Athos
Quote:
I'll try to limit my reply to your good comments, just touching on the important stuff. (The father of a girlfriend of mine once referred to me as a flannel-mouthed Irishman - 'tho I'm Irish-American, not a real Irishman. I couldn't tell if that was a compliment or an insult.)
When my sister named her son Kevin my dad threw a fit because "That's a flannel-mouthed Irishman's name". I never knew what that meant, especially since my mom was almost pure Irish.
Quote:
fm Athos
I agree with you. I would add that God's mercy also applies to those who, in good conscience, worship their deity even though others may see it as a rock idol.
fm dwashbur
I'm not sure I can go that far, but I wouldn't be adverse to God being that merciful. It's all about the heart condition.
John Henry Newman said something very similar, "...conscience is 'the primordial word of God' written in human hearts". However, he later seems to backtrack by saying (to Catholics) "...if one is a Catholic, on must USE the teachings of the Magisterium to inform one's conscience."
I'd like to see the context of that, but from a Catholic perspective I understand why he said it. It reminds me of the seven Noachic laws vs. the 613 Mitzvot in Judaism. I don't think I'd like a God with double standards, but that's just me.
Quote:
I do believe in a literal Hell, though not the kind that has come to us in art and literature with the flames and demons poking with pitchforks and all that mishmash. "Hell" at its core is the absence of God.
[Athos]
Absence of God is becoming more mainstream among Christians regardless of denomination. Even literal fundamentalists are beginning to support it. Wikipedia has a very good article on "Annihilationism".
Absence of God as I understand it isn't the same as annihilationism. One exists, but totally alone. Annihilationism as taught by, e.g. the 7th Day Adventists, is just what it says: complete cessation of existence. Unless I've misunderstood you, which is always possible.
Quote:
So what's with all the language of fire and such? Jesus, John, Peter Paul and Mary - wait, that was somebody else - used the most terrifying language they could come up with. Why fire? Because everything is afraid of fire. Jesus could point to the valley of Hinnom and say "Imagine being in THAT for eternity" and get his point across, whether that's literally what it looked like or not. The point is the terrifying idea. They are attempting to describe the indescribable by doing what Jesus always did: finding points of contact that the people understand.
[Athos]
I have to thank you for addressing the idea so clearly. Better than what I have been saying for two years here that Jesus spoke figuratively and that the Bible - especially Genesis - is filled with allegories. In John's Gospel, Jesus himself is quoted as saying that very thing about his speaking figuratively. He does not mean every word out of his mouth obviously, but it's fairly clear when he does mean it. Those who are mired in "that old time religion" need to see Jesus' figurative way of expression for a deeper appreciation of their faith.
Quite so. Even when he mentioned the fire prepared for the devil and his angels as JL cited, we're talking about fire that doesn't oxidize fuel so the individuals are burned forever. But if the fire doesn't oxidize, how does it create pain or torment? Reading it literally creates more problems than it solves. And if we realize that Jesus is describing something that is so indescribably much worse even than the imagery he uses, it can give one pause and cause one to ask "How do I cancel my reservation?"
Quote:
But there are those who simply do not want to live in eternity with God, any god. What's the Almighty supposed to do with them?
I find that personally difficult to comprehend - that some, having knowledge of God - reject him. That would seem to put evil on a par with the good. Just my way of thinking.
I wish it were otherwise, but I've met a few.
[Quote]
fm dwashbur
The other conclusion I came to: I hate theology.
Quote:
fm Athos
I find the study of God fascinating. To each his own.
fm dwashbur
That's why we need both people like you and people like me.
Yes, each way has value. When the exchange is civil like this one, each can learn from the other. Here's a link that illustrates some of what we have been discussing.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...en#post3884258
The last line of the link is a nice summary.
Very well said. As far as I'm concerned, legalizing Christianity way back when was a mistake. It gave theologians and church leaders too much time to sit around and think things up that had nothing to do with actual worship of Jesus, and create an impossibly complicated religion that builds on uncertainty and fear to make and keep converts. What Jesus brought was so simple, people like Cornelius and his household didn't even have to say a word and He accepted them. C.S. Lewis has no idea when he became a Christian. He said he was on a trip from point A to point B. When he started out, he wasn't, and by the time he reached his destination, he was.
WG, I've served under several Lutheran pastors. Not one of them could truly explain baptism to me. But I don't believe it's what they said it is. Mark 16 says if you're not baptized you're condemned, but Jesus didn't say that. Somebody else threw that stuff in when they discovered their copies of Mark didn't have the actual resurrection account. It's not authoritative in any way. But this is what professional theology has given us: two different methods of salvation. And they can't even bring them to us in English, they have to use the Latin phrase Ordo salutis, which sounds like the scientific name of some kind of insect. To me it's more of the pigeon-holing I mentioned. I don't care how it happens. Jesus is merciful. All I have to do is cry out "God, be merciful to me" like the tax collector, or listen and understand the message like Cornelius, or be practical and say "Well, here's some water, let's do this" like the Ethiopian with Philip. We see it happen a dozen or so different ways, so as far as I'm concerned the theologian can keep their idle speculations and go get a real job.
Quote:
Show me a good irregular Hebrew verb and I'm occupied for the next 3 hours. Tell me to work out a systematic theology of blah blah and I'll probably stare at you like you have two heads.
Understanding God as much as we can is a good thing. My big problem with current methods of doing theology is, most of the categories are nothing but pigeon-holes. I don't see how any finite being can pigeon-hole God. Right about the time some theologian says "I've got it all figured out" another one comes along and shoots holes in it. Having spent some time in that level of academia, I can say with certainty that at some point, it becomes more about the theologian than about the Theos.
When I was in seminary I took a series of New Testament courses called Exegetical Theology of XYZ. We looked for common themes in individual books. What we found might or might not comport with established systematic theology categories and I for one didn't care. I learned more from Exegetical Theology of the Gospels than I did from any other course I took in my two years there.
Plus, I was a big fan of the Muppets and the professor's name was Kermit. How can you not love it??
Seriously, those are my issues with theology. But I'm thankful there are those who have the interest to do that part of it. It just ain't for me.
[Athos]
Gotcha. Kermit - haha.
Thought this would be shorter. Once a flannel-mouth.....
I've eaten some foods that tasted like flannel, but I don't think it's the same thing <biggrin>
