This verse was used today at an Ash Wednesday service.

[rug]

From the Book of Wisdom:

24
For you love all things that are and loathe nothing that you have made; for what you hated, you would not have fashioned.
25
And how could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you?

The notion that God does not hate anything he has created is too often overlooked.

[MineralMan]

1. I suppose he didn't make all those people he killed

in the Flood, then? Right? Sorry, but what you said is a platitude not supported in scripture.

[rug]

2. It's a direct quote from the scripture.

Rather than jerking your knee, do you think it is utterly irreconcilable?

[MineralMan]

3. I think many things in scripture are irreconcilable.

I'm not jerking my knee at all. The OT God said that he created evil, too. I can look up the citation for that if you like.

There's much that is inconsistent in the Bible. One can pick and choose whatever supports one's position, quite easily.

I won't belabor the point, though.

[MineralMan]

4. I will remark that the Book of Wisdom does not appear

in either the Tanakh or the Protestant Canon. It's pretty much exclusive to the RCC and Orthodox Old Testaments. Now, that may indicate something or nothing, depending on the canon you support.

[rug]

6. It was part of the Septuagint canon.

[MineralMan]

8. Yes, I know that. I still don't see how that statement jibes with

all the occurrences of the OT deity actually destroying his creations. You see, I notice discrepancies. It's part of why I'm an atheist now, instead of some sort of religionist.

I don't actually have to look this stuff up, you know. I have a thorough grounding in theology.

[rug]

11. So, how have theologians reconciled it?

[MineralMan]

16. Hand-waving. I've been reading the hand-waving of theologians

since I was 20. That was 44 years ago.

[trotsky]

27. Here's another direct quote from scripture.

Genesis 6:6-7 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth — men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them."

I'm trying to think of the mental and linguistic gymnastics required to believe you can really love someone, but still WANT TO WIPE THEM FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH.

[darkstar3]

29. Don't you see? That part's metaphorical!

Oh, but Jesus is real, don't ever say that his part of the Bible is metaphorical...:eyes:

[Sal316]

28. The flood has nothing to do with hate.

...but it does have everything to do with the concepts of righteousness, holiness, and justice.

[darkstar3]

30. And how does a being

kill his creations while they are living in sin, thereby sending them to hell, if he loves them?

[Sal316]

35. Does a parent hate their children ....

...if they punish them?

Or is it the actions they find fault with?

[darkstar3]

43. False parallel.

Parental punishments are finite, and do not involve murder or eternal torment.

[Sal316]

68. No, it's not false.

But you're free to keep believing that as you wish.

[darkstar3]

69. Show me how

infinite punishment, not to mention murder, for finite deeds equates in any way to the punishment a parent gives a child. If people on this planet "parented" in the way you think God does, their surviving children would be taken away by CPS post haste.

[Sal316]

71. Question....

....is your view of Genesis 6 literal?

I ask because that's what it appears to be, considering you seem to be ignoring the thematic elements to the story and only focusing on the literalism that you believe bolsters your argument.

[darkstar3]

72. I'm not talking about the flood specifically.

I'm talking about the existence of hell and the Christian belief that God sends or allows people to go there daily. This eternal punishment for finite deeds does not remotely equate to love, and yet you compare it to parenting, which is a disgusting, not to mention false, parallel.

[laconicsax]

45. Do you honestly believe that deliberate, premeditated murder is a just punishment?

Your children grow up to be the opposite of what you had hoped, so you kill them? I really hope you don't think that's fine and dandy.

[laconicsax]

48. You mean like these upstanding individuals?

http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14388171

Prosecutors allege the two victims were subjected to "hours" of corporal punishment by their parents on successive days last Thursday and Friday with a quarter-inch-wide length of rubber or plastic tubing, which police reportedly recovered from the parents' bedroom.

Police allege that the younger girl was being disciplined for mis-pronouncing a word during a home-school reading lesson the day before she died.

The two young girls reportedly sustained deep bruising and multiple "whip-like" marks on their back, buttocks and legs, which authorities believe resulted in significant muscle tissue breakdown that impaired their kidneys and possibly other vital organs, said Ramsey.

I'm sure they killed their daughter out of love.

[downtrodden41]

57. Are you comparing a parent punishing their child for misbehavior to god wiping mankind

from the earth?


I mean, spanking you kid for disobeying your wishes is one thing, but killing every living thing on the planet for disobeying your wishes is another, don't you think?

[laconicsax]

53. Readily, and without hesitation. n/t

[Angry Dragon]

84. So god makes mistakes??

[sinkingfeeling]

5. As I am not familar with the Book of Wisdom, I find the verses quoted to be beautiful and

full of wisdom. P.S. I'm an atheist.

[rug]

7. Thanks for the comment.

[darkstar3]

9. This coming from the religion that states

you will burn for all eternity in a place of wailing and gnashing of teeth if you have not both faith and works.

I don't know, I'd say that damning me to hell would constitute hatred, and if not, certainly not love.

[rug]

10. Where does it say that?

[darkstar3]

12. We've had this discussion before.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1033-1037, speaks specifically about the existence, nature, and purpose of hell. Are you denying this?

[rug]

14. I deny this:

"you will burn for all eternity in a place of wailing and gnashing of teeth if you have not both faith and works."

[laconicsax]

18. Matthew 13

³⁶Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field. ³⁷He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; ³⁸The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; ³⁹The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. ⁴⁰As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. ⁴¹The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; ⁴²And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. ⁴³Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

⁴⁴Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. ⁴⁵Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: ⁴⁶Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it. 47Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: ⁴⁸Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. ⁴⁹So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, ⁵⁰And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

⁵¹Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord. ⁵²Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old. ⁵³And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.

I'm sure you just never noticed it before. I'm pretty sure it's in there at least one more time too.

[rug]

20. I'm sure you know the definition of parable.

One must never assume, though.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/parable

[MineralMan]

22. Sorry. Matthew 13 is not parable. It is prophecy.

That's clear. It's easy to see when Jesus speaks in parables and when he speaks in prophetic terms. In Matthew 13, the parable is spoken, followed by clear, unequivocal prophecy. Now, this all may be a Roman construct, added in the third century, but it's quite clear.

[laconicsax]

23. I do. You do realize the part in question is an explanation of the parable, right?

Jesus is explaining how the parable relates to the end of the world--that as the tares in the parable, the wicked will be cast "into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

He also mentions fire, wailing, gnashing of teeth, etc. in other passages. Each time, it's either as explanation of a parable just delivered, or in response to the question of what happens at the end of the world.

You should really read the Bible and pay attention to what it says.

[rug]

24. You should really read the commentary on the Bible and pay attention to what it says.

[darkstar3]

26. Whose commentary?

I've read quite a few different bibles in my life, many of which had commentary from biblical scholars written right into the margins (you could club a seal with those bibles...), and I have yet to read actual bible verse or commentary that denies the existence, nature, or purpose of hell. If YOU personally choose not to believe in hell, then that is your prerogative just like it is everyone's, but you should know and admit that you are going against scripture and against dogma.

[PassingFair]

34. You're not reading the Cafeteria Version

I'll have the homosexual parables, please.

[rug]

40. Any of these is a good start.

•Harper's Bible Commentary. Ed. James L. Mays. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. (Ref BS 491.2 .H37 1988)
•The Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible. Ed. Charles M. Layon. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971. (Ref BS 491.2 .I57)
•The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1990. (Ref BS 491.2 .N485 1990 and one copy held on "Reserve")
•Orchard, Bernard, ed. Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. New York: Nelson, 1953. (Ref BS 491.2 .O7 1953)

[darkstar3]

42. Well, since I don't have any of those on hand,

perhaps you could enlighten me. If these commentaries support your idea that hell doesn't exist, please show me where.

And keep in mind, commentary isn't scripture, dogma, or Papal decree.

[rug]

44. I guess I'll listen to you after you've read up.

Frankly, to do the topic justice, more is needed that an internet riposte.

[darkstar3]

47. Dismissal

and derision do not make your argument any more valid. The Catechism talks of hell, as does the Bible. You claim that some commentaries refute the idea, but you won't show me where. The commentaries, scriptures, and dogmas I have read SUPPORT, not refute, the idea of hell, so I have trouble understanding your denial.

[rug]

58. You exert great effort to moving a thread about a quote from Wisdom to your familiar subject of hell

It's tedious and uninteresting. Not to be dismissive.

[darkstar3]

63. No effort was required.

You spouted off about how these verses from your book prove that God loves his creations, which leads logically to the question of why God would create a place such as Hell. The effort I'm exerting is in trying to get you to answer a simple question: How do you deny the existence, nature, or purpose of Hell when your own church dogma declares it clearly?

[trotsky]

51. All you really need is to just provide one little paragraph.

Something from an official Catholic source that essentially says, "You know all that stuff about fire and brimstone and suffering? Yeah, it's not REALLY true."

Your task is very small. And considering you already hold this position, it must mean that you've already encountered such a passage or justification, and you're just withholding it from us to be a jerk and make us wade through volumes of theological masturbation to find it.

It's not everyone else's responsibility to do your research for you. If you had the answer to this question, you could have just given it. The fact that you refuse simply means you don't have an answer.

[rug]

59. "It's not everyone else's responsibility to do your research for you." Agreed.

[laconicsax]

54. Nice evasion!

Maybe you could quote a passage from your favorite commentary that supports your position.

[rug]

60. I wouldn't want to feed anyone's addiction to theological masturbation.

[laconicsax]

77. So you don't have an answer and desperately want to shift attention away from that fact.

All the snark in the world can't make up for the fact that you made an assertion and when pressed for evidence, all you could offer was evasion and dismissal.

[rug]

79. Paragraphs 1033 - 1037 of the CCC.

Do your own homework.

[darkstar3]

80. Which I posted above, and you've been fighting ever since!

:wtf:

Those paragraphs of the Catechism clearly spell out that Catholics believe in hell, that they accept Jesus' fiery description of it, and that anyone who dies in sin goes there. You've been attempting to deny this ever since this subthread started, and now you're posting these paragraphs as support for your position?

What have you been smoking?!

[rug]

81. "eternal fire" is in quotes. It does not affirm a belief in eternal physical fire.

"The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs."

Furthermore, no one is condemned there, it is described as a "willful turning away".

Now, if you can stop fixating, it does not contradict the words from the Boook of Wisdom in the OP.

It is generally better to understand what you're railing against if you want to be taken seriously.

[darkstar3]

82. It is generally better to understand a contradiction than to ignore it.

It is contradictory to state that God loves all of his creations (Book of Wisdom), and then state that many of those creations will go to Hell (Catechism). Whether Hell is a place of eternal fire or not is irrelevant. It is a place of eternal punishment, where happiness cannot be found (supposedly because God is not there). A loving God cannot be reconciled with the creation of Hell, fire or no.

[rug]

87. The difference is whether one is sent there or whether when chooses to go there.

[darkstar3]

94. This evasion does not answer the problem

of a supposedly omnipotent God who loves all of his creations making a place for the majority of those creations to suffer eternal punishment, REGARDLESS of the reason.

[rug]

96. I'm sorry you think a straightforward statement is an evasion.

[darkstar3]

97. It's not just that I think it's an evasion,

it really IS an evasion because it is a very weak attempt to absolve God of the responsibility of creating Hell in the first place.

[trotsky]

83. "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity."

Well there you go. You posted something that proves you aren't following your church's official teachings.

No wonder you fought tooth and nail to post something.

[rug]

88. Of course it does.

But you're hung up on the incorrect notion that a psychotic deity created it for the sole purpose of inflicting eternal torment on its creatures.

You disregard the notion of choice, that people may choose not to follow God's intentions, which by definition can only be good, and would rather choose their own paths. Which are away from God, into the absence of God.

That's all there is to the notion of hell. That is it in all its simplicity and profundity.

You can choose to talk about fire and brimstone, but it's all in your head and in the minds of your stereotyped opponents.

And, in one last attempt to keep this thread on track, it is not dissonant with the notion of a God who loves all its creatures.

[trotsky]

90. But here's the most fucked up part!

What kind of "choice" is it when your god is represented by the likes of the popes, by you, by the Fred Phelpses of the world, the Pat Robertsons, etc., etc.

And what kind of "choice" is it when the only text we have to go on is hopelessly confusing and contradictory and downright repulsive in parts?

How can ANYONE make an informed "choice" in this situation? And certainly even you, with how you're skating and changing definitions to suit your non-canon beliefs, must admit that hell is a LESS PLEASANT place than heaven, and for what reason? Because someone had to decide to believe in god when a believer like yourself is doing nothing but hurling insults and vitriol? Who on earth would choose to follow a maniac represented on earth by such foul humans like George Bush or Pope Pius or Jerry Falwell?

Even with YOUR desperate spin on the official Catholic teachings and the bible verses, hell is a nasty place that is incompatible with the notion of an all-loving god.

[rug]

91. If you're there, no doubt.

[trotsky]

92. Ah, another deep one-liner.

Your standard pattern when confronted with anything that you don't want to answer.

I'll be VERY GLAD to be in hell if heaven is inhabited by the likes of believers such as you.

[laconicsax]

86. Paragraph 1034

Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!".

So the Church says that bit you said was a parable is actually prophecy. Hmm... Looks like you're the one who needs to do some homework.

[rug]

89. Here, read this.

"Note that it is not necessary to say that God imposes hell as punishment. It may be the automatic (indeed logically unavoidable) consequence of rejecting God. It is not clear that God makes it intentionally unpleasant. It may be the nature of the people who are there, and the fact that they are finally given what they want: freedom from God."

http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/christianity/heavenhell.html

The language often employed is gargantuan and hyperbolic, e.g. Matthew 7, 3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

This language on hell is no different.

The nature of hell is the voluntary abandonment of God, no more no less.

If you want more research, let me know, I'll pm you my rates.

[laconicsax]

93. So when your own source contradicts your claim, you hide behind theological hand waving.

The CCC supports the everlasting fire prophecy. All you've offered is someone else's opinion on how "everlasting fire," "burn," and "furnace" doesn't really have anything to do with "everlasting fire," "burn," and "furnace" but instead some vague idea about how terrible it must be to be cut off from an unproven deity.

If the CCC didn't support the fire and brimstone line, why then do they say the exact opposite? :shrug:

[rug]

95. There is no contradiction.

As to the imagery used, suppleness of thought does not seem to be your strong suit.

And it's not a prophecy but a warning.

The RCC has a canonization process by which it declares that someone's life merited sainthood. It has no such process to pronounce someone damned. It has never declared a single person to be in hell.

Someone once told me that although hell may exist, there may be no one there. It is extraordinarily difficult to decisively and willfully turn from God, particularly if you bear in mind the description in the OP.

For starters, you have to know what you're turning from. So far, I haven't seen that in this forum.

[darkstar3]

98. Once again,

you are going against Catechism. Tell this to your priest, see what he says. Something tells me that he will lecture you on what Catholics ACTUALLY believe.

You see, paragraphs 1033-1037, while explaining all about what hell is, also tell us who goes there. According to 1037, if you die while in mortal sin, you will go to hell for all eternity.

Now 1854-1861 explain mortal sin, and how you commit it. It is clear from these paragraphs that many commit mortal sin everyday by lying, cheating, stealing, or killing. If these people do not repent before they die, then according to the Catechism they go to hell.

Logically, lots of people have gone, are going, and will go to hell.

And it gets worse, Check 1036:

The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

So that verse I bolded isn't just part of your holy book's florid language, it's also incorporated into the church's explanation of your holy book. Something tells me they thought it was very true and important.

At this point, as much as I hate to, I must commend you for something: You have recognized what I've been trying to say all along, which is that the concept of a truly loving God cannot be reconciled with the concept of a place like Hell populated by many, if not the majority, of his creations. That's why you're bending over backwards attempting to prove that no one goes to hell, and that if they do they most definitely deserve it because they chose to go there. Of course, no one deserves infinite punishment for finite deeds, no matter what they've done, and the Catholic Church clearly states that lots of people go to Hell when they die. I commend you for your attempt to step out of a draconian religious structure and into something a bit more evolved, but I suggest that if you wish to continue doing so, you step out of the Catholic Church, since I think that, with the new Pope, the two of you are going in opposite directions.

[rug]

99. If you're genuinely interested in the subject, read the Jesuit Karl Rahner.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/27664978

To read the entire article, you have to jump through hoops or pay, but it's worth it.

On the other hand, there is this by another Jesuit, Cardinal Avery Dulles (brother of the Secretary of State), which tends to support your position.

What is clear is that the position remains open and that the Catholic Church has never decisevely declared that anyone is in hell.

What is also clear is that its teaching on hell is that it is the result of human choice, not divine edict. Which returns to the question of free will: would an all-loving God impose heaven any more than he would impose hell?

[darkstar3]

100. Another evasion.

The Catechism states clearly what the Catholic Church believes in, as I have shown you above. That a Jesuit may disagree with what the Catechism says is irrelevant, because he has no authority to override the official position of the Catholic Church.

As for Hell being the result of human choice, that is false. Had Hell not been created by God in the first place, human choice could not result in Hell. You still refuse to acknowledge that infinite punishment for finite deeds, which is clearly believed in by Christians worldwide regardless of their denomination, is morally and ethically wrong on every level.

If you don't believe in Hell, that's fine. If you believe that Hell exists but is reserved only for Lucifer and his legions of fallen angels, that's fine too. However, if that's what you believe, you should recognize the fact that your beliefs do not conform to the standard views of the Catholic Church, as set down in the Bible, and more importantly as set down in the Catechism. If you believe that I am in error on this, I suggest that you speak to your priest, and ask him directly what the Church's official position on Hell and its inhabitants is.

[rug]

101. OK, I guess you're not serious. Repetition of misstatement is not discussion.

I would say go to hell but you'd only say I don't believe in it.

[darkstar3]

102. True of false?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains the Church's official position on matters of the faith.

ETA: Perhaps you should take your own advice on repetition...

[rug]

103. True or false: the Cathechism states hell is the result of human choice.

[darkstar3]

104. True,

but that is an oversimplification. The Catechism states that GOING TO HELL is the result of human choice. Now tell me, who or what created Hell,and for what purpose?

ETA: BTW, I'm going to go ahead and assume that you answered "True" to my earlier question.

[laconicsax]

105. Evasion

You're good at this.

[laconicsax]

106. Evasion.

[Silent3]

114. "result of human choice"

At least when Hell is depicted as eternal torment, whether you call that torment a "natural result of being without God" or not, people can at best be considered responsible for the knowable, verifiable, and relatively uncontroversial consequences of making a choice based on limited knowledge. Only an insane masochist (who by "mere" human standards of law could likely be determined incompetent to make decisions of any great consequence for him/herself, for whom "mere" human mercy might spare that person terrible punishment for a bad choice) would knowingly choose Hell over Heaven.

Alice has to choose between buying Car A or Car B. She chooses Car B. She dies in a horrible accident due to a manufacturing defect in Car B. Does that mean she "chose", by free will, to die in a horrible accident? Would that mean that a government agency imposing safety standards that might have prevented the defect would have been "interfering" with her supposed free-will choice to die in a horrible accident? That's as weak and as stupid as most of these "choice" and "free will" arguments about people going to Hell sound to me.

Would it make any difference at all if Alice could have googled "Car B" and found lots of comments from people who thought Car B was unsafe, all mixed in, of course, with comments saying that Car B was the greatest car in the world, and that Car A was a death trap?

If separation from God is equivalent, literally or figuratively, to eternally burning in a "lake of fire", and God is as all-powerful as He is so often depicted, then it's His fault the universe is designed in such a way for separation to have such a hugely negative consequence, and He is thus a sadistic tyrant. If He can't control that outcome, but He could make warnings of that outcome much, much, much clearer and unmistakable than they currently are, yet he doesn't, He is still a sadistic tyrant. If He can't do either, He's hardly worthy of being called a God.

Even if Hell isn't quite so awful, but Heaven is a whole lot better, God would still be a Mighty Schmuck for letting people lose out on an eternity of bliss based on the terms humans have available for making their decisions. Arguing that nothing but leaving humans with a muddy, unclear choice based on choosing among conflicting interpretations of conflicting accounts of difficult ancient texts would somehow interfere with "free will" is utter bullshit.

[darkstar3]

115. Succinctly put. n/t

[rug]

118. Which is precisely why there exists a theological possibility that no one is there.

I've met noone with so complete a grasp of God as to be able to sufficiently make a voluntary choice to go away.

Excluding of course the many here who believe they know exactly what a mighty schmuck, masochist and cosmic scumbag God is.

[darkstar3]

120. Blasphemy against the Spirit will not be tolerated.

Your own Catechism says this. I would say that Silent3 has sufficiently committed this blasphemy, and I will participate:

I deny the existence and power of the Holy Spirit. I deny that God, as defined by any of the Abrahamic religions, exists. I deny that Jesus was ever real.

Now, have either of us committed blasphemy against the Spirit? If so, we must repent before death or we burn in hell. Do you deny this part of the CCC?

[rug]

122. Do you know what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, the"unforgiveable sin", is?

[darkstar3]

123. I believe I have just committed it.

ETA: Did you talk with your priest? Did you ask him what the official position of the RCC on Hell is? Because I can tell you, having talked to many a priest and pastor, that the official position of most Christian churches, including the RCC, is very different from yours. Since you won't take my word for it, or the word of anyone you seem to disagree with, perhaps your priest is the best person with whom to discuss this. I'd love to be a fly on the wall during that conversation.

[Silent3]

121. I doubt you've met a single person here who...

..."believe(s) they know exactly what a mighty schmuck, masochist and cosmic scumbag God is".

There are plenty here, however, who have such an opinion about various versions of a character called "God". The God of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is such a character.

I might say that I wouldn't want to run into Hannibal Lechter in a dark alley, but describing him that way doesn't mean I think there's a real man named Hannibal Lechter that I'm worried about running into.

[laconicsax]

107. The contradiction is yours.

When the Catechism says

Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!".

It's pretty clear that it's a prophecy. You keep evading this point. What's more, declaring this to be a warning rather than prophecy is a false choice as it is clearly prophecy for those who don't heed it as a warning.

Jesus, who the RCC holds to be the one infallible God, clearly states on several occasions in the Gospels, which the RCC hold as an accurate depiction of Jesus' ministry, that the wicked and sinful will find themselves in hell, a place of eternal fire.

Your tangent about canonization and no process to declare someone damned is a red herring. The official stance of the church is that hell exists and people go there. Whether or not they name specific people as being in hell doesn't affect that.

Are you saying that you know God--that you have a greater ability to willfully turn from the Celestial sockpuppet? Not that it matters, since it's just another red herring.

Address the issue at hand. Is the CCC the official position of the RCC, and does it say that some people go to a fiery hell?

[rug]

108. Got tired of calling an answer you don't like "evasion"?

Tell me this: do you actually believe the Catholic Church "prophesies" people will be sent to a place of "eternal fire"? Seriously, you believe that to be the teaching? No wonder you carry on like that. I'd have a more productive conversation with Jack Chick.

I've answered this ad nauseam. Read through the thread. Read the links. Review your talking points with your tag team buddy. And don't arrogantly tell me to "Answer the issue at hand." I might be tempted to treat this as sport.

[laconicsax]

109. The Church's official documents say exactly that, so yes.

Your refusal to answer direct questions is quite telling. Even when you're asked straightforward yes or no questions you change the subject. Changing the subject instead of answering a question is "evading" the question. If you like, I can call it "dodging" the question. If you're tired of me accusing you of dodging the question, maybe try answering them instead of changing the subject.

Here are some simple questions that you could answer:
-Does the CCC represent the Church's official position?
-Do paragraphs 1033-1037 of the CCC repeat Jesus' statement that some people will be sent to Hell?
-Does the same statement describe Hell as a place of eternal fire?
-Does the Church hold that the Gospels contain an accurate account of Jesus' teachings?
-Is the official position of the Church that Jesus is 1/3 of the Trinity and consequently both the son of God and the same infallible god?
-If Jesus is God and God is infallible, can Jesus be wrong about he nature of Hell?

That's six straightforward questions, each answerable with either "yes" or "no." I invite you to answer them as best you can since you have yet to directly answer them.

[darkstar3]

110. Good luck with that.

Whether it was rug, Sal, or others, I haven't had a lot of luck getting hard questions about faith answered on this board. Usually, the thread sinks after I ask them.

[laconicsax]

111. Oh, I know.

That still doesn't disuade me from putting them on the spot.

[rug]

117. Don't flatter yourself. Your questions don't warrant it.

[rug]

116. Yes. Not quite. Not literally. Yes. Where to begin? No.

It's hard to give a direct answer to questions so filled with (deliberate) ignorance.

You do realize the Trinity is indivisble so there cannot be a "1/3" Trinity?

Now, answer my questions. What's your favorite color? Have you always been like this? How often do you attack a thing before understanding it?

[laconicsax]

119. My sincere apologies for not completely understanding the nature of the Trinity.

Maybe because it makes no sense. I should have asked, "Is the official position of the Church that Jesus constitutes part of the Trinity..." but something tells me that isn't exactly correct either. The clusterfuck that is the Trinity is another discussion altogether.

I guess I also have this mental block about an infallible god not meaning what they say. When Jesus says, as the CCC notes, that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire," it's pretty clear that "furnace of fire" doesn't mean "place cut off from God." I don't know how this escapes you. If Jesus can't be wrong about the nature of hell, and the Gospels contain an accurate record of his teachings, then it must be some sort of fiery place.

If it wasn't, then the four times he describes it as such (Matthew 13:42, 13:50, 25:41, Luke 3:17) would be a inaccurate description and the infallible god would be wrong.

To your questions:
Blue, no, about as often as you beat your wife.

[ZombieHorde]

13. Do you believe this verse has special meaning in the context of Ash Wednesday?

And how could a thing remain, unless you willed it; or be preserved, had it not been called forth by you?

How do Christians interpret this? When I read this line I immediately thought of malaria, starvation, and natural disasters.

The notion that God does not hate anything he has created is too often overlooked.

The stories of Sodom and Gomorrah seem to suggest God hated those folks enough to kill them, even the children. I'm confused.

[rug]

15. Those who put together the Lectionary consider it apt.

I'm still waiting for MineralMan to resolve it.

[MineralMan]

17. Sorry, I left my keyboard for a few hours.

I believe I have answered your question above. Now, my question: How do YOU resolve it? Noah's flood, where that deity supposedly killed every person on the planet, save one family, versus your quotation about how one doesn't hate what one has created. What's your explanation for that rather obvious contradiction.

Again, I will say that I recognize that the Book of Wisdom is not widely recognized as part of the Canon.

[rug]

19. I'll give you a serious answer.

I doubt the flood and Sodom and Gomorrah and the genocides, etc., etc. literally happened.

What I have been told is that those verses, above all, are to convey a message to specific groups of people at specific times. The message, whatever it may be, is more important than the wrapping.

Now, I'm not enough of a linguist, anthropologist or theologian to explain what message the obliteration of a city conveys. But I respect the opinions of those who have studied it and fashioned explanations. It was not a flip question I asked you.

Neither am I such a literalist to believe a book, a god, or a preacher is telling me to kill Hittites.

(BTW, the Septuagint canon is accepted outside the Protestant denominations by about 2 to 1 last time I checked.)

[MineralMan]

21. Thanks. I'm being serious, too.

I'm certain that the flood and that stuff never happened. However, many people believe it did. The Septuagint books are pretty much exclusively a Roman Catholic thing, and even the RCC doesn't give them as much weight as other scripture. The Anglicans add it to their Apocrypha, but don't consider it to be on the same level as the normal Canon. Almost universally, protestantism rejects the entire lot.

It's just writing. It's a nice sentiment, but it is contradicted by other parts of the scriptures. There are lots of those contradictions, and it's not all that surprising, given the spotty origins of much of both the Old and New Testaments.

Scriptures, of whatever religion, are fascinating documents. They inform, to one degree or another, the beliefs of whatever religion accepts them as some sort of inspired literature. The problem is that they are often taught piecemeal and accepted as unvarnished, unalterable truth. This is where I have difficulties.

You don't necessarily accept the infallibility and absolute truth of your scripture. Many, however, do. This causes serious problems in a culture like ours. That's why I posted in your thread. It was a nice sentiment that you posted...one that I would agree with. The creator normally does not loathe its creation. There are exceptions, however. It is wise to consider those exceptions.

Since there are no Hittites to kill, that's sort of not pertinent. Today, it's the Sunnis and other assorted Muslim sects that we're killing. Slim difference, really, and it's all a continuation of the same conflict.

I despise the use of any scripture to harm people. Sadly, it has been done so often and with so many scriptures that I can't ignore it. So, I post when contradictions are posted without qualification.

It's nothing to do with you, really. It has to do with religion in general. Too often, it has served to separate and imbue entire peoples with anger and hostility. I find that deplorable. For myself, I have abandoned religion as a poor excuse for thinking. Others have not. That's fine with me, as long as their religion does not impinge on others.

I'm often flip and sarcastic here on DU. In my real life, I am rarely so. In this case, I am very serious.

[trotsky]

25. So you're just literalist enough to believe the parts you want to believe,

but not literalist enough to accept the parts you don't like.

Got it.

[Sal316]

31. Literalism is for fundies and anti-theists.

Two types cut from the same cloth.

To rely on literalism alone is to show a dearth of critical thinking skills. Scripture, until the Enlightenment, was interpreted both for what it said and what it meant. Understanding the mythos behind the logos is where wisdom comes from.

[trotsky]

32. But even you, with your awesomely superior intellect (just ask you!)...

take parts of the bible literally. Why is that?

[darkstar3]

33. And yet,

while you take parts of the Bible literally (Jesus' parts, for example) you refuse to tell anyone the method behind that choosing. Some parts of the Bible are perfectly fine to take literally, while others should only be interpreted (in YOUR view) metaphorically, but you can't tell us how you know which is which. It really seems like you just pick and choose what you want to believe, and then tell the rest of us that you're right about it because of your theology degree.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Without any kind of published standards and practices for proper interpretation, or even for proper accreditation, "theologians" have no more or less standing on interpreting the Bible than anyone else.

[Sal316]

36. If you're looking for a list....

....you're not going to find one. Asking a question like "which is literal and which is not?" implies looking for as simple an answer as the literalists have.

And no, I don't take Jesus' words only literally. I look at them both ways, what they say and what they mean.

I read all of scripture through both sets of glasses, the way it was for thousands of years (going back to ancient Israel) prior to the Scientific revolution and the Enlightenment. Literalism has been around in bits an pieces for time eternal, but really only became mainstream after the invention of the printing press. Of course, that's one of the historical events that shaped the rise of literalism, two others being the sack of Rome (1527) and the Reformation.

It's helpful to understand cultural context and idiosyncrasies, linguistic devices (particularly aramaic), historical context, etc., when reading scripture. There are words, statements, descriptors, etc., that are particular to the time in which they were written that, today, no longer mean the same thing.

For example, in scripture when Jesus instructed his disciples to "not tell anyone what you saw", that isn't what he meant. In the Aramaic speaking culture at the time, when you told someone "don't tell anyone", it meant exactly the opposite.

Another example is in the OT, when it speaks of the numbers killed, it's not literal numbers, but an indicator of a few, a lot, very many, etc.

So, you see, not everything means what it says on the surface. In fact, that's an issue I have with American churches today is that they tend to go with the attitude of "the Bible clearly says", when, if you look beneath the words, that isn't necessarily always true.

[trotsky]

38. So what you're saying, dear Sal, is that you and you alone...

are the most knowledgeable and educated scholar on Christianity and the bible in the world today. You, above all others, have the LONE and TRUE interpretation of the text. I wonder what the other billion Christians on the planet who disagree with you think about that. Oh wait, I suppose they aren't real Christians anyway.

[Sal316]

39. That's not what I'm saying at all.

Although I appreciate your offer to stick your hand up my backside in order to have me say what you want or think I said, I'll have to decline.

Please point to any place where I have said, verbatim, that I hold the "lone and true interpretation of the text". The statement was made that I "...take parts of the Bible literally (Jesus' parts, for example) you refuse to tell anyone the method behind that choosing."

I explained what method I use....hence the use of the personal pronoun "I" in my response.

"I wonder what the other billion Christians on the planet who disagree with you think about that."

Some use similar methods, others don't...what's your point? You looking for goosestepping uniformity? Sorry to disappoint.

"Oh wait, I suppose they aren't real Christians anyway."

Again, I appreciate you offering to give me my thoughts and opinions, but I'll decline.

[trotsky]

50. Oh but it absolutely is.

The fact that you don't like the logical consequences of what you're saying does not detract from the fact that you're saying it. I know this because whenever anyone puts up an interpretation that you don't agree with, you generally call them a name, insult their intelligence, and tell them they're reading it incorrectly. This is your standard M.O. and we've seen it in just about every thread you've participated in.

But you never do manage to explain exactly why you reject some parts of the bible, accept some, and accept some other parts by first changing their meaning altogether based on your superior understanding of ancient colloquial Aramaic. And you never explain why other people who claim to do the EXACT SAME THING arrive at a different conclusion than you.

So we are left with the simple conclusion that you and you alone understand the TRUE interpretation of the bible, and everyone else is wrong.

Sounds like you're cut from that same cloth you claim the "fundies and (strawman) anti-theists" are.

[Sal316]

70. Logical consequences? Only on bizzaro world.

Got enough straw for that argument?

I'm still waiting for you to show the world where I have claimed to have the "one and true" interpretation..... actual facts, not just your suppositions.

As I've said many-a-time, literalist interpretation misses more than half the picture. And,yes, if it is read only literally, it is incorrect. I'm sorry you don't like that, but it is.

Do the words say what they say? Sure. English is funny that way. Of course, if you go back to the Greek and Aramaic in which it was written, how its been translated into English isn't always correct.

For example... in many scriptures the word translated as "fear" does not mean "to be afraid of", but means "reverence toward".

But if you remove the context, the allegorical meaning, the literary devices used...you're left with what is essentially a monotone painting.

I don't see how explaining why others may not agree with me is anything remotely germane to the discussion. YOU don't agree with me, so why don't YOU explain how YOU came up with YOUR interpretation?

Using your logic, that literalism is the only correct way, then the teabaggers who used that "Pray for Obama - Ps 109:8" nonsense had it exactly right. It said what it said, that one line meant exactly what it meant.

Never mind that when removed from Ps 109 you lose who was saying that, why it was being said, and the overall theme of Ps 109.

Here's my question for you.

Since you're so convinced I'm wrong...... exactly what makes you think YOU are correct? Why is YOUR interpretation the "true and correct" one?

[trotsky]

76. It's funny that you accuse others of using strawmen,

when that's the biggest weapon in your tiny arsenal.

When did I ever say that literalism was the ONLY correct way? See this is again your emotion settling in, your intense hatred of both fundamentalist Christians and uppity atheists, causing you to lump them all together as if they were "cut from the same cloth." That's bullshit, and no matter how much you are told so, you continue to parrot the nonsense and repeat the insult. So why is it, do you think, that you can't make any traction here? You never explain, you never answer, you just dodge and insult and continue to argue against your own ridiculous strawmen.

Here's my view on interpreting the bible: it's a collection of writings from primitive and superstitious people who had very little understanding of the natural world, and were burdened by arcane and ridiculous "purity" codes, governing their personal, sexual, and dietary experiences. Interpreting anything from that mish-mosh of writings must be viewed from that perspective. I simply cannot believe that any supreme being of the universe would choose to reveal itself to humans in such a confusing, contradictory, and at times horrific text.

And so, the only reasonable conclusion is that the bible is FICTION. There is no single "true and correct" interpretation, primarily because the bible is not one single coherent work, but also because any work of fiction can be analyzed on multiple levels in equally valid ways. I think the literalists have the strongest ground to stand on, not because I think they are right or because I agree with them, but because they're just going with the text as written. But you have a lot more in common with them than I do, because YOU TOO read quite a bit of the bible literally. You just have a higher, SECULAR sense of morality, and view the bible using that lens - causing you to more deeply analyze the parts you don't like, in order to try and shoehorn them into your preferred interpretation - one that makes sense to your pre-existing morality. But ultimately, since you're both reading from this work of fiction, neither of you is really any more justified than the other.

But you can thank the evil fundie atheists and other non-believers throughout history that have fought your church tooth and nail, giving their lives at times, to give you the opportunity today to analyze your bible the way you want without fear of being thrown on the fire along with us.

[Amaya]

85. Fantastic post

:applause:

[Silent3]

113. +1

I'd add that there are some moral lessons to be found in the Bible, amid the "collection of writings from primitive and superstitious people", but they aren't particularly amazing and special "revelations" that ordinary humans couldn't come up with on their own.

[darkstar3]

46. OK, then...

you claim that you read the Bible through "both sets of glasses." Tell me then, on the nature of Jesus, what do you believe? Did he exist? Was he born of a virgin? Was he the son of God? Did he descend into hell after his crucifixion? Was he resurrected? The list goes on...which parts of this story are true, and which are metaphor, and how can you tell?

[darkstar3]

74. Bueller?...Bueller?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

49. How do you know what you claim to know?

Those are some very specific claims you put forth. How do you know what was originally intended to taken literally and what was intended to be taken metaphorically? You also claim that the majority view throughout history has been that they are just stories and not literally true, but how do you know that? And if that's true, why are some real histories thrown in with all these stories? It seems odd to put the two together in one work, with no clear delineation between real histories and those things that are just meant to be taken as stories.

The practice of explicitly telling people to do the opposite of what you wish them to do, with the unstated knowledge that they will understand and do what you actually want them to also seems odd. How do you know such a practice was ever used, or at least understood when read about hypothetically?

The intended interpretation of numbers in the Old Testament is likewise a very strong claim. How do you know the numbers are not meant to relate what they are explicitly stating but rather something totally different? And once you know that they are not literal, how do you know what the correct interpretation is? I would also like to note that having numbers that don't really mean what they say in a story that's already not meaning what it's saying is a little convoluted. We're adding another layer of metaphor within the metaphor that we are trying to figure out.

[Sal316]

73. How do I know?

Putting aside that my education is in theology for a moment, it's because I continually read and educate myself.

I was driven by the nagging thought that there had to be "more to the story", so to speak. So I read, I talk to people who are much smarter than me of many different faiths, I study the history of the area and cultural norms, the languages ....seeking out opinions/arguments/data that support my view AND that challenge it.

Aramaic idioms and linguistics is very interesting in that its not intended to be taken literally most of the times.

For example:

Matthew 8:21 says "Another disciple said to him, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."

In our day we take that to mean the father is dead. That's not the case. It's an idiomatic construction and culturally means "Then let me go and take care of my father until he is dead "

There are plenty of idioms used in Scripture, just like when we talk to our friends/family, that outside the cultural context they either make no sense at all or mean something completely different than relative to our culture.

Here's a thought....

....perhaps it's not supposed to be simple and direct, but something we're supposed to think about, ponder, stretching our minds beyond where they were yesterday.

[darkstar3]

75. That reply not only fails to answer the question,

but shows that there is an incredible level of uncertainty surrounding the whole topic of scripture. If anything, what you've written here is even more reason to believe that you personally know absolutely nothing more than we do.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

78. I think you've misunderstood my question.

What I was asking about is specific evidence in support of the specific claims you made.

You specifically stated that you have knowledge of which parts of the Bible are literal and which are metaphorical. I would like to see some of the specific evidence that helped you to come to your conclusions about parts of the Bible. You also claim that literalism was not historically the majority view on matters of the Bible and Jewish mythology. I was asking for specific evidence for that view.

You made a specific claim about the specific meaning of a line in the bible that is contrary to the straightforward meaning of those words. What I was asking is how you know that is the correct meaning.

You made a specific claim about numbers actually meaning different numbers other than themselves. This is a particularly strong claim, because numbers, unless qualified with "about" or "around," generally represent exactness and specificity. Strong claims require strong evidence, and I was asking about the strong, direct evidence showing that these numbers are not really what they seem at first glance.

In Matthew 8:21, you have made another specific claim, but you haven't presented any evidence for it. I'd like to know how you know that the man doesn't mean what he's literally saying and rather something slightly counter-intuitive.

And I understand that some stories are intended to make us think, but there's a certain point that things just get murky. A perfect example of what I mean is what I said about mixing history with fiction. Imagine if Livy liberally peppered his early histories with excerpts from Roman myth. How would we know what was real and what was just there to make us think?

[trotsky]

37. Hey, you're jumping ahead!

I wasn't ready to put him on the spot for that yet!

[darkstar3]

56. Sorry about that.

The cat and mouse game just isn't as fun for me when the mouse runs in circles. :) I'll try not to stomp on your fun in the future.

[Amaya]

55. so...

"fundies and anti-theists"

"Two types cut from the same cloth."

-fundies-
kill and die for their beliefs - fundies are proven intolerant, bigoted, misogynist assholes, that have ruled and terrorized societies for thousands of years with their TRUTH.


-anti-theists- on the other hand, believe the idea of gods to be harmful and nonproductive for humankind -


in my opinion, i would actually say that in many respects believing in god is harmful belief ... because it causes people to make decisions based on things that aren't true.


that fact that you find them the same, is shocking- and quite frankly scary.

and i won't even try to debate you on how you came to the knowledge of what is literal and what is not in holiest of holy books - THE BIBLE- it's too bad the average joe blow, will never know the TRUTH! the almighty YHWH only wants the intellectual theologians, like yourself, with their online degrees to crack the bible codes :wow:

[rug]

41. No, once again, you don't got it.

[trotsky]

52. Considering you won't say anything to prove me wrong,

I'd say I'm right. And that just eats you up inside - and will undoubtedly result in you hurling yet another single subject line at me. Horrors!

[rug]

61. Oh yes, trotsky, your words just eat up my insides.

:rofl:

Sometines I feel I've wandered into the personality disorder forum.

[trotsky]

62. It's the only logical conclusion...

because you obviously can't quit me. Prove me wrong, if you can! Or prove me right, by tacking on another one of your lame one-liners!

[rug]

64. Who can't quit who?

[trotsky]

65. Oh I think you've provided the obvious answer to that!

:hi:

You can show it more if you want! Keep it going!

[rug]

66. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=236430&mesg_id=236727

[trotsky]

67. You're doing much better!

That was just a period! Can you let it go now? Or does your obsession rule you?

[GliderGuider]

112. If one takes the objectification of god out of it, the underlying meaning is very good.

The verse is essentially saying that nothing in the universe is intrinsically bad or wrong.

Of course, since the objectification of god is the whole point of Abrahamic religions, the value of this snippet is significantly diminished by that association.

Still, it's refreshing to contemplate the idea that Hitler and guinea worms aren't intrinsically bad...