Is Islam compatible within Western Society?

[Town Heretic]

Your belief in regards to what 'hell' comprises of or is is hardly 'orthodox' in any sense be it Catholic or else, so even you only take an 'orthodox' approach to a certain extent.

That's not true, but it doesn't matter. I'm not arguing for my speculation on the point, only the point itself.

Recently my neighbour and very good friend died who was in religious terms what you may describe as a lax Catholic. Who she was was a very generous person who would do anything for anyone if she could. Many testified to that at her funeral and at the wake...

Now you sound like the Catholic, or the Muslim with an angel on either shoulder tallying sin against virtue. Any sin will separate you from the perfect, absent grace. That's why no man can boast of salvation.

Ok, that's nature and the cat was just doing what comes naturally regardless but the whole incident reminded me of this exchange and just why I don't hold truck with any concept or doctrine of suffering.

That's certainly your right and I haven't tried to talk you out of it because I know you won't be.

You feel free to believe in your 'orthodox' hell TH.

I believe in hell because I don't see any way not to but I don't carry it around in contemplation any more than I do the prohibition against false idols. Neither had anything to do with my conversion or what followed.

There's little point in continuing this any further really.

That's what I've been saying. :e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

That's not true, but it doesn't matter. I'm not arguing for my speculation on the point, only the point itself.

Your version of what hell entails is hardly orthodox.

Now you sound like the Catholic, or the Muslim with an angel on either shoulder tallying sin against virtue. Any sin will separate you from the perfect, absent grace. That's why no man can boast of salvation.

Funny, I thought I sounded like someone who's just told you they lost a good friend. Excuse me if I extolled her generosity.

lain:

That's certainly your right and I haven't tried to talk you out of it because I know you won't be.

You're right, doctrines of suffering aren't things that I can be talked into, my conscience won't allow it.

I believe in hell because I don't see any way not to but I don't carry it around in contemplation any more than I do the prohibition against false idols. Neither had anything to do with my conversion or what followed.

Plenty of Christians believe in 'hell' that doesn't equate to what you believe it to be, so hey ho.

That's what I've been saying. :e4e:

Fine.

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

Your version of what hell entails is hardly orthodox.

Christendom has a fundamental and fairly universal approach to hell: it exists and exists as both judgment and separation.

Nothing in my understanding differs from that premise. And beyond that point I speculate. I don't know or claim to know, only that what I've considered and found some scriptural support for seems compatible.

Funny, I thought I sounded like someone who's just told you they lost a good friend. Excuse me if I extolled her generosity.

No, that's what you start a thread to do, strike up a conversation about... You were using her as an illustration in support of the underlying notion that your thinking and feeling on the subject was rooted in an essential humanity and compassion that you find lacking in the notion of hell. You didn't just suddenly stop in medias res to talk about a friend.

You're right, doctrines of suffering aren't things that I can be talked into, my conscience won't allow it.

See what I mean? Okay, here's why this sort of thing isn't really profitable. It really just reduces to people feeling superior one way or another. Here's the counter in kind...So, you'd say that to Christ, I suppose. That's some conscience. I don't think I'm kinder or fairer or more compassionate than Christ, who unlike either of us is God and who suffered more than either of us will likely ever understand.

And so on...and what is really accomplished by that sort of thing?

Plenty of Christians believe in 'hell' that doesn't equate to what you believe it to be, so hey ho.

In principle they do...the rest would be argument, but of what real value?

Fine.

:think:

 

[Nick M]

:think:

You cannot convince somebody who hates God and shakes his fist at him to stop. Not only will he not stop, he will try to devour the sheep. Paul was not just speaking of Jehova Witness, but all perverts.

 

[annabenedetti]

Your belief in regards to what 'hell' comprises of or is is hardly 'orthodox' in any sense be it Catholic or else, so even you only take an 'orthodox' approach to a certain extent.

Recently my neighbour and very good friend died who was in religious terms what you may describe as a lax Catholic. Who she was was a very generous person who would do anything for anyone if she could. Many testified to that at her funeral and at the wake, and I certainly testify to it after her generosity to me through the years. I adopted the stray cat that she had adopted herself about six weeks ago and about an hour ago it brought a ravaged bird into the living room and dropped it on the floor. All I saw at first was feathers and then I saw the bird itself, helpless and terrified at the feet of a cat who was probably intending it as a present. I shouted at the cat and shooed it out of the room and tried to help the bird that was obviously in shock. I didn't want to cause it any pain as I didn't know how badly damaged it was but when I gingerly tried to move it it shrieked and panicked. I couldn't just leave it on the floor though. I managed to pick it up finally when it had calmed down and take it outside but it's touch and go as to whether it can really survive out there. I toyed with the idea of killing it but that's a final resort for me.

Ok, that's nature and the cat was just doing what comes naturally regardless but the whole incident reminded me of this exchange and just why I don't hold truck with any concept or doctrine of suffering. You feel free to believe in your 'orthodox' hell TH. There's little point in continuing this any further really.

I'm sorry for the loss of your friend. She was a good friend to you, and you to her in turn. You have a lot of good memories to look back on, and you do have a fond reminder of her every time kitty comes to cuddle (preferably without a feathered or furry gift).

As for Catholic orthodoxy, there's a much wider range of belief and much less consensus than the catechism would imply. There are Catholics who are pretty much universalists and there are Catholics who have such a throttle on the narrow gate that you have to wonder if they think they know better than God...

 

[annabenedetti]

You cannot convince somebody who hates God and shakes his fist at him to stop. Not only will he not stop, he will try to devour the sheep. Paul was not just speaking of Jehova Witness, but all perverts.

You lie again, you deceiver. AB doesn't hate God.

 

[Town Heretic]

IAs for Catholic orthodoxy, there's a much wider range of belief and much less consensus than the catechism would imply. There are Catholics who are pretty much universalists and there are Catholics who have such a throttle on the narrow gate that you have to wonder if they think they know better than God...

I even know one here who believes in reincarnation, but they've abandoned church instruction and orthodoxy when they do.

"This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries."
This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful (11-12)."

 

[annabenedetti]

I even know one here who believes in reincarnation, but they've abandoned church instruction and orthodoxy when they do.

"This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church's Magisterium. It is intended to serve "as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries."
This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful (11-12)."

I've read the CCC from cover to cover, so I'm pretty familiar with it. What I'm saying is that there are traditional Catholics who will have nothing to do with it, or ignore the parts they don't like - priests and laity alike. And - there are liberal Catholics who do the same for their own reasons. (And there are millions and millions of Catholics who have no idea whatsoever what's in the catechism.) So the CCC ends up being kind of like the papal version of the Sears Wishbook (and I say this as someone who used to quote it regularly in debates with non-Catholics.)

 

[Lon]

Your belief in regards to what 'hell' comprises of or is is hardly 'orthodox' in any sense be it Catholic or else, so even you only take an 'orthodox' approach to a certain extent.
...about an hour ago it brought a ravaged bird into the living room...

Matthew 10:29 God cares 2 Peter 3:9

As far as "Hell" the Lord Jesus Christ taught of it. I've no problem with challenging what is orthodox, but I personally cannot but soberly listen when the Lord Jesus Christ speaks. I don't understand everything, but lest I preach against His very words, I will listen Psalm 46:10
(the scriptures being the more important words here, mine are but commentary, if that)

 

[Town Heretic]

I've read the CCC from cover to cover, so I'm pretty familiar with it. ]What I'm saying is that there are traditional Catholics who will have nothing to do with it, or ignore the parts they don't like - priests and laity alike. And - there are liberal Catholics who do the same for their own reasons. And there are millions and millions of Catholics who have no idea whatsoever what's in the catechism.) So the CCC ends up being kind of like the papal version of the Sears Wishbook (and I say this as someone who used to quote it regularly in debates with non-Catholics.)

I'm not speaking to whether or not within the Catholic faith there are people who choose to ignore parts of the church teaching. Rather, I'm noting that for Catholicism as with the mainstream of Protestant orthodoxy there is a foundational agreement on the existence of hell.

 

[Traditio]

Now you sound like the Catholic

Catholics aren't pelagians. Sinful human beings are utterly incapable of savings themselves, and based on their merits, deserve Hell, not salvation. Salvation is won through grace alone, not solely by any merits on our own part. [Of course, this has sacramental import for Catholics.]

 

[Town Heretic]

Catholics aren't pelagians. Sinful human beings are utterly incapable of savings themselves, and based on their merits, deserve Hell, not salvation. Salvation is won through grace alone, not solely by any merits on our own part. [Of course, this has sacramental import for Catholics.]

If you don't believe in assurance and hold that your efforts past confession can lose what you had no merit in attaining the message is a bit muddled.

 

[annabenedetti]

I'm not speaking to whether or not within the Catholic faith there are people who choose to ignore parts of the church teaching. Rather, I'm noting that for Catholicism as with the mainstream of Protestant orthodoxy there is a foundational agreement on the existence of hell.

Existence how? As literal fire, or as separation from God? While the CCC quotes scripture, it refers to hell as separation from God.

And this how it's generally taught these days, which is why I said there's no consensus:

Professor Cunningham said that when he lectures in parishes and someone in his audience raises the subject of hell, he replies that the church believes that it means estrangement from God, just as heaven is the ultimate union with God, rather than a geographical location. ''That reflection is taken with great equanimity,'' he said. ''It's not like it shocks people terribly.''

Similarly, Sister Johnson said that when she talks about the teaching on hell, she finds her students at Fordham generally respond favorably to it.
''It makes the whole thing make more sense to them,'' she said, ''that it isn't literal, but that it's a powerful metaphor -- and I would say a needed one -- to indicate the seriousness of moral choices, that what we do has consequences and eternal ones.''​

 

[annabenedetti]

If you don't believe in assurance and hold that your efforts past confession can lose what you had no merit in attaining the message is a bit muddled.

Catholic teaching has never taught assurance of salvation (although again, it depends on who you're listening to).

 

[Town Heretic]

Existence how? As literal fire, or as separation from God? While the CCC quotes scripture, it refers to hell as separation from God.

That's what I referenced earlier. Though Catholic orthodoxy does offer a bit more specificity as well and every Catholic with a differing idea about what the church should teach doesn't stand even with the authority of the Church. From the Catechism:

IV. HELL​

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.⁶¹⁴Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"⁶¹⁵ and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"⁶¹⁶

1035 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."⁶¹⁷ 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.


​

 

[Town Heretic]

Catholic teaching has never taught assurance of salvation (although again, it depends on who you're listening to).

That was my understanding. Thanks. :thumb:

 

[Alate_One]

:rotfl:

Oh wow, I think you're really just more outright dumb than a troll Nicky...

The consistent stupid on this thread alone kinda confirms it. How many times does it actually need to be stated that people here condemn all kinds of barbaric extremism? let alone the irony that YOU have way more in common with nutballs who would murder people for being gay?

You really do have the IQ of a peanut.

:dunce:

Hey, hey let's not insult peanuts. They're a very valuable food crop!

 

[Arthur Brain]

Christendom has a fundamental and fairly universal approach to hell: it exists and exists as both judgment and separation.

Nothing in my understanding differs from that premise. And beyond that point I speculate. I don't know or claim to know, only that what I've considered and found some scriptural support for seems compatible.

Even among the "orthodox" there's no consensus on it. If there were there wouldn't be so many different opinions on what exactly it is or entails. Rather bizarre considering one would expect such a teaching to be completely black and white given the magnitude of it. It may not be 'orthodox' in your opinion for any teaching to stray from the parameters in regards to duration/separation but there's no denying there's plenty of support for 'hell' being no such thing as you describe or as religious orthodoxy dictates. Then again it's not exactly the biggest yardstick for actual truth anyway. Plenty of the religious leaders of the day seemed to think they had a monopoly on an understanding of law and the 'truth' and look what happened there...

No, that's what you start a thread to do, strike up a conversation about... You were using her as an illustration in support of the underlying notion that your thinking and feeling on the subject was rooted in an essential humanity and compassion that you find lacking in the notion of hell. You didn't just suddenly stop in medias res to talk about a friend.

No, you do not get to dictate when someone brings up something like that even if you happen to think that's not how it should have come about. Please do not even bother if you're going to be arrogant enough to repeat the above. As for the latter then of course, there is no compassion with 'hell'. Even you forward that don't you?

See what I mean? Okay, here's why this sort of thing isn't really profitable. It really just reduces to people feeling superior one way or another. Here's the counter in kind...So, you'd say that to Christ, I suppose. That's some conscience. I don't think I'm kinder or fairer or more compassionate than Christ, who unlike either of us is God and who suffered more than either of us will likely ever understand.

And so on...and what is really accomplished by that sort of thing?

It's not a case of being or feeling 'superior' TH, it simply isn't. Heck, if you're right it would be a lot easier if I could just accept a doctrine of eternal suffering and just blank all objections out. Just not an option for me though. Take that as a slight or insult if you want but it's simply the truth.

In principle they do...the rest would be argument, but of what real value?


:think:

No, they don't.

 

[Arthur Brain]

You cannot convince somebody who hates God and shakes his fist at him to stop. Not only will he not stop, he will try to devour the sheep. Paul was not just speaking of Jehova Witness, but all perverts.

Oh shut up you silly little git. All you seem to do on here is lie, make up rumours about people, either on here or elsewhere and then prance off when confronted with your falsehoods. Added to which you're one of the most bloodthirsty and compassionless morons I've met so no wonder you take some sadistic glee in the prospect of other people suffering.

 

[Town Heretic]

Even among the "orthodox" there's no consensus on it.

There is. I've noted some of it, even beyond the foundational notion of separation. You don't have to agree with it, but denying it is just contrary to the plain fact.

If there were there wouldn't be so many different opinions on what exactly it is or entails.

That's like saying if there was one God we'd all agree about the particulars. It doesn't follow that given outcome of Chinese whispers invalidate the existence of the first spoken words.

No, you do not get to dictate when someone brings up something like that even if you happen to think that's not how it should have come about. Please do not even bother if you're going to be arrogant enough to repeat the above.

I'm not dictating anything by noting that you used the narrative of your friend as a part of your larger objection to the notion of hell. There's nothing arrogant or even inaccurate about what I wrote. I'd be happy to quote the entire paragraph if you like.

I summed it because of your later: "Funny, I thought I sounded like someone who's just told you they lost a good friend. Excuse me if I extolled her generosity" as if that wasn't tied into a larger point and made a part of your argument.

Except, protestations aside, you segued that into notice of her cat, that you adopted and from there, ultimately, to:

"Ok, that's nature and the cat was just doing what comes naturally regardless but the whole incident reminded me of this exchange and just why I don't hold truck with any concept or doctrine of suffering. You feel free to believe in your 'orthodox' hell TH. There's little point in continuing this any further really."

As for the latter then of course, there is no compassion with 'hell'. Even you forward that don't you?

Of course not.

It's not a case of being or feeling 'superior' TH, it simply isn't.

So you don't believe your understanding on the point is a better one? If you do then you've made what you believe is a superior choice, even if your aim isn't to lord it over anyone. The problem is that when you couple that with zeal it is almost impossible not to come to the sort of thing I noted. It's what let you describe my part as glib or watered down, etc. It's the thing that led to my objection, fueled my reticence on the profit of anyone debating the point.