from their hearts and thereby all true love from their hearts. The monster, is not God for allowing them the nature of a loveless nature; that state in which nothing good dwells. Pain is part of their new natural state as is misery and suffering. They chose it knowingly. Let them have what they choose. They will be seen no more just as matter entering a black hole in space swallows them up to be “annihilated” in the sense that we see them no more. But they are not in the void . . . they still exist in their hell made by their own wills and their own evil.
LikeLiked by 3 people
JessicaHof said:
Those are excellent points, and I am not arguing that these lost souls do not spend time in hell. My query is over whether it is eternal and how we should read the idea of ‘fires’ of hell. Those passages where you have spoken of it as spiritual torment rather than bodily, seem to me more in line with what we might expect from a loving Father.
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Dave, I can’t seem to forget that Jessica started these posts about Hell writing about her father. She is not dwelling on her question about his ultimate fate, but I am a stubborn old fool that doesn’t let go of his bone and I want to bring in a more personal note to these thoughts about demons and reprobates.
We all have family members who were flawed human beings who most likely died with many unrepented sins (my parents were not Catholic and barely even church goers), but were they true reprobates who must spend eternity with demons as you just described? This is a hard pill to swallow and I’ll admit I have avoided thinking about this until Jess started her series of posts. I know that we don’t know what happens at the moment of death when a sinner stands before God but I think I understand where Jessica’s concern comes from about this issue. It goes beyond the theology, it is deeply personal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Yes, and too bad she seems to disregard St. Faustina in this regard; as she saw a moment for all unlearned souls to be immediately informed in their souls and make a choice.
I, like you, have the same problem with my lost family. But I take heart in another saint: St. Theresa of Avila. After seeing hell she said she worked in prayer and sacrifices for the dead. And as she put it (and this should not offend the Protestants that do not believe in such things) the prayers being applied and heard by God (who hears the past, the present and future, for all time) for these souls at the hour of their death. I do this every day and hold hope that God will hear my prayers and that they were oriented to God at that moment.
And since, not thorougly reprobate (for many souls), it is a comforting thought to ponder our teaching of Purgatory . . . if there were ever a sense of Mercy and care for those who have been lost and need be found . . . this is it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Comforting thoughts, but difficult ones. Jesus talks of two destinations, heaven and hell, which is why, much as I’d like to believe in Purgatory, I can’t get there. Is there a danger here that this line of thinking could lead to universalism? C says he has some thoughts on these things coming up – so I shall await with interest 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
It could for those unread about Purgatory. In my ‘magnet’ metaphor . . . it is for people who are neither polarized north and south but for those who might be a little north above the east-west axis. It is painful, as it would be, to have our orientation from part God and part Self to one of fully God. But since they have that tendency His Mercy provides the necessary correcton to fix our internal compasses. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
What a very good answer Dave, thank you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
No thank you, Grandpa. You make me think and settle more firmly by abiding in the faith to the very end.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Thank you both – this discussion has, I think, been very helpful, and continues to be so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
You brought it up, dear lady. The rest is just the musings, lights, and understanding of our faiths as we have come to believe. So hats off to a post that has elicited so much passion and reflection.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Thank you, dear friend – do offer a prayer for all here at Mass 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Shall do. It is always a pleasure to keep this AATW family in my prayers. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Thank you so much 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
Such an opportunity for post mortem repentance and turning towards the Lord does put the prospect of an everlasting hell in a different light. It is rejected as a possibility by Reformed and many other evangelicals.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
It would . . . and it is a postulation that isn’t exactly post mortem but at the instant of death (a moment so to speak but outside of finite time in our sense).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Also, Grandpa, we must have faith. The incident of the fig tree in Mattew 21 gives us a hint, I think.
18 In the morning, when he returned to the city, he was hungry. 19 And seeing a fig tree by the side of the road, he went to it and found nothing at all on it but leaves. Then he said to it, “May no fruit ever come from you again!” And the fig tree withered at once. 20 When the disciples saw it, they were amazed, saying, “How did the fig tree wither at once?” 21 Jesus answered them, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done. 22 Whatever you ask for in prayer with faith, you will receive.”
So do continue in faith and prayer . . . and remember that those who produce no fruit are destied to wither immediately at death . . . but our prayers might remove the curse and provide the grace lacking.
Luke 16 gives us hope for this:
6 Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and found none. 7 So he said to the gardener, ‘See here! For three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree, and still I find none. Cut it down! Why should it be wasting the soil?’ 8 He replied, ‘Sir, let it alone for one more year, until I dig around it and put manure on it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, well and good; but if not, you can cut it down.’”
Prayer and sacrifice are helpful right up to the final hour.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Well, you know, if people don’t like ‘The Church’, then I have every sympathy with them. I think the view of who-goes-to-heaven and who-goes-to-hell may be rather limited here.
We’ve all met people who show contempt for their fellow human beings, go out of their way to do damage to others and seem to enjoy it. These are the people who go to hell, those who understand, and reject, what it means to ‘love your neighbour’.
I don’t think that someone who is turned off by ‘The Church’ where they see on the one hand ‘Christians’ who are so pious that they are a pain in the neck and wouldn’t commend Christ to anybody and on the other hand lots of weird business connected with the ceremonial side of things that they simply can’t stomach, is going to find themselves in Hell on that account.
The problem here may be a mistaken idea of who is actually going to Hell.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Yes, I think you have a point (several) here Jock. Never knew anyone who thought they were going there tell me that hell was real fire forever.
Happy 2016 to you Jock.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rob said:
I would like to clarify one matter here Zeke it is a common idea that people are judged by God immediately upon their death. However this is not a Biblical concept.
What I think is generally held by all churches about the unrighteous departed is that they await the ‘General Resurrection’. The judgement of the wicked takes place on what is referred to as ‘The Day of The Lord’. So the sequence of events that I envisage is that they enter what the OT calls Sheol, often just translated ‘the grave’ and which the NT calls Hades the place of the dead. Upon the General Resurrection, the judgement at ‘The Day of The Lord’ the wicked and Hades (hell) itself are cast into ‘The Lake of Fire’ (Gehenna) said to be the second death.
The position of the wicked in the period between death and resurrection is that explained by Jesus when speaking about Lazarus and Divers.
The position of the righteous in the intermediate period between death and resurrection has been considered differently by believers.
a) Catholics – most souls enter purgatory – those declared saint have entered heaven
b) Luther – souls of believers are in a state of sleep (soul sleep) awaiting the resurrection
c) Most Protestants and evangelicals – the departed enter immediately into heaven.
Following this point the explanation of future things for believers has a number of different explanations.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
Thank you Rob, this is extraordinarily helpful.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
Dave you have a very good brain and I’ll admit I am a wee bit envious. I wish I could think and write as clearly as you do. I think what you just wrote is very true. I also think that Jessica might reply with her question of why evil goes on existing if God is omnipotent (now that I’ve written that I’m not sure that is exactly what she wrote in another comment but it was something along those lines).
I’ve been thinking (I think) sort of along the same lines as you, if I understand you correctly. That God and goodness exist on the one hand and evil exists on the other hand. We know this is true from our experience in life. We as humans are exposed to both good and evil and we make choices that invariably have either good or evil (or at least bad) consequences. This is Life, the pull between good and evil.
God, who is all good, does not delight in suffering of any kind. Suffering is not of his nature, he cannot delight in the eternal torment of the damned. I think He does delight in perfect justice, because he is perfectly just, but I understand those here who have a hard time imagining a good God delighting in the torment of the damned or allowing it to happen. Why, my question is, does evil go on for all eternity after the Second Coming? Is it because that is just the nature of the universe as God created it, both now and forever? What do you think?
I tend to agree with newenglandsun, we are not meant actually to grasp any of this. It is better to contemplate God’s law night and day, and Jesus said to love God with all our hearts and all our minds and to love our neighbors as ourselves. That is all we really need to do and to know.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave Smith said:
Grandpa, I think you very well express what I am trying to get at. As to the continuance of hell for eternity we have both scripture and a natural inclination that what God sets in motion was for Himself an eternal act. And because He is true to Himself would never undo His creation or uncreate it.
Pain and suffering is a funny thing. Scripture says that God chastises those whom He loves. And so it is. Correction from bad habits and pleasures directed to ourselves is painful to our bodies and to our souls that are overly attached to our bodies. But then as we progress to the perfection of the saints, we see martyr and saint alike who do not count their sufferings in this world as an evil: in fact it is to them an act of love that they are being put in the crucible to refine them for God’s pleasure. They live for God’s delight and pleasure whilst we often do not or vacillate to varying degrees.
But after this temporary home, there comes a time when the testing and the corrections from God end. We have, by then we assume, made our choice and God is not capable of winning their hearts and their souls or re-oreinting them towards their highest Good, Himself. It is at that juncture that the foreseeable consequence of denied Good fills the hell into which they fall: for the all-knowing God realizes that the soul is irredeemable and cannot be saved.
I thought your thinking on this was a very good explanation. As to how this looks through a dark glass compared to the supernatural reality that we are journeying toward is like Newenglandsun says. The bottom line is to live for the pleasure and delight of our Lord and die to self.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
Thank you very much Dave. Much to think about here. It is good to be reminded of the saints and to meditate on their lives. I think I need to get back to that.
Besides a good brain you must have nimble fingers on the keyboard. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Thanks Grandpa. I’m trying but don’t know if it is having any impact outside of a few. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
You have a great impact, dear friend 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Not enough I’m afraid. This is where, when I was holding class I started drawing diagrams on the balckboard. That always meant that it more difficult to explain and that an metaphorical diagram might be best. 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I think you have helped a good deal – it seems to me that there is not such a gulf between us as might have been thought. C has one up later he tells me 🙂 xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
orthodoxgirl99 said:
I would add that these good posts have a very positive impact – for my part especially because they help me to discuss these deep subjects with others who perhaps have little knowledge or understanding, but who are curious or just beginning to know God. As I have mentioned before and others also noted….what we are discussing at the moment is still, to a large extent, a mystery and one which we can only guess at, albeit using the information we already have, as some kind of road marker. The main point I feel is that we know, accept and respect the FREE WILL which God has given each one of us. How we view that great freedom and what we do with it will inevitably be accounted for. We have a choice of eternal love and light at the Banquet of Our Lord……or….we choose to gamble on a life of hedonism, selfishness, evil etc. We are never forced and God would never force us to love him and choose Life and Light in Him…..BUT the consequences of a life of rebelling are beyond measure and I feel, irredeemable. In which case I don’t feel God would go chasing after souls who had clearly chosen the path of the fallen Angels. Thus – separation is the price we pay and the Holy Fire which warms and radiates our soul is replaced by the destructive, burning fire of Satan and his crew which is cold and agonising. Not for me thanks. I hope and pray that God will continue to lead me towards his Loving Light and help me to find Him each day.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave Smith said:
As I do as well Orthodox girl. It is never too late for us to turn our lives around and never too late to batter heaven with our prayers for those who are in grave danger of losing their God forever.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
What you, and Orthodoxgirl99 say here is very germane, and I think helpful. Jessica has helpfully started a useful discussion of the sort we have not had here for a while (possibly since she got ill, spot the connection 🙂 ). I have not been commenting much as I have been trying to put together a synopsis of what the Church officially teaches. As so often, I find something of a gap between what it is popularly supposed to be, and what is officially defined. I have now completed it and it should be up in about 45 minutes. I’d be very interested on your views when it is up.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Dave Smith said:
Looking forward to it my friend. As a Holy Day of Obligation I shall be heading to Mass about that time but will look in on it after a spot of lunch. Yes, Jess has a knack for getting us to put on our thinking caps . . . though in my case I can’t find it. Perhaps it is in a box in the attic. I’ll take look. 🙂
LikeLiked by 4 people
chalcedon451 said:
I wish I could find one locally, but there isn’t one within 35 miles! I shall be interested in your views if you have time on your return 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
What, a thinking cap or a Mass? 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
So very well expressed and appreciated, orthodoxgirl.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
No – sorry – it doesn’t work.
Try Matthew 5. in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus talks of eternal punishment and it’s quite clear that it is eternal.
It’s important to see who this punishment is for – it is for people who hate their neighbour.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Ummm …. well, perhaps I was wrong about Matthew 5. Take 5v22. The NIV says ‘danger of the fire of Hell’ (it doesn’t say eternal), but the Polish version I was reading yesterday (when I made the comment) says something along the lines of: ‘ ….. who called him a fool will end up in the fire place of everlasting punishment.’ (or something like that). The key point is that the word ‘everlasting’ or ‘eternal’ is there.
Can anybody tell me whether the idea of ‘eternal / everlasting’ is present in the Greek in Matthew 5v22?
Either way, I think it’s important to note the sort of behaviour and attitude that results in condemnation.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
If anyone is still interested, here is a little bit of help with sorting out all the sameness tossed around here recently: http://www.catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/asking-the-right-question-about-islams-god
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
I see that, unable to find a single church document that says ‘their God’ you resort to someone’s opinion. Your church documents are clear enough to those fluent in English and not ginnyspeak.
The test for you is plain – find one document which talks, as you do, about ‘their God’. You can’t, you’re busted, and as usual you will bluster and make a fuss. A bit sad really, but there we go, I suggest you try English as a language, or perhaps Latin – ginnyspeak is what Orwell called ‘doublespeak’.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Which part of ‘along with us adore the one and merciful God’ do you not understand? Only you think that is qualified away by the word ‘profess’ – your church language appears not to be ‘ginnyspeak’ either.
Over to you 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
And just for you:
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm
Not one of which agrees with you. Perhaps you are more Catholic than your Church?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
Good job, Jessica. I note that not one of those statements on the USCCB site compare Allah to Jesus. It is commonly understood that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are Abrahamic Religions. Ginny wants to object and say that we cannot take the Muslim’s word for who they worship, but historically this is how it has their religion been accepted and understood, as an Abrahamic religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
I really don’t see how, without denying the obvious because you can’t accept it, anyone could doubt that is what the RCC is saying. I don’t agree that we do. We know God is the Trinity, the Muslims deny that. It does look to me as though there are those in the Vatican who want to ignore this simple fact in the interests of ecuemenism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Grandpa Zeke said:
Part of the problem for Ginny may be, as she stressed in a recent comment addressed to you, the use of the word “teach” but really we are once again asked by her to split hairs and deny the obvious facts of the matter. The popes are the teachers of the Catholic faithful and they have said what they said (again, good job finding that link to the usccb). I take it that the Cathecism and the popes are not at all ignoring the fact that the Muslims deny the divinity of Christ and that they are referring to the historical understanding that Islam and Christianity are Abrahamic, or monotheistic, faiths. During my childhood this was simply understood to be a fact and was not contentious to dare to mention. Yes, I think you are right, the statements at the usccb site are an effort at ecumenism and also world peace. Not to say that any of that is working but I believe that is the impetus behind it. But wadda I know.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
PS I hope that Chalcedon manages to write his piece on this topic, I can imagine it is a struggle but would be worthwhile I am sure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Yes, me too. I know he is having trouble with it.
LikeLike
Rob said:
Ginny I think you know Very well that Jess is not saying that the Muslim god is the same as her God and that what she has said is that YOUR CHURCH HAS SAID IT IS THE SAME GOD. Read the section below that you first posted from your Church Catechism.
[The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and TOGETHER WITH US THEY ADORE THE ONE, MERCIFUL GOD, MANKIND’S JUDGE on the last day. ”http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/841.htm]
The condemning words are in capitals you church is stating that they adore the one God (together with us) i.e. with the RCC.
Muslims themselves do not claim this they oppose the Christian God.
Further throughout the next document you posted the Muslim god is capitalised as God by your church. If the RCC were saying that the Muslim god were a false god they would not have capitalised the word for deity, even as I suppose they would not if they were referring to the ‘god’ Zeus. The scriptures use ‘god’ for false ‘gods’ as opposed to God and we might reasonably expect the church of God to make the same distinction in ALL its documents and pronouncements when identifying false gods.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Rob – with a thread approaching 500 comments, it looks a little daunting to read all of them. You’ve already done this, so could I ask you to give a brief summary of how the Muslim question entered into the discussion? It doesn’t a-priori seem to be related.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
It was all my fault 😳 Ginny said something about Muslims and ‘their God’ and I pointed out that that is not the formulation her own Church uses, and that it said they worshiped the same God. Ginny does not agree, and is wriggling to find some way of denying the plain meaning of what her Church leaders have been saying for half a century.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
OK – then I understand.
She does seem to be very interested in what ‘The Church’ says – meaning the Roman Catholic church – even though perhaps she misquotes it and misunderstands it and sees what she wants to see in it, even if it doesn’t necessarily correspond to the reality.
On the Muslim issue – well, it basically doesn’t matter what the official RCC position about them is – anyone who wants to see life has to repent. In this matter, God deals with individuals and not with organisations.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
That’s about it, Jock 🙂 xx
LikeLike
Rob said:
It arose through the mention of the Jordanian pilot that ISIS burnt in a cage. Ginny wondered whether he was a Christian martyr both myself and Jess informed Ginny that he was a Muslim. Jess in a context I cannot recall mentioned that the RCC had identified the Christian God with the Muslim god. The RCC document seem to confirm that as far as I can see. Ginney contends this and the debate over this has continued between Ginny, Jess, Rob and Zeke since.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jock McSporran said:
Ah ha ….. now I understand. Well, probably the last thing on the mind of the Jordanian pilot, as he burned, was the question of what the RCC thought of the Muslim god.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
Quite, but ginny claimed he was a martyr. A statement she has not withdrawn, which was why I assumed she supported the view of her Church!
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Thank you Rob. My own views on this are, I hope, clear from this post:
https://jessicahof.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-same-god-christianity-and-islam/
as well as from the ‘dialogues with a Muslim’ posts.
I do not agree with the Roman Catholic Church on this, and I know C has very great difficulties with this teaching:
https://jessicahof.wordpress.com/2013/05/13/islam-and-christianity/
He is, he tells me, writing something on this, but having problems.
I respect and understand that view, but it does seem to me perfectly clear that the Vatican teaches that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God. I provided Ginny with a link to a set of Papal statements on the subject.
I understand why she rejects the conclusion, but she really ought not to claim that her Church agrees with her. It does not. I think it is profoundly mistaken – one of the reasons I could not be a Roman Catholic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Alrightie then. That is the problem: You keep mistating what they say. Nowhere in the documents do they acknowledge that the same God is worshipped by us as them. No where. They all clearly state what the Muslims profess to be true, not that we affirm that it is true. But if you insist to be able to interpret our Papal and Council documents as well as our Catechism better than we do, go for it. Anyone can read for themselves what they truly say. The sameness you insist is there, simply isn’t.
On a side note Jess, I’m wondering why you expressed to me a few days ago that you’ve been an Anglican all your life and consider yourself very faithful to it. And I sensed an air of pride in this. So, I’m wondering why it is you don’t present a clear picture of what your church teaches about all these issues. I’d be interested in a comparison side by side. It would help me see things clearer. If you presented your “official” Anglican teaching along side your own interpretations and compared to what we Catholics believe, then it would be most helpful. I’m not Anglican obviously, so I cannot speak as one who believes what you do. See what I mean? I hope you do. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
If you managed to read that long list of Papal statements and come to that conclusion, you have demonstrated your own pridefulness. Your Church is clear, you won’t believe it.
Unlike your own Church, Anglicans don’t need a magisterium – we have minds and are encouraged to use them.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
Which bit of this:
““The Church has also a high regard for the Muslims. They worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth” says what you say? Or this:
““Then [we refer] to the adorers of God according to the conception of monotheism, the Muslim religion especially, deserving of our admiration for all that is true and good in their worship of God.””
Note, it does not say ‘of their God’.
Keep dodging ginny. Not once have you provided a Vatican statement which talks, as you do, of ‘their God’.
It is fin watching you wriggle – a new dance, we shall call it the ‘ginny ginny shake’.
LikeLike
Rob said:
There seems to be a fair bit of syncretism entering the RCC post V2. It has also become a source of the same problem affecting some evangelical churches through what is termed ‘The Emergent Church’ (the term was first used in some post V2 documents). It involves Eastern meditation techniques introduced through Catholic monks and has affected churches as diverse as the 7th Day Adventists and their theological colleges. I did a fair bit of research on this some time ago but ended up with so much material that it became daunting for me to summarise as a post. Most concerning if you are interested I can give you some links.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
I would be interested Rob, if it was not too much trouble.
I really cannot see how any RC can deny the obvious following the long list of statements from various Popes and post V2 documents. I can see why they would want to, but that’s not the same thing at all.
God is the Holy Trinity, and if you don’t believe that you don’t worship the same God as Christians. The Muslims don’t believe in the Trinity, so they don’t worship the same God. I think you have to be a Pope or an RC theologian to think otherwise.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Hello Rob. About those “condemning” words in capitals. Read it again s-l-o-w-l-y, the whole sentence. The Church is stating that the Muslims claim/profess/assert that they worship/adore the same God as us, but this isn’t so. Whose word to you take for Church teaching? The Church’s word or the Muslims word? Not a trick question. Easy answer: The Muslims saying they adore the same God as Abraham adored is a false statement because the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the One true God, Jesus Christ, one God in three persons, a Trinity. This is all expressly denied by Muslims except their god’s oneness. And even though as the documents state, they claim/profess/assert that their god has some of the attributes of our God, everyone knows this isn’t the same God. Can’t. be. Here is an article I think you may be interested on the subject from the folks at CA. I particularly like the author’s own thoughts when he says this: “But Islam explicitly rejects that revelation and replaces it with a false substitute. That makes Islam’s God, despite whatever true things that the Quran says about him (whether gleaned from reason, plagiarized from Scripture, or captured by Muhammad’s imagination), a false God. According to what I think is the most helpful way of defining the question.” The rest can be found here – http://www.catholic.com/blog/todd-aglialoro/asking-the-right-question-about-islams-god
I hope it helps you see things from a fuller perspective. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
It isn’t the Muslims saying it- it is your Church. You are so in denial on this you should qualify for Egyptian citizenship.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Oh one other thing Rob. I suppose if you did like any other irresponsible, sensationalist journalist did and made a headline that looked like this: Church proclaims that Muslims and Catholics TOGETHER WITH US THEY ADORE THE ONE, MERCIFUL GOD, MANKIND’S JUDGE with those infamous condemning words in bold print, you could shock a few trusting individuals into thinking the Current Church administration has sold us out to Mohammed and sell a few papers. Some have done so in recent days and have failed. But as with many other similar articles, it would be consigned to the bottom of the bird cage where it would serve a better, high purpose. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Very good Rob! I’m impressed. I lost track myself of how we started down this alley. Thank you. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
What exactly is the trouble the Chalcedon is having writing the piece? Is it that he finds he has to humbly accept that Bosco was right all along?
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
That would be an interesting epiphany Jock. No, it is easy enough – the statements seem to indicate that Jessica is right about what the Church believes on this issue, but like her, and many others, I have real trouble with it.
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Courage, Chalcedon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you Zeke.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dave Smith said:
Perhaps these will help you with your article on the Muslim Allah and the Catholic God:
http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/803-the-pointlessness-of-the-catholic-muslim-same-god-debate
http://taylormarshall.com/2014/08/muslims-worship-god-christians.html
Just trying to help . . . 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you – my problem is with what it looks like the church is teaching, so all help welcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I think the first link makes the most sense though Dr. Marshall is no slouch.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
It does, but it can’t escape the conclusion that if asked, the answer to the question is yes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Well the answer is a bit nuanced: monotheists are monotheists which we all accept. Wihout knowing it these false religions are addressing the God of Christianity that they really don’t know or understand. Therefore their worship is spurious but all they know.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
But it still amounts to a statement that we worship the same God. The fact that the Hindu gods are added to the list makes me wonder who writes this stuff. If the Church says it, I accept it – I cannot see it myself, but there it is, it must be accepted with docility.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
I do not accept it and need not as it seems the most egregious example of false irenicism being fostered to pander to the ideas of ecumenism. The words from our early fathers and the saints give a far different understanding. I know I had an essay by Sheen on my website concerning Muslims but can’t remember what is in it: maybe it will be helpful . . . I shall have to read it again. Here is the link: https://servusfidelis.wordpress.com/?s=moslems&submit=
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you Dave – good essay. I think all he arguments are against what the Vatican has been saying – but it keeps saying it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Everyone post VII is saying it. I tried a seach at the Vatican Website. The only papal encyclical from before the VII that I found so far is not specific enough perhaps but it certainly states such thinking as we have now as a product of Modernism: PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X
ON THE DOCTRINES OF THE MODERNISTS
The section title for the mentio is:
The Modernist as Believer:
Individual Experience and Religious Certitude
This is paragraph 14.
There may be others but since I just got up to quench my thirst, I have not had time to look further. Maybe later . . . though it may be too late for your essay.
There are myriad quotes from saints etc. that deny the common reading of the day . . . but then they are not magisterial.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
You put your finger on it. None of the statements the other way is magisterial- alas.
LikeLike
Dave Smith said:
Not the same God but a shadowy, parody or distorted facsimile of the same God. It is tough . . . to find anything that was definitively taught prior to VII that we can use to mitigate or try to create a hermeneutic of continuity.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The problem here is clear I think. The Vatican is saying we worship the same God. It is clear to me that we don’t, and I have not yet seen an argument the other way which is convincing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Seems to me that it is another ‘assumed by tradition’ argument that has been put to the test by VII.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It is very clearly what it looks like – a concession to false ecumenism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
It appears so at this point. I have skimmed the documents that had in them: ISLAM or MUSLIM or Moslem or MOHAMMED in the advanced search. So far I have gone through 43 screens of results and only found 1 so far pre VII. I’m nit sure if older documents will pop up in the remaining ???? screens that await my skimming.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you Dave. I am afraid that it looks like what it looks like!
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
…. in other words, Bosco was right. 🙂
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
About what? I’m not aware Bosco commented on this subject – but as I often pass over his comments, I may have missed the diamond on the dung heap!
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
You are, of course, correct about the content of Bosco’s comments (and I admire your polite choice of language).
But you do seem to be reaching the inevitable conclusion, though, that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Catholic church.
On their terms, I believe they are right. You can’t really say ‘the Muslims and Jews worship a different god from us because we’re Trinitarian and they’re not.’ Was Abraham trinitarian? Probably, because when God appeared to him (while pronouncing destruction on Sodom and Gomorrah) he did so in the form of three men – although Abraham probably had absolutely no idea of what the trinity actually meant. Was Moses trinitarian? Probably not – at least not consciously – and I don’t see any evidence that Elijah was consciously trinitarian either.
If you follow human descent (Isaac and Ishmael), then they all do worship the same God (note that in Genesis, God does say that Ishmael will be blessed and will be one or several great nations) – and if you belong to a church which practises infant baptism, then that is the logical conclusion of this is that Jews, Muslims and Christians all basically worship the same God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Thank you Jock.
You make some good points, and I think there is a solution, of sorts, to the problem – which I hope to put up later today!
LikeLike
Rob said:
“I cannot see it myself, but there it is, it must be accepted with docility.”
That’s one that worries me. Besides is it really accepted if you actually think otherwise?
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
I can understand that feeling well, Rob. Do look at what I have written when it is up. I have been sharing with my friends here (among whom I include your good self) my attempts to understand this. That has not, as the post will show, been an easy process, but I think it is one which comes to an intellectually and morally respectable position – which is what one might have expected, but which, at one point in the journey, seemed to me to be in doubt.
I am afraid ginny may well have been spooked a little by my sharing (perhaps over sharing?) the mental processes of struggling to understand both difficult concepts and overcoming one’s own reservations! We shall see soon what others think of the attempts.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Hello Chalcedon. Imagine yourself in a time machine capable of revisiting the past. You find yourself in Paris in the year 1854 and can read French. A man hands you a leaflet on a street corner and you pay him a franc for it. It proclaims the Catholic Church Now Believes Mary Was Conceived Immaculately! as its headline and the article below that contains the latest revelations from the Pope to pitiful mankind in right order. There are several articles in the leaflet, one of which has a headline that reads: Biblical Supports For New Catholic Teachings Do Not Exist! Be not deceived by the Papists………..and you can’t wait to read that one! Sounds juicey, so you thank the man, tip your hat to him and head for the club where you can cozy up to a brandy and cigar and have a marvelous talk of these matters with your friends and make heads or tails of all this new teaching. Ah, once at the club an old friend waves you over to his side and you quickly order two brandy’s and light up. Once warmed over, he notices the leaflet sticking from your pocket and produces his own copy from his vest and exclaims, “Yes, dear boy it will boil down to one or two words and the one you should bank on is “Promulgated.” The conversation takes off from there.
Here we have the same things, but in different days. Whenever the Church speaks there are always those who take issue with what we say. That will never stop till the final hour.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I simply cannot see that the Church is not saying that we and the Muslims worship the same God. The argument you deploy around the word ‘profess’ does not stand up as meaning otherwise. The clear sense of that long list of statements Jessica offered is plain and can be denied only by casuistry. I accepted her challenge to find one mention by us of ‘their God’ – I cannot find one, can you?
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
I’m Chalcedon. Really. End of conversation. I’ve said all I’ve been paid to say here and you got more than the usual two cents worth. Meatloaf leftover tonight were even better than the first. It usually works that way.
I noted that Dr. Marshall sinks his teeth into the word “profess” with gusto, while Mr. Jackson grabs hold of the sameness of deity angle. These are both points I used to counter Jess’ assertions on several levels, yet my saying the same things is considered wrong and in need of correction.
So, with these latest comments of yours, I can only conclude that you simply didn’t read any of the links and articles presented and are ignoring the fact that I have represented Catholic teaching correctly as well as defended it worthily. I will not be saying much else other than this notable guote: The Truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself. St. Augustine of Hippo.
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
All of that is casuistry, trying to escape the conclusion you and I do not want to accept. The Church is teaching that we worship the same job. You take refuge in word games, I am afraid I cannot go there. I read what is written, I know what it means. I disagree with what the Vatican is saying, but I am not prepared to pretend it is not saying it by playing games with the word profess.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
The problem, ginny, is that it is clear that the official pronouncements mean what they seem to mean. As with so many of this Pope’s pronouncements some try to apply spin to make it fit, but it doesn’t, not in the least.
I fear that against so many statements from Popes, the words of a few bloggers are as nothing. That list on the USSCB site contains very clear, official statements which say we worship the same God. I do not agree with them. I cannot, however, pretend that my own conclusions and those of other bloggers amount to Catholic teaching. The teaching of the last four Popes is clear. It is not what you (or I) think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ginnyfree said:
Good morning Chalcedon. Off to Mass and Communion in a few minutes. Praise God! But before – You are free to believe whatever you want to. You can think anything you want to about anything you read. That’s you. You feel firmly convicted that the Church is wrong and that it has given itself over to the worship of Allah, renouncing its Trinity of Persons in the Godhead. You say my Church is wrong and you are right. And thusly you agree with Jess as well as a few others, that my Church mislaid its convictions and became too ecumenical. So, now you can say that all the Catholics on the planet worship Allah openly. For if you believe your interpretation of the paragraphs is a few places firmly, then why not announce it to everyone and be done with us for betraying Jesus Christ? There ya go! If that is how you see it, then have the courage to live it. And that is exactly what you’re saying: the Church has sold us out to false worship because as you continue to claim, we worship the same god as the Muslims, Allah.
Or are you simply a bad little boy in a corner, banging a drum to gain attention?
God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
What I think is wrong is to place against the teaching of the Church either one’s own opinion, or the opinion of others who do anot speak for the Magisterium. I have read Marshall’s argument with great care, and do not agree with your view of it, if you think he is saying we do not worship the same God. He is not saying this. He, like myself, agrees that this is what the Church teaches, but sets out to put that in a wider and more nuanced context.
I think your comment outlines well where the error lies. To say that we worship the same God is not the same as saying the Church worships Allah or renounces the Trinity. Neither does it mean that in accepting the plain words of what the Church teaches, that the Church is in error, or, that in questioning how it reaches this conclusion, I am saying it is. I have been trying to understand a difficult and somewhat intractable subject – which is the sort of thing I do all the time.
I’ll be interested in your response to my piece – but please do read it with care.
LikeLiked by 2 people
JessicaHof said:
Best of luck with that one C – she will read into what she wants. I hope it is all in words of one syllable and presents the world in ginnyspeaks’s black and white!
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It will be up soon, and you can all judge. I am beginning to wonder whether I have not over-shared by thinking processes? On the other hand, it has been helpful to me 🙂
LikeLike
JessicaHof said:
What a wonderfully mature contribution to a debate that was ginny. If that is what you read in a sincere attempt to come to terms with what your church teaches, then it says much about you that, had you the slightest sense of self awareness, would make you ashamed of yourself. I doubt you will feel that.
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Nice links Dave. I read them both. One thing I noticed, several of the points I brought up were repeated and elaborated upon in both articles, yet my stating the same things here, brought attacks. These links provide very clear repeats of some of the very same things I said regarding this issue. I’m saying the same stuff, but according to several persons here, I’m wrong and not speaking with the same voice as my own Church. My responses have been called uninformed, mistaken, erroneous, as well as a few other things, yet these men in these articles are repeating the things I said. Howzthathappenin’? I’m a poor, ignorant, mistaken and even sadly pitiable misinformed Catholic, yet not one word about these same statements coming from others? Yeah. Okie dokie. Good thing I don’t take to heart any of the strange notions that abound here about the stuff I write. If I did, I’d be very bloodied. Thanks for the positive affirmations. God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Your welcome, Ginny.
Well when I was young and the kids were trying to imitate Elvis, the old line was “maybe you weren’t holding your mouth right.” 🙂
LikeLike
ginnyfree said:
Nah. If I used my real name and it had STL after it, I’d probably get fewer insults and be treated differently. Or perhaps it is my frequent use of such words as phooey and gooey that is part of the problem. Dayathink that may have somthin’ ta do wit it? God bless. Ginnyfree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave Smith said:
Really, I think it comes down to our choice of words and the respect we give to our opponents. After all, when writing, we don’t have facial expressions and body language or smiles or a wink to let the other folks know that you are amiable but disagree. It was hard for me when I started doing this blogging thing at first . . . and I still have some problems with misunderstandings but its part of the learning curve. I hope I’m getting better at it . . . its a work in progress.
LikeLiked by 1 person
JessicaHof said:
That might be because you don’t seem to understand the Taylor article. He is not denying that Catholics and Muslims worship the same God, he is saying that they don’t have the same understanding of God – which may be too subtle a difference for your need to see everything in black and white.
You also seem not to understand how to weigh evidence. In your world Dr Marshall’s statement is the equivalent of what the Popes have said; in the real world it is not. Did someone die and elect Dr Marshall Pope? You have, as ever, banged away with your own opinion and articles you imagine support it. You have not once engaged with any of that long list of Papal statements I gave you.
This is the reason I regard your comments in the way I do. As usual, I give reasons for my opinions, as usual, you don’t.
You have utterly failed to find a single Vatican statement (or indeed one from Dr Marshall) which talks about ‘their God’ in relation to Muslims. This is your phrase, you cannot back it up, so, as usual, you bluster.
If you took any of this to heart, you would have to start thinking seriously instead of opining; always easier to do the latter 🙂
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
C, my last comment is lost. I labored over it and hope that you will read it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
It got caught in the spam filter, but I have released it and will respond – thank you for it 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandpa Zeke said:
Chalcedon I am glad you have contributed some thoughts to this thread. Steve as well. I waded into this with zero prior knowledge of the controversy about “sameness”. I knew that recent popes had made statements about Muslims worshipping the same god (or God, as the CCC puts it) and so thought justified in defending Jess’s original statement on this. The popes speak and people listen. I believe that Jess had heard the statements over the years and thus concluded that this is what the Church teaches.
Where I disagree with Jess and apparently with both Chalcedon and Steve and everyone else (so I concede that I must be wrong) is that the CCC or the popes mean to be saying the the God that is supposedly worshiped by other religions is “theologically equivalent to the Christian God”. I hope that Chalcedon might expound on this a bit in his post. That little paragraph in the CCC about Muslims doesn’t say that Muslims profess either the Nicene Creed (“…through him all things were made”) or John 10:30 where Jesus says “I am the Father are one.” Why (and I ask this question respectfully and urgently in need of an answer so that I may resume nights of restful sleep) must we read this paragraph in the CCC to mean more than what it says?
Steve, thanks so much for the links to the interesting articles that provide background information to the controversy. I agree with the Remnant article that (I am not quoting directly so may get this wrong) one problem with all of this is that the V2 documents say too little and leave it an open question that festers into this kind of mayhem among the faithful. But I want to add one thought of mine here. That statement from V2 that the Remnant reporter says was hastily tacked on to appease the Middle Eastern bishops did make it into the CCC. My copy of the CCC has the imprintur of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. I have read elsewhere that imprinturs are not necessarily guarantees of …. I forget the word….but my point is is that Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI was anything but hasty. I trust he knew what the paragraph in question was saying, and so I take his word over that of the Remnant reporter.
OK, back to refill my coffee cup and then I am sure the word I can’t think of will pop into my head.
LikeLike
chalcedon451 said:
I have rescued this Zeke, and thank you for it. I hope you will find my new post a help here. Boiled down it says that the Church does say we worship the same God, but that Islam has a very imperfect understanding of him.
LikeLike
Grandpa Zeke said:
Thank you C, I see it and realize that it is a garbled mess. I’d just like to reiterate that I understand the clear words on the page of the CCC, what I don’t understand fully is the controversy that has arisen about “sameness”. I’m not asking you to expound more than you already have, I am just saying that is one of my puzzlements over this issue.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
As I have tried to say to Rob just now, I think what is being said is that we both recognise God is one, and up to (and not beyond) that we are on the same page. But they are 27 books behind!
LikeLike
Pingback: Do Muslims and Catholics worship the same God? | All Along the Watchtower
Pingback: Arguing with each other | All Along the Watchtower