Pope: There Is No Hell

#207
#207
golfballs said:
I was raised Episcopalian but went to Catholic schools and go to a Catholic Church, but no I’m not actually a Catholic
Click to expand...

True story
I went with a buddy to his church service. He’s catholic. I was curious so I was asking several questions quietly I thought. After a few questions the guy in front of us turned around and said to me and my buddy “ hey, shut the **** up. I’m trying to hear and this isn’t a ****ing pool haul”.
 
#208
#208
Orangeslice13 said:
True story
I went with a buddy to his church service. He’s catholic. I was curious so I was asking several questions quietly I thought. After a few questions the guy in front of us turned around and said to me and my buddy “ hey, shut the **** up. I’m trying to hear and this isn’t a ****ing pool haul”.
Click to expand...

I hope he went to confession.

Anyway, I would chalk him up to being a jerk, and not draw a conclusion based on him being Catholic. My church has some of the best people I know. It’s in a downtown area and there are homeless people who come in off the street and they are welcomed just the same as some of the richest men in the city.
 
#209
#209
golfballs said:
I hope he went to confession.

Anyway, I would chalk him up to being a jerk, and not draw a conclusion based on him being Catholic. My church has some of the best people I know. It’s in a downtown area and there are homeless people who come in off the street and they are welcomed just the same as some of the richest men in the city.
Click to expand...

I just figured he was having a bad day.
Got to give the guy credit though. He was not there pretending to be something he’s not.
 
#210
#210
Orangeslice13 said:
I just figured he was having a bad day.
Got to give the guy credit though. He was not there pretending to be something he’s not.
Click to expand...

Catholics are a trip.

A few 8-balls and enough booze to kill a mule... meh, we got confession tomorrow, boys.

Father pope sir priest.... umm, pray for Mary to pray for me. I think those are Hail Mary’s. Isn’t that the same thing we beat UGA with in 2016?

DZe_qM_V4AAV13M.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#212
#212
therealUT said:
You act like these are sins. That's the ****ing trip.
Click to expand...

Then you’ll be so kind as to refute drunkenness and polluting the body (temple) with intoxicating substances.

Put your logic cap on.

Your “PhD” means nothing.

Galatians 5:19-21

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#213
#213
Squints said:
Then you’ll be so kind as to refute drunkenness and polluting the body (temple) with intoxicating substances.

Put your logic cap on.

Your “PhD” means nothing.
Click to expand...

Being drunk is neither polluting the body nor any other conceivable moral wrong. Only idiots think such things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#214
#214
therealUT said:
Being drunk is neither polluting the body nor any other conceivable moral wrong. Only idiots think such things.
Click to expand...

Moving the goalposts so soon?

You said it wasn’t sin. Back it up or move on. I gave an example from scripture (and there are innumerable others), but please, let’s hear some secular logic spin....

You don’t get to define sin, whether you agree with the Biblical definitions or not. So, are you wanting to have an honest debate or play Kant and Schopenhauer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#216
#216
Squints said:
Moving the goalposts so soon?

You said it wasn’t sin. Back it up or move on. I gave an example from scripture (and there are innumerable others), but please, let’s hear some secular logic spin....

You don’t get to define sin, whether you agree with the Biblical definitions or not. So, are you wanting to have an honest debate or play Kant and Schopenhauer?
Click to expand...

I wanna pee on you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#217
#217
Squints said:
Moving the goalposts so soon?

You said it wasn’t sin. Back it up or move on. I gave an example from scripture (and there are innumerable others), but please, let’s hear some secular logic spin....

You don’t get to define sin, whether you agree with the Biblical definitions or not. So, are you wanting to have an honest debate or play Kant and Schopenhauer?
Click to expand...

Feel free to search through this site for my thoughts on Saul of Tarsus.
 
#218
#218
Squints said:
Moving the goalposts so soon?

You said it wasn’t sin. Back it up or move on. I gave an example from scripture (and there are innumerable others), but please, let’s hear some secular logic spin....

You don’t get to define sin, whether you agree with the Biblical definitions or not. So, are you wanting to have an honest debate or play Kant and Schopenhauer?
Click to expand...

First, you implied that the Catholics who drink see their drinking and their drunkenness as a sin, thus your statement that they have enough booze to kill a mule and then they go ask for forgiveness. Most Catholics I know don't view it this way.

You then said that they are polluting their body and their temple. I responded by saying that it's idiotic to think that's the case.

You then edited your post to reference a letter from Saul of Tarsus to a specific community that was dealing with specific problems in that community. The Galatians community did these things in worshiping Bacchus. That is, they were idol worshipers, according to Saul. As such, there exist exegetical questions about how to universalize Saul's epistles.

The toughest challenge comes in the form of Jesus's first miracle, that of turning water into wine. Recall, that the wine had run out. That is, the guests had drunk more wine than the hosts had planned for. That's probably quite a bit of wine. So Jesus makes quite a bit more. It seems like they are drunk and Jesus is condoning this and acting to get them more drunk.

Further, after making the wine, the waiter tells Jesus the wine is good, but it's a shame that it wasn't served first because it won't be fully appreciated for how good it is since most of the drinkers, by this time, won't be able to tell much of a difference.

Hmm... Why won't they be able to tell the difference? Oh, because fine discrepancy of taste is one of the first things to go when one is inebriated.

So, Jesus performs a miracle to get already inebriated guests more inebriated. Saul tells a certain community that they should not fall into drunkenness and debauchery. Saul's specific admonition cannot be universalized.

The Catholic Church views some drunkenness as sin, but it's not the level of drunkenness that is reached by most drinkers that get drunk. Moreover, if merely getting drunk is polluting your body, then merely eating McDonald's is also polluting your body (in fact, I think that even some getting drunk isn't polluting the body, eating McDonald's and drinking soda pop probably is). If the root of the sin is the body pollution, then it's likely that eating McDonald's and drinking soda pop are sins. And, well, that's absurd.

Maybe it's polluting the mind, then? I don't know that a reduction in inhibitions is a pollution of the mind. Further, if, according to Jesus, the sin of adultery is committed in wanting to sleep with your neighbor's wife, then the inhibition reduction simply allows that thought and desire to be made manifest. But, the sin is already there and committed.

It's either that or, even when sober the whole time, you commit adultery twice every time you actually have sex with your neighbor's wife: once when you want to; again when you actually do.

But, let's return to Saul, since you are relying so firmly on the surface level literalism of his epistles. Saul says that things that keep you away from devoting your life to God are sins. He then says that being married keeps you from devoting your life to God. He then says that you ought not get married. But, since you are weak, getting married is the lesser of two evils.

I doubt you think getting married is a sin or an evil. And, I imagine you have read this and talked about it, and have reasons ready to show why we cannot and should not take these words, about marriage, in a literal fashion such that we should view marriage as a sin. But, you like marriage, so you do the work and accept the interpretation that allows you to keep on liking marriage.

Inebriation, though? Nope, Saul is to be taken quite literally there and his word there is universalizable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 people
#219
#219
Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, views drunkenness as a sin. But, how does Aquinas define drunkenness?

For Aquinas, drunkenness is the loss of reason through immoderate drink. In my experience, I have been pretty inebriated without losing reason. I've lost some coordination, have had reduced inhibitions; on very few occasions have I lost my ability to reason. I'd limit those occasions to being black out drunk.

If that's the form of drunkenness you want to call sin, while not calling sin anything short of that, then I'll agree. But, most Catholics that drink to inebriation are not getting that drunk.

Moving on, then, would you have a problem with someone privately praying to God for forgiveness, promising to do penitent deeds, and believing that they are then forgiven?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#220
#220
I always appreciate the Biblical literalist, always at the ready to simply point to a scripture verse and say, "See, this is literally what it says, so that is what it means".

Alcohol question? Here's Saul.
Sola fidelis? Here's Saul.
Women as inferior? Here's Saul.

It's nice and simple. Just don't ask them about transubstantiation.

"This is my body". Well, no, you see, what that really means...

"This is my blood". Well, no you see, what that really means...

"You are the Rock and upon this Rock I will build my church". Well, no, you see, what that really means...

"Whatever you loose/bind on Earth will be so in Heaven". Well, no, you see, what that really means...

At least the Catholic Church admits that the Bible cannot be taken, as a whole, as literally true, and the type of truth one assigns to each passage must be justified with reason. That is, the interpretation process must be deep throughout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#221
#221
therealUT said:
Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, views drunkenness as a sin. But, how does Aquinas define drunkenness?

For Aquinas, drunkenness is the loss of reason through immoderate drink. In my experience, I have been pretty inebriated without losing reason. I've lost some coordination, have had reduced inhibitions; on very few occasions have I lost my ability to reason. I'd limit those occasions to being black out drunk.

If that's the form of drunkenness you want to call sin, while not calling sin anything short of that, then I'll agree. But, most Catholics that drink to inebriation are not getting that drunk.

Moving on, then, would you have a problem with someone privately praying to God for forgiveness, promising to do penitent deeds, and believing that they are then forgiven?
Click to expand...

Yes.

We have historically existed as families. From the tribal patriarchs on down. We like to find reason of happy occasion to get get together and have feasts. Weddings being a very good reason. And we have alcohol available and folk get pretty loose. Jesus knew what he was doing, and extended the availabity of the wine at a joyous, happy occasion.

But the sloppy drunk gets dragged out somewhere to pass out and sleep it off. It's the intemperate in us that is the problem that too often leads to "missing the mark". And, for the believer, the mark is to be perfect, even as Jesus was.

But no one is, and that is where God's grace becomes the bridge to us.

Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. – Philippians 4:5 NKJV

And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. – 1 Corinthians 9:25a NKJV

Whoever has no rule over his own spirit is like a city broken down, without walls. – Proverbs 25:28 NKJV

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; – Ephesians 5:18 KJV

For the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty. – Proverbs 23:21a NKJV
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#222
#222
Orangedogsrule said:
Yes.

We have historically existed as families. From the tribal patriarchs on down. We like to find reason of happy occasion to get get together and have feasts. Weddings being a very good reason. And we have alcohol available and folk get pretty loose. Jesus knew what he was doing, and extended the availabity of the wine at joyous, happy occasion.

But the sloppy drunk gets dragged out somewhere to pass out and sleep it off. It's the intemperate in us that is the problem that too often leads to "missing the mark". And, for the believer, the mark is to be perfect, even as Jesus was.

But no one is, and that is where God's grace becomes the bridge to us.

Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand. – Philippians 4:5 NKJV

And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. – 1 Corinthians 9:25a NKJV

Whoever has no rule over his own spirit is like a city broken down, without walls. – Proverbs 25:28 NKJV

And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; – Ephesians 5:18 KJV

For the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty. – Proverbs 23:21a NKJV
Click to expand...

A few questions, not necessarily directed at you, but just for the general audience:

Is anyone who gets drunk once or eats past satiety once necessarily a drunkard or a glutton, respectively?

Can one be both drunk and filled with spirit? If not, why not?

Can someone be drunk and still rule over his spirit? If not, why not?

Is it the case that in all occasions in which one doesn't rule over their spirit they sin? Do I have rule over my spirit when I sleep?

Can one have self-mastery while one is inebriated? Or, at what point in inebriation does one lose their self-mastery? Further, what if someone has structured the conditions, when they are sober, to ensure that, when they are inebriated, they cannot do something they wouldn't do when sober? That is, if I decide to have a feast in my home, but I think that when I'm drunk I might be tempted to dive, and I therefore have my neighbor lock my keys in a safe that requires a breathalyzer to open, am I exercising self-mastery? If not, why not?

If I place my safety in the hands of others, am I failing to exercise self-mastery?

If, understanding behavioral science, and believing that, in all likelihood, I would be tempted to do awful things if placed in certain situations, and the being placed in these situations is beyond my control, if I simply choose to keep living and run this risk, as opposed to killing myself, am I exercising self-master? Why or why not?

If moderation is good and Saul tells me to let my goodness be known to all while the Gospels tell me not to show and flaunt my goodness, what am I to do?

What counts as moderation and temperance?

If I eat more than I need, am I moderate or immoderate?

If I have two outfits, when all I need is one, am I moderate or immoderate?

There's a beauty to Saint Francis, in that he thought such things immoderate and consistently altered his behavior and way of life. But, do you think that we are obligated, by God, to live as Saint Francis did?

If so, then, sure, getting drunk is a sin. But, now, singling this out as a sin is pretty much trite and meaningless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#223
#223
Bible Trivia:

What is given to others as a component of Jesus's first and last miracles, prior to being Crucified?

Alcohol.

Wedding feast at Cana.
Last supper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#225
#225
therealUT said:
Bible Trivia:

What is given to others as a component of Jesus's first and last miracles, prior to being Crucified?

Alcohol.

Wedding feast at Cana.
Last supper.
Click to expand...

Come on. It was just grape juice. The fermentation process was different back then than it is now.

Yes, I’ve had that explanation thrown at me over the years by our non-catholic Christian brothers and sisters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top