[Athos]

When have I quoted the Catholic catechism?

You quoted the Catholic Church on Feb.11, your post #11. That section specifically omits any mention of unbelief and only refers to mortal sin. Now you will say that your "sinning" explanation really only means grevious sin like the Church mortal sin. You're very predictable. Be interesting to see how you get out of this one.


The below was to Wondergirl.

...but good grief. If you want to be treated like a weak, silly female,

Fascinating how you unknowingly reveal yourself in little snippets here and there.

[jlisenbe]

You are correct that I did refer to it. It was said in reply to this statement of yours. "The topic is “Unbelievers are condemned to eternal punishment in hell”. This is the belief of a small group of fundamentalist Christians. As promised, here is my statement in opposition to this belief."

Here is my reply.

"Your contention that the punishment of hell is a doctrine believed by some small set of fundamentalists is simply wrong. It is a central belief of evangelical Christianity, and is believed by the Catholic Church as well. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “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." I am not a Catholic, but that sure seems pretty clear."

As any schoolchild can see, I was responding to your silly suggestion that punishment in hell was believed by some small set of fundamentalists. The Catholic position clearly says hell is eternal and is intended for those "who die in a state of mortal sin" where, it says, they suffer punishment. So once again you were called on the carpet for your sloppy theology.

And not to mention your fearful approach to answering questions.

1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?

[Athos]

"The topic is “Unbelievers are condemned to eternal punishment in hell”. This is the belief of a small group of fundamentalist Christians. As promised, here is my statement in opposition to this belief."

Here is my reply.

"Your contention that the punishment of hell is a doctrine believed by some small set of fundamentalists is simply wrong.

You quoted me correctly at first, then you INCORRECTLY restated it. Amazing!

As any schoolchild can see, I was responding to your silly suggestion that punishment in hell was believed by some small set of fundamentalists.

The silliness is all yours. That was NEVER my position as you know very well. Your tendency to change meanings of positions held, phrases and even words is common to those who practice deceit.

you were called on the carpet for your sloppy theology.

In this case, my theology was accurate. The difficulty comes from you incorrectly citing my position.

[jlisenbe]

This could go on forever. I am very, very comfortable and satisfied with my position and my defense of it, but I imagine you two feel the same way, so this bitter diatribe could go on unproductively forever.

I suggest we go to "answer a question, ask a question". The guidelines are very simple. Someone poses a question to another member. I'll volunteer to go first, receiving a question from one of you or both of you. That person then answers the question honestly and openly. The questioner can then ask one or two more questions for the sake of clarity. After that, the first question recipient then becomes the next questioner. Each person must fully agree to: 1. Answer honestly and openly. 2. Restrain from personal insult.

Anyone up for it???

[Wondergirl]

Start new threads on this board under this topic?

[jlisenbe]

We can go from right here as far as I'm concerned, just as soon as we all agree to the two conditions. I will agree.

[Wondergirl]

We can go from right here as far as I'm concerned, just as soon as we all agree to the two conditions. I will agree.

Not sure what your "honestly and openly" means, but sure, I agree to your two conditions.

Best thing to do is start a new question as its own thread (don't hide it on this thread). That way, other members might post a response.

[jlisenbe]

Not sure what your "honestly and openly" means, but sure, I agree to your two conditions.

Too vague a response. Must be unconditional.

Best thing to do is start a new question as its own thread (don't hide it on this thread). That way, other members might post a response.

Other members cannot participate. It is between a questioner and a question recipient. Otherwise it's too many cooks in the kitchen.

[Wondergirl]

Other members cannot participate. It is between a questioner and a question recipient. Otherwise it's too many cooks in the kitchen.

That doesn't work on this site. I'm out.

[jlisenbe]

I'm disappointed but not surprised. Still, it's your decision so I respect that. I knew Athos would not do it, but I thought you might. I have found that people who are genuinely interested in true discussion are rare. I know of precisely one at this point. It requires a significant degree of honesty and discipline.

[Wondergirl]

I'm disappointed but not surprised. Still, it's your decision so I respect that. I knew Athos would not do it, but I thought you might. I have found that people who are genuinely interested in true discussion are rare. I know of precisely one at this point. It requires a significant degree of honesty and discipline.

Stop damning me!!! That method is NOT appropriate for this site.

[jlisenbe]

Of course it is. It's appropriate for anyone who cares to do it. The site means nothing. You don't want to do it and that's fine by me. There's no compulsion here. My remark about knowing one person willing to engage in this discipline of discussion wasn't aimed at anyone. It's simply true. He's a local friend and grad of a Baptist seminary. We have good discussions and kind of informally follow those two guidelines.

[jlisenbe]

Good grief! I DID refer to Scripture. You refused to read it. The internet reference had TONS of Scripture material for you in answer to your question. BUT YOU REFUSED TO READ IT.

In your belief statement there was no scripture. I did not criticize you. I simply pointed out that your beliefs seem to be based upon your own opinions but nothing more. That being the case, there is no compelling reason for anyone else to accept them. That is not criticism but simple truth.

I am confident I have more knowledge of the historical significance of the Bible than you will ever have.

I have seen no evidence of that. Now it could very well be true, but so far I haven't seen it.

In your world, the Jesus who said Love Your Enemy is the same Jesus who condemns that enemy to hell for eternal punishment. The contradiction escapes you.

Calling Jesus gentle and loving is a common expression.

How can you believe Jesus said anything or was anything? Is that all it is to you, a "common expression"? You seem to believe the Bible is unreliable and that we can't really know what Jesus said. If that is not the case, then please give further explanation. BTW, there is no contradiction.

There's no perhaps about it! You read it on a surface level, taking the words literally and missing the essence.

If the Bible is not literal, then who determines what this mysterious "essence" is? You? The authors of the Bible did not have that approach. In John 20:31 we read, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." There is no need to find a "knower of essence" to understand that. It is plainly a literal statement. It is by believing in Him that we have life in His name.

I often think that your problem is you are under conviction of your need for Christ. I well remember how uncomfortable that can be.

[jlisenbe]

Especially if you agree with many who have read the earliest Mark that the disciples are portrayed as unbelieving, demanding of truth, and the true believers were Mary and Martha.

What "earliest copy of Mark" are you referring to? The earliest copy of Mark I could find was P45, a manuscript containing parts of all four gospels and so far as I could find, not different in any remarkable way from later copies.

[Wondergirl]

If the Bible is not literal

Are Genesis 1 and 2 literal? Is Genesis 3 literal? Is Genesis 7 literal?

[jlisenbe]

Now I will answer this question if you PROMISE to answer my following question. Deal?

[Wondergirl]

Now I will answer this question if you PROMISE to answer my following question. Deal?

I wasn't asking just you. I figured tal and Athos and even 'clete might want to respond. This isn't a thread with the rule, "I'll answer your question if you answer mine."

[jlisenbe]

This isn't a thread with the rule, "I'll answer your question if you answer mine

You were responding to my quote, so I find it odd that you say you were not asking the question of me. Still, the rule is in effect if you want me to answer, but that's alright. I knew you wouldn't agree. The past is a good teacher for those who pay attention. But it's OK if you don't want to. It's a somewhat free country.

[Wondergirl]

You were responding to my quote, so I find it odd that you say you were not asking the question of me. Still, the rule is in effect if you want me to answer, but that's alright. I knew you wouldn't agree. The past is a good teacher for those who pay attention. But it's OK if you don't want to. It's a somewhat free country.

I quoted your very thought-provoking comment, while giving you proper attribution, to stimulate responses. In the future, I will quote you without attribution.

[jlisenbe]

Won't you still be quoting me, one way or the other?

It's OK. We can move on. I do hope you're feeling better. You mentioned several weeks ago that you were having health problems. Get well!