Check out some similar questions!

dwashbur · Dec 13, 2022, 10:10 AM

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.

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.
For some reason I'm reminded of a scene in a TV miniseries I saw some time in the late 60's or early 70's, I can't remember for sure and I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment. It was called Moses the Lawgiver. Pharaoh is standing in front of one of his idols, couldn't tell you which one, holding his dead firstborn in his arms. He looks up at the idol and gives what I considered one of the great classic lines in all of cinema: "What do I do now?" I laughed so hard at that line I almost missed the next one: "You can't do anything, you have the head of a chicken." Best we can tell, people such as the Canaanites and Egyptians genuinely believed these statues were the deities. Were there individuals for whom a chunk of rock wasn't good enough and their hearts reached for something higher? You bet! Those are the ones that I believe received mercy.

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. Being completely separated from the Ultimate Source Of Life. My view looks more like what Randy Alcorn described in his book Deadline. I won't give any spoilers.

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.

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? Give them what they want. They don't realize it'll be about as pleasant as being in a lake of fire.

That's my total take on Hell.

dwashbur · Dec 13, 2022, 10:17 AM

The other conclusion I came to: I hate theology.
I find the study of God fascinating. To each his own.

That's why we need both people like you and people like me. 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 · Dec 13, 2022, 03:42 PM

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.)

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 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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

fm dwashbur
The other conclusion I came to: I hate theology.

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.

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.

Gotcha. Kermit - haha.

Thought this would be shorter. Once a flannel-mouth.....

jlisenbe · Dec 13, 2022, 03:55 PM

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.

Except that Jesus never spoke of it that way. It just seems to be a large measure of speculation that has to begin with an assumption that all the talk of, "the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels" was just so much pretense. That's quite a stretch. But in saying, "They are attempting to describe the indescribable," you might have a good point. And yet it would be wise to note that whatever the "indescribable" is, it is terrifying, and that still makes hell a very bad place, thus leaving the "anit-hellers" at about the same place they were to begin with.

dwashbur · Dec 13, 2022, 09:49 PM

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.
Except that Jesus never spoke of it that way. It just seems to be a large measure of speculation that has to begin with an assumption that all the talk of, "the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels" was just so much pretense. That's quite a stretch. But in saying, "They are attempting to describe the indescribable," you might have a good point. And yet it would be wise to note that whatever the "indescribable" is, it is terrifying, and that still makes hell a very bad place, thus leaving the "anit-hellers" at about the same place they were to begin with.

What Alcorn described is more terrifying to me than any fire you could show me.

jlisenbe · Dec 13, 2022, 09:55 PM

That could very well be true, and your point is well taken, but the issue is that I'm not trying to show you anything. I'm just referring to the text.

dwashbur · Dec 14, 2022, 08:38 AM

Athos

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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>

Wondergirl · Dec 14, 2022, 10:22 AM

Originally Posted by dwashbur

WG, I've served under several Lutheran pastors. Not one of them could truly explain baptism to me.

You shudda called me. Infant baptism has more to do with the sponsors/godparents and the baby's parents than anything going on inside the baby's heart and soul. The sponsors and parents pledge to guide the baby into the Christian faith as it grows up, enriching its life with knowledge about God and His love and goodness, pray for the child as it grows up, be in loving contact as much as possible.

jlisenbe · Dec 14, 2022, 10:55 AM

Infant baptism has more to do with the sponsors/godparents and the baby's parents than anything going on inside the baby's heart and soul. The sponsors and parents pledge to guide the baby into the Christian faith as it grows up, enriching its life with knowledge about God and His love and goodness, pray for the child as it grows up, be in loving contact as much as possible.

That I can agree with. It is largely symbolic with no real impact on the infant.

dwashbur · Dec 14, 2022, 11:58 AM

WG

Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
WG, I've served under several Lutheran pastors. Not one of them could truly explain baptism to me.
You shudda called me. Infant baptism has more to do with the sponsors/godparents and the baby's parents than anything going on inside the baby's heart and soul. The sponsors and parents pledge to guide the baby into the Christian faith as it grows up, enriching its life with knowledge about God and His love and goodness, pray for the child as it grows up, be in loving contact as much as possible.

These were ELCA, I don't know if that makes a difference. One told me baptism "places you into the family of God." I asked what that meant and he couldn't really come up with an explanation. RC says it removes original sin. I don't buy it, but at least Father Tim was able to give me a definitive answer.

I agree with JL that it's a symbolic act. In the New Testament it's an expression of one's faith as well as an initiation into local church bodies.

jlisenbe · Dec 14, 2022, 12:01 PM

I agree with JL that it's a symbolic act. In the New Testament it's an expression of one's faith as well as an initiation into local church bodies.

I think that's fair. I would only add that baptism is a public declaration of what might have occurred in private. In my case, I became a Christian while kneeling by my bed at night, but I was baptized in the light of day in a swimming pool at Bible college with about thirty others.

Wondergirl · Dec 14, 2022, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by dwashbur

I agree with JL that it's a symbolic act. In the New Testament it's an expression of one's faith as well as an initiation into local church bodies.

My dad was a LCMS pastor and believed that infant baptism was a public acknowledgement that the baby would be raised as a Christian and thus was a way to begin to work faith in the child. And that "work" would mainly be done by supportive baptismal sponsors and the baby's family -- plus congregation members.

jlisenbe · Dec 14, 2022, 01:18 PM

I think your dad made a really good statement. It's actually more of a dedication service. It would have nothing to do with the infant repenting, believing, or being born again at that point of baptism. Perhaps we have come to one of our rare moments of agreement.

Wondergirl · Dec 14, 2022, 02:07 PM

Confirmation classes begin in 8th grade and are a review of Christian (and specific Lutheran) beliefs. The culmination of confirmation classes is a special ceremony, an affirmation of baptism, a public reaffirmation of faith.

jlisenbe · Dec 14, 2022, 02:20 PM

a public reaffirmation of faith.

Unless, of course, the individual had never placed his/her faith in Christ to begin with.

Wondergirl · Dec 14, 2022, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Unless, of course, the individual had never placed his/her faith in Christ to begin with.

If the individual hasn't, he will privately express that to the pastor and/or refuse to participate in the confirmation ceremony. (Remember, the individual is around 13 years old and has yet to experience many challenges to his/her beliefs.)

jlisenbe · Dec 14, 2022, 03:10 PM

If the individual hasn't, he will privately express that to the pastor and/or refuse to participate in the confirmation ceremony.

I have no doubt that the woods are full of former Lutherans who went through the classes you mentioned without ever making a genuine decision to follow Jesus.

Athos · Dec 14, 2022, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Confirmation classes begin in 8th grade and are a review of Christian (and specific Lutheran) beliefs. The culmination of confirmation classes is a special ceremony, an affirmation of baptism, a public reaffirmation of faith.

We were confirmed in the 8th grade in the big church with the Bishop lightly slapping us as we gave him our confirmation name on a piece of paper. He told us we were now Soldiers of Christ so we went out and beat up a bunch of Protestants!!

JUST KIDDING, JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dwashbur · Dec 14, 2022, 03:16 PM

I think that's fair. I would only add that baptism is a public declaration of what might have occurred in private. In my case, I became a Christian while kneeling by my bed at night, but I was baptized in the light of day in a swimming pool at Bible college with about thirty others.

I don't remember when I became a Christian. I do not remember a time when I wasn't. A little weird, but there it is. When I was 7 I was talking with my mom about believing in Jesus and all the rest and she explained to me what baptism was. Our pastor baptized me the following Sunday night, after which my oldest sister planted a huge glob of orange lipstick on my cheek. It was all I could do not to scream. Even so, I knew I had done something important, and my shirt had a long sleeve so I could wipe the goop away. Good enough.
The things you remember...

My dad was a LCMS pastor and believed that infant baptism was a public acknowledgement that the baby would be raised as a Christian and thus was a way to begin to work faith in the child. And that "work" would mainly be done by supportive baptismal sponsors and the baby's family -- plus congregation members.

See, THAT makes sense. What Pastors Ken and Eunice told me didn't. Thanks!

jlisenbe · Dec 15, 2022, 08:30 PM

I don't remember when I became a Christian. I do not remember a time when I wasn't.

I have no doubt that's true, but I think we would agree that you were not born a Christian, nor became a Christian at 6 months. There is an issue of volition involved here that infants are not capable of. I tell the guys at the rehab that it's somewhat like agreeing to heart surgery. The surgeon does the work, but I have to recognize my need and get on the table.