|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted April 19, 2011 08:10 AM |
|
|
The last Pope of the Catholic Church, John Paul II., rejected literal hell as well. He said, hell is separation, even in this life, from the joyful communion with God. "Rather than a physical place, hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. Hell is a condition resulting from attitudes and actions which people adopt in this life."
About the concept of eternal damnation, the pope said: "Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person, and confirmed with death that seals his choice forever. The thought of hell and even less the improper use of biblical images must not create anxiety or despair. Rather it is a reminder of the freedom found in Christ."
I read somewhere that Billy Graham said besically the same.
Of course the actual Pope has somewhat nullified John Paul's effort in this regard.
It should be rather obvious nowadays that hell cannot be a literal lake of fire - the immaterial, spiritual souls wouldn't burn in a material fire, so any "fire" couldn't be material either, but had to be spiritual as well.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 19, 2011 03:41 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 15:46, 19 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
The last Pope of the Catholic Church, John Paul II., rejected literal hell as well.
Let us be careful not to misrepresent what John Paul taught.
I'm not Catholic, but that is not my understanding of what John Paul meant when I read his own words. He said that heaven, hell, and purgatory (which there is no Bible evidence for) are states of being of angels, demons, and man.
Immaterial beings are obviously not in a material "place." But because the "place" is not material does not mean that it is not "real."
Clicky
Quote:
This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him.
"Incorporeal things are not in place after a manner known and familiar to us, in which way we say that bodies are properly in place; but they are in place after a manner befitting spiritual substances, a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us." [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Supplement, Q69, a1, reply 1]
You should read the entirety of the above article.
I believe what he was saying is that neither heaven nor hell are places you will find in the material universe.
What John Paul said is that hell is a place of eternal suffering and that is the way the Bible describes hell. The descriptions the Bible gives of hell is symbolic of that suffering. Of course the Bible describes hell as both a lake of fire and as "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." Jesus stated it is a place of "everlasting punishment", as I quoted.
So John Paul said while hell is eternal suffering it is not necessarily a place of flames. Of course we don't know what all the suffering and punishment entails and so to speak on that more is speculation.
Quote:
It should be rather obvious nowadays that hell cannot be a literal lake of fire - the immaterial, spiritual souls wouldn't burn in a material fire, so any "fire" couldn't be material either, but had to be spiritual as well.
And you know for a fact that there could be no "immaterial flame" that could torment spirits?
Also, perhaps you are unaware of the Bible's teaching that all human spirits will receive a "spiritual" body similar to the body of Jesus Christ, who physically rose from the dead in a transformed body.
John Paul's own words:
Quote:
....In a theological sense however, hell is something else: it is the ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person who committed it. It is the state of those who definitively reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life.
2. To describe this reality Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language which will gradually be explained
Here John Paul says hell is reality and is the consequence of sin.
Quote:
Redemption nevertheless remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely. This is why they will all be judged “by what they [have done]” (Rv 20:13). By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk 16:19-31).
Part of John Paul's speech was not correctly translated.
Clicky
Quote:
Quote:
The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather* than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. (n. 1033).
Quote:
*[Note: The original Italian says, "(Più che) More than a place, hell indicates..." This suggests correctly that although hell is not essentially "a place," rather the definitive loss of God, confinement is included. Thus, after the general resurrection the bodies of the damned, being bodies not spirits, must be in "some place," in which they will receive the punishment of fire.]
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2011 04:13 PM |
|
|
Elodin, if John Paul had been in complete harmony with conventional ideas of hell, the actual Pope wouldn't have felt it necessary to "rectify" his statements.
More so, if John Paul has been in perfect harmony with convention al ideas of hell, there had been no necessity at all to make such a fuss about it.
The main thing is, that John Paul explicitely does away with "places" and introduces "states" instead. Interpreting what he says so that "places" can be salvaged again and suddenly return, must be considered wrong therefore, because it makes his words irrelevant and meaningless.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 19, 2011 04:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin, if John Paul had been in complete harmony with conventional ideas of hell, the actual Pope wouldn't have felt it necessary to "rectify" his statements.
More so, if John Paul has been in perfect harmony with convention al ideas of hell, there had been no necessity at all to make such a fuss about it.
The main thing is, that John Paul explicitely does away with "places" and introduces "states" instead. Interpreting what he says so that "places" can be salvaged again and suddenly return, must be considered wrong therefore, because it makes his words irrelevant and meaningless.
The words of John Paul caused a ruckus because there are some people who always want to attack the Catholic church. I'm not Catholic so obviously I believe they are wrong on a number of issues BUT I believe in being fair and not misrepresenting what they teach.
The FACT is John Paul said people will be judged after they die. The FACT is he said "hell is....the ultimate consequence of sin itself."
The FACT is he said hell is "eternal suffering", as I quoted his words. The FACT is that in Italian he did not say that hell is not a place but that it is "More than a place." The FACT is that he said, "hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain," and "the place destined for evildoers."
John Paul clearly believed Hell to be a "real" "place" but not a "material" "place." He in fact said hell is a "place." A "place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain," and "the place destined for evildoers."
You can stick to your guns and say John Paul did not believe hell was a literal "place" in spite of his words calling hell a place. I suggest that instead you reconsider your position.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2011 04:59 PM |
|
|
You can read what John Paul actually said in the documents of the Vatican, here. It's not that long, so I suggest to do it:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_en.html
Your interpretation is probably wishful thinking, but not based in reality. That's probably the reason why you misquote from the text, mistaking him saying something with him narrating what symbols and images the New Testament uses.
So *I* suggest *YOU reconsider the interpretaton you read somewhere and try to use your own brain.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 19, 2011 05:38 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:39, 19 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
So *I* suggest *YOU reconsider the interpretaton you read somewhere and try to use your own brain.
May I suggest that you cut the snarky comments about me and concentrate on rational arguments?
Quote:
Quote:
You can read what John Paul actually said in the documents of the Vatican, here. It's not that long, so I suggest to do it:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_en.html
I did read what he said and linked to what he said and quoted what he said. Your claim that John Paul "explicitely does away with "places"" is false because he used the word "place" a number of times to refer to hell.
He said people will be judged after they die. He called hell a place and the ultimate consequence of sin. A "place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain," and "the place destined for evildoers."
See? He said when a person goes to the "place" of "eternal suffering" there is no possibility of them ever returning from that place nor of their pain ever ceasing. The said hell is the "place destined for evildoers."
That pretty much sounds like he believed in a literal hell, just as the Catholic church teaches and the Bible teaches. Like I said, I'm not Catholic but I hate it when people misrepresent what they teach. If a person is going to criticize them let it be on actual facts rather than misrepresenting what they teach.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 19, 2011 06:40 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:42, 19 Apr 2011.
|
I have taken the liberty of posting a question to a website where Catholic priests answer questions. The question is as stated below:
Quote:
"Brief background: While I am not Catholic, I am trying to defend what I think is the Catholic church's position on hell, and specifically what Pope John Paul taught on hell.
In a discussion a person claimed, "The last Pope of the Catholic Church, John Paul II., rejected literal hell as well [as a pastor named Rob Bell.]"
My understanding is that Pope John Paul taught a literal hell and is "more than a place," and is also a state of being. That he taught that after death everyone is judged and that hell is the ultimate consequence of sin and that after death those who are "in hell" will experience eternal suffering and separation from God.
My question is, "Is my understanding of what Pope John Paul taught correct, and is there anything you would add/clarify in addressing the charge that the Pope taught that there is no literal hell?"
Hopefully the question will be addressed there by a Catholic priest. If so I will post the answer here.
Clicky
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2011 07:31 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
So *I* suggest *YOU reconsider the interpretaton you read somewhere and try to use your own brain.
May I suggest that you cut the snarky comments about me and concentrate on rational arguments?
Quote:
Quote:
You can read what John Paul actually said in the documents of the Vatican, here. It's not that long, so I suggest to do it:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_28071999_en.html
I did read what he said and linked to what he said and quoted what he said. Your claim that John Paul "explicitely does away with "places"" is false because he used the word "place" a number of times to refer to hell.
He said people will be judged after they die. He called hell a place and the ultimate consequence of sin. A "place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain," and "the place destined for evildoers."
See? He said when a person goes to the "place" of "eternal suffering" there is no possibility of them ever returning from that place nor of their pain ever ceasing. The said hell is the "place destined for evildoers."
That pretty much sounds like he believed in a literal hell, just as the Catholic church teaches and the Bible teaches. Like I said, I'm not Catholic but I hate it when people misrepresent what they teach. If a person is going to criticize them let it be on actual facts rather than misrepresenting what they teach.
It seems you can't read. It's not HIM talking about places; he's just speaking about the Bible and zje IMAGES that are used in there.
Quote:
By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk 16:19-31).
HE is only talking about states, not places.
Elodin, seriously, are you really unable to properly read and understand this text?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 19, 2011 08:20 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 20:20, 19 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
It seems you can't read.....
Elodin, seriously, are you really unable to properly read and understand this text?
You continue to make snarky personal comments, sadly. Please don't derail the thread with such things. If you no longer wish to participate in the discussion bow out.
Quote:
It's not HIM talking about places; he's just speaking about the Bible and zje IMAGES that are used in there.
No, he is clearly stating that the New Testament uses various images to describe the suffering that is present "in hell."
Let's examine his statements again.
Quote:
Redemption nevertheless remains an offer of salvation which it is up to people to accept freely. This is why they will all be judged “by what they [have done]” (Rv 20:13).
Here he plainly says redemption is a mere offer of salvation that people can accept or reject. He makes no claim of universal salvation. He says everyone will be judge by what they have done.
Quote:
By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk 16:19-31).
Here, in the first sentence, he says the New Testament uses images to present THE PLACE destined for evildoers. The images show eternal suffering and an unquenchable fire with no possibility of ever escaping hell or the pain.
So we see that according to Pope John Paul the New Testament presents the place [hell] by using images. Images that depict suffering.
Quote:
“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgement ratifies this state.
Here he says while God desires the salvation of all, those who live in rejection of God are already damned. Which is what the Bible says. When they are judged after death God will ratify their state of damnation and they will be cast into hell. "Eternal damnation" is the fault of the person damned. They damned themself by the choices they freely made.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 19, 2011 10:56 PM |
|
|
Yes, thank you, Elodin. The strange thing is you don't seem to realize that, while you say "no", you are suddenly saying nothing anymore that would contradict me.
Strangely enough you don't seem to realize that.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 20, 2011 12:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Yes, thank you, Elodin. The strange thing is you don't seem to realize that, while you say "no", you are suddenly saying nothing anymore that would contradict me.
Strangely enough you don't seem to realize that.
Oh, so now you agree that Pope John Paul said hell is a literal place that the Bible uses images to describe? Because your claim was, "The last Pope of the Catholic Church, John Paul II., rejected literal hell as well." That claim is clearly false.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 20, 2011 08:46 AM |
|
|
Since it seems that you are unable to understand what John Paul said, I will explain it to you in the hope that you'll eventually see the light.
John Paul starts by stating that God is infinitely good and merciful, but man unfortunately can reject him once and for all and so separate himself from this joyful communion. "It is precisely this tragic situation that Christian doctrine explains when it speaks of eternal damnation or hell. It is not a punishment imposed externally by God but a development of premises already set by people in this life." This means, eternal damnation or hell is the voluntary separation of a person from God.
John Paul goes on: "In a theological sense however, hell is something else: it is the ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person who committed it. It is the state of those who definitively reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life." Read that? Hell is the STATE of those who definitely reject God's mercy, even when they die.
Now comes the part he starts with, "To describe this reality Sacred Scripture uses a symbolical language", and he goes on and narrates this symbolical language, starting with the OT, where the condition of the dead had not been fully disclosed, then going on with the NT, saying, "By using images, the New Testament presents the place destined for evildoers as a fiery furnace, where people will “weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 13:42; cf. 25:30, 41), or like Gehenna with its “unquenchable fire” (Mk 9:43). All this is narrated in the parable of the rich man, which explains that hell is a place of eternal suffering, with no possibility of return, nor of the alleviation of pain (cf. Lk 16:19-31)."
This is what he calls SYMBOLICAL LANGUAGE of the Sacred Scripture; it's not John Paul's language.
He then makes his point clear: "The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy. This is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the truths of faith on this subject: “To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell’” (n. 1033)." This means that hell is the state of voluntarily choosing an existance without the source of all life and joy, which indeed doesn't sound too promising.
He goes on explaining eternal damnation: "“Eternal damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God's initiative because in his merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In reality, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God."
He closes with a kind of warning: "The thought of hell — and even less the improper use of biblical images — must not create anxiety or despair, but is a necessary and healthy reminder of freedom within the proclamation that the risen Jesus has conquered Satan." This basically means, that hell is nothing to be feared to be punished with and nothing to threaten people with, since each person can decide for themselves whether to be with God and in Heaven or be without God and in Hell.
Hell, John Paul says, when you think about it, is not a place of infinite torture. Hell is rather a state of eternal bleakness, without any joy, without company, without life, without anything positive; eternal despair. And God isn't punishing, but simply make the will of these people come true.
Amazing statements, Elodin, coming from a Pope of the Catholic Church. Reasonable and welcome statements, and you shouldn't join into the chorus of those who proclaim John Paul now being in that place he said was just a metapher.
He did NOT say, mind you, that hell was not real. He just did away with the nonsense, hell would be a chamber of torture.
You can now accept that or not; or you can read the text again and try to fathom what this Pope said.
But you SHOULD stop insulting the Pope by twisting his words and their meaning.
By the way, that you continue to do it here sheds a pretty harsh light of doubt on your ability to interpret the Bible. Not that more doubt would be necessary, mind you.
EDIT: since these are the Vatican texts, they will have made sure that the translations are correct.
In Italian, the passage you referred to reads: "L’inferno sta ad indicare più che un luogo, la situazione in cui viene a trovarsi chi liberamente e definitivamente si allontana da Dio, sorgente di vita e di gioia." This means, that hell is more than a place in the sense that a place isn't describing it correctly - a place is separated from those in it and can be left. A state, however, is a "place" that is WITHIN you and PART OF you - it can't be left and it's not separate from you.
In this sense, the English translation is "RATHER" than..." and not "INSTEAD of..."
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted April 20, 2011 04:22 PM |
|
|
I don't know if this helps or will throw fuel on the fire, but my mother-in-law is Italian. I sent the Italian phrase in JJ's last post to her and asked for a "cold translation" (didn't say who said it or why I wanted it).
Here was her translation:
"Hell is meant to indicate, rather than a location, the situation in which one finds himself if he, of his own will and definitively, distances himself from God, source of life and joy."
Of course, now she's full of questions that I have to answer. 
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 21, 2011 12:10 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Since it seems that you are unable to understand what John Paul said, I will explain it to you in the hope that you'll eventually see the light.
......
But you SHOULD stop insulting the Pope by twisting his words and their meaning.
By the way, that you continue to do it here sheds a pretty harsh light of doubt on your ability to interpret the Bible. Not that more doubt would be necessary, mind you.
Unfortunately you continue to throw around snarky personal comments.
I am quite certain what the Bible says, as Jesus is recording very plainly saying that hell is eternal punishment.
Quote:
Quote:
The last Pope of the Catholic Church, John Paul II., rejected literal hell as well
Quote:
He did NOT say, mind you, that hell was not real.
In your first post on the topic you claimed John Paul rejected a literal hell. Now, in your latest post, you are are flip-flopping and saying that hell is real according to the Pope. What is your final position on the matter or do you need more time to decide to finalize your position?
____________
Revelation
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted April 21, 2011 12:46 AM |
|
|
Elodin, you do realize that people can change their opinions on what they say, right?
But, and correct me if I'm wrong here JJ, I gather that Jolly Joker is saying that the pope said hell is not a physical place, but a place where something is absent, like oxygen in a vacuum or space. In this case, the oxygen that is gone is the complete and total lack of any divine favor whatsoever from an all-loving being. Hell is that vacuum.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 21, 2011 03:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin, you do realize that people can change their opinions on what they say, right?
But, and correct me if I'm wrong here JJ, I gather that Jolly Joker is saying that the pope said hell is not a physical place, but a place where something is absent, like oxygen in a vacuum or space. In this case, the oxygen that is gone is the complete and total lack of any divine favor whatsoever from an all-loving being. Hell is that vacuum.
Yes, certainly anyone can change their minds. I'll not comment further on what JJ has said until he clarifies his position.
I have found a Catholic site that gives more information on John Paul's teachings, teachings of the early church fathers, and the Catholic church's position.
Quote:
The doctrine of hell is so frightening that numerous heretical sects end up denying the reality of an eternal hell. The Unitarian-Universalists, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Christadelphians, the Christian Scientists, the Religious Scientists, the New Agers, and the Mormons—all have rejected or modified the doctrine of hell so radically that it is no longer a serious threat. In recent decades, this decay has even invaded mainstream Evangelicalism, and a number of major Evangelical figures have advocated the view that there is no eternal hell—the wicked will simply be annihilated.
But the eternal nature of hell is stressed in the New Testament. For example, in Mark 9:47–48 Jesus warns us, "t is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, where the worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." And in Revelation 14:11, we read: "And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."
Hell is not just a theoretical possibility. Jesus warns us that real people go there. He says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few" (Matt. 7:13–14).
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, ‘eternal fire.’ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs" (CCC 1035).
In his 1994 book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II wrote that too often "preachers, catechists, teachers . . . no longer have the courage to preach the threat of hell" (p. 183).
Concerning the reality of hell, the pope says, "In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory . . . according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which abolished hell. . . . [T]he words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel he speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Matt. 25:46). [But] who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard" (pp. 185–6).
As you can see, Jesus taught a literal hell as literal punishment, as did all the early church fathers. And of course John Paul's own words here make it absolutely certain that he taught that hell is eternal punishment.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 21, 2011 07:32 AM |
|
|
No, I did not change my mind, Elodin. You should be able to understand English.
How are you supposed to interpret something correctly, when you don't even know the correct definition of words?
As I said, Elodin, you can twist and turn whatever you like, John Paul's words from 1999 are unambiguous and unequivocal. They are easy to understand, no matter how a certain wing of Christianity wails about them and derails the late John Paul.
What other Catholics say, is irrelevant, by the way: the Catholic Church claims that the Pope (the person who is currently Pope, when he is Pope) is infallible in all issues of Christian teachings. That means, when the Pope says something it's considered as if said by God Himself.
And what John Paul said, could a child understand, and there is just no room for interpretation. While John Paul never denied the reality of hell, he redefined it, simple as that, as a STATE a person is in, not a place, and not as a punishment of God, but as a voluntary decision of the sinners to reject God and be without him - thereby being "in hell" -, with God only finalizing this.
There is nothing to discuss here. If you can't accept that, fine, you are no Catholic anyway.
In this regard it is also irrelevant what the Bible says, because it's John Paul's words we discuss here, not the Bible's, and John Paul makes it clear, that the figurative symbolism of the Bible has to be interpretated correctly, which he does.
If your Bible interpretation differs, that is fine for you, like it is fine for everyone else, but, again, what John Paul said is what he said, and neither you nor anyone else, Catholic or not, priest or not, can change that. Nor can YOU change it, by the way.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted April 21, 2011 01:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
[T]he words of Christ are unequivocal.
Quote:
He says, "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few"
Because how could anyone think that this doesn't mean you're going to spend eternity in an evil plane of unlimited torment, worshiping Satan.
It's getting really dull, what the hardcore catholics are doing. They read a Bible excerpt which says ABCDE, then they say FGRZC, and if anyone says Jesus never said something like that, they tell you he said "C" and then ignore the hell out of you. They proved their point and are completely satisfied with the way the discussion went, and you should really lay off with the questions if you aren't eager to witness first-hand what Hell is all about. Because that's where nosy atheists like yourself are going to get themselves. And don't bother replying that you're actually not an atheist, because yes you are.
Unlike the official Church, which is intelligent enough to see their flock rapidly reducing in number and are giving in more and more to compromise in order to keep some influence as well as a basic level of dignity, these guys are completely content with using the logical and psychological errors which basically stopped working sometime in the early renaissance.
These are the people according to whose logic you could read what Jesus said about the fruitless tree being cut down and cast into the fire and go "Wow, good thing I'm not a tree."
Why do they do it, I don't know. Some probably draw a profit from the whole affair. Others are Elodin.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 21, 2011 05:42 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 17:45, 21 Apr 2011.
|
@Baklava
Quote:
Why do they do it, I don't know. Some probably draw a profit from the whole affair. Others are Elodin.
I'm not Catholic but I hate to see people make false statements about what any religion teaches. I want to understand what others believe and be fair in my representation of their beliefs.
I'm only interested in TRUTH. I already knew John Paul taught hell is literal and consists of an eternity of suffering because his comments were over 10 years ago and I had already read them, read articles about them and discussed them with a Catholic priest who has been my friend for many years (before he ever became a priest.)
I certainly disagree with things the Catholic church teaches but I believe in being fair to them.
@JJ
Quote:
No, I did not change my mind, Elodin. You should be able to understand English.
How are you supposed to interpret something correctly, when you don't even know the correct definition of words?
As I said, Elodin, you can twist and turn whatever you like, John Paul's words from 1999 are unambiguous and unequivocal. They are easy to understand, no matter how a certain wing of Christianity wails about them and derails the late John Paul.
Sadly you continue the snarkiness. I'm certainly not the one twisting the teachings of John Paul or of the Catholic church.
Quote:
No, I did not change my mind, Elodin. You should be able to understand English.
OK then, I'll go by your first statement that John Paul said hell is not a literal place. You are misrepresenting his position as I have proved with John Paul's own words of the occasion in question, his words, on other occasions, the official teachings of the Catholic church, and the words of the Bible.
Now, I do disagree with the pope's comments that a person can be in hell while on earth. The Bible makes no such claim. Indeed, it says that only at a particular point will the person enter hell. The words of Jesus make it clear that that point is at the death of the person or upon his return on the day of judgement (day of the Lord.)
For example, in the verses below Jesus uses a hyperbole to say "do whatever it takes to get rid of sin in your life so you are not cast into hell."
Quote:
Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
A person on earth continually encounters the God of mercy offering him salvation and sees instances of God's goodness everywhere even if he does not recognize such things. In hell the only manifestation of God is one of divine wrath. There is no offer of salvation there. The day of salvation is over for those in hell.
Quote:
What other Catholics say, is irrelevant, by the way: the Catholic Church claims that the Pope (the person who is currently Pope, when he is Pope) is infallible in all issues of Christian teachings. That means, when the Pope says something it's considered as if said by God Himself.
I'm sorry to have to say that you are wrong again. You really should try to do some research before you make claims about what the Catholic church teaches.
The Catholic doctrine is that the pope is infallible when he makes an official ruling on a dogma that is in question. It does not mean that he can't make a mistake when addressing a group of pilgrims like John Paul was doing in the "speech" in question.
Clicky
Quote:
An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.
Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.
At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.
Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)
Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.
Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.
What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 21, 2011 07:44 PM |
|
|
I'm not wrong because describing hell and eternal damnation is a dogmnatic question - I said nothing else. Many people make the mistake and assume that the Pope's infallability was a general thing, but it's simply limited to his function as religious leader. The Pope can err as a human, when he says something about, say, economics, he even can err as a human and sin - but he cannot err (at least that's the dogma) in questions of Catholic teaching, interpretation of the Bible and God's word and so on.
Which is the case here.
We are talking about what the Pope said - not what the Bible said, so your comments are mostly irrelevant.
And what he said, he said. No matter what YOU say. Everyone who can read, can read it - there is nothing to interpret, it's all very clear.
I will abstain from commenting about this further, because at this point there are not many possibilities why you seem to be unable to grasp fundamental things - for example the fact that if John Paul quotes the Bible and refers to the symbolic language in it, those are not HIS words -, and since all those possibilities are not very flattering, further discussion makes no sense.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
