"Why didn't the Pope traumatized a grieving child?" --- an Amerikkkan protestant
"Why didn't the Pope traumatized a grieving child?" --- an Amerikkkan protestant
You're viewing a single thread.
It does seem inconsistent with a loving God that he would damn people eternally for not saying the right things.
Luther's theory of people being given a chance to convert after death seems much more reasonable than this for example
Calvinists will say with a straight face that God is Just and Merciful while believing that God arbitrarily selects some people for salvation and damnation based on nothing they have done and will just torture most people forever despite that being definitionally arbitrary and cruel
Calvinists will say with a straight face that God is Just and Merciful while believing that God arbitrarily selects some people for salvation and damnation based on nothing they have done and will just torture most people forever despite that being definitionally arbitrary and cruel
Calvinism is terminal stage rules lawyering and powergaming all for the sake of making the rich and powerful feel righteous by default and leaving no room for good deeds, good works, or love in their calculations.
I was in a D&D party with a Calvinist and this is pretty spot on.
The thing is, and my fellow Christians gasp when they hear this: Jews don't believe in Hell. Jesus was a Jew. A rabbi even. Jesus Christ did not have a concept of hell and you will not find a verse where he talks about people suffering for eternity.
The earlier Hebrews did not have a concept of hell, but an idea of hell had developed in certain Jewish groups before Jesus's time.
Ehh... I'm sure Bible scholars could say this has been mistranslated or something but here is what I was taught by Southern Baptists while growing up:
Mark 9:42-48, Jesus is speaking "42 “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. 43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. [44] [b] 45 And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. [46] [c] 47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where
“‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’[d]"
Jesus did have a concept of hell. His ideas like other Jewish teachers developed post-Hellenism and merged ideas from Greco-Roman ideas of afterlife with Jewish theories of sheol. His parable on Lazarus and the rich man shows some intersection there.
But yes, the theory of eternal conscious torment,at least how moderns understand it, was not a thing as I understand it.
Permanently Deleted
It's mostly just an afterlife that isn't heaven. And heaven sounds pretty crap if you go by the Bible. We're talking being a servant to, and glorifying god in name and deed, forever. In exchange for permanent satisfaction of any material need. Pretty good if you're an Iron Age farmer that's already subservient to some feudal lord regardless.
I know what you mean, but the iron age was very specifically not a feudal society
It is a matter of Catholic Doctrine that he does not and salvation is possible without the sacraments even at the moment of death.
1 Peter 3:18 and following are clear that post-death, Jesus preaches to souls who did not accept him during their earthly life. Whether this is a metaphor, I have no idea (Peter talks about Noah's ark here, just a really weird passage), but it seems like there is mercy offered for all
There's lots of textual evidence that can be taken in support of infernalism, annilationism, and universalism. Much of the latter in Paul's letters
ultimately which you accept is dependent on the way you interpret the text. And the Calvinist infernalist interpretation is to my mind heretical and sinful as they aren't loving their neighbour. I find that universalism best fits the fact of God being both all powerful and all loving.
If you accept that there is none of His children God does not love, that God would never give up on one He loves (God is faithful after all), and that the saved are saved by grace and not through works (Paul again often used to support Calvinism) therefore God through persistence will eventually reach everyone He wants to the universalist position is consistent
Ironically the universalist argument is similar to the Calvinist one but a universalist interprets the elect as everyone
Also a lot of our modern biblical ideas come from James the 1st writing his own Bible (Constantine too but James the 1st did to protestantism what Constantine did to Catholicism) James the 1st was also a madman believing in goblins and having people tortured also he popularised the sport of golf outside of Scotland