The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

A Discussion With a Youth Pastor

1356789

Posts

  • TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    allen1234 wrote: »

    Heck, I've read alot about what Jesus said, his most famous quotes, and how they're used so far out of context we don't understand them. Things like "Turn the other cheek" are misquotes that blur the real meaning so that instead of getting the original meaning of "turn your cheek so that he has to hit you like a man and not back hand you like a dog" becomes a call for pure pacifism. Jesus wasn't calling for war there, but he was calling on a personal act of strength that forced the Roman doing the slapping to at least hit him as a man, an equal, instead of something lower.

    It gets even better than that. I'm a Mennonite, so we are like, all the hell about the "turn the other cheek stuff" and my dad, who is not a pastor, but has taken many seminary and biblical history etc course told me some really interesting stuff about the context of those instructions.

    The cheek thing, in addition to what you said, I think also was little more confrontational than that even. To slap/hit you properly on the 'other' cheek, they'd have to use their other hand, which was unclean and would shame them to do so.

    With the "offering a man your robe if he takes your cloak" thing, it would actually shame them to see you naked, but not you.

    And the carry a pack for the extra mile thing was for the Romans. At the time a Roman soldier could make someone carry their gear for a mile (or whatever unit they used), but couldn't make them do it any longer. If they did, they got into trouble.

    So all these things were ways to defeat someone who was beating, taking advantage of, or oppressing you without resorting to violence. Jesus was subversive.

    Tofystedeth on
    steam_sig.png
  • FawkesFawkes __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2007
    At the time a Roman soldier could make someone carry their gear for a mile (or whatever unit they used)

    Otherwise known as a mile. Word comes from Latin, means thousand. A mile was a thousand paces, or about 1.5k, so pretty close to the modern mile.

    Trivia time over.

    Fawkes on
  • MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    MrMister wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    There's a fine line between cognitive dissonance and transcendent understanding, filled with subtleties, the latter being what most priests claim is possible.

    Everyone always talks about the subtelties of the faith, but I have no faith that such subtleties exist. Though you are probably in my corner, I had to point this out. Because, seriously, wtf.

    Yeah i'm firmly in your camp. Sorry if I didn't make it clear.

    I think what people claim is transcendental subtlety is really just paradox. Nonsensical and stupid.

    MikeMan on
  • TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    He came back later on as JC because the Jews were acting all crazy with the Torah. There's no reason to suspect that the Bible hasn't had the same issue and we're waiting for the 3rd coming to straighten out the Fred Phelps of the world.

    Fred Phelps doesn't need straightening out. He isn't gay. God hates fags, but loves Fred Phelps, so Fred couldn't possibly be gay. m i rite?


    Though it would be so tasty if he had a gay prostitute scandal like that one guy last year. Getting caught in hypocrisy is the best way to shut up folk like him.

    Tofystedeth on
    steam_sig.png
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Man I love how these threads become anti-religious circle jerks.

    OMG the world couldn't be made in 7 days, mirite?

    If you read the bible, one of the reasons Jesus was sent to earth was because the Jews at the time went apeshit with all these extra rules and requirements on top of the 10 commandments, and other core rules that were handed down.

    So what happens in the first 3-4 centuries after Christ's visit? Man makes up a bunch of other rules on top of the "rules" (and I quote that because Jesus didn't lay out a rulebook like the 10 commandments, he told everyone to start using their noggin's rather than their Teachers of the Law) Jesus laid out.

    Wash, rinse, repeat.

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    That said, I think you nailed it on the head with "don't really see a huge difference with trusting yourself...and making it up as you go along." I've always seen it as the hardest part of Christianity to swallow, but as you dig into this, it pretty much devolves back into faith. Faith helps you determine the difference.

    It's for those reasons that it's near impossible to debate Christianity from the outside. Once you accept the premise, debating from within is possible.

    Faith, in the Hebrews 11:1 sense, is, I think, one of the worst inventions in human history. It's basically supplanting reason with conviction.

    Also, I've had the opposite experience. It's essentially impossible to debate Christianity from the inside, as it simply becomes an exercise in one or more people justifying their beliefs via faith which, in the Hebrews 11:1 sense, is entirely impossible to reason with.

    Debating from the outside, which I interpret to mean "are [some set of claims] true?", is much more feasible. We feel a need to justify most things- people often seek justification for their beliefs, even if they rest on faith. This is why you have people falling over themselves looking for (and declaring!) real miracles and fulfilled prophecies and the like.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    My family's church got around problem #2 by pointing out that those who hadn't heard would be given the opportunity to learn right at armageddon, by ye olde avenging angels or whatever. I can't help but think that their belief would be kind of a no-brainer, though :P
    Purgatory, bitches! It slices, it dices, it fills lots of theological holes!

    Salvation122 on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    My family's church got around problem #2 by pointing out that those who hadn't heard would be given the opportunity to learn right at armageddon, by ye olde avenging angels or whatever. I can't help but think that their belief would be kind of a no-brainer, though :P

    Purgatory, bitches! It slices, it dices, it fills lots of theological holes!

    Weren't your people getting rid of that?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    My family's church got around problem #2 by pointing out that those who hadn't heard would be given the opportunity to learn right at armageddon, by ye olde avenging angels or whatever. I can't help but think that their belief would be kind of a no-brainer, though :P
    Purgatory, bitches! It slices, it dices, it fills lots of theological holes!

    If I buy it now, does it come a with a handy pocket flashlight and include free shipping?

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Ah, never mind, I was thinking of limbo. Or is that the same thing?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    Windbit wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Hey, Windbit - have you accepted the possibility that Christianity is more or less correct, but that the Bible, as it currently exists, is not the "infallible word of God", and contains a lot of crap thrown in by opportunistic people to further their own agendas?

    So like, yeah, there was a Jesus who died for your sins, but all that crap about "fags burn in Hell" and "no playing with yourself" is sort of up to debate?

    How can we be sure of anything in the Bible, then? Wouldn't God want to make sure his word wasn't tarnished and lead people astray?

    What do you think would happen if I wrote a completely bullshit version of the Bible right now, and started selling it? Like, would I burst into flames, or something? Would all of the Bibles magically become stamped with "Not 100% God-approved"? If people are determined to be assholes, there's only so much God could do.

    It's an approach that requires a great deal more thought and analysis, and requires resignation to the fact that you don't have complete knowledge of all the answers. Which is probably why many, if not most, people opt for literalness, instead.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Ah, never mind, I was thinking of limbo. Or is that the same thing?

    No, limbo is worse since there's no chance of ever going to heaven. You're just stuck in the middle. It's like here, only nobody can die. Purgatory sucks worse, but at least you get into heaven at the end of it.

    moniker on
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    As a Christian myself, I really REALLY hope that the criteria for gaining entrance to Heaven is not as strict as is the popular belief.

    At the same time, though.... I'm not banking on that hope being true.

    Honestly, I know a lot of people rag on us religious folks because a portion of us go to drastic, dire, and sometimes rude levels to "convert the non-believers", but the fact remains that a lot of us do feel like there is a risk of our friends/loved ones being in danger in "the next life".

    I may not agree with some of the methods of trying to convince you "non-believers", but at the same time, it's a concern to me. I can't do the overtly obvious "recruiting" for Christianity, mainly because I'm not Salesy at all (and let's be honest, most people take that approach), I would much rather let people make their own conclusions, not ram them down their throats.

    That being said though, I'm still going to talk about my faith (or "convictions" as it's been said earlier in this thread) when asked about it, or when the topic comes up in hopes that something I say or do happens to strike a chord and leads into further discussion.

    Perhaps that's why I post this now. I may get made fun of from time to time, or get shot down in a blaze of theological theories, but I'm a big boy, I can take it. ;)

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    If people are determined to be assholes, there's only so much God could do.

    That would make him perhaps the least potent omnipotent dude ever

    People are always assholes

    I'm being an asshole right now

    Evil Multifarious on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    saint2e wrote: »

    Honestly, I know a lot of people rag on us religious folks because a portion of us go to drastic, dire, and sometimes rude levels to "convert the non-believers", but the fact remains that a lot of us do feel like there is a risk of our friends/loved ones being in danger in "the next life".

    I, for one, rag on religious people for believing ludicrous things without any evidence.

    Hachface on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    If people are determined to be assholes, there's only so much God could do.

    That would make him perhaps the least potent omnipotent dude ever

    People are always assholes

    I'm being an asshole right now

    Okay, if he's omnipotent, he can do whatever, but if we're assuming non-Calvinism, he won't.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    Ah, never mind, I was thinking of limbo. Or is that the same thing?

    No, limbo is worse since there's no chance of ever going to heaven. You're just stuck in the middle. It's like here, only nobody can die. Purgatory sucks worse, but at least you get into heaven at the end of it.

    Are we using Dantian mythos, here? Because the Bible itself doesn't really define this shit. But otherwise, yeah, Limbo is paradise without God; and purgatory is only mildly better than Hell, but at least allows for redemption.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Hachface wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »

    Honestly, I know a lot of people rag on us religious folks because a portion of us go to drastic, dire, and sometimes rude levels to "convert the non-believers", but the fact remains that a lot of us do feel like there is a risk of our friends/loved ones being in danger in "the next life".

    I, for one, rag on religious people for believing ludicrous things without any evidence.

    Fair enough, that is your right to do so, I suppose.

    I could in turn ask you if you believe I'm a real person or not. Blah Blah Blah, etc. etc. etc. Of course the difference is, no one's knocking on your door on a Saturday afternoon handing you a pamphlet about saint2e's existence.

    And if there were, I'd be a bit creeped out.

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Ah, never mind, I was thinking of limbo. Or is that the same thing?

    No, limbo is worse since there's no chance of ever going to heaven. You're just stuck in the middle. It's like here, only nobody can die. Purgatory sucks worse, but at least you get into heaven at the end of it.

    Are we using Dantian mythos, here? Because the Bible itself doesn't really define this shit. But otherwise, yeah, Limbo is paradise without God; and purgatory is only mildly better than Hell, but at least allows for redemption.

    I'm pretty sure church dogma falls in line with some of Dante's stuff or it's treated with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge type deal.

    moniker on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Ah, never mind, I was thinking of limbo. Or is that the same thing?

    No, limbo is worse since there's no chance of ever going to heaven. You're just stuck in the middle. It's like here, only nobody can die. Purgatory sucks worse, but at least you get into heaven at the end of it.

    Are we using Dantian mythos, here? Because the Bible itself doesn't really define this shit. But otherwise, yeah, Limbo is paradise without God; and purgatory is only mildly better than Hell, but at least allows for redemption.

    I'm pretty sure church dogma falls in line with some of Dante's stuff or it's treated with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge type deal.

    I'm not familiar with the historical background of the Divine Comedy, but does the church have any justification for granting it any relevance at all? I sort of thought that Dante basically made up a bunch of shit, theologically speaking. If the church is using it as dogma, isn't that sort of like people getting their history lessons from The Da Vinci Code?

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Dante's stuff was based on Church canon, not the other way around. Dante didn't come up with the stuff, he just made it awesome, and used it for personal attacks against enemies.

    Fencingsax on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    saint2e wrote: »
    I could in turn ask you if you believe I'm a real person or not. Blah Blah Blah, etc. etc. etc. Of course the difference is, no one's knocking on your door on a Saturday afternoon handing you a pamphlet about saint2e's existence.

    And if there were, I'd be a bit creeped out.


    Surely you recognize the difference between trusting one's immediate sensory experience and believing (for example) that a certain book is the infallible word of God.

    Hachface on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Hachface wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »

    Honestly, I know a lot of people rag on us religious folks because a portion of us go to drastic, dire, and sometimes rude levels to "convert the non-believers", but the fact remains that a lot of us do feel like there is a risk of our friends/loved ones being in danger in "the next life".

    I, for one, rag on religious people for believing ludicrous things without any evidence.

    I rag on them exactly the same amount as I do people who believe in the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, chupacabras, and Godzilla.

    Which is to say, a lot.

    KalTorak on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    saint2e wrote: »
    As a Christian myself, I really REALLY hope that the criteria for gaining entrance to Heaven is not as strict as is the popular belief.

    Catholics tend to look at it differently. The church asks pretty much as little as possible from the majority of people. A little faith, good works, and confession. Not really that hard.

    However, for a select group of people, it asks the world. Priests carry your sins on their shoulders, and abstain from a lot so that you can indulge. It's why I get a little annoyed when people dismiss priests so easily.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • HaphazardHaphazard Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Limbo, purgatory and all this stuff is some hundred years older than the Devine Comedy.

    And no, the catholic church still has purgatory and limbo, just some stuff was... uhm, retconned. ;-)

    Edit: So badly beaten...

    Haphazard on
  • P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    There's a huge problem with religious education in Churches. I have friends who would both claim to be devout Christians, but also claim that they have no free will and are just enacting God's will. I don't understand how they can possibly believe that if they had actually even heard about the Bible.

    P10 on
    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Hachface wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    I could in turn ask you if you believe I'm a real person or not. Blah Blah Blah, etc. etc. etc. Of course the difference is, no one's knocking on your door on a Saturday afternoon handing you a pamphlet about saint2e's existence.

    And if there were, I'd be a bit creeped out.


    Surely you recognize the difference between trusting one's immediate sensory experience and believing (for example) that a certain book is the infallible word of God.

    Oh of course, but we could get really existential and ask ourselves if we really exist or is this a simulation? Or maybe I'm in a coma in the real world, and you're all a part of an elaborate lucid dream, etc. etc.

    Would you say it's conceivable, albeit unlikely?

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • Manning'sEquationManning'sEquation Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    _J_ wrote: »
    Windbit wrote: »
    I talked to my Church's youth pastor today

    That was your first mistake. Youth Pastors are sort of the G4 version of Pastors. They're wild and crazy and hip to how the kids talk these days, with their jeans and their hair. And they love Christ in that totally wacky and hip non-sexual way.

    True, don't go to some newbie pastor on this subject or this internet hellhole of a fourm for advice. Read some bibical scholars and make your mind for yourself.

    Go to the library or a bookstore and pick up some books. Do not talk to anyone else. Study and decide yourself.



    If you want recomendations on books PM me.

    Manning'sEquation on
  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with the historical background of the Divine Comedy, but does the church have any justification for granting it any relevance at all? I sort of thought that Dante basically made up a bunch of shit, theologically speaking. If the church is using it as dogma, isn't that sort of like people getting their history lessons from The Da Vinci Code?

    I don't believe that the church considers The Divine Comedy dogma. In fact, as I understand it, the previous pope made a statement to the effect that Heaven and Hell are not literal places but states of mind: Heaven is communion with God whereas Hell is isolation from him. It's a really watered down version of Heaven and Hell, but what do you expect from the Church post-Vatican II?

    Hachface on
  • Legoman05Legoman05 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Windbit wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Although, I've never gone to schooling regarding this. Hell, I'm a filthy athiest heretic, kekeke.

    I was going to rape you over the apologetics you posted, but when I got to this line i found that you were not actually full force behind them. Fact of the matter is, if god is benevolent and omnipotent, then we must be living in the best possible world. But we obviously aren't. The end.

    From what I've heard, God did make the world to be perfect originally. However, when Adam and Eve sinned, the world somehow became flawed. I don't understand why a loving God would design humans to be curious, put a tree that can screw up creation in a garden with said curious humans, and allow the Devil/Adversary to tempt them.

    Love without choice is meaningless. God could have creating beings that were under compulsion to love God - but that'd be like me writing for(i=1,i=0,i++) {print "I Love you Legoman05\n"} It would do as it is told, but be totally meaningless.

    The choice to sin in the garden was a wholely deliberate choice against God's character - nothing like the 'oops, I just accidently picked this tree,' or 'sorry, my curiosity got the better of me.'
    Also, if God knows everything, then He would know that Adam and Eve were going to sin before He created them. Coupled with the fact that God wants people to worship him by choice, it only seems logical to me that God planned for Adam and Eve to sin so that He could have millions of people to worship Him by choice, rather than making humans without the free will to refuse Him, because forced worship doesn't constitute true worship.

    However, if God is all-powerful, couldn't He easily make a much simpler, not as cruel way to get what He wanted? And even if I'm misunderstanding things, why should I or anyone else be punished by eternal hellfire for misinterpreting God's will when he doesn't make it clear?

    One would argue that he does make it clear - and the only thing you have to do to go to Heaven is what's written in scripture: "Confess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that Jesus is Lord, and that God raised him from the dead, and you will be saved" - in other words: Ask that what Christ did on the cross be applied to your own life - and you'll have everything wiped away. (Romans 10)

    Doesn't get a whole lot easier than that.
    Lastly, from what I understand, God only cares about us as much as we can do for Him. So, he doesn't care that not only does stuff like this happen:
    blurb200_lg-1.jpg
    But He's going to send that little girl's soul to Hell, too.

    On the contrary.

    That passage about 'general revelation' - people being judged by their actions who have not known Jesus - is in Romans 1:

    18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

    21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.


    For a good example of this - check out this book. How else, other than the actual presence of God, could an inca conclude that God was trinitarian, and higher than all created beings and objects.

    Legoman05 on
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Podly wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    As a Christian myself, I really REALLY hope that the criteria for gaining entrance to Heaven is not as strict as is the popular belief.

    Catholics tend to look at it differently. The church asks pretty much as little as possible from the majority of people. A little faith, good works, and confession. Not really that hard.

    However, for a select group of people, it asks the world. Priests carry your sins on their shoulders, and abstain from a lot so that you can indulge. It's why I get a little annoyed when people dismiss priests so easily.

    I was always under the impression that Catholics believe that only Catholics are going to heaven... Of course, this could also be another case of painting everyone with one stroke.

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Ah, never mind, I was thinking of limbo. Or is that the same thing?

    No, limbo is worse since there's no chance of ever going to heaven. You're just stuck in the middle. It's like here, only nobody can die. Purgatory sucks worse, but at least you get into heaven at the end of it.

    Are we using Dantian mythos, here? Because the Bible itself doesn't really define this shit. But otherwise, yeah, Limbo is paradise without God; and purgatory is only mildly better than Hell, but at least allows for redemption.
    Metaphor time!

    Okay, so we have this legal system. God is the judge, pretty much everyone can agree to that. The priest is your lawyer. When you go to Confession, you're basically copping a plea. Penance is community service. Limbo is, to the best of my knowledge, not actually in Church Canon. Purgatory is for misdemeanors, Hell is for felonies.

    I tend to think of Purgatory as a prison in a small European nation. I mean, it sucks, 'cause it's prison, but on the other hand your ass isn't rotting in Pelican Bay, your sentence is comprised of a whole lot of counselling, and there's the possibility of parole.

    Salvation122 on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    saint2e wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Surely you recognize the difference between trusting one's immediate sensory experience and believing (for example) that a certain book is the infallible word of God.

    Oh of course, but we could get really existential and ask ourselves if we really exist or is this a simulation? Or maybe I'm in a coma in the real world, and you're all a part of an elaborate lucid dream, etc. etc.

    Would you say it's conceivable, albeit unlikely?

    I can't remember how the "appeal to solipsism" argument ends. Can you just cut to the chase?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • delphinusdelphinus Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Veegeezee wrote: »
    You don't need to seek validation from the internet. It's paramount that you figure this out for yourself.


    best answer i have ever read in any religion thread. EVER

    delphinus on
  • darthmixdarthmix Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Hachface wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with the historical background of the Divine Comedy, but does the church have any justification for granting it any relevance at all? I sort of thought that Dante basically made up a bunch of shit, theologically speaking. If the church is using it as dogma, isn't that sort of like people getting their history lessons from The Da Vinci Code?

    I don't believe that the church considers The Divine Comedy dogma. In fact, as I understand it, the previous pope made a statement to the effect that Heaven and Hell are not literal places but states of mind: Heaven is communion with God whereas Hell is isolation from him. It's a really watered down version of Heaven and Hell, but what do you expect from the Church post-Vatican II?
    Are you sure? Some years ago I read much of the catechism that came out of Vatican II and I'm fairly sure they said that hell was a physical place to which the unsaved soul descends immediately after death.

    Hang on; I'll see if I can find it.

    Edit: here's the line I was remembering:
    The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal 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.

    darthmix on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Hachface wrote: »
    I don't believe that the church considers The Divine Comedy dogma. In fact, as I understand it, the previous pope made a statement to the effect that Heaven and Hell are not literal places but states of mind: Heaven is communion with God whereas Hell is isolation from him. It's a really watered down version of Heaven and Hell, but what do you expect from the Church post-Vatican II?

    No, the pope didn't really say that. Saint Anslem (later affirmed by Martin Buber) that Sin is not the presence of evil, but the absence of God. Hell, is so horrible, not because of torture etc, but because the shroud of earthly life is removed and you see the truth, which you will never be united with.

    Purgatory a la Dante is interesting, because there is torture, but people are so happy, because there is hope.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    saint2e wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    I could in turn ask you if you believe I'm a real person or not. Blah Blah Blah, etc. etc. etc. Of course the difference is, no one's knocking on your door on a Saturday afternoon handing you a pamphlet about saint2e's existence.

    And if there were, I'd be a bit creeped out.


    Surely you recognize the difference between trusting one's immediate sensory experience and believing (for example) that a certain book is the infallible word of God.

    Oh of course, but we could get really existential and ask ourselves if we really exist or is this a simulation? Or maybe I'm in a coma in the real world, and you're all a part of an elaborate lucid dream, etc. etc.

    Would you say it's conceivable, albeit unlikely?

    First of all that is not existential

    Second of all you are missing his point

    Solipsism != skepticism

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    saint2e wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    As a Christian myself, I really REALLY hope that the criteria for gaining entrance to Heaven is not as strict as is the popular belief.

    Catholics tend to look at it differently. The church asks pretty much as little as possible from the majority of people. A little faith, good works, and confession. Not really that hard.

    However, for a select group of people, it asks the world. Priests carry your sins on their shoulders, and abstain from a lot so that you can indulge. It's why I get a little annoyed when people dismiss priests so easily.

    I was always under the impression that Catholics believe that only Catholics are going to heaven... Of course, this could also be another case of painting everyone with one stroke.
    Catholics tend to believe that most Protestants will be spending a lot of time in Purgatory since they don't do penance.

    Salvation122 on
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    saint2e wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Surely you recognize the difference between trusting one's immediate sensory experience and believing (for example) that a certain book is the infallible word of God.

    Oh of course, but we could get really existential and ask ourselves if we really exist or is this a simulation? Or maybe I'm in a coma in the real world, and you're all a part of an elaborate lucid dream, etc. etc.

    Would you say it's conceivable, albeit unlikely?

    I can't remember how the "appeal to solipsism" argument ends. Can you just cut to the chase?

    Yeah, not familiar with that term/argument.

    But just to point out that it is conceivable that one's sensory experience could be flawed/outright wrong. And if that's wrong, what do you trust?

    But you go that far, and of course there's no coming back and no room for argument.

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    saint2e wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    saint2e wrote: »
    As a Christian myself, I really REALLY hope that the criteria for gaining entrance to Heaven is not as strict as is the popular belief.

    Catholics tend to look at it differently. The church asks pretty much as little as possible from the majority of people. A little faith, good works, and confession. Not really that hard.

    However, for a select group of people, it asks the world. Priests carry your sins on their shoulders, and abstain from a lot so that you can indulge. It's why I get a little annoyed when people dismiss priests so easily.

    I was always under the impression that Catholics believe that only Catholics are going to heaven... Of course, this could also be another case of painting everyone with one stroke.

    In terms of your Grandma's catholicism? Yes. However, there was a letter in 1962 which said that the Catholic church denies "nothing which is true" in other religions. Of course, the big block is Jesus as salvation. However, as Catholics tend to emphasize good deeds more than good faith, it's a lot easier to reconcile a Hindu or atheist getting into heaven for a Catholic than for a Protestant or other Christian.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
This discussion has been closed.