WaPo/Newsweek 'On Faith' Website Practically Damns Christian Doctrine of Hell
As we've noted time and again, "On Faith" -- a Washington Post/Newsweek-run religion news and discussion website -- is biased against, if not outright hostile to traditional religious belief, particularly traditional Christian theology.
This weekend's "Discussion" section topic provided more evidence of that.
Examining the controversy over Michigan pastor Rob Bell's book "Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived," editor Sally Quinn asked her panelists, "In this life (and, perhaps, the next) why does what we think about the afterlife matter?"
In their answers, all but one panelist attacked the traditional Christian doctrine of eternal punishment of the wicked, with at least two arguing that a belief in Hell engenders violence and abuse.
"Damning people to hell for their religious beliefs, their sexuality, their reproductive choices and even their political views has enormously negative consequences for human life right now," liberal theologian Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite insisted.
"When I have done Bible studies with battered women, as I have done for years, many of the most religiously conservative are very nervous about asking for help with abuse because they fear they will go to hell for not being “subject” to their husbands. Often they have put up with the physical and psychological abuse for years, fearing not only the judgment of their husbands, but of God," the Chicago Theological Seminary professor added.
"It’s long past time that Christian conservatives foreclosed on hell. I admire Pastor Rob Bell for having the guts to say that when it comes to God, 'Love Wins,'" Brooks Thistlethwaite harumphed.
Rabbi Brad Hirschfield upped the ante, suggesting murder and genocide were linked to a belief in Hell, not just verbal and physical abuse:
At the end of the day, it is far easier to hurt and even to destroy another human being whom one already believes is cursed by God. After all, the hurt done to them in this life is nothing compared to the suffering they will endure in the next life and, so the argument goes, reflects God’s ultimate will and may even cause them to repent of whatever sins they are supposedly guilty.
Over the centuries, millions of people have been subjected to everything from regular degradation to the most horrendous suffering, including mass murder, all because they were outside of some other group’s salvation scheme. That tragic behavior continues to this very day in more places and ways than we can name.
Fellow rabbi David Wolpe took a kinder tack, simple denouncing as "a perverse doctrine" the belief that only those who have faith in Christ as savior will go to heaven.
Atheist Herb Silverman, founder of the Secular Coalition for America started out by scoffing that religious teachings on heaven and hell were mere opinions without the benefit of verifiable fact, yet closed his piece with a loaded swipe at Christians:
It is difficult, though, to believe a claim that a loving and all-powerful god would condemn Mahatma Gandhi to an eternity of torture while the Catholic Adolph Hitler has an eternity of bliss as he looks down at Jews suffering in hell. Now there’s a a notion for all Christians to think about, and discard as nonsense.
Who, exactly, claims that Adolph Hitler is living it up in Heaven, Silverman fails to note.
The lone defender of traditional Christian doctrine in this week's discussion, Jordan Sekulow, took a much more humble approach, actually citing clear-cut Scripture texts on Hell before arguing that:
Each one of us is a flawed human being and it would be foolish for any one person to claim that they alone comprehend the full extent of God’s grace. At the same, why risk the eternal life of others to fulfill our own interpretation of the afterlife? It’s a risk I’m not willing to take.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Who knew?
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 6:41pm.
Denial really IS just a river in Egypt!This guy obviously hasn't
Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:00pm.
This guy obviously hasn't read Alma Ch. 42. An excellent chapter of scripture that would have answered all his questions, if he had the humility to believe in God.... 'Ye do try to suppose that it is injustice that the sinner should be consigned to a state of misery...'Slyrr
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:03pm.
Is it your opinion that those who do not believe in God do so because of a lack of humility?
Hydro, I am a big believer
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:08pm.
Hydro, I am a big believer that most, not all, but most people that refuse to believe in God is because they lack humility.
Another reason that sometimes goes with the above, but not always, is complete and utter lack of understanding of Scripture, of the Bible.
Yet, another reason is a desperate want to believe that the sin that you have fallen into and you like can not possibly be condemened by God, since "you" are good. thus, if you believe God will not accept your sin, you turn atheist.
I don't think there is one main reason of why there are atheist, but they can be boiled down to lack of humility, lack of understanding, unwillingness to change ones sinful life. IMHO, these are the three main reason why there are atheist. Although, once again IMHO, most atheist are really agnostics.
Liberallies
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:54pm.
I've heard atheists explain why they think people of faith believe in God.
I've heard them say that faith in God is motivated by a childlike need to believe there is right and wrong in the world, by a fear of the unknown and an arrogance which necessitates that they have some personal link with a creator of all things.
I'm sure some of these atheists would acknowledge that there are exceptions, so the above applies to most people of faith, not all.
My point is that some theists and atheists seem to find ways to dismiss the other side in a way that paints them in a negative light.
Me, I think it's mostly about upbringing. You develop a view of the world from an early age which either makes one world view or the other make sense to you. For the most part, I don't think belief in or rejection of God is a conscious choice. But I'm no psychologist, so that's just my opinion.
But if I were to ask you decide to not believe in God, could you? I doubt it. No more than I could simply decide to start believing in God.
Some people seem to find it necessary to justify their particular view by criticizing the other. I think that says more about the person making the criticism than it does than the guy being criticized.
Oh, I'm not really sure why you think most atheists are actually agnostics. Maybe you explained it to me once and I've forgotten. Maybe you could remind me?
'I've always said - there's
Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:09pm.
'I've always said - there's nothing an Agnostic can't do as long as he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not.' - Monty Python And frankly, yes. Most people who don't believe in God are severely lacking in humility. (at least the highly visible ones who parade around in the media) Listen to them when they talk. It's all moral relativism. To the non-believer, the individual's will trumps all. Each person decides what's right or wrong for his or herself. And that's it. Try to get one of them to admit that there are things in this life greater than his or herself. They won't do it. They'll hem and haw and stammer and stutter and come up with all kinds of philosophical gobbledy-gook, but in the end it goes back to 'I decide what's right, and therefore everyone who disagrees with my worldview is wrong.' It makes for amusing watching at times. Because when one person's beliefs happen to clash with another person's beliefs, and they're both moral relativists, who's 'right and wrong' wins out? By definition, BOTH are right, and BOTH are wrong.Slyrr
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:31pm.
So you feel justified in judging all atheists and agnostics based on a small handful of highly visible ones who you perceive to be lacking in humility?
How about I judge all theists based on the handful of highly visible television evangelists - who certainly don't seem to exhibit humility - who have been found to be crooks and liars?
And why exactly would someone who doesn't believe in a supreme being (which is what I assume you mean by a thing "greater than his or herself") hem and haw and stammer about the existence of a supreme being? Maybe you've been having discussions about God with stupid atheists and agnostics.
Also, believe it or not, you can have a consistent world view based on moral relativism. Again, maybe you're having discussions with idiots who haven't put much thought into it.
Should I start telling you about the discussion I've had with people of faith that have ended in them basically telling me to screw off because they couldn't defend their views and knew it?
But you know - if you would like - I could start a new Forum topic about moral relativism and/or the existence God and we can see how well each of us can defend our views.
How about it?
Hydro, I have to say...you
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:39pm.
Hydro, I have to say...you displayed in the last paragraph the type of lack of humility that is so prevalent in so many atheist.
I agree that in many instances once upbringings affects one's believe in God. However, there have been quite a few hardcore atheists who as adults have become devout and strong Catholics, Believers.
I agree that there are Believes who lack humility, I have run into this with quite a few protestants when debating Catholicism vs. Protestant. and I have displayed this lack of humility way too many times. However in a debate of a well educated atheist and a well educated Believer, the Believer will win hands down.
I have heard Hitchens and Dawkins take on well educated Catholics and the latter always destroy, easily, the formers arguments.
Oh and I do not want to bring old debates that ended in a fight, but remember, the second you say Morality is Relative, you are stating an Absolute about morality, thus contradicting yourself.
→ Yeah, hydro
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:45pm.
Get yourself some relative humility like the rest of us.Relative Humility
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:50pm.
It's about at 28.5 percent here.
Seriously...what on earth is the matter when Hydro gets raked over the coals? I'm not getting it...it's scorchy hot, like liberal hell in my world when that happens.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:28pm.
Raked over the coals?
We're just in the opening rounds. Give me chance here.
You know I'm an endurance fighter.
Cool
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:24pm.
You're killing me, man.
Although I suppose I could admit that someone else is typing my posts for me, in which case I might have some Milli Vanillidy
(Not sure if that was an actual pun)
→ The clues were there
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:31pm.
Great songs by Phony Baloney:
Cool
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:54pm.
Your knowledge of Milli Vanilli is both impressive and disturbing.
→ Yeah, pretty sad
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 12:05am.
I only know anything about them because it was so hilarious when they were exposed.
Whitney Houston's lip-sync at the Super Bowl, Ashlee Simpson on SNL,
And my all-time fave? Gary Lewis & the Playboys "This Diamond Ring" Total pantomime because daddy, comedian Jerry Lewis, was not averse to giving his kid anything he wanted, even if it meant hoodwinking an entire country.
But I still donate to Jerry's Kids. He's a great man.
liberallies
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:48pm.
and I have displayed this lack of humility way too many times. However in a debate of a well educated atheist and a well educated Believer, the Believer will win hands down.
Is the last sentence there to support the first?
Oh and I do not want to bring old debates that ended in a fight, but remember, the second you say Morality is Relative, you are stating an Absolute about morality, thus contradicting yourself.
I hope you do realize, that following your logic nothing is relative?"I hope you do realize, that following your logic ..."
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:53pm.
...makes us all want to blow our lunch, Trog.
Begone Eurotrash. If we wanted to hang with you, we'd be over in your ugly country, looking at all of the old restored buildings where the Nazis used to hang out. Drinking coffee, smoking cigarettes, with shaved heads, trying to attempt to look chic.
Bugger off, feckless shill.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Well
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:58pm.
You guys bombed many of those buildings away. Gone. Futsch. Kaputt. Not that I'd complain about that. To the contrary: It gives me sunlight in the afternoon. What you describe sounds more like Vienna.Tough luck, Trog
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:04pm.
...your country lost, get over it.
I hated Germany (being ethnically German myself...I was mistaken for a native).
You spawned and elevated Hitler. Live it. It's your history. Not mine. Be thankful you all surrendered (that means "oops, we lose").
Now do bugger off.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Get over what?
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:10pm.
I'm happy you guys won. BTW: Thank you to everybody who fought that war on your side.
Troglodyt, LOL.....you are
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:09pm.
Troglodyt, LOL.....you are assuming that I consider myself a well educated Believer. Believe me I have a lot to learn long before I consider myself well educated. I will probably die lacking the education that would put me in a place where I consider myself well educated. But I stand by what I said, well educated Believers hands down destroy the arguments of well educated Atheist. and yes, saying that Morality is Relative= to a complete contradiction. You can't state an absolute on morality and then claim morality is relative. All morality is absolue, I know where the logic leads. We are talking about morality here.If you have equally well educated Believers and Atheists
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:23pm.
such a conversation should end with a tie after a minute followed by a heated discussion about sports.
But back to the relativity topic. Your logic applies to every statement about anything (let's denote it with x) that reads "x is relative". As this is an absolute statement about x, you have your contradiction. So, again following your rationale, the word "relative" is meaningless, as nothing is relative. Wouldn't that make the opposite word "absolute" obsolete and meaningless too?
Troglodyt, Hmmmm...no, my
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:33pm.
Troglodyt,
Hmmmm...no, my statement only applies to Morality. Stop trying it to make it apply to what you deem so it suits your personal logic. LOL
Liberallies
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:38pm.
Your statement does. Your logic doesn't. That applies to every statement involving the word "relative". Do you want to give up on logic in reasoning?Troglodyt, Speaking of
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:48pm.
Troglodyt, Speaking of humility....look in the mirror, Mr. "Humble". LOL No, my statement does not apply to everything and anything because you have chosen to say so. NO, I am not giving up on THE logic, not my logi,c that the Statement Moral Relativism contradicts itself. Stop with your desperate need to twist the words of others into small boxes that fit your very flawed logic. I am speaking of morality, nothing else and nothing more. If you are incapable of understanding this, please don't bother anymore. thanks. You tell me if you want to give up on your Moral Relativism logic since it is beyond a flawed logic.Liberallies
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:57pm.
Read my posts again and very careful this time and don't try to twist my words. I have not said that your statement applies to anything but morality. What I have said is that the logic your argument is based on leads you necessarily to the notion that the word "relative" is meaningless because it wouldn't apply to anything.
I fear your discussion with hydro will end up in disarray very quickly.
Troglodyt, LOL...after you
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 12:17am.
Troglodyt,
LOL...after you attempt to twist my words and logic to fit your attack on my statements you cry about your belief someone else attempting to twist your words?
get serious Trog! LOL
Please take your condescending tone to someone who cares.
Didn't you, just minutes, go
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 12:22am.
write about looking in the mirror? Calling me condescending in this post makes it full circle. You are not up to it, apparently. And btw: I didn't twist your logic, but used it. Slight difference there.Iz funny Geman joke in home German land.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 7:03am.
Iz gut punchy funny. iz tranzlate for murrycan. merkel twist like pretzel. seven times. Power! Why no laff murrycan? I no translate right?
Liberallies
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:13pm.
So I display a lack of humility by being willing to defend my views? How is that different from what you do?
I will extend my offer to you as well - I can create a Forum topic to debate the existence of God or of moral relativism. I don't claim to be a Hitchens or Dawkins but I'll try my best. And just as I did with Mike Bratton some months back, I'll do my best to approach it as a friendly debate as opposed to an argument or fight.
I remember well your argument about moral relativism and I believe it to be flawed. If you are willing, I can try to explain why that is.
(And I'd be interested in a link showing Hitchens or Dawkins being easily destroyed in an argument.)
Hydro, I will take your
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:23pm.
Hydro, I will take your offer. Start a forum. However, let's create rules. I like your friendly approach. That is what I want. I am tired of getting into flame wars on these blogs. My intend is not to belittle anyone, if your intend is the same, not to belittle anyone and to have a thoughtful exchange on Atheism vs. Believers, I am game.
but I will be very forward, the very first post that I perceive as being condescending, I am out. Let's respect each other and go for it.
Feel free to invite individuals from NB that will do justice to the debate. There you can remind me why you feel my beef against moral relativism is flawed.
Looking forward to a friendly and informative debate.
Liberallies
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:41pm.
Cool.
I agree to your rules. If you followed my discussion with Bratton some months ago (which unfortunately was deleted in the Great NB Transition) you know that I can (and actually prefer to) have a civil discussion about religion with someone who I fundamentally disagree with.
But I will ask this - if I say something which you take to be insulting, rather than simply abandoning the discussion, call me on it and see how I respond. You have been here long enough to know that sometimes, folks will say things that they don't realize are belittling or insulting to the other person.
But that said, I'll try to put forward an argument for moral relativism based, in part, in what I remember about your argument against it.
As I mentioned in another post here, this week is kind of busy, so it might take me a few day to put it up. I'll PM you when I do.
Hydro, then it is a
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:56pm.
Hydro, then it is a plan....Gentleman hand shake, over the internet, that it shall be a peaceful, respectful, friendly debate. I will do as you ask and point out, before I leave, that a post may have been consdescending. Please, I ask that you do the same. Don't worry, start it as soon as you can. I know you like to be detailed and thorough with the forums you start, so please do it when you have the time. Yes, PM when you have done it.Liberallies
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:59pm.
I look forward to it.
It's getting late so I'm taking off for tonight.
Take it easy.
Hydro, Have you seen the
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:30pm.
Hydro,
Have you seen the video in which Dawkins admits that there is something greater that created life? He just is unwilling to admit is God.
Have you seen the one where he claims it is all about aliens?
Dawkins, the more I have researched on him, seems to be a second rate biology professor and an ex-Catholic, who has a beef against the Roman Catholic Church.
Also, his book, the God Delusion" has been destroyed by theologians from the Catholic Church and various Protestants.
Here is a book that takes on Atheism very well.
→ I saw that episode
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:37pm.
The one where Richard Dawkins is telling Bob Crane that Werner Klemperer is wise to Hans Georg turning a blind eye to the tunneling.
Our survey says . . . !
Liberallies
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:52pm.
Thanks for the references.
I can't say that I'm some huge Dawkins (or Hitchens) fan - fact is I've never read anything either one has ever written - but it's interesting to see debates between people who are (supposedly) knowledgeable about the views they are defending.
Maybe if I can find those videos I'll use them as training films in our discussion :)
Hydro, I will look for the
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:58pm.
Hydro, I will look for the videos and link them tomorrow. I have to take off. My wife is attempting to be romantic, we are watching a movie and here I am typing away on NB.... take care!!!Hydro, My argument is
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:47pm.
Hydro,
My argument is simple about most Atheist being Agnostic. It takes complete blind faith to believe that there is no God, ESPECIALLY how most Atheist argue against a Believer, that there is no proof of God. However, no Atheist has ever been able to prove that there is no God. It takes a huge amount of faith, blind faith at that, to claim that there is no God.
No Atheist is 100% that there is no God. As I have asked every Atheist that I have ever debated, "atheist prove that there is no God" all I get is a blank stare and old Hitchen's like, Dawkin's like arguments are thrown and the Atheist then turns and says, "Well, Well...you prove that there is a God" LOL
Like I said, I don't think that all Atheist lack humility and I don't believe that claiming that there is a lack of humility when denying God is an attack on anyone. I think it speaks more about you that you seem to have taken the humility comment quite personal. It was never my intent.
By the way, I agree with you, that there have been "Believers" who lack humility and allowed themselves to be caught in sins of avarice.
Liberallies
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:17pm.
I agree that the atheist stance is flawed for pretty much the reasons you stated.
That's why I'm not one. I'm an agnostic.
As far as I can tell, you didn't explain why you think all atheists are basically agnostics.
Question for Mr. Shepherd
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:01pm.
"Atheist Herb Silverman, founder of the Secular Coalition for America started out by scoffing that religious teachings on heaven and hell were mere opinions without the benefit of verifiable fact,..."
I don't want to read too much into this statement, but are you saying that there are verifiable facts which move religious beliefs from the realm of faith (or opinion) to that of empirical confirmation?
If so, I would honestly like to know what those are.
You'd have to ask Silverman that question.
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:12pm.
It's not Mr. Shepherd's statement; he's reporting what Herb Silverman said.
When you come down to it, all Silverman did was say that heaven and hell are matters of faith. After all, that's what faith is: belief without understanding and/or proof.
When things are "verifiable fact" there is no need for faith.
There is no hell
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:27pm.
At least that's something Mr. Silverman's faithfully professes to believe.The word scoffing
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:41pm.
was Shepherd's.Iz remind German joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:26pm.
Iz funnee roll laugh on floor with butt loose and then fall down the butt. Iz merkel very power. Iz merkel meet superman. say I power than you supermanz. Iz poo on superman. See murycan. Funnee right. Iz laugh roll on floor naw?
motherbelt
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:18pm.
Trog (above) pinpoints what drew my eye to Mr. Shepherd's statement - the use of the word "scoffing" to describe Silverman's view that there are no "facts" (Silverman's word) to back up the assertion that there is an afterlife.
That seems to suggest that Mr. Shepherd disagrees with Silverman's view.
Read it again.
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:59pm.
I understood perfectly what Mr. Shepherd meant. I don't think you did.
Unless you are just playing word games with "scoffed.
motherbelt
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:04pm.
My first post to Mr. Shepherd was me asking him to clarify what he meant.
I don't think that's an unreasonable thing - or me playing word games - considering that his use of "scoffed" could be read in a couple of different ways.
hydro
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:08pm.
Are you declaring a "scoff flaw"?→ Or?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:10pm.
Has a "scoff law" been violated?Cool
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:28pm.
I tip my hat to your pun-ditry.→ Thank you
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:30pm.
I resemble that remark.hydro...
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:18pm.
how many different ways can "scoffed" be read?
I'm thinking he meant Silverman spoke with contempt of the idea that people would believe in something with no verifiable fact.
What reading did you give it?
motherbelt
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 10:30pm.
OK, maybe I'm being dense here.
If I say to you that a guy I know "scoffed" at the idea that Republicans would take back the White House in the next presidential election, I think you could see how that could be read to either mean that I'm simply relaying what the guy said or - if it's clear that I don't think much of his opinion - that in using the word "scoffed" I'm expressing my opinion that he's wrong.
Yes?
If you agree with that, then you can see that all I did was ask Mr. Shepherd to clarify which he meant - not that he's obligated to respond, of course.
hydro, I didn't bail; I was
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 7:53am.
hydro, I didn't bail; I was exhausted last night and didn't want to get involved in another post which might end up being lengthy.
I can see that you're playing word games with "scoffed," which is exactly what I thought.
Ken didn't say that Silverman scoffed AT the idea that there was no verifiable fact to prove an afterlife.
He said that Silverman scoffed THAT religious teachings on heaven and hell were mere opinions without the benefit of verifiable fact,
IOW, Silverman was making that claim, and making it in a contemptuous manner.motherbelt
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 3:02pm.
I'm willing to admit that I might have misinterpret what Sepherd wrote or what he meant to convey - which is why I asked him to clarify.
But in suggesting that I'm "playing word games" are you suggesting that I'm purposely misrepresenting what he wrote?
Hydro, I would urge you to
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:16pm.
Hydro, I would urge you to study and research miracles like Fatima, where about 70,000 people saw the Sun spin, get close to Earth and then were completely dry after hours of rain had fallen in Fatima, Portugal. The miracle comes from the apparitions of the Virgin Mary to three little sheperds. Right before WWI ended
Check out the Miracle in Champion, WI were acres of land, for no scientific explainable reason were saved from a devastating fire. Also, after the Virgin Mary had appeared. this one took place in the late 1890s.
In Egypt the Virgin Mary appeared to hundreds if not thousands of Coptic Christians.
Then there are the verifiable Eucharist miracles which have no scientific explanation.
Then there are also what the Roman Catholic Church refers to the incorruptibles. Saints in the Roman Catholic Church that for no scientific reason the bodies have not discomposed after years, decades and in many cases centuries of their death.
I believe that there are physical signs of Heaven and Hell all around u s, it is just a matter of believing or not.
But I am curious, what is your honest and scientific opinion, as a physicist of Miracles like Fatima, Lourdes, and the others I mentioned above? don't worry, I am not looking to get into a fight or anything. i am honestly curious.
Hope you are doing well Hydro and that your school year is going well and you are ready for the last two months of Spring 2011! YAY! I know I am. LOL
Liberallies
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:30pm.
I'd like to give a proper response to the things you have brought up, but since I'm not familiar with them, I have to do some reading first.
If you have links to sources you find reliable, I'd appreciate it - otherwise it's no big deal for me to look around online.
Our spring break starts next week so of course, being a typical teacher, I've decided to give exams this week for my classes. That's going to chew up some of my time but when I get a chance, I'll get back to you on this one.
hydro
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:36pm.
Off topic, but wow you have a late spring break. My daughter's was two weeks ago and my nephew's is this week. And you are the typical teacher. They both complained about mid terms before break, but were/are able to relax on break.Radical1979
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:02pm.
The fact that we have such a late spring break is actually pretty annoying. Once the students get back, we have only about three weeks before final exams start.
We know that no student will study during break for an exam in the week afterwards - and as I recall from my school days, I made a point of trying to erase what I had learned with as much beer as I could get hold off - so you pretty much have to give them before.
Hydro, Fair enough. When I
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:45pm.
Hydro, Fair enough. When I have more time, I will be more than glad to link you to sites with information of the miracles I mentioned above.
My Spring break is not until Holy Week, the week of April 18th. In admissions we have a little bit of a different cycle than faculty, but we still have to deal with the same students you do. Next time you have a real annoying kid in your class blame the admissions department, we let him/her through. LOL
I am glad to hear you are well. The miracles that I mentioned above are a very interesting topic for anyone. The Soviet Union and the once Communist Yugoslavia (now gone and split up) had a very hard time with the ongoing apparitions of the Virgin Mary in Croatia. These are still ongoing, but the Roman Catholic Church has not officially approved of them. Communist, atheist scientists who attempted to disprove the apparition of Croatia were mystified at what they saw and the honest scientist said they could not scientifically explained what was going on in Croatia.
There are other apparitions of the Virgin Mary approved by the Roman Catholic Church which blow my mind. In Rwanda, i believe in the early 1980s, the Virgin Mary appeared and warned Rwandan children and teenagers of the massacre that was going to come to Rwanda if people did not repent, pray more and behaved.
Anyways, i will give you links to the different approved, by the Roman Catholic Church, apparitions. When you get a chance, look into it.
Liberallies
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:15pm.
I appreciate any links you can provide.
Concerning the "miracle" in Fatima:
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:50pm.
Not a scientific theory, but an age-old maxim taught to every child: Do not look at the sun too long. Newton did that in an experiment to himself. After that he had to stay inside his house for some days till his eyesight had recovered."Miracle" of Fatima
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:01pm.
Now your snotty quotes are rather denigrating, are they not?
Of course you weren't there, but around 70,000 people were.
SoL
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:16pm.
That depends on your definition of miracle. If you think that just because the Catholic Church saying it was a miracle makes it miracle then yes it was denigrating. If you hold miracles to a higher standard then it is another matter altogether.
BTW: Are you sure that all 70,000 people saw the same thing?
Iz funny Geman joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:27pm.
Iz murrycan ready to fall off butt rolling laugh on floor? Iz merkel got miracle. yaw, miracle whip. Power! Hah. Funny. Whar your butt murrycan, on floorz right? HaHaHa murrycan?
Troglodyt, I would urge you
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:01pm.
Troglodyt, I would urge you to do research before you keep opining on the Miracle of Fatima. The Portugal Government and its very atheist media, and atheist government officials wrote about what happened on that day. Thousands were interviewed by the very Atheist Government officials and atheist media of the time. Today, countless of Atheist have come up with ridiculous explanations that are as old as what the atheist controlled government did back when the Miracle happen. But as the old saying goes, if you refuse to believe, nothing that is shown to you will force you to believe. The Roman Catholic Church holds 100% more authority than any other earthly authority. It isn't denigrating. If you do not believe as much, troglodyt, that is your right, but don't attack those who disagree with you.I didn't attack anybody.
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 11:27pm.
If someone truly believes that there happened a miracle that's fine with me. Of course that doesn't exclude the possibility that there was no miracle and that the CC exploited to its advantage what happened there. It wouldn't have been the first time.
Exploited to its
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:39am.
Exploited to its advantage??? The CC didn't declare the Fatima apparitions "worthy of belief" until 13 years later, in 1930.Motherbelt, Like the
Submitted by Liberallies on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:40am.
Motherbelt, Like the illogical person that he is, Trogolydt makes a claim and doesn't back it up. He just says that the Church took advantage of people. When, how, where, individuals involved, etc aren't mention. Typical of Catholic Church haters, give the benefit of the doubt, but they won't back it up with facts.LL
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:53am.
Do you want to tell me the Catholic Church has not profited from declaring the events in Fatima to be a miracle?
And although you didn't explicitely state it, I'll clarify anyway: I don't hate the CC.
Iz remind funny murrycan legion Germanee joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:42am.
Iz Merkel meet devil joke. You murrycane laugh, fall down, roll, hold butt no fall off. Iz merkel meet devil. devil he say looking for soul to steal. want to make deal. merkel she play fiddile, native german instrument, merkel she jump on hickory stump. say devil tell you what.... What? You here joke already murrycane? merkel power! She poop on you.
Trog, If you are speaking
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 11:24pm.
Trog,
If you are speaking money wise, no, the Roman Catholic Church has not profited from declaring the events in Fatima to be a miracle.
Souls and Heaven are the ones which have benefited from the Miracle of Fatima.
You may not be a Catholic hater, but you certainly like to cast a lot of doubt about Her.
If you are going to deny the events of Fatima, please present a sound, intelligent, well researched point of view. Otherwise, all you are doing is attempting to cast doubt on a matter that so far you have proven to know very little about.
I am sure next thing you are going to say is that the Incorruptables are also a trick of the Roman Catholic Church, right?
LL
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 8:28am.
You have to be quite naive if you think the church hasn't profited money wise from Fatima. If only a fraction of the four million pilgrims visiting every year is donating some amount to the churches in Fatima ... well you get the picture. I wouldn't say that this was the main reason for the CC or that they even considered it to be one at all but nonetheless it's noteworthy. What was far more important in my opinion were the political developments of Europe at that time, specifically on the Iberian peninsula.
And you are certainly right that I like to cast doubt on the CC. But I do that with every organization as powerful as the CC.
I don't deny the events at Fatima, I just don't think they were a miracle.
Iz funny german joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 8:50am.
iz get ready murrycan. you much like this. you laugh loud. fall down. roll all over floorz.. iz merkel worker factory. iz nother worker there. iz worker say need day off. toomuchwork. iz tired. merkel iz say yez merkel tired too. need day off. germanee too much work. nother worker iz sayyou watch i getz day off. boss comes in factory little whilez later. nother worker climbs up like monkey. climbs on rafter beamz hangs upside down like monkey. iz boss say what you do? iz nother worker, he say I iz bulb light. boss say, you is overwork, you go home. so nuther worker climbs down and walks out door. iz merkel she start to walk out too. boss say, hey merkel where you go. is merkel say, sorry, i no can work in dark. Ha! is funny murrycan? Maybe iz more funnee if merkel take poop on floor before walk out?
trog, I have to be quite
Submitted by Liberallies on Fri, 03/25/2011 - 12:10am.
trog,
I have to be quite naive? LOL More like you are very synical and have bought into every lie and propaganda spewed against the Roman Catholic Church.
You keep on claiming that the Roman Catholic Church has benefited monetarily from Fatima. I am sure that if you make this claim is because you have proof of it, right? It isn't that you are making it up because you enjoy attacking the Church. Thus, can you provide proof of your claim? Or is it mere speculation and casting more doubt on the Roman Catholic Church?
Furthermore, can you please prove that the Miracle of Fatima was not a a miracle? Because so far, honest scientist who have studied the phenomenon that occurred so many decades ago, have been unable to explain it as a natural phenomenon. Science has no explanation for what happened that day.
And I address, once again, which you have completely ignored, the Incorruptables. Explain the bodies of these saints which have not decompossed. Century old bodies which look as fresh as when they were alive. No scientific study can explain why these bodies have not rotten. While you are it, do research on Eucharistic Miracles and attempt to explain them way too.
The facts, Trog, are against Atheist, agaisnt non-believers.
LL
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 9:04am.
Or is it mere speculation and casting more doubt on the Roman Catholic Church?
It is speculation, but I'd say guided by common sense. But why is it casting doubt on the Catholic Church? As it is of this world it has to pay its bills too.
Regarding the rest of your post: It doesn't matter to me whether it was a miracle or not. If you enjoy it so much you may "prove" it a miracle, as much as you want.
But concerning the Incorruptables I'd be interested to know what you think about all these other bodies that have been found not decomposed(!) and that are not bodies of Saints, or Christians for that matter.
izz no unnerstand. iz no make sense.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 11:17am.
iz suntin lost in engleesh translator. iz try agin.
It is specooleshun, boot I'd sey gooeeded by cummun sense-a. Boot vhy is it cesteeng duoobt oon zee Cethuleec Choorch? Es it is ooff thees vurld it hes tu pey its beells tuu. Regerdeeng zee rest ooff yuoor pust: It duesn't metter tu me-a vhezeer it ves a murecle-a oor nut. Um de hur de hur de hur. Iff yuoo injuy it su mooch yuoo mey "prufe-a" it a murecle-a, es mooch es yuoo vunt. Um de hur de hur de hur. Boot cuncerneeng zee Incurrooptebles I'd be-a interested tu knoo vhet yuoo theenk ebuoot ell zeese-a oozeer budeees thet hefe-a beee fuoond nut decumpused(!) und thet ere-a nut budeees ooff Seeents, oor Chreestiuns fur thet metter. Hurty flurty schnipp schnipp!
iz mooch beetter.
Trog, LOL, common sense? LOL
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 4:58pm.
Trog,
LOL, common sense? LOL really? More like it is guided by uncommon sense, lack of knowledge about the Roman Catholic Church and an obvious mistrust based on the former two. Nothing of what you have said falls even close to common sense.
If it doesn't matter whether it is a Miracle or not, why do you keep on posting about it and why did you even comment on it? Obviously it does matter to you. It was you that called the Miracle into question, thus it befalls on YOU, not me, to prove your point. As you and I know, you can't, thus now you pretent that you don't care. Thanks for proving that the Facts, the Truth is against Atheist. Typical of Non-Believers who adhere to an incoherent, lack of common sense set of beliefs. When challanged, they run away.
If you are going to attack something, at least have enough knowledge to do so.
And sorry buddy, you don't get to answer quesitons with questions. Address the Incorruptables or just admit that you are clueless about the Church, Her teachings, Miracles, Eucharist, etc., etc.
If you know nothing about the Incorruptables, that is ok, just admit it! and admit that you are clueless about Church, Her History, Her Teachinges, Miracles, etc. All it takes is a bit of humility to admit that you know little about the Roman Catholic Church.
Why is it that those that lack so much knowledge about the Church are the first ones in line to doubt Her and question Her?
LL
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 4:11am.
1.) The common sense phrase I used amounts to something that most people on earth can agree to: Money rules the world.
2.) I didn't question the miracle. All I said was that you shouldn't stare into the sun too long. In fact it doesn't matter to me whether it was miracle or not. What interests me is how the Church tends to sometimes incorporate events like this, when it deems them useful and on other occasions dismisses them (and in older times that meant branding the messenger as a heretic, see Joan of Arc), when it doesn't fit the Churches narrative.
3.) The same applies to Incorruptables. But if you are interested you'll find numerous scientific explanations for such events, if you like to look for them. I don't. See 2.)
4.) I know little, but probably more than the average Catholic.
How does that contradict me?
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:48am.
They take their time to jump the bandwagon. Case in point Jeanne d'Arc. It took them half a millenium declaring her a saint.Iz more funny german americane legion joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:42am.
Iz merkel meet devil again. Hold you butt murrycane, no fall off tis timez. merkel very power. say devil, I do anything, I power. devil hold up leg, make fery big fart. devils say catch that paint purple. merkel hold head in shame. no can do that power. Ha! murrycane laugh so hard butt pop off!
Trog, The Church takes their
Submitted by Liberallies on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 11:33pm.
Trog,
The Church takes their time to jump the bandwagon? and you are not a Catholic hater?
No, the Church doesn't jump the bandwagon, The Church takes Her time in declaring someone a saint because She has to make sure that the person they are going to put upfront for others to follow as examples of a person on Earth who followed the Gospel, Loved God, etc is truly worthy putting up as an example.
There is a whole process, it equates, somewhat, to a legal process in which all the good things and all the bad things of the individual, which the Church attempts to find out through witness interviews, the type of life they lead, etc is very carefully studied. The term "Devils Advocate" comes from this process. Promoter of FAith vs. Devil's Advocate. Today, the whole process has changed. I believed that John Paul II changed the way a person is canonized in 1983.
Please, honestly trog, if you are going to opine about something, please make sure that you are well informed about it before you make some ridiculously stupid comment as claiming that the Church jumped on the a bandwagon of Saint Joan of Arc! WOW!!
LL
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 8:51am.
I know about this process. Nonetheless if you view the CC not in spiritual terms but political, economic and social policy wise (which is what I foremost do as I can't connect to the spiritual realm) you can ask yourself why it sometimes takes the CC 500 years to declare someone a saint. If you then look at the history of the Joan of Arc reception (both from the far right and the far left) in the 19th century, take into account the loss of power of the CC after the Dreyfus scandal and the general loss of influence of the CC after the French revolution, it is hard to believe they didn't take all of that into account preceding canonization. There was immense pressure from French Catholic circles to canonize her in order to regain influence they have lost.
So to clarify: Jumping the bandwagon in this context was meant to emphasize that the official adaptation of the Joan of Arc legend came after it had become immensely popular within French society.
The way the church dealt and deals with grassroots Catholic movements is an interesting topic and this is one example of them.
And now the Vet will jump the bandwagon...
Iz funny band wagon german joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 8:59am.
iz funnee murrycane. iz merkel favorite joke. you laugh loud murrycane. or merkel poop iz on you. What iz diffference between a dead trombone player lie road, and iz dead squirrel lie in road? The squirrel might haz been on his way to play muziks gig. Ha. Iz laugh now.
Trog, Funny you mentioned
Submitted by Liberallies on Thu, 03/24/2011 - 11:59pm.
Trog,
Funny you mentioned the French Revolution. Do you know the slaughter that was carried out by the so called Enlightment, which is so worshiped today by Atheist and Secularist? During the French Revolution at the hands of Atheists tens if not hundreds of thousands of Catholic men, women, children, priests, nuns, monks were slaughtered in some of the most horrific ways known to man. Rich, poor, middle class, noble men, women and children, along with countless of priest and nuns put to death in the name of the goddess of reason. This is the part of the "Enlightment", the French Revolution that is no longer taught in Western schools.
The French Revolution is depicted, in high schools, colleges as some type of violent, yet benevolent and necessary uprising. A Revolution which marked the beginning of the moder world. But the countless slaughtered, the countless of innocent French Roman Catholics mass murdered is not spoken about. This is the legacy of Atheist! The horrific persecution that Catholics suffered under the Atheist if France during the French Revolution is as bad and I would even say worse than what the Jews suffered under the Nazis. But shoot, why speak about this, it is not cool, it is not in, it does not jive with the anti-Catholic propaganda that so many people swallow so easily.
I find it amazing how individuals who love to cast doubt on the Church always embrace the French Revolution which was a drunken fest of murderous Atheist!
I wonder, do you question the French Revolution, do you cast the same doubts on the so called Enlightments as you do on the Roman Catholic Church?
Like I told you, the cannonization process has completely changed and it no longer takes centuries, as it did in the past, to cannonize anyone. Pope John Paul II wanted humanity to have examples of modern saints. Saints who lived amongst us.
The Roman Catholic Church is neither political nor of this world. That there have been and that there are political ambitious misguided individuals in it, is something else.
LL
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 8:39am.
I wonder, do you question the French Revolution, do you cast the same doubts on the so called Enlightments as you do on the Roman Catholic Church?
To make it short: Yes I do. Although I wouldn't say the fate of Roman Catholics was worse than the Holocaust. And one slight correction: Those atheists you talk about were more often than not no atheists at all. Robbespierre comes to mind.
Like I told you, the cannonization process has completely changed and it no longer takes centuries, as it did in the past, to cannonize anyone. Pope John Paul II wanted humanity to have examples of modern saints. Saints who lived amongst us.
LL you are ignoring my point: There was a reason why Joan of Arc was canonized in the 20th century and not in the 18th or 19th or any earlier. And my belief is that these reasons are of political and religious nature.
The Roman Catholic Church is neither political nor of this world.
Do you really want to tell me that one of richest and most influential institutions in the world wields neither political power nor is of this world? The Vatican is in Rome and a place in this world. Every priest, bishop cardinal and pope is human and from this world. Every word they write, every sermon they read, every papal bull that is issued is from this world.
iz still not tranzlate corretionz. iz try again.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 11:22am.
iz say in own languages. u tranzlate for germazee trolliz.
T' make it short: Yuh I do. Aldough I wuddn't say the, uh uh uh, fate of Roman Cadolics was worse dan de Holocaust. Lee me lone!And one slite correckion: Dose adeists you talk bou' webuhre more often dan not no adeists at all. Uhhh....Robbespiehre comes t' mind. LL you are ignorigg my poit: Dehe was a reason errrr, why Dgoan of Arc was canonizid in de 20d century 'n not in de 18d or 19d or any earlieh. And my belief dat dese reasons are of political 'n religious nature. Do you real want t' tell me dat one of richest 'n most influenshul institititions in the, uh, the world wields neideh political powebuhr nor is of dis world, duh...uh...? De Batican is in Rome 'n a place in dis world. Ebehy priest, uh, bishop cardinal 'n pope is human 'n from dis world, GEEEHEEHEEE.Ebehy word dey write, uh uh uh, ebehy sehmon dey read, uh uh uh uh, ebehy papal bull dat is issuid is from dis world.
Trog, Well, I guess you are
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 5:12pm.
Trog,
Well, I guess you are entitled to your lack of common sense, based not on facts, but conjecture beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church.
Each and everyone of your points is either 100% wrong or half-truth.
But you know it is pointless to get into it because you are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change your mind.
All I would ask you to do is to seat down with a well learned, honest, Roman Catholic priest, and put forth your conjectures and then listen to his answers.
If you are so interested in attacking the Church, i would hope that you would also be interested in reading all the apologetics of the Church that are out there, their books, sermons, debates, etc.
Sadly, 99% of the people that are so incredibly closed minded and biased against the Church tend to not want to hear the other side of the story. They are only interested and comfortable in hearing all the bad, some of true, sadly, but most of it false about the Church.
I have no interest in attacking the Church
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 4:02am.
I have an interest in honest discussion about it. And every single Catholic I know is more capable of doing so than you apparently are.
If you think I'm so wrong then argue against it by using some facts.
Trog, Hmmm....do they teach
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 03/26/2011 - 9:46pm.
Trog,
Hmmm....do they teach you history in Europe, in Germany?!
The French Revolution was an Atheist revolution! Where the goddes of reason became the center of the Revolution.
100% of Catholic Churches, convents, catholic schools all Catholic institutions in France were closed down or taken over by Atheists! Churches were locked or used by the Atheist to horrifically disrespect priests, nuns and Catholics!
Catholic schools were converted into public, government run schools were an Atheist calendar was introduced! replacing the Christian based calendar and holidays. Just in case you are unaware, you are repeating like a parrot propaganda against the Church that started during the French Revolution.
Do a bit of research before you spew such incredible nonsense!
Yes, the horrors that were carried out by Atheist in the French Revolution against Roman Catholics were equal to or greater than the horrors suffered by the Jews under Nazi Germany.
I could also get into the Mexican revolution of the early 20th Century in which once again, an Atheist government with Atheist supporters led to horrors being carried out against Roman Catholics men, women and children regardless of social position! Once again, all Catholic institutions in Mexico were taken over by the Atheists and horrific things were done to priests, nuns, monks, etc. I could also tell you about the Spanishh Civil War, where the same thing happened. Atheist carried out horrific actions against Roman Catholics, men, women, children, nuns, priests, monks.
The Church wields so much power, Trog, that it was/is incapable of stopping Atheist in the French Revolution, Mexican Cristero War, Spanish Civil War, Soviet Union, China, Cuba, N. Korea from carrying out mass tortures and murderers against Faithful Catholics men, women, children, priests, nuns, monks, etc. The Church is so powerful and rich, that it could not stop the aformentioned countries from taking over Her institutions.
I don't mind debating religion, the Church, but I would ask that you have some level of common sense, be honest and that your facts be based on history and reality not hearsay learned in anti-Catholic insitutions, books, movies and your own need to dislike the Church.
.
LL
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 03/28/2011 - 3:57am.
The French Revolution was an Atheist revolution!
And this is precisely the point where you are wrong. I know that the Catholic Church liked to portray it that way (I don't know whether they still do), but nonetheless it is historically incorrect.
For the rest of your post: Do you really want to play number games? I'm not very interested in pointing out the mass murders the Catholic Church was responsible for or was heavily involved in. But for the record we could easily go up to episodes that happened in WWII.
BTW: The calendar they replaced was essentially a pagan and not a Christian one.
Yep, burnt eye balls
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:02pm.
Dont feet to good, like sand in the eyes, no relief,,,,,,,,,, if you dont drinkBoudin
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:09pm.
When I was a kid I once made the mistake of looking into a tanning lamp for longer than I should have - that was a pretty horrible night.
At the time, my dad sort of made fun of me for it but years later he admitted that the same thing happened to him when he was kid as a result of watching someone doing some welding.
It must run in the family.
Actually Cucumbers
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:24pm.
Will help some. I have very sensitive eyes, so I must wear sun glasses outside, florescent lights also bother me. If I am on the water, I almost always suffer.Boudin
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:39pm.
I'm totally not making fun but I got an odd image of someone taking a pair of glasses, popping out the lenses and replacing them with cucumber slices.
I think an old pastor I once knew put it best
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:10pm.
You can choose not to believe in Hell if you like, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still there, and you're still going.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
"Damning people to hell for
Submitted by motherbelt on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:22pm.
"Damning people to hell for their religious beliefs, their sexuality, their reproductive choices and even their political views has enormously negative consequences for human life right now," liberal theologian Susan Brooks Thistlewaite insisted.
No one here has the power to damn anyone to hell.
And yes, with God, love wins. That is why even at the last moment, God accepts remorse. But if a person dies without remorse, why would God excuse him and bring him into eternal joy?
Here's a way to think about it...
The father of the prodigal son ran out to meet his son when he was still a way off, hugged him and welcomed him home. Do you think he would have had the feast if instead, his son had spit in his face and demanded more money?
Motherbelt, Well said!
Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:22pm.
Motherbelt, Well said! God condemns no one to Hell, we condemn ourselves to Hell with a lack of repentance, remorse.
I will say, though, that as a Roman Catholic, I don't think a non-believer automatically is condemned. if the non-believer was honest in their lack of believe and he/she lived a good life which adhered to natural law. If this person search for the Truth, which all Truth leads to Jesus Christ, since He is the ultimate Truth, then I believe God will open the Gates of Heaven to them.
However, we must know that Hell is populated with devils as well as human beings who purposely refused the Love of God and who refused to repent.
But like you said, these individuals condemn themselves to Hell. by the way, what the heck is the individual talking about when he claimed that there are those who believe that "Catholic" Hitler is in Heaven and the Jews in Hell?! This is complete and utter ignorance from the person who said this. Being a Catholic, being a Christian doesn't automatically give you a pass into Heaven. and Jews not in Heaven? who takes these "theologians" seriously?! WOW!!!
Indeed.
Submitted by HockeyKid on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:32am.
One of my favorite "pop" theologies is from the movie "Rudy". Robert Prosky, playing the priest to whom Rudy goes for advice, says, "In 30 years in the priesthood, I've learned two things: One, there is a God; and Two, I'm not Him."
Therein lies the foundation.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
My thought exactly!
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:45am.
When I read that, I thought Holy Cannoli! Talk about nonsense on stilts!
God said there was a hell,
Submitted by rbosque on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:22pm.
God said there was a hell, and I'm in no position to argue with Him.Bingo!
Submitted by Lord-come-soon-... on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:05pm.
This is the point that all the atheists on that panel discussion and others don't care to consider: It doesn't matter what I think, it doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't matter what a heretic like Rob Bell thinks. It only matters what God thinks. Jesus spoke repeatedly about Hell. He died a horrible death to provide us with a way to escape it. If anyone chooses not to accept these facts, that's their (eternal) choice.One wonders
Submitted by HockeyKid on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:34am.
whether these theologians consider it possible to jump off a tall building and land safely by simply refusing to believe in gravity."Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Lord-come-soon
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 3:09pm.
So your argument is that an atheist - who doesn't believe in God or an afterlife - is still obligated to consider the ideas of God and an afterlife in formulating their views about life?
How does that make any sense?
I have a question.
Do you worry about karma and reincarnation?
Following your argument, I can say that it doesn't matter whether you believe in these things or not because the fact is that you still need to consider them when formulating your views on life.
Gee...such a strange idea
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:50pm.
of engaging in conversations in their context.
Where would somebody get the temerity to really expect an atheist to engage a topic--they chose to engage in, with an actual other side?
That would be like expecting a liberal to engage in an argument about Hitler--even though they don't believe in Hitler's teaching, with reference to things he actually said--if nobody dictated to them "You're going to discuss Hitler" and they chose to do so all by themselves.
Actually, I expect neither things. My intellectual expectations of atheists is pretty low.
For example the ignoramus above poses it as an actual case in a considerable enough worldview that Catholic Hitler could be in Heaven, without considering that 1) Protestants don't think Catholicism is the way to Heaven, and 2) Catholics don't think that membership is the way to Heaven without an observation of the sacraments, mainly Communion for the partaking of Jesus' sacrifice and forgiveness of Venial sins, and Confession for the forgiveness of Mortal sins.
Almost nobody but Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and the Kennedys really think that non-observing Catholicism gets somebody into Heaven. Hitler is in a Universalist's Heaven--but in a (I'm guessing) infinitesimal amount of the conceptions of Heaven, otherwise.
So why would we discard the view based on the academic outlier that almost no one with a similar worldview finds credence in?
I mean why do people need to understand topics that they engage in? For those who believe in ridicule and strawman, aren't ridicule and strawen enough?
Quasi-socialist
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:36pm.
The sarcasm in your post honestly makes it difficult to tell what issue you have with my post (or if you even have an issue with it).
But I'll take a stab at what I think you're trying to say.
I never suggested that a person who engages in a debate shouldn't be aware of the other side's stance or views (assuming that's what you were suggesting?)
The point I was making is that you can't expect the other guy to formulate his argument based on the assumption that he accepts your view of things.
Go back to LCS's post and read it. It seemed to me that their argument was that an atheist should consider the "fact" that there is a hell because God says so.
Um, why would an atheist feel obligated to accept that "fact" when his entire world view is predicated on the belief that there is no God?
That was the point of my bringing up karma and reincarnation.
Well, yes and no.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 12:58am.
I think the combination of the rbosque, LCS and my post has to do with the inability (I have observed) of most atheists and skeptics to get beyond the concept that it is all in our heads.
Meanwhile, no Christian I know believes that they came up with the idea for Hell. Thus, a sort of psychological purpose of Hell may be analytic to you, but it doesn't touch my conception of it, nor rbosque's, nor LCS'.
One model of the Sun resides in rbosque's head and one in mine. The Sun is not affected by a bad explanation or an oversimplification by one of us. If one person does not have a sensible enough model of it, you can always go to a person with better understanding.
Of course, that hasn't always been the case with all external phenomena. Biologists in the early 20th century did not believe in the African tales of the "Old Man of the Woods" because the model was too folksy, but it did not stop them from discovering the Gorilla and later understanding it in greater depth than its once best witnesses. Meteorites didn't turn out to be folklore simply because they corresponded to a legend that Zeus hurled them through the earth, or their legends as artifacts in Greek cults.
Meteorites don't exist from some linear explanation of the universe (as far as we know). It isn't academic that they had to exist, there wasn't a disruption in the force, because they existed.
But the MO of many of an atheist is to find the simplest or most garbled story and say that because that lack of understanding can exist, and the source can be nothing external, it must have to do with a psychological driver to accept such a doctrine.
Now besides that, I found you reading an excessive burden in LCS "care to consider" to be a little overmuch. Since the subject is abandoning Hell as a doctrine, that we did not make it up is somewhat germane.
But you have no burden in "care to consider", outside actually addressing the other side. You can go on with your life without caring to consider, but what you can't do is then address anything but what you care to consider.
But it's the same thing if you don't care to be a student of Hitler, don't care to read Mein Kampf and want to confine yourself to a Catholic Hitler. There is no burden upon you in the a-Nazi lifestyle to read and understand Hitler's POV. We are not assigning you homework outside of school. But it behooves you, if you actually want to discuss Hitler.
Finally, I have a lot of respect for Rob Bell. He was my pastor at one time. I have greatly enjoyed many Biblically-sound sermons from him and have shrugged away criticism of his books--until reading a generous, grace-filled, laudatory and Christianly review of his current book, which laid out how Bell was, alas, playing with scripture.
Bell argues one thing, that eternal Hell is not especially scriptural. Thus representing the point that it's not God that said there was. The panel takes Bell's book as a jumping off point to discuss a completely different "point" and ends up with historically illiterate straw-men.
"In their answers, all but
Submitted by MightyMouth on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:09pm.
"In their answers, all but one panelist attacked the traditional Christian doctrine of eternal punishment of the wicked, with at least two arguing that a belief in Hell engenders violence and abuse."
On the contrary, to Christians, it (belief in Hell) engenders love and compassion.
→ Israel strikes Gaza!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 7:56pm.
I know this has *cough* nothing to do with faith, but Israel just retaliated against Gaza for its weekend rocket attacks.
You were saying, Sally?
Hey Cool, NB should have an
Submitted by MightyMouth on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:39pm.
Hey Cool, NB should have an open thread on Libya. A nice starting point could be this...
Anyone else wanna be presdent?
Longer isn't better...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:43pm.
HaHaHa! On The View this morning they were defending Obama and when it came to defending how long it took for him to act Behar said he was putting the coalition together. I guess even when it takes long he can't do the job!Uh-oh
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 8:52pm.
Starting to look like a trend
MM..and as I commented
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:31am.
MM..and as I commented elsewhere, the MSM still said he was "going it alone" and acting "unilaterally."
Motherbelt should have been
Submitted by ant on Mon, 03/21/2011 - 9:44pm.
Motherbelt should have been on this panel. Noone on earth has the power to condemn to hell, and Christian doctrine warns specifically about judging others here, can't say the same for those who would kill for "Allah". As far as the Rabbi's assertion that belief that a "criminal" is already condemned and therefore might as well continue on his path, is that akin to a President being so incompetent that any sign of "leadership" might as well be brushed aside? Less than two years of dancing and vacations to go, why change now?Don't forget
Submitted by HockeyKid on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:26am.
The time off for campaigning..."Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Jesus spoke about hell more than heaven
Submitted by stage9 on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 6:47pm.
The punishment of the wicked dead in hell is described throughout Scripture as “eternal fire” (Matthew 25:41), “unquenchable fire” (Matthew 3:12), “shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2), a place where “the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44-49), a place of “torment” and “fire” (Luke 16:23-24), “everlasting destruction” (2 Thessalonians 1:9), a place where “the smoke of torment rises forever and ever” (Revelation 14:10-11), and a “lake of burning sulfur” where the wicked are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Revelation 20:10).
The punishment of the wicked in hell is as never ending as the bliss of the righteous in heaven. Jesus Himself indicates that punishment in hell is just as everlasting as life in heaven (Matthew 25:46). The wicked are forever subject to the fury and the wrath of God. Those in hell will acknowledge the perfect justice of God (Psalm 76:10). Those who are in hell will know that their punishment is just and that they alone are to blame (Deuteronomy 32:3-5). Yes, hell is real. Yes, hell is a place of torment and punishment that lasts forever and ever, with no end. Praise God that, through Jesus, we can escape this eternal fate (John 3:16, 18, 36).1)
1) Crockett, William V. Four Views on Hell. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992. Print.
"If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner." — Malcolm Muggeridge
Godwin aside...
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:26pm.
The "Christian Hitler" is mainly a contention by leftists who believe that Hitler embodies all that they despise on the right--often Christianity, itself.
Nietzsche, in Thus Spake Zarathustra gives a lack of hell a reason to die peacefully. In an early story, The Overman jumps over the acrobat on the wire and in his landing causes the acrobat to fall to the ground, waiting to die. The Overman counsels him that there is no Hell to be afraid of, the acrobat thanks him for that "mercy" and dies in peace.
Hitler argued that since there was no standard of justice and aesthetics that outlives man (naturalistic pessimism), the authors of those values (the Aryans) could suspend their mercy, because life without those values would be less worth living, and only if the Aryan race survives could they guard these values. So to save Western compassion, it might be necessary to suspend that value of compassion--for the mission of survival.
It is a compelling reading that this argument meant to engage those who valued compassion, and persuade them that Yes, ruthlessness might be called for for the restoration of those values.
On the other hand, divergent Christian doctrines may emphasize the "Chosen People", In group/Out group dynamic.But in the only sense that Heaven and Hell matter, in its scriptural context. But scripture has much to say about people who's main enjoyment is a special status. In a scriptural sense, other people are equal to us, we deserve Hell, but have been rescued, no credit to us, and prompts us to bring other people into the fold of the forgiven.
Because we remain redeemed sinners, we cannot say that others are less than us, because they remain in bondage to sin. It hardly supports the idea of other being "less" than what we are--although I don't doubt that some doctrines might.
But regardless I've never heard that brand of "Christian Calculus" used in this strawman. But even above the German naturalistic pessimism, Russian Bolsheviks as well argued that they were just ending people's span of years a little earlier as they dumped people in to mass graves. Without religious sentimentality, in light of the resulting state, people of later generations--who are other than the particular people in the graves--would find it a valid cost.
It's kind of the exact opposite, but who's counting.
Good take on Bell's book
Submitted by Wonder95 on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 11:03pm.
Randy Alcorn (a well- known Christian author) has a good blog post on Rob Bell's book. http://www.epm.org/blog/2011/Mar/18/rob-bell-and-controversy-over-hell Short version - Bell is reinterpreting the Bible's plain, straightforward meaning into something that he believes or wants to believe. However, it's not the Bible he's believing, but rather himself.