Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know why are you mentioning extreme criminals and mass murderers when by your theology almost everyone else (including most of their victims) is going to eternal hell. Yeah, Hitler is in hell, but so what? So is every single Jew who died in Holocaust. Your theology has nothing to do with good and evil and everything to do with accepting Jesus in this lifetime. That's the only way you judge worth of a man.
Say what you want about UR-ers here, but they are saying that Hitler & Co are going to be punished trough many ages before being admitted to heaven. So they admit that who we are and what we do make plenty of difference. According to you only action that at all matters on this Earth is accepting Jesus. This makes every mass murderer and every victim of mass murderer basically the same in the eyes of God. So why bring those folks up?
You are totally confused. My Church teaches no such thing.
You are correct - God does the saving. But we also play a role in this saving, by responding to or rejecting His grace (this is the Catholic view).
Your other arguments would be difficult to refute in a world where all Christians followed Sola Scriptura.
The Catholic Church, however, does not teach Sola Scriptura, so Catholics do not have any of the dilemmas you cite.
These are not my dilemmas either, since I believe Christ's mission was to save mankind, not just a few, and that He will do just that. I meant it would be confusing to a lot of people who are trying to figure out what fundamental Christianity is all about.
You are totally confused. My Church teaches no such thing.
My apologies. I haven't figured out that you are Catholic. Many Evangelicals here are basically required to believe it is so, thought. I edited my post
These are not my dilemmas either, since I believe Christ's mission was to save mankind, not just a few, and that He will do just that. I meant it would be confusing to a lot of people who are trying to figure out what fundamental Christianity is all about.
I agree, it is confusing. That's why they should study Catholicism to at least understand what the religion teaches at a basic level because, after all, that is who they got the Bible from.
My apologies. I haven't figured out that you are Catholic. Many Evangelicals here are basically required to believe it is so, thought. I edited my post
Apology accepted.
You shouldn't make assumptions about Evangelical beliefs either. There are gradations on certain doctrinal issues with them, also.
By the way, DreamingSpires have you ever read Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton? He was considered a great Catholic writer. I really enjoyed some of his stuff. He wrote:
Quote:
Again, the same is true of that difficult matter of the danger of the soul, which has unsettled so many just minds. To hope for all souls is imperative; and it is quite tenable that their salvation is inevitable. It is tenable, but it is not specially favourable to activity or progress. Our fighting and creative society ought rather to insist on the danger of everybody, on the fact that every man is hanging by a thread or clinging to a precipice. To say that all will be well anyhow is a comprehensible remark: but it cannot be called the blast of a trumpet. Europe ought rather to emphasize possible perdition; and Europe always has emphasized it. Here its highest religion is at one with all its cheapest romances. To the Buddhist or the eastern fatalist existence is a science or a plan, which must end up in a certain way. But to a Christian existence is a STORY, which may end up in any way. In a thrilling novel (that purely Christian product) the hero is not eaten by cannibals; but it is essential to the existence of the thrill that he MIGHT be eaten by cannibals. The hero must (so to speak) be an eatable hero. So Christian morals have always said to the man, not that he would lose his soul, but that he must take care that he didn't. In Christian morals, in short, it is wicked to call a man "damned": but it is strictly religious and philosophic to call him damnable.
By reading things like this, I assumed that Catholic hell isn't very big place.
By the way, DreamingSpires have you ever read Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton? He was considered a great Catholic writer. I really enjoyed some of his stuff. He wrote:
Again, the same is true of that difficult matter of the danger of the soul, which has unsettled so many just minds. To hope for all souls is imperative; and it is quite tenable that their salvation is inevitable. It is tenable, but it is not specially favourable to activity or progress. Our fighting and creative society ought rather to insist on the danger of everybody, on the fact that every man is hanging by a thread or clinging to a precipice. To say that all will be well anyhow is a comprehensible remark: but it cannot be called the blast of a trumpet. Europe ought rather to emphasize possible perdition; and Europe always has emphasized it. Here its highest religion is at one with all its cheapest romances. To the Buddhist or the eastern fatalist existence is a science or a plan, which must end up in a certain way. But to a Christian existence is a STORY, which may end up in any way. In a thrilling novel (that purely Christian product) the hero is not eaten by cannibals; but it is essential to the existence of the thrill that he MIGHT be eaten by cannibals. The hero must (so to speak) be an eatable hero. So Christian morals have always said to the man, not that he would lose his soul, but that he must take care that he didn't. In Christian morals, in short, it is wicked to call a man "damned": but it is strictly religious and philosophic to call him damnable
By reading things like this, I assumed that Catholic hell isn't very big place.
I love GKC, however, I don't think anything in that excerpt points to a claim about the size of Hell. Rather, as I read it, he is articulating in it a proper "Catholic sensibility" toward the Four Last Things, at least as I understand it.
I believe that excerpt contains no theological error, but I am not certain of it (I am not a theologian). He was a writer who was Catholic; he was not part of the Magisterium. Don't confuse the two.
Why didn't you quote my whole post, sciotamicks? Just curious.
I don't need to quote the whole post....and if I did...it would really show the forum your misuse of Isa 45; Rom 10 and Phil 2, to promote a false premise that exists nowhere in the scriptures.
This is the formula UR uses
Lots of pagan philosophizing with a little scripture (meaning one or two verses that have nothing to do with the philosophy) and more pagan philosophizing.
Lots of pagan philosophizing with a little scripture (meaning one or two verses that have nothing to do with the philosophy) and more pagan philosophizing.
Pagan philosophy is that God will accomplish all He desires? I don't suppose you think it's pagan philosophy that God will roast people forever? I guess some think He loves most people less than a marshmellow. At least a roasted marshmellow has a purpose.
Good point. One roasted marshmellow has more purpose (to be eaten) than whole of hell.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I meant it would be confusing to a lot of people who are trying to figure out what fundamental Christianity is all about.
I don't suppose you think it's pagan philosophy that God will roast people forever? I guess some think He loves most people less than a marshmellow. At least a roasted marshmellow has a purpose.