Understandable.
Advertisement
by Menassa » Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:54 pm
by Nu Sparta » Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:22 pm
by Nationalist State of Knox » Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:03 am
Nu Sparta wrote:Even when I was Christian I never truly believed in hell as a place of fire and physical torment. The OP has now given me great factual information to defend myself with in debates with my more "Blind-Faith" friends. Personally I hate the idea of "Blind-Faith". If you walk down a path full of obstacles with your eyes closed your going to hit something yes? As a Neo-Pagan I try to live through my beliefs with open eyes. I trust in my beliefs, but if I saw a hole in the road I would stop and contemplate why it was there and what made it, attempt to fix it even before making my way around it.
Ifreann wrote:Knox: /ˈɡɪl.ɡə.mɛʃ/
by Christmahanikwanzikah » Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:11 am
by Meryuma » Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:19 am
Distruzio wrote: The Church is infallible.
Niur wrote: my soul has no soul.
Saint Clair Island wrote:The English language sucks. From now on, I will refer to the second definition of sexual as "fucktacular."
Trotskylvania wrote:Alternatively, we could go on an epic quest to Plato's Cave to find the legendary artifact, Ockham's Razor.
Norstal wrote:Gunpowder Plot: America.
Meryuma: "Well, I just hope these hyperboles don't...
*puts on sunglasses*
blow out of proportions."
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
by Xlanar » Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:36 am
Hell. An English translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, hell signifies an abode of departed spirits and corresponds to the Greek Hades. In common speech it generally denotes the place of torment for the wicked, although it has been often held, both in the Jewish and the Christian churches, that Hades (meaning broadly the place of all departed spirits) consists of two parts, paradise and Gehenna, one the abode of the righteous and the other of the disobedient.
...In latter-day revelation hell is spoken of in at least two senses. One is the temporary abode in the spirit world of those who were disobedient in this mortal life. It is between death and the resurrection.
...On the other hand, the devil and his angels are assigned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire—a figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in the scriptures (2 Pet. 2:4; D&C 29:38; 88:113). This kind of hell, which is after the resurrection and judgment, is exclusively for the devil and his angels, and is not the same as that consisting only of the period between death and resurrection. The one group are redeemed from hell and inherit some degree of glory. The other receive no glory. They continue in spiritual darkness. For them the conditions of hell remain.
by The Archregimancy » Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:48 am
by Queen Elizabeth Landia » Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:54 am
by CTALNH » Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:26 am
by Gideus » Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:34 am
Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:Everything you said is perfect.
by Ashkland » Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:35 am
by Gideus » Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:35 am
The Archregimancy wrote:I see no particular reason to spend time on a thread that takes such a narrowly Augustinian version of Hell (especially since The Realm of God has already beaten me to posting about apocatstasis).
I'll just refer the OP to my previously expressed opinion on the latter, which can be found in Farnhamia's sig.
Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:Everything you said is perfect.
by The Archregimancy » Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:38 am
Gideus wrote:The Archregimancy wrote:I see no particular reason to spend time on a thread that takes such a narrowly Augustinian version of Hell (especially since The Realm of God has already beaten me to posting about apocatstasis).
I'll just refer the OP to my previously expressed opinion on the latter, which can be found in Farnhamia's sig.
Arch, my good sir...
Are you suggesting that there are cats in hell?
I didn't actually read back through the conversation. Shoot me.
by Menassa » Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:39 am
Ashkland wrote:I don't know about christianity much, but in Judaism, "Gan Eden" (Heaven) and "Gehenom" (Hell), is not an afterlife thing.
In fact, the word "Hell" (Both in English and Hebrew) comes from the word "Gehenna", it is a place where children were sacrificed to Moloch.
by Gideus » Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:52 am
Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:Everything you said is perfect.
by The Kal Empire » Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:04 am
Nationalist State of Knox wrote: In Christianity, this ‘damnation’ is supposed to be the punishment for refusing Christ and failing to repent one’s wrongdoing (or sin) against God.
by Gideus » Mon Feb 25, 2013 7:10 am
The Kal Empire wrote:Nationalist State of Knox wrote: In Christianity, this ‘damnation’ is supposed to be the punishment for refusing Christ and failing to repent one’s wrongdoing (or sin) against God.
Incorrect.
A sin is a wrongdoing of any kind, that is punished by God.
Murder, for example, is not sinning against God, but it is sinning, and therefor one would be sent to the fiery pits of Hell for eternal damnation.
Sinning against God would be more like urinating on a Church wall.
Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:Everything you said is perfect.
by Nationalist State of Knox » Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:45 am
The Archregimancy wrote:I see no particular reason to spend time on a thread that takes such a narrowly Augustinian version of Hell (especially since The Realm of God has already beaten me to posting about apocatstasis).
I'll just refer the OP to my previously expressed opinion on the latter, which can be found in Farnhamia's sig.
The Kal Empire wrote:Nationalist State of Knox wrote: In Christianity, this ‘damnation’ is supposed to be the punishment for refusing Christ and failing to repent one’s wrongdoing (or sin) against God.
Incorrect.
A sin is a wrongdoing of any kind, that is punished by God.
Murder, for example, is not sinning against God, but it is sinning, and therefor one would be sent to the fiery pits of Hell for eternal damnation.
Sinning against God would be more like urinating on a Church wall.
Ifreann wrote:Knox: /ˈɡɪl.ɡə.mɛʃ/
by Nationalist State of Knox » Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:04 am
Ifreann wrote:Knox: /ˈɡɪl.ɡə.mɛʃ/
by Death Metal » Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:05 am
by Distruzio » Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:09 am
Nationalist State of Knox wrote:Distruzio wrote:
I'd say that the limitations demonstrate the faith and trust of Jesus in the men He authorized. Then again, I'm not an antitheist, like you are.
It seems that this has become a matter of belief rather than logic. As far as I am concerned, unless Jesus directly authorised Peter's successors, they were illegitimate. Therefore, as a consequence, the Church's authority is illegitimate, which means that only men can interpret the Bible, thus rendering your entire argument invalid and my OP wholly valid.
by Distruzio » Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:11 am
by Nationalist State of Knox » Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:32 am
Distruzio wrote:Nationalist State of Knox wrote:It seems that this has become a matter of belief rather than logic. As far as I am concerned, unless Jesus directly authorised Peter's successors, they were illegitimate. Therefore, as a consequence, the Church's authority is illegitimate, which means that only men can interpret the Bible, thus rendering your entire argument invalid and my OP wholly valid.
Incorrect. It does become a matter of belief, as you point out, but belief is not absent logic.
For instance... if I see that the sky is blue in non-rainy areas with white clouds within the visual limitations of my line of sight, then assuming that the sky outside the visual limitations of my line of sight is also blue in non-rainy areas with white clouds is, indeed, a belief made within reason and logic.
If I see that Jesus appointed Peter and the other apostles as legitimate heirs to His authority, even though they were repeatedly chastised by Jesus for lacking faith at times or for being obtuse at other times, then I cannot be criticized for also believing that the men those chosen directly by Jesus were also legitimate heirs to His authority. Furthermore, if it was the men authorized by the apostles who created the Bible after having created the Church, then I cannot be criticized for reasonably assuming that I should defer to their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures on all matters as I was never authorized by anyone to interpret the scripture.
Moreover, your reasoning here fails to consider the fact that Jesus pointed out that He was the Head of the Church and that the believers were the Body of Christ. Meaning that those men you now attempt to cast doubt on were, in fact, chosen by the Head of the Church as it was the Church, comprised of fallen and men of frailty, who chose them, to speak with His authority.
Ifreann wrote:Knox: /ˈɡɪl.ɡə.mɛʃ/
by Distruzio » Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:45 am
Nationalist State of Knox wrote:Distruzio wrote:
Incorrect. It does become a matter of belief, as you point out, but belief is not absent logic.
For instance... if I see that the sky is blue in non-rainy areas with white clouds within the visual limitations of my line of sight, then assuming that the sky outside the visual limitations of my line of sight is also blue in non-rainy areas with white clouds is, indeed, a belief made within reason and logic.
If I see that Jesus appointed Peter and the other apostles as legitimate heirs to His authority, even though they were repeatedly chastised by Jesus for lacking faith at times or for being obtuse at other times, then I cannot be criticized for also believing that the men those chosen directly by Jesus were also legitimate heirs to His authority. Furthermore, if it was the men authorized by the apostles who created the Bible after having created the Church, then I cannot be criticized for reasonably assuming that I should defer to their interpretation of the Holy Scriptures on all matters as I was never authorized by anyone to interpret the scripture.
Moreover, your reasoning here fails to consider the fact that Jesus pointed out that He was the Head of the Church and that the believers were the Body of Christ. Meaning that those men you now attempt to cast doubt on were, in fact, chosen by the Head of the Church as it was the Church, comprised of fallen and men of frailty, who chose them, to speak with His authority.
But the fact that Jesus neglected to say that Peter's successors were a legitimate authority to interpret the Bible doesn't mean that we should assume that they were. If anything, we should assume the opposite.
It's like suggesting that because I pass an item onto my friend when I die, I want their son to have it when they die.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cannot think of a name, Cyptopir, Sarduri, Shrillland, The Plough Islands, Tungstan, Victorious Decepticons
Advertisement