Anglican priests to join Catholic Church

[dgs49]

A few years ago, some public figure was reviled by certain self-appointed spokespersons of the "Black Community" for using the word, "niggardly" in connection with another person from the Black community. Of course, after a few days it became a "never mind" situation, as the moron-critics were gradually made aware that the word, "niggardly" has nothing to do with the so-called "N-word," and while it may be insulting to be called niggardly, it is not a racial slur.

We have a similar situation with the adjective "judgmental." It has become a cultural "sin" to be "judgmental," even though there is absolutely nothing wrong with being judgmental. I see a lot of empty "anti-judgmentalism" in these postings taking issue with MJMeade.

Of course there is a germ of validity to our revulsion for judgmentalism; one ought not make judgments about people based on superficial factors like race, gender, hair color, and so forth. And being judgmental can be a bad thing in other ways. Just because someone is poor or unemployed does not mean that they are stupid or lazy. Just because they are obese you cannot automatically infer that they are gluttons or don't care about their health. Just because someone is handsome or beautiful doesn't mean that they are intelligent, witty, or personable (even though we are naturally attracted to them).

So, in those contexts, it is wrong to be judgmental

But there's generally nothing wrong with being judgmental. In fact, to fail to be judgmental is to be either intellectually vacuous, morally dishonest, or totally without principle.

There are a lot of behaviors manifest in our society that are totally blameworthy, and about which we SHOULD be judgmental. People divorcing their wives and abandoning young children for no other reason than they have a hard-on for someone other than their wife. People failing to raise their children to be honest, responsible citizens. People lying, cheating, and stealing in hundreds of different ways. People abusing themselves and/or the people around them for no reason other than it feels good to do whatever they are doing.

And like it or not, the most influential source of information on what constitutes moral and immoral behavior in Western Culture is the Bible. You may not like some of what is in the Bible, and any moron can pick out a few moral sanctions, particularly from the O.T., and make fun of them, but it provides moral guidance that has withstood the test of time.

There is no question whatsoever that the Bible condemns sodomy between men, and anyone who takes the Bible seriously MUST condemn any person or organization that takes a public position that someone openly and emphatically practicing male-to-male sodomy is in the "good graces of the Church." Judgmental? You bet your ass.

And if you don't like a God who condemns people just because they are habitual, unrepentant sinners, well, I think both God and the Church will survive your dislike.

[Big RR]

dgs--Well If god and the "Church" (whatever church or denomination that is, can survive my "dislike" (although I don't see it as a dislike, more like a recognition that god is not and cannot be "like" that), so be it. We will all know in the end. I am content with my meager understanding and my earnest attempts to understand better, may you be as content with yours.

Meade--you need not celebrate my understanding,anymore than I need celebrate yours. It is enough that we each celebrate our own. Perhaps we are headed to "different ends" (although I don't think so), but if we are, the end I am headed toward is the only end I can accept. Proverbs tells us what you quoted, Jesus tells us that we need to use our brains (e.g. to heal on the sabbath if someone is in need and suffering). A problem? No, IMHO we all trust in god to be revealed to our understanding (indeed, is that not what Jeremiah was writing about, understanding and knowing god?), and recognize that no one description or writing embraces the totality of god. That your understanding is different from mine does not disturb me in the least, as IMHO, none of us have complete understanding.

[MajGenl.Meade]

dgs--Well If god and the "Church" (whatever church or denomination that is, can survive my "dislike" (although I don't see it as a dislike, more like a recognition that god is not and cannot be "like" that), so be it. We will all know in the end. I am content with my meager understanding and my earnest attempts to understand better, may you be as content with yours.

Meade--you need not celebrate my understanding,anymore than I need celebrate yours. It is enough that we each celebrate our own. Perhaps we are headed to "different ends" (although I don't think so), but if we are, the end I am headed toward is the only end I can accept. Proverbs tells us what you quoted, Jesus tells us that we need to use our brains (e.g. to heal on the sabbath if someone is in need and suffering). A problem? No, IMHO we all trust in god to be revealed to our understanding (indeed, is that not what Jeremiah was writing about, understanding and knowing god?), and recognize that no one description or writing embraces the totality of god. That your understanding is different from mine does not disturb me in the least, as IMHO, none of us have complete understanding.

Big RR I'm enjoying the conversation and I hope you are as well. That's worth celebrating.

(1) So about this 'recognition that god is not and cannot be "like" that'. I don't follow this at all. Are you saying that a person who dies and stands before Christ at judgement will go to heaven even if they were always and remained, right up to death and beyond, an unrepentant sinner in rebellion and disobedience to God? If that is the case, why on earth did Jesus die on a cross - it doesn't seem to matter what we do; everyone gets saved. I just do not understand the logic of the direct contradiction of Jesus Christ, let alone every other Biblical writer.

(2) On what basis do you believe that Jesus said anything at all - how do you know he said it? It cannot be "because it is in the Bible" - because you deny that one/some/many/most/99% of things in the Bible are correct or true. (I do not know the number of things that you do not recognize as true). If God wants us to use our brains (and I don't doubt it) there should be a rational answer other than "Because I think so". At least, in my opinion there should be a rational answer

(3) Why do you re-introduce this shibboleth about one writing doesn't embrace the totality of God? No-one says that it does. Why this insistence that not one of us has complete understanding? No-one claims that we do. The Bible itself says that both those things you say are quite correct. And it tells us what God wants us to know about God in order to be saved. God has already been revealed sufficiently for our understanding. "It is written" said Jesus and he meant it.

(4) I didn't say we should not use our brains. The Bible says we should. "Always be ready to answer everyone who asks you to explain about the hope you have" (1Pe 3:15). But it does not say and Christ does not teach that we make up our own god - one that agrees with our brains. We are to conform to Christ - not the other way around. Throughout the Bible is at pains to show that man's brains alone don't bring him to God but instead drive him further away from God.

By the way, I don't think citing Jesus' on his criticism of Pharisees making up their own rules about Sabbaths (using their brains to change what God said) exactly supports your point so much as it denies it.

Always
Meade

[Timster]

Most excellent reply General! Thank you for that clarification. I feel better already.

And thank you CP...I think.

What I mean about "Eternal Damnation and Hell Fire" is what I have always said. It is a Lie. Hell as portrayed in popular Religion is a myth of the worst kind. And yes. A scare tactic. If you don't eat your vegetables your face will stick that way!

Ok, so I mixed my metaphors for a bit of comic relief. But a scare tactic it is nonetheless.

The Bible states that neither root nor branch of the "wicked" will survive. Meaning die. Dead. As in this parrot has expired. Cease to be. Is no more. Eternal separation from God. Not living in some eternal state of retribution from a vengeful God...

Do carry on whilst I go find my argument.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Timster - one of us is going off the rails. I understood all that!

"Annihilationism" - an idea whose time has come? Well as I've said before, every mention of "Hell" in the NT except for one in James comes from Jesus in the various gospels. So I take it there is a "hell".

Revelation 20 says that the devil, the beast and the false prophet, along with Death and Hades are all tossed into the lake of fire. All those whose names are not found in the book of Life are tossed in the fire too. But in the phrase "they will be tormented day and night forever and ever" the word 'they' specifically refers to the Devil, The Beast and the False Prophet.

Some argue that this means the naughty human sinners, death and Hades are all simply done away with - terminated with prejudice. Only the devil and his two pals suffer in the lake forever.

While this is not an orthodox (small o) belief, I'm not convinced that is is not a Biblical understanding. It would mean that the naughty people are waiting in awful punishment for a long time until the final judgement - a very, very, very, very long time. But the punishment would not be eternal. The second death would be eternal.

I don't think it's a scare tactic. I don't know any Chrisian who became one because of worrying about Hell. If they did, then I think they possibly are not actually Christian since "worrying about hell" is not a pre-requisite for salvation which rests on the "good news" not the bad.

Hmmmmm
Meade

edited to correct a spelling error and to add this

PS annihilationism is a 7DA article of faith whereas the "everyone gets saved" belief is typical of liberal believers.

[Crackpot]

But "live" and "die" (and thier variants) are often used alegorically. often it just is the difference between being on "Gods Team" or not. Hell in it's many forms all but the lake of fire being generally described as "a shitty place to be" is spoken of at length by Jesus as well as others so in my mind there is little reason to deny it's existance. The real question is why does it exist and for whos benefit?

Most would say God but this can't be true since at the point in which the "lake O'fire" comes into play thre is no question to Gods supremacy regardless of what actions he choses. It doesn't exist for the saved as gloating over the defeated just isn't very Christian.

That leaves the unsaved. and it cant exist for them because they'd be happier with all that suffering right? Case closed hell does not exist since it serves no logical puropse. QED

But wait a minute it is written (paraphrased here) that God wants all to be saved. Ohw can that be if there is no consquence? the lack of an afterlife isn't much encouragement since you won't be there to miss it. so there is no true incentive to follow God. ANd human beings are exeptionally lazy especially when confronted with a task woith no apparent rewards. Therefore Hell exists as the stick to salvations carrot. and for it to be a valid threat it must be as real as "heaven" Hell is to negate the opportunity of "the easy way out".

THis leads us to the sticking point (for me at least): Eternal

Eternal Damnation. This is a judgement and not a state of being so in the end I have no real problem with the concept.

Eteranl suffering. there lies the rub. This, post final jugement, doesn't make sense. in comes the new perfect universe keeping the imperfect around doesn't make sense. But if you get down to it it's purpose has been completed as well so it's completely unnessessary. So in truth i see no need for it and the damned to continue to exist. In the end I have faith that at the point when its purpose is fulfilled it will pass from existence.

[Big RR]

Meade--

(1) So about this 'recognition that god is not and cannot be "like" that'. I don't follow this at all. Are you saying that a person who dies and stands before Christ at judgement will go to heaven even if they were always and remained, right up to death and beyond, an unrepentant sinner in rebellion and disobedience to God? If that is the case, why on earth did Jesus die on a cross - it doesn't seem to matter what we do; everyone gets saved. I just do not understand the logic of the direct contradiction of Jesus Christ, let alone every other Biblical writer.

I'm enjoying it as well; I have to run in a few minutes, but re the above, I trust god and leave that person to god's grace. How they will be "redeemed" I do not know; that they will, I am certain of. Perhaps it will occur when that person forgives him/herself for the waster (s)he made of the life (s)he had and accepts that grace, perhaps something else, but I don't know for certain. Remember it doesn't make a difference what we do, redemption is based on faith and is a gift, not something we earn or merit. And accepting that gift in and of itself means we have to give up some of ourselves and accept it, which is why those who seek to distance themselves from god cannot accept it. God invites all and accepts all; if that is not the nature of god, then I would find it difficult to accept it myself as there is no reason I should warrant this gift than anyone else. And since life is but a brief interlude in eternity, I find it impossible to believe god would eternally condemn anyone based on choices they made during this life; we can try to condemn ourselves, but god always prevails. At least that's my belief.

I'll try to answer your other questions as soon as i can.

[Timster]

Exactly! CP. So what? We the saved can sit around and gloat?

'I told you that no good bastard would come to a bad end!' LOL!

Indeed. The very idea does seem a bit preposterous. Not very loving either.

Sorry, but in My book, the whole concept of "Hell" seems somehow counter-intuitive to a loving God.

Oh and BTW. THAT and THIS is why I am no longer letting "Organized Religion" have a place in my life.

I prefer to take pleasure in Nature. The changing of the seasons, critters, the cycle of Life and the Wonders of the Night sky. How we are on a tiny dot on the outer edge of a spiral galaxy in the middle of a quadrillion galaxies in the middle of the Universe in the middle of a quadrillion Universes...Have you seen some of the Hubbel images? Cool stuff that really matters. Even though it All happened by mere chance... and that we are alone in it all doesn't even phase me.

I know, very zen of me. So sue me.

[Timster]

*side note*

As much as I am enjoying this light hearted banter; I feel that I must inform yall that, as is customary, to let one and all know when one is leaving on Holiday, I will be swimming with the dolphins tomorrow. Yes. It is Tanacia's birthday and we will be going to Florida for a week of well deserved time away. (bearing in mind that we live in Minnesota dare hey)

She has never seen the ocean and it should prove to be a special time. We leave tonight.

So if I don't respond it is not out of fear or trepidation, but joy.

Try not to burn the place down whilst I'm away. You kids play nice now, ya hear?

Peace and love.

Timster

*/side note*

[Crackpot]

AS I said I believe it all exists just qurstion it's longevity post final judgement.God has never been one to shy from giving humanity a major pitfall in the wrong direction so people can figure out that they should be heading the other way.

Hell exists to be a stumbling block in the path of least restistance.

[MajGenl.Meade]

This chap has an interesting take


http://www.tektonics.org/af/annix.html#nofair

Does the Bible teach that Hell is punishment forever? In this article, we will examine the doctrine generally known as annihilationism, sometimes called "conditional immortality", although the two terms are not exactly synonymous. This idea has gained some popularity or at least sympathy among evangelicals lately (famous names include John Stott, Gordon Wenham, and F. F. Bruce) and so warrants some attention.

A few words on the limits of this study.

We will concentrate almost exclusively on the NT. It is sufficient to merely say of the OT that it teaches nothing any differently.
On the related issue of "immortality of the soul," see here.) LI>We are concerned here only with this specific doctrine of annihilationism. I will not concern myself with the question of whether the torments of Hell involve literal flames and darkness or those references are merely metaphors; if you want my take on that, see here.
As you will see, I am persuaded that they are metaphors, for separation from God and eternal shame -- though I will still use the words eternal punishment to describe what happens, for the sake of interaction with opposing positions.

As a good starting point for anyone interested in this subject, I will recommend a volume called Four Views on Hell. In this work four authors of varying views discuss the topic of hell, and annihilationism is one of the focal points. The position is supported in the book by Clark Pinnock, and it is he whom we will be drawing upon for major pro-annihilationism arguments, along with David Powys' 'Hell': A Hard Look at a Hard Question.

http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html

C. S. Lewis wrote a book titled The Great Divorce in which Hell is depicted as a microscopic world that is smaller than a piece of dirt in heaven (though inhabitants do not realize this except by a special "bus trip" to heaven). Within that microscopic world, people constantly get tired of the company of others and move themselves farther and farther out into the "boondocks" away from others. Napoleon is presented as having done this, and two modern travellers who go to his house arrive to find him pacing back and forth muttering over his failures, for which he blames everyone else.

Lewis, we think, was on to something here, even though he did not mention an honor-shame dialectic. The person who is ashamed cannot come into the presence of God, but would indeed be driven away from it by the very nature of the dialectic, seeking to get as far away from the presence of the greatest glory and honor as possible. Literally speaking, "Hell" would be a life on the lam -- always trying to get yourself further and further from God's holiness, but because God is omnipresent, and because in Him all things move and have their being, never being able to succeed.