The Christian Discussion thread IX: Pelagius Rising.

[Thermodolia]

>People thinking Hell is a laughing matter

>people thinking hell exists

[Thermodolia]

Big Jim P


"12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; 13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever."
(Jude 1:12-13, KJV)

I don’t think a satanist is going to give a rats ass about anything the Bible says

[G-Tech Corporation]

>People thinking Hell is a laughing matter

>people thinking hell exists

Ah, but it’s the logical axiom of self-preservation that dictates one should behave as if it does.

If there is no Hell, and religion is a sad joke, well, you’ve at least tried to live morally. And, perhaps I’m biased on this one, but I would categorically say a life lived well is more satisfying than one spent in pursuit of selfish desires.

If there is a Hell, and Christianity got it right, I’m a big fan of not ending up down there.

So you don’t lose anything through faith if you’re wrong, but lose a lot through disbelief if you’re wrong, neh?

[Novskya]

>people thinking hell exists

Ah, but it’s the logical axiom of self-preservation that dictates one should behave as if it does.

If there is no Hell, and religion is a sad joke, well, you’ve at least tried to live morally. And, perhaps I’m biased on this one, but I would categorically say a life lived well is more satisfying than one spent in pursuit of selfish desires.

If there is a Hell, and Christianity got it right, I’m a big fan of not ending up down there.

So you don’t lose anything through faith if you’re wrong, but lose a lot through disbelief if you’re wrong, neh?

sounds like a more pessimistic version of pascal's wager

[Thermodolia]

>people thinking hell exists

Ah, but it’s the logical axiom of self-preservation that dictates one should behave as if it does.

If there is no Hell, and religion is a sad joke, well, you’ve at least tried to live morally. And, perhaps I’m biased on this one, but I would categorically say a life lived well is more satisfying than one spent in pursuit of selfish desires.

If there is a Hell, and Christianity got it right, I’m a big fan of not ending up down there.

So you don’t lose anything through faith if you’re wrong, but lose a lot through disbelief if you’re wrong, neh?

Not having a hell doesn’t mean that religion is just a sad joke. Many religions, including my own, do not believe in the existence of hell, well not to the levels that Christianity goes to.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Ah, but it’s the logical axiom of self-preservation that dictates one should behave as if it does.

If there is no Hell, and religion is a sad joke, well, you’ve at least tried to live morally. And, perhaps I’m biased on this one, but I would categorically say a life lived well is more satisfying than one spent in pursuit of selfish desires.

If there is a Hell, and Christianity got it right, I’m a big fan of not ending up down there.

So you don’t lose anything through faith if you’re wrong, but lose a lot through disbelief if you’re wrong, neh?

sounds like a more pessimistic version of pascal's wager

More or less, yerp. Damned if you don’t, not damned if you do, something like that.

Ah, but it’s the logical axiom of self-preservation that dictates one should behave as if it does.

If there is no Hell, and religion is a sad joke, well, you’ve at least tried to live morally. And, perhaps I’m biased on this one, but I would categorically say a life lived well is more satisfying than one spent in pursuit of selfish desires.

If there is a Hell, and Christianity got it right, I’m a big fan of not ending up down there.

So you don’t lose anything through faith if you’re wrong, but lose a lot through disbelief if you’re wrong, neh?

Not having a hell doesn’t mean that religion is just a sad joke. Many religions, including my own, do not believe in the existence of hell, well not to the levels that Christianity goes to.

Sure, sure. Of course, many religions do believe in some form of less-than-optimal afterlife and other better afterlifes, or tiers of reincarnation, and so on- so insert the appropriate phrase as you wish.

[Soviet-mongol]

Pope Francis is an absolute monarch, and one with far fewer restraints on his formal power than in Saudi, but has difficulty getting the reforms he wants due to a set of constraints on his actions.

Francis tried abolishing Hell and the ceiling collapsed on his head.

Not that I particulary like the current Pope. I think he is the worst in the last hundert year... but did he really abolished the hell? This is a claim from the atheist journalist. The Vatican press claims the Pope never said this. So, to whom to believe?

[Thermodolia]

Not having a hell doesn’t mean that religion is just a sad joke. Many religions, including my own, do not believe in the existence of hell, well not to the levels that Christianity goes to.

Sure, sure. Of course, many religions do believe in some form of less-than-optimal afterlife and other better afterlifes, or tiers of reincarnation, and so on- so insert the appropriate phrase as you wish.

Well “hell”, we don’t even call it that, has been explained to me as something similar to purgatory. So it’s not exactly permanent. The idea of a permanent Hell is kinda silly

[G-Tech Corporation]

Sure, sure. Of course, many religions do believe in some form of less-than-optimal afterlife and other better afterlifes, or tiers of reincarnation, and so on- so insert the appropriate phrase as you wish.

Well “hell”, we don’t even call it that, has been explained to me as something similar to purgatory. So it’s not exactly permanent. The idea of a permanent Hell is kinda silly

Yknow, if you believe in “purgatory”, that just sweetens the pot for the Wager

Though, I’ve always found people finding Hell funny, well, funny. If you spend your entire life trying to separate yourself from your creator and rejecting a relationship with him, what is odd about him eventually giving you exactly what you want?

[Bienenhalde]

I have changed my view on christianity. From now on im only tolerating Christian Identity, and I won't accept anything else

Everyone who doesn't practice christian identity is a cuck, catholics, protestants, east orthodox, Luthern, ect. have all been cucked by jews

Totally heretical.

[Lower Nubia]

I spent a good portion of the afternoon studying objections to evolution, and I wish I hadn’t. I swear, YECs have the scientific literacy of a 9 year old. And that’s coming from me, who got a b- in college biology.

What were the objections?

[Tarsonis]

I spent a good portion of the afternoon studying objections to evolution, and I wish I hadn’t. I swear, YECs have the scientific literacy of a 9 year old. And that’s coming from me, who got a b- in college biology.

What were the objections?

From what I was studying, it was the problems Darwinian evolution poses for theists, which there are some but mainly just wrestling with concepts rather than breaking the game.


Then instarted reading theistic opostitiond to Evolution and it’s the most ridiculous pseudobable and sophistry I’ve read in a while. Check templedon’s sig for the link

[G-Tech Corporation]

What were the objections?

From what I was studying, it was the problems Darwinian evolution poses for theists, which there are some but mainly just wrestling with concepts rather than breaking the game.


Then instarted reading theistic opostitiond to Evolution and it’s the most ridiculous pseudobable and sophistry I’ve read in a while. Check templedon’s sig for the link

Personally, I'm a great lover of the multiversal defense for evolution.

[The Blaatschapen]

I used to be the Lamb of Mod.

You're going to hell for that one, most certainly.

I'll be in good company

[Lower Nubia]

From what I was studying, it was the problems Darwinian evolution poses for theists, which there are some but mainly just wrestling with concepts rather than breaking the game.


Then instarted reading theistic opostitiond to Evolution and it’s the most ridiculous pseudobable and sophistry I’ve read in a while. Check templedon’s sig for the link

Personally, I'm a great lover of the multiversal defense for evolution.

As in the multiverse? An idea built on the assumption of ex nihilio materialist creation of the universe, but without any scientific veracity to the its truth or not? It would make a pretty poor defence.

[Koalatopolis]

Personally, I'm a great lover of the multiversal defense for evolution.

As in the multiverse? An idea built on the assumption of ex nihilio materialist creation of the universe, but without any scientific veracity to the its truth or not? It would make a pretty poor defence.

I, a Catholic, am in full support of the theory of Evolution as well as the Big Bang and multiple other theories that Christians have denied. Here's why:

The theory of evolution is plausible as the Bible's specification of seven days during the creation doesn't actually specify seven days. The original Hebrew word, "yom", meant any amount of time from one day to an epoch. Therefore, creatures could have evolved over epochs and it is the most scientifically plausible as it has been shown that creatures adapt.

I am not, however, in support of the Darwin's Origin of Species, as it suggests that an ape without a soul would evolve as the generations go by into a human with a soul. Many Christians get Origin of Species confused with the theory of evolution, and they deny both in their ignorance.

Also: the Bible is known to make metaphors that show basic physical things in order to allow us to comprehend meta-physical or metaphysical concepts. Now, you don't expect God to go up to a scribe back in the day and say "Now, write down that I spawned an extraordinarily dense super-heated packet of material and caused it to explode out into space and let it settle overtime in order to create planets.", do you? I think that the Big Bang theory is perfectly plausible as well, and I hate it when Christians flat out deny it as impossible. We need to stay open minded and find things out for ourselves. Don't let a Sunday School teacher indoctrinate you with what she wants you to know. Seek the truth on your own.

[Salus Maior]

Francis tried abolishing Hell and the ceiling collapsed on his head.

Not that I particulary like the current Pope. I think he is the worst in the last hundert year... but did he really abolished the hell? This is a claim from the atheist journalist. The Vatican press claims the Pope never said this. So, to whom to believe?

No, he didn't.

As I, and basically every other Catholic on the thread, has said multiple times. It was tabloid journalism.

[Salus Maior]

Francis tried abolishing Hell and the ceiling collapsed on his head.

Not that I particulary like the current Pope. I think he is the worst in the last hundert year... but did he really abolished the hell? This is a claim from the atheist journalist. The Vatican press claims the Pope never said this. So, to whom to believe?

No, he didn't.

As I, and basically every other Catholic on the thread, has said multiple times. It was tabloid journalism.

[Salus Maior]

>People thinking Hell is a laughing matter

>people thinking hell exists

Considering we're on the CDT, yes, we do think Hell exists.

[Salus Maior]

Unless the nation which was scattered in 70 A.D. was raised up once more, events towards the latter half of Revelation make no sense. If prophecy were unfolding before your eyes, why won't you pay it more attention? The refounding of Israel in 1948 excited the entire Evangelical Protestant branch, 800 mil according to latest estimates. Even if we are 'schismatics' to the RC church, don't the magisterium generally support your Pontiff's exhortation to "know the smell of the sheep"?

So you're Evangelical now?

What the heck are you, man.

[Koalatopolis]

My theory is that we are in Hell at the moment. Allow me to explain.

First we must start with Hebrews 11:1
"Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
Then, Romans 14:23
"Whatever is not from faith is sin."

Therefore, we must logically conclude that doubt (or said lack of faith) is sin.

Assuming that Hell is a place of sin, suffering, and confusion as the Bible says, we can simply look around us. Our human nature drives us to question everything around us, including our own mortality, leading to confusion. The physical laws that bind us conflict with our nature, leading to strife, and sin increases exponentially. And through this, we may be able to form the conclusion that the physical world is Hell as opposed to the metaphysical realm which we call heaven.

[Tarsonis]

Again, Israel really isn’t important. The belief in a restoration of an Israeli nation state as a necessary precursor for the end times is a not an orthodox Christian belief. It’s a Protestant one that has roots in the reformation but didn’t really arise until the 19th century. It’s up there with the rapture as “Evangelical nonsense”

Unless the nation which was scattered in 70 A.D. was raised up once more, events towards the latter half of Revelation make no sense. If prophecy were unfolding before your eyes, why won't you pay it more attention? The refounding of Israel in 1948 excited the entire Evangelical Protestant branch, 800 mil according to latest estimates. Even if we are 'schismatics' to the RC church, don't the magisterium generally support your Pontiff's exhortation to "know the smell of the sheep"?

One should not be so quick to dismiss the viewpoint of so many others who have (or have not) been baptized with the Holy Spirit as merely "nonsense".

Only it is nonsense. #1 the Evangelical branch is not nearly 800 mil, that’s total Protestants.
#2. The Evangelical branch getting excited isn’t proof of anything.
#3 the notion that the nation state of Israel must be refounded is no where in scripture, rather it is a deduction based on an interpretation of certain passages. A wrong interpretation that is, or at least not overtly correct.

a Roman Catholic writing an Australian evangelical fundamentalist correcting him in his knowledge? Oh that’s going to go over well won’t it. However if you’d like I’ll refute it point for point on the forum.

No need to post your refutation here, I know the smell of the sheep!

Bahahaha. “Don’t post your refutations here because I won’t except it.” And you think He won’t have the same reaction. Now I’m going to post it anyway, and when I do, I dare you to challenge them

Write to the webmaster if you think he has been spreading grave errors, remember in Catholic doctrine "omission of right action is a sin" (something to that effect). In true Protestant fashion, whether you do it or not I see that as something between you and God.

You’re not catholic so don’t pretend to know catholic doctrine especially when you don’t get it right.

When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars that you have established;
4 what are human beings that you are mindful of them,
mortals that you care for them?
5 Yet you have made them a little lower than God,
and crowned them with glory and honor.

Psalm 8: 3-5 NRSVCE

It’s a big book. Maybe you need another read through.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"
(Romans 3:23, KJV)

Guess you better become a Jew then, Jesus isn’t the messiah after all.

[Tarsonis]

My theory is that we are in Hell at the moment. Allow me to explain.

First we must start with Hebrews 11:1
"Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”
Then, Romans 14:23
"Whatever is not from faith is sin."

Therefore, we must logically conclude that doubt (or said lack of faith) is sin.

That’s a bit of a reach. Without doubt faith is impossible. St. Paul’s words there refer to not having faith in the Eucharist, more than general doubt.

Assuming that Hell is a place of sin, suffering, and confusion as the Bible says, we can simply look around us. Our human nature drives us to question everything around us, including our own mortality, leading to confusion. The physical laws that bind us conflict with our nature, leading to strife, and sin increases exponentially. And through this, we may be able to form the conclusion that the physical world is Hell as opposed to the metaphysical realm which we call heaven.

Only you’re cherry picking verses to support your conclusion. The Bible is very clear that both Hell and Earth are full of sin and suffering. Hell only more so.

[Lower Nubia]

As in the multiverse? An idea built on the assumption of ex nihilio materialist creation of the universe, but without any scientific veracity to the its truth or not? It would make a pretty poor defence.

I, a Catholic, am in full support of the theory of Evolution as well as the Big Bang and multiple other theories that Christians have denied. Here's why:

The theory of evolution is plausible as the Bible's specification of seven days during the creation doesn't actually specify seven days. The original Hebrew word, "yom", meant any amount of time from one day to an epoch. Therefore, creatures could have evolved over epochs and it is the most scientifically plausible as it has been shown that creatures adapt.

If you’re a YEC however this is irrelevant, because even if yôm can mean that, history has always seen that it did not, from a historical Perspective, mean that. The ancient Church maintained a position of literalism and symbolism, contained within Genesis, to them, was both history and symbolism (of something like the millennium for example). The two are not separated, as they are today, but the symbolism was the underlying truth in a broader picture, yet not truly divorced from the literal meaning. To simply say that the ancient church saw symbolism only, is false. It was intamately connected with the literal aspect. The YEC’s have the historical argument in their favour, which makes this, valid non the less, a 21st century scapegoat. Nothing more.

I am not, however, in support of the Darwin's Origin of Species, as it suggests that an ape without a soul would evolve as the generations go by into a human with a soul. Many Christians get Origin of Species confused with the theory of evolution, and they deny both in their ignorance.

Though Darwin’s naturalistic tendencies are prevalent within the book, modern theologians attribute the soul to the evolution of the first man who then has the soul breathed into them, not that the soul evolves. The origin of Species, however, is the theory of Evolution, in its most primitive sense, it’s simply not theologically, or scientifically attuned as in later decades.

Also: the Bible is known to make metaphors that show basic physical things in order to allow us to comprehend meta-physical or metaphysical concepts. Now, you don't expect God to go up to a scribe back in the day and say "Now, write down that I spawned an extraordinarily dense super-heated packet of material and caused it to explode out into space and let it settle overtime in order to create planets.", do you? I think that the Big Bang theory is perfectly plausible as well, and I hate it when Christians flat out deny it as impossible. We need to stay open minded and find things out for ourselves. Don't let a Sunday School teacher indoctrinate you with what she wants you to know. Seek the truth on your own.

The issue with this, however, is why not? The ancients weren’t stupid, this sort of crude reasoning, which C. S. Lewis termed chronological snobbery, posits that we, the enlightened, are only truly to understand the intricacies of the universe, but why? This issue is not resolved due to the lack of knowledge, because clearly God delivered them a greater knowledge, of himself, no less, yet why is the creation of planets, their orders, motions and of the existence of the natural things somehow more complicated? It smacks in the ancients faces, who, we are to be reminded, were the doctors and founders of the Church. Like I said, the symbolic understanding is permittable, but ultimately undesirable, it is a blessed escape, from a once believed clear and well understood path.

Yet, Why are you telling me this? I was critiquing his original premise, that evolution can be defended by the multiverse (I think, he said: “multiversal” which could be a really fancy argument, I don’t know) I was not denying his conclusion, only the premise used to defend it.

Edit 1: poor grammar, also attenuated should not be replaced for attuned autocorrect.

[Socialist Czechia]

>people thinking hell exists

Considering we're on the CDT, yes, we do think Hell exists.

But idea of Hell is so cheap and easy.
It would be much better if you kept walking on Earth, again and again, as long as you are with too many sins Hundred times, if necessary.

Idea that Earth is actual Hell sounds much more legit to me. Be free of our physical bodies, floating somewhere, not bothered anymore by the universe, should be reward, not automatic process.

That's why I do like Cathars and their idea that soul is without gender and you may appear as anyone in next life.