Anglican church against gay marriage

[United Marxist Nations]

In terms of the "lake of fire"? No, fire is often used as simply a metaphor for great suffering. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says that purgatory consists of "cleansing fire". The fire here is not literal, but represents the pain one will receive from having to confront the results of their sins.

What pain would that be?

The pain of acknowledging the wrongness of past ways, as well as any consequences of that sin.

[Othelos]

What pain would that be?

The pain of acknowledging the wrongness of past ways, as well as any consequences of that sin.

Which are?

[United Marxist Nations]

The pain of acknowledging the wrongness of past ways, as well as any consequences of that sin.

Which are?

Emotional pain, physical pain, etc.

[The Black Forrest]

Sorry; I was looking for the thread on the Anglican Church being against gay marriage and have seemed to walked in on an Atheism vs religion thread.

[Othelos]

Which are?

Emotional pain, physical pain, etc.

When I was a child and I lied to my mom she would spank me. But as I got older she was able to teach me the consequences of my actions differently because I could actually understand why I was wrong and didn't need the addition of physical pain to change my behavior. We are not children.

Plus torturing someone might get them to change their behavior, but it just leads them to dislike the torturer. So there isn't really any positive ending to this.

[United Marxist Nations]

Emotional pain, physical pain, etc.

When I was a child and I lied to my mom she would spank me. But as I got older she was able to teach me the consequences of my actions differently because I could actually understand why I was wrong and didn't need the addition of physical pain to change my behavior. We are not children.

Plus torturing someone might get them to change their behavior, but it just leads them to dislike the torturer. So there isn't really any positive ending to this.

The torturer is oneself. The pain results directly "from the nature of sin."

[Othelos]

When I was a child and I lied to my mom she would spank me. But as I got older she was able to teach me the consequences of my actions differently because I could actually understand why I was wrong and didn't need the addition of physical pain to change my behavior. We are not children.

Plus torturing someone might get them to change their behavior, but it just leads them to dislike the torturer. So there isn't really any positive ending to this.

The torturer is oneself. The pain results directly "from the nature of sin."

Guess who created that concept and that place for people to go.

[United Marxist Nations]

The torturer is oneself. The pain results directly "from the nature of sin."

Guess who created that concept and that place for people to go.

He also created us, and gave us free will. We can use our free will as we please, but He doesn't have to accept such actions.

[Othelos]

Guess who created that concept and that place for people to go.

He also created us, and gave us free will. We can use our free will as we please, but He doesn't have to accept such actions.

We don't have free will. If he knows everything that has happened and will happen, then he knows how we are going to choose [and thus free will is an illusion] but creates us anyway.

[United Marxist Nations]

He also created us, and gave us free will. We can use our free will as we please, but He doesn't have to accept such actions.

We don't have free will. If he knows everything that has happened and will happen, then he knows how we are going to choose [and thus free will is an illusion] but creates us anyway.

Predestination is a very difficult topic, and I admit I don't fully understand it (it is reserved for theological dispute for the most part, for a reason, in the Catholic Church), but here is something which I dug up on Eastern Orthodox views of the matter:

Answer: The fact that the Kingdom of God is "taken by force" presupposes personal effort. When the Apostle Paul says, "it is not of him that willeth," this means that one's efforts do not produce what is sought. It is necessary to combine them: to strive and to expect all things from grace. It is not one's own efforts that will lead to the goal, because without grace, efforts produce little; nor does grace without effort bring what is sought, because grace acts in us and for us through our efforts. Both combine in a person to bring progress and carry him to the goal. (God's) foreknowledge is unfathomable. It is enough for us with our whole heart to believe that it never opposes God's grace and truth, and that it does not infringe man's freedom. Usually this resolves as follows: God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly. Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination.

- Bishop Theophan the Recluse

Do, I understand it? No, to be completely honest. Just because I have one as my flag, doesn't mean I am a theological scholar, unfortunately. Though, this is what the man in the flag (Saint Augustine) had to say on the matter:

[God] promised not from the power of our will but from His own predestination. For He promised what He Himself would do, not what men would do. Because, although men do those good things which pertain to God’s worship, He Himself makes them to do what He has commanded; it is not they that cause Him to do what He has promised. Otherwise the fulfilment of God’s promises would not be in the power of God, but in that of men"

[Othelos]

We don't have free will. If he knows everything that has happened and will happen, then he knows how we are going to choose [and thus free will is an illusion] but creates us anyway.

Predestination is a very difficult topic, and I admit I don't fully understand it (it is reserved for theological dispute for the most part, for a reason, in the Catholic Church), but here is something which I dug up on Eastern Orthodox views of the matter:

Answer: The fact that the Kingdom of God is "taken by force" presupposes personal effort. When the Apostle Paul says, "it is not of him that willeth," this means that one's efforts do not produce what is sought. It is necessary to combine them: to strive and to expect all things from grace. It is not one's own efforts that will lead to the goal, because without grace, efforts produce little; nor does grace without effort bring what is sought, because grace acts in us and for us through our efforts. Both combine in a person to bring progress and carry him to the goal. (God's) foreknowledge is unfathomable. It is enough for us with our whole heart to believe that it never opposes God's grace and truth, and that it does not infringe man's freedom. Usually this resolves as follows: God foresees how a man will freely act and makes dispositions accordingly. Divine determination depends on the life of a man, and not his life upon the determination.

- Bishop Theophan the Recluse

Do, I understand it? No, to be completely honest. Just because I have one as my flag, doesn't mean I am a theological scholar, unfortunately. Though, this is what the man in the flag (Saint Augustine) had to say on the matter:

[God] promised not from the power of our will but from His own predestination. For He promised what He Himself would do, not what men would do. Because, although men do those good things which pertain to God’s worship, He Himself makes them to do what He has commanded; it is not they that cause Him to do what He has promised. Otherwise the fulfilment of God’s promises would not be in the power of God, but in that of men"

Is god omniscient?

[United Marxist Nations]

Predestination is a very difficult topic, and I admit I don't fully understand it (it is reserved for theological dispute for the most part, for a reason, in the Catholic Church), but here is something which I dug up on Eastern Orthodox views of the matter:


- Bishop Theophan the Recluse

Do, I understand it? No, to be completely honest. Just because I have one as my flag, doesn't mean I am a theological scholar, unfortunately. Though, this is what the man in the flag (Saint Augustine) had to say on the matter:

Is god omniscient?

Yes, but He behaves more passively than you might expect. He will provide salvation, but we must be willing to humble ourselves to receive it.

[Othelos]

Is god omniscient?

Yes, but He behaves more passively than you might expect. He will provide salvation, but we must be willing to humble ourselves to receive it.

if god is omniscient, then there's literally no way that he doesn't know who will go to heaven and not. We're presented with a false choice.

If God sees that I'm in heaven, I will be in heaven, it's not really up to me because I can't change that.

[United Marxist Nations]

Yes, but He behaves more passively than you might expect. He will provide salvation, but we must be willing to humble ourselves to receive it.

if god is omniscient, then there's literally no way that he doesn't know who will go to heaven and not. We're presented with a false choice.

If God sees that I'm in heaven, I will be in heaven, it's not really up to me because I can't change that.

I don't think it is that absolute. The Churches are pretty forthcoming in that it is impossible for the human mind to understand the very idea of infinite knowledge, or God's will. Whether He knows what we will choose, or simply knows what choices we have to make, is a topic of debate.

[The Rich Port]

... Really?

I thought the Anglican church was totally for gay marriage.

They even have a gay bishop.

[Othelos]

if god is omniscient, then there's literally no way that he doesn't know who will go to heaven and not. We're presented with a false choice.

If God sees that I'm in heaven, I will be in heaven, it's not really up to me because I can't change that.

I don't think it is that absolute. The Churches are pretty forthcoming in that it is impossible for the human mind to understand the very idea of infinite knowledge, or God's will. Whether He knows what we will choose, or simply knows what choices we have to make, is a topic of debate.

If he knows everything, then how would he not know the future? Unless you are suggesting he isn't really omniscient.

[Othelos]

... Really?

I thought the Anglican church was totally for gay marriage.

They even have a gay bishop.

I think you're thinking of the Episcopal Church, which is a member of the Anglican communion.

[United Marxist Nations]

I don't think it is that absolute. The Churches are pretty forthcoming in that it is impossible for the human mind to understand the very idea of infinite knowledge, or God's will. Whether He knows what we will choose, or simply knows what choices we have to make, is a topic of debate.

If he knows everything, then how would he not know the future? Unless you are suggesting he isn't really omniscient.

The debate stems from whether there is a the future or whether there is the possibility that He knows of all possible futures, but that we are able to choose the one which takes place.

[The Rich Port]

... Really?

I thought the Anglican church was totally for gay marriage.

They even have a gay bishop.

I think you're thinking of the Episcopal Church, which is a member of the Anglican communion.

Suppose I am.

So, what, does that even affect the Episcopalians and the Church of Canada?

Well, I suppose Anglicanism is nowhere near as popular in the U.S.

[United Marxist Nations]

... Really?

I thought the Anglican church was totally for gay marriage.

They even have a gay bishop.

I think you're thinking of the Episcopal Church, which is a member of the Anglican communion.

In fairness, I wouldn't think there would be anything preventing a homosexual from becoming a bishop.

[Othelos]

If he knows everything, then how would he not know the future? Unless you are suggesting he isn't really omniscient.

The debate stems from whether there is a the future or whether there is the possibility that He knows of all possible futures, but that we are able to choose the one which takes place.

OHHH okay I see what you're saying. That would explain why his actions have been so ridiculously messy when it comes to the old testament.

Either way he's still the reason why there's a place where people suffer. He created a world wherein his existence isn't obvious, and then punishes people who don't see it.

[United Marxist Nations]

The debate stems from whether there is a the future or whether there is the possibility that He knows of all possible futures, but that we are able to choose the one which takes place.

OHHH okay I see what you're saying. That would explain why his actions have been so ridiculously messy when it comes to the old testament.

Either way he's still the reason why there's a place where people suffer. He created a world wherein his existence isn't obvious, and then punishes people who don't see it.

It isn't really a place. It is impossible for there to be a place where He is not present. Therefore, logically speaking, hell is not place where He is not, but a state of mind in which one cannot perceive Him.

[Othelos]

OHHH okay I see what you're saying. That would explain why his actions have been so ridiculously messy when it comes to the old testament.

Either way he's still the reason why there's a place where people suffer. He created a world wherein his existence isn't obvious, and then punishes people who don't see it.

It isn't really a place. It is impossible for there to be a place where He is not present. Therefore, logically speaking, hell is not place where He is not, but a state of mind in which one cannot perceive Him.

If it's a state of mind then someone could just get out of it.

Also if I sound ignorant to you on this topic, blame my evangelical upbringing, where almost everything was literal and therefore easy to understand.

[United Marxist Nations]

It isn't really a place. It is impossible for there to be a place where He is not present. Therefore, logically speaking, hell is not place where He is not, but a state of mind in which one cannot perceive Him.

If it's a state of mind then someone could just get out of it.

Also if I sound ignorant to you on this topic, blame my evangelical upbringing, where almost everything was literal and therefore easy to understand.

It is okay. I spent five years in apostasy, so this allows me insight into atheism.

Yes, but what is seen in the state of mind of hell is an outright refusal to acknowledge Him, some would even say a hatred.

[Othelos]

If it's a state of mind then someone could just get out of it.

Also if I sound ignorant to you on this topic, blame my evangelical upbringing, where almost everything was literal and therefore easy to understand.

It is okay. I spent five years in apostasy, so this allows me insight into atheism.

Yes, but what is seen in the state of mind of hell is an outright refusal to acknowledge Him, some would even say a hatred.

Okay but if you were in there and realized you were in hell, you could just decide that how you feel is wrong in order to end the suffering.