Pope: There Is No Hell

#251
#251
Orangeslice13 said:
I do not believe scripture teaches eternal torment for mortals. The fallen angels but not people
Click to expand...

I agree. It’s not align with the ideas of a perfect and loving god either.

Am I accurate in my depiction of Jewish views on the afterlife? Some receive eternal life, others eternal death? Some souls ascend to heaven, others cease to exist.
 
#252
#252
Vol8188 said:
I agree. It’s not align with the ideas of a perfect and loving god either.

Am I accurate in my depiction of Jewish views on the afterlife? Some receive eternal life, others eternal death? Some souls ascend to heaven, others cease to exist.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.
 
#254
#254
BigO95 said:
Mark 8:36-37 (KJV)
36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
37 Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Is there anything that would be worth dying and spending eternity in the lake of fire?

Dinka, something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Christ was willing to buy your redemption by the price of his own blood! Please don't reject Gods great love gift to you and spend eternity in hell. You are precious to God. I will be praying for you. :hi:
At least I love you enough to tell you the truth!
Click to expand...

See, this is how I know you are a half-hearted salesman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#256
#256
therealUT said:
You might know what the Bible clearly says (I have my doubts, since discussions and arguments revolving around biblical interpretation have lasted over a thousand years), but, at best, you believe it's the word of God.
Click to expand...

No, it is the Word of God. You either accept it or you don't. You obviously don't. That's your choice to make.
 
#262
#262
hog88 said:
I don’t know man, I’d hate to wear robes and funny hats every day.
Click to expand...

The Bishop in my area only wears Gucci everything - rides in a limo - has a live in cook and housekeeper -- pretty good life if you ask me
 
#263
#263
VolStrom said:
Thanks, I try to watch this movie every year.
Click to expand...

I always liked the Passover scene where the Angel of Death comes floating down the street....sees the blood over the door & moves on.

Of course, can't wait for the Red Sea to part & they cross over on dry ground.
 
#266
#266
therealUT said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have a wife and a son so I wasn’t able to devote much attention to this earlier (Easter egg hunts etc.)

Gluttony is covered in the scriptures. Look it up. Sucks when you think you’re proving a point but you actually aren’t. I’m not going to walk you through every verse, just so you can retort with Kantisms.

Drunkenness leads to debauchery; therein lies the root of drunkenness being sinful and the point I was implying. I encourage you to read further scripture (ideally, Paul’s letters and the Old Testament) and apply it as written. Here’s where you have to understand literal scripture, symbolism, and parables.

You can’t explicitly choose which is which, only to fit your irreligious leanings and agendas. I would wager a hefty amount that if the shoe were on the other foot, and it was conducive to conveying your point, you’d be one of the first to say, “no, the Bible literally says this.” For example, misunderstandings of the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant.

Many nonbelievers stumble over this topic and can’t reconcile the difference, therefore, they choose to spew ignorance about how contradictory the Bible is (there’s not a single contradiction in the Bible, when read, applied and understood properly).

I’m a lifelong Christian, but I will admit I’m a novice when it comes to Biblical understanding and knowledge. Would you admit the same? If not, you’re a liar and suffer from the “smartest guy in the room” syndrome. This place seems to attract those types (luther, as a singular example).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#267
#267
Squints said:
I have a wife and a son so I wasn’t able to devote much attention to this earlier (Easter egg hunts etc.)

Gluttony is covered in the scriptures. Look it up. Sucks when you think you’re proving a point but you actually aren’t. I’m not going to walk you through every verse, just so you can retort with Kantisms.

Drunkenness leads to debauchery; therein lies the root of drunkenness being sinful and the point I was implying. I encourage you to read further scripture (ideally, Paul’s letters and the Old Testament) and apply it as written. Here’s where you have to understand literal scripture, symbolism, and parables.

You can’t explicitly choose which is which, only to fit your irreligious leanings and agendas. I would wager a hefty amount that if the shoe were on the other foot, and it was conducive to conveying your point, you’d be one of the first to say, “no, the Bible literally says this.” For example, misunderstandings of the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant.

Many nonbelievers stumble over this topic and can’t reconcile the difference, therefore, they choose to spew ignorance about how contradictory the Bible is (there’s not a single contradiction in the Bible, when read, applied and understood properly).

I’m a lifelong Christian, but I will admit I’m a novice when it comes to Biblical understanding and knowledge. Would you admit the same? If not, you’re a liar and suffer from the “smartest guy in the room” syndrome. This place seems to attract those types (luther, as a singular example).
Click to expand...

Not all drunkenness leads to debauchery and not all immoderate eating and drinking count as gluttony.

Jesus made a copious amount of wine for his already drunk friends. That, alone, tells me all I need to know.

As for your novice claim, good one hypocrite. I imagine you don't even approach noviciate for Catholicism, yet you chime in like a wound up monkey to deride Catholics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#270
#270
therealUT said:
Not all drunkenness leads to debauchery and not all immoderate eating and drinking count as gluttony.

Jesus made a copious amount of wine for his already drunk friends. That, alone, tells me all I need to know.

As for your novice claim, good one hypocrite. I imagine you don't even approach noviciate for Catholicism, yet you chime in like a wound up monkey to deride Catholics.
Click to expand...

You suck at reading. Look here, Dr. TRUT, I don’t particularly care how smart you think you are, you haven’t mastered comprehension.

I said, and here’s the kicker, BIBLICAL, not Protestant, Catholic, Baptist, or any others. Refute Biblical truth. You Kant!

Therefore, when you’ve been had, you resort to petulant, pedantic responses. Your non-admission, I presume, means you’re a Biblical savant?

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#271
#271
Squints said:
You suck at reading. Look here, Dr. TRUT, I don’t particularly care how smart you think you are, you haven’t mastered comprehension.

I said, and here’s the kicker, BIBLICAL, not Protestant, Catholic, Baptist, or any others. Refute Biblical truth. You Kant!

Therefore, when you’ve been had, you resort to petulant, pedantic responses. Your non-admission, I presume, means you’re a Biblical savant?

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

The Biblical truth is the wedding at Cana.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#274
#274
"Jesus is either the craziest person to ever live, or exactly who he said he was." CS Lewis.

God saved me 6 months ago with a miracle after 10 years of atheism. This is my first Easter as a believer in a decade and I couldn't be happier. Forever thankful to be given a second chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 14 people
#275
#275
mrorange211 said:
"Jesus is either the craziest person to ever live, or exactly who he said he was." CS Lewis.

God saved me 6 months ago with a miracle after 10 years of atheism. This is my first Easter as a believer in a decade and I couldn't be happier. Forever thankful to be given a second chance.
Click to expand...

Awesome dude.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top