Catholic view on modern heretics

[Adam]

[Robin]

[Adam]

::I cannot imagine omnipotent God who would let 200 000 people die of Tsunami. If you and I were in His place it would never have happened, yet omnipotent, and as we believe good, God allowed it. Shall we dethrone God or shall we bow our heads in perplexity and admit that our ideas of good, right and love are nothing in comparassion to His?

The only way to have any idea about what is good and right and loving is if that idea comes from God.

It is the Father's desire that all would be saved. I happen to think that the Father will accomplish what He desires. The most prominent argument against me is free will, which is not a Biblical concept and is poorly understand anyway.

Of course, I do not believe I am truly out to dethrone God because I believe that He does in fact save everyone, and that people who contend otherwise are more or less slandering Him.

::Other trees in the garden were beautiful (Gen 2:9), cursed tree was beautiful only in the eye of the beholder (Gen 3:6). First was proclaimed good by God, other was proclaimed lethal by Him.
Relying on God's Word rather than pesonal judgement is totally Jewish ancient concept and no modernity charge can be pinned on it.

I used the word beautiful, and you found that word sufficient for the basis of a parallel that I find ridiculous, a dramatic misuse of the Scriptures in my estimation.

::I have not called you satanist any more than you called Wolf an idolatrer. Notice that I said how you "confessed here" the Snake's creed, meaning your statement was evaluated, not you personally.

My problem with your charge isn't that it is unfair or mean. My problem is that I think it is idiotic.

::I understand Adam that you are courently pressed from different sides and that in that kind of tension one can easily see himself as martyr. But months ago I have accepted your rebuke on the same charge, I hope that this time you'll have the strenght to accept mine.

I don't owe you submission simply because you happened to accept one of my arguments some time ago. I disagree with the parallel. The idea that the desire to become a god and the desire for all of humanity to be saved are one in the same, just because the latter conflicts with your understanding of God and is thus seen by you as a challenge to His authority, is simply nonsense. God is the reason that I desire that all may be saved; if it were up to me, there would be a list of morons and jerks who were going to hell, but as it were, I believe that God will rescue everyone.

::It is close to impossible to have a "real dialogue" with person who sees himself as a slandered ray of freedom in the dark wally of mental slavery.

You presume far too much based on far too little.

Truth doesn't deserve to be diluted with the force of popular opinion nor the sympathy of unpopular opinion. It rises or falls on it's own, regardless of how many or how few accept it.

[Tony]

[Boromir]

[Adam]

I say that I believe in universalism.

You say that universalism contrary to Scripture, and therefore my universalism must be entirely my own opinion.

Isn't there a false step there? Obviously I believe in universalism because I believe it is the testimony of Scripture. You can disagree, but understand the terms of disagreement.

It is indeed true that, before and outside of Christ and thus without the Spirit of God, man cannot alone discern between good and evil. However, Paul testified that, being in Christ through faithfulness, he received the Spirit which transformed his will, and he was able to understand and to desire the good, but remained unable to do it. Therefore, your argument is with the apostle, not with me.

Determining that Scripture is literally false and allegorically true is how Christians are able to contend that the unfulfilled prophecy for a 9th century BCE Israeli King was actually fulfilled by a crucified carpenter nine hundred years later. It sure sounds wonderful to speak of the clear, innerant and objective testimony of Scripture, but the truth of the matter is, unless you have the eyes to see it, the truth of the Scripture is indiscernable; apart from Christ, it cannot be understood, and in Christ it may be understood precisely because it is in Christ that we begin to understand the true nature of humanity and of God, an understanding which leads me to love those whom I would elsewise consider unloveable, and realize that it must be God loving through me, and that if God loves them He will not let them perish.

It's not difficult. I cannot love. God can love. When I love, it must be God's love through me. Therefore if I love someone, then God must love them, because it is not me but Him through me. This love through me causes me to desire that they would never be lost, and thus this must be God's desire. It is a desire directly testified in Scripture. It is not difficult to believe that God will accomplish what He desires.

I am not right because what I say is popular. I am not right because what I say is unpopular. I may not be right at all. But your arguments are faulty, not because they are illogical necessarily but because they are based on a misunderstanding of my position (most of it colored by ideology and dogma) so it will take something more to convince me.

[WolfVanZandt]

[Adam]

[WolfVanZandt]

[Boromir]

[AllanS]

I discover that the leading lights of the early Eastern Church were universalist. These were men of great genius, learning and integrity. They knew the scriptures inside-out. Greek was their native tongue. (If anyone knew what the Greek text meant, they did.) They had no political aspirations.

I ask myself, "How can they have been so terribly mistaken over such a clear and fundamental doctrine as eternal damnation for the unbeliever?"

Critics answer "They let philosophy colour their theology." (And the critics don't?)

The early Western Church also had men of great genius, learning and integrity. But Latin was their native tongue, not Greek, and very soon, the Church was up to its neck in Imperial Politics.

Can anyone doubt that the threat of Hell, made plausible by the pomp and power of both State and Church was a powerful, indispensible, political tool? "Come to us. Obey us. Give us your money. We will save you from an eternal torture that you can't see, but, by God, it's there right enough, waiting for the unbeliever. If you doubt us (ooooh, doubt is so very, very unwise), then just ask our friend, the Emperor."

I find myself, like Frodo, balanced between the wills of Sauron and Gandalf. On the one hand, I have St Gregory saying God's wrath is a terrible, but refining, fire. On the other hand, I have St Augustine saying it's a fire of everlasting vengeance. St Jack tries to steer a middle course, saying it's an everlasting fire that is self-inflicted (Alas, this is an unbiblical position. God throws us into the fire. We don't jump.)

But why isn't there one word of eternal torment in the Old Testament? If God loved his people so dearly, and a pit of fire awaited the unfaithful, why not mention it? Quite an oversight! I put it to you that Hell as commonly understood is a pagan concept rather than a Hebrew one. Where in Hebrew mythology is there anything approaching the eternal torments of Tantalus or Prometheus?

[Adam]

[WolfVanZandt]

[Adam]

[Adam]